• 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -


Online
#2 Edited by NTM (7383 posts) -

I think whether he is one or not, I'll always deny that he is a replicant. Disappointingly, the first time I've seen Blade Runner through with full attention, about mid-way through, I was thinking "Damn, I really hope that this isn't a film where at the end it's going to reveal something I don't want happening..." And luckily, it never did and it took a very smart move, a move that I'd think still gets some discussion, is Deckard a replicant or human? Ridley Scott said he was, and you could take that as you will, but I'm stubborn on this one, I'd like to believe he's human. Also, did I already make this before?

Edit - I shouldn't have asked you what you believe he really is, because we kind of already know that. I really meant to ask, if you could choose, what would you rather he be? What do you prefer?

Online
#3 Posted by PenguinDust (12522 posts) -

Whatever the argument made is, I'm always going to see him as a human. Basically, I feel the story has more emotion that way. Perhaps Ridley Scott will make a prequel someday and will find out.

#4 Posted by buzz_clik (6975 posts) -

In my heart he's human, in my head he's a replicant. BUT WHAT IS HUMAN ANYWAY FUUUUCK I'VE FALLEN INTO THE PHILIP K-HOLE

Moderator
#5 Posted by EuanDewar (4938 posts) -

I wouldn't fuck with Ridley Scott.

#6 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

@PenguinDust: I think they're going to be working on a sequel.

Online
#7 Posted by RoujinX (419 posts) -

I heard that somewhere during an interview Ridley Scott confirmed that the character is a replicant, but this information was never conveyed to Ford or the staff for obvious reasons.

Also, fun fact, the title of the movie comes from a William S. Burroughs version of the manuscript in which the main character was involved in the trafficking of illegal surgical instrumentation.

#8 Edited by GunstarRed (5189 posts) -

@PenguinDust: In the making of film Ridley Scott already said he's a replicant.

#9 Posted by frankfartmouth (1018 posts) -

In the original version, it was kind of left up to the viewer. The director's cut made it more obvious that he was a replicant. That's why I hate director's cuts. They almost always just bloat the movie and damage any mystery or subtlety it had. The director's cut for Aliens was just the original plus 20 or 30 minutes of the all the bad, awkward scenes the editor rightly decided to take out. The editor's there for a reason.

But yeah, replicant.

#10 Edited by JusticeJanitor (149 posts) -

@GunstarRed said:

@PenguinDust: In the making of film Ridley Scott already said he's a replicant.

I was going to bring up the whole unicorn thing but this video pretty much explains it, from Ridley Scott himself. Deckard dreams about unicorns and never mentions it to anyone. Yet, the mustache dude (I forgot his name) left a unicorn origami at his apartment. Looks like implanted memories to me.

#11 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

@RoujinX: @GunstarRed: @frankfartmouth: Yes. Harrison Ford and Rutger liked the idea that he was human though, and Ridley also said that Ford got over it, but I don't know. To me, it doesn't matter if he is or not, I like the idea of him being human more. If it was the other way around though, as it is I guess, I wouldn't be that bothered, as long as they don't make a sequel and turn him all Terminator on people's asses. Blade Runner is smarter than that, but still. I have the five disk complete collector’s edition, and its crazy how different, though subtle some of the stuff is between the versions. Also, frankfartmouth (ha ha), I liked the Director's cut of Aliens. I have Alien Anthology, and if you ever watch the deleted scenes from the original Alien, or Aliens, it's much worse.

Online
#12 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

@JusticeJanitor: It's Gaff.

Online
#13 Posted by PenguinDust (12522 posts) -

@GunstarRed: @JusticeJanitor: I maintain my original position. As I said, whatever the argument made, I will see him as a human. If all the evidence within the film we have to the contrary is a unicorn dream as some symbolism, then how I choose to view Deckard will continue to be as human. I personally don't like the story as much the other way. It feels hollow to me.

#14 Posted by N7 (3590 posts) -

In the book he's human. So, I'm going with that.

#15 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

I think I'm going to have to watch the movie in one sitting.

#16 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

He's a repliCAN.

