Tyrell said she was special, no four year lifespan. So what's happened to her?!
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain .... Time to die
Got bored with Deckard and strayed off. After all, in human years there's a 17 year age gap between Sean Young and Harrison Ford.
shareDo the math.
Whatever you are, be a good one.
They may CGI her back in, à la Grand Mof Tarkin in SW: Rogue One. 'Cause I hear she (Young) went a tad... errr... 'loopy' a while back... 😷
shareThey've cast an actress that looks uncannily like a young Young so maybe she'll be playing Rachel
sharePlease link to some images of said 'uncanniness'...
sharehttp://tinyurl.com/h2qdo7e
I highly approve .
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Looks nothing like
sharedoesn't look like her at all.
shareWhy do you care? You are just going to cry and complain about the movie no matter what. Why are you even here you piece of garbage?
shareWhat sort of cake are we talking about here?
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Roy_Batty_Nexus6--
Deckard mentions Rachel's lack of a four-year limit only in the theatrical release version (1982).
If we are to believe the Director's Cut (1991) and the Final Cut (2007), we can infer that Rachel died about four years after Deckard took off with her.
"It's too bad she won't live; but then again who does?"
Sincerely,
Todd
Opinions are like tattoos-- everybody has one.
But Gaff's line about her not living is also in the theatrical release. So what does that mean?
shareMisterKinish--
My understanding is that Ridley Scott always intended for Gaff's line to be in the version he wanted to be released-- which was the 1991 cut, without the "happy ending" the studio demanded for the 1982 release (the 2007 release was just a "cash grab" release by Scott, in my humble opinion, a version which was totally unnecessary).
However, Scott always made it clear that he never intended the ending in the 1982 version and did not want the voice-over narrative.
So, I guess we'll have to wait and see, Kinish, but my bet is, in Blade Runner 2049, it will be mentioned that Rachel died shortly after Deckard ran away with her.
Sincerely,
Todd
Opinions are like tattoos-- everybody has one.
As far as a CGI version of Rachel, that's never going to happen. They can't use an actor's likeness while they're still alive. There was a precedent set after the filming of Back to the Future 2. Crispin Glover sued and won. They can hire an actress who very closely resembles the person they were recast as, but they can't use special effects to make them look like the previous actor.
I do however think there is some merit that they may have recast Rachel. If they did then it'll be interesting to see how they handle the scenario on aging replicants. I do think that Carla Juri looks very VERY similar to Sean Young. I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if she was playing Rachel in this.