• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Blade Runner 2049: Ridley Scott insists Deckard is a Replicant, Villeneuve am cry

U

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
jett said:
There's this bit from the interview I don't get:



What scene in the trailer might they be referring to? I took a glimpse at Fancher's BR script and it opens exactly the same as the finished movie. There's an alternate title sequence in BR with visuals of waterdrops, but I see nothing like that in the BR2049 trailer.

Also, curiously, Fancher's script has voice over narration. I did not know that.



I'm just saying it's a plausible explanation. Honestly I've watched BR multiple times and it wasn't until recently that I realized Replicants weren't robots. In hindsight it's really obvious, though.
Click to expand...

I haven't read any leaks or spoilers but the vibe I get from the trailers is that there is some kind of long-buried "secret" that concerns the status of replicants in society. Maybe humans died out long ago and everyone is a replicant, maybe replicants have secretly taken over the world and humans are the enslaved lower class, it seems to be heading in that direction.

I remember that at one time during production, Tyrell was actually a replicant and his human self was dead in a hibernation chamber that had failed. I can see Ridley returning to that idea of "would anyone notice if replicants took over?".

Stinkles said:
Passing the Voigt kampf test and appearing perfectly human would in fact be a superpower and in keeping with the kinds of things Tyrrell was trying to achieve.

Viewed through that lens Rachel's eventual failure to pass would explain why Tyrrell was pleased at the "result" because he was testing Deckard not Rachel
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that "more human than human" is the Tyrell motto. If Deckard is a replicant then he is so human that he's just another lonely loser. He blends in perfectly with the grotty plebs on the streets. Creating a genuinely unidentifiable replicant would be of great interest to Tyrell.
 
E

Exodust

Banned
Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, “Well, isn't it corny?” I said, “Listen, I'll be the best f#@king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?” So, and that, you learn -- you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f#@king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, “You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.” Harrison, he was never -- I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, “Uh, I don't know about that.” I said, “But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, ‘I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a f#@king unicorn!’” Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is “Duh.” So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I adore this man.
 
C

Chumley

Banned
I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, “Well, isn't it corny?” I said, “Listen, I'll be the best f#@king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?” So, and that, you learn -- you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f#@king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, “You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.”
Click to expand...

Fuck off.

And if Ridley's paws are on the sequel in any way, that bodes very very poorly.
 
U

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
Chumley said:
Fuck off.

And if Ridley's paws are on the sequel in any way, that bodes very very poorly.
Click to expand...

This movie would never get made without Ridley's involvement, thankfully he seems to be mostly in the background. In Villeneuve we trust.
 
L

liquidtmd

Banned
NealMcCauley said:
33733046713_9694753578_o.gif
Click to expand...

"I give...NO FUUUUUUUUUCKS"
 
Z

Z3M0G

Member
Pyrrhus said:
How was there any ambiguity left after the Director's Cut? Of course Deckard was a replicant. He was a replicant in the novel the story was based on, Gaff knew what his factory-installed dream was, and his eyes glinted like Rachel and the owl's in one scene.
Click to expand...
What scene was this??
 
T

True Savior

Member
You might not like Deckard being a replicant but the insistence concerning a different interpretation is certainly more bizarre than anything Ridley can say. That's the movie he made. Deckard is a replicant.
 
C

CaviarMeths

Member
In the year 2032, Sir Ridley Scott's casket will be lowered into the ground, muffled voice coming from within rambling on about some crazy shit. He will direct 2 more movies after that. Probably Gladiator prequels.
 
T

TomJoadsGhost

Member
I'm not really terribly invested in deckards humanity for his sake but i've always felt the ending works better for batty if deckard is human.

Regardless if deckard is a replicant i *still* think this new movie should have been set 6 months after the original instead of 30 years.
 
N

Number_6

Member
Mango Madness said:
So...the Unicorn origami is just a coincidence?

At the very least, the film wants you to think Deckard is a replicant. What evidence is there in the film that Deckard is human?
Click to expand...

This will be out of left field, but if they can insert images into the brain, what stops them from extracting images from the brain?

acf5bb2910559031bd939fe96712900c.jpg
Click to expand...

Honestly, I hate the idea of Deckard being a replicant. It essentially ruins the theme of the movie just so that Ridley can go around bragging about his "brilliant" (pointless) gotcha twist, and viewers, like some in this thread, can act all authoritative having found his stupid little clues.

Leave your clues, Ridley, but have some damned class and allow for ambiguity.
 
