I think you misunderstand what naming Blake 'Robin' is supposed to mean. It ISN'T that he is going to become the character of Robin, it is that he already IS Robin, and therefore the natural successor to the mantle of Batman.
I honestly just view it as the more "realistic" way of Batman taking on a "sidekick" in the Nolan films. There's no way this version of Bruce Wayne is going to endanger a teenager while you have Bane out there snapping spines. You literally see Batman training Blake (albeit with time of the essence) by showing him how to use the detonators. It's a rather clever way to give us a "Robin" in the universe created for the trilogy. And yes, agreed that he becomes Batman at the end, not some other named character - it fulfills Bruce's wish that Batman become immortal.
Yes. For instance, I will defend the good intentions of Sucker Punch. But I had to read _several_ essays before I knew what the hell it was about. In hindsight, the message is clear: 'Action Grrrl movies are not empowering, and Hollywood treats actresses like how pimps treat prostitutes.' Good intentions. But it feels like he made the movie in a white heat, and the script needed, like, two more years of mulling over before it had a chance of conveying what it was trying to say.
I never understood how people actually thought Peter Parker’s emo dance was serious. The reactions from all the extras around him legit highlight the fact that he’s being comedically cringe lol.
That dance actually put me off him as Spiderman altogether. I couldn't wait for them to do another one with someone else and I don't blame the symbiot either. Eddie Brook didnt become Cringe when Venom joined with him, his humour and sarcasm just enhanced, so if Venom made Peter Parker cringe, its because deep down there was a part of him that already was like that but he didnt have the confidence to show it.
picture this: they could have had Peter decide to go drag and give bj's on a street corner, and the other characters would think this is ridiculous as well. but it also makes the audience hate what they are seeing. the key is have him do something that doesn't make the audience lose all respect for the character, plot, and movie.
It really blows me away that every single person who's ever seen Spider-Man 3 didn't immediately understand that Peter was acting like what a total dork would think was cool.
I guess the lightbulb began shimmering for them later when wantching The Big Bang Theory. Thats like the ultimate source of what dorks believes to be cool.
@@syntrilliumc.e.p.9326 I don't think that even the most larp-obsessed,hardcore D&D enthusiast thinks that there's anything cool about Sheldon Cooper. Then again,I kind of resent that character because he's like a cartoonishly over the top caricature of...God,I hate admitting this...of me. And that kinda hurts,cuz who would ever want to be like THAT prick!?
@@syntrilliumc.e.p.9326the big bang theory is a dumb persons idea of how smart people live and act. And far far from reality. So not the best example my dude.
Dr Brandt is right. The movie goes on to show the main character save the world out of love for his daughter, and communicated with her using love. When he is asked how did he know his daughter would return for the watch, he just smiled and said “because I gave it to her”. Love saved the day
I was mixed on that scene because Dr.Brand was right, conveniently. At that point, Brand as a scientist didn't really have any justification to speculate that love was another dimension. However, since the ending heavily relied on this concept, I guess the foreshadowing of it was necessary.
Regarding Hulk in Infinity War, I always interpreted as Hulk is scared, but not for himself. For Bruce. He has grown as a character since Ragnarok. Him losing to Thanos suddenly made him realize that Bruce came close to death, and he didn't want to risk that again.
In A.I. Gigolo Joe even provides a clue to the ending of the film by saying “They made us too smart, too quick and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That's why they hate us.”
Wasn't there also a part where David gets told that people always want to know where they came from and he is just like us because he wants the same thing
I disagree, it’s more in line with his character to ragequit and abandon his problems, as we’ve seen him do at the end of age of ultron. Even if he was scared for an angry guy like the hulk all negative emotions would culminate to anger and he wanting to smash, the only thing that would make him not is if he were so angry that it broke him
@@yesnowaitgo8336it’s not in line with his character at all, ragequitting is different than hiding, the hulk stopped wanting to exist all together which is boring af and makes no sense. Hulk would’ve hijacked Bruce if he could’ve to live his own life
no, people are correct about Hulk. if the directors really had a different reason, then they would have shown a shred of substantiating support for it in the movie. simply saying something different after the movie is out doesn't change the product they put up on the screen.
While I think the delivery is cringey, I dont think Dr. Brandt's love monologue is JUST her trying to get to her bf's planet. As the mission progressively goes more and more sideways, we see Coop's enthusiasm wane, and his regret for leaving skyrocket. His mission to "save the world" was focused at least partially on himself. He wanted to be an astronaut and the program was shut down, and now he's being asked to be one again not just for science, but to avoid human extinction. He does it for his scientific intrigue and desire to be a hero. But as we see time pass and his children rapidly age, we see his regret surface. He wasn't there for his son when his child died, he didn't get to see his kids grow up. When he enters the tesseract, Cooper actively tries to prevent his past self from going on the mission. Imo, the point of the movie is that for all our high-minded scientific goals, for all our talk about saving the planet, if we don't get to share time with the ones we love, it's pointless. Cooper would have doomed humanity if it meant he got a few precious years back with his daughter. The point of saving the planet isn't for some unattached "we want the species to survive" reason. It's so the people we love can live on, and pass their love on as well.
Right, exactly. But the important thing is that the film isn't about proving Brandt's theory about love. Brandt's speech is just there to oppose Cooper's hard-science approach. She was supposed to sound like she's rationalizing her sentimentality, because she is. But she's also being human. And it turns out, being human is what matters. Dr. Mann wanted to "save the species," and he ended up almost dooming it out of selfishness. He admitted that it never occurred to him that his wouldn't be the right planet. He thought he was the hero of the human story. Because he thought it was all about him. That's what happens when you don't actually care about anyone else. Meanwhile, Coop wanted to save his children, and their children. And he transcended time and space to do it. So it turns out, love does matter. Not because of Brandt's cringey rant about it being a real force that transcends time and space. But because it's what bonds us, and drives us to take care of one another, not just ourselves. So while Brandt's theorizing was ridiculous, her sentimentality saved humanity.
@rottensquid 🫶 well stated. And I like to believe her speech is what compels Coop to go after her at the very end. After he gets to say goodbye to Murph, he realizes how important time is with the people we love, and he wants to waste no time getting to her. As cringey as the speech was, the heart of it was correct and meaningful. If we throw out love, what is the point of anything we do?
the thing about blade runner that makes it interesting isn't "he is a replicant" or "he's not a replicant". it's "he could be a replicant and we just don't know". the answer isn't important, the question is
Yes and no. If Deckard were a replicant, a whole host of socially relevant subtexts and meanings are stripped away, in favor of a single existential thought exercise that's, frankly, not that interesting. Of course, the whole point of subtext is that it happens in the head of the audience, so the movie can mean whatever works best for you. But it's kind of bad form for the director to come along and explain the subtext. Especially when, not to put too fine a point on it, neither the two screenwriters nor the actor playing the character agreed with him.
I'm glad you added the Parker Dancing to this because I've said over and over that the point was it was meant to be cringe. A guy who's never been cool acting how he thinks cool people act.
Deckard is a human in the original cut and a replicant in the final cut. Being a replicant explains Gaff's hostility towards him, as well as his final compliment, "you've done a man's job, sir." Gaff knew he wasn't human and knew what he dreamed about, and despised him for being non-human until he proved his worth, hence Gaff's decision to spare Rachel and cue him in to what he is. The overall metanarrative isn't undermined by the change, Deckard being a replicant and Gaff's acceptance of him, and both of them escaping to live freely only blurs the line between what is and isn't human further. Batty sparing Deckard after slaughtering Sebastian, Tyrell, and probably Hong, who treated him like a friend, an estranged son, and a pinnacle of technology respectively cheapened ALL their deaths. What, exactly, was Roy looking for in humanity that Decker somehow fulfilled? "This guy hunted me and tried to kill me, and killed my friends, including my lover. Let's keep this one!" The only way it makes sense is if Batty impulsively didn't want to die alone, but that reasoning isn't impaired in the slightest if he also realized that Deckard isn't human either, and his antipathy turned into fraternity. The original cut voiceover had no explanation to offer, it was just a thing that happened so the movie could go on, but there's more depth to that moment if Deckard is a replicant. Plus we have the glowing eye tell.
