Ridley Scott - Is Deckard A Replicant?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- Ridley Scott discusses the character of Rick Deckard from BLADE RUNNER and whether he is a replicant or not.
Subscribe to this channel for more exclusive videos from the AFI Archive: bit.ly/Subscrib...
Follow AFI:
/ americanfilminstitute
/ americanfilm
/ americanfilminstitute
www.afi.com
![Ridley Scott- Interview (Bladerunner) 1982 [Reelin' In The Years Archives]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/awJJ6hgoj8o/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the real point of whether Deckard is a Replicant or not is the fact that it doesn't really matter. If he's a replicant, then that just means he's a Replicant like Rachel, if he's not a Replicant, it doesn't matter because isn't the whole point of Roy's tears in the rain speech that there is no discerning difference?
That's what I got from it anyway. As interesting as it is to debate, it's not something that affects the character or the storyline. I thought the idea of him of being a replicant was about the uncertainty of "self", and was racially motivated... in the sense that it doesn't matter if you're a replicant or not. Likewise, it doesn't matter what colour your skin is, we're all the same. I always wondered what the significance was of Roy Batty's howl at the end. Maybe it means; it takes a wolf to catch a wolf. And then the dove of peace that Batty carries with him on the rooftops to signify a truce between them.
I viewed Roy Batty, especially when he is coming to the end of his short life, being given almost a messiah kind of aura. That he has a message for humanity with that monologue (us, the audience watching). The way he bows his head in a Christ-like way when he dies. When he sticks the nail into the palm of his hand, and even Tyrell refers to him as the Prodigal son.
I disagree... the answer to “is he a replicant?” Is important to know because if he truly is, then Tyrel was the (evil) god of replicants. He created two replicants that can, for lack of a better word, replicate.
The whole premise of 2049 to me is how did Rachel give birth? Was she inseminated with a replicant ovum or a hybrid ver. Of a human ovum mixed with a replicant body? I would like to think that both Rachel and Deckard are both replicants because it would signify the whole “miracle” scene in 2049. The real answer to this whole thing is weather their daughter is a replicant?
Having watched both films with this in mind I think in the end, both Rachel and Deckard are replicants, weaved together, through memory manipulation (the likes of which their prodigal daughter performs for other replicants) by Tyrel. She would Truly be special, the first of her kind, born from Adam and Eve (so to speak).
Any other outcome would sour the miracle. It has to be that both Rachel and Deckard are replicants. 2049 would loose so much impact if it was any other way.
@@jacobvanveit3437 I absolutely love your response! 👍the truth is simpler than what we think.
@@jacobvanveit3437 So you think, that if the real human has child with replicant, it's not a miracle at all? :D
@@jacobvanveit3437 why is it any less special if a human has a child with a replicant? I'd say it's quite contrary to your assertion.
The fact that we're still analyzing this movie, goes to show how great it is
If Deckard is a replicant, I'm sure Ridley could answer these questions for me:
1) Why would you send a replicant without heightened abilities to hunt down NEXUS-6 replicants that clearly have an advantage in strength, agility and stamina?
2) Why would the police even commission a replicant to kill other replicants? Aren't they illegal on Earth?
3) Why program him with a drinking problem and painful memories of an ex-wife and a failed marriage that'd inhibit his performance?
4) Why bother giving him a negative disposition and reluctance towards his own job instead of a mindset of blind loyalty?
5) Why go to all the hassle of arranging this with the police department when there are about a thousand more reasonable solutions to hunting four fugitives and you've already got an entire squad devoted to the practice of hunting replicants?
6) Why would Tyrell immediately tell Deckard about the implanted memories and let him in on the notion that some replicants don't know their own identity?
7) Why would a story of a man who's dehumanized by his line of work and learns not to take his human life for granted focus on a character who is revealed to be as artificial as the replicants he hunts?
8) If Deckard was a replicant and always meant to hunt the NEXUS-6 Replicants, was it just an amazing coincidence that Holden ended up the hospital so Bryant would have a reason to call Deckard back into service?
9) If Deckard was a replicant commissioned to hunt other replicants, why let him quit the police department?
10) How would Gaff even know that Deckard thought of a unicorn in a drunken stupor in order to leave him an origami unicorn in his apartment at the end of the film?
11) Is Ridley Scott's entire reason for thinking Deckard is a replicant against all logic just "Hey, wouldn't it be artsy, contrarian and cool if...?"
1) Do they know? Does he? It's possible he came to realisation during the story, and possible that Gaff knew, and tried to tell him.
2) see 1)
3) if he is, he's programmed with enough memories for consciousness, the rest is borne of life, artificial or not
4) see 3) consciousness is adaptive
5) open question. we don't know his history, though he obviously has one
6) I Deckard is a replicant, Tyrell very likely knows more about him than he does, so like God, is better placed to judge. If not, then there's no question to be answered.
7) no replicant takes their life for granted. That's why they seek their maker to extend it. The focus on his character is ro draw everything that defines life, and YOUR life, into question. This is the whole driving orce behind it, that it asks questions of you.
8) Who says he was "always meant" to? we don't know his history.
9) see 8). who says that was his whole purpose? and see 1) do they, or he actually know?
10) If memories are implanted, this information would be available at least to some privileged few. See 1) perhaps he was trying to tell Deckard, both that he knew, and for Deckard's sake, as if he is indeed a replicant, he's not as dangerous as the others, he's "defending" the humans, and he's alive. Apparently. And perhaps that sort of life, with that depth, has value. Perhaps artificial life at that height, where the replicants don't know (see Sean Young) DOES gain worth? Worth i not equal to human life, far closer than a video game.
11) No
1) and 10) ... what if Gaff's a replicant?
