(Blade Runner) In your opinion, is Deckard a human, or Replicant?

I've seen that movie only once, years ago when my understanding of english was still somewhat limited. Now i have to see it again.

@mordukai: Ha ha, no, I was talking about the comment (person) you were replying to.

Someone asked Dr. Richard Mason, an actual roboticist, whether or not Deckard is a replicant. His response follows:

"There is considerable evidence that Deckard is not a replicant.

• Deckard is thrown about like a rag doll by every replicant he scuffles with (with the possible exception of Rachael, who doesn't try very hard, also see footnote). His ass is kicked even by Pris who was described as a "basic pleasure model." If you were assigning a replicant to blade runner duty, you would probably pick one whose physical capacities were at least equal to those of a basic pleasure model.

• Deckard believes that he has quit the police force. He doesn't like his bosses or coworkers, he has to be threatened into returning to work, and he is insubordinate to the point of allowing Rachael to escape. If you were programming a replicant for blade runner duty, you would probably make him more enthusiastic about his work.

• The memory-implant technology is new, but Bryant refers to Deckard as the "old blade runner" and acts as if they have worked together for a long time. Granted, this could be an elaborate lie (although why concoct a rocky relationship, see above) but at least it shows that if Deckard is a replicant, then the police know about it and are lying about it. The same police are sufficiently paranoid about replicants that they want to whack even the inoffensive Rachael as soon as Tyrell reports her missing. This does not jibe too well with them letting a new and experimental replicant roam Los Angeles with a badge and a gun.

• The coincidence of the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn is not exactly the same as Deckard showing off his knowledge of Rachael's childhood memories. A recent dream is not the same as a childhood memory, and a unicorn is a single ambiguous symbol, not a detailed story like the two that Deckard tells Rachael. In other words, it could just be a coincidence, or show that Deckard and Gaff have similar taste in symbols. Gaff's origami chicken meant, "You're acting like a chicken," not, "You dreamed about a chicken last night." The unicorn could mean something like, "You're chasing an impossible goal," not, "You dreamed about a unicorn and I know about it."

• Gaff does not say to Deckard, "It's too bad neither you nor she will live, but then again who does?"

In short, it's amazing how easily people are taken in when a lying Ridley Scott replicant gives a few interviews. Come to think of it, have those interviewers passed a V-K test lately?

[Footnote: If Rachael has no built-in expiration date, as stated in the original cut, that's consistent with her apparent lack of superhuman strength. After all, the light which burns half as bright burns twice as long.]"

@Catarrhal said:

Someone asked Dr. Richard Mason, an actual roboticist, whether or not Deckard is a replicant. His response follows:

"There is considerable evidence that Deckard is not a replicant.

• Deckard is thrown about like a rag doll by every replicant he scuffles with (with the possible exception of Rachael, who doesn't try very hard, also see footnote). His ass is kicked even by Pris who was described as a "basic pleasure model." If you were assigning a replicant to blade runner duty, you would probably pick one whose physical capacities were at least equal to those of a basic pleasure model.

• Deckard believes that he has quit the police force. He doesn't like his bosses or coworkers, he has to be threatened into returning to work, and he is insubordinate to the point of allowing Rachael to escape. If you were programming a replicant for blade runner duty, you would probably make him more enthusiastic about his work.

• The memory-implant technology is new, but Bryant refers to Deckard as the "old blade runner" and acts as if they have worked together for a long time. Granted, this could be an elaborate lie (although why concoct a rocky relationship, see above) but at least it shows that if Deckard is a replicant, then the police know about it and are lying about it. The same police are sufficiently paranoid about replicants that they want to whack even the inoffensive Rachael as soon as Tyrell reports her missing. This does not jibe too well with them letting a new and experimental replicant roam Los Angeles with a badge and a gun.

• The coincidence of the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn is not exactly the same as Deckard showing off his knowledge of Rachael's childhood memories. A recent dream is not the same as a childhood memory, and a unicorn is a single ambiguous symbol, not a detailed story like the two that Deckard tells Rachael. In other words, it could just be a coincidence, or show that Deckard and Gaff have similar taste in symbols. Gaff's origami chicken meant, "You're acting like a chicken," not, "You dreamed about a chicken last night." The unicorn could mean something like, "You're chasing an impossible goal," not, "You dreamed about a unicorn and I know about it."

• Gaff does not say to Deckard, "It's too bad neither you nor she will live, but then again who does?"

