My take (long, SPOILERS) (Off-Topic)

by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, October 18, 2017, 17:43 (2391 days ago) @ narcogen

I think my interpretation is pretty similar to yours right up until the end, and differs from Kermit's. You can only get from any work what you agree to take from it, and all he was interested in taking from it was a stylish noir-styled detective yarn. I agree that the style is excellent and something in many ways the sequel absolutely fails to match, but as a detective story it's thoroughly mediocre, and taken as a whole in this view is insignificant except for its visuals (which are obviously very significant).

I do think the style is the strongest element of the film, but just because I appreciate the film noir aspects of it doesn't mean I don't appreciate the philosophical questions the movie raises, which it does regardless of what Deckard is or isn't. I think some of the anti-V.O. sentiment comes from a bias against the detective genre (as if that genre isn't substantial enough to handle existential questions), but just as the film combines visual elements in ways that hadn't been done, it was also, from the start, a genre-bender, taking bits of this and that to make its own stew. Pondering the "is he or isn't he?" question has been a fun pastime for fans for many years, and makes the original film more interesting. My favorite line from the new film renders the question moot: "I know what's real," Deckard says. The implication is clear. If he's a replicant, his life is real to him, and if he is human, Rachel's life was real to him regardless. The question of what either of them are is irrelevant.