Who says that anyone else in the story actually knows? One would suspect that the voight-kampff test exists because nobody really does know
Kevin Striker He just wants more people to buy the DVD, so he interjects this possibility of Deckard being a replicant. It's total BS. He wasn't in the book, so why would he be in the movie. You have 11 very valid arguments also that make total sense.
+Name Holder "thematically relevant point" more important than the plot? lol, that doesn't even mean a thing. "Boring ass plot points" are what make a story work and be coherent, from greek times to ours, fucktard. And Primer is a great movie if you have more than 2 digits in your IQ. Now get your head out of your ass and go watch some football or whatever you imbeciles do.
I see Deckard as a human who "figuratively" becomes a replicant by understanding the emotional feelings of Rachael seriously and also through falling in love with her. With Rachael, she "figuratively" becomes a human through her emotional feelings and also by falling in love with Deckard.
yes, well-analysed.
Fine, to each his own. I just watched the movie again recently and felt very strongly that Deckard is human and that him being a replicant breaks the logic of the film and the world it created. I can't argue with Ridley, it is his movie, but I feel his is being a bit revisionist in stating that Deckard is for a fact a replicant. It is a really good movie, and thinking about it makes me realized how 'deep' it is, glad you enjoy and understand it in your own way since that is what makes it good.
What about the unicorn? Deckard is not the Blade Runner, it is Gaff. Deckard is a replicant, and Gaff is his controller. That is how dangerous jobs are handled in that universe.
Because Ridley Scott believes that deckard is a replicant doesn't mean you should believe it too. Harrisson Ford didn't like the idea of deckard being a replicant, or at least, he didn't want the movie to give a clear answer about it. Basically, no one can tell what deckard is. I think this ambiguity adds depth to the movie.
Thomas Templeton That was classic man. :D
Well Said :) The ambiguity adds depth to the story. After all these yrs I wouldn't want a definitive yes or no. The very fact that I don't know for sure keeps my mind going back the the story. Keeps it alive for me in a way.
All the new versions basically force you to believe he's a replicant. The original work print is, in my opinion, the real version. Also, the narration that Deckard had originally in the film has been taken out, to take away his humanity. The eye glowing wasn't originally there, but is now there in later versions.
Here are some valid reasons as to why he isn't by someone's blog that analyzed the film very well. I've taken 8 of the 18 reasons the guy wrote in a blog that are very well illustrated to the fact that he's human. These reasons are also kinda out of order:
1. Deckard expresses feelings throughout the film, including his distaste for ‘retiring replicants’, and shows emotion facially which none of the Nexus 6 replicants do; even the super-advanced model Rachel has difficulty expressing feelings (the Voigt Kampf test is used to detect the absence of emotional response in replicants)
2. Deckard was married - this is not an implanted memory like that of a replicant, but is stated as a fact by Deckard
3. Deckard is afraid of being one of the ‘little people’ - none of the replicants exhibit fear
4. Apart from their programmed aggression, the only emotions replicants appear to have developed centre around a desire to extend their lifespans
5. The police chief has used Deckard’s services for many years, whereas Roy’s gang are Nexus 6 - the current highest spec commercial model, so Deckard could not have been made better at an earlier time
6. Deckard does not require or carry any photographs
7. Deckard does not have the physical strength or endurance shown by the replicants, e.g. he is easily defeated by Leon and would have been killed if he not rescued by Rachel, physically he is powerless against Pris even though she has only days to live, Roy has the strength and speed to stop Deckard from falling and haul him to safety at a time when he is unable to save himself
8. The origami unicorn Deckard finds outside his apartment stands perfectly well in the original version of the film as a symbol of fertility and good fortune - hence Deckard’s self-affirming expression at finding it, rather than alarm he would have expressed at being given a message to confirm that he was a replicant.
These are very great reasons as to why he is not a replicant. The fact that Ridley Scott is forcing the thought of him being a replicant isn't good. As much of a great filmmaker as he is, and I love his films, I think he should let the viewers decide for themselves instead of writing the thought of Deckard being human.
All I can say is if he was a replicant. He must have been a top secret, highly funded project. What this must mean is he is a replicant designed to be as human as possible with increased memories and what not. He is more elite, unique and advanced than Rachel is. A unexpecting replicant to mirror humans for the sole purpose of becoming a Bladerunner. But it is very mind blowing thinking about it and I will accept the ending that Deckard is a human.
Roy, when he is shutting-down, clearly says to Deckard, "You People",,,,. .
He doesnt know
@@brunodimaggio9946or Roy does know but he thinks Deckard isn’t ready for that information yet
The issue of Deckard's real identity is purposely left as an ambiguity and an open question for the viewer.
Yes, in the original movie its an unanswered question.. But the versions released after the original release actually give clues that Deckard is a replicant. Deckard is not a replicant in the Novel, Do androids dream of electric sheep .
And the screen writer of Blade runner has said he wanted it to remain a mystery for the viewer to ponder. ThIs is why i prefer the original Blade runner movie release. Because its more interesting to not actually know one way or the other if Deckard is human or replicant. The screen writer said its the question thats interesting. The answer is boring. I agree with that.
The book quite clearly expresses Deckard as human.
I highly recommend Dick’s book that the film is based on.
@Luis Fernando The second movie makes him a human
@@brunodimaggio9946 no it doesn't? It still keeps it ambiguous.