In short, it's amazing how easily people are taken in when a lying Ridley Scott replicant gives a few interviews. Come to think of it, have those interviewers passed a V-K test lately?

[Footnote: If Rachael has no built-in expiration date, as stated in the original cut, that's consistent with her apparent lack of superhuman strength. After all, the light which burns half as bright burns twice as long.]"

My memories of the movie are a little foggy but Mr. Mason's response is terrible.

The footnote invalidates his first point as the same thing can apply to Deckard.

The second point says that "you would probably make him more enthusiastic about his work". Why? Because Richard Mason would? Because to him that makes more sense? If the goal is to make it as natural as possible you wouldn't make it one way or another, you make it as neutral as possible and let it evolve on its own like a real human would.

The third point is the only one with a bit more sense but also who said the memory-implant technology is new? Tyrell? Or somebody else i'm forgetting? If its Tyrell i'd be surprised he'd tell the truth to Deckard and give him more clues for him to realize what he is. The technology could be simply older than initially implied, maybe Deckard was the first. A prototype of sort.

His explanation for the dream is either his own interpretation of the scene or that it's a coincidence. Not strong arguments either way.

No idea what that last point is about though.

In any case, i don't find any compelling arguments in here.

@Catarrhal:

• That's a strange assumption. Why should Replicants all be stronger than humans? If Pris is a 'basic pleasure model' why can't Deckard or Rachael be different models from her, with different strengths and weaknesses (as in your footnote).
• The whole point of Deckard quitting the force is that he's more likely to get the rogue Replicants on side because of his obvious distaste for authority figures. It's a Noir Mystery and protags of such writing often have issues with authority figures and the authority figures they work for are often corrupt. This is no different.
• The memory implant technology is a technology. We don't know how new it is, we're only told it's new - at some level every person in the story is potentially a liar, which is why there are things like Voight Kampff tests. Once again, Noir Mystery; see Casablanca or The Maltese Falcon or any number of other such styled stories; anyone could be lying. The only thing we know for certain is that memory implant technology is real....

BECAUSE

• The unicorn dream and the origami unicorn. Two people have the same dream and a third person, Gaff, knows about it. The dream could mean all of those things but that's just supposition and really it's not relevant what it means, it just matters that two people shared it and another person knew about it.
• That last line by Gaff only needs to refer to her in the first part because the 'who does?' implies that 'not living' (not being human) could be the fate of anyone in the story (back to the point of all could be lying).will likely be a state for Rachael and others (including Deckard of course, because he's absconding with her). It could also be talking about Tyrell's death and the death of everyone who has been involved in the story so far. It's more of a way for the author to talk directly to his audience (see Shakespeare's fourth wall breaking dialogues of Puck in The Twelfth Night) than anything else as Scott via Gaff delivers a final message about mortality and humanity, which is ultimately what the story is about.

Dr Mason may be a very smart man but he reads and interprets fiction poorly.

I thought the unicorn symbolism referred to Racheal, she was a one of a kind replicant. She was not subject, for some reason, to rapid breakdown, as were the others..

'Eyes!. I just do EYES!'

It's better if you think he's a human, but he's supposed to be a replicant.

@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 final director's cut there are tons of clues that he is a replicant, but it is still debatable. In the end it doesn't matter because the point is to question what is defined as human. If a man-made robot can think, has memories, emotions, and believes it is human then who is to say they are not.

I think the evidence for him being a Replicant over him not being one is far more convincing. You have his mindless pursuit of Replicants akin to a machine that's doing what it's told to do. Rachel asking him if he took the test himself and him not having any answer. The complete lack of any really established backstory at all for Deckard. The fact that he can take a tremendous amount of punishment from the Nexis 6, of which would kill an ordinary human quite easily. The unicorn. Even his eyes appearing red in his apartment much like a cyborg would have.

My heart says he's human because I want something to relate to, it's hard to relate to an emotionless machine because I'm not an emotionless machine. Emotions inherently are the driving force of what makes us human. And the fact that he, if he was indeed a human, fell in love with a machine questions much about our psyche and how we can come to the conclusion of this emotion called love. But my brain clearly tells me he's a Replicant and it's just another "OMGWTFTWIST". And if he is a Replicant he didn't fall in love with Rachel because he is a machine. An emotion like love can by synthesized but it can never be truly duplicated by an AI no matter how hard it would try. It would still be manufactured and fake. So that's another reason why I like to think he's human, there's something more for him out there other than combat and struggle.

