Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories-that-actually-make-great-movies-better/ (http://www.cracked.com/article/18367_6-insane-fan-theories-that-actually-make-great-movies-better/)

I like the James Bond and Farris Buller ones.

I believe the Matrix one is what they were going for, but changed at the last minute.

The Star Wars one just sounds like people wanting the Star Wars movies to be better than they actually are.

Fasincating theories, but I like the James Bond one the most.  It made the most sense to me (Seeing as I haven't watched a lot of the other movies on the list and the Star Wars is pretty wild) and I could see it be true.

I personally think all the old Bonds were sent to a village with big white bouncy balls watching over them.

I lost a bit of respect for cracked.com after I read the opening line:


That kind of makes it seem like a bad thing to read into a movie.  Anyway, I thought the Star Wars one was interesting.  Decent article!

No.  No, he was not.  I don't care if he was in the novel, I don't care what Ridely Scott has to say about the movie, Deckard was NOT a replicant.

Thats right!  I hate that idea no end. 

There are several things indicating this throughout the movie.  The shining eyes, the unicorn, etc.  I wouldn't say it is 100% certain though.  I'll leave it off at that.  In the novel, he's NOT a replicant, btw.  

I didn't particularly care for any of these (except maybe the Radio Flyer one).  I will say the James Bond one doesn't really make sense - Sean Connery comes back TWICE after the Lazenby Bond left.  In fact, he's very angry about his wife being dead in Diamonds Are Forever.  Likewise, License To Kill references the dead wife (where James Bond throws back the marriage flowers, and Felix says something about her), as does one of the Roger Moore films in the opening sequence.  It's also quite clear in the sequences with Moneypenny, M and Q that he's meant to be a single person.

It's just different interpretations of a single character, who also happens to exist on a floating timeline.

Also, while I think the "in their mind" theory is quite plausible (particularly for Total Recall) for some films, I don't think it is in Observe and Report.  It was making a deliberate statement with its ending, which is ruined by a false ending.  I also might add that, unlike the other films, there isn't any obvious "breaking point" with reality.

must agree, ford was NOT a replicant in the film.  at least the orig. release....that would totally take away the 'replicants are alot like us' angle that comes across so well, esp. with rutger's performance.

The shining eyes and the Unicorn from Gaff are pretty strong indicators he is supposed to be a replicant, that's what I was saying.  In particular, I've not heard a convincing argument against the unicorn.

But, I feel the film works either way.