The Ending Of Blade Runner Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- It’s the question that Blade Runner fans have been asking since the film first came out in 1982 -- is Rick Deckard a replicant? The sci-fi neo-noir sees Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) hunting down replicants -- androids who act extremely human -- in a futuristic Los Angeles, but people have been wondering for years if the film’s ending is trying to tell us that Deckard is actually a replicant himself.
There are different cuts of the movie that seem to offer different takes, but we’ll be looking at the Final Cut today. Let’s take a look at one explanation of the ending of Blade Runner.
#BladeRunner #Movie #Film
The Origami Unicorn | 0:00
Gaff is creepy | 1:15
Who's the man? | 1:49
The director's take | 2:23
But wait, there's more | 3:08
The question is the answer | 3:58
Read Full Article: www.looper.com/85834/ending-bl... - Розваги
What other iconic science fiction films would you like us to cover next?
If all Looper got out of the Gaff character was that he is "creepy", then I would say that you don't fully understand the character at all. Or the storyline. Gaff was cool by the way.
The Terminators movies
Aliens!!!
Frank Herbert's Dune ..
I am curious why no studio or director bother to reboot Dune ? Now Dune even has its own sequels after the original stories, if i am not mistaken there are few more Dune Novels after the original Dune..
The galaxy of Dune is wide and cover lots of Galactic Houses with deep background , i think the political environment is even more complex than the Star Wars or Star Trek Galaxy .. but strangely enough no one ever take the opportunity to make it into a popular movie .. the original movie was not bad, but it was lacking in term of execution and Technology by then, it would be great if Dune has a modern day Reboot
Deckard is definitely a replicant for another reason : his job. How can a human do a cleaning job like this ? What if a human inadvertively « cleans » another human ? If a replicant does the job, he's just a machine and if he fails, he gets replaced like a dead toaster.
I thought Gaff left that Unicorn there at Deckard's place to let him know that he was there and could have killed Rachel while she was sleeping, but instead chose not to. When he told Deckard that it's "Too bad she'll never live, but then again who doe's" he didn't mean it in a "i'm going to kill her eventually type of way" but instead in a sympathetic type of way, understanding that she is still technically a replicate that will never truly "Live" in the human sense of the word. And the Unicorn he made Symbolizes her "Rarity and Uniqueness" which later gets explained in the 2049 movie.
that stupid dreams inserted later ruined the whole movie. What you said is true, Gaff let him be with her, actually in the original release in 1983 Deckard explain it while driving it. Thanks God, BR2049 fit with the original release as with the final cut or director's cut.
Gaffs line was implying to the replicants life span of 4 years before retirement not him going after rachel
The movie I watched did not have the unicorn dream. So, I agree with you. I also believed that, since Gaff was a Blade Runner, he could have killed, but he did not.
THATS EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGTH, not that Deckard is a replicant...
Makes sense to be honest!
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
beefyoso beautifull line
JOHNNNNN CENAAAAAA!!!!
Are you kidding??? It'd be interesting to hear that story!
Probably one the best lines ever spoken in a film.....come to think about it, probably one of the best lines ever spoken
+ian s No... It's good, but I'm sorry... The greatest line in cinema history will never have a place holder. Just too many
I think the biggest indicator that Deckard is human is how much he struggles physically against the replicants. Its shown to our face constantly. He gets his ass kicked constantly and is in real fear through his whole fight with Roy. It would make much more sense to be human especially with Roy’s dialogue at the end connecting the two. But yes, there is too much evidence in the movie that indicates he’s a replicant
I think if you remove the unicorn dream then there is no evidence at all that deckard is a replicant.
That means nothing. Bad argument since he doesn’t know what he is.
In 2049 Gosling killed replicants.
To do the job they want him to do, Deckard has to first believe that he's human, so he can't be given super abilities. I agree that if you remove the unicorn dream then there is little evidence that Deckard is a replicant but, with that dream and Gaff's origami in place, the conclusion that he is a replicant is almost inescapable.
Deckard is a human because replicants only live 4 years and there's blade runner 2049
nice answer@@Malt454
I used to think that Deckard being a Replicant was brilliant and made sense, but know I think that him being human gives the movie more meaning and is more poetic. But that's just me.
The fact that it's open to debate is one of the primary things that give the movie meaning! Whether he actually is or isn't a replicant is irrelevant. The fact that there's a question about it is what's relevant...
You, the audience, think he's real up until the very end. For all intents and purposes you cannot tell him, a replicant, apart from a human, and that's the genius of this film.
I understand what you're getting at, but the idea or theme that replicants can be "more human than human" brings the overarching theme of modernity full circle.
@@abloogywoogywoo Yes I agree
I agree 100%. That "twist" cheapens the philosophical question of the movie and turns it into a "GOTCHA!" moment at the very end. They should have just left it open-ended instead of changing the movie a bunch of times and then coming out and saying that he's a replicant.
Just from re-watching it last night (Final Cut), the film makes Deckard's humanity ambiguous but I realized if you decide he's a replicant then it takes most of the meaning out of the movie. To me, Blade Runner is about a human man who's lost his humanity and only regains it through the empathy of machines. If he's a replicant the whole time, then what's the point?
