As if you didn't know - Deckard was a replicant

[mr blur]

"Blade Runner - The Final Cut"

<snip>

For the new director’s cut, the special-effects footage was digitally scanned at 8,000 lines per frame, four times the resolution of most restorations, and then meticulously retouched. The results look almost 3-D.

The film’s theme of dehumanization has also been sharpened. What has been a matter of speculation and debate is now a certainty: Deckard, the replicant-hunting cop, is himself a replicant. Mr. Scott confirmed this: “Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant.”

This may disappoint some viewers. Deckard is the film’s one person with a conscience. If he’s a replicant, it means that there are no more decent human beings.

“It’s a pretty dark world,” Mr. Scott acknowledged. “How many decent human beings do you meet these days?”

<snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/movies/30kapl.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. That replicants care more about life than we do says a lot.

All of the mannequins in that storefront are a great symbol, as well as the eye motif, being the window of the soul.

Ginsberg said that most are humanoid, not human.

[DarkTirade]

6. I suppose it's a little more special when you know you're going to run out of time before too long.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Exactly the point. Those not interested in grasping existence fully appear to

be the replicants they're afraid of. It's not exactly Dick's vision but it still has many levels of complexity.

The God complex is one I've barely considered, but is there in force. Broken Gods, I should say.

[woofless]

2. Blade Runner is one of my all time faves

but I have always missed Phillip K. Dick's exposition of Deckard's psyche. His motivation is not well presented in the movie. Maybe I missed something in the reading, but I think Deckard is quite human.

Woof

[Frank Cannon]

3. If that is true, it's a cheap twist and renders the movie into...

not making much sense.

I understand that Harrison Ford does not agree with this interpretation of the character and, in fact, he thinks that's pretty stupid. I can't imagine that PKD would cotton to this, either. The Deckard in the book is quite human.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Yeah, the replicants in the book were obviously flawed

in different ways than the ones in the film. The ones in the film were very emotional and human, sort of a reverse on the book. Interesting interpretation when the bad guys are the good guys.

The "Unicorn Dream" that was cut from the original release shows that Deckard is a replicant (the origami unicorn Gaff leaves outside his apartment building door is the tip-off.

I dislike the voice-over more than the addition of the Unicorn Dream and what it means.

[redqueen]

12. No, that's a coincidence.

When Deckard proves he knows about Rachel being a replicant, he recounts detailed childhood memories. A recent dream is not the same as a childhood memeory. Gaff makes a chicken to insinuate that Deckard's being a coward, not that he dreamed about chicken last night. So perhaps the unicorn symbol would more reasonably suggest that Gaff is insinuating something now about chasing an impossible goal... not that he dreamed about a unicorn and Gaff somehow knows this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. A coincidence that was specifically added back in the director's cut?

You must be joking.

[Orrex]

32. Not a coincidence as "Oops! How did that get in there?!"

But an in-story coincidence deliberately engineered by Scott to foster ambiguity.

[edbermac]

5. Bullshit! Ridley Scott is lying! Deckard was a human. Here's why:

What about the scene at the end when he gets two fingers broken by the Roy Batty replicant? There was a scene earlier where Leon and Batty visit the eye maker and Leon sticks his hand in this ultra-cold liquid and isn't affected at all.

And why have a replicant police officer?

[redqueen]

11. And if you have a replicant police officer, why make him so much weaker

than the replicants he's hunting?

This is an outrage! Deckard is not a replicant! x(

[Orrex]

14. How about when he gets his ass kicked by Leon?

The next scene has Deckard massaging his battered jaw while studying his reflection in the mirror.

And even if we assume that he's an earlier model, then why on Earth would you send one Nexus-5 to hunt down four Nexus-6 Replicants?

[Fire Walk With Me]

38. There are different model replicants, including heavy laborers (Leon).

[Dr. Strange]

8. What is it with Harrison Ford's characters?

First Han Solo doesn't shoot first. Now Deckard is a replicant. I suppose next, we're gonna find out that he wasn't really an archaeologist in the Indiana Jones movies.

[myrna minx]

9. It turns out that Indiana Jones was really a nazi spy!

and it turns out that Jack Ryan ran the Cali Cartel!