#17 Posted by Thoseposers (785 posts) -

@N7 said:

In the book he's human. So, I'm going with that.

me too, plus i liked the book more than the movie

#18 Posted by frankfartmouth (1018 posts) -

@NTM said:

Also, I shouldn't have asked this as what you believe he really is, because we kind of already know that. I really meant to ask, if you could choose, what would you rather he be?

There's some interesting stuff going on with him being a replicant, or I should say, there was a lot of potential for interesting stuff, but I agree with PenguinDust that the way it all plays out in the film, you don't get much from his character as a replicant. You have to try to suddenly get to know him all over again, but not enough's there to do it, so it leaves you feeling a little cheated. Hollow is a good way of describing the feeling of getting to know a character who is strong, focused, and willful, and then all of the sudden finding out that they're some kind of apparition. I had the same reaction to finding out Auron was an unsent in FFX. It made him seem emasculated to me, which was too jarring after 40 plus hours of him being the strongest character in the story.

#19 Posted by JusticeJanitor (149 posts) -

@NTM: In that case, I would rather him be human. Him being a Replicant doesn't add much to the story except : "Oh hey, a dude trained to hunt and kill replicants is a replicant himself. Ain't that ironic?"

If he's human, the fact that he's in love with Rachelle kind of blurs the line of what's human and what's not, which is an interesting debate.

@PenguinDust: Makes sense to me. The only version of the movie I ever saw was the director's cut, which tend to point more towards the fact that Deckard is a Replicant. That might have been a mistake on my part. I know the original cut is supposed to be a lot more ambiguous about this.

#20 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

I think the unicorn scene is cut out of the newest cut of the film. I don't remember that scene.

#21 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11031 posts) -

He's a human. Harrison Ford said once that when he was acting the role, he was under the impression that Deckard was a human. I don't give a crap about what Ridley Scott says. He was a human in the book, and he was a human in the movie, and no amount of stupid-ass unicorn dream sequences will change my mind.

Moderator
#22 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

@N7: True.

@BraveToaster: Oh, did you think it was boring when you first saw it? If so, it's understandable. When I was younger, I fell asleep during it, and my best friend told me he did too, and my brother as well. I think if you can get through it, you'll realize it's a fantastic film. It's also a film I think that if you watch it again and again, it keeps getting better since you're understanding every little thing about it.

Online
#23 Posted by Dagbiker (6976 posts) -

If you see the Unicorn it means hes human.

#24 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@NTM: Sadly, yes, I did find it to be boring. That was when I was younger, though, so I'll see if I can sit through it now.

#25 Posted by PenguinDust (12522 posts) -

@JusticeJanitor: Yeah, I saw the original cut first years ago, so that's the one that created my impression of the film. Later versions have always felt less substantial. As frankfartmouth said, sometimes director's cuts just fuck everything up. I'm not sure how you'd classify Apocalypse Now Redux, but I dislike the added footage. It completely destroys the flow of the film. Another example of how more is not always better.

#26 Posted by dopplerganger (80 posts) -

Personally I think he is a Replicant but it doesn't matter since that movie is so amazing regardless.

#27 Posted by Red (5995 posts) -

He's a replicant, but I want him to be human.

#28 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

He's a replicant; a human wouldn't have gone on to have such an overly terrible acting career after starting out with such promise.

#29 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

Deckard is most certainly a Replicant.

@JusticeJanitor said:

@NTM: In that case, I would rather him be human. Him being a Replicant doesn't add much to the story except : "Oh hey, a dude trained to hunt and kill replicants is a replicant himself. Ain't that ironic?"

If he's human, the fact that he's in love with Rachelle kind of blurs the line of what's human and what's not, which is an interesting debate.

The movie and story are meant to be a Noir Mystery and so the twist is the core element which adds poignancy. How we feel about Humans and faux-Humans bedding down isn't nearly as relevant as whether or not something like a soul can be created, which is what the story is really all about. Think about it, he's a killer robot sent to kill other killer robots but eventually decides to no longer kill because he has found love. It's not really a matter of what's human and what's not because in that universe the context of authentic biological proof is all but gone (remember, there are almost no more real animals left and every body part can be be renewed and often is, there's there the whole Soldier context too which further blurs the line between human and non human).

