*Spoiler Alert* Blade Runner Question

[UlicBelouve]

Originally Posted by Dpp1978

Even the two major elements in the creation of Deckard, Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford can't agree. One says he is a replicant: the other says he isn't. They can't both be right.

Unless, of course, both Scott AND Ford have said he is a replicant.

In Details (US) October 1992 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

They both felt he was a replicant, but Ford just didn't want it to be obvious to the audience.

[sean10mm]

Originally Posted by LUkassZ

Signs obviously point to yes, and IMHO I think he is a replicant. But, like the original poster asked, I have always wondered why he is so weak.

Simple answer: so he thinks he's human. Same as Rachel. If you could bench press a Volvo wouldn't YOU get suspicious?

[DeeChizzle]

I'm not going to argue that Deckard isn't a replicant, however I will argue that there are some loops that Scott does not close in this film and there are things that make you scratch your head.

[Mr. Joshua]

WOW, people are over analyzing Blade Runner. Deckard is a replicant. Enough said... Too many what if questions with people watching this one. It is what it is, the movie makes you think. Replicants have a human side, they were made like their creator... Sounds familiar doesn't it? Created in the image of the creator... A religious movie? One wonders.........

[DeeChizzle]

Originally Posted by wsciv123

WOW, people are over analyzing Blade Runner. Deckard is a replicant. Enough said... Too many what if questions with people watching this one. It is what it is, the movie makes you think. Replicants have a human side, they were made like their creator... Sounds familiar doesn't it? Created in the image of the creator... A religious movie? One wonders.........

I would think that a movie that needs 4 different versions (counting euro version) would need plenty of analyzing and some over analyzing to not only understand the film but to appreciate it as it well. I hope that you are not misinterpeting my excessive analyzation of this film by thinking that I don't appreciate it as well. I will admit I was not fond of this movie as a kid, but now that I've watched it again with an open mind, I can see why so many people are fond of this movie.

[ilconsigliere]

Boy, if Deckard was a Replicant, he was a very "defective" one; very, very weak. ALL, I mean ALL the Replicants beat the living heck out of him.
He is so weak, that at the end he can't get back on the roof by himself.
What's the explanation for that?
As far as the movie having 4 versions, my opinion is that there was, and there still is, a "CLASH OF THE TITANS" with the movie. Starting with Ridley, and the famous "Blade Runner Partnership". Why do you think it took so long for these DVD's to come out? They were all fighting like cats and dogs. "I don't want it like this", "I want it like that"...etc, etc.
Finally, as we all know, money is thicker than water, and boom! here we have them: 4 freaking different versions. I like the original, 1982 theatrical one, with the voice over, as well as the more violent, 1982 international version. But if you want to give me only the FINAL DIRECTOR'S VERSION, or whatever the name is, fine with me, I still love it.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by ilconsigliere

Boy, if Deckard was a Replicant, he was a very "defective" one; very, very weak. ALL, I mean ALL the Replicants beat the living heck out of him.
He is so weak, that at the end he can't get back on the roof by himself.
What's the explanation for that?
As far as the movie having 4 versions, my opinion is that there was, and there still is, a "CLASH OF THE TITANS" with the movie. Starting with Ridley, and the famous "Blade Runner Partnership". Why do you think it took so long for these DVD's to come out? They were all fighting like cats and dogs. "I don't want it like this", "I want it like that"...etc, etc.
Finally, as we all know, money is thicker than water, and boom! here we have them: 4 freaking different versions. I like the original, 1982 theatrical one, with the voice over, as well as the more violent, 1982 international version. But if you want to give me only the FINAL DIRECTOR'S VERSION, or whatever the name is, fine with me, I still love it.

The explanation for that is he's an earlier model and the 5 different versions are all of us hardcore fans. Nothing wrong with that.

[Pondosinatra]

My understanding is that Scott left it purposefully ambiguous...

[wallendo]

What Ridley Scott intended is not really relevant. The only thing that matters is what he put on the screen. And to me, what is on the screen is not definitive.

There are definite hints that Deckard is a replicant, but the flow of the story suggests otherwise. The new replicants which can pass as human were quite worrisome to the authorities and it doesn't make any sense for them to hire one of these dangerous machines.