Completely and utterly wrong. You have misunderstood the movie. The ambiguity is one of the things that gives the movie meaning. Whether or not he's actually a replicant, and what people decide about it, is irrelevant. The fact that there is a question about it is what is relevant.
You interpret it your way, I'll interpret it mine. Don't tell me I've "misunderstood" anything. Meaning is subjective.
I agree the story has more impact when he is human.
Read the book, he is human. No doubt.
@@thenightbladefeeds that's literally his point though... He literally said the movie is ambiguous, the fact that it raises these questions is what matters.
I watched the original movie in the theater and never once thought decker was a skin job. Never once in all these years.
neither did I. This video just ruined the movie
Just watched it, he's not. He's an alcoholic who is too sick to go off world so he has to stay on earth
@Craig Scott Scott likes to mess with people
@@malcolmgerald in the book he's not a replicant but in the movie Scott changed that
@@rusted8157 Harrison Ford said Deckard is human. So who do you want to believe.
If Deckard is a replicant he is a terrible one. He is a lonely melancholy alcoholic that gets his ass kicked and is saved by Rachael. Then he gets his ass kicked again and can't make a jump that a dying Roy makes with ease and has to be saved cause he can barely hang on. He basically displays the opposite of every thing presented about replicants.
r. decline they gave him free will
Ruben Torres that doesn't explain how, terrible answer.
W3L7Y no bro it's awesome answer. Wwjd
Or he is the greatest replicant of them all, the whole point is to be indistinguishable from humans. This would make him the best replicant.
r. decline he said deckart didn't know he was a replicant that he thought he was human..should I spell out the rest for you
You calling me a moron Mr. Scott?
Yes he is
I personally think that Deckard being a human would make the movie more meaningful and fit more with the theme of blurring the lines between what makes someone human or less than human just like the author of the book said. During the movie, Deckard is slowly becoming more like a replicant because of being so secluded and due to the killing that he does for a living. On the other hand, we have the replicants who are becoming more human throughout the film and are feeling more emotions like love. As we reach the end, they both learn to accept love and end up with a fear of dying and thus their emotions are one in the same making them both seem incredibly human. I think that's why Roy saves him and let's him live because he knows what a scary thing death can be. That's my interpretation of it anyway.
Abby yeah, I think it's blurring the lines of what makes us human and what's real, what's good or evil. The replicants come off as killing machines, but as the movie continues, it turns out that they're very similar to humans, in some ways more human than actual humans. At the end it turns out that Roy and Dekker have lot in common. It makes you question so many different aspects of life, humanity and reality. Fantastic film. It's definitely a movie to watch a couple of times to have it sink in.
Abby were they afraid of dying or was that part of their program?
Yes, I agree making Deckard a replicant eliminates some of the blurred lines created on purpose about what is means to be alive and what it means to be a human. I kind of miss the one overdub where you hear Deckard's thoughts as he looks at the replicant that just saved his life but I otherwise prefer the directors cut. Most of the other are not needed.
It seems to me that fear of dying and love of life are not the same. Only the final one accepted that it was "time to die". The others were still only at the fear stage.
It is not only about humanity but what it means to be alive.
I think Decker was never meant to have a specific identity. The writer deliberately made efforts for us to question his being. And that's the whole point of the movie. That's how we never forget such movies, and that's how it lives forever in us.
"you've done a man's job, sir" in case anyone couldn't quite understand what Gaff said
Rachel was a babe
Yes she was and Imo the most tragic figure of the film.
Theo Weath I never knew what she looked like until I saw her in the flashback scene of 2049. I then watched the original Blade Runner for the first time ever because Of that scene and have become infatuated with her character. Every thing about her.
Play-a-maker hahaha, you're so funny! I wish I was as funny as you!
how old are you sweetie
Callofduty9
First of all, what the fuck? Infatuation is not good, specially not over a character and not the actor herself
Second of all, he wasn't speaking to you, and the fact that you got defensive over something that wasn't even about you because of your iffy statement obviously means you know what you said was iffy and the whole situation is awkward. You know it's off putting, and yet defend it.
Third of all, Deckard basically had raped her in the movie, but it was overlooked because of the romance branch. It's a confusing movie.
You know that this is not the ending explained. This is just you saying that Deckard is a replicant.
I watched this movie when it first came out in 1982 and I always thought Decker was a human, but the origami unicorn at the end had always puzzled me? What a Brilliant movie!!! There is still so much debate 39 years later, got to love it ❤️
I believe the unicorn represents Rachael, who is a one-of-a-kind Nexus-7 replicant with implanted memories, possibly more real than real. That's why she's not killed. She's unique and poses no threat to anyone.
He's not a human, he's not a replicant... he clearly states in the move that he is a "meat popsicle" and .... oh wait, wrong movie.
lol great reference!
MULTIPASS!
Gimi the cashhhhh 😩
😂
"You are Fiiiired!"
I think Harrison Ford is really a replicant.. who thinks he is a human actor... who is playing the part of a replicant... who thinks he is human... but then finds out he is a replicant.
But then he did not want to play the part of a replicant... so he just played the part of a human... when all along he was really a replicant. Or was he?
