Allonym
There should be more tampons in gaming
I don't think there's anything wrong with exposition, it's just that his explanations are extremely stupid and better left unsaid but at least we know now...
-
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
I don't think there's anything wrong with exposition, it's just that his explanations are extremely stupid and better left unsaid but at least we know now...
Kadayi
Banned
But I'm not saying he's an older model. I'm saying he's a precursor to the Nexus 6. Which is exactly in line your yourself said (a prototype). Which is why I asked you whether you read my original post?
Given that Nexus 6 are newer models, then logically he must be older. As for whether he's, in fact, a replicant with a dead Blade Runners memories, potentially, but it seems rather far-fetched given how we're introduced to him, and that he has to be threatened by Bryant to take on board the job in the first place.
Feel free to propose your counter scenario though.
burntchomsky
Member
Hahaha this is great thanks for sharing.
They're not going to answer you because they can't. It's pedantry with no actual goal, or just blind worship of Ridley Scott as if George Lucas was also right about his older work.
Oveja Negra
Member
What if this old Deckard we see in this new film is the real one (human) and the one we saw in the first movie was a replicant based on him (with his memories implanted)?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh O_O
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh O_O
I just wanted to be part of the wild crazy speculative post nonsense 
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It introduces enough ambiguity that you could believe, if you wanted to interpret the following events as if they were some sort of fantasy Anderton is having.
but it's not actually what happens, which is what you claimed. Spielberg, I believe, and the writers, Scott Frank & Jon Cohen, have both at least had the decency not to say one way or the other what they believe the ending to Minority Report really is, even if they do have their own intention. I believe those intentions are really clear, however, and I also believe that the film itself makes a very strong case, thematically and textually, that the ending you see is happening in reality, and not in Anderton's head. BUT: If someone would rather believe the halo clicks on and we just watch Anderton's fantasy for the last half-hour, I can disagree, but I can't tell them they're wrong, because the film does allow for that.
Minority Report is a pretty good counter-example of why removing ambiguity in either direction is bad, because that level of interaction with the art is supported, the conversations and interpretations that follow from experiencing it are left to spin out on their own due to their lack of 100% solid answer. But it's a really bad bit of support for what Ridley Scott has done with Blade Runner, not only because Spielberg/Cohen/Frank haven't done press tours, interviews, and commentaries removing all ambiguity, but because you can't definitively point to any part of the movie and use that as some sort of smoking gun that erases any other perspective on the story's meaning but yours.
How Minority Report ends is not the same as how Blade Runner ends, and your interpretation/theory as to the meaning of Minority Report's last half-hour is not on the same level as Ridley Scott's drunken bloviating into a camera about his power as a 44 year old director on his 3rd movie. You can't use your really, really wanting the end of Minority Report to be all a dream from the pages of Word Up magazine as an instrument to tell people they just need to shut up and accept that the original/international/workprint versions of Blade Runner are now "wrong."
True: that would work. Switch it to a reveal on the main character instead in terms of his actions.
Could be they just wanted to finally use the scene: Scott clearly likes mining unused concepts after all.
That said I trust the director wouldn't use it unless it got well with his own film.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Fuck, only just now noticed my phone didnt' know what a Replicant was and I didn't notice it had "helped" me in that explanation
Goddammit
Goddammit
I don't give a fuck about what Scott says and to say that the other interpretation is pointless pedantry is something I don't understand. Clearly the most obvious thematic relevance of Deckard being a replicant is that the audience (and the character himself) throughout the film had accepted Deckard as a human because he was presented as such and revealing that he is in fact a replicant at the end after we have learned to empathize with him over the past 2 hours does not reverse our view of him, which further reinforces the blurring and maybe arbitrary line between real humans and artificial ones (ones which are sufficiently close to real ones).
J
JoJo UK
Unconfirmed Member
There is an Easter egg on the Prometheus blu ray and (I think) Alien blu ray linking the two universes. As Easter eggs though I don't think they are classed as cannon.
Kadayi
Banned
Is your phone a Nexus by chance?