In my opinion, he's a human. Sure, the show was ambiguous about it but I always thought it was on purpose.

The unicorn part was the part that made me unsure but I still think it makes the story better if Deckard is a human. Deckard has been a blade runner for a very long time and he knows all the implanted memories a replicant would have, it wouldn't surprise me if he had dreamed some replicant dreams himself. Humans can dream about unicorns after all,not just replicants, I'm sure the bronies can attest to this.

My question is, if Deckard is a Replicant, why would you implant a memory of a unicorn into him? What human was thinking about a unicorn? I surely don't, and don't believe I ever have. That's just a little weird. No, I know it's a symbol.

@N7 said:

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

Considering how the book depicts the replicants as rodents while the movie shows them as superhumans, I don't think that's exactly sound. The book is a completely different beast.

But I choose to believe that he is human, mainly because the character contrasting and development work out so much better that way. The replicants start off as some sympathetic runaways just trying to live their life(well, not so much Leon) while Deckerd is just kind of an asshole. As the the movie goes on and Roy becomes a pyschopathic villain, Deckerd begins to soften and become more of a human.

@NTM: Ha, ha. I see. I got a bit confused there.

On the subject though. I always noticed something about Gaff. He's always there, hovering above Deckard like some sort of handler, or Runner, if you will. I know it might be reading too much into it but I think Gaff is the real Blade Runner in this movie, not Deckard. In that it would make sense they would use Replicants to hunt down other Replicants. Use them to do the dirty work, you know.

Again, me reading too much into the movie.

@buzz_clik said:

In my heart he's human, in my head he's a replicant.

Yup. That sounds like my opinion on the matter.

@mordukai: Could be. A little trivia, not sure if it's canon if they were to make another film, but from a book point of view, since there are sequel books to the film, Gaff dies in the sequel.

It has been some time since I have watched the movie, but I got the feeling he was human. This was the edit without the unicorn scene.

@NTM: Yes, I'm aware of that. To be perfectly honest then I'm not sure why this movie needs a sequel other then trying to cash in on Blade Runner's popularity. I think the Blade Runner said everything needed to be said.

Frankly I'm not sure why people in this thread keep bringing up the book as a way to prove their point since this discussion is based on the movie. Going purely on the movie then one must deduct that Ridley throws enough clues in your direction that points to Deckard being a replicant. He certainly has the characteristic of one. Many will point out Deckard glowing eyes and the Unicorn, but there's also a line Gaff says that was cut from the movie that pretty much throws all the clues away and outright tells you he is a replicant. I am talking about the line where Gaff says "You've done a man's job sir, but are you really a man?" If that's not a fucking admission then I don't know what else could be. On the other hand, many will point out that movie as a whole works best if Deckard is a human, and they are also right.

Like I've said before. The best answer to this question is, maybe.

I was dissapointed when they confirmed he was a replicant. Part of the reason I like the movie is because of the ending when Roy chooses not to kill him (because he doesn't want to die alone) and attempts to pass on his experience (the only thing we can do, death is inevitable and the whole point of Roys motivation). If Decker is just a replicant than a human who has been enlightened in those final moment. It diminishes it somewhat.

The best explanation I've seen presented is that Deckard is a replicant that is infused with the memories of Gaff. Gaff is the best blade runner there is, but because of age Deckard is sort of a younger copy that can do the dirty work that Gaff is incapable of.

@mordukai said:

@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.

Lol, that was weak.

He's not... And Neo is not a program...

The one argument i have against him being a replicant is the final scenes between him and Roy. Roy is obviously physically superior to him and easily beats the snot out of him. Would you make a replicant whose sole job it is to hunt other replicants inferior in terms of strength and speed to those he's hunting?

@madnesshero88 said:

The one argument i have against him being a replicant is the final scenes between him and Roy. Roy is obviously physically superior to him and easily beats the snot out of him. Would you make a replicant whose sole job it is to hunt other replicants inferior to in terms of strength and speed to those he's hunting?

It depends. Is his role to hunt Replicants or to be so intrinsically programmed to believe he's human that he hunts his own kind? Remember Tyrell likes to tease with the truth and mask the truth as a lie (asking Deckard if he thinks Rachael is a Replicant when they first meet) and enjoys a game of a chess to the point that he plays with a regularly with J S. I believe Deckard is test subject like any other. Also, he's actually pretty damn hardy too when you think about all the hits he takes.

