WALL-E is just about some stupid machine too.

I agree the sequel shouldn't have Deckard at all. But I do prefer The Final Cut. You don't really have to take the unicorn as "confirmation" that he's a replicant, Scott's comments aside, but I personally feel it's important to blur that line for Deckard as he reaches the end of that movie.

PKD never would have made Deckard a human because he believed there was a fundamental difference between a human and an android, as he stated in interviews, and (I think, it's been a while since I read it) is clear in the book.

UBIK and (no one ever mentions this one) Galactic Pot Healer are favorites of mine.

I hope that this sequel does ignore the question altogether. Of course, since it has Harrison Ford in it, I don't see how that's possible.

We can only hope.

I like that pairing too!
As for me, I watched it sort of on my own, at home…my wife was in the room, would occasionally look up from her laptop, say, "Ummm…." and then tactfully ignore it.

My wife and I both love The Story of Marie and Julien. We saw it as part of a Rivette retrospective about 10 years ago. Honestly I've loved just about every Rivette I've seen, and I hope more of his films start getting Blu-Ray releases, including, obviously, Celine and Julie Go Boating.

Thanks. I'd also recommend "Cobie Smulders Wears a Black & White Strapless Dress" in Season 2, which is their "pilot episode."

Does anyone remember the name of that crazy-complicated time travel episode they did? I believe Weird Al was a villain. That was among their best IMO.

I really enjoyed Innocence and I'm looking forward to this, which seems to be an inversion of the first film, maybe? Innocence was barely released in the U.S. and is very obscure here, unjustly.

I take exception to the whole first paragraph, actually. These films are hugely popular and rewatched frequently, mainly by those who grew up with them. Maybe the premise would make more sense if it were positioned from the POV of critics dismissing them, rather than the general public, which simply isn't true.

Yeah, if you're designing album graphics, I think you're going to give a lot of thought to the font choice. Artists are geeky that way. (I am not a graphic designer, but several of my friends are.)

Deep cut, but I like it!

If you just see them as novels and pretend the adaptations never happened, I don't think you'd even compare one to the other, they're so different.

It took me forever to finally read Frankenstein (just a couple years ago - though I hadn't made the attempt since I was young). Dracula I've loved since high school and read multiple times. I think Dracula is more accessible because it's pulpier. Frankenstein reads more like a work of classic literature - so I can…

Pretty much (and Penny Dreadful's great). The difference is that Universal owns the rights to the iconic Frankenstein monster makeup (not that they'd necessarily use it again), the Wolf Man character (not just any werewolf - Larry effin' Talbot), and the Creature from the Black Lagoon.

It's true, Bram Stoker only got the idea of pitting Van Helsing against Dracula in his novel "Dracula" after he watched the Abbott and Costello movie. Not sure what's so confusing about that.

Yes, and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, too. Really, there already has been a "shared universe," and it was done back in the 40's, beating the MCU by a long shot.

I don't feel like there's been a decent selection of classic movies on Netflix for YEARS. I'm eyeing the new streaming service that's coming out from Turner Classic Movies and Criterion; that has potential.