There is no "sealing" it. People have their own interpretations of the film, and that's all there is to it.
-
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
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
There is no "sealing" it. People have their own interpretations of the film, and that's all there is to it.
So if replicants age and have a lifespan of 4 years and Deckard was one according to Ridley, why did he agree to have 30 years older Deckard in the 2049 movie?
You can see what seems like Rachael's tombstone in the trailer with a 6-10-21 date.
So what did Deckard do to live another 28 years longer?
You can see what seems like Rachael's tombstone in the trailer with a 6-10-21 date.
So what did Deckard do to live another 28 years longer?
NullPointer
Member
The unicorn seals it.
Regginator
Member
That explains his shitty acting in the original BR. He probably didn't get the system firmware update back then. Looking forward to BR2049 for everything except the parts that include our dear mister Ford.
We don't know. We don't know any detail about what happened to Rachel, what model of replicant she and Deckard were, what lifespan they might have had. We will have to watch 2049 to find out.
Wasn't in the book. Added by Ridley in 1992 Directors Cut and was just unused footage from his 1985 movie Legend.
Beer Monkey
Member
The book isn't a limiting factor. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not in the film doesn't mean he is the same in the book. Adaptations can take broad liberties.
It would basically be a WestWorld scenario. That Tyrell secretly created models that were not part of the official product line with different attributes and limitations. They would not necessarily be homogeneous.
And the unicorn is irrelevant to all of that.
Pyrrhus
Member
Replicants have that four year lifespan built into them to prevent them from being able to rise up. Tyrell's thing about the candle that burns twice as bright burning half as long was bullshit. They don't age quickly or anything like that; they're programmed to die at their predetermined expiration date. Note how Batty's hand curls up like a spider. Is that something normal human being do when they're near death? Especially when moments before they were punching through the walls of buildings and lifting up grown men with one hand? It's nothing more than a limiter. And it's easy enough to imagine someone made Deckard without that limiter.
Warm Machine
Member
No it wasn't. It was shot explicitly for Blade Runner during production.
I believe in the book everyone in the police station was a replicant by the end.
Hmm, from what I remember of Dangerous Days I thought Ridley used the set of Legend to film the Blade Runner scene. Oh well, still don't see how the unicorn seals anything.
Kadayi
Banned
No. Deckard is a precursor model to the Nexus 6. He's been hunting replicants for a period before the Nexus 6 exist. The whole setup is established early on with the Tyrell speech about the company motto being 'more human than human'. Tyrell had created human level replicants, but the Nexus 6 was the evolution onwards in terms of their physical and mental abilities, however as a safeguard to keep them in check they shortened their lifespan. Deckard being an earlier inferior model doesn't suffer from that degree of built-in obsolescence. As regards the ageing, the replicants are made from genetic material.
I thought it was heavily implied that he is a replicant in the film. I agree with that theory myself. I always hoped they would leave it up to the viewer however. I liked that bit of mystery in the film. I'd like to think Ridley is just talking out his ass and Villeneuve is going to leave it ambiguous. Still excited for the movie.
Nappuccino
Member
Different, fake police station.
Warm Machine
Member
How else would Gaff know to make a unicorn? He has read Deckards file and dreams or memories of unicorns were implanted in him. It's a simple A/B tie in. It says I was here and I know how you think, get moving.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Simo
Member
Worth noting that for those that haven't read Future Noir or watched the Dangerous Days doc that Tyrell was meant to be a replicant too. They made a dummy head that when crushed was supposed to show the inner workings of a replicant but it didn't look good and the reveal scene of the sarcophagus where Batty meets the reveal Tyrell got cut due to budgetary reasons despite being in the script and being conceptualized.
It also explains why Batty flips out since the real maker was already dead and had been accidentally killed years ago by Sebastian.
Villeneuve doesn't actually have final cut.
But I'm sure Scott won't screw him over, based on his own personal experience. Probably.
He nods, understands that his whole life has been a lie and that he has up to three years left to live and leaves. Credits.
What kind of story is that? Especially after spending the entire movie following characters struggling with their mortality and place in the world. He nods and leaves.
It really doesn't. Not even close.
The unicorn works perfectly fine as a symbol of unrealistic dreams or desires, and it makes much more sense as such than as some kind of calling card that's going to reveal everything to Deckard with one image because it relates to something he saw in a dream the night before. How would that even work? Does Deckard only ever dream about unicorns? Was Tyrell a hardcore brony?
Throughout the film, Gaff makes these little figurines representing Deckard's emotions, not clues leading to a pointless plot twist.