Because replicants are fully biological genetically engineered androids (you need to remove the idea from your head when hearing the word android, that they have steel skeletons and cyber brains and stuff like that). They are so indistinguishable from humans that the only way to know if someone is a replicant is by performing the test with a Voight-Kampff machine on them. So naturally they age when they escape their 4 year lifespan
adamsappel
Member
Which version is the dearest to you? I'm not saying Ridley didn't screw up his film. He did have a geographer get lost and a biologist pet an alien snake, after all. But, it was clearly his intention that Deckard is a replicant, and at every chance he's had he made that even more obvious, on-screen and off.
No, I'm just saying there's no clue in the film as to what kind of replicant Deckard is, just that he is one.
Not disagreeing with you, though Ridley has been talking about it since the movie came out and has further re-emphasized it in each new version.
It's a cool "movie moment," I guess? We were having these exact same debates when I walked out of the theater in 1982. "Did you see his eyes flash?" "Man, that narration sucked." "If there's all that green open space, why is everyone living in those crowded cities?" "Did he call him 'Fucker' or 'Father'?"
Ah, now that's interesting, and it's a good example of Authorial Intent and Audience Interpretation butting heads. Taking out the one thing that is undoubtedly a fantasy creates that uncertainty.
Sure, it's arguable either way, and I don't find the same fault with anyone thinking it does have a happy ending, but I find the darker ending more fitting with Philip K. Dick's sensibilities.
I'm not familiar with Word Up; Film Threat, (original) Premiere, American Cinematographer were my subs back then (there was another great mag from 1990's, but my google-fu isn't good enough to dredge up a memory of its name). I brought up Minority Report because I felt my initial reaction to the film was wrong, and certainly the point is debated because the director hasn't spent 35 years talking about the "real" ending. I just don't see how anyone can claim the Deckard isn't supposed to be a replicant, even if you think that decision is a poor one.
Kadayi
Banned
What? There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Deckard is a precursor. Firstly he has established relationships with both Bryant and Holden, Secondly, he doesn't have the physical capacities of the Nexus 6. Beyond good fortune (the showgirls walking in when Zhora was choking him out, Pris shooting Leon) he'd of been dead in short order. It would make no logical sense that Tyrell would make an inferior model after the Nexus 6, least of all to give to the Blade Runner Police unit.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Reading all this makes me realise that Ridley Scott is probably the greatest validation of the "Death of the Author" hypothesis ever...
QuantumZebra
Member
You're correct. He was not a replicant in the book nor was he meant to be.
However, he is definitely a replicant in the "final cut" of the film, and arguably the theatrical (but it was chosen to leave it ambiguous in that one).
My one query is why did he age like a human (did he)?
Did Tyrell decide that he wanted to test one out for a normal lifetime?
adamsappel
Member
Now I'm on the other side of the debate!
I don't think the film provides anything to make that conclusion. The four escaped replicants know they are replicants. If you were building an android to hunt and kill other androids, but were worried they might develop their own emotions and that would probably include not killing their own kind, you'd build them to appear to themselves as human. Super-strength would tip yourself off.
I think my suggestion has equal weight to yours, because I don't think the movie answers those questions, it only says, "Deckard is a replicant." Which, although not true in the original novel, fits in very well with Dick's traditional themes. To bring up Minority Report again, and now that I think of it, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly and Paycheck are all about men hunting themselves.
Warm Machine
Member
Because in traditional Phillip K Dick paranoid style you cannot tell who is who and what the truth is. See Total Recall.
No it isn't. Batty has PASSED the empathy test. He saves a person who has been trying to kill him. A person who even killed his friends. He effectively became human as he dies.
If we are going from other material, here we go...
It didn't matter to Roy if Deckard was a replicant or a human, it was a life to save. The movie argues that the replicants are sentient life and effectively human.
You suggesting Ridley Scott being senile is pretty ignorant. The guy just directed a movie nominated for best picture not two years ago. Sorry he hasn't lived up to expectations on Alien but his filmography is more than one franchise.
Kadayi
Banned
This has been answered a couple of times already.
The whole rreason they have the Voight-Kampf test is because replicants are indistinguishable from human beings. Biologically they're identical to a human being. The only difference lies in their thinking patterns.