[ilconsigliere]

I agree with Wallendo.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by ilconsigliere

I agree with Wallendo.

Yea, same here too.

Plus what Pondosinatra said also.


.

[Leon420]

Check the photos below. No red out or retouching right from the movie.How old am Eye?Let me tell you about my mother.

[Wings80]

Seeing this movie over 20 years ago I always thought he was.

[Leon420]

Then theres the theory that Tyrell is a replicant course whys he wearin those bottle end glasses when he could get some new eyes is he hiding something?

[Leon420]

Another hint in the film comes from the number of replicants which Deckard is hunting.

We find out that six had made their way to earth, one of whom was killed. Deckard is looking for four, begging the question: "Who is the fifth replicant?".

[botley]

There were originally supposed to be five Replicants that successfully escaped (Ridley Scott actually cast Stacey Nelkin to play one, but at the last minute her character was cut out of the screenplay). That's why Bryant's line about the replicants dying in an electrical field was erroneously recorded using an earlier draft where there was one extra escaped Replicant. This was corrected in the Final Cut, where the line has been changed.

All the "evidence" anyone has ever posited in favour of or against Deckard's replicant nature is flimsy at best. You'll either end up contradicting what the characters say onscreen or else grasping at straws to "prove" one answer or the other with a whole whack of presumptive justification. Question your own assumptions and you will find yourself unconvinced of either answer. At least, I know I do.

You can't say that Deckard is a replicant because he has "no emotion" in killing. The replicants are some of the most emotive characters in the film. Both Rachel and Deckard are visibly shaken after the first "retirings" so it is clearly something they share aversion to doing. This doesn't suggest that Deckard is a replicant, just that replicants are capable of human empathy (particularly Rachel, which is why she nearly passes the VK test in Tyrell's office).

Gaff has a moment of empathy with Deckard and Rachel; he leaves the unicorn for them as a symbolic gesture to say "you have my blessing, I will spare you." It doesn't necessarily indicate that he has seen what memories Deckard has and that he wishes to convey that information. The unicorn is an archetypal symbol of hope and salvation and sacrifice, repeated in myths all over the world. You don't need to look into anyone's memories in order to realize that. Sure, it "doesn't exist" in reality, but somehow we all instantly recognize it.

Besides, just about everyone else in the film is at least briefly associated with an animal of one kind or another, and Deckard is no different. For me, the movie purposely blurs the boundaries around what "human" means, and that is why there should be no definitive answer as to whether Deckard is artificial or exactly like you and me. The art of film-making itself creates "implanted" memories that are shared among our cultural consciousness.

I agree with those that said Ridley Scott's "intention" that Deckard is a replicant is not relevant to the film itself. If he really intended there to be a definitive answer, then one would be available without having to consult his personal interpretation; but instead, the film's meaning is deliberately obscured. This speaks volumes about the ambiguity of our own personal definition of humanity.

[Leon420]

Theres a picture of a Rhino
Photos below

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by botley

he leaves the unicorn for them as a symbolic gesture to say "you have my blessing, I will spare you." It doesn't necessarily indicate that he has seen what memories Deckard has and that he wishes to convey that information. The unicorn is an archetypal symbol of hope and salvation and sacrifice, repeated in myths all over the world. You don't need to look into anyone's memories in order to realize that. Sure, it "doesn't exist" in reality, but somehow we all instantly recognize it.

I think it's pretty cut and dried that Deckard daydreaming of the unicorn and Gaff leaving unicorn is meant to symbolize the unicorn daydream as an implanted memory.

I think that's way more likely, and reasonable, than leaving a unicorn because it's the "archetypal symbol of salvation and sacrifice" (what?), and Deckard dreaming of the unicorn was just some completely unrelated, arbitrary coincidence (which is sloppy and unintuitive in terms of filmmaking.)