@jrb designer alliance plagiarism comes to mined
He's a dude, playing a dude, pretending to be another dude..
Deckard’s eyes glowing was a mistake during filming. Harrison Ford even said he accidentally stepped into close to the light that made Sean Young’s eyes glow.
If Deckard is a replicant, why give him an apartment, car, and let him wander around on his own when Gaff could retire all replicants involved. It probably would have saved Tyrell.
Also, there is a very large Unicorn in JF Sebastian’s apartment. Gaff saw it when he went through to collect Deckard’s gun.
Deckard also does not have the reflexes and aim of a replicant. When Deckard is attacked by Leon, Rachel saves him by landing a head shot on Leon, who is standing less than a foot away from Deckard. That’s very precise shooting for her and better than what Deckard could hit.
Yep, all fans of Deckerd replicant hypothesis forget that he is weaker then all other replicants. In the first version there was nothing supporting that hypothesis and paper unicorn was symbol of Rachel, who was the only replicant without termination date which is later said by Deckard. The dream with unicorn was added by director later, footage was taken from the movie Legend made by Scott after Blade Runner
It's because he is Nexus 7
Well said
Wojtek good to know About that footage.
@@wojtek1582 the thing is Nexus 7 models aren't as fast and strong as the Nexus 6, hence the power balance.
Deckard was a human becoming a robot emotionally. The narrative version Deckard's wife called him "cold fish". He got conquered by the robots, a sign he was human. The robots just wanted more life. The point? Rachel and the others are robots becoming human, valuing the important things of human life. Deckard accepts Rachel's need to be human which returns his humanity. Even Ridley Scott missed Philip Dick's message.
@@nicksterj Except he didn't take out Rachel ... Instead he preserved life as Roy did. Robots and humans learn that life has value. Too bad many humans today have not learned this.
@@nicksterj Good point. Yes because Deckard believed they were dangerous. He had a job to do. But Tyrel said Rachel was different. "special" . The genius of Blade Runner is the covert question which is "where do we draw the line between a human and a replicant?" Rachel had memories implanted in her. Her body was not like the others, it was part human. Was she a replicant or a reconstructed human? Who was she? What was she? Deckard did not know. Her desire to be human and saving Deckard must have caused Deckard to question what she was. Roy saving Deckard must have caused Deckard to question what Roy was becoming, and he Deckard was doing. At the end Deckard realized his cold emotions were changing. He was no longer going to be judge , jury and executioner. He was going to live and let live. Something only real humans can feel. Deckard must have realized Rachel and Roy were the reason he found his feelings, his humanity. Thus he wanted to preserve life. He could not restore the replicants he had terminated but he could save Rachrel's life. Who are we? Does it matter? What matters is how we act. How long do we live ..No one knows. . I think Philip Dicks book was important for us today. Are we becoming "cold fish".? or are we going to find our humanity? Good to discuss with you.
Looks like Ridley didn't even know the story he was telling.
He should be confronted about his insult towards people who thought of Deckard as human.
Well, I saw it when it first came out, and I've watched the Director's cuts versions - and I have only just found the discussion about him being a replicant? It NEVER occurred to me ever!
Yeah because Ridley Scott made that whole „Twist“ up himself, years after the movie was released.
Without the later added unicorn dream there isn’t a single scene where you are unsure if decker is a human…
I just rewatched this movie, its all about Roy Batty though, and that legendary ending
To be honest, I don't need to know either way. I'd rather be like Deckard. Thinking he's human, with maybe a questioning doubt.
For me that leaves more room for my imagination to add in feelings of doubt for Deckard, as to if what he's doing in retiring replicants is the right thing. If he believes he's human, then he's just 'turning off' machines. But with a small doubt in his mind that how would he know if he was a replicant and he feels 'human' then is he murdering his own kind?
Whether this was intended in the movie, I don't know. But it's the story that makes the film satisfying for me.
As to how 2049 continues, the fact that some of the original film's biggest fans have seen 2049 advanced screenings and are satisfied that the new film hasn't got it wrong. They like the new film and it can stand on it's own, without the viewer needing the history of the original, makes me feel confident that the Deckard I grew up with is in good hands. I look forward to seeing what 'K' has install for him in 2049.
Maxx B 6.10.21 😊 you'll know when you see it
no you're not supposed to 'know' 'either way' - but the question is put out there - it adds tension to the film and makes it much more interesting
thats' why they edited out rachels line in the car going north about 'we were made for each other ' - wayyyyy too obvious at that point
watch it in XPLUS, you will not regret it!
The unicorn wasn't there until the Director's cut. So, it makes no sense that Deckard is a replicant.
The studio cut scenes that Ridley Scott originally had in the film. I tend to side with a director over a studio when it comes to the original vision of a film.
@@rikk319 Well I usually side with the writer of the film and the star actor, who both said the movie loses all meaning if Deckard is a replicant
@@richspeck8932 How does the film "lose all meaning"?