I can't agree that it doesn't ruin the metanarrative if Deckard is a replicant. If he is, the basic premise is a slave realises he's a slave and decides to run off with another slave. He's still a slave in everyone's mind but one that has "earnt" his freedom by doing his duty. If he's not a replicant, then he's a human who recognises how badly he's underestimated what replicants are capable of. He realises that Batty shows more desire to live than he does himself, and has more capacity for emotion than any of the humans who remain on Earth. Batty becomes more human as a replicant than Deckard is as a blade runner, and Deckard decides to remove himself from this life and start living for himself. I believe the eye thing and the unicorn are both symbols to show how fine the line is between human and non-human. Deckard also survives until the next film when replicants were only supposed to have a 4-year lifespan. The book also heavily implies he's human. I'm sure Ridley Scott said he wasn't just because he was sick of being asked the question.
Totally aqree, but why was Deckard to fragile in combat if he was a replicant? If I want a dude to retire replicants, I'd want them to be at least as strong as the combat models.
I think you miss the point that Deckard didn't have to be a replicant for this all to still be true. He was still "little people." That's why caste systems exist, to distract us from the fact that, for the people on top, no one below them matters.
I was recently thinking about the end of Raiders. The ark is put in a box and hidden away in a warehouse. (I saw the movie in a theater when it was released so I've been thinking about this a long time...) I thought the idea was that the big, bloated, useless government has this terrible weapon/force, which could have ended the war sooner, but they don't know what they had. But there's also this sinister music playing at the end which always confused me. Then I just had the thought, maybe I was misunderstanding. Maybe the ending meant, the big SCARY government had SO MANY terrible weapons, this was just another one that they could toss under a stack of other boxes in an anonymous warehouse along with all the other awesome and potentially world-ending weapons. I'm probably wrong but it's certainly a more cynical interpretation than I would have thought of when I first saw it.
eeeeexcept that later in the "Tesseract", Cooper feeds the same line back to TARS when he's trying to find the right moment in time. So yeah, it's the film.
@@iangray1980 It is not hard to get. It is just a very dumb scene. It already has all the scenes of the dam fixing itself and the rock slide going back up the mountain etc.
In American Psycho, many people do not seem to realise it is all in Patrick Bateman's head. There are many clues, primarily people he murdered being alive in the background
It's unclear what is and isn't real, hence the "This Is Not An Exit" sign. As the film progresses he becomes confused about his own identity and the identity of those around him. There's no easy answer.
I think all the silly fan theories for the ending of The Thing should have been included on this list. Because people have completely misunderstood the ending of that movie.
I don't think people misunderstand. I think it didn't matter. Even if either of them are the thing, or neither of them, once trust is lost, everyone is an enemy. Generally, when the story doesn't give you key information, it's for a reason. It's not a riddle to solve, but a mystery to contemplate.
@@starscreamthecruel8026 From your perspective, yes it would slow down time. From our current understanding, the only way to "time travel" would be to theoretically travel faster than the speed of light AWAY from the subject you are hoping to view. Eventually, when you have outrun light to the desired time length (you'd have to travel however many lightyears away you'd like to view backwards) you whip around, and use an insanely highly powered telescope to look back at earth just as the light from 1776 hit you, and you could view the signing of the US declaration of independence. Obviously, that's still highly impossible, but it's the closest theory we've even got for that. Travel to the future is much more doable, as you'd only need to basically do what Interstellar showed - get close enough to a black hole that time slows down for you while it carries on for everyone else. Return to a much later date on Earth - never to go back WHEN you came from.
I would have preferred if the Hulk resisted because he knew that the situation could be resolved with Banner’s brains, and the Hulk wouldn’t be able to help the situation. This forcing Banner to save the day.
That co-director or whatever of Avengers is lying, Hulk was 100% afraid of Thanos. The scenes where he refuses to come out make very little sense otherwise.
In Thor Ragnarok we see the hulk being a complete whiney baby when things don’t go his way, as someone who sometimes acts that way it 100% makes more sense that he rage quit and wanted them to leave him alone than him being afraid, he wasn’t scared he was annoyed that he wasn’t gonna win
@@yesnowaitgo8336 Hmm, yeah, they did a very poor job of showing that in the movie then, because everyone that I know feels he seemed afraid. Also a lot of people feel that Disney intentionally did that to Hulk because of the "girl power" agenda, can't possibly have a male outshine Captain Marvel.
*THE GIRL IS NOT A PSYCHO IN AUDITION.* It's the story of a completely self-centered asshole who's such a control freak, he can't just date normally, he has to trick girls into performing auditions for him. This is framed as a silly romcom scenario to lull the kind of man who'd think this is acceptable behavior. The girl he chooses, he finds out she was abused. Rather than feel *any* empathy for her, he instead thinks only of himself, spinning this elaborate fantasy that maybe she's so damaged she'll kill his family and cripple him. The end of the movie is him *waking up* from this dream, and possibly realizing he's been awful to her.
I knew Spiderman 3 would be on here, and yet it has always baffled me why people haven't understood the point. He's being corrupted by Venom, who is trying to figure out on the fly how to act. And there's part of Peter's subconscious that thinks guys who act like Venom makes him act are "cool". So Venom is making him act that way to be cool. It very clearly shows the change in Peter from the one we know to the one Venom is turning him into.
Oh, they totally did. And I, for one, think they are probably right. Ridley Scott has changed his own views and rewritten history about his movies before. Maybe he even believes the stuff he says, I don’t know, or maybe he just says it to keep fan controversy going once he sees how the winds are blowing, so people are talking about his movies. I’ve never really been sure which. But even if so, having the implication about Decker does not mean it was actually supposed to be true, just that the implication-the possibility-is there. Sure, the ambiguity is interesting but if he was a replicant the value of the movie kind of falls apart.
Eh, while I don't agree with their take, "Death of the Author" is a legitimate belief system that I happen to subscribe to. Once your work is out there, you can't expect everybody to only share your exact vision of what it means.
Nolan was never very good at portraying emotions in his scenes. If Cooper's dialogue had cuts of her holding a photo crying while carressing his boyfriends image that would've improved things.
I don't think it's that simple. In same cases, sure. But I think it's a mistake to assume that the point of a story is coming out of any one character's mouth. Brand's speech in Interstellar wasn't supposed to be the explicit meaning of the film. It was just there to tell us about Brand. She values sentiment over cold, hard logic. A lot of folks assumed that Christopher Nolan was putting his own philosophy in her mouth. But that assumption isn't Nolan's fault. He's doing what a filmmaker should, creating characters, giving them points of view, and setting them to argue. A lot of people assumed Tyler Durden's philosophy was the point of that movie too, despite the whole finale where the narrator had to kill Tyler off to shut him up. People thought the point of True Detective was Rust Cohle's philosophy, despite Rust changing his whole outlook after his near-death experience. People respond to philosophical characters, especially ones that share their outlook. But it's not the movie's fault if they just want it to mean what they already think. It's like in the '80s, when so many people assumed Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA was a patriotic anthem. Is it Bruce's fault that they didn't bother listening to the lyrics?
I always thought hulks performance anxiety was not due to fear of thanos but the CG budget was already astronomical and its way easier to render a metal hulk (buster) than a skinned and muscled hulk.
I don't think "Hunk is afraid" means cowardice, it means Hulk rationally appreciating a danger. Hulk was never a completely mindless brute; he had a rational streak directing his aggression. Banner couldn't control it, but it wasn't random.