I think Phillip K Dick would dispute Scott's assertions.

[gmoney]

10. And he stole the election to become president in "Air Force One"

And Glenn Close's character was really a transvestite, not the first woman VP.

[Dr. Strange]

13. Oh great,

so now it's rubbing off on Glenn Close!

[Beetwasher]

15. There Are Novels That Continue The Story, And This Contradicts Them

The books however are not by Dick, but by K.W. Jeter, so I guess they can't be considered canon. I enjoyed them, except the last one which I haven't read.

FYI, the novels are:

Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human
Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night
Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon

[EstimatedProphet]

16. He wasn't in the book

Although, the book had a small subploy involving a group of replicants who were police and didn't know they weren't human.

[Richard Steele]

17. It was great to debate that possibility. Scott is a dumbass for ending the debate.

What's next- Jar-Jar Binks spliced in as Dekker's comedy sidekick? :banghead:

[Orrex]

18. Fortunately, Scott has no more authority than you or I in this debate

All he can say is "what I meant to evoke was..."

If it ain't on the screen, then it ain't in the story. Scott's opinions on the matter amount to nothing more than hearsay.

[Richard Steele]

20. Hey, good point!

Thanks- I feel better now! :toast:

[Downtown Hound]

19. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Scott denied that he was in the past?

It seems that Scott can't make up his mind on this one. Or to be more accurate, for years he wasn't sure and then recently became sure, and now it's, "Oh yeah, he was a replicant all along."

I don't really buy it. It's up to the viewer to determine.

[redqueen]

23. Yes, he's said otherwise before...

but then again he's a tool whose awful methods of directing ruined any possibility of a sequel so, so... hmm.

I don't know where I was going with that... sorry.

[tigereye]

21. I love that people are still debating this!

proves that the film still raises a lot of wonderful questions.


One of my fave films of all time.



However, if Dick didn't intend Deckard to be a replicant, that pretty much ends the debate right there, doesn't it?

[Orrex]

22. Not at all!

As I indicated upthread, Scott's intentions don't matter beyond what he put on-screen, and if a subsequent re-re-release of Blade Runner declares outright that Deckard is a human or a Replicant, than the question is settled only for that release.

For the theatrical release and the first director's cut, the evidence suggests that Deckard is indeed human.

[tigereye]

24. but it raises an interesting question about the literary integrity of a story

versus film interpretation.

anyway. As much as I love this film, we all probably have too much time on our hands.... ;) Or Scott is running out of cash for his next project...

[mr blur]

29. Hmm... what about the unicorn? (nt)

[Orrex]

30. Threefer madness! (Oh, wait--wrong subject)

Hmm... what about the unicorn?

Simple--Deckard fell asleep during a latenight airing of Ridley Scott's "Legend."

I think that redqueen rightly identified the unicorn origami as a coincidence, and I'd go a little further and call it a red herring meant to make the viewer question Deckard's status. If it were proof that Deckard is a Replicant, it would be pretty unambiguous (and clumsily obvious), and it would be inconsistent with the general subtlety of the onscreen exploration of the question.

A unicorn has a million symbolic connotations, including the futility of chasing a fantasy and the quest for impossible perfection. In seeking Rachael, Deckard seeks the impossible; a lasting relationship with his perfect (though fatally flawed) woman.

This is what Gaff addresses with his closing line: "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

[mr blur]

36. Hmm... what about the Yak?

...and all the photos in Deckard's piano - obviously meant to suggest a manufactured past/memories.

[Javaman]

25. Well, duh, just read the novel. nt

[redqueen]

26. ack

deleted

:oops:

[Tyler Durden]

28. After he fucked up HANNIBAL so terribly, I find it hard to take Scott very seriously.

Not a popular opinion, but hey.

[Orrex]

31. IMO Scott is one of the most over-rated and over-praised directors in the industry

His best work is 25+ years in the past.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. But when that is 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner'

you have to give him some credit.

[Orrex]

37. Sure, but what has he done for me lately?

Matchstick Men?

:wtf:

[Tyler Durden]

35. I love you.

My SO loves GLADIATOR though. I think it was scored wrong in the wrong places, and those "artsy" slo-mo shots are annoying.

[Connonym]

34. I didn't know