@@abloogywoogywoo Because just like Harrison Ford said, the movie is about a human being hunting androids and losing his humanity in the process. The entire movie is about him losing his humanity and then finding it again. If he was a replicant, the entire plot falls apart
@@richspeck8932 Harrison Ford isn't the director of the film, he's lead actor, it's not his story or vision he brought to cinema.
Staying off the internet before somebody shove 2049’s plot line onto my face.
you can't escape it fam lol
Terang not doing a good job of what you're saying if you're here lol
He had about 36 hours of safety left when he posted the comment. Now he has 18 hours left. Lol
6.10.21
Terang he has a daughter with a Rachel. They try throw you off the trail by saying it’s a son
One of my favorite movies of all time. I bought the original uncut version on VHS when it came out. The DVD release had I think 3 different versions. My preference is the original.
So i am 26 and i never watched Blade Runner for some reason, despite knowing its status. And now im sitting here, having feels i didnt know i had.
Well,i saw this movie back than in the cinema. Nothing hinted at that Deckard is a replicant but
a retired blade runner that is blackmailed back into service and hence on a short leash. Thats why
Gaff is always just one safe distance away. For a replicant he is way to weak physical,which was
clearly shown in various scenes in the film.
The unicorn dream sequence was later put into the directors cut version to be able to make the claim
that Deckard is a replicant. Its from Legend,the film Scott made after Blade Runner. Basicly its planted
evidence.
those scenes were already in there, the studio took them out. but ridley made the film with decker as a replicant.
@RobMacRay those scenes are original. the studio took them out. they weren't shot later and put in, film doesn't work like that.
Great vid and I liked your ending very much. When I saw Blade Runner in the theatre, I understood the Unicorn to represent the girl and that the other detective had let her live. If Ford was a Replicant then why did he merely have a human's strength? In the end, I like your formulation about the ambiguity, and that ultimately it doesn't matter.
That's exactly what I thought when I first saw the movie in the 1980s. You can see a lot of ambiguity now, with time, but the basic facts are in the story. And he is human in the original book.
It always made more sense for him to be human. And to think, I never paid much mind to it. He seemed cold and inhuman up until the end, and in light of that, it makes more sense for him to BE human. It would have been pretty dumb if Roy Batty spent his last moments monologuing about humanity to another replicant. I always figured the entire point of that scene was to enlighten a REAL person on what it means to be human. In 2049, you can see how Deckard changed emotionally. The scene where Niander Wallace was interrogating him was powerful. The way Deckard responded in that scene made me feel like everything Roy told him resonated with him and changed who he was.
Just watched the movie for the first time and I think it's obvious Deckard is a human. He's the only one of the replicants that you eat anything even after the replicants are offered some food you don't see them eat or drink. It's odd bc they're basically human though.
I would really like to know the background music in this video please. Thank you.
If someone told the fans that Deckard was or wasn't a replicant, everyone would still believe what they want.
The ambiguity of this film is part of its strength.
Wow, I can't believe I only watched this movie now. It makes no difference whether he is human or not. The origami unicorn threw me a bit. The important plot here is the veil pulled over our eyes. What a magnificent ending!
Terrible how they didnt invite Sean Young to be in the new movie. Instead they brought back a minor character, Gaff? What an insult to her and her fans who loved that major character. To let personal grievances from the past override the good of the movie is shocking.
Sean Young is a train wreck, I LOVED her in the role of Rachel, but she has shown herself to be a very volatile and unstable personality over the years. One incident does not a career ruin, BUT Sean Young was a very high profile actor that could get just about any role she wanted for a number of years, YET through a series of bizarre and immature seeming actions she basically derailed her acting career. Sean Young has continued to work in Hollywood but never in such a high profile roles as Rachel in Blade Runner or Chani in Dune... unless you consider her role in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective a substantive piece.
its simple man. Replicants dont age....try hiding her wrinkled skin, gray frizzy hair, and older looking stature of a body. Also remember replicants have a life span hardwired into them meaning if she and deckard ran away like they did in the end of the film then she would later expire anyways due to her limited life on earth. Makes sense not to have her 35+ years later. Use your head mate.
Isnt Deckerd a replicant? Ridley thinks so.
+Michael P. Shipley
Most other people on the production would rather it be ambiguous. Ridley is the only one who spells it out in interviews.
My favorite quote on this topic is still from Hampton Fancher, one of the writers on the film: "The question is interesting, but the answer is stupid."
She's in it, like serious cameo role(s)
I have watched every version of this great beautiful movie. Scott will say things to get more purchases. I never felt Deckert is a Replicant.
U571...Brilliant film...the lovely RUTGER HAUER. ..gave a poignant clue in final speech to Deck Ard. ..time to die....reality was he did in the year he said in that clip....shame but spooky...2049 a brill follow on....be safè.
6.10.21
For those who've seen it, you know what it is
A tree, a horse, and "The Miracle".
You guys are way off baseline.
Explain please
Blade Runner 2049 reference
He's vegan there is your answer
lmao
MOSTCHEDDA ...2,2 4! And noodles...
MOSTCHEDDA I don't get it.
Nayr747 near the start of the movie. When he’s order food from a noodle bar, he wanted to order 4 pieces of sushi the shop keeper reply “2 is enough” in Japanese so he reply with no 2,2 4... and noodles.
