• 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 |OT| Do Androids Dream of Electric Boogaloo? [Unmarked Spoilers]

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
Why does the unicorn in the ending of BR final cut add more to the idea that deckard is a replicant? i know gaff was fiddling with that stuff all the time.

My take is that the same way they know Rachael's memories are all fake and implemented, Gaff knows about Deckard's memories. I don't think it was a dream since he's not sleeping, he's remembering back to a unicorn, which we know is not possible, so someone had had to put that memory in there and Gaff has seen it.

Or something, I dunno.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I just rewatched the original Blade Runner last night. Deckard gets the shit beat out of him by Replicants. I don't think he is one. I also really don't think it matters
 
Why does the unicorn in the ending of BR final cut add more to the idea that deckard is a replicant? i know gaff was fiddling with that stuff all the time.
There's a brief scene earlier in the Director's Cut, which is extended in the Final Cut, where Deckard "dreams" about a unicorn. People take the origami unicorn to signify that Gaff knows about Deckard's implanted memories and dreams, just as Deckard knows the spider memory belongs to Tyrell's niece, not Rachael. Scott wanted the unicorn to be in the theatrical release, but he was overruled.

More literally, it's an indication that Gaff was at the apartment and could have killed Rachael--and maybe Deckard--but chose to spare them.

But the ambiguity is there: Deckard hears Gaff's words again ("It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"), nods as if understanding something, and leaves with Rachael for their life together. Gaff also says "You've done a man's job, sir," which could be interpreted in two ways: you have done a fine, masculine, upstanding job; or you have done the job as well as a human would, wink wink.

The movie doesn't make a clear judgment about whether Deckard is a replicant, because ultimately, it doesn't matter; his experiences hunting the Nexus-6, and watching Roy's last moments, has shown him that humans and replicants are emotionally indistinguishable (as tears in rain!), and equally "human" in their way.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Even fight? K was literally standing there taking hits until Deckard got tired and he was much faster and stronger. People need to get over this idea of Deckard being s replicant. It doesn't add anything, nor does it make sense from what we're shown, or thematically
Bingo. The “Deckard is a replicant” theory just has too many holes in it to be true. Both movies are just as emotionally haunting with Deckard 100% human.
 

nynt9

Member
I just rewatched the original Blade Runner last night. Deckard gets the shit beat out of him by Replicants. I don't think he is one. I also really don't think it matters

It could also be that since he doesn't think he's a Replicant, he doesn't know to utilize the strength he has. A lot of martial arts is about utilizing the strength you have instead of gaining more.
 

jett

D-Member
Roy Batty's soliloquy really did wonders at making the world we see in Blade Runner feel like some small irrelevant corner of a much grander world

It's easy to forget when watching either Blade Runner that humanity had spread to the stars and there is space travel and space vessels and civilizations on other planets

Sometimes I like to pretend Blade Runner takes place in 2119.

Like really, how the hell did people in 1982 thought this was going to be a thing 37 years from then.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
Bingo. The “Deckard is a replicant” theory just has too many holes in it to be true.

But Rachael doesn't have superior strength. Deckard is able to shove her into a wall.

There's zero holes for why Deckard isn't a Replicant but because we're never told concretely, we'll never really know. There's no definitive answer either way so trying to say for certain it's this or that is folly.
 
Sometimes I like to pretend Blade Runner takes place in 2119.

Like really, how the hell did people in 1982 thought this was going to be a thing 35 years from then.
Technological progress, at least in terms of manifest hardware leaps, has slowed down. :(

(The original novel was published in 1968 and set in 1992!)
 
Sometimes I like to pretend Blade Runner takes place in 2119.

Like really, how the hell did people in 1982 thought this was going to be a thing 35 years from then.
IRobot - 2035 (released 2004)
Minority Report - 2054 (released 2002)
and so on

It's a sci-fi thing. No one actually believes the world will be like that in such a short time, aside from maybe 1984 and some others
 
I always had this idea of replicates were cyborgs, that's why they are called skin jobs. But everything in this film says they are genetically designed and grown. Or is skin jobs = humans only skin deep.
 
Sometimes I like to pretend Blade Runner takes place in 2119.

Like really, how the hell did people in 1982 thought this was going to be a thing 35 years from then.

It's fiction telling a story, not some sort of prophecy. Part of the purpose of Blade Runner was to say let's not turn our world into this. You have to keep the date close enough that people can imagine being living in that world. Give people just a little extra to invest in that world.

