An interesting notion.

One of the reasons the first Blade Runner had such a lasting impact was because its central mystery was never answered: was Deckard himself a replicant who was unaware of it? This led to decades of nerdy discussions arguing one side or the other, which kept interest in the movie alive, picking over details in rewatchings.

I've seen the new movie, which likewise leaves a number of interesting mysteries. I would have almost been disappointed had it definitively answered the Deckard question.

I watched the three short films. And while they were kinda interesting snippets, the movie can just as easily be enjoyed without them. It isn't really necessary to know exactly why and how the blackout occurred in order to enjoy BR 2049. Same with the other clips. Still, they're kind of nice extras for the inevitable DVD.

why peter and the wolf ?

It's simpler than that, Charles. Blade Runner was great because Rutger Hauer was unforgettable. So you have to think why you would wish that it was he, the purported villain, who survived that fight, rather than Deckard, the hero.

@3 Rutger really was great. I need to watch some of his other stuff.

There's no better example of an audience screaming for answers than the audience for Alien, which then got all the answers in Prometheus, which itself only raised a single question: Why are all these answers so, so fucking dumb and illogical? The audience should have trusted in its own individual and collective theories and fancies and fantasies. They were so much more than Ridley had to offer.

Charles, I like your point about language. I can't recall if Clockwork Orange explained any of its language or not; but that was the first other (possible) example that came to my mind...

Oh wow, from the wiki on Nasdat: "Burgess knew that if he used modes of speech that were contemporarily in use, the novel would very quickly become dated." Nice!

@4 - Read the book Clockwork Orange, it comes with a language index in the back. Quite fun. Mostly permutated russian.. eg. "moloko"... The film couldn't --needn't-- bother with suchn an index/explanation, for the same reason BR didn't bother with explanations.
--
Blade Runner was great for many reasons. The sheer completeness of the artistic vision (thank you Syd Mead!), yes the unanswered questions and assumed reality. Also that the reality truly hung together well. Unlike fucking Prometheus that violated it's own reality rules constantly (even though it told a decent story). And yes, Deckard is a replicant. The director's cut makes that clear when Gaff leaves an origami unicorn outside Deckard's apartment before D & Rachel run away... how could Gaff have known about Deckard's unicorn dreams otherwise? In that sense, in the sense that there are elided truths that are hard to discern or even be sure of, in that sense the film is true to PKD's writings, even if the film takes Do Androids Dream.. and forks it in a new direction. A very valid direction.

And to underscore the point that Deckard is a replicant: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?... Deckard owns an electric sheep that lives on the roof of his apartment building. So yes, yes they do.

To a greater point though, read more of PKD's short stories and novels. He's an amazingly prescient writer. So much of what he wrote about is coming true today, bit by digital bit. It's almost creepy. (Eg. camouflaged .. robots). But even more about the class and power and social dynamics. No wonder PKD was kinda crazy, he could see so much.
--
The 'no explanations' thought is a good and useful perspective on the flim[sic].

@5
In Philip K Dick's novel, Deckard owns a living Ram, which he bought with the money he earned from retiring the replicants.
In fact, he jumped at the chance to hunt the replicants, because of the money he would earn allowed him to buy such an expensive pet.
Deckard's world has been so ravaged by pollution that living animals are a rarity.
Wealthy people by living animals as a status symbol. ( this is hinted at in the film when one of the female replicants tells Deckard she couldn't afford a real snake.)
Deckard's Ram is the most expensive pet in his apartment building, and he craves the elite status it will give him.
Deckard is also married. He is having an affair with Rachel, who throws his brand new, very expensive ram off the roof of his apartment building.
Deckard then promptly kills her.
Deckard then goes insane, which is something replicants don't do.
The movie tries to make everyone out to be a hero, while in the book no one is a hero.
All of the replicants are depraved, but Deckard is even more depraved than they are.
The point of the book isn't that humans are better than replicas, it's that they aren't better than replicants.
I enjoyed the movie, but I prefer the book.

@Charles
The name Blade Runner comes from an unrelated William Burroughs novel.
Ridley Scott just liked the name, and the producers were willing to pay William Burroughs to use it.

@ everyone
Please excuse the numerous mistakes in my original post.
I'm using speech to text, and it doesn't seem to be working very well tonight.

@6 That is interesting. I have never read the book but my take on both films is that Dick's work is mostly about various permutations of paranoia, paranoia as religious ecstasy eventually maybe, and neither film got into that really at all.

This film sort of reinforced this idea I've had for a while that in Hollywood the art directors and the various technicians have become incredibly sophisticated and yet most of the stories they are giving reality to are pathetically inadequate. Not that the story here was completely non-engaging, but the cinematography/set pieces were mind-blowing.