E

EGM1966

Member
jett said:
Ah thanks. I tried finding the earliest of Fancher's drafts but couldn't.
Click to expand...
Just to add a bit to that the early draft had Deckard pull the lower jaw from from the farmhand after retiring him and a close up revealing a barcode inside the jaw revealing the apparently human farmhand was actually a replicant.

TBH not sure why they'd resurrect this as the original scene was intended to shock/surprise the audience who don't yet know replicants are indistinguishable from humans. It would have seemed Deckard might have simply killed someone then the reveal via the jaw would make clear what had happened.

As the "cat's out the bag" on the replicants I don't see why a sequel would remotely need such a scene unless they've reworked it in terms of its purpose.

On topic this isn't a surprise as Scott's preferred cut is the final cut IIRC and that makes it very clear Deckard is also a replicant. TBH even the theatrical cut with Gaff's final lines is 60/40 he's replicant vs a 50/50 completely ambiguous stance.

I do like Scott's honest as ever. I don't always agree with him but he speaks his mind clearly and doesn't hide behind PR stances. His into to Alien Director's Cut where he makes clear its not really the director's cut and a marketing stance and his director's cut is the original theatrical cut is a classic of this.
 
D

Discotheque

Banned
EGM1966 said:
I do like Scott's honest as ever. I don't always agree with him but he speaks his mind clearly and doesn't hide behind PR stances. His into to Alien Director's Cut where he makes clear its not really the director's cut and a marketing stance and his director's cut is the original theatrical cut is a classic of this.
Click to expand...

yeah. I've found many of his movies to be pretty bad as of late but his frank attitude is so entertaining. He just lets out this stream of consciousness, not giving a fuck. He's earned it too, so he aint worried.
 
C

Crankshaft

Member
I like the idea of Replicants making you question your reality and messing with your head a little bit. I'm not on board with Deckard being a Replicant though. I think the "replicant main character" idea was explored better in the Blade Runner PC game that came out years ago.
 
J

JoJo UK

Unconfirmed Member
Pyrrhus said:
How was there any ambiguity left after the Director's Cut? Of course Deckard was a replicant. He was a replicant in the novel the story was based on, Gaff knew what his factory-installed dream was, and his eyes glinted like Rachel and the owl's in one scene.
Click to expand...
I don't like Deckard being a replicant but I always though he was because of the above. Am I making it up? I'm sure his eyes glint the same way at some point for a split second.
 
Monocle

Monocle

Member
SugarDave said:
Ridley off his nut in the Prometheus commentary

Guy is such an asshole, I kinda love it.
Click to expand...
Yep, he's always been amusingly brash. Not a shred of self-doubt. Which maybe isn't an asset if you're heading a collaborative project, but it sure is fun to listen to him talk about his job.

broncobuster said:
With all due respect to Mr. Scott, in the words of The Rock, it doesn't matter what you think.
Click to expand...
This doesn't really apply to a director talking about his own movie.

Bobby Roberts said:
THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF GAF

State Language: Indiscriminate Unpopular Dork Dialect #23 (dead language)
State Dish: $30 Italian Beggar's Meal
State Pastime: Jerking off next to your sister
State Mascot: That Dude from Someone's Uncle's Weird Homemade Music Video.
Poet Laureate: Sunhi Legend
El Presidente: Evilore
Click to expand...
I thought it was understood that anyone who leaked this document from the GAF Gold subforum would be lashed with a Super Famicom controller until well chastened.
 
D

DeathyBoy

Banned
I applaud Ridley Scott for hiring great actors and having huge budgets to make Friday The 13th level films set in the alien universe.
 
V

Van Bur3n

Member
Pyrrhus said:
How was there any ambiguity left after the Director's Cut? Of course Deckard was a replicant. He was a replicant in the novel the story was based on, Gaff knew what his factory-installed dream was, and his eyes glinted like Rachel and the owl's in one scene.
Click to expand...

He's not a replicant in the novel though. The entire theme of empathy throughout the novel that was prevalent in his character made it quite obvious.

As for the film, I think it's a rather lame twist that Scott is too obsessed over. But it's his movie, so whatever.
 
S

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
Van Bur3n said:
He's not a replicant in the novel though. The entire theme of empathy throughout the novel that was prevalent in his character made it quite obvious.
Click to expand...

It's been awhile, but didn't the human characters lack empathy and emotions? They literally had to dial the latter in at points.

Aaaaand I just remembered the crazy bone world and second police station (or was that Flow My Tears...?). The book is mental.

