The movies and the book are totally different. As far as the movies go. It’s Scott’s vision.

Deckard as replicant is not a dumb idea. In a world where humans have lost their humanity, it’s a great idea that those that are deemed non-human find what it means to be human and begin to recover what has been abandoned.  It’s a great idea and makes complete sense in the context of what Scott wanted to achieve and…

Nah. Just seems slightly strange some still protest after the creator of this franchise has made his creative vision clear

Deckard is a replicant. This question was answered years ago by Ridley Scott himself. This is his world and creative vision.

Why do some people get so riled up about Deckard being a replicant? Yes Deckard is a replicant. Ridley Scott has repeatedly stated he is a replicant. The entire series between the two films and even the shorts falls apart if Deckard is not a replicant. There is no debate or discussion.

“HAL is characterized as a male personality, wouldn’t you agree? He’s given a male voice, and a male acronym. You are correct that he is just a computer, but he is a computer that is assigned a male gender. He is also portrayed as being sentient, and the moral fable about dealing with AI in 2001 has never been topped”

“Oh dear lord...What do you call the murders that HAL commits? When Bowman kills HAL (or deactivates him, as you prefer), he is relearning the lesson of the ape in the beginning: he has to kill in order to survive.”

“Your logic is tautological.

“You realized as you were defending El Topo that you were describing the plot of 2001, and it was hilarious to watch you try and pivot away from that in real time. :)“

“Where are your allies in your fight against 2001? Critics from the 60s? There may be the odd person who agrees with you at parties on this issue, but if you were to spout the opinions you’ve shared here with a room full of intelligent people, you would find the same reaction, because your ideas about the film are so…

“Your protest against 2001 is your own.”

“You are fond of pointing to critical consensus as a barometer, but El Topo sits at 77% on Rotten Tomatoes with mostly contemporary reviews, while 2001has a 94% approval rate.”

“Writing plays for the Globe is a different art form than directing movies. Shakespeare did not have the tools at his disposal that a Cecil B. DeMille did”

Amusing. You tell me to read writers of strong narratives while stating dialogue is not the backbone of narrative? Unbelievable. Fanboyism is incredible. Heck, the most brilliant writer in all of Western civilization William Shakespeare has long proven beyond any doubts whatsoever that dialogue among the written arts…

nar·ra·tive

I believe I was being quite clear and using the term “cognitive dissonance” in line with it’s accepted definition.

“Again, you seem to have no familiarity with film as an art form.”

Even those that like 2001 A Space Odyssey will admit that the film is slowly paced. While slow paced films are not always boring, most boring films are slow paced. 2001 being boring is not an interpretation of mine, it’s a common criticism of this film, that scores of people have written about. It’s a common enough…

More deflections and outright misunderstandings. It’s amusing.

Wow, you really don’t understand anything, do you?