One misunderstanding... Fueled by the explanation in the Wiki page for the character... Was in the Firefly movie, Serenity. According to the Wiki, the whole point of the movie was that River was sent to the Academy to learn to become an assassin, which is why they were experimenting on her brain, and that she learned of Miranda and the Pax through her telepathy getting the information from the mind of someone inspecting her. My theory is, River actually went to school on Miranda during the Pax testing. As she is still alive, and has not become a Reaver, this is the reason she was taken to the Academy, and her brain worked on, as, if they could figure out what made her different, they could perfect the Pax, and finally win universal control. Her brain was augmented, so she didn't remember going to school on Miranda, or the Pax experiment, or why she was gaining the abilities of a killer. In reality, she was half-Reaver, able to maintain her humanity, but able to act as other Reavers when she felt it necessary.
This has been a common response from the "creators" since the cave paintings at Laxcaus. "No, no, no you just don't understand." The response I have always liked was once said by Issac Asimov, "The author is usually the last person who knows what the story is REALLY about."
I believe many people realized Decaprio was cured when he talked to Ruffio at the end of Shutter Island. I do wonder why Mark didn't tell Kingsley,"Don't cut his brain, he knows." The big mystery in Intersteller I find is why didn't cooper push over the bookcase and enter his daughters room? He would have been home early to help save humanity, there would be 2 of him so he could pay more attention to his son. I though Spiderman's dancing was pretty cool, that is the way I dance and who really cares if you are expressing your joy of life. Rock on! I think Ford was over rated as a hunter/killer. Each replicant could have killed him but he was saved by interferance twice, People entered the dressing room before the stripper finished strangling him, causing her to flee. The second one was shot dead by another cop. The 3rd one hesitated and the 4th showed mercy.
Deckard may not have been a Replicant in the Author’s eyes, but he was the way Scott interpreted him in the Film. Batty didn’t save Deckard because he was a replicant, he saved him because he respected him. He hated that Deckard hunted him, but he respected the veracity with which Deckard took to his task. As for the relationship between Deckard and his wife, if Deckard was programmed to believe he was human, it makes sense that his wife could also have been programmed to believe the same about her husband. I’d even argue that she was created for him by his employers to better allow the illusion to ring true in Deckard’s mind.
Except Ford played him as human. The screen writer wrote him as human, and the story said Replicants weren’t allowed on Earth. The Police sure wouldn’t have used a replicant, nor would the Chief bring Dekard “out of retirement. Considering how badly Scott has actually been in the last few films, I’m pretty sure that he just got lucky in his first few movies.
@ Yep. And the Director shot it with his mindset that Deckard was a replicant. Ford playing him as human works for Scott because Deckard thinks he is human and it doesn’t matter if Replicants aren’t allowed on Earth when humans can’t detect them without specialist equipment.
Everything in Howard the Duck is misinterpreted, it's actually a very intelligent and well written film. I may be the only person who believes that. Well one thing for sure is it really is the very first Marvel comic in live action for the MCU Universe.
The unicorn sequence in Scott's director's cut was actually test footage from a much later movie called Legend. Scott's protestation that Deckard is a replicant is his "Greedo shot first," a full retcon where the film really didn't need one. The whole point of the film is that, for the powerful people like Tyrell, the people at the top of the corporate ziggurat, there's no difference between humans and replicants. Both are equally dehumanized. But if Deckard isn't human, that point vanishes. Half the points about humanity in the movie vanish. It's a bad idea. This is why, while being a great director, Scott was never celebrated as a great writer of films.
Sometimes I feel like I was the only person who got that they weren't aliens in AI, they were the descendants of the robots that inherited the Earth after we died off.
I legitimately can't understand why Shutter Island gets so much attention. It was painfully obvious to me what was going on pretty much from the beginning, and the acting and story are so ham handed.
Actually makes perfect sense that Blake is Robin. It's the context. He wouldn't be Robin as in Batman psychic. He would be Robin as in Batman's successor Nightwing. There are many versions of Robin where Batman passes the mantle onto Robin. Nolan just skipped the whole sidekick thing and went straight to passing the mantle.
Blade Runner: The original release. The one with the cheesy voiceover narration. That's ALL you need. PERIOD. Don't allow yourself to be confused by any of the subsequent edits. There is SO MUCH unused footage out there, studd you've probably never seen before, even more than the usual deletetd scenes included in later DVD packages, that you can change the storyline in a dozen ways. The original is the definitive version.
Some of these seem like retcons. Like the Hulk, just because the creators realized retroactively that makes Hulk look like a sissy.... Others are obvious, like the Shutter Island one. Or the Sacario 2 one. Both those seem more than obvious.
I nor anyone I ever spoke to about Sicario 2 ever believed that Alejandro was recruiting that kid at the end. I left the movie theater fully believing that kid never survived that encounter lol.
I was lucky enough to watch interstellar at cinema without having seen any trailers or promotional stuff. Went to the cinema with my mom, saw it was directed by Nolan and we watched it. Last movie I ever watched with my mom in cinema. Anyway, stay cool kids
Rewatch the Superman reversing time sequence to see that the director's comment makes no sense.. Superman rapidly circles the planet in one direction and eventually the planet turns backwards. Instead of Superman stopping and returning to Earth at the earlier time, he then stops and flys around it in the other direction for a while before the planet's rotation returns to normal. If the Earth appearing to turn backwards was just time going backwards, rapidly circling the Earth in the opposite direction would have been unnecessary.
In Minority Report, from the point where Tom Cruise's character is imprisoned, everything from that point is a dream, which they said would happen. The movie is actually dystopic af
You forget that in Superman after he circles the world making it go backwards, he reverses direction to get the world living in the right direction again. This makes no sense with your supposed “true”explanation.
This is a bad video. It either presents things that are painfully obvious that most people understood, or it makes wild speculations that are either his fan theory or an incorrect theory.
I'm paraphrasing here, but Ridley Scott said something like, "it doesn't matter if he is or he isn't. The answer, either way, is boring. It's the question that's interesting.... but for my money yes of course he's a replicant."
It makes perfect sense if Deckard was created with Gaff's memories. The theory goes that Gaff sustained an injury and had to leave the field, but instead of losing all his training and experience it was decided to upload his memories to a replicant. It would explain Gaff's limp, his apparent resentment toward Deckard and, of course, his knowledge of Deckard's dreams. Mind you, it's more fun to leave the possibility unresolved.
I don’t see how anyone could have misinterpreted the ending of Shutter Island. It was literally the point that he allowed himself to get a lobotomy….that was the entire theme.
Gaff routinely left origami animals or matchstick figures as a calling card to say that he had been there. Prior to Ridley's post release meddling with a cutting room snippet of film from Legend, the origami unicorn simply messaged to Deckard that Gaff had indeed visited Deckard's apartment and voluntarily let Rachel live. Believing, of course, that Rachel had a 4 year life span like all other Nexus-6. That too, would have been the audiences' takeaway, had they not inserted the prologue explaining that Rachel was "special" and had no preset termination date. People who hate the original ending simply pretend as if the drive in the mountains didn't exist. Blade Runner 2049 wisely depicted the birth of Ana Stelline as June of 2021. Just two years after the events of the first movie. This would allow the birth of the daughter before Rachel's normally scheduled 4 year life span, so if you believe she either she did or didn't have a 4 year lifespan, the sequel still works. And while one could still argue perhaps that Deckard is still a replicant, it takes away so much. Replicants having Replicant babies is something that the Wallace corporation would dearly love to figure out how it was done. But it would not "break the world" as Lt. Joshi inferred. Humans and replicant's with mixed reproduction, is a much bigger problem. If the replicants could only procreate with other replicants, then you could still treat all of them as machines. Self replicating ones, to be sure, but still machines. But if a human can reproduce with a replicant, then what is the offspring. Is it a still property, or is it a separate sentient being? Those are the philosophical questions both movies attempted to ask, and just how human is human. We all know that humans can act as if they are machines. But can a machine really ever be human? Did "K" actually become human, or was it merely a case where Wallace corporation creates machines so lifelike, that they themselves forget who they are themselves?
