I don't give a shït what Scott says. It wasn't in any of of the 636 versions of the movie so it's not a fact. Fact. BTW did Sean Young harass the director to be in the movie and had a restraining order put on her? Be interesting to know.
shareI know. Apparently the "Deckard's a replicant!" idea is something Scott decided well after 1982, but this theory is not supported by the events on display in the original film. Ford's character -- who's charged with hunting down replicants -- is very human in strength, speed and agility, and there's no indication his mortality clock is winding down.
So I came to this thread with the same question. I've heard so many times that he may have been a replicant. In the version that I own there is a scene where even his eyes since the classic red that is a dead give away that you are a replicant.
But now that theory must be dead because they only have, at most, a 4 year life span right? If he was indeed a replicant how could he be in hiding for 30 years. Surly he would have died.
Yeah,I never bought the Dekard is a replicant crap either. I don't believe for a minute that Scott or anyone else involved with the original film intended him to be one back at the time. This is some retroactive bulls##t that Scott kind of signed off on just because he liked the idea and thought it might add some deeper intrigue to the film.
But in reality Dekard as a replicant creates all kinds of hard to answer questions and inconsistencies for the original film.
Why isn't he as fast and strong as the other replicants? I mean why make and use a weak replicant to try and hunt down other replcants that are superior to him in every way? That replicant would fare no better than a regular human. So why bother?
Replicants aren't allowed to live freely on earth and thats why they are hunted down if they escape to earth. But Dekard appears to be living indpendently. Seems rather inconsistent to kill other replicants for simply coming to earth but allow him to wander around freely, and armed with a gun to boot. Why can he be trusted but not other replicants?
In the film Dekard is a bladerunner skilled in spotting the differences between a human and a replicant via the Voight-Kampff Test. Yet he could not sort out that he himself was one?
The implantation of false memories in a replicant is depicted as a new inovation in the movie. Without them a replicant would surely be self aware that it is indeed a replicant as they have no childhood to remember. In fact Dekard asks Tyrell after examining Rachael and figuring out that she is a replicant, "How can it not know what it is?"
This creates another problem with the Dekard is a replicant theory. If Dekard is a replicant he is clearly unaware of it. So he would have to have implanted memories as well in order to be oblivious to his true nature. And while that is possible I suppose it begs the question of why implant memories of being a cop that retired and had to be redrafted into service, yada, yada. Why go through the needless charade of dragging him in and forcing him to take this job? Why not just implant that he was already a cop in a bladerunner unit? It would be pointless and stupid to make it any more complex than that.
Scott very much wanted the original Blade Runner film to end with Deckard as a replicant (or at least the ambiguity of it). I think he got overruled by the studio at the time. It's definitely not retroactive. I thought it was a retroactive choice at first as well, until I saw the "made for each other" alternate ending that was filmed at the time but cut. Seems to me he had always intended for this to be the case. If you haven't seen it, it's part of the 5 disc bluray set, but I also found it on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8t9_081E9Y
Nevertheless, I agree with you about the problems this creates, not so much for the original film, but for this sequel. I don't think this sequel is going to work with Deckard as a replicant. It would take way too much exposition to the point where it wouldn't feel natural. Just my opinion, but I think the sequel would work better if he is indeed human.
Supposedly Young's character has been programmed with a longer life span but 30 years?? And as the poster above states, why have a weaker replicant chase replicants? What's the purpose of Fird being a replicant. Where are the signs that Scott alludes to? And again why?
shareI stand corrected then on Scott's intentions. Did not know that he wanted Dekard to be a replicant all along. Thanks for the heads up.
But I still hate the notion of Dekard as a replicant. In addition to the inconsistentcies I mentioned I think it hurts the central theme of the film as well. To me the central theme is that as you create replicants that are more and more human like, haven't you reached a point where they really are no different than a human.
That is basically the question Dekard is confronted with in that great scene up on the roof top with the Nexus 6 Roy as he watches him die. Here is a guy that has spent a big chunk of his life hunting replicants down and dispatching them with no more regard than you or I would have about ripping a weed out of a flower bed. And he's coming to the revelation that killing them is perhaps just as immoral as killing a human. To me that scene works quite well if Dekard is a human. Not so much if he is a replicant.
Great points, I absolutely agree with you
shareExcellent post
__________
.and then the bong hits him on the head and he falls RIGHT over the realitY
Interesting. I had never seen or heard of this alternate ending. To me, it doesn't prove for a certainty that Deckard was a replicant. Rachel was a new breed of android, initially unaware of her true origins and with an indeterminate lifespan. Her comment may simply refer to their mutual attraction and her extended lifespan.
But, as a counterpoint, I do admit that Deckard's comment about the life with his wife that 'seemed that way' suggests that he's aware his memories might be manufactured.
I've always been firmly in the Deckard is human camp and will remain there. But this certainly suggests that Scott had different ideas as far back as the original movie. Thx for this...
I don't think having Deckard being a replicant brings up as many inconsistencies as you think. For the record, I am still on the fence but I'll play devil's advocate.
Why isn't he as fast or strong as a replicant? They don't want him to know that he is one. If he knows that he's a replicant, he might rebel like the others. Better to have him think he's human. Also, why risk a human life when you have replicants? They were designed to do work too dangerous for humans. Replicants are stronger and faster but not bulletproof. He has a chance if he can get the drop on them.