He ended up with 2 pieces of sushi. Must be a short supply of food since he only got 2.
Hence ...2,2 4... food related line.
woncho1 But what does that have to do with being vegan?
What's ironic is I just watched this for the first time today in order to prepare for the new movie and this video explained a lot of things I missed haha
That's the first I heard of Deckard being a replicant...
If Deckard was a replicant, his lifespan would’ve been over or he would’ve been retired before the bladerunner sequel
@@moderngeezus5007 he's a Nexus 7, like Rachel. They have natural lifespans, but don't have the superhuman abilities of Nexus 6, thus balancing it out.
Why do you think Blade Runner 2049 has Nexus 8 androids? There was no mention of 7 in either of the films? Now it's not so difficult to figure out who are/were Nexus 7...
I always thought the origami unicorn, means that he found one with Rachel, because she was especial.
There you go.
The way I took this was, That Gaff wanted to leave a message to Decker, that he was there, and that he was going to allow him to leave with Rachel and not get in his way.
Victor Hugo Silva Cervantes that's a pretty cool way of looking at it but you're momma is wrong
agriperma The way I took it was this. Gaff left the unicorn that when opened revealed a map, but not just any map this map has the location to millennium unicorn where he and Rachel will travel to a galaxy far far away.
The way i see it is the unicorn was indeed a warning to deckard that he is infact a replicant himself and that he should enjoy all the time he can with rachel because their lives are indeed limited. Also deckards life may well be in danger as well as rachels. However i do think it conceivable that Gaff has to a degree some Psychic ability. Whilst never actually stated in the movie that psychics had developed it is something that could be explored and is a prominent theme of Philp K Dicks sci-fi works.
I think he's a human with implanted memories like that of Douglas Quaid from Total Recall. Both films kind of have a similar theme dealing with what is real and what isn't.
The special effects in this film are phenomenal
Brilliant analysis
What is the background music for this?
I've been trying to figure this one out for over a year. Looper likes to keep it on the DL.
I LIKE the ambiguity.
I DON'T LIKE that it's become such a big topic.
Good break down. I wondered about deckerd for years, the new movie dosen't help me answer that one bit. I kinda always wanted him to be human. But something keeps saying he could be like Rachael.
That was really good , thanks.
One of the greatest endings to any movie
No, he is not a replicant!
I am not a replicant! I am NOT! oh, hi Mark.
He wasn't in the book. He was Voigt-Kampffed and passed. In the movie though, who gets to decide? If it's Ridley then Deckard is a replicant in the film.
I'm there with you. The whole point is to make you question if the Replicants are "human," and that really doesn't play if Deckard is a Replicant, too. Even what Ridley Scott has said, in other interviews, was not so much that he was a Replicant but that the point was for you to question it (and that you could decide for yourself).
thank you
I live for these comments.
I never thought about Decker being a replicant this is very interesting 🤔
The Unicorn was put in for Ridley's next movie "Legend."
That weird moment that near future way back then is 2019.
Only few years from now.
He's not a Replicant in the book, so I just always assumed for the film it was left a little ambiguous and leaning toward him not being a replicant.
To be totally honest I loved Blade runner and not only saw it in the theater back in the early 80's but several times since. I never once thought of Deckard as being a replicant. Perhaps that was my biases, but even with this video, I don't feel as if it is a clear cut situation. I personally like the story line of the human Deckard falling in love with the replicant Rachel. I'm not quite as enamored of a replicant and a replicant skipping off together...
The movie is not much like "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" really.
LOL in your mind maybe ... seemed to be rather tilted toward his BEING one to me
yeah but he doesn't KNOW that - so it makes it even MORE delicious ...
Excellent synopsis!
What's the name of the music in this video? Sounds so good!
replicants arent androids they are replicants
In the book there are called androids only in the film are they called replicants
yes man but we are talking about hte movie, and in the movie the word 'android' isnt even mentioned
btw in the book deckard is a human
That's just something he says so people understand what a replicant is. I mean aside from the word, a replicant is an android. Simply named differently
Androids are non living machines. Rachel and Deckard had a baby. Replicants are living beings made in a factory.
The author of the story and the screenwriters also have Deckard as human ... Ridley Scott only said this to push his Director's Cut. Also Deckard as a replicant would destroy the entire point of the movie which was More Human Than Human and in the end Roy Batty the Replicant showing more humanity than Deckard, the actual human. If Deckard was a replicant- it would undermine this entire thing. Also, Batty called Deckard "you people" ... meaning humans. Batty sure as heck would be able to tell if Deckard was a replicant.
You can't tell he's an android after clear sign posting throughout the entire film. Batty met him minutes before dying. If Deckard acts and thinks he's human, why shouldn't Batty think he is too?
Totally agree with u Games, although the Batty argument is not so stringent indeed...
The Title is "The Ending of Blade Runner Explained" it does say that doesn't it...? .so it then goes on to debate as to whether the main character...is a replicant or not ??? no mention of the end ?? ......
Having watched this movie 2 times, I've never thought about whether Deckard is a replicant, unless I watch this video
The thing is, Ridley had a different notion on what the story should be than the writer(s) of the story did (just like with Alien). And because of that, NEITHER possibility makes complete sense in the broader context.