I mean it's both possible for the Hulk to be afraid and to rage quit because of that fear as he realized that Bruce was dragging him into something that could get him killed and he didn't sign up for that, Bruce did.
Some of these are misunderstood because the creators failed. The Hulk in Avengers especially was just handled wrong. Hell he was handled wrong basically post-Avengers 1
I watched "Blade Runner" in the theater and the "is he or isn't he" question of whether Deckard is a replicant has been around almost as long as the film. My feeling is this: it's Ridley Scott's film and if he says he directed it with the idea that Deckard is a replicant then Deckard is a replicant. It's as simple as that. People can give alternate theories, fan fiction, etc., etc. but ultimately the fact is that in the 1984 "Blade Runner" film Deckard IS a replicant. I also disagree with the idea that if Deckard is a replicant then his encounters with Roy, Rachael, etc. somehow have less value. Roy saving him could have meant several things: maybe Roy wanted to save another replicant since he couldn't save himself or his team or maybe Roy couldn't even tell Deckard was a replicant. As far as his relationship with Rachael, maybe the idea that two replicants that didn't even know they were replicants could still fall in love and be "human" in that aspect. It doesn't devalue the story in any way to make Deckard a replicant. In fact, the idea of making a replicant hunt down his own kind without realizing it is even more intriguing (and horrifyingly-human) than if Deckard is indeed human.
Teddy's welcoming his lobotomy in SHUTTER ISLAND is made rather more apparent than in the novel, though it seems a tad too rational a process for an extreme schizophrenic. It's tricky to suggest that any dialogue in a Nolan brothers is 'intentionally' bad, since such a lot of their output can't be taken seriously, even as a fantasy, and a woman character having naff or underwhelming moments is far from unusual in their ouvre
100% agree and I've been saying it for years myself, Deckard _has_ to be human, not a Replicant, for the story to mean anything. Christopher Nolan explicitly disagrees, and believes Deckard is a Replicant. Christopher Nolan is wrong. This is _not,_ however, a case of Death of the Author. Because Christopher Nolan is not the author. David Brin was the author of the book that Christopher Nolan adapted. And in _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,_ Deckard is human.
You left out the Martha moment in Batman V Superman. Cant tell you how many people think they stopped fighting just because their moms have the same name, meanwhile it was about Batman realising Superman is human and that he himself is slowly losing his own humanity. Its ok to not like the execution of the idea but too many people think its just because of a shared name.
Attack of the Clones gets a lot of flack for the "I don't like sand" dialogue, but I think it was intended to be awkward. Anakin might have been strong with the force, but he would have had very little experience with relationships and seduction.
While I've always preferred the idea that Deckard isn't a replicant, too much of the movie (any edit) says otherwise. The sequel was wise to side step this.
Superman going back in time would only make sense if he didn't REVERSE his direction mid flight. The earth clearly changes its spin when he changes direction, indicating that Donner really expected us to believe that the spin of the earth was responsible for the direction of time. The BS he came up with after was only a response to the absurdity of his original premise.
Those that wake David from the ice tell him he is seen as their predecessor. David had such an impact on his time that more advancement was made finally resulting in the glass like beings that find David. They only wake him as information on that time has been lost, so they just needed to download his mind to learn more about their makers.
Wait, who exactly is watching Shutter Island and concluding anything other than that he is lucid and willingly being lobotomised? The line isn't subtle or anything- it's a blunt statement of his exact situation.
I was surprised by the shutter Island ending misunderstanding. It seemed obvious to me. Though the Superman one I'm still a bit skeptical of. That one seems more like trying to make up an explanation after the fact. Though, it's a superhero movie, so I tend to suspend disbelief with those movies anyway.
#1 is what is wrong with most movies today. Someone, usually the director, has to explain something confusing or misunderstood in their work. That's bad writing and/or directing. If something needs explaining outside your work, you did a pisspoor job. I agree about Deckard, if for no better reason than in the book he is 100% Human.
I dunno, I always thought the Superman thing was that he flew so fast he went back in time, and the Earth spinning backwards was simply a visual way of showing that he was going backward in time. But guess I was wrong, and in fact I thought he spun the Earth backwards like everyone else.
@@williamgiesen4910 Maybe he spun so fast he went back in time, and had to spin the other way in order to stop going back in time, I dunno. In was made in 1978, special effects weren't exactly cutting edge.
I think you misunderstand what naming Blake 'Robin' is supposed to mean. It ISN'T that he is going to become the character of Robin, it is that he already IS Robin, and therefore the natural successor to the mantle of Batman.
This is my canon
I wonder how he’d go about his training. I’m sure Blake is already a better detective than Nolan’s version of Bruce.
I honestly just view it as the more "realistic" way of Batman taking on a "sidekick" in the Nolan films. There's no way this version of Bruce Wayne is going to endanger a teenager while you have Bane out there snapping spines. You literally see Batman training Blake (albeit with time of the essence) by showing him how to use the detonators. It's a rather clever way to give us a "Robin" in the universe created for the trilogy. And yes, agreed that he becomes Batman at the end, not some other named character - it fulfills Bruce's wish that Batman become immortal.
I think so too. He IS Robin and will now become Nightwing.
Yeah Blake(Robin) WAS the sidekick during this movie. Now after the movie he probably became BatMan.
I think if everybody "misinterprets" a movie the same way that's the fault of the movie, not the viewers.
Yes. For instance, I will defend the good intentions of Sucker Punch. But I had to read _several_ essays before I knew what the hell it was about. In hindsight, the message is clear: 'Action Grrrl movies are not empowering, and Hollywood treats actresses like how pimps treat prostitutes.' Good intentions. But it feels like he made the movie in a white heat, and the script needed, like, two more years of mulling over before it had a chance of conveying what it was trying to say.
This. 100%. Title of the video should be “9 Movie Moments Which Utterly Failed To Convey Their Intended Meaning Clearly” 🤪
I never understood how people actually thought Peter Parker’s emo dance was serious. The reactions from all the extras around him legit highlight the fact that he’s being comedically cringe lol.
That dance actually put me off him as Spiderman altogether. I couldn't wait for them to do another one with someone else and I don't blame the symbiot either. Eddie Brook didnt become Cringe when Venom joined with him, his humour and sarcasm just enhanced, so if Venom made Peter Parker cringe, its because deep down there was a part of him that already was like that but he didnt have the confidence to show it.
@@starscreamthecruel8026you wanted a different actor because you understand the character? wtf? Lol!
@@bbsy1 I just couldnt see the original Spiderman in the same light anymore. That dance destroyed it for me. Cmon it was pretty bad.
@@starscreamthecruel8026 yes it was. Still makes no sense as an argument.
picture this: they could have had Peter decide to go drag and give bj's on a street corner, and the other characters would think this is ridiculous as well. but it also makes the audience hate what they are seeing. the key is have him do something that doesn't make the audience lose all respect for the character, plot, and movie.
It really blows me away that every single person who's ever seen Spider-Man 3 didn't immediately understand that Peter was acting like what a total dork would think was cool.
I guess the lightbulb began shimmering for them later when wantching The Big Bang Theory.
Thats like the ultimate source of what dorks believes to be cool.
Really? I thought everybody knew this. But I only talk to myself so...
@@syntrilliumc.e.p.9326 I don't think that even the most larp-obsessed,hardcore D&D enthusiast thinks that there's anything cool about Sheldon Cooper. Then again,I kind of resent that character because he's like a cartoonishly over the top caricature of...God,I hate admitting this...of me. And that kinda hurts,cuz who would ever want to be like THAT prick!?
The outfit was fine, the hair was terrible and the dance should have had you revoked from every club where normal people hung out.
@@syntrilliumc.e.p.9326the big bang theory is a dumb persons idea of how smart people live and act. And far far from reality.
So not the best example my dude.