In the scene with Bryant when he's briefing Deckard, he talks about how Tyrell introduced the 4-year lifespan to keep the Nexus 6 in check because the designers were worried that given enough time they'd develop their own emotional responses and thus be truly indistinguishable from humans. Later on, we also learn about how Tyrell gave them past histories in order to provide them with an emotional framework. All of this indicates an extensive level of in-house testing and prototyping by the Tyrell Corporation.
I'd hazard that the off-world Replicants realise what they are because of how they were treated as well as likely seeing their compatriots die with alarming regularity (Batty actually chides Leon for hanging onto his fake life photos before they visit Cho's) . Conversely, Rachel, on the other hand, doesn't know that she's a replicant.
Also as established earlier on, Deckard has been operating as a Blade Runner for some years based on Bryant's speech to encourage him to come out of retirement and assist. The Nexus 6, however, are Tyrell's latest and greatest model.
dude lost his mind years ago, we can't stop it now.
Why would you make an inferior android to chase other androids ? especially if he has the strength of a human, just let a human handle it, it's just Ridley Scott stupid idea.
the theory can work on the first movie alone though because we don't know what's up next for him but with a sequel where dude looks like my grandpa, no way.
Why would you make an inferior android to chase other androids ? especially if he has the strength of a human, just let a human handle it, it's just Ridley Scott stupid idea.
the theory can work on the first movie alone though because we don't know what's up next for him but with a sequel where dude looks like my grandpa, no way.
afternoon delight
Member
Because Deckard is an earlier/adjacent/experimental model that lacks strength, but clearly is allowed to think and form patterns the others do not? He tracks and kills them, so it is a successful hunter seeker program? Tyrell is shown to be a tinkerer, an experimenter? His first interaction is with another experimental model?
It's not a stupid idea at all. Wake up Angel_Dva- it's time to learn.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Scott is always retroactively changing what happened on BR's set. I guarantee you no one said "Wouldn't that be corny" and "I'll be the best fucking judge of that I'm the director.". Guy is such a revisionist.
The proof that it's bullshit is that none of the story revisions and alternate endings ever made any sort of reference to this at all, nobody on the set was ever told about this either. So for it to magically happen at the end made no sense, it's something that was a possibility that Scott ran with. He has Lucas syndrome.
I bet this movie will be all about this stupid idea, and that Deckard is really Jesus. Scott was a perfect match of Lindleof.
It's a dumb idea because humans can do the same. The guy isn't the only blade runner in the world. His buddy who gets shot early on, is he also a Replicant? Why would the police unit have their own Replicant? Tyrell is running a megacorp, he's not going to give the police a Replicant so that they can kill all his replicants. Heck, Tyrell has apparently never seen someone do the Voight-kampff test.
Side not: the only reason there's trees in the last shot of the movie: Scott hastily asked Kubrick if he could give him some footage to help out, Kubrick sent him extra reels from The Shining's intro.
The proof that it's bullshit is that none of the story revisions and alternate endings ever made any sort of reference to this at all, nobody on the set was ever told about this either. So for it to magically happen at the end made no sense, it's something that was a possibility that Scott ran with. He has Lucas syndrome.
I bet this movie will be all about this stupid idea, and that Deckard is really Jesus. Scott was a perfect match of Lindleof.
It's a dumb idea because humans can do the same. The guy isn't the only blade runner in the world. His buddy who gets shot early on, is he also a Replicant? Why would the police unit have their own Replicant? Tyrell is running a megacorp, he's not going to give the police a Replicant so that they can kill all his replicants. Heck, Tyrell has apparently never seen someone do the Voight-kampff test.
Side not: the only reason there's trees in the last shot of the movie: Scott hastily asked Kubrick if he could give him some footage to help out, Kubrick sent him extra reels from The Shining's intro.
He's beyond Lucas syndrome at this point. Lucas can actually poke fun at himself these days.
afternoon delight
Member
Why risk a human after you just lost a human, as you say? Why not wake up a test program and let it loose? Why do you think Tyrell is telling the truth about anything?
