I just re-read Spoony's review and yes I agree:

Why did Tryrell made the Replicants looks so human-like when they are only made for slavery such as terraforming and wars, I am certain in real life we would not make robots look too human like. Yes, yes if they were not human like than the film's theme and message would not be there, but still making robots for things like Wars and Terraforming look exactly human is just illogical.

Well I'm just hoping they signed Ben Affleck for the lead. XD

Personally, the voice-over is part of the experience for me. I haven't seen the theatrical cut for at least a decade, but I know that it is noticable by its absence in the DC and FC (the latter of which I have on DVD), and the sound editing does feel noticeably vacant in places. I agree that the narration itself was pretty bad, and I know it wasn't Scott's creative decision to include it, but it probably would have been better to reedit it than simply excise it.

As for differences between Director's Cut and Final Cut - they're mostly corrective in nature, removing obvious inconsistencies and errors (I never knew that the woman in the photograph was supposed to be Zhora until I saw the FC).

First of all, they are not robots, despite what the opening crawl claims, but genetically engineered creatures.

If you want your replicants fighting in wars, that means you also want them for infiltration and assassination which means they'll have to look like humans. Pleasure models looking like humans is pretty self-explanatory. And creating loaders like Leo who look human but have super strength means that they can use the same equipment as their "co-workers".

Add the fact that they are living beings it makes all the more sense economically to base them on the human genome and only tweak what you need instead of building completely new creatures from scratch.

A lack of fail-safes is easily explained, too. They are commercial products designed to fight in wars among other things. Having a fail-safe or a marker for identification built in would make them completely useless for that purpose. Attacking replicant army? Press kill switch. Have a politician's security check every person for replicant status? No more infiltration and assassination.

To be honest, I watched the first movie this year, and well, it wasn't really as great as I thought it'd be. The hype probably made me have too high expectations (yeah, I don't know how this one SF movie escaped me till now :D).

Will read the short story, maybe I'll like it more.

As for a sequel, it won't be based on a short story, I suppose?

I didn't particularly like it either, the first time I watched it. Too slow, too little happening, too weird.

It's now one of my favourite movies of all times.

Oh, I don't even know where to begin with how wrong and bad the latest Indiana Jones movie is - and the CGI effects were the least of its problems. Aside from all the errors & goofs and all of Luca's obsessions shoved in, Indiana Jones is portrayed as a quite different hero than the one we got to know during the WWII era and not in a good way - nth about the Cold War era Indy feels natural.
And to make things worse, Harrison Ford was not only too old but primarily and mostly too stiff and slow and the action scenes were actually painful to watch.

Too much time passed since "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" was made and it would have been best if they had left the trilogy alone - Indy and co riding out of the canyon and off into the sunset is the perfect image to remember them by.
The only ones spared was Dr. Henry W. Jones, Sr and Marcus Brody who were lucky enough to have died long before the events of the latest film - maybe because the actors refused to participate?
I often think that the only reason "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was made is to introduce us to his son and won't be suprised to hear about the first adventures of Henry W. Jones III being in production.

Harrison Ford is now another five years older, slower and stiffer; unless Deckard is some supporting character, Blade Runner 2 is likely to be more painful to watch than "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was.
He's no longer an action hero, but apparently unwilling to accept it - I think that "Cowboys & Aliens" proves my point nicely.

Why you so mean with us?

For me Indy ( the character ) was always more about the personality, rather than impressive stunts, and for all I can tell old Harrison Ford makes the character look at least as interesting and charismatic as in the original trilogy, if not more so. I was actually impressed when I heard that Mr. Ford did most of the stunts himself despite his age.

I admit I've only seen the fourth Indiana Jones once so far, so next time I see it I'll pay closer attention to the elements you mentioned and criticized. I was thinking of rewatching the series next month or so, including some other Harrison Ford films, such as Blade Runner and Cowboys & Aliens. ( Have the DVD of that one, but never watched it, for better or worse. )

I wonder why Sean Connery didn't even have a small role in the new Indy film. Maybe they couldn't actually afford paying both of them, him and Mr. Ford. Or he didn't like the script? The again, for all I know he hasn't really done any new films for years.

And I was actually expecting Indy's new sidekick to be more annoying, but I thought he wasn't so bad. ( He's his son in the film? I didn't even remember that part... But like I said, I've only seen Indiana Jones 4 once so far. )

Would you say the same for 2001: A Space Odyssey? :P

But why make them so human like, if anything just make them look like the Robots from I,Robot:

http://blogs.swa-jkt.com/swa/10472/files/2013/03/i-robot-2004-42-g11.jpg

I answered both parts of that question already. I'll help you find it with a little strategically placed bold text.

No.

It's this weird thing with Kubrick movies that I just can't seem to get into them. I can appreciate the artistic value and cultural importance of films like A Clockwork Orange or 2001 but on a personal level they kinda fail to push the right buttons with me. 2001 is the movie of his that I enjoy the most, though, and the only one that I'll actually pop into the BD player and watch on occasion. But it's not one of my favourite movies. I like it in an academic sense, as a movie buff, but I don't love it to itty bitty pieces like Blade Runner.

Isn't bladerunner the movie with that loser with toys who has no friends and instead lives with toys? That was fucking retarded and I stopped watching after that part.

Over my dead body.

The story is over, what more needs to be told? That Deckard is human? That would diminish the first movie.

I'd be ok with a completely new movie based on "Do androids dream of electric sheeps?" with no other relation to Blade Runner and with a different title, script writer, producer etc...

This makes me want to dust off my copy of Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human (K.W. Jeter)