Dr Brandt is right. The movie goes on to show the main character save the world out of love for his daughter, and communicated with her using love. When he is asked how did he know his daughter would return for the watch, he just smiled and said “because I gave it to her”. Love saved the day
I was mixed on that scene because Dr.Brand was right, conveniently. At that point, Brand as a scientist didn't really have any justification to speculate that love was another dimension. However, since the ending heavily relied on this concept, I guess the foreshadowing of it was necessary.
It's called "theory of entanglement".
Yes, love was what created said entanglement.
"The hulk is afraid" -- no you fools the directors said blah blah blah.
"The director said he's a replicant" -- no you fools, blah blah blah 🤦🏼♂️
Regarding Hulk in Infinity War, I always interpreted as Hulk is scared, but not for himself. For Bruce. He has grown as a character since Ragnarok. Him losing to Thanos suddenly made him realize that Bruce came close to death, and he didn't want to risk that again.
I thought it was more like, Hulk lost a fight, and this broke his ego. Like, 'Nope. Never wanna risk feeling that awful ever again.'
In A.I. Gigolo Joe even provides a clue to the ending of the film by saying “They made us too smart, too quick and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That's why they hate us.”
Wasn't there also a part where David gets told that people always want to know where they came from and he is just like us because he wants the same thing
THANK YOU. EXACTLY.
I think the Hulk being afraid of Thanos is actually much deeper and more complex than the Hulk just going "No, solve your own problems".
I disagree, it’s more in line with his character to ragequit and abandon his problems, as we’ve seen him do at the end of age of ultron. Even if he was scared for an angry guy like the hulk all negative emotions would culminate to anger and he wanting to smash, the only thing that would make him not is if he were so angry that it broke him
I don’t think hulk was scared, more like embarrassed
@@samanthamarcus9486 Humbled
Way more interesting than him being “over it”. Does the rusos know that Bruce has DID with MULTIPLE personalities?
@@yesnowaitgo8336it’s not in line with his character at all, ragequitting is different than hiding, the hulk stopped wanting to exist all together which is boring af and makes no sense. Hulk would’ve hijacked Bruce if he could’ve to live his own life
I can't stop laughing at "I'm Robin!" at the end.
Someone get that guy a throat sweet heheh
That hulk explanation is too convoluted to be true and seems like a retcon. Nice try!
Assuming Hulk knew what was at stake, this retcon makes him a villain. Almost as bad as Captain Marvel's Infinity War no-show.
no, people are correct about Hulk. if the directors really had a different reason, then they would have shown a shred of substantiating support for it in the movie. simply saying something different after the movie is out doesn't change the product they put up on the screen.
lol. It was so flimsy, I laughed at the "correct interpretation". Glad to see I didn't need to call out the BS. Like, WHAT?! SERIOUSLY?! Sure boss.
While I think the delivery is cringey, I dont think Dr. Brandt's love monologue is JUST her trying to get to her bf's planet. As the mission progressively goes more and more sideways, we see Coop's enthusiasm wane, and his regret for leaving skyrocket. His mission to "save the world" was focused at least partially on himself. He wanted to be an astronaut and the program was shut down, and now he's being asked to be one again not just for science, but to avoid human extinction. He does it for his scientific intrigue and desire to be a hero. But as we see time pass and his children rapidly age, we see his regret surface. He wasn't there for his son when his child died, he didn't get to see his kids grow up. When he enters the tesseract, Cooper actively tries to prevent his past self from going on the mission. Imo, the point of the movie is that for all our high-minded scientific goals, for all our talk about saving the planet, if we don't get to share time with the ones we love, it's pointless. Cooper would have doomed humanity if it meant he got a few precious years back with his daughter. The point of saving the planet isn't for some unattached "we want the species to survive" reason. It's so the people we love can live on, and pass their love on as well.
Right, exactly. But the important thing is that the film isn't about proving Brandt's theory about love. Brandt's speech is just there to oppose Cooper's hard-science approach. She was supposed to sound like she's rationalizing her sentimentality, because she is. But she's also being human. And it turns out, being human is what matters. Dr. Mann wanted to "save the species," and he ended up almost dooming it out of selfishness. He admitted that it never occurred to him that his wouldn't be the right planet. He thought he was the hero of the human story. Because he thought it was all about him. That's what happens when you don't actually care about anyone else.
Meanwhile, Coop wanted to save his children, and their children. And he transcended time and space to do it. So it turns out, love does matter. Not because of Brandt's cringey rant about it being a real force that transcends time and space. But because it's what bonds us, and drives us to take care of one another, not just ourselves.
So while Brandt's theorizing was ridiculous, her sentimentality saved humanity.
@rottensquid 🫶 well stated. And I like to believe her speech is what compels Coop to go after her at the very end. After he gets to say goodbye to Murph, he realizes how important time is with the people we love, and he wants to waste no time getting to her. As cringey as the speech was, the heart of it was correct and meaningful. If we throw out love, what is the point of anything we do?
@@uhoh9000 Goddamn right.
the thing about blade runner that makes it interesting isn't "he is a replicant" or "he's not a replicant". it's "he could be a replicant and we just don't know". the answer isn't important, the question is
Yes and no. If Deckard were a replicant, a whole host of socially relevant subtexts and meanings are stripped away, in favor of a single existential thought exercise that's, frankly, not that interesting. Of course, the whole point of subtext is that it happens in the head of the audience, so the movie can mean whatever works best for you. But it's kind of bad form for the director to come along and explain the subtext. Especially when, not to put too fine a point on it, neither the two screenwriters nor the actor playing the character agreed with him.
@rottensquid that is, at best, very reductive
I'm glad you added the Parker Dancing to this because I've said over and over that the point was it was meant to be cringe. A guy who's never been cool acting how he thinks cool people act.
4:56 come on, these facts are mediocre. We knew this, especially with Shutter Island
Deckard is a human in the original cut and a replicant in the final cut.
Being a replicant explains Gaff's hostility towards him, as well as his final compliment, "you've done a man's job, sir." Gaff knew he wasn't human and knew what he dreamed about, and despised him for being non-human until he proved his worth, hence Gaff's decision to spare Rachel and cue him in to what he is.
The overall metanarrative isn't undermined by the change, Deckard being a replicant and Gaff's acceptance of him, and both of them escaping to live freely only blurs the line between what is and isn't human further.
Batty sparing Deckard after slaughtering Sebastian, Tyrell, and probably Hong, who treated him like a friend, an estranged son, and a pinnacle of technology respectively cheapened ALL their deaths. What, exactly, was Roy looking for in humanity that Decker somehow fulfilled? "This guy hunted me and tried to kill me, and killed my friends, including my lover. Let's keep this one!" The only way it makes sense is if Batty impulsively didn't want to die alone, but that reasoning isn't impaired in the slightest if he also realized that Deckard isn't human either, and his antipathy turned into fraternity. The original cut voiceover had no explanation to offer, it was just a thing that happened so the movie could go on, but there's more depth to that moment if Deckard is a replicant.
Plus we have the glowing eye tell.
If you can spot a replicant just by shining light in its eye, what’s the point of the V.K. tests
I can't agree that it doesn't ruin the metanarrative if Deckard is a replicant. If he is, the basic premise is a slave realises he's a slave and decides to run off with another slave. He's still a slave in everyone's mind but one that has "earnt" his freedom by doing his duty.
If he's not a replicant, then he's a human who recognises how badly he's underestimated what replicants are capable of. He realises that Batty shows more desire to live than he does himself, and has more capacity for emotion than any of the humans who remain on Earth. Batty becomes more human as a replicant than Deckard is as a blade runner, and Deckard decides to remove himself from this life and start living for himself.
I believe the eye thing and the unicorn are both symbols to show how fine the line is between human and non-human. Deckard also survives until the next film when replicants were only supposed to have a 4-year lifespan. The book also heavily implies he's human. I'm sure Ridley Scott said he wasn't just because he was sick of being asked the question.
Totally aqree, but why was Deckard to fragile in combat if he was a replicant? If I want a dude to retire replicants, I'd want them to be at least as strong as the combat models.