Van Bur3n said:
As for the film, I think it's a rather lame twist that Scott is too obsessed over. But it's his movie, so whatever.
Click to expand...

We can always invoke 'Death of the Author' on this :)
 
B

broncobuster

Banned
Nappuccino said:
Sure it does. Esp when the movie's first version had the complete opposite revelation about his character.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. With the various versions, the screenwriter and director disagreeing, Mr. Scott never reading the story it's adapted from, etc. Blade Runner is one of the all time great examples of a story without an owner.
 
Z

Zakalwe

Banned
Fun fact: Ridley Scott visited my ex's post-production house in London, and turned them down for a job because there was too much bird poo on the outside of their toilet window.
 
E

EGM1966

Member
Van Bur3n said:
He's not a replicant in the novel though. The entire theme of empathy throughout the novel that was prevalent in his character made it quite obvious.

As for the film, I think it's a rather lame twist that Scott is too obsessed over. But it's his movie, so whatever.
Click to expand...
I always liked the novel confusing the hell out of Deckard as to what he is at one point and do kind of wish they'd gone a little more with that kind of PKD mind fuck in the film.

Maybe they'll go a little more PDK in the sequel.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
EGM1966 said:
Just to add a bit to that the early draft had Deckard pull the lower jaw from from the farmhand after retiring him and a close up revealing a barcode inside the jaw revealing the apparently human farmhand was actually a replicant.

TBH not sure why they'd resurrect this as the original scene was intended to shock/surprise the audience who don't yet know replicants are indistinguishable from humans. It would have seemed Deckard might have simply killed someone then the reveal via the jaw would make clear what had happened.

As the "cat's out the bag" on the replicants I don't see why a sequel would remotely need such a scene unless they've reworked it in terms of its purpose.
Click to expand...

The first thing that pops into my head regarding a possible rework is that Gosling's Blade Runner (does he have a name yet and I missed it) retires the replication without knowing at all. The chin check is to discover whether he just murdered another person with the information he needed, or if he just killed a replication and he's relatively in the clear.

That way the tension doesn't surround our "discovery" that people can be robots in this universe. It centers on whether this hero is just kind of a remorseless p.o.s., or a totally remorseless p.o.s.
 
F

Flipyap

Member
Monocle said:
This doesn't really apply to a director talking about his own movie.
Click to expand...
Definitely not when you're talking about a director who has shown time and time again that he doesn't understand his own movies.
If his opinion mattered, we'd all have to agree to completely rewrite our perception of the plot to Alien every few years.
 
G

gabbo

Member
EGM1966 said:
I always liked the novel confusing the hell out of Deckard as to what he is at one point and do kind of wish they'd gone a little more with that kind of PKD mind fuck in the film.

Maybe they'll go a little more PDK in the sequel.
Click to expand...

The novel never really gives Deckard any ambiguity about whether he's a human or not, but it does have him rethink the basis on what something could be considered 'human' and why that is. Also, the goat, and his wife.

Scott can shoot his mouth off all he wants, but if Deckard really IS a replicant it ruins the whole empathetic point of the film. What point does a robot falling in love with another robot make ? It's something we already know replicants can do because of Triss and Roy. There is literally no character arc for Deckard if he's a replicant. He learns nothing, achieves nothing.
 
F

Flipyap

Member
gabbo said:
The novel never really gives Deckard any ambiguity about whether he's a human or not, but it does have him rethink the basis on what something could be considered 'human' and why that is. Also, the goat, and his wife.

Scott can shoot his mouth off all he wants, but if Deckard really IS a replicant it ruins the whole empathetic point of the film. What point does a robot falling in love with another robot make ? It's something we already know replicants can do because of Triss and Roy. There is literally no character arc for Deckard if he's a replicant. He learns nothing, achieves nothing.
Click to expand...
They're not robots, they're basically bioengineered clones, so the point could still be just a regular love story.
I think the bigger issue is how the "twist" would affect Batty's character arc. He dies waxing poetic to one of his own and doesn't even change one natural grown human's opinion of replicants. Showing mercy to Deckard also becomes one big goof. Oops! Turns out it's not a historic event, it's just two skinjobs hanging out. Wow, Roy, you really can't do anything right, you shitty robot.
 
U

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
Flipyap said:
They're not robots, they're basically bioengineered clones, so the point could still be just a regular love story.
I think the bigger issue is how the "twist" would affect Batty's character arc. He dies waxing poetic to one of his own and doesn't even change one natural grown human's opinion of replicants. Showing mercy to Deckard also becomes one big goof. Oops! Turns out it's not a historic event, it's just two skinjobs hanging out. Wow, Roy, you really can't do anything right, you shitty robot.
Click to expand...