And I've always assumed that "police station" Deckard reports to once, that is very empty, is questionable. And the way the boss interacts with him? Nah. Dude's a robot.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
They didn't lose a human, Holden is in the hospital. Deckard wasn't "woken up"' he goes to visit him right after he gets shot. The scene was just cut from any release.
Watch the scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpLoDADYF5g
And this other later, with the chief and Gaff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-maJpKBDVw
The police chief calls them "two old blade runners".
Scott is a revisionist, just like he has been with Alien.
Another sidenote; originally Scott was ADAMANT that they needed to have Zhora come out of the ground in the strip club all made of sand, in a big stop-motion dance thing. He was furious the studio wouldn't do it. It would have utterly killed the movie's timeless visual quality.
afternoon delight
Member
If we start including deleted scenes into conversations all sorts of movies would be different. Alien is a perfect example.
Anyways, every Blade Runner topic eventually reveals this artificial schism between fans.
captjohnboyd
Member
I've always preferred to think of Deckard as a human but that's just my personal want.
On a side note I recall listening to either an interview or audio commentary where the writer (?) of Soldier said that it's in the same universe as Blade Runner. I always thought that connection was MUCH more fun than the Alien connection and thematically more in line.
Paul Anderson was and is a garbage director but I'll fight anyone who says that movie isn't awesome
On a side note I recall listening to either an interview or audio commentary where the writer (?) of Soldier said that it's in the same universe as Blade Runner. I always thought that connection was MUCH more fun than the Alien connection and thematically more in line.
Paul Anderson was and is a garbage director but I'll fight anyone who says that movie isn't awesome
AuthenticM
Member
Scott can say what he wants. The fact is he is not directing 2049. So if Villeneuve says the movie will remain ambiguous on the question, then the movie will remain ambiguous on the question.
So shut the fuck up, Ridley. Villeneuve is 10x the artist you ever were, you hack.
So shut the fuck up, Ridley. Villeneuve is 10x the artist you ever were, you hack.
Dunno where I read it, but contractually Ridley has the final cut if he wants to.
Gonna look it up.
edit:
Okay, it's not that Ridley has the final cut but Villeneuve doesn't have it.
I like Villeneuve a lot and I dislike most of Scott's recent work but c'mon this is just a stupid antagonistic statement. Villeneuve hasn't delivered anything yet that looks like its going to be a long term classic like Alien or Blade Runner nor has he hit the highs of Scott's best work overall.
Everyone ages and sometimes they lose their game but its disingenuous and trite to assume the current young talent is "better" just become their younger or that the great work someone delivered when they were younger doesn't count anymore when they're older.
That said Villeneuve should definitely make the film he wants. Although I've a nasty suspicion Scott might have final cut authority (not that Id expect him to use it and it might just have been a rumour I saw somewhere).
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Scott will get his way, 100% certain. He'll tell Villeneuve thanks for the hard work, see you later, go in the editing room, add a unicorn, and the final shot will be Deckard laid out with arms stretched like Jesus in the rain or something.
adamsappel
Member
You're hazarding about what the replicants know and how. The escaped replicants obviously know they are replicants by their actions (entirely possible they learned this in some unknown way offscreen), and Tyrell says Rachel is an "experiment" that has been given false memories but is unaware of her artificial origins.
Determining what generation of replicant Deckard is requires a lot of extrapolating. The film implies Deckard is a replicant, we have to infer anything else. Bryant's dialog is clumsy, because he's really just telling the audience some exposition, and it's information a Blade Runner would seemingly know (depends on how long Deckard has been retired, possibly). All these fan theories are cool (Deckard has Gaff's memories is interesting), but I think the only information the film imparts is that Deckard is a replicant. This could be his first mission as a Blade Runner.
I'll try and find my copy of Future Noir, but these ideas were all bandied about during the production and in interviews and articles after. Again, I'm not really trying to argue whether it's a good idea (I'm fine with it because it's thematically consistent with Dick's style, even if not the actual source material, which is wildly different from the movie in all sorts of ways), just that it is there and Scott has consistently reaffirmed it in word and edit.
That's why that particular footage was used, but it doesn't really make sense for the universe the film creates. "A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! Leave this stinking shithole and ignore all that pristine greenery that's apparently close by!"