Why would they build a replicant to kill other replicants, but give him none of the super-human strength his targets would undoubtedly have? Because the fact that he has a gun should be enough of an advantage alone? We see the inherent flaw in that logic several times in the movie. As soon as he loses his gun, he's a helpless rag-doll just trying to get away.
And why even bother giving him emotions and drinking problems, etc.? Just to maintain the illusion, so he doesn't realize he's on the wrong side and start gunning down humans? We see that robots without emotions also exist in this world, probably for longer than the ones with the emotions. If the reasoning is that the humans just wanna have a robot around to do the dirty work, why not give that dirty work to a robot that doesn't give a shit? One that just does what it's programmed to do.
Okay Max, since you've clearly only watched this movie once, let me break down the entire plot for you.
Humans created very strong androids. The Nexus 6 models. They were faster, stronger, more intelligent than humans could ever be. So Tyrell built in a 4 year life span.
To avoid the same instability and untrustworthy android problem, they created the Nexus 7 model. These models had memories implanted, their strengths and intelligence underclocked. These models were never told they were actually replicants, letting them believe they are human.
Hell breaks loose as Nexus 6 models return to Earth on a killing spree.
Deckard has no memories or deep past, just a dream of music and unicorns and a fabricated memory of being a retired replicant hunter.
With Gaff watching over his every move, Deckard hunts down the Nexus 6 replicants.
During his mission, he uncovers the truth of Rachel. Tyrell, being a rather arsehole creator, gets Deckard to interview Rachel to see what happens and how Deckard will react. Deckard knows Rachel is a replicant but doesn't quite grasp what Tyrell was aiming at - That Deckard is also a replicant who thinks he's human.
Despite being androids, Deckard and Rachel fall in love.
After the mission, Gaff allows Deckard and Rachel to run away together after doing a "man's job" but reveals to Deckard that he is a replicant with the unicorn origami - Just like Deckard did with Rachel and her dream of the baby spiders.
Just like fugitive humans, Deckard and Rachel are on the run now and with the death of Tyrell, no one knows exactly how long they will both live for.
This is the story of an android replicant hunter, who thought he was human, fell in love with another android and found out he was actually an android too.
Questions?
Firstly - I didn't say humans were useless. You're confusing me with someone else.
"Weaker and dumber" = The most human androids to date. The "stronger" androids had terrible problems with child-like emotions and were harder to dominate/control/predict/contain.
I disagree. I believe it enhances the story and themes tenfold. Do Androids dream? Are androids who don't think they are androids, more human? With the illusion and memories of being human, would they fall in love?
Motivations? What are you talking about? I've listed every important character's and human's motivations above. The Nexus 6 android motivations are the main plot to keep the movie ticking over.
With 4 very dangerous Nexus 6 models on Earth, Tyrell offers the police force an android detective, the new model, promising a world of improvements on the older model. I repeat, it's clear Gaff is watching his every move through the entire film.
It's also heavily implied that Deckard and Rachel are the only two versions of Nexus 7 androids. And with Tyrell dead, they may only ever be.
And one last thing - Your theory of being de-humanised by killing the replicants doesn't hold water. He connects with Batty at the end and falls in love. How does that make him less human?
C'mon, mate. You're asking some really simple questions. I didn't think I'd have to break it down to generic science fiction basics!
Why do humans create machines? To do the jobs faster or more efficient than humans.
Why not send the humans into space for mining? Why create an android Bladerunner? Why create androids at all?
To do the jobs too tedious, nasty or dangerous for humans to not concern themselves with.
Who says Gaff is a better detective? He doesn't solve anything. All he's doing is trailing and keeping an eye on Deckard. Detectives do that all the time in their line of work.
I genuinely don't think he's a troll. I've discussed this with a ton of other people who can't seem to shake that Deckard isn't human. They've just been accepting and expanding the plot and themes from the completely wrong angle over the years.
"A more extended version of Gaff talking to Deckhards includes him saying ...' If you ARE A MAN, THAT IS ... IT'S SO HARD TO TELL THESE DAYS ' !"
The first time I saw the movie, it was missing the unicorn dream, so I never got that Deckard's humanity was in question. In addition, as he drove away with Rachel at the end, he disclosed to the audience that Tyrell told him she was different from the other androids and had no end date.
Beyond the movie, which is still one of my favorites, and as far as Phillip K. Dick goes, (the author of the book which the movie is said to be based on, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep") the movie is nothing... nothing... nothing like the book. They are are two completely different stories.
I never thought Decker was a replicant when I saw this movie back in the 80's and I never thought he was one last night when I watched it again for the first time in years.
I just want to know why the cut the ending off, where he and Rachel are driving away?
The scene where his eyes flash is all I needed to see to conclude that he is a replicant. There’s like no question about it.
That's the biggest definitive answer for me, I honestly don't know how anyone can still be convinced he's human. Throughout the entire movie, the prominence of the sheen from replicants eyes is extremely evident, they make it a specific point of the entire movie, it's clearly a direct clue as to Deckards identity.