@@TaxemicFanatic I don't think it proves he is human because they were working on different types of replicants. He could be a perfected nexus model or something entirely different. The problem is the movies and the book are totally different in many ways. The movie for instance has the scene of Rachael asking Deckard if he will kill her to and as she asks her eyes have a red flash in them. When he stands behind her and says no he won't kill her his eyes have the same red flash. Then there's things like the unicorn dream and gaff knowing about his dream and leaving the unicorn for Deckard to find at the end of the movie. Deckard knew about Rachaels dream because he had her file and knew her implant. The movie leans to him being a replicant with endless clues like that but the book tends to lean towards him being human. I think in the movie he is a replicant that was perfected but the knowledge of his existence and/or trial phase died with Tyrell so he was never officially listed to he retired. Reading the book I would say he is definitely human.
@Luis tornar deckard replicante no meio do filme, oi um erro irreparável. Isso invalidou todo dia urso do roy betty que achava ele humano.
I love that the ambiguity of Decker’s origin is the whole point. He’s the melding point - where you can’t actually tell where human starts/ends. Self consciousness is human. It’s fun to ask and imagine - but it doesn’t need to be answered.
Remember Deckard picking up, studying, then nodding in appreciation at that tiny, origami, unicorn figure? That's the real give-away, here. Earlier in the film, we saw Deckard have a vision of a running unicorn, so how could Gaff possibly have known of this vision unless he knew that Deckard's memories were also implanted? No wonder Gaff shouted: "Too bad she won't live, but then again, WHO DOES?". Another huge hint that Deckard was indeed a Replicant. Mystery solved.
Unicorn only in Younger version
mystery solved 🤓
He nods like that at the origami unicorn because he realizes who has been there
The question whether Deckard is a replicant or not doesn't need to be answered for this film to work. The movie is about one of the most human qualities: doubt, which is the root of all religion. Deckard is transformed from a non-believer into a believer, BECAUSE he has doubts, not because he knows the truth. This makes him exceptionally human, even if he is a replicant (which he probably is). That's what makes this film so perfect.
great thoughts. many say faith makes us human, but doubts do, really.
would you care to expand on how you would apply Occam's Razor to your comment on tyrells niece? I fairly understand the razor principle but find it hard to see where it fits here? thanks.
You guys saying Ridley Scott doesn't understand Blade Runner are hilarious. HE MADE IT. It's not the same as the book, and the enduring magic of the film, and the story, is that it's NOT ANSWERED, because that keeps us talking. Unlike the Matrix, as a comparable philosophical sci-fi film, which leaves no question unanswered, and ten plus years later, nobody's arguing about it. But they still are about Blade Runner THIRTY years later.
The answer is, nobody knows, and they never will. Which keeps a profound question of the nature of life alive.
if you're a religious sort, you probably want to settle on an answer, not needing proof, but having had *enough* to support your answer.
If you're an atheist, you're more than likely OK with not knowing, which in my opinion is a richer place to be.
Matrix leaves no questions unanswered...? How about how Neo can use his powers outside the Matrix? That's been discussed for over 10 years.
+leonjollans just cause he made it doesn't mean shit dude !! making something and not really fully understanding is the bases on what directors work by !! all of them do it they will make a movie and years later come to realize what the movie really means and not just a screen play ! I can tell this is way over your head so ill stop hurting you little brain !!
leonjollans he didnt make it he only directed it. if the writers, producers, and actors think that the replicant idea is fucking dumb then its nothing but the directors terrible idea
-Interviewer: "There is a rumour you’ll be making a Blade Runner sequel."
-Ridley Scott: "It’s not a rumour - it’s happening. With Harrison Ford? I don’t know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don’t know how long he can live [laughs]. And that’s all I’m going to say at this stage."
A valid argument can be made for both Deckard being a replicant & for him being human. I think you can watch the movie through either lense and it works.
I personally find Deckard far more interesting as human, figuratively being replicant-like & getting involved + running away with Rachel. So, I prefer it that way but I have watched the movie through the replicant Deckard lense & that totally works too. I think it's rather interesting that it can work either way regardless of what Ridley's preference is.
Awesome piece of sci-fi movie making. A special blend of story telling, motion picture, sound & music. A work of art imo. A very creative & collaborative team worked on BR & it shows.
Good point.
Deckard could be a newer model like Rachel. You could conjecture anything really.
Newer model, just slower, weaker, less stamina and hating it´s job/mission, but still He was sent to hunt down 4 BETTER FIGHTING MODELS - What a beautiful peace of Replicant He makes, LOLOLLLLLL
@waldenpondogre In the director's cut, Gaff (Olmos) has a habit of making small matchstick and origami figures, and near the end of the film he leaves a small paper unicorn for Deckard to find - a message that he knows about Deckard's unicorn "memories"/dreams - just as Deckard knew about Rachael's "memories" (mere implants from Tyrell's neice) - implying that Deckard is also a replicant. Without the origami unicorn (cut from other versions I think), the unicorn dream doesn't mean much
Deckard does not have super strength it shows in the fight seen with Roy
I dream of flying but that does not make me a bird or aircraft
Any other human would be dead after all those replicant fights. Priss would have made his eyeballs pop out of his head, for one.
A normal person would have died
He was next-gen. More human, less strong.
This bothered me a lot for a long time yes but as the text in the beginning of the film says Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL
CORPORATION advanced Robot evolution
into the NEXUS phase - a being virtually
identical to a human - known as a
The NEXUS 6were superior
in strength and agility, and at least equal
in intelligence, to the genetic engineers
who created them.
but youre a cat😂😁
He reminds me so much of Bryan Cranston! Love it!
@SmokiSounds Depends on your beliefs. The film had an implied religious thread in it - albeit a sterile copy. When meeting his maker, Tyrell, Roy decided he 's like an imposter God. Roy believed he had a soul which Tyrell could not have created. He also called him "fucker" which meant more than an insult. The question of the soul was partly implied by the symbolism of the dove and also the unicorns. The origami unicorn was also a hint that Deckard was a man-made human - a replicant.