Soldier and Blade Runner share the same screenwriter, David Webb Peoples. It has some elements from Philip K. Dick's short story Second Variety; Screamers with Peter Weller is directly based on it.
Ain't nobody arguing that Ridley doesn't get stupid ideas in his head (the scene with Zhora should have taken place in an opera house anyway, not a strip club), but he has made some brilliant films.
Kadayi
Banned
You clearly see when Deckard finds the photos at Leon's place ( including the one which contains Zhora in the mirror) that a bunch of them are of children and a family that certainly weren't taken in rain riddled LA. These are the precious photo's Leon wanted to collect, and which Roy mocks him for later on in the film, You're going to pretend that these things have no meaning? You think that Scott just threw those things into the mix for no reason? Why would Leon have pictures of kids and a family? Why would he consider them important enough to risk going back to his apartment after he shot Holden? Could it be that they have some special significance to him?
These yesteryear photos are clearly props given to replicants to tie in with their false memories. After the Voight-Kampf test, Rachel follows Deckard back to his Apartment and they have the scene where she says she's not a replicant and hands him the photo of her and her mother to prove it and then he proceeds to tell her the spider story.
The 'experiment' with Rachel, is that's she's on earth living amongst people without any sense that she's different. However, she's certainly not the only replicant with false memories.
Not at all. The film starts off with Deckard being retired. His former employer bends his arm to take on a dangerous assignment, and they give him a breakdown of the bad guys who are a step up from what he's previously faced. There's nothing needlessly complicated about this.
At this juncture, I have to wonder who you're trying to convince. His first mission?
Bryant: I need ya, Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic.
adamsappel
Member
Have you not read my previous replies? I'm the guy who started the whole "photographs are important" argument!
The photographs are a clue that Deckard is a replicant. As are Deckard's eyes flashing in the same way as Rachel. Another bit of evidence is that Gaff knows what Deckard daydreams about; this is further emphasized when Ridley inserts the footage of the unicorn in later releases. And the only reason we can assume there are other replicants with false memories besides Rachel is if we accept that Deckard is a replicant. There is no hinting at any other unself-aware androids.
Bryant could be lying, playing a part. Deckard's memories are false. Do you believe Deckard has an ex-wife? Maybe Gaff is the source of his memories. He's been injured, he can't go after the replicants himself. I'm not claiming any of that as true, just spitballing as I think you are doing.
Have you seen Moon? I'm going to spoil it in here:
The Sam Rockwell clones wake up each time thinking they are at the start of a three-year mission.
Everyone plays along with Leonardo DiCaprio's amnesia.
Mickey Rourke is put on the trail of himself by Louis Cypher.
Am I wrong in understanding your posts? I think you're misinterpreting mine. I'm only arguing that the film provides no information about Deckard other than he is a replicant; no model number, no backstory. Particularly in the theatrical version, Deckard is an extremely unreliable narrator.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
It's obvious that Deckard isn't a replicant and that this was retconned. All deleted scenes just confirm it even more, and they were not cut for that reason. It's only Scott who ever ended up pushing this notion after the movie was released. It wouldn't even make any sense for the cops to have their own replicant fucking up Tyrell's business, and Tyrell obviously having never seen the Voight Kamph test in action at that.
Deckard, Holden, Gaff, are all humans. The unicorn origami was just Gaff making fun of Deckard like the other origami. He's telling Deckard is running away with a fake thing and that he knows about it. Deckard isn't supposed to be hanging out with a replicant, Gaff is telling him he knows at the end, and the origami indicates he's on his tail, he's watching him, he was in his apartment. It also shows he could have killed Rachel but didn't. He left the oragami to tell him he gave him a chance; "I was there bakka, could have killed her, now get the fuck out before I change my mind." essentially.
No wonder the original ending was going to be standoff over him refusing to kill Rachel, it was the studios that pushed for something more hopeful.
There is no Deckard is a replicant in the plot, just a retcon by Scott.