@@MonkeyHazard In the book, he was a human - and him being a replicant robs the film of most of its meaning
I think Deckard's a replicant because of Gaff's unicorn but, on the other hand, if the eye sheen thing is so conclusive, then why do Blade Runners need VK machines instead of flashlights?
One of if not the best sci-fi film of all time
This and 2001 are very unique for me but the whole dark-neon cyberpunk aesthetic makes it my favorite movie
I'd say Interstellar
No, THE BEST !
I've resisted for years the idea that Deckard is a replicant, but by watching so many versions of this movie and thinking about it, it make sense that he is. Also and perhaps oddly, "2049" helps that idea make more sense. In fact, the whole think kind of make more sense if Deckard is a replicant but doesn't know it. I'm now on board with that.
Now I have to watch another hundred times with that in mind!
Ridley Scott is fucking insane if he thinks I'll ever consider Deckard a replicant. It knocks _all_ the impact out of the ending if he's not human. A jaded human learning about humanity from an android desperately wishing he was human hits way harder than an android telling another android what it means to be human.
But another odd thing about him is his life span. Replicants fail safe is 4 years and blade runner takes place in 2019, the new one in 2049. 30 years! its eaither the thiery that hes an advanced replicant(Nexus7) of test like Rachel or hes not one at all??
Deckard can't be a replicant. Besides that idea coming up far after the film, if Deckard is a replicant he is a terrible one. He is a lonely melancholy alcoholic that gets his ass kicked and is saved by Rachael. Then he gets his ass kicked again and can't make a jump that a dying Roy makes with ease and has to be saved cause he barely hang on.
The general theory is that he was a counterpart to Rachel, in other words he's a special new type of replicate that's nearly indistinguishable from a normal human including a normal aging cycle, Tyrell's final attempt at synthetically creating a perfect mimicry of human life. There's also the possibility that either the four year failsafe was tampered with, or perhaps he was a model of Nexus that never had it to begin with. Maybe we'll find out soon, but honestly I'm expecting to not get an answer cause like the movie said, the question itself is more the point.
r. decline yeah I am on the line
thats just patching the theory over and over until it fits....sure if you stretch everything far enough, eventually it will mostly work
Whilst rick deckard might be a replicant then howcome he seems to have aged so much in the new film. I thought replicants where only supposed to live for only 4 years.
exactly so he cant be a replicant. The ambiguity of the first film in "is he or is he not" is the genius of the first film. Clearly now its most likely he issnt one due to his aging however thats what makes the first movie amazing is because you don't know even considering the evidence that leads many to believe he is. Sheer writing GENIUS
Solid Vape Reviews so if a replicant lives longer wouldn't the shell/skin age since it scars and bleeds as humans which is why the limited life span was created in the first place cuz they were too life like? which didn't apply to Rachael in director's cut so if he is a replicant both have human life span and have aged.
Dr dude FM He could be a replicant who had a longer lifespan.
The fact that Deckard being a replicant creates more plot holes than it fills and people have to do all these mental gymnastics around the story onscreen in their head to justify him being a Replicant... is just one more reason to keep him a human.
Kevin Striker its all onscreen. directors cut left open to interpret so that's what were doing i personally have argued both sides cuz I'm on fence so I rather enjoy discussing blade runner and can't wait for 2049!
what is that background music i hear it all the time.
Just watched this movie for the first time in 20 years at least still amazing.
Ohhh Sean Young. Young Sean Young. The first thing I'd do with a time machine: zap myself to the set of Blade Runner with a 1981 Jordache-stache, 8-ball o' cocaine, tequila & chest hair toupee= the young-Sean Young panty-dropper kit
But why would decker be a replicant. Reverse story telling going on here.
do shitty jobs humans wont do? would you as a human go after killer machines, who re faster and stronger then you re? it would make sense they wouldnt use humans to do the job.
DEEP!!
also what happened to rachael at the end of the movie? Did she get killed by Deckard?
Watching this discussion I immediately made the association with the White Zombie song, which it turns out was inspired by the movie.
I think I have the answer: Harrison Ford is a replicant.
I agree with Harrison Ford. It needs him to be human to relate to audience.
The book (really more like a novellette) is completely different. It opens with background that most of Earth's population has relocated to Mars because of environmental degradation. The main character wakes up with his wife, and dials a mood on the mood machine which injects him with appropriate neurochemicals. He then goes to the roof and looks after their artificial sheep. -so you're argument about going against the novel doesn't hold any water. It's a completely different story.
It’s so much more brilliant a story if it’s about a replicant that’s designed to hunt other replicants. It’s also a good plot twist that Tyrell introduces Deckard to Rachel knowing that they are both his Nexus 7’s. Tyrell’s last trick was for two replicants to sexually reproduce. That story makes for so much more a creative palate then just keeping Deckard a human for the sake of associating to the audience. Think BIGGER!!
Anybody know the background music playing?
He's got a whole lot of photos on his piano, shown in detail more than once, but we never get to verify if any of them are fake implants.
I think Rachel has similar props in her apartment. Her early life was based on the niece of her creator.