Plus the Blade Runner world clearly goes through some society altering shit.
 
People saying Deckard is a replicant are right, because Ridley Scott specifically stated that was his intent with the movie, so...
And then Denis instantly disagreed with him and said he believes it's ambiguous.

And the actual writer of the film disagrees with him
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
eXBMAn3.jpg


In the year 2000

The Tyrell corporation advanced Robot evolution into the Nexus phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a REPLICANT.
 
This is such rubbish. He's the main character in the series and Wallace even alludes to the possibility of Deckard being a replicant. Why would they put that in the script and the film if they didn't want anybody to think about and discuss the subject? It's good that the film poses questions and leaves the answers ambiguous. Stop trying to stifle conversation.

In the first film the main test for determining replicants was a machine that essentially measured your ability to empathize. Replicants, supposedly being unfeeling machines, wouldn't be able to fool this. Despite this, the main human character is a cold, indifferent person who seems to gun down these free thinking, feeling, emoting "machines". The great irony is that the human seems less capable of empathy than the machine, who is suppose to be incapable of it. Him being a human is pretty integral to this, whereas him being a replicant adds absolutely nothing except some shallow ambiguity.

If he's a replicant, so what? He's hunting his own kind? Why would they matter when replicants are suppose to lack empathy? That wouldn't be unusual. So it's possible he might die in 4 years? Again, so what? What does that add, thematically?
 

Rydeen

Member
I always had this idea of replicates were cyborgs, that's why they are called skin jobs. But everything in this film says they are genetically designed and grown. Or is skin jobs = humans only skin deep.

In the original Phillip K. Dick novel, they are robots, in the original '82 film, they are biological, genetically engineered clones, with altered DNA so they can have superior strength, inferior intelligence, memory implants, shortened lifespans, etc.

To be perfectly honest, the idea of creating genetically engineered humans is more plausible at this point than robots that are identical to humans anyway.
 

Arkeband

Banned
And then Denis instantly disagreed with him and said he believes it's ambiguous.

And the actual writer of the film disagrees with him

I know he did, unfortunately the writer wasn't the one who added in the extra scenes specifically making him a Replicant.

And Denis throwing in lines that give room for it to be true just means it's still true. Part of the plot of 2049 involves Jared Leto, who is basically a god-figure, telling Deckard that he was programmed to meet Rachel, so if he didn't like Ridley's take he wouldn't have thrown that in.
 

Jaraghan

Member
Just got back. Thought it was fantastic. The twist that K wasn't really his kid was nice.

I firmly believe Deckard isn't a replicant, but I do like that the movie might hint that he might be.
 
I just rewatched the original Blade Runner last night. Deckard gets the shit beat out of him by Replicants. I don't think he is one. I also really don't think it matters

Not all replicants are designed to take a beating. Leon was designed to lift heavy loads, Priss was a sex model, etc. With Deckard and Rachel they were designed under the More Human Than Human motto, and indeed they were. Tyrell explicitly says that Rachel was an "experiment, nothing more." Falling into line, Deckard was an experiment as well.
 
I know he did, unfortunately the writer wasn't the one who added in the extra scenes specifically making him a Replicant.

And Denis throwing in lines that give room for it to be true just means it's still true. Part of the plot of 2049 involves Jared Leto, who is basically a god-figure, telling Deckard that he was programmed to meet Rachel, so if he didn't like Ridley's take he wouldn't have thrown that in.

This was Wallace clearly trying to trick/confuse Deckard! It's so damn obvious I can't believe people took it seriously
 
Part of the plot of 2049 involves Jared Leto, who is basically a god-figure, telling Deckard that he was programmed to meet Rachel, so if he didn't like Ridley's take he wouldn't have thrown that in.
And then Wallace provides an equally possible alternative, keeping it ambiguous

And again, it was all part of his psychological torture of Deckard to make him reveal where the child is, so you can't trust what Wallace is saying
 
In my head canon the Unicorn from the original was meant to symbolize Rachael. Watching 2049, I was surprised to see how nicely that fits.
 

jett

D-Member
You definitely can't take what Wallace is saying at face value. The man himself is just guessing.