Deckard, Holden, Gaff, are all humans. The unicorn origami was just Gaff making fun of Deckard like the other origami. He's telling Deckard is running away with a fake thing and that he knows about it. Deckard isn't supposed to be hanging out with a replicant, Gaff is telling him he knows at the end, and the origami indicates he's on his tail, he's watching him, he was in his apartment. It also shows he could have killed Rachel but didn't. He left the oragami to tell him he gave him a chance; "I was there bakka, could have killed her, now get the fuck out before I change my mind." essentially.
No wonder the original ending was going to be standoff over him refusing to kill Rachel, it was the studios that pushed for something more hopeful.
There is no Deckard is a replicant in the plot, just a retcon by Scott.
PatThePassive
Member
Can a Replicant only be super strong when they know they are a Replicant cause Deckard gets his ass kicked often by Replicants in the film.
If he is a new model why is he so much weaker lasts longer but becomes an old man, how is that an improvement or upgrade?
That's the strongest answer to the unicorn thing I've ever heard, I thought he already decided to let Rachel and him leave when he tells Deckard that she wont live long"its too bad she wont live" but if you guys are happy together that's something most don't get "but then again who does"
If he is a new model why is he so much weaker lasts longer but becomes an old man, how is that an improvement or upgrade?
That's the strongest answer to the unicorn thing I've ever heard, I thought he already decided to let Rachel and him leave when he tells Deckard that she wont live long"its too bad she wont live" but if you guys are happy together that's something most don't get "but then again who does"
PatThePassive
Member
fucked up
adamsappel
Member
Does anyone think Rachel is super strong?
I love Blade Runner and I for one am fine with this.
Biological androids, not robots.
Replicants are "built" with certain attributes to serve different functions. They can be weak, strong, charismatic, artistically talented... great at tracking, questioning, and killing other replicants while not giving themselves away to "real humans"... or any combination of anything. This is most apparent in the book.
Biological androids, not robots.
Replicants are "built" with certain attributes to serve different functions. They can be weak, strong, charismatic, artistically talented... great at tracking, questioning, and killing other replicants while not giving themselves away to "real humans"... or any combination of anything. This is most apparent in the book.
Kadayi
Banned
And yet seemingly you are willfully obtuse enough in your representations to require me to explain their narrative relationship to you at length.
All of which are revealed as those films go on. The idea the Bryant is lying/pretending and there's no denouncement within the film to that effect invalidates the proposition. Payoffs need to occur in within the frame. Same with the Deckard is Gaff thing. The reveal is Deckard a replicant and that Gaff knows it, but given Bryant is telling Gaff earlier on that he could learn a thing or two from Deckard after he dispatches Zhora, it doesn't really fly as an idea that Deckard is Gaff.
Albeit I don't mind the Theatrical release, the final cut is the definitive version as arrived at by Scott. The voiceover was never meant to be there, so anything that is said isn't canon as far as I'm concerned.
Frankly, at this juncture, I get the impression you're just a troll. You haven't presented any form of comprehensive counterarguments to what 's been said, in fact, your entire approach seems to be to say 'I disagree' and then throw a bunch of illogical ill thought through word spaghetti at the page in the vague hope that something sticks. I'm happy to discuss Blade Runner at length with people who want to discuss the original, as well as the future film in an articulate fashion (which I'm excited for given Villeneuve is directing), but I just don't get the impression you're a sincere poster at the end of the day and your dangerously close to being put on ignore.
adamsappel
Member
How is anything you've said about the photographs different from what I said previously? They are overtly-explained clues in the theatrical version, and subtle nods in the final cut that Deckard is a replicant.
I am disagreeing with you that there is any contextual evidence that shows what generation Deckard is, or what sort of "experiment" Rachel is beyond having artificial memories. Deckard getting his ass kicked doesn't mean he's some old precursor model that can't hang with Nexus 6. He's taking a beating from replicants designed for hard manual labor/military action which would likely kill a human. A replicant whose artificial origins are hidden from itself would not have obviously inhuman attributes. Rachel doesn't have super strength, it isn't a by-product of the process. The Nexus 6 line is obviously borked, maybe Deckard is a newer generation.
I don't think Deckard is Gaff, though I think it is an interesting fan theory, but like your own suppositions about what generation of replicant Deckard is or what the purpose of Rachel is, they are theories not revealed in the film, but imagined by the audience.