But isn't the whole point of the movie to question the boundary between replicants and humans? Whether replicant or human, Deckard does not assign any value to replicant life until he meets Rachel and Roy. He went from being a ruthless killer of replicants to someone who has fallen in love with one and understands their desire to live a human existence. Human or otherwise, by the end of the film Deckard's perception of replicants has changed, along with his perception of himself. Batty still made Deckard change.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Robot Pants said:
Give it time
Click to expand...

I've decided for this (burps) Laserdisc (air quotes) DIRECTOR'S CUT (eye roll) edition of Kingdom of Heaven that Warners... er, Fox, I think? It's Fox, I guess. I'm the director, so I say it's Fox. Anyway, they gave me some money, and now, I finally get to do what I've always wanted to do, and use the computer (hiccups) to put the Engineers in at least 7 and one half key scenes from Kingdom of Heaven, because really, Kingdom of Heaven is, if you think about it, a prequel to all my movies, you know? Because of when it takes place. In history (jiggles neck skin vigorously). And by the way, being a fan of Beavis and Butthead... they're all replicants now, too. But who replicated them? ahhhhh, now that (farts) is the interesting question (empty wine bottle tumbles out of his asshole) that I've had to wait until now to finally insert into Kumquat of Heaven, and I think you'll be rather pleased by the results.
 
N

NealMcCauley

Member
Bobby Roberts said:
I've decided for this (burps) Laserdisc (air quotes) DIRECTOR'S CUT (eye roll) edition of Kingdom of Heaven that Warners... er, Fox, I think? It's Fox, I guess. I'm the director, so I say it's Fox. Anyway, they gave me some money, and now, I finally get to do what I've always wanted to do, and use the computer (hiccups) to put the Engineers in at least 7 and one half key scenes from Kingdom of Heaven, because really, Kingdom of Heaven is, if you think about it, a prequel to all my movies, you know? Because of when it takes place. In history (jiggles neck skin vigorously). And by the way, being a fan of Beavis and Butthead... they're all replicants now, too. But who replicated them? ahhhhh, now that (farts) is the interesting question (empty wine bottle tumbles out of his asshole) that I've had to wait until now to finally insert into Kumquat of Heaven, and I think you'll be pleased by the results.
Click to expand...

Not enough strange English-isms. Worse than cooking with oranges.
 
B

btrboyev

Member
Flipyap said:
They're not robots, they're basically bioengineered clones, so the point could still be just a regular love story.
I think the bigger issue is how the "twist" would affect Batty's character arc. He dies waxing poetic to one of his own and doesn't even change one natural grown human's opinion of replicants. Showing mercy to Deckard also becomes one big goof. Oops! Turns out it's not a historic event, it's just two skinjobs hanging out. Wow, Roy, you really can't do anything right, you shitty robot.
Click to expand...

I don't think the clone thing is accurate. They are most definitely a machine if some sort. They work in habitats humans cannot. Like space.
 
U

Ushojax

Should probably not trust the 7-11 security cameras quite so much
btrboyev said:
I don't think the clone thing is accurate. They are most definitely a machine if some sort. They work in habitats humans cannot. Like space.
Click to expand...

They are a biological machine, physiologically enhanced artificial humans. There's a scene in the movie where Batty and his crew visit the guy who designs their organic eyes (where we also see that the replicants can endure extreme cold). They aren't Terminators.
 
K

KimonoNoNo

Member
The original production was a huge clusterfuck and they were very much writing it as they go, so it is bollocks that Scott intended all along that Deckard is a replicant.

My reading of the ending original director's cut is Gaff knows Rachael is a replicant and he's turning a blind eye. The origami unicorn was simply letting Deckard know he knows nothing more.
 
G

gabbo

Member
Flipyap said:
They're not robots, they're basically bioengineered clones, so the point could still be just a regular love story.
I think the bigger issue is how the "twist" would affect Batty's character arc. He dies waxing poetic to one of his own and doesn't even change one natural grown human's opinion of replicants. Showing mercy to Deckard also becomes one big goof. Oops! Turns out it's not a historic event, it's just two skinjobs hanging out. Wow, Roy, you really can't do anything right, you shitty robot.
Click to expand...

Sorry, replicant. Still, the audience is meant to identify with Deckard and through him follow the same journey where the replicants (seen as robots/skinjobs/machines/etc) by the people of the world are as deserving of being considered human as the real humans they're subjugated by. If Deckard comes to realize this, but is also himself a replicant, what greater meaning does that hold? It would make him no different than Roy, except he's not as physically fit, and less self aware.

