Hmmm, not sure on that myself. I have every version, including the originals and workprint

Well I’m afraid you’re wrong. He’s a replicant as confirmed by Scott and he also has the same glow to his eyes in the film that the replicants have

Scott confirmed in an interview that he was a replicant. He also has the red glow in the eyes in one scene, which the replicants have. That’s in the original edit too

There’s a scene where Deckard has the same eyes as the replicants and if that’s not enough, Scott also has confirmed in interviews that Deckard was a replicant

Point of the book, not the point of the film, not Scotts vision.

There were sequels written though, albeit not by Dick. Personally, I’m intrigued with a sequel, I would expect it to be bad, but hopeful it would be good

Rachel was a Nexus 6 so she had a 4 year life span, or am I missing something? It’s debatable to some on whether or not Deckard was one. Not me though, the red eyes in that one scene give it away and Scott confirmed it in an interview. But we never got to figure out was he Nexus 7 or what

“It’s too bad she won’t live, but then again who does”

I’ve been on the NMS reddit very regularly. The toxicity is mainly from the fan boys defending the game. You can’t criticise it in any way on that reddit, without being attacked

I’d add Children of Men, Lost in Translation and About a Boy as films that should be on no best of list

I hate the sea and everything in it

Balls to Picasso

Ok, I’ll bite. What’s g-rated?

How did you not include the pic?

He doesn’t need build up. He didn’t need build up in the comics. It’s actually quite shocking to anyone who has read 2000ad why he wasn’t the main antagonist in either of the films

First I’ve heard of this, so maybe we’ll get subnautica

Oh no

Were they related?

Was there not a baby cured of Aids before?