@bearshamanbro said:

The best explanation I've seen presented is that Deckard is a replicant that is infused with the memories of Gaff. Gaff is the best blade runner there is, but because of age Deckard is sort of a younger copy that can do the dirty work that Gaff is incapable of.

I read that theory just now. Seems pretty sound actually. Like most of the movie it even hinge's on one specific line of dialogue; "Gaff to Deckard after the death of Roy : "You've done a man's job."

@bearshamanbro: I never heard that, was it just some person putting out theories? Doesn't matter, it could be, and that's an interesting take on it. I was actually thinking about that earlier.

In the book he is human, and why would the police trust a replicant (in this case Deckard) to kill other replicants? Doesn't make much sense to me.

@JusticeJanitor said:

@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.

The issue is that Scott believed Deckard was a Replicant, but Michael Deeley (a producer) and Ford believed/portrayed the character as human. Likewise Rutger Hauer prefers that explanation because it makes the final fight between their characters between man and machine rather than machine and machine (or as he so eloquently put it "Two toasters.")

So there's actually no concrete answer as there's plenty of evidence for both sides and from both sides. Which is what Hampton Fancher (one of the screenwriters) apparently preferred.

He's a Maverick.

@mordukai said:

I think the best answer is, Maybe.

I agree with this even tho i think he is a replicant. It reminds me of the ending of inception where it's ok to believe what you believe.

There is no spoon.

The collector's edition of the movie is impressive and a must have. The film implied that Decker was a replicant. How can a guy with a broken pinky hang on a ledge with one hand? I didn't read much into that topic but I really enjoyed the film. It's amazing that the film was originally a commercial failure. We are still taking about it thirty years after it's release. On another topic, it's sad how Sean Young's career has gone down hill.

@phantomzxro said:

@mordukai said:

I think the best answer is, Maybe.

I agree with this even tho i think he is a replicant. It reminds me of the ending of inception where it's ok to believe what you believe.

The ending to Inception was good. I think a lot of people missed the point of the ending though. Everyone is so hung up on whether it was a dream or real that they missed the whole point that in the end it doesn't matter because the main character didn't care to look at it anymore. he has forgiven himself and that was the whole point of the movie, redemption.

@mordukai said:

@phantomzxro said:

@mordukai said:

I think the best answer is, Maybe.

I agree with this even tho i think he is a replicant. It reminds me of the ending of inception where it's ok to believe what you believe.

The ending to Inception was good. I think a lot of people missed the point of the ending though. Everyone is so hung up on whether it was a dream or real that they missed the whole point that in the end it doesn't matter because the main character didn't care to look at it anymore. he has forgiven himself and that was the whole point of the movie, redemption.

that's a great point which is the reason i liked the ending and it did not come off as a cliff hanger of sorts.

Unfortunately they pretty much solidified that he's a replicant.

This is a questionnaire for research, I am very influenced by the works of Ridley Scott and wanted to choose this film, could you please help me by completing the form.

Questionnaire for research focus group – Blade Runner.

1.Is Deckard a replicant what are your views?

2.How long can Deckard live if he is a non-human?

3.Where are the off world colonies?

4.Why does the city seem so empty and crowded simultaneously?

5.When and why were replicants created?

6.How does the voight kampff test work?

7.Is the best ending version with Deckard as Human and Roy as replicant?

8.Is it possible that Deckard does not know he is a replicant?

9.What is the significance of the unicorn scene and does this signify that in fact this memory was implanted into Deckard’s mind making him a replicant?

10.Was the glow from Deckard’s eye just a lighting accident during filming or this also another sign that Deckard is in fact a replicant?

11.Do you have any other comments or thoughts on blade runner?

This is also a questionnaire I designed for my research task, could you perhaps help by completing this. Many thanks.

Questionnaire on themes in Blade Runner

1.What are your thoughts on Blade runner and do you like it?

2.Is blade runner morally sound in depicting the influence and power of large corporations, the omnipresence of the police and the control of humans by biomedical systems?

3.What are the consequences of the replicants and their implanted memories?

4.Is blade runner immoral in depicting the planet as dystopian and presenting the human race as selfish, unlike the replicants who work collectively, is it acceptable that the film asks us to reassess what it means to be human?

5.What are the negative impacts of humans mastering genetic engineering and can humans and robots live together co-operatively?

6.What are the implications of technology on the environment and does Blade runner reinforce a negative view of society when watched?