It makes the ending where he comes to identify Rachel as worthy of saving; as human/human enough, little more than one replicant saving another, which is not a great revelation and has more to do with self preservation than a greater philosophical understanding of humanity on his part. Replicants already know there is a blurred line between what it means to be human, as they are that blurred line made real.
 
G

Guy.brush

Member
Ushojax said:
They are a biological machine, physiologically enhanced artificial humans. There's a scene in the movie where Batty and his crew visit the guy who designs their organic eyes (where we also see that the replicants can endure extreme cold). They aren't Terminators.
Click to expand...

Whether it is BSG's human cylons or BR's replicants or any other story that tries to use the "whoishumanandwhoisn't" dilemma, I always find it very hard to suspend my disbelief that there is no proper testing procedure for them.
Either the subjects are basically indistinguishable from humans because they are pretty much just cloned or they are artificial but then any society that can produce them should easily be able to identify them as well.
Why use the Voight-Kampff machine and test for things like AI patterns like a turing test when all you need to do is take a blood sample or put the subject under an x-ray?
 
W

Warm Machine

Member
btrboyev said:
Replicants shouldn't age.
Click to expand...

4 year lifespan. More human than human is our motto here at Tyrel Corporation. They age. They take on all traits of people including getting old in the latest models.

Deckard is a Replicant. The unicorn seals it. He nods, understands his place and leaves. Credits. I love the Gavin Rothery theory that Deckard is a memory replicant of Gaff, which completely explains the dreams and how he knew and why Gaff is so standoffish.

If you have read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep nearly everything by the end of the book is artificial.

He and Hampton did work on the story for Blade Runner 2 and he was going to direct it but his schedule wouldn't let him.

When it comes to shitting on Ridley you are doing so based off his treatment of your precious franchises. The movie he made just prior to that was a huge success and nominated for best picture. He may be old but he is still better than most young directors but ageist GAF won't accept that.
 
T

True Savior

Member
KimonoNoNo said:
The original production was a huge clusterfuck and they were very much writing it as they go, so it is bollocks that Scott intended all along that Deckard is a replicant.

My reading of the ending original director's cut is Gaff knows Rachael is a replicant and he's turning a blind eye. The origami unicorn was simply letting Deckard know he knows nothing more.
Click to expand...

Nah. The idea was always there. Interview from 82 with Starburst magazine in an article entitled The Blade Cuts

Ridley Scott: Did you see the version [of the script] with the unicorn?

Alan McKenzie: No.

S: I think the idea of the unicorn was a terrific idea.

M: The obvious inference is that Deckard is a replicant himself.

S: Sure. To me it's entirely logical, particularly when you are doing a film noir, you may as well go right through with that theme, and the central character could in fact be what he is chasing.

M: Did you actually shoot the sequence in the glade with the unicorn?

S: Absolutely. It was cut into the picture, and I think it worked wonderfully. Deckard was sitting, playing the piano rather badly because he was drunk, and there's a moment where he gets absorbed and goes off a little at a tangent and we went into the shot of the unicorn plunging out of the forest. It's not subliminal, but it's a brief shot. Cut back to Deckard and there's absolutely no reaction to that, and he just carries on with the scene. That's where the whole idea of the character of Gaff with his origami figures — the chicken and the little stick-figure man, so the origami figure of the unicorn tells you that Gaff has been there. One of the layers of the film has been talking about private thoughts and memories, so how would Gaff have known that a private thought of Deckard was of a unicorn? That's why Deckard shook his head like that [referring to Deckard nodding his head after picking up the paper unicorn] (p.29)
Click to expand...

http://observationdeck.kinja.com/that-pesky-blade-runner-unicorn-was-indeed-proof-all-al-1523761100
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dune: Part Two - Review Thread
News 6 7 8 9 10
494
24K
BearNecessity replied
how did it all go down for Alien: Covenant after one of the best opening scenes in a movie?
Opinion
34
2K
dr_octagon replied
Phil Spencer interview - Says that their intent is for all Xbox games, including Call of Duty, to be available on Xbox Game Pass Day One
2 3
102
6K
Kenneth Haight replied
George RR Martin's latest blog post has broken me.
2 3 4 5 6
271
20K
Punished Miku replied
Kick-Ass director Matthew Vaughn confirms that a "f***ing nuts" reboot is coming in two years
38
2K
JusticeForAll replied
Top Bottom