In the book he is human, he passes the emotional response test.
The Unicorn memory could be a common one studied by many bladerunners like the spider one. Plus, if they want to think he's human it was careless to give him a common memory or give anyone below Tyrell access to it if it is Deckards actual unique memory.
Hampton Fancher said it best when he said that the answer was stupid, it's all about the question.
There's a moment when Rachael has run away from Tyrell and is hiding in Deckard's unit. She has just saved his life by shooting Leon. She say's, 'will you come after me'? Her eyes have a slight glow of red to the pupils. Then Deckard goes, 'no' and walks around behind her then says, 'but somebody will'. And as he does his eyes have a slight glow of red to the pupils too. That's the moment I thought, mmmmmm I think Deckard is a Replicant too !
@DragonOfAlkor
yea, I know each version of the film they do some slight changes.
True, Ridley Scoot played it both ways on purpose. but...
The whole point of the point is " what is human?" & can you tell the difference?
That's why I always believed he was a replicant and Deckard is unaware of this himself.
Before Deckard falls from the ledge, Roy Batty grabs him & yells ; "Ah, kinship!". Suggesting they were family. He also never attempted to kill Deckard. Roy only killed humans in the film
I do agree that Unicorn scene does "imply" that Deckard might be a replicant. But Bryant sees Deckard as a human. It was the worst case (involving replicants) Police Department ever faced. If Deckard was a replicant, then police would not have given him the case. This is because there is no guarantee that Deckard will kill 4 replicants if Deckard was a replicant. This was the type of the case that needed trust. That's why Bryant said to Deckard "I need old Blade runner. I need your magic."
When Phillip K Dick was doing research for one of his novels (The man in the High Castle I believe) he did a tonne of research on the Nazis and at one point he asked himself about the people who would go over there and chase such monsters. That's the birth of Blade Runner right there. I think the better question isn't so much whether or not he is in actuality but do you think he becomes closer to one in spirit?
There's no way Deckard can be a replicant. What I gathered from the movie was the internal struggle a human could feel as he chased down and hunted these replicants. Deckard seemed to experience more conflict throughout the movie. Especially when he went to kiss Rachel, it seemed to me he was thinking "wtf am I doing? Am I really developing feelings for this replicant?" It's like he started to respect the replicants and empathise with them, especially when he listens to Roy's speech.
I don't really think there's any running theme in the movie about him being an actual replicant. Also after reading a quote from Philip K Dick on the wiki page about themes in Blade Runner, that is pretty much what I thought when I watched the movie.
+Spacemonkeymojo One also has to realize, Rachel didn't know she was a Replicant. Having an Artificial Human do the dangerous job of hunting other artificial humans makes more sense than using an actual human who has been developed for years. Plus there's the scene where his eyes glow so that's something.
+Spacemonkeymojo One word: Unicorn. Deckard is a more advanced replicant like Rachel, who doesn't know he is a replicant. But the movie questions his humanity by showing the unicorn in the dream and then the final scene that shows the little unicorn origami made by Gaff, followed by the phrase "too bad she won't live but then again who does...". That's him saying Deckard is a replicant too, with implanted memories (the unicorn) like Rachel (the spider). You could say the unicorn origami was a coincidence, but I don't think so: Gaff knew about his dream, his implanted memory and you can tell also by the ways the chief of the police looks at Deckard sometimes or every time they approach him they always have this menacing presence, treating him not in a very polite way (interrupting his dinner...).
Thomas 94 It's so funny on how people argue whether he's a replicant or not. My view on the situation is whether or not it actually matters. The whole movie's message is that these replicants have human emotions, so why would it matter if Deckard was a replicant or not?
+Thomas 94 I completely forgot to reply to your post. I'm pretty sure the unicorn was Ridley Scott's idea. Wikipedia (and yes you can argue as to the accuracy of the website, I personally believe it is accurate) says that Phillip K Dick wrote Deckard as a human in the book. You could argue that in the movie Scott creates ambiguity as to what he is, but the book didn't, i.e. he might be a replicant in the movie but in the book he's definitely human.
Spacemonkeymojo I believe Scott didn't write him as a replicant, but wrote him to be ambiguous. He most likely thought it didn't matter whether he was human or not.
I've seen everything backwards and forward. Bladerunner is a masterpiece. It is flawless and I will promote this opinion forever.Thankyou for real entertainment.
Flaw: the narration where Deckard says Rachael is a special made w/ indefinitely long life. That is incongruous with the plot. Also the initial enamoration of Rachael for Deckard after which she kills for him, lacks explanation. It is like the flechada of an Hispanic telenovela -- sudden inexplicable enamoration.
This movie is bad-ass! One of the best EVER!
In the director's cut Deckard dreams of a unicorn and near the end of the movie Gaff leaves an origami unicorn in Deckard's apartment. That's why i think Deckard is a replicant.
It’s in the theatrical cut as well
Oh my god did I just reply to a comment from 12 years ago
@@mayab4326yes you did and I am responding to a comment from 8 months ago
b7r7u7c7e nailed it perfectly ! Deckard is a Replicant he didn't know it but he was starting to suspect (unicorn dream red eyes) When he comes to the Police Station Bryant seems edgy around him Deckard tells him 'he was quit when he came in here' & Bryant tells him 'he's nothing he's just little people' What is Bryant holding over him to take on the Blade Runner job ? Time has made this film more amazing You can watch it 100 times & still pick up little hints & clues that Deckard is a Replicant.
I agree with flyinhawiannn, In my view you need a replicant to catch a replicant, But what makes this film interesting is that its is not clear whether Deckard is a replicant or not. I think this is because it is important for Deck not to know him self, if he is a replicant or not in order to do his job. leaving the obvious clues aside... mr Scott says, Deck beings to develop his own emotional responses and feels compassion for Rachel. The first time we meet Deck is his first day on the job.