I think you miss the point that Deckard didn't have to be a replicant for this all to still be true. He was still "little people." That's why caste systems exist, to distract us from the fact that, for the people on top, no one below them matters.
I was recently thinking about the end of Raiders. The ark is put in a box and hidden away in a warehouse. (I saw the movie in a theater when it was released so I've been thinking about this a long time...) I thought the idea was that the big, bloated, useless government has this terrible weapon/force, which could have ended the war sooner, but they don't know what they had. But there's also this sinister music playing at the end which always confused me. Then I just had the thought, maybe I was misunderstanding. Maybe the ending meant, the big SCARY government had SO MANY terrible weapons, this was just another one that they could toss under a stack of other boxes in an anonymous warehouse along with all the other awesome and potentially world-ending weapons. I'm probably wrong but it's certainly a more cynical interpretation than I would have thought of when I first saw it.
eeeeexcept that later in the "Tesseract", Cooper feeds the same line back to TARS when he's trying to find the right moment in time. So yeah, it's the film.
Was going to write the same thing, the theme about the movie itself is about the constant seek of human connection
So, the Russo's pulled a Zack Snyder and claimed something totally different than what they, as directors, showed in the movie.
Then why does Superman have to "restart" the Earth by switching direction? If they'd left that off, your explanation would have made sense.
You really still don't get it? He was going back in time. The rewinding stuff was just to show that lol.
@@iangray1980 It is not hard to get. It is just a very dumb scene. It already has all the scenes of the dam fixing itself and the rock slide going back up the mountain etc.
@fredgarvinism dumb or cool as hell? I guess some of us just don't appreciate rad things
@@iangray1980 OK, lol I'll give it to you. In 78 playing film backwards while superman flew around the earth probably seemed cool to me too.
@@fredgarvinism idk about 78 but it blew my goddamn mind in 1987 when I first saw it
In American Psycho, many people do not seem to realise it is all in Patrick Bateman's head. There are many clues, primarily people he murdered being alive in the background
"Murdered "
It's unclear what is and isn't real, hence the "This Is Not An Exit" sign. As the film progresses he becomes confused about his own identity and the identity of those around him. There's no easy answer.
@TrickyNick79, watch it again. Everyone he kills turns up again in the background. It's all in his head
I think all the silly fan theories for the ending of The Thing should have been included on this list. Because people have completely misunderstood the ending of that movie.
I know, I was totally expecting to see that here and really can’t believe it wasn’t. A perfect 10th item.
Yes you can see Child’s breath at the end it’s just more difficult to see than Macready’s
I don't think people misunderstand. I think it didn't matter. Even if either of them are the thing, or neither of them, once trust is lost, everyone is an enemy. Generally, when the story doesn't give you key information, it's for a reason. It's not a riddle to solve, but a mystery to contemplate.
Traveling at the speed of light wouldn’t allow you to go back in time, even theoretically.
Only light can travel at the speed of light.
Sounds like something someone who couldnt run fast enough to correct saying "you too" to the waiter, would say
Damn, so you mean flying and laser vision isn't possible either?
it slows down time doesn't it? This was mentioned in another movie, Prince Of Darkness I think.
@@starscreamthecruel8026 From your perspective, yes it would slow down time. From our current understanding, the only way to "time travel" would be to theoretically travel faster than the speed of light AWAY from the subject you are hoping to view. Eventually, when you have outrun light to the desired time length (you'd have to travel however many lightyears away you'd like to view backwards) you whip around, and use an insanely highly powered telescope to look back at earth just as the light from 1776 hit you, and you could view the signing of the US declaration of independence. Obviously, that's still highly impossible, but it's the closest theory we've even got for that.
Travel to the future is much more doable, as you'd only need to basically do what Interstellar showed - get close enough to a black hole that time slows down for you while it carries on for everyone else. Return to a much later date on Earth - never to go back WHEN you came from.
I would have preferred if the Hulk resisted because he knew that the situation could be resolved with Banner’s brains, and the Hulk wouldn’t be able to help the situation. This forcing Banner to save the day.
I like that.
That co-director or whatever of Avengers is lying, Hulk was 100% afraid of Thanos. The scenes where he refuses to come out make very little sense otherwise.
In Thor Ragnarok we see the hulk being a complete whiney baby when things don’t go his way, as someone who sometimes acts that way it 100% makes more sense that he rage quit and wanted them to leave him alone than him being afraid, he wasn’t scared he was annoyed that he wasn’t gonna win
@@yesnowaitgo8336 Hmm, yeah, they did a very poor job of showing that in the movie then, because everyone that I know feels he seemed afraid. Also a lot of people feel that Disney intentionally did that to Hulk because of the "girl power" agenda, can't possibly have a male outshine Captain Marvel.
@@thesonofdormammu5475 Alot of people, huh? Like literally every male in Infinity War and Endgame do more than Captain Marvel.
*THE GIRL IS NOT A PSYCHO IN AUDITION.* It's the story of a completely self-centered asshole who's such a control freak, he can't just date normally, he has to trick girls into performing auditions for him. This is framed as a silly romcom scenario to lull the kind of man who'd think this is acceptable behavior. The girl he chooses, he finds out she was abused. Rather than feel *any* empathy for her, he instead thinks only of himself, spinning this elaborate fantasy that maybe she's so damaged she'll kill his family and cripple him. The end of the movie is him *waking up* from this dream, and possibly realizing he's been awful to her.
Hmm I always thought the whole hulk impotence was because he would blow the cgi budget and a robot is a lot easier to cgi.
I knew Spiderman 3 would be on here, and yet it has always baffled me why people haven't understood the point. He's being corrupted by Venom, who is trying to figure out on the fly how to act. And there's part of Peter's subconscious that thinks guys who act like Venom makes him act are "cool". So Venom is making him act that way to be cool. It very clearly shows the change in Peter from the one we know to the one Venom is turning him into.
Why do you say Deckard like that?
Did you guys really just say that Ridley Scott was wrong about his own movie (Blade Runner)?
They did. They are wrong.
Oh, they totally did. And I, for one, think they are probably right. Ridley Scott has changed his own views and rewritten history about his movies before. Maybe he even believes the stuff he says, I don’t know, or maybe he just says it to keep fan controversy going once he sees how the winds are blowing, so people are talking about his movies. I’ve never really been sure which. But even if so, having the implication about Decker does not mean it was actually supposed to be true, just that the implication-the possibility-is there. Sure, the ambiguity is interesting but if he was a replicant the value of the movie kind of falls apart.
From the same twisted mind set that took Karl Marx rantings; he wrote to keep a writing job. Turned them into a political party.
it's far from "his own movie" he's neither the original writer the movie is based on, nor the writer of the screenplay.
Eh, while I don't agree with their take, "Death of the Author" is a legitimate belief system that I happen to subscribe to. Once your work is out there, you can't expect everybody to only share your exact vision of what it means.
Nolan was never very good at portraying emotions in his scenes. If Cooper's dialogue had cuts of her holding a photo crying while carressing his boyfriends image that would've improved things.
He's very British.
If the majority of viewers misunderstand a movie element, then it's the movie that's in error, not the viewers.
I don't think it's that simple. In same cases, sure. But I think it's a mistake to assume that the point of a story is coming out of any one character's mouth. Brand's speech in Interstellar wasn't supposed to be the explicit meaning of the film. It was just there to tell us about Brand. She values sentiment over cold, hard logic. A lot of folks assumed that Christopher Nolan was putting his own philosophy in her mouth. But that assumption isn't Nolan's fault. He's doing what a filmmaker should, creating characters, giving them points of view, and setting them to argue. A lot of people assumed Tyler Durden's philosophy was the point of that movie too, despite the whole finale where the narrator had to kill Tyler off to shut him up. People thought the point of True Detective was Rust Cohle's philosophy, despite Rust changing his whole outlook after his near-death experience. People respond to philosophical characters, especially ones that share their outlook. But it's not the movie's fault if they just want it to mean what they already think.