Adama!!
what if gaff is a nexus 7 or 8 and has telepathic abilities....... deckard is more than likely to be a replica but the ambiguity is the point
Gaff is just a detective, trailing and observing the new android Bladerunner, to make sure he doesn't go "Batty". See what I did there?
Interesting theory .
But I doubt that's actually the case considering there was never any mention of such abilities within the movie .
And if he is an 8 with such abilities where are the others ? Why is he the only one ?
TheAbnormalVermin she is the ' other'
Unicorn dream can't be ignored. Deckard is 100% replicant. That's why Gaff hates him. It's why he left the unicorn to let him know the truth that he is indeed a replicant.
Ridley Scott probably thought of this as one movie so he leaned more towards replicant. The idea that he killed his own kind is what Scott might be going after
How about explaining why it took 35 years for a sequel ?
It takes time to make a good movie and a good story or you get a 5th Pirates of the Caribbean....
+writerpatrick America couldn't say no to Telly Savales.
It flopped financially. Also, 2049 flopped so it's gonna be a other 35 years for the next sequel.
Actually E.T. came out at exactly the same time. E.T. killed Blade Runner.
Simple: He’s a replicant and he runs away with the girl
It seems like Ridley Scott wanted the audience to question whether the humans were any more human than the replicants. Ford probably didn't want to be a replicant because the character in the book clearly wasn't an android. The character of Deckard in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is human. It's not even mildly implied that he could be an android.
there's one scene where dekkards eyes glow red indicating he's a replicant it's when rachel asks him "if i run away disappear will you come after me" he stands behind her and says "no i owe you one but someone will" his eyes are red when he's saying it ?
Ford was the worst in the movie. Everyone else was really good but his character is nothing like what everyone else try to make him look like. "One man slaughterhouse"?? he is a clumsy, silly but tenacious character who gets extremely lucky every time around and gets his ass saved by the bell. Ford just makes him look silly and his scenes were painful to watch while everyone else did a fantastic job.
Totally agree
He was too busy trying to figure out how to be Indiana Jones in the future.
Agree and it's not like he is known for his great acting !
Hmm, yes, Harrison Ford is and always plays Harrison Ford - in Every Movie he is in. A pity that Indiana Jones was not played by Tom Selleck , as he was scheduled to do , but he could not get released from his 'Magnum PI' series contract.
Blade Runner was much better than The Terminator.
Rachael was a beautiful tragic figure.
@7 yrs old ,it the first film to capture my soul.
It's interesting to compare this sci fi reality with that of The Matrix where humans are wrongfully treated as energy sources for machines.
A signed statement from Ridley on the back of the Criterion laser disc release. He states that Rachel & Deckard end up in a winter forest clearing and while sitting at a fire Deckard shoots Rachel reasoning that if he didn't they would. Ending that Mr. convenience (Ridley) has apparently forgotten all about.
Him coming back in the sequel should give it away that he is HUMAN. Nexus 7s and 8s have a HARDWIRED life span. Plus they are androids which means they DO NOT AGE. Zero signs of wrinkly skin, gray hair. So he has to be human because Deckard is fucking old as hell in the sequel. However some clever writing and replicant modifications may be a plot in the next film (No its not a spoiler cuz ive yet to see it) to were Deckard is a rplicant but has had modifications done to him to keep his replicant part a SECRET. who knows....the first one did it right though with having the answer be AMBIGUOUS. Its a Yes and a No at the same time.
+Brandon L. That's Hollywood for ya!
Brandon L. He's saying the sequel was great. I do too.
Now after seeing the sequel. WOW btw its amazing. Still tho it leaves it very ambiguous that Deck is a Rep. I feel he is a replicant now considering the new dialogue that was exchanged between Letos character and Deckard. Hmmm this franchise is genius in that it keeps you guessing. The answer doesnt even matter at this point. SPOILERS
Now replicants can have babies. Or at least certain (prototype) Nexus models can conceive bio-mechanical life. How? well that still blows my mind on the scientific roots of two bio-engineered things can make a growing bio thing. idk its cool.
He is a replicant
Instead of androids who behave like humans, we have many humans who behave like robots in 2019.
That's the hole point of the dilema of the movies and book, and they are right :/
A short story, strickly speaking. I think that I sorta remember reading a couple of decades back.
The "blade runner 2049" suite with an old Deckard definitely confirms that it is NOT a replicant
It is silly to believe that Tyrell would have included an aging program has replicating .... even the oldest,
it closed the discussion deliberately, and so much the worse for those who will be disappointed
Hyped for sequel!!!! Who else!!??
joe shmo Blade Runner 2049 is critically acclaimed, which is a massive relief,so yes, I am hyped for a sequel that will almost definitely be great.
In the documentary 'Dangerous Days' you see so many unshown bits from the reels. The next line from Gaff, not in the movie: 'You've done a man's job, sir. But are you a man at all?' Also, Ridley Scott in the commentary directly says that the unicorn Gaff leaves behind, and Decker's subsequent nod, shows Deckard is a replicant. And yet even with the Final Cut giving clues the ambiguity remains enough and is such a good idea.
In the book, humans have sort of a telepathic connection (as I've heard)..maybe that's how Gaff knows about the unicorn.