7.Blade runner raises many questions about the human condition, for example can you describe to me your definition of what reality is?

8.What does it mean to be human and has any themes from blade runner resonated within you?

9.The interpretation that Deckard is a replicant is challenged by some fans who believe the unicorn imagery shows that the characters, whether human or replicant, share the same dreams and recognize their affinity or that the absence of a decisive answer is crucial to the film's main theme. Do you feel that The inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of the film, as well as its textual richness, permit fans from knowing the true meaning of the film?

10.What do you feel are the strengths of Blade runner?

11.What do you feel are the weaknesses and flaws in Blade runner?

12.If you have any other information which you would like to add then that would be kindly appreciated.

Considering Scott's rationale as of late, shown prominently in "Prometheus", I wouldn't buy his comment about Deckard.

is it really a matter of opinion? i can't remember all the telltale signs - gaff's knowledge of his dreams, the reflective eyes which you only see from other replicants/fake animals - maybe someone's mentioned them already, i haven't read the whole thread. plus isn't that what scott and ford fell out over? ford didn't like the idea. anyway, he is, whether you recognize it or not.

I realise you probably didn't intend it to be the last word on the film, but I don't know how much weight any reference to how it is in the book carries because the film only really takes the facade of the novel it's based on. I feel like it's thematic concerns are pretty much entirely different. The film is pretty much entirely concerned with what constitutes a "self" and whether actual humanity is key to it and all the various metaphysical and existential questions that surround those questions. I feel like the book just isn't interested in that at all, or at least, when it is, it relegates it to a subplot which isn't at all present in the film, and even that could probably be read more as a question about problems with other minds than "humanity qua humanity" like the film is.

The film does everything it can to blur the lines between human and replicant, whereas the novel does everything it can to make those lines as solid as possible, from the constan worrying about real animals vs fake animals, and the fact that replicants are shown not only to be unable to feel empathy, but to be actively hostile towards the very notion when Buster Friendly shatters the illusion of mercerism (incidentally, Deckards encounter with a mercer-box near the end of the novel is the only "proof" that he's not a replicant that I can think of, can anyone give me others. His refusal to use a mood organ at the beginning of the book could probably be taken as an attempt to make us think he is a replicant).

So yeah, I think at a certain point you have to accept you are dealing with very different beasts, and that Deckard being a man in the book is never going to be a guarantee that that is how it is in the film. The flipside to this, of course, is that saying he is a replicant (for all the effects that might have on the shape of the story) is not as severe a statement when talking about the film as it would be in the book, because the film allows for the possibility that he is a replicant and he is human.

Edit: Hmm, sorry, I didn't realise this was a necro.

Aside from the unicorn reveal, its hinted that Decker was the Nexus 6 replicant that got fried during the escape from the Off-World colony. Plus, he has the same reflective lenses that Rachel has.

...People bumped this thread. Hm. I think that if anyone asked me as we watched it "So, is Deckard a replicant or human?" I wouldn't have an answer, I'd simply state what I'd like to think of him as and show them what I see as I watch it, and what some of the arguments are about it, but I'll never be able to, and never want to say he's one or the other with certainty without a film sequel at least, which I do believe Ridley Scott is making. While Ridley Scott pronounced in an interview that he is, and that really should be proof enough, I don't find that it is.

Yeah, but what happens if he turned around after a while and saw that the top kept spinning, would he still not care? I think it matters. The top of course didn't go on spinning, because just before the credits, you could see it start shaking as if it were to stop.

It makes way more sense in terms of the world if he's a human, and I'm not really sure what it adds for him to be a replicant, except a little 'oh snap' twist.

I think it's a schrodinger's cat situation. I don't think he is a human or a replicant, for the purposes of the movie. I think he's a human who's worried he might be a replicant. Or a replicant who's worried that if he finds out he's a replicant, he will lose his humanity. Either way, I think it's that paranoia that's important to the story.

IT'S A MYSTERRYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Him being human makes more sense for me. And besides, he wasn't a replicant in the book. So I'll go with that. Too bad he went out and confirmed it... Silly Ridley is no fun at all.

I watched Blade Runner for the first time earlier this week - director's cut Blu-Ray version - and I feel like such an idiot for not realising that the origami animal Deckard picks up at the end of the film is a unicorn, tying into his earlier vision. Why it's there is a valid question to raise, but it certainly seems to convincingly tie up the whole Deckard is a Replicant idea.

In the movie he's a replicant, in the book he's human.