It's like in the '80s, when so many people assumed Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA was a patriotic anthem. Is it Bruce's fault that they didn't bother listening to the lyrics?
I always thought hulks performance anxiety was not due to fear of thanos but the CG budget was already astronomical and its way easier to render a metal hulk (buster) than a skinned and muscled hulk.
I don't think "Hunk is afraid" means cowardice, it means Hulk rationally appreciating a danger. Hulk was never a completely mindless brute; he had a rational streak directing his aggression. Banner couldn't control it, but it wasn't random.
It doesn't make sense for the guy called Robin to become Batman
So... Superman time travelled... Got it...
One misunderstanding... Fueled by the explanation in the Wiki page for the character... Was in the Firefly movie, Serenity.
According to the Wiki, the whole point of the movie was that River was sent to the Academy to learn to become an assassin, which is why they were experimenting on her brain, and that she learned of Miranda and the Pax through her telepathy getting the information from the mind of someone inspecting her.
My theory is, River actually went to school on Miranda during the Pax testing. As she is still alive, and has not become a Reaver, this is the reason she was taken to the Academy, and her brain worked on, as, if they could figure out what made her different, they could perfect the Pax, and finally win universal control. Her brain was augmented, so she didn't remember going to school on Miranda, or the Pax experiment, or why she was gaining the abilities of a killer. In reality, she was half-Reaver, able to maintain her humanity, but able to act as other Reavers when she felt it necessary.
This has been a common response from the "creators" since the cave paintings at Laxcaus. "No, no, no you just don't understand." The response I have always liked was once said by Issac Asimov, "The author is usually the last person who knows what the story is REALLY about."
I believe many people realized Decaprio was cured when he talked to Ruffio at the end of Shutter Island. I do wonder why Mark didn't tell Kingsley,"Don't cut his brain, he knows." The big mystery in Intersteller I find is why didn't cooper push over the bookcase and enter his daughters room? He would have been home early to help save humanity, there would be 2 of him so he could pay more attention to his son. I though Spiderman's dancing was pretty cool, that is the way I dance and who really cares if you are expressing your joy of life. Rock on! I think Ford was over rated as a hunter/killer. Each replicant could have killed him but he was saved by interferance twice, People entered the dressing room before the stripper finished strangling him, causing her to flee. The second one was shot dead by another cop. The 3rd one hesitated and the 4th showed mercy.
I thought it was obvious that Brand was trying to manipulate Cooper with the love speech.
Gaff knowing about Deckard's dream isn't conclusive. In order to be able to implant memories, it has to be possible to read them.
I’d rather have my mind turned to mush if I ever lost my daughter. I wouldn’t even want to live anymore.
Deckard may not have been a Replicant in the Author’s eyes, but he was the way Scott interpreted him in the Film.
Batty didn’t save Deckard because he was a replicant, he saved him because he respected him. He hated that Deckard hunted him, but he respected the veracity with which Deckard took to his task.
As for the relationship between Deckard and his wife, if Deckard was programmed to believe he was human, it makes sense that his wife could also have been programmed to believe the same about her husband. I’d even argue that she was created for him by his employers to better allow the illusion to ring true in Deckard’s mind.
Except Ford played him as human.
The screen writer wrote him as human, and the story said Replicants weren’t allowed on Earth.
The Police sure wouldn’t have used a replicant, nor would the Chief bring Dekard “out of retirement.
Considering how badly Scott has actually been in the last few films, I’m pretty sure that he just got lucky in his first few movies.
@ Yep. And the Director shot it with his mindset that Deckard was a replicant. Ford playing him as human works for Scott because Deckard thinks he is human and it doesn’t matter if Replicants aren’t allowed on Earth when humans can’t detect them without specialist equipment.
WTF? He doesn't become Robin or Batman, he becomes Nightwing. Who was confused about that?
Everything in Howard the Duck is misinterpreted, it's actually a very intelligent and well written film. I may be the only person who believes that. Well one thing for sure is it really is the very first Marvel comic in live action for the MCU Universe.
The unicorn sequence in Scott's director's cut was actually test footage from a much later movie called Legend. Scott's protestation that Deckard is a replicant is his "Greedo shot first," a full retcon where the film really didn't need one. The whole point of the film is that, for the powerful people like Tyrell, the people at the top of the corporate ziggurat, there's no difference between humans and replicants. Both are equally dehumanized. But if Deckard isn't human, that point vanishes. Half the points about humanity in the movie vanish. It's a bad idea. This is why, while being a great director, Scott was never celebrated as a great writer of films.
Sometimes I feel like I was the only person who got that they weren't aliens in AI, they were the descendants of the robots that inherited the Earth after we died off.
I legitimately can't understand why Shutter Island gets so much attention. It was painfully obvious to me what was going on pretty much from the beginning, and the acting and story are so ham handed.
Actually makes perfect sense that Blake is Robin. It's the context. He wouldn't be Robin as in Batman psychic. He would be Robin as in Batman's successor Nightwing. There are many versions of Robin where Batman passes the mantle onto Robin. Nolan just skipped the whole sidekick thing and went straight to passing the mantle.
There are only 9 moments I actually understood in the Star Wars sequel trilogy
Blade Runner: The original release. The one with the cheesy voiceover narration. That's ALL you need. PERIOD. Don't allow yourself to be confused by any of the subsequent edits. There is SO MUCH unused footage out there, studd you've probably never seen before, even more than the usual deletetd scenes included in later DVD packages, that you can change the storyline in a dozen ways.
The original is the definitive version.
♫ More Human than Human ♪
Given the mature nature of the Dark Knight Trilogy, surely he was going to become Nightwing, rather than Robin or the second Batman.
A director can't be wrong about their own movie
Some of these seem like retcons. Like the Hulk, just because the creators realized retroactively that makes Hulk look like a sissy....
Others are obvious, like the Shutter Island one. Or the Sacario 2 one. Both those seem more than obvious.
I nor anyone I ever spoke to about Sicario 2 ever believed that Alejandro was recruiting that kid at the end. I left the movie theater fully believing that kid never survived that encounter lol.
I was lucky enough to watch interstellar at cinema without having seen any trailers or promotional stuff. Went to the cinema with my mom, saw it was directed by Nolan and we watched it. Last movie I ever watched with my mom in cinema. Anyway, stay cool kids
Thank god somebody finally told the truth about Bladerunner. Read the damn book.
I miss when you guys used to get personal at the end of each video with words of care and support. It was surprisingly effective!
I didn't know a single person that thought that the hulk was afraid of thanos..
Rewatch the Superman reversing time sequence to see that the director's comment makes no sense.. Superman rapidly circles the planet in one direction and eventually the planet turns backwards. Instead of Superman stopping and returning to Earth at the earlier time, he then stops and flys around it in the other direction for a while before the planet's rotation returns to normal. If the Earth appearing to turn backwards was just time going backwards, rapidly circling the Earth in the opposite direction would have been unnecessary.
In Minority Report, from the point where Tom Cruise's character is imprisoned, everything from that point is a dream, which they said would happen. The movie is actually dystopic af
If Deckard is a replicant why is he the only one that's weak like us compared to reps? 😂 Why is he the only one who lives for decades?
Another hint that Leo is sane is that he doesn't react when Ruffalo calls him Teddy
Never thought Peter's lameness in Spider-Man 3 was anything but intentional. It was just a stupid decision.
6:25 If you do something that isn't cool, but you don't care that others don't think it's cool then it becomes cool and you become cool by proxy.
I hope Hulk feels good about the gajillions of lives he threw under the bus for an ego trip. Experiencing fear for the first time is more compelling.
You forget that in Superman after he circles the world making it go backwards, he reverses direction to get the world living in the right direction again. This makes no sense with your supposed “true”explanation.
This is a bad video. It either presents things that are painfully obvious that most people understood, or it makes wild speculations that are either his fan theory or an incorrect theory.
You are exactly right about Deckard not being a replicant. That idea doesn't make any sense at all in regard to the rest of the movie.