@DragonOfAlkor
Also, Deckard is pulled from "retirement". He is relatively too young looking to be retired.
he's young (40years old) has black & white photos ,how?
He was probably given the memories of an old retired cop.
Him getting out of his retirement was really reawakening from his stasis of sorts.
great to find this comment of scott as i thought about exactly that strange possibility after seen the movie twice :-) but more important for me was finally that LOVE itself does not matter either you are human or not. the white pigeon seems to me a symbol for EACH CONSCIOUSNESS that sees with its eyes life, universe and how big it is all what we call EXISTENCE :-) i love the film...
correct me if im wrong-its so long since Ive seen or read this story but the way i interpreted is that Deckard was a replicant as we see him dreaming of the unicorn and the origami unicorn is Gaff's way of saying that he knows what Deckard has been thinking/dreaming (because replicants are given the same dreams, like the story about the spider). Any thoughts?
I fear that the sequel will reveal that Deckard is indeed a replicant and we will be expected to be surprised by this. With the absence of Sean Young (Rachel) in the new film, I expect some kind of sad story about her demise. What made the original "Blade Runner" a success was the slowly evolving romance between Deckard and Rachel. I expect the sequel to simply overlook this entire matter -- perhaps introducing some other romance. But then we are presented with a reboot of Blade Runner, not a true sequel that can somehow lift enough material from the original but not copy it in an exact sense. In the original movie I was never troubled about Deckard being a replicant or not. I was simply glad that he captured Rachel and fled off to who knows where. Whether their bond consisted of one human and a replicant or two replicants just did not matter to me. It still doesn't matter to me. Deckard did what any human would do -- take Rachel and exit the business.
I wonder what you think now.
@DaveUndertaker Your statement about Roy is only partially true. Roy did indeed demonstrate what you just said, but it wasn't something he was capable of projecting until his very last moments of his life. It was his own unescapable death that gave him insight. Before that, he was a very bad boy.
@dewfall56
ya, well they took it off. because it didnt belong in it.
anyway like I said before Ridley Scott made the movie so we will be confused, whether he is or not.
The movie is about human/replicant whats the difference?.
But in the end, He can't be both. Replicants try to be accepted as human & not humans try to be replicant.
So logically Deckard is a replicant considering the point of the movie.
not to mention the unicorn origami on the floor.
@treysmithorama Thank you Trey...Yup What Scott was saying came out wrong. Probably didn't even realize it.
I remember reading the Phillip K Dick book "Do androids dream of electric sheep." It was changed I guess, to be more modern but I did enjoy the movie. I like Scott because I thought "alien" was a great film also. Did you ever hear any controversy that Harrison Ford Did not want to do the voiveover? And the studio insisted? Better without it!
@MrContatoindireto basically what I am saying is that science fiction isn't about laser beams and whatnot. Human expression and feelings are extremely important in science fiction and should not be considered desperate elements in science fiction. Just take a look at such other works that I will list with my remaining characters. 1984, Brave New World, Ghost in the Shell, Fahrenheit 45, Alien (the other great Scott movie) A Clockwork Orange, 2001 A Space Odyssey, They Live!, And Lo! The Bird
@desotowright No, I didn't read your other comment, I read only your Top Comment with 19 thumbs up. I don't agree that it cheapens the story if Deckard is a replicant, in fact I think it makes it significantly stronger. It's also very clear that Deckard is a replicant if you read the book.
Great point, fade blue. The beginning of the film also establishes Deckard as a human. In the beginning of the film, Inspector Bryant tells Deckard this when Deckard showed no interest in taking the case - "If you are not a cop, you are little "people." Deckard was a "retired" cop who was forced to come back to the job. The life span of a replicant is only four years. Ridley Scott is a Good Director. But his ideas aren't good - Just think of Ray Liotta and his brain as an example in Hannibal.
The film asks: What is existence? What defines existence? That is what the photographs symbolize. Photographs define our reality and link us with past events. That is why the Replicants took pictures of themselves, they were trying to establish a long lasting connection with the real world. Roy's speech at the end of the film is all about how ephemeral memories are and how they last only as long a a person's life does. You are free to think Deckard is a replicant, but you are wrong.
@coolbuddydude1 I'm not concerned with how people of the future view replicants mainly because they are characters in a movie. Anyway how replicants are regarded in the film is made clear enough. But the film was made for us, people in the present, to analyze the practice of creating these replicants that might as well be human (they are more human than not), and using them as reluctant, disposable slaves. The film poses many philosophical questions, but this one seems most prominent.
Someone answer this question to me: If Deckard is a Replicant, Why did it hurt when Roy Batty broke his fingers? Pris put her hand in scalding hot water and it caused no pain, and Leon put his hand in liquid nitrogen and his hand did not break or hurt or get frostbite. The one scene where you see a quick glimpse of Deckard's eyes glow was a lighting issue, I know because I have seen and heard enough interviews from the crew.
Personally I've never thought Deckard was a replicant, but if ONE detail was to cast doubt on that, then it would have to be the collection of photographs on his piano. I got the feeling that they were of people who didn't mean anything to him, but he collected them to feel some kind of attachment to anything that WASN'T related to him or his mercenary lifestyle.
@yugcisum All six replicants are accounted for. One dies at their attempt to brake in at the corporation but is "fried by the electrical fence" or something like that.
Deckard is a replicant with Gaffs memories, watch it again, story checks out.
@itchytastyurr That and the shoots of where his eye lenses are red, proofs to me that he is a replicant.