We agree that Gaff knows Deckard is a replicant, yes? So I assume we both say Bryant knows as well. I'm saying in a film with a (literally) unreliable narrator/protagonist like Deckard, we can't accept that any of the interactions with characters who know what he is are what they seem at face value. How long has Deckard been on the force, especially to be so burnt out? He didn't start as a rookie and work his way up. He's designed as a replicant-killer from the start and his memories are false. There's nothing that says he's the best Blade Runner ever except the words of a cop who knows he's talking to an android with implanted memories. That's why I brought up Angel Heart.
Louis Cypher knows Harry Angel is Johnny Favorite when he hires him.
(Actually, I'm open to a theory that says that only Gaff has figured it out.)
Honestly, whether Deckard has been retiring replicants for so long he gets burnt out and quits or whether it's his first mission is irrelevant (and I'm not even arguing that it is his first mission, just that it could be because we only have the words of someone who knows he's talking to an android with false memories that it isn't). I mean, the whole premise of the movie doesn't make a lot of sense. Replicants are illegal on Earth, but there are enough of them who come back from off-world that there are dedicated police squads to hunt them down, presumably in more cities than Los Angeles, all within a maximum 16-year time span?
The theatrical release is often more overt about Deckard's status, which is why I find it strange that people don't believe it. Deckard's narration about how important the photos are to replicants underscores all those random pictures on his piano (none seemingly of him, most that would be many decades old), the comment about his ex-wife calling him "cold fish" (unemotional), some of Deckard's dialog is almost literally, "I have no emotions," the (unintentionally?) flat narration, but without the unicorn dream footage the last origami isn't the same "proof" as in the Final Cut. I think the most telling evidence is that Rachel, Pris, Roy, the owl and Deckard all have eyes that flash. I also like Gaff's line, "You've done a man's job, sir."
I guess you should ignore me then. How exactly am I trolling? You are very hostile and I have no idea what you think I'm actually disagreeing about. I think you have some very interesting and provocative theories about what is happening in the film, but that they are simply fan theories that aren't explicitly spelled out in dialog or visually. I enjoy debating the film, but it's usually with someone who doesn't believe that Deckard isn't human.
What are your thoughts on these questions?
Does Deckard have an ex-wife?
How long has Deckard been alive?
Has Deckard really been a Blade Runner before?
Do Gaff and Bryant both know he is a replicant?
Does Tyrell know Deckard is a replicant?
And man, that love scene is really rapey now.
Jangowuzhere
Banned
I didn't even think this was a serious debate.
Doesn't the ending Blade Runner literally spell it out that Decker is a replicant? There also subtle hints throughout the film.
It seems really dumb making a sequel to the original Blade Runner with the idea of keeping Deckard's robotic origins "ambiguous." Most people have accepted that Deckard was a replicant years ago.
Doesn't the ending Blade Runner literally spell it out that Decker is a replicant? There also subtle hints throughout the film.
It seems really dumb making a sequel to the original Blade Runner with the idea of keeping Deckard's robotic origins "ambiguous." Most people have accepted that Deckard was a replicant years ago.
Wow, funny how Ridley doesn't really get the beauty behind Blade Runner.
A whole story revolving around humanity and its very definition, blurring the line between man and machine, and what it really means to be human. In the end, it's absolutely meaningless if Deckard is a replicant or not. The point is that the line between the two is so thin and barely recognizable that it's impossible to tell. A dehumanized character in a dehumanized world.
A whole story revolving around humanity and its very definition, blurring the line between man and machine, and what it really means to be human. In the end, it's absolutely meaningless if Deckard is a replicant or not. The point is that the line between the two is so thin and barely recognizable that it's impossible to tell. A dehumanized character in a dehumanized world.
The Replicants we see in the film are designed with specific tasks in mind. Leon for difficult, physical, but menial labour. Thus he's strong, but dumb as a bag of hammers. Bryant talks to Deckard about it when he gives him the case
DiscoJer
Member
So if Deckard is a replicant, what did he get? He's not strong, he doesn't seem to be particularly bright, his skill with the gun is not particularly notable, he not a good pilot.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
He gets to get drunk.