They are improvements on the human anatomy, artificial, but still essentially human. They have genetic designers. They are indistinguishable from humans outside of a few things like extreme tolerance to heat and cold. So the psychological test must be used to detect them.
If they had any sort of synthetic or robot parts, a simple x-ray or bloody test or something would be enough to find them. It's not, so they do the other thing instead.
I was pointing this way in a post above, but, if they are going to implant memories into a replicant, surely they can scan and record them from a human in the first place. Who's to say Deckard, a human, wasn't simply a subject of that scan?
Then again, if they can scan up memories, why even bother with the Voight-Kampff test? Great, now I'm over-thinking this shit.
It's a movie, it's art, it doesn't need to follow perfect logic, especially when emotions, empathy, wonder, and blues are involved. Ridley going around ruining the mystery, it kills the mood, spoils the fun, and cheapens the character growth. Unless you really really like searching for the bluntly placed "clues" and proclaiming your great logic and clever sleuthiness around the internet with the thousands of others who saw the exact same breadcrumbs and reached the exact same conclusion, unless you're really into that--this "twist" is pointless and stupid.
Left ambiguous, sure, that's cool. Declared as fact? Imagine Nolan saying the end of Inception was a dream. Or real. Sucks, right?
Edit: All of this is simply my opinion, of course.
GiantEnemyGoomba
Member
I think the ending can still be ambiguous. Wouldn't surprise me at all if all Blade Runners had a complete scan of their brains done by the police departments or something like that. It'd be another good parallel between them and the replicants.
Kadayi
Banned
He's not a Nexus 6 model replicant. He's an earlier model. The four-year lifespan was a specific bit of built-in obsolescence to keep the Nexus 6 models in check.
adamsappel
Member
Not to mention all the photographs in Deckard's apartment, just like all the other replicants collect. It's okay to be wrong about movies. You can prefer that Deckard be human, but that's not what happens. I was initially disappointed with Minority Report, because I thought they were giving the movie a Dick-ish finale with Anderton locked away, and then they ruined it with a "happy" ending. I eventually realized that part is just a dream of an imprisoned Anderton, and it's really, really Dick-ish!This one:
How does Gaff know what Deckard daydreams of? Ridley talked about that scene at the time, but executive meddling kept out the explicit unicorn dream from the theatrical cut.
There's nothing in the film that says Deckard has existed before. Memories can be false. He could be the latest and greatest model.
Uh. Umm.
Sir, this guy's got photographs. In his apartment!
Dang, he must be a replicant!
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Villeneuve doesn't actually have final cut.
But I'm sure Scott won't screw him over, based on his own personal experience. Probably.
Some of Villeneuve's friends, who have worked with him on some of his previous movies have the final cut, so I guess he might get a bit of a say at least.
Photographs? Are you serious?
Why exactly are you so desperate to create flimsy arguments for a definitive, objective view of the film? I didn't even know until now that there were people out there who didn't think Blade Runner intentionally left the question open.
"It's ok to be wrong about movies", like for real dude? This post is pathetic.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I admire a man who practices what he preaches.
Mechanized
Member
I liked it being ambiguous. Leave stuff to the viewers conclusions. That's what keeps movies so interesting, why people disect them and talk about them so much. Take Inception, was he in a dream at the end? Did the movie just cut before the top fell? The unclear answer adds mystery and makes you think about the whole movie, you want to talk to others about it to hear their opinion. Taking away that mystery kind of shits on the aura the movie has.
Confounding Factor
Banned
What garbage. The original film makes zero sense if Deckard is a replicant, it undermines the entire point of the film. It's about what it means to be human and where the replicants are more human than the "unhuman" Deckard.
Yeah having a IDGAF attitude and speaking your mind can be refreshing, especially when consider other filmmakers. But goddamn I don't want that "devil may care" attitude in his movies I'm watching when he's making these high concept Sci-Fi Alien movies. You want to make content and not give a fuck, make a podcast.
afternoon delight
Member
Nah. If you mean cranky and crazy, that's been Ridley's MO since Gladiator gave him renewed mega clout- Lucas isn't even a tenth prolific in the film spectrum.
adamsappel
Member
Yes. The movie places great import on photographs. Leon carries a stack of "family photos" with him. Rachel tries to convince Deckard she's human with a photograph. Deckard has a motley, nonsensical collection of photos on his piano. Deckard explicitly comments that photographs are important to replicants.
Why are you so desperate to deny these overt clues? I'm not even saying him being a replicant is an improvement of the story, just that he is. It's not ambiguous at all. Deckard's eyes flash in the same frame as Rachel. Gaff knows what Deckard daydreams about. The photographs. Deckard's narration about emotions. And then you have Ridley Scott himself telling you so!