Scott has stated more than once - on video and in print - that Deckard is a replicant. Deckard is not meant to be one of the escapees, any more than Rachel was. He's just another replicant.
But he shows no sign of super strength/speed/reflexes?
That's because he's a completely new model of replicant. He is unlike the others.
Watzo Arghhhh... Thanks. I kind of noticed seeing the red tint in Harrison Ford's character in one sneaky scene when Deckard and the girl replicant (forgot her name) were in his apartment the second time. It was very brief but you could just see the red tint in his eyes.
Iroquois Plisken Yeah, there are a few clues and small hints to suggest that he is :)
*****
We're talking about the movie, not the book and as far as I've heard, the two haven't got all that much in common in the first place.
And the basic idea of the movie is that these androids can have as much or even more emotions and empathy as normal humans. "More human than human" is the motto of the Tyrell Corporation for a reason, so there really isn't a clear line that distinguishes humans from replicants. It is very possible for Deckard to be a replicant without knowing it. You remember how many questions it took for Deckard to figure out, whether or not Rachel is a replicant? More than 100, because she's a new model with implanted memories, making her even more human, but without the superhuman strength and intelligence stuff. That's the model Deckard belongs to, I think.
***** You're absolutely right. The movie is nothing like the book and that is by design. Deckard's wife, Wilbur Mercer (a key character that symbolizes the world's artificial new understanding of humanity) , Buster Friendly (another key character who is what man has BECOME)... all of these characters have been removed without a trace in the movie. The motivation for doing the job and the terrible twist that comes with the payment is even gone.
The only things the book and movie have in common are the central message and the names of a few characters. The central message is COMPLETELY kept intact, but it's arrived at by a new method.
It was a look at life & what is enjoyment of life...
Blade runner is not a science fiction movie, its a great metaphor.
@Ashburnalley5 Of course, it is well known to Blade Runner fans that Ridley said Deckard is a Replicant. But he said that Years after the film was released, when the fans speculated if Deckard is a replicant. Ford maintains Deckard is Human. The creator of the story and characters Philip K Dick intended Dekard to be human. If youwant to think Deckard is a replicant that is your choice.
Is Ridley Scott a Replicant ?
We're gonna have to ask him some questions...
I think in the movie the short lifespan was so they would not question their purpose. Humans take about 5 years to build primary socialization. Makes sense that an andriod could do it in 4.
Spolier Alert: the scene with Sean Young finding out she is a replicant is a heartbreaker moment.
@15catsburg well theres going to be either a sequel or a prequel and Ridley Scott is onboard to direct it
Replicants are a metaphor for our own fear of death and the need of find the creator or something that can turn us imortals.
@NVLUTZ007 Harrison has actually said in a few interviews that he felt Deckard was human, and he at least WANTED him to be human so the audience had someone to connect with since a majority of the cast are either androids, or unlikable people (IE Bryant.)
he could potentially appear more human simply because he has had a longer life thus far, meaning that he would develop more of his own emotions than a regular replicant, since this is the way in which they develop, as said by the police chief.
I think he's a replicant of an earlier generation than the nexus 6. Why endanger a human to destroy the replicants? When he's in the the Police Chief's office and is about to leave and the Cheif says "stop right there, you know who you are? you're not cops, you're little people." and Deckard says "No choice, huh?" It doesn't sound like he had any "human" rights. Just my thoughts
People thinking Deckard is a replicant are completing missing the fact that if Captain Bryant or Gaff knew he was a replicant, they would have never let him live or be a Blade Runner in the first place, especially Bryant. It wasn't until after 2019 and later in Blade Runner 2049 where the later replicant models were allowed to be Blade Runners because they were more "compliant." Having Deckard be a replicant at a time when other replicants were running wild killing people would be the biggest plot hole ever. It also defeats the purpose of a real man becoming dehumanized by his life and trying to love a machine that is becoming more human with empathy than him, which was the original intent of the movie before the Director/Final Cut edition BS. Don't let Ridley Scott do the whole George Lucas thing and trick you into thinking there is a deeper meaning then there really is.
00SoldierofFortune00 hes never been invested in stories he films to such an extent, why wouldn't he just say so
@GardenOfLoveMUSIC It's actually kinda funny you mentioned the line between, as there is a tribute to Blade Runner called A Blurred Line made for RPG Maker 2000. It deals with the blurred line between man and machine. It was very crude, but obvious the guy loved BR very much.
I think it makes perfect sense that Bladerunners are replicants. Let the replicants take the risk. Not humans.
@sepaltura22: I could'nt agree more ! Gaff is human ! He makes a small unicorn out of foil..While sparing Rachel's lifen at the end or near the end of the film depending on what cut of the film you see.,..Deckard's dream is of an unicorn ! Showing his memories are fake too ! The unicorn is a marker by Tyrell Corperation !! "More human than human is our motto!"
I believe that the strongest Impact the film can make is more about Deckard feeling like a Replicant, although he isn´t. A clearly drawn line between Man and Machine, slowly blurring away on an emotional level...
@coolbuddydude1 You make a point about the ambiguity of human verses replicant. In the opening lines of the film it says that Tyrell corp advanced robot evolution into the nexus phase, a being virtually identical to a human. The way I interpret that, as well as the subsequent conversations of Roy Batty with Chew and Sebastian, is that replicants are really laboratory made, engineered humans. I assert they are human because human physiology is the template for replicants. How is that different?
this movie is fascinating
Ridley Scott understands his own work, but doesn't seem to understand when an idea for his work, well, doesn't work. Deckard being a replicant in Blade Runner is one of those ideas.
Harrison Ford thought the idea was BS. Rutger Hauer thought it was BS. The producer thought it was BS. The screenwriters thought it was BS. The studio thought it was BS. The author of the book would've considered it BS. And the reason why the debate continues to rage on is because a large percentage of the fans think it's BS. Even the unicorn dream could be applied to Rachel.