Why is he living independently? See above, all the better to have him believing he's human. I think the plan was to have Deckard retire the escaped replicants then have Gaff retire Deckard when he was through. Gaff gives him a head start and a clue to his true nature(the origami unicorn). Easier to retire a replicant without powers as well.
The origami unicorn also points in favor of implanted memories, otherwise, how does Gaff know? And the lifespan could have been removed for blade runner replicants because they think they're human and can therefore be useful for longer (they won't question their reality) and they're relatively easy to retire.
Only the Nexus 6 replicants have a 4 years lifespan. Also, being them a newer model, it makes sense that they do have better abilities. Deckart can be an older model, with human-like abilities but no built-in lifespan.
shareweird...it has been in every version since the theatrical release.
math is fact regardless of how many morons fail at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
but then again...who the fvck is Dekard?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
Dekard is not a replicant
There is no definitive proof either way that he is or isn't a replicant. We'll just have to wait and see what twist they pull in the new movie.
And to those that say why did he have human strength and a longer than 4-year lifespan. The 4-year lifespan was a safety measure put into the regular replicants so they don't achieve cognitive awareness. He could have been made secretly and without the 4-year lifespan installed; and programmed to only exhibit human strength and to have no knowledge of being a replicant.
Rachel didn't know she was a replicant either. And He had a dream about a unicorn and then found a unicorn origami at his door at the end of the movie; presumably made by Gaff, maybe to imply that his memories are implanted.
But again, all conjecture until we see what they reveal in the new movie.
He could have been made secretly and without the 4-year lifespan installed; and programmed to only exhibit human strength and to have no knowledge of being a replicant.
Rachel didn't know she was a replicant either. And He had a dream about a unicorn and then found a unicorn origami at his door at the end of the movie; presumably made by Gaff, maybe to imply that his memories are implanted.
He is a replicant in the final cut, there is no denying that.
sharehe was a replicant in the theatrical version in 1982. astute members of the audience recognized it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
No he wasn't.
sharehe was a replicant in the theatrical version in 1982. astute members of the audience recognized it
not my duty to explain things that you cant find logical answers for. these exist in real life and yet our individual lives are able to continue. surely fictional instances are survivable.
the simplest solution to your dilemma is to at once recognize the world is a place you live in, with no control over the reality that governs it, and that your participation does not include the authority of approval.
reality is unconcerned with how we feel about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
True larosat. I always viewed him as human. The part about Sean Young was stupid though. This was before she was crazy.
shareThere is merit to both lines of thinking. I understand that the original story makes it implicit that he's not a replicant, but that's not what we're discussing. The film has quite a bit in it that's not in the original short story. Whether or not you think Ridley Scott is a hack is also beside the point. The fact is it could go either way.
The original screenwriter and Scott did indeed butt heads in a really big way, but as far as what I read I don't think it was specifically about whether or not he was a replicant. I can't cite it, maybe someone else could, but I do know Fancher had written several drafts of the script and a few of them tossed back and forth the idea or inference that Deckard was indeed a replicant. In one of the drafts Deckard actually killed Rachel only to return back to his apartment, start to play the piano, and then have his hand start to cramp and stop working. He ultimately decided strongly against it before being forced to turn in his final script to Peoples, the script doctor that Scott hired.
I'm going to refer to the final cut mixed with inferences made from that alternate ending that was filmed for my line of reasoning for why he could be a replicant. So it's been discussed to death why people thinks he's a replicant: the dream sequence, the origami at the end, yada yada yada. This theory opens up way more questions than if Deckard is a human I'll be the first to admit. Ultimately I'd say those questions don't really need answers as there are SO many aspects of the film that are left unexplained. What are they mining for in space? Why is half of the population in LA of Asian descent? The list goes on. I will however give you my theory on why Deckard could possibly be a replicant. I think the easiest way to look at it is he was an experiment just like Rachel. The two of them are the first of their kind. With Deckard, the Tyrell corporation was trying to figure out if they could replace another human job with a replicant. They wanted him to think that he was human so they wouldn't have to replace him every four years like the other replicants. This is why they gave him normal human strength and implanted memories like Rachel. Since he was the first of his kind they hired Gaff to watch over him and make sure nothing went awry. I'm certain the apartment was also bugged as Gaff seemed to know that Deckard had been keeping Rachel there. I think Gaff was given some kind of failsafe to kill him and Rachel off if something went wrong as well. I'm pretty sure there were very few in the know about Rachel and Deckard. It could possibly have been just Gaff and Tyrell. When Tyrell was killed Gaff was able to make his own decisions about how he wanted the project to proceed. If he had the apartment bugged I'm certain he witnessed the two of them falling in love. I'm thinking after Tyrell died that he decided that life is too short and they're as much of humans as anyone. He decided to let them go, but not before letting Deckard in on the truth. That certainly falls in line with the alternate ending in which Rachel states "I think you and I were made for each other." That's a lot of explaining, but I certainly see it as possible.
Then if you want to look at it from the angle that he is indeed a human, all you'd have to describe away is the circumstance of the origami unicorn. If you can chalk it up to circumstance then it's really the much more simple way of looking at things. I myself don't really have a preference and I like that it's left ambiguous. I do hope that in the new film they don't explain it. They don't need to answer that question. And since replicants aren't androids, but organic beings with a computer for a brain, it would be understandable that without the four year termination period they would age just like normal humans.