Also, the fact that Ridley created the scene and later said flat out that he meant it to indicate that he's a replicant in the doc On The Edge of Blade Runner pretty much seals the deal. If you're going to completely remove Scott's intended meaning as conveyed in the imagery he created why not just say the entire thing was some Chinese kid's dream? Sure, Scott obviously didn't intend for that to be the case but hey, why the Hell not, makes sense to me. Why not just interpret everything Deckard says as completely sarcastic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
He created the scenes, and with that explanation it doesn't get any clearer cut. Scott created those scenes for a singular and specific reason, and that's what it is. I can't tell you what it means to you, I can't tell you what anything "means" to you, but there is absolutely no doubt what the man who meticulously created those scenes was attempting to convey. How effective he was in delivering this message is in question, not the message itself.

[TOPDAWG]

I say he is a replicant and he is based on a guy you see in the start of the film. In the start you see a guy who looks like decker interviewing what is proven to be a replicant as he does an eye test. The replicant has a gun on him and pulls it out shots and the scene ended. I'm going to guess that replicant killed that guy and they made decker in that guys image. This was in the final cut.

Funny thing about this movie is the first time I saw it wife liked it so we rented the director's cut on dvd I did not like it at all but I tried the final cut and enjoyed it very much that time.

[botley]

Deckard is definitely not a clone of the Holden character (although Morgan Paull, who plays him, acted as Harrison Ford's stand-in at various times during production). The dialogue in Bryant's office indicates that the two of them are fellow Blade Runners who know each other from previous assignments. There is even a deleted scene where Deckard visits Holden in the hospital and they trade banter like old friends.

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

I think it's pretty cut and dried that Deckard daydreaming of the unicorn and Gaff leaving unicorn is meant to symbolize the unicorn daydream as an implanted memory.

I think that's way more likely, and reasonable, than leaving a unicorn because it's the "archetypal symbol of salvation and sacrifice" (what?), and Deckard dreaming of the unicorn was just some completely unrelated, arbitrary coincidence (which is sloppy and unintuitive in terms of filmmaking.)

It's not sloppy or unintuitive to recall gestures made earlier in the film. The unicorn is a totemic symbol, like the rest of the origami figures Gaff makes: an unspoken commentary on Deckard's progress. It's not an arbitrary image at all, it has resonance with other motifs in the film, whether coincidence or no. There's even a toy unicorn in Sebastian's apartment. Drawing the conclusion that Deckard's memories are accessible because he's synthetic contradicts so much of the rest of the film's premises that I think it brings up more questions than it answers.

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

Also, the fact that Ridley created the scene and later said flat out that he meant it to indicate that he's a replicant in the doc On The Edge of Blade Runner pretty much seals the deal. If you're going to completely remove Scott's intended meaning as conveyed in the imagery he created why not just say the entire thing was some Chinese kid's dream? Sure, Scott obviously didn't intend for that to be the case but hey, why the Hell not, makes sense to me. Why not just interpret everything Deckard says as completely sarcastic?

You could make either of those interpretations work, if you tried hard enough to convince yourself; that's just my point. I'm trying to say that Scott's intentions, expressed outside of the film itself, should have no bearing on your own interpretation. Personally, I restrict my own conclusions based on what the characters say along with what the film suggests using imagery... the two have to be in balance. Settling on the Deckard=Replicant interpretation puts a thumb on one side of the scale. I don't want to get too wishy-washy here, but I find catharsis in Deckard's journey as a human being.

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
He created the scenes, and with that explanation it doesn't get any clearer cut. Scott created those scenes for a singular and specific reason, and that's what it is. I can't tell you what it means to you, I can't tell you what anything "means" to you, but there is absolutely no doubt what the man who meticulously created those scenes was attempting to convey. How effective he was in delivering this message is in question, not the message itself.

But he didn't solely create anything. Philip Dick's book is the source material and it is pretty unambiguous on the topic of Deckard being human. Harrison Ford helped create the character as we know him in the movie and he did so with the assumption that he was portraying a human. Even the original screenwriter Hampton Fancher insisted on keeping Deckard's humanity and was initially disappointed that Scott left clues suggesting otherwise, even though he now sees them as "red herrings". You are free to interpret the film how you choose. It's not as cut and dried as you are suggesting, however, which in my opinion makes the film more mysterious and wonderful.