IRobot - 2035 (released 2004)
Minority Report - 2054 (released 2002)
and so on

It's a sci-fi thing. No one actually believes the world will be like that in such a short time, aside from maybe 1984 and some others

It's fiction telling a story, not some sort of prophecy. Part of the purpose of Blade Runner was to say let's not turn our world into this. You have to keep the date close enough that people can imagine being living in that world. Give people just a little extra to invest in that world.

Plus the Blade Runner world clearly goes through some society altering shit.

Well that's true.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
Denis Villeneuve doesn't like that Ridley outright gives a definitive answer, he likes that it's ambiguous which is something he carried over into his film. Neither Leto or Deckard know what he really is.
 
Its been 30 years and yall still arguing that damn question.


Just got back from the movie. That was incredible.
Also thanks for the new fetish I never knew I wanted. Holo-cucking?
 
George Lucas said microscopic life forms give Jedi power. I also think that’s stupid.

I guess this debate always has to come up. But Lucas didn't say that and no one in the movie did.

Authorial intent matters and doesn't matter. It helps build a point but ultimately you have to use the text to defend a theory.
 

nynt9

Member
In the first film the main test for determining replicants was a machine that essentially measured your ability to empathize. Replicants, supposedly being unfeeling machines, wouldn't be able to fool this. Despite this, the main human character is a cold, indifferent person who seems to gun down these free thinking, feeling, emoting "machines". The great irony is that the human seems less capable of empathy than the machine, who is suppose to be incapable of it. Him being a human is pretty integral to this, whereas him being a replicant adds absolutely nothing except some shallow ambiguity.

If he's a replicant, so what? He's hunting his own kind? Why would they matter when replicants are suppose to lack empathy? That wouldn't be unusual. So it's possible he might die in 4 years? Again, so what? What does that add, thematically?

It adds that once we don't tell a replicant that they're one, they can believe they're human and act like one. So what's really the thing separating us from them?

I know he did, unfortunately the writer wasn't the one who added in the extra scenes specifically making him a Replicant.

And Denis throwing in lines that give room for it to be true just means it's still true. Part of the plot of 2049 involves Jared Leto, who is basically a god-figure, telling Deckard that he was programmed to meet Rachel, so if he didn't like Ridley's take he wouldn't have thrown that in.

Wallace posed that as a "maybe" and was clearly messing with Deckard's head to break him down. I doubt Wallace himself knows for sure, and would tell the truth even if he did.
 

Bronetta

Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
You definitely can't take what Wallace is saying at face value. The man himself is just guessing.

I was literally just about to post the same thing.

You cant take anything Wallace says at face value. That man's full of himself.
 
I thought Wallace was referencing that Rachel was simply built around being especially compelling to Deckard's personal preferences as a human male when he would meet her. Akin to recent sci-fi
Ex Machina
and the like. And it worked.
 
George Lucas said microscopic life forms give Jedi power. I also think that’s stupid.

Fair enough, still the Word of God holds weight. Ridley wrote the novella and part of the script witch Fancher so ignoring his ideas is a legitime course of action but they are ultimately ingrained in the movie, in fact I'm pretty sure we have Denis to thank for making an effort to leave it ambiguous.

Truth is, unless you're watching the theatrical cut there's virtually no way to explain the Origami unicorn without Gaff knowing about Deckard's memories and that leads into an inescapable conclusion. What Villeneuve did is allow you to choose which cut is canon, theatrical or final and effectively jump over Ridley's trap through a loophole. Since Deckard being human or replicant doesn't ultimately matter, you choose.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
I thought Wallace was referencing that Rachel was simply built around being especially compelling to Deckard's personal preferences as a human male when he would meet her. Akin to recent sci-fi
Ex Machina
and the like. And it worked.

Nope, he was saying that they got created for each other and their love, kinda like (possibly) Joi, was all fake. But that was him fucking with Deckard because he can't know that because he doesn't know if he is or isn't a Replicant.
 

nynt9

Member
Fair enough, still the Word of God holds weight. Ridley wrote the novella and part of the script witch Fancher so ignoring his ideas is a legitime course of action but they are ultimately ingrained in the movie, in fact I'm pretty sure we have Denis to thank for making an effort to leave it ambiguous.

Truth is, unless you're watching the theatrical cut there's virtually no way to explain the Origami unicorn without Gaff knowing about Deckard's memories and that leads into an inescapable conclusion. What Villeneuve did is allow you to choose which cut is canon, theatrical or final and effectively jump over Ridley's trap through a loophole. Since Deckard being human or replicant doesn't ultimately matter, you choose.