#30 Posted by Commisar123 (1793 posts) -

There is no way he is human, that story is far less interesting if he is

#31 Posted by Aetheldod (3586 posts) -

The amount of blasphemy in these forums is staggering ... the director´s cut on these films IS ALWAYS the best , no hollywood lame as voice over craporama etc. idiot editors screwing up films because of suits . Also the main theme of the fils is that replicants are more human than the human themselves .... that the whole deal here and why Deckard is indeed a replicant. Or is it the other way around? See that the interesting stuff. And in my mind (but this is just me) Deckard is the replicant of the Blade Runners that gets killed at the beginning of the film ... reason why the "mistreatment/misstrust" that Deckard gets from the police , and why Gaff would know what he dreams of. But you know what the coolest thing .... the blue ray contains most of the versions of the film and you can see the one you like the most ..... and have it as the real thing.

#32 Posted by Auswin (66 posts) -

I fully realize I'm in the vast minority, but I greatly prefer the original theatrical cut of Blade Runner over the director's cut. My problem is that Scott's cut basically serves up everything on a platter for the viewer. I'll concede that it's obvious from the DC that Deckard is a replicant, but I'll always prefer the ambiguity that narration and overall humanization of the character in the original cut brought.

#33 Posted by BoG (5191 posts) -

This wasn't inspired by the confirmation that we're going to see a Blade Runner sequel, was it?

I concluded that Deckard was a replicant after watching the movie for the first time. The second, I thought he was a human. I'm still not sure!

#34 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

One reason (out of many) that this film is great is because either way you look at it, or at least it is to me, it's an interesting film, and there's a lot to think about. I really don't think a one time viewing gives it justice.

Online
#35 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -

I think the best answer is, Maybe.

#36 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

@BoG: Yeah, it kind of was. Although I really just love Blade Runner, and I've been thinking about watching it.

Online
#37 Posted by BoG (5191 posts) -

@NTM said:

@BoG: Yeah, it kind of was. Although I really just love Blade Runner, and I've been thinking about watching it.

Fair enough. Fantastic film.

#38 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -

@PenguinDust said:

Whatever the argument made is, I'm always going to see him as a human. Basically, I feel the story has more emotion that way. Perhaps Ridley Scott will make a prequel someday and will find out.

In the extras of the 5 Disc BD Version there's a feature dedicated to this very subject in which Ridley clearly stats that Deckard is a replicant.

#39 Posted by BatmanBatman (372 posts) -

dude the unicorn...

#40 Posted by NTM (7383 posts) -

@mordukai: Yes, but he said, twice, that regardless of evidence, he'll imagine Deckard as human.

Online
#41 Posted by Gabriel (4062 posts) -

The random Unicorn dream kinda gives it away doesn't it?

#42 Posted by Srah (82 posts) -

@Thoseposers said:

@N7 said:

In the book he's human. So, I'm going with that.

me too, plus i liked the book more than the movie

Agreed. He's human in the book. Plus replicant + replicant sex is less hot than human + replican sex.

#43 Posted by Nightriff (5085 posts) -

Human but either way fuckin fantastic film, top 5 greatest sci fi films EVER.

#44 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3205 posts) -

Ridley Scott admitted that he was a replicant in an interview, so he's a rep.

#45 Posted by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

In the voice over version he's human Without the voice over the film is awful and in that he's the world's last remaining pig in a mansuit hiding from the bacon lords.

#46 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -

@NTM said:

@mordukai: Yes, but he said, twice, that regardless of evidence, he'll imagine Deckard as human.

Who are we talking about, Ridley? Don't remember him saying that but it has been a while since I've seen the extras. I might just go back and check them out again.

@WickedFather said:

In the voice over version he's human Without the voice over the film is awful and in that he's the world's last remaining pig in a mansuit hiding from the bacon lords.

I completely disagree with you but I can understand why some people need that voice over. it's a complicated piece of story telling and some people just want everything explained to them.

#47 Posted by hidys (1029 posts) -

I'm pretty sure that the latter cuts of the movie hint strongly that he is a replicant.

#48 Posted by Aleryn (704 posts) -

Replicant, a masterwork of them.

#49 Posted by Cube (4366 posts) -

Republican.

#50 Posted by xyzygy (9996 posts) -

He is. The ending on the director's cut basically proves it. Such an amazing ending.