Cody Trail Having said all that, you failed to mention no matter who, no matter how many might think the opposite, if you are a true 'visionaire' and you believe in your own instincts and ideas, then go for them. No matter what.
Which is why Scott envisioned Deckard as a replicant, such a brilliant departure from the novel. An idea that came out, let's not forget that, out of a Brit.
Question: you must be American right? I'm not offending you.
Let's also not forget that the ending, and not the director's cut, was so lame with all that insulting pseudo-happy ending. But HAD to be done because American audiences could not have dealt with the harsh, uncompromising end that Scott wanted. And ending that still seems to be going pretty strong.
p.s. In case you missed that, Deckard is indeed a replicant.
So you're saying Ridley Scott's idea for Deckard being a replicant is brilliant one mainly because he's a Brit? Spare me.
I am American, but I don't care if Ridley Scott is from Cambodia. His "vision" doesn't sit well with many Blade Runner fans, or others involved with the film, and isn't accepted to this day. Why? Because it doesn't make sense within the film, and comes across as stupid.
So P.S., Deckard is indeed a human, unless you're Ridley Scott.
Cody Trail No, not at all. But your answer fails to impress me. As you have no fantasy. Which is why someone outside of your mental process came out with a great idea, fought over by a system that cannot change too much on things.
It's not really that difficult concept to grasp. Just calm down and think about it.
+Matteo Prezioso I've seen this film a dozen times, in both the theatrical and director's cut. It doesn't really matter which version I'm watching because the outcome is the same: this movie failed to lead me to believe that Deckard isn't human. In fact, I could almost guarantee you if Ridley Scott hadn't thrown in the unicorn dream later on, most wouldn't even question it. Why? Because the movie was originally filmed with the lead actor playing a human character. The only concept difficult to grasp is how you can find the replicant idea more believable.
+Cody Trail That's why the inclusion of the unicorn dream was brilliant...that's the whole point of the movie isn';t it? To question the difference between humans and replicants and how do you draw the line. I've seen this movie a billion times and it's my favorite sci-fi movie ever (together with 2001) and I think that the choice of questioning Deckard's humanity does not only make sense but is also genius and adds a whole new level of complexity within the movie. Everything seems to indicate he is a human but after he has examined Rachel you can tell he has some doubts and then he has the unicorn dream, with the unicorn origami at the end. To me it's pretty clear that he is a special kind of replicant like Rachel and that the police (Gaff) knew about it while he didn't. Also the way the chief of police and Gaff treat him suggests that...This ambiguity, the double way of reading it (human or replicant) is the question at the center of the movie, that's why it's brilliant.
@coolbuddydude1 He retired from being a policeman not because he was at retirement age, but because he'd "had a belly full of killing." In the theater release version Deckard's narration spoke of him reading the want ads looking for a job. He said (paraphrasing) "They don't advertise for killers in the want ads. That's what I was, ex-cop, ex-blade runner, ex-killer."
if deckard is a replicant he must be a more advanced or prototype replicant because he doesnt posess the same strength as Roy. being advanced as in being a more human strengthed replicant rather than strong like the villian Roy was....Thats my theory anyway.
That's assuming a replicant that's programmed to believe he is a man wont behave like a man.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ Sssooooo its basically the cliche plot twist where he was an android/robot/machine/etc all along, but was more human than anyone/ any of them?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ yknow the plot in the shitty terminator film (salvation)
+Dman The difference in "Blade Runner" is that the audience is only left to question whether or not Deckard is a replicant, but the answer is never completely revealed within the story.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ true, I gues I can excuse it for that.
@RainmanCT lucky you that had the chance to see BR at the theather... i wasn't yet born!
:27 he means Tyrell's neice
clues to replicant, when Gaff first tells him Bryant want to speak with him Ford's head moves 45 degrees and sez Bryant huh?
then @ Bryant's office, Deckard can't understand why the replicants would want to break into Tyrell's office, he does the head thing again, because it's beyond his comprehension, Bryant at this point looks uneasy and says something like Well you tell me pal, that's what you're here for. he has no choice but to do it, it's his job, function
I accept that Deckard is a replicant. It's Ridley Scott's movie so he can say whatever about it. And the clues are very clear on the Final Cut of the film.
Here's a potential thought, maybe the WHOLE society are ALL replicants. I watched the documentary where it says the original story from Dick came from the journal of an SS officer who wrote "I can't sleep because of the screams of children". His idea was that these people are not human, kids are screaming, he's sad because he can't sleep. I think other interpretations are 'maybe' possible, but in any case, now with the internet we all basically have full view of all the wars and inhumanity, but although we aren't guards, like the movie line says, 'if you arne't cops, your little people'. So we essentially live in a world where we AREN"T 'human' because the systems set up have us 'guarding the camp' while we are 'victims' seeing the daily suffering on the news. So NOBODY in the film is 'human', you certainly can't look at ANY of the people in the film and go "that person is structurally different from that replicant". Its probably not an original thought as so many have hashed out htis film, but its ONLY the replicants that are human. The 'humanity' has to be programmed in, you have to have a programmer go "ok, we want this memory to be front and center, but not this one". Which enables the humans to simply take 'memory' for granted, if they even HAD a pleasant memory to go by. The issue then is WHY Roy becomes homicidal, or why can they kill so easily, but then you realize the HUMANS have no problem killing, so that aspect is no different.
@coolbuddydude1 I think the narration helped a lot of people understand the film in the early days before we had all this conversation and web pages that explain it a million different ways. I understant Riddley Scott was against it, but since at heart it is something of an art film, without some explaination I think people would have left the theater scratching their heads and feeling dumb and dissappointed. The only real difference I see between human and replicant is in how they are created.
