The point of the original movie IS Deckard discovering he's a Replicant and accepting that Replicants are just as much humans as regular humans are.
Nope. The original point of the film is Deckard learns that the newest version of the Replicants he kills for a living have developed a stronger desire for life, and each other, than he possesses himself because he's been worn down and isolated from humanity by his years doing the job. This is a variation on Deckard's realisation of his humanity in the book. Ridley Scott has muddled this point in his later years of revisionism because he obviously feels it's a clever twist
- it isn't - but it was never intended by the writers of the screenplay or Philip K. Dick himself.
If Deckard is a Replicant, why is he so much weaker than they are
- he gets the shÃte kicked-out of him throughout the film and the only reason he survives is Roy shows him mercy - and why would the police send him on a hopeless job?
I mean FFS human eyes don;t reflect light the way Deckard's are shown doing. WTF would they put that in the movie (and every single Replicant and ONLY Replicant's do that) if he wasn't one?
Because Harrison Ford said that was a mistake during the shoot when he stepped too far into the light/mark intended for Sean Young, not him. It was noticed later.
The idea of a visible glow being a clear identifying mark of a Replicant is a ridiculous idea in the context of the film. If that were the case they wouldn't need to spend the time and effort into using the clunky
Voight-Kampf machine and its question & answers system to identify Replicants - they'd just shine a light in their eyes and see if it glows. Once again more nonsense added by Scott that makes no sense.
And if you actually READ Phillip K. Dick's book, Deckard himself wonders if he's an android more than one time.
If you actually read the book, he's human, and this is Philip K. Dick's point throughout many of his stories: humans are becoming so dehumanised by the modern world that they are acting more uncaring and machine-like in their behaviour, not that they are literally machines.
It's a metaphor about
empathy hence why the book features Deckard using an
Empathy Box which are devices that connect humans together emotionally so they can share their suffering - they don't work for androids so if Deckard is an android he wouldn't be able to use it.
* That fact alone confirms Dekard is human in the book.
The androids in the book act like cruel children (Roy Baty pulls the legs off a spider) that don't understand empathy whereas Rick Deckard wants to own and care for a real sheep and the irony is he's killing living constructs to pay for it. This is what makes Rick realise he's different from the androids - because he's a human that can feel empathy for other living things apart from himself. The androids in the book can't do that and it's quite clear Deckard is not one of them.
It's hard to argue against this point since Philip K Dick spells it out:
*"Here, a religion is regarded as a menace to all political systems; therefore it, too, is a kind of political system, perhaps even an ultimate one. The concept of caritas (or agape) shows up in my writing as the key to the authentic human. The android, which is the unauthentic human, the mere reflex machine, is unable to experience empathy. In this story it is never clear whether Mercer is an invader from some other world. But he must be; in a sense all religious leaders are...but not from another planet as such." - Philip K. Dick http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=129FFS the last line of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep practically confirms that Deckard is an android in the book ("The electrical things have their lives too, paltry as those lives are"--As Deckard returns to his life before he was a Bounty Hunter--a paltry life.)
Again, meaning that his life as a bureaucratic Bounty Hunter is making him machine-like, not that he is an android.
reply
share