only because cock is AMAZING!!
Sure they will...and they'll protect it and charge you a goods-based toll to use it.
in most parts of 'murica? yeah, unfortunately this is so.
We know there will be! We'll make sure of it!
A private company paid a bunch of money to another private company and users got the same video streaming performance they used to have before private company B starting throttling private company A's ability to deliver content that was already paid for by the users to both companies involved.
but with that I can't dial 'Pleased Acknowledgement of Husband's Superior Wisdom' for my wife every morning.
One question - please take into account that I am not suggesting with this question that I believe Deckard is a replicant, athough it may sound like it.
Why does everyone who drags out the whole 'The screenwriter and Harrison Ford deny it and Ridley didn't start saying it until later' argument ignore the fact that in the actual shooting script and at least some versions of the screenplay Deckard was clearly and specifically a replicant? There were lines about it in the script. Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott actually fought about it during filming...all of this is documented. Also it is an argument that presents itself as ignorant of the fact that there were 3 screenwriters who worked on it at different times. Regardless of whether Deckard is intended to be a replicant or not, this particular argument is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
This argument of Deckard's humanity having a definitive answer is tired and pointless...the reason the film is as good as it is is in part due to the ambiguity of this very question. DADoES and Blade Runner both explore the concept of an android that does not in fact know it is an android quite thoroughly, which is what makes this particular ambiguity important to the film. "Questions are interesting, answers are boring."
I would much rather talk about what is uniquely beautiful about the film IF Deckard is human, and then talk about how that changes IF Deckard is a replicant and what that means in order to actually examine the real beauty of the film as a work of art...rather than a bunch of chest beating neanderthalic yelling about who's got the better source for their argument and thumping about how they're right and the other group is dumb and somehow ruining the movie by having a favored opinion.
Watching people have this argument is like sitting in an audience during a performance of Waiting for Godot and having no-one around you understand why it's a comedy.
Rachel's lack of expiration date is only mentioned in the original theatrical release. Not in DC or Final Cut.
Point being: There's going to be canon issues with this movie, and most likely nobody who likes any version of the original is going to be totally happy with it, even if it is amazing.
Just a small nitpick...we don't know that he said this about Blade Runner 2 either, we only know the Ridley Scott is saying that Harrison said it.
Being in denial is often quite fairly equated with being an asshole.
Not only *all of the above*, but also you have to do it in what for many is the fiercest, politically motivated, cruelest, pettiest, most vicious social environment we could engineer for you.
Back then we didn't have the propaganda machine on full blast trying to convince you that every child who plays outside is going to be kidnapped, raped, and mutilated by a stranger they chatted with online once.
oh, how very Phil Dick.