"if you're not a cop, you're little people". deckard is human
wasn't that tyrrells niece ?
mrcsp666 Yes
I think Roy knew he was a replicate, reason why he didn't kill him.
Roy COULDNT kill him, and he sure as hell tried. Roy died before he could catch Deckard
@desotowright he's a replicant, look on bbc website Scott admits it, its to do with deckards dream about a unicorn, then at the end that guy makes an mini unicorn saying it was his memories not Deckards because replicants have no earlier memories..
I am talking that today ppl are just interested in empty entertainment and always i see ppl evaluating Blade Runner only in terms of science fiction and special effects and its not the point of the beauty of blade runner.
Of course it has too, but not only. I can tell you a lot of science fiction that is not more than what i told before. Empty entertainment. And, of course, its not the case of this fantastic film.
If Deckard was unknowingly a replicant, what better way for Scott to prepare Ford for the role than tell him Deckard is human? Just a thought.
Also... You wouldn't want a bunch of Roy Batty's running around with no expiration date. Eventually they would join together, make a "pride" and take over. The idea that Deckard and Rachael are prototypes is pretty cool. It's also creepily similar to what defense industry does now. A new weapon system proving itself in battle means billions for the manufacturer.
@coolbuddydude1
Also, Ridley Scoot played it both ways on purpose.
The whole point of the point is " what is human?" & can you tell the difference
I think people want to interpret it that way, but I don't think Deckard is a replicant. Of course, it's all personal opinion.
As I understand, and I'm sure others might have already explained, the four year lifespan was an intentional design to help keep control of the replicants. As they get older, they become more complex and develop human like emotions which causes them to rebel because they realize they're basically slaves.
Rick is an replicant of Gaff the badass bounty hunter who was incapable of doing what he does best. He knew about the unicorn because he dreamt it himself. He was Rick's shadow throughout the movie. Tell me how the heck does rick survive a karate chop on the throat by a replicant capable of lifting 4 tons of steel when that hit will kill you in a instant by a normal person? Why is Rick so inexperience? He seems to not even know the droids and even questions what a specific model is.
+William Hurst Ridley Scott thought that Deckard was a replicant. But Philip Dick made it clear Deckard was a human.
The story is about a human Deckard being coming like a replicant ( his ex wife called him "cold fish")and replicants becoming like humans. At the end the replicant Rachel helps saves Deckard to become in touch with his humanity. Deckard then saves the replicant Rachel and treats her as human .
EVERYBODY GOT IT?
henochparks I disagree.
YOU GOT IT?
+Hideo Kojima I recommend read the book. This suggest that all the live in the earth is artificial.
+henochparks I read the book and it's quite different. I agree that Philip K Dick made his character a human being, but the Deckard (and the story) of the movie is very different. In Blade Runner, Deckard is definitely a replicant.
+pepto Director Ridley Scott did not like the version of the movie were Deckard (voiced by Harrison Ford) is narrating the story. The narration version hints that Deckard's wife is calling "cold" but does not tell us why.
My take on Dick's story is that Deckard a human is becoming like a robot. i.e. a replicant. He meets a relicant (Rachel) who is becoming human. Her influence returns him to his humanity. Therefore she is rewarded by being treated as a human. Thus what is a real human?
Where you not watching the film? Deckard is likely the next version of the replicant, he is supposed to be "more human than human". He was imprinted with the memory of a retired cop. Bryant knows that Deckard is a replicant and that is why he is given this dangerous job because he is expendable.
And in conclusion, its common to see science fiction films talking about science fiction stuff. Blade Runner has it too, but its concerned about much more than that. Its a great speach about human feelings and fears and a lot of other things. Anyway, i am not saying anything bad about the movie, its impossible!
@dvlarry Having read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" I have to disagree with you. There are a number of places in the book where Deckard's existence is called into question. He's a cop, yet he encounters a police station, staffed with officers, he had no previous knowledge of. He suspects that they are all replicants, but this is highly unlikely in reality.
Then there's his wife. One of the replicants he is tasked to kill looks exactly like his wife.
The idea is that we could all be replicants and not know.
Maybe reading the book from which Blade Runner's plot was taken from would help.I have'ne read it yet and I'm planning on it.
I believe it's called ''Do androids dream of electric Sheep'' or something like that.
The point of the movie is ambiguity. You dont know if he is one, he might be. And this is what makes Gaff's last statement remembered by Deckard in the elevator so precious. Saying definitely if he is human or a replicant just shows you havent got a clue as to what the movie is about.
The Unicorn says it all, how else could Gaff have known? REMEMBER what Bryant said about the replicants that escaped, 6 total, 3males 3females, 1 got fried and they lost the rest leaving 5 but only shows 4 to deckard - Leon,Batty,Zhora and Pris, there is one missing.. Deckard was either the one fried or he was captured, either way he is a reprogrammed replicant, Gaff is the Genuine Bladerunner checking up on Deckard. Ridley's stance is standoff as he still wants people talking about this forever
@MrContatoindireto What? It's still a science fiction movie, in fact that is the entire point of science fiction is to be a metaphor for the modern world. What are you talking about?
(cont) 'Then again, who does?' , implying that replicants ARE humans, or exist in the human state. They are, to all intents and purposes, human too.
I don't want to harp on this too much, but you are wrong and you have misunderstood Blade Runner if you think Deckard is a Replicant. I can't convince you otherwise, but you are performing some very skilled mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. Deckard's humanity is meant to contrast with all the Replicants in the film, but we also question his humanity because the film's theme is about the difference between human and artificial intelligence.