hahahaLiveinadive wrote:Not sure it would have worked as well with a 13 year old Dave Bautista. No wonder he axed it from the original.
g.man wrote:I saw that, but then why is Deckard the only person there, in an entire city?
g.man wrote:While we're at it, why does the wooden horse have a radioactive signature that matches Vegas anyway? When was his daughter ever there? Deckard isn't meant to have ever seen the child iirc?
I thought she was placed and monitored there by the one eyed lady, safety in large anonymous numbers? Pulling strings (no background checks cause Blackout 2022) also got Deckard’s daughter a influential job at Walace Corp implanting replicants with dreams. Maybe be an Order 66 waiting for a trigger.Liveinadive wrote:The bigger questions are how this miracle child was lost to a child labour camp?
Dunno, done when she was extracted is plausible, Nexus replicants, innit.Liveinadive wrote:Who tore out the the pages from the records?
Yup knew that! (Thanks BBC). I went with brutalist because the info desk area,info warehouse and the Wallace's pool area seemed to be pretty much bare concrete to me. Modernist/brutalist the style worked well imo.Yossarian wrote:More modernist than brutalist, I’d say. I love the word ‘brutalism’ as everyone, entirely unsurprisingly, presumes that it’s the noun form of brutal and so uses it for any building that seems to eschew elegance (which is something that many brutalist buildings do), when in fact the word is derived from the French word for ‘raw’, from the phrase ‘raw concrete’ (béton brut).
First bold bit shows how Blade Runner 2049 better fits the vision of the novel.I have seen the film 'Blade Runner' many times over the years, in it's many variations, and always loved it. The visuals set the standard for all science fiction films that followed, and it seems to create our vision of what the world would look like in the future. But I never got round to reading the book that was the inspiration for all this; until now.
Well, where to begin? As others have pointed out, the book is clearly the inspiration for the film, but the film is clearly not a close adaptation of the book. They are so different that you can really treat them as two separate entities. The world that the book is set in is completely different from that envisaged in the film; it is a dying, decaying place; fit only for the dregs of society; those with nowhere else to go. It is not the glowing, colourful world of the film.
The basic premise of the story remains similar, but virtually everything else changes. The book is more ambiguous, more thoughtful, asks the reader questions without supplying all the answers. The characters are substantially different as well. Deckard is less heroic than in the film, more uncertain, and the androids are altogether simpler beings, almost one-dimensional, and I don't mean by this that they are badly written, I think this was quite deliberate on the author's part.
Overall, the book is a great read. I have to admit that if you have seen the film, you cannot help letting that colour your mind while you are reading. However, the book is still definitely worth trying; it will make you think.
Tempy wrote:Deckard is an asshole
Tempy wrote:K is an dick
acemuzzy wrote:...when Luv was fighting in the water, she said something like "I'm the last one". It felt like that was hinting at something I didn't quite get.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!