Word of God matters, but Ridley Scott is also known for ruining his movies after the fact. And death of the author states that it's not up to the creator to define the work once it's released. It's up to the viewer.
 
Replicant's can't age, except for the miracle baby, right? Ipso facto, by necessity of real life casting, Deckard is not a replicant because he has clearly aged in Blade Runner 2049.

But yeah the Final Cut of the original movie is supposed to be clear that Deckard is a replicant according to the director, if you listen to the second commentary track on the Final Cut blu ray the crew almost all agree that Deckard is human, Harrison Ford played and prefers the character as a human, and Dennis V has gone on record saying its supposed to remain ambiguous in 2049 and up to audience interpretation.

It woulda been funny though if Wallace brought out a young Deckard replicant and had him administer a voight-kampff test to Harrison Ford. Stupid, but fun to watch.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
In my head canon the Unicorn from the original was meant to symbolize Rachael. Watching 2049, I was surprised to see how nicely that fits.

"original"
 
It adds that once we don't tell a replicant that they're one, they can believe they're human and act like one. So what's really the thing separating us from them?

Rachel already served that role in the first film. She was given fake memories and made to believe she was human. Deckard being the exact same "experiment" wouldn't add anything

Fair enough, still the Word of God holds weight. Ridley wrote the novella and part of the script witch Fancher so ignoring his ideas is a legitime course of action but they are ultimately ingrained in the movie, in fact I'm pretty sure we have Denis to thank for making an effort to leave it ambiguous.

Truth is, unless you're watching the theatrical cut there's virtually no way to explain the Origami unicorn without Gaff knowing about Deckard's memories and that leads into an inescapable conclusion. What Villeneuve did is allow you to choose which cut is canon, theatrical or final and effectively jump over Ridley's trap through a loophole. Since Deckard being human or replicant doesn't ultimately matter, you choose.

You do realize the movie is largely based on the Phillip K. Dick story, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" where Deckard is, unambiguously human, right? If Word of God is true, then which "God" do we believe when they contradict one another? This is just a case of Ridley Scott ruining his own movies, like he did with the xenomorphs origin in Prometheus and Covenant
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
In what way?

Although I really can't blame Denis or the writers here, since that amazing moment was improvised by Hauer and performed perfectly by him. Near impossible to recapture that lighting in a bottle

I mean I'm glad they didn't show the colonies.

And I mean having made the sequel being about a super villain who wants to take over the world with his replicants, and worst making Rachel and possibly Deckard Adam and Eve, or Jesus Mary Whatever. What was a huge world before, is now all centered on Deckard/Rachel. I really didn't want that. I knew the movie being titled Blade Runner would involve replicants, fine, but don't make it a "the president is a replicant, you must stop him before he activates the secret replicant factory!!!" kind of world.

Exactly, I think Hampton Fancher put it beautifully in Dangerous Days "What's interesting isn't the answer, it's the question."

For me, the ambiguity of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant adds to the world building, and the sense of paranoia the world of the film puts into you. Who's to say everyone on Earth isn't just a replicant with false memories that's allowed to exist in society? How deep does the rabbit hole go?

I always liked the idea of the cut scene where it turns out Tyrell himself was also a replicant, and Sebastian takes Roy to see the cryogenically frozen Tyrell at the top of the company's HQ, it just all adds to the tapestry of a world where everyone has to question their daily existence.

I don't think it was a cut scene, I think it was a version of the script that got changed. Like the one where Tyrell wasn't dead but had his brain in a shark. Would have been awesome though to have the scene you mentioned originally.
 

jett

D-Member
Replicant's can't age, except for the miracle baby, right? Ipso facto, by necessity of real life casting, Deckard is not a replicant because he has clearly aged in Blade Runner 2049.

But yeah the Final Cut of the original movie is supposed to be clear that Deckard is a replicant according to the director, if you listen to the second commentary track on the Final Cut blu ray the crew almost all agree that Deckard is human, Harrison Ford played and prefers the character as a human, and Dennis V has gone on record saying its supposed to remain ambiguous in 2049 and up to audience interpretation.

It woulda been funny though if Wallace brought out a young Deckard replicant and had him administer a voight-kampff test to Harrison Ford. Stupid, but fun to watch.

Replicants are organic. They age.
 
Top Bottom