I'm paraphrasing here, but Ridley Scott said something like, "it doesn't matter if he is or he isn't. The answer, either way, is boring. It's the question that's interesting.... but for my money yes of course he's a replicant."
It makes perfect sense if Deckard was created with Gaff's memories. The theory goes that Gaff sustained an injury and had to leave the field, but instead of losing all his training and experience it was decided to upload his memories to a replicant.
It would explain Gaff's limp, his apparent resentment toward Deckard and, of course, his knowledge of Deckard's dreams.
Mind you, it's more fun to leave the possibility unresolved.
It doesn't make sense that he is NOT a replicant
@@rpriske Rubbish.
I don’t see how anyone could have misinterpreted the ending of Shutter Island. It was literally the point that he allowed himself to get a lobotomy….that was the entire theme.
Gaff routinely left origami animals or matchstick figures as a calling card to say that he had been there.
Prior to Ridley's post release meddling with a cutting room snippet of film from Legend, the origami unicorn simply messaged to Deckard that Gaff had indeed visited Deckard's apartment and voluntarily let Rachel live. Believing, of course, that Rachel had a 4 year life span like all other Nexus-6.
That too, would have been the audiences' takeaway, had they not inserted the prologue explaining that Rachel was "special" and had no preset termination date. People who hate the original ending simply pretend as if the drive in the mountains didn't exist.
Blade Runner 2049 wisely depicted the birth of Ana Stelline as June of 2021. Just two years after the events of the first movie. This would allow the birth of the daughter before Rachel's normally scheduled 4 year life span, so if you believe she either she did or didn't have a 4 year lifespan, the sequel still works.
And while one could still argue perhaps that Deckard is still a replicant, it takes away so much. Replicants having Replicant babies is something that the Wallace corporation would dearly love to figure out how it was done. But it would not "break the world" as Lt. Joshi inferred. Humans and replicant's with mixed reproduction, is a much bigger problem.
If the replicants could only procreate with other replicants, then you could still treat all of them as machines. Self replicating ones, to be sure, but still machines.
But if a human can reproduce with a replicant, then what is the offspring. Is it a still property, or is it a separate sentient being? Those are the philosophical questions both movies attempted to ask, and just how human is human. We all know that humans can act as if they are machines. But can a machine really ever be human? Did "K" actually become human, or was it merely a case where Wallace corporation creates machines so lifelike, that they themselves forget who they are themselves?
Interstellar scene in question was absolutely brilliant and narrow-minded emotionless creatures just couldn't get it.
Bladerunner - Deckard simply realised it didn't matter, and Replicant and Human were so similar who can tell ...
I mean it's both possible for the Hulk to be afraid and to rage quit because of that fear as he realized that Bruce was dragging him into something that could get him killed and he didn't sign up for that, Bruce did.
Some of these are misunderstood because the creators failed. The Hulk in Avengers especially was just handled wrong. Hell he was handled wrong basically post-Avengers 1
I watched "Blade Runner" in the theater and the "is he or isn't he" question of whether Deckard is a replicant has been around almost as long as the film. My feeling is this: it's Ridley Scott's film and if he says he directed it with the idea that Deckard is a replicant then Deckard is a replicant. It's as simple as that. People can give alternate theories, fan fiction, etc., etc. but ultimately the fact is that in the 1984 "Blade Runner" film Deckard IS a replicant. I also disagree with the idea that if Deckard is a replicant then his encounters with Roy, Rachael, etc. somehow have less value. Roy saving him could have meant several things: maybe Roy wanted to save another replicant since he couldn't save himself or his team or maybe Roy couldn't even tell Deckard was a replicant. As far as his relationship with Rachael, maybe the idea that two replicants that didn't even know they were replicants could still fall in love and be "human" in that aspect. It doesn't devalue the story in any way to make Deckard a replicant. In fact, the idea of making a replicant hunt down his own kind without realizing it is even more intriguing (and horrifyingly-human) than if Deckard is indeed human.
I agree.
Except for the Hulk.
100% afraid of Thanos.
Teddy's welcoming his lobotomy in SHUTTER ISLAND is made rather more apparent than in the novel, though it seems a tad too rational a process for an extreme schizophrenic.
It's tricky to suggest that any dialogue in a Nolan brothers is 'intentionally' bad, since such a lot of their output can't be taken seriously, even as a fantasy, and a woman character having naff or underwhelming moments is far from unusual in their ouvre
Honestly don't remember that "cringey" scene in Interstellar
In freddy vs jason jason isn't afraid of water he is in the dream world the water reminds him of when he drowned
I’ve never misunderstood anything! Not once! Not one time!
Ignore me.
100% agree and I've been saying it for years myself, Deckard _has_ to be human, not a Replicant, for the story to mean anything. Christopher Nolan explicitly disagrees, and believes Deckard is a Replicant. Christopher Nolan is wrong.
This is _not,_ however, a case of Death of the Author. Because Christopher Nolan is not the author. David Brin was the author of the book that Christopher Nolan adapted. And in _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,_ Deckard is human.
lol I stopped at #9 because that was absolutely absurd.
You left out the Martha moment in Batman V Superman. Cant tell you how many people think they stopped fighting just because their moms have the same name, meanwhile it was about Batman realising Superman is human and that he himself is slowly losing his own humanity. Its ok to not like the execution of the idea but too many people think its just because of a shared name.
Bruce also couldn't save his martha, but by saving superman's martha gave him hope.
I never thought the robots at the end of A.I. were aliens. Wasn't it specificaly stated they were the evolution of A.I. and androids in the movie?
Whoever writes your scripts needs replacing. The earth spinning is not 'a cause of time reversing', it's a visual representation of the EFFECT.
Attack of the Clones gets a lot of flack for the "I don't like sand" dialogue, but I think it was intended to be awkward. Anakin might have been strong with the force, but he would have had very little experience with relationships and seduction.
then why did superman start flying the other direction to slow the planet and spin it forward again?
While I've always preferred the idea that Deckard isn't a replicant, too much of the movie (any edit) says otherwise. The sequel was wise to side step this.
Superman going back in time would only make sense if he didn't REVERSE his direction mid flight. The earth clearly changes its spin when he changes direction, indicating that Donner really expected us to believe that the spin of the earth was responsible for the direction of time. The BS he came up with after was only a response to the absurdity of his original premise.
Laughing when Thor says, “I went for the head”
Nah, Hulk was afraid
Those that wake David from the ice tell him he is seen as their predecessor. David had such an impact on his time that more advancement was made finally resulting in the glass like beings that find David. They only wake him as information on that time has been lost, so they just needed to download his mind to learn more about their makers.
Wait, who exactly is watching Shutter Island and concluding anything other than that he is lucid and willingly being lobotomised? The line isn't subtle or anything- it's a blunt statement of his exact situation.
I was surprised by the shutter Island ending misunderstanding. It seemed obvious to me. Though the Superman one I'm still a bit skeptical of. That one seems more like trying to make up an explanation after the fact. Though, it's a superhero movie, so I tend to suspend disbelief with those movies anyway.
#1 is what is wrong with most movies today. Someone, usually the director, has to explain something confusing or misunderstood in their work. That's bad writing and/or directing. If something needs explaining outside your work, you did a pisspoor job.
I agree about Deckard, if for no better reason than in the book he is 100% Human.
1:08 but this was made clear that the Hulk wasn't scared. Even Bruce said it, we have some issues
I dunno, I always thought the Superman thing was that he flew so fast he went back in time, and the Earth spinning backwards was simply a visual way of showing that he was going backward in time. But guess I was wrong, and in fact I thought he spun the Earth backwards like everyone else.
If he was just going back in time by flying faster than light, why did he reverse direction to right the earth’s rotation
@@williamgiesen4910 Maybe he spun so fast he went back in time, and had to spin the other way in order to stop going back in time, I dunno. In was made in 1978, special effects weren't exactly cutting edge.