A philosophical theme of the book/movie questions if "humanity" is something earned or given. Deckard had lost his, adhering to authority and exterminating people who looked just like him despite being told they are not him. Batty understood that he and other Replicants lifespans had a quickly ticking clock and he had yet to really experience freedom or his own growing humanity.
Wasn't Rachael a replicant? Rachael is a Replicant, yes. But, by Tyrell's design, she is unaware that she is.
Rachael was designed not to be self aware. So it makes sense she was created to have human frailties. There's no reason for Deckard to be designed that way.
A philosophical theme of the book/movie questions if "humanity" is something earned or given. Deckard had lost his, adhering to authority and exterminating people who looked just like him despite being told they are not him. Batty understood that he and other Replicants lifespans had a quickly ticking clock and he had yet to really experience freedom or his own growing humanity.
The whole point at the end of the film was Deckard a human, not knowing how much time he had with a replicant. So clearly Deckard was expected to live a normal human life span where as Rachael could expire at anytime.
To me, Deckard is a human. He wasn't designed by a human, but by nature and whatever higher power you believe in. His journey is experiencing through the eyes of the Created what true humanity is. He is spared by his enemy, an artificial lifeform. The sequel also does not confirm nor deny that Deckard is a Replicant. It allows the character to feel confidence in knowing what he is, what his purpose is, and knowing that he and Rachael reproduced and he has to fight to keep their miracle safe. The miracle is an android designed by a human was able to reproduce like a human would. She was able to carry a child full term and deliver it. Unfortunately the child was born with immune deficiencies and other health complications because of the situations of her conception.
I don't get the Leto hate. He's a very involved and visceral actor that I've enjoyed in most of what I've seen -- including the brilliant BR2049. Looking forward to the next TRON -- with a Norwegian at the helm, no less. Hopefully, they'll get a proper synth composer who can do justice to the previous two scores.
The NAKED GUN reboot, however, I could be without, and I don't understand how Neeson got himself involved in that. I'd rather take any of his recent action potboilers instead (or even more preferably -- a few more serious, dramatic roles like he used to back in the day).
I don't get the Leto hate. He's a very involved and visceral actor that I've enjoyed in most of what I've seen -- including the brilliant BR2049. Looking forward to the next TRON -- with a Norwegian at the helm, no less. Hopefully, they'll get a proper synth composer who can do justice to the previous two scores.
The NAKED GUN reboot, however, I could be without, and I don't understand how Neeson got himself involved in that. I'd rather take any of his recent action potboilers instead (or even more preferably -- a few more serious, dramatic roles like he used to back in the day).
Swap the names and movie titles in those 2 paragraphs with each other--it's fun!
Visceral actor? Haha! First time I've seen a male model and Gucci spokesman described in such a way! He's kind of a ham, all things considered. I'm trying to even think of a role where he not hammy and showy.
Visceral actor? Haha! First time I've seen a male model and Gucci spokesman described in such a way!
I'd say it's a very fitting description for an actor who's done incredibly physical roles such as DALLAS BUYER'S CLUB or REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. It's almost Christian Bale level.
Visceral actor? Haha! First time I've seen a male model and Gucci spokesman described in such a way! He's kind of a ham, all things considered. I'm trying to even think of a role where he not hammy and showy.
Bet Leto can't top Randy Quaid's "I'm back!!!" in ID4.
Tron: Legacy was an insufferably terrible movie, which smacked of a studio being desperate to cash in on IP without having a clue how to do it.
And part of the problem is that the original Tron wasn’t that great either. People have skewed memories of it being “great” and have possibly passed that down to their children, which has perpetuated the myth that Tron is something special. But it simply never has been. It had its moments for sure - the light cycles, the tanks, Bit. But the characters redefine the word bland and some of the acting is just shameful (I’m looking at you, Cindy Morgan).
I have no reason to believe that a third Tron will be any better.
I'd say it's a very fitting description for an actor who's done incredibly physical roles such as DALLAS BUYER'S CLUB or REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. It's almost Christian Bale level.
If only those were movies I thought were any good. Bale has become a bit of a ham too. Shrugs
Tron: Legacy was an insufferably terrible movie, which smacked of a studio being desperate to cash in on IP without having a clue how to do it. .
I know I’m in the minority here but I rather liked it. I found the last two Thor movies, last three Avengers movies and all of the Guardian of the Galaxy movies insufferable.