You're wrong about this movie, sorry.
You don't think Tim Blake Nelson's line, the last thing Anderton hears, "They say you have visions, that your life flashes before your eyes, that all your dreams come true," isn't significant?
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
he ain't no goddamn skinjob
NullPointer
Member
Its in the Director's cut and the Director has been plain about it.
Pointless plot twist? We're in loony land.
Believe what you want, but its clear cut why that scene was added. If you don't want to consider the Director's cut as the definitive version of the film, that's fine.
Ridley Scott is senile now and everyone else who's obsessed with the "Deckard is a replicant" angle might as well be watching a different film than the one I did.
That scene between Batty and Deckard, the signature scene of the entire film, is completely devoid of meaning if Deckard is a replicant. The entire point of it and why its so memorable is the connection they make in that moment, between replicant and human. To show that they're both the same in the end, that replicants have souls just like humans do, have memories, regrets, wishes, etc.
If Deckard is a replicant the soul of the film dies.
That scene between Batty and Deckard, the signature scene of the entire film, is completely devoid of meaning if Deckard is a replicant. The entire point of it and why its so memorable is the connection they make in that moment, between replicant and human. To show that they're both the same in the end, that replicants have souls just like humans do, have memories, regrets, wishes, etc.
If Deckard is a replicant the soul of the film dies.
Kadayi
Banned
So you're saying that the LA Police department had themselves a top of the line previously never mentioned Nexus 7 replicant given to them by Tyrell, who they fed false memories into to the extent that even his entire career as a Blade Runner is seemingly false, including the bit about him having left the department in the first place so they have to persuade him to come work for them again? Plus seemingly Tyrell in his wisdom decided to make the Nexus 7 neither as fast or as strong as the Nexus 6?
Saying 'false memories' isn't some magic wand that negates logic and reason. Deckard being an older replicant model makes sense, him being a superior newer model makes zero sense.
Utterly pointless. The kind of twist that wasn't in the script and wasn't acknowledged by the actors, which means that the director probably didn't even direct the movie with the twist in mind. It's a twist that goes against the themes of the story, breaking both the protagonist's and antagonist's character acts. Twists don't get more pointless than this.
unpopularblargh
Member
I'm dying. This is glorious.
Thank you for this. Its lovely to have someone who actually knows his shit just spell things out.
This basically sums up the entire problem in 2 minutes. Ridley flat out refuses to tolerate anyone being around him who isn't a yes man, and apparently gets angry with anyone who even questions him.
As soon as you think you have nothing left to learn as a director, you should stop directing.
s_mirage
Member
Being an older model makes zero sense either, at least if he's supposed to be a regular model. If the Nexus 6 is supposed to be an advancement in how human replicants are, how can that be when there's nothing to suggest that Deckard isn't human to the extent that he has no clue that he isn't? Increased strength /= more human.
An advanced prototype, maybe, but a generic older model? That makes no sense.
From what I recall from Future Noir, Ridley developed the idea of Deckard being a replicant while the film was in production. While he may not have directed Ford to play the role that way (hell, Ridley not giving explicit acting direction was a cause of friction between him an Ford), it does seem like that was his intent.
andythinkpad
Member
Give Scott 3 more years he will put Alien and Blade Runner in the same universe. The Replicant leader is actually the designer of David in the new Alien: Genesis.
Rudimental
Member
This references a scene that was omitted, in which Anderton has a vision of his son telling him what happened to him and that he is dead.
Indeed. Deckard was always meant to be a replicant in Scott's movie. It's just that the studio hacks that be didn't like the bleak ending and in their infinite wisdom decided to popcorn it by slapping on that idiotic final scene (that makes no sense for the simple reason that the entire planet is polluted).
By the way, in Dick's novel (which is quite different), Deckard isn't a replicant.
Please then, explain. What is the point of this twist? How does it serve the film? The theme? The arcs of the characters?
In relative "fairness" to the studio hacks, I recently discovered that the shooting script and earlier drafts actually end with Rachel and Deckard driving through the woods. In the final script it's a happy ending. In a previous script Deckard decides to kill Rachel in the car, instead of letting Gaff have her.
The moral of the story here is that people shouldn't act like the source material is the be all/end all.
Kadayi
Banned
s_mirage
Member
Yes, and I don't believe it makes sense or is supported by what's shown on screen. You seem to be forgetting the whole question of the Voight Kampff test potentially failing, and why. If the earlier models lived longer and we're equal to humans, they'd likely start passing the test on their own.
Besides, your assertion that Deckard must be an older model since he's been around for a while completely ignores the possibility that he's not the original. He could be a replica of the real Blade Runner, with the original's memories.