"Blade Runner – do you think Deckard was a replicant?" Topic

I picked up the director's cut DVD cheap over the weekend. I'd forgotten how good the film was – so sad and melancholic. I love the rain, and it rained right through the film – a classic screen analogy for tears. On the back of the DVD case it says that the newly included unicorn vision suggests Deckard may be a replicant.

There are clues in the film that indicate he may be. Edward James Olmos' character tells Deckard near the end that he's "done a man's job", maybe implying that he isn't a man.

Deckard dreams of the unicorn. There is a toy unicorn among Sebastian's friends, presumably an electric unicorn. Since the film is based on Philip K. Dick's ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep', it suggests that Deckard, as an android, was dreaming of an electric unicorn. Olmos' character leaves him the final clue at the very end: the silver foil origami unicorn that Rachael almost steps on.

Something else I never realized before, was that the androids weren't robots as such, but grown genetically. This being something scientists are actually getting closer to, if we believe the media.

I think I have Dick's original story saver on disc somewhere, so I must dig it out.

Matt

there is tons and tons of discussion on this topic in film blogs, and you'll almost certainly get more authoritative info than here.

Having read the book and seen the movie several times, the book makes it clear he is a human. The film (director's cut) strongly hints – or says depending on your opinion – that he himself is a replicant.

Since he isn't as strong as the replicants he fights, since he is fearful (why'd they program that into a replicant?) and since he seems to break pretty easily, it's hard to tell. Ford's acting makes him appear very human. The only person who can definitively state if he is or not is the scriptwriter, and I believe he did state this somewhere…

Erbprinz, the DVD case only suggests, and once I'd read that I was looking for clues. It seemed much more poetic than the version I remembered watching. When Daryl Hannah's character says "I think, therefore I am," she was quoting Rene Descartes. "I doubt, therefore I think. I think, therefore I am". Trouble was that Descartes used that process to somehow prove the existence of God. Rutger Hauer's character meets his creator, and Ford runs off with one of his creations.

Maybe it was just a metaphor for our confusion in a world of science.

Matt

It's all in the origami.

Wow, streetline, that sounded like it came straight of a fortune cookie!

no – it comes straight out of Adama's Origami Swan Fetish.

Pat

I think the wonderful thing about the movie is that it's never really answered for you and it lets the viewer make their own decission.

The only humans in the film were the replicants.

emu2020, I agree totally (I just like to find answers to mysteries!) The director's cut is more haunting than the original release – at least they didn't drive off into the sunset.

Sane Max,

Adama's Origami Swan Fetish

Maybe I'm missing something…

Matt

borrible, that's a 'borrible' suggestion.

No….

If Deckard is a replicant, it kills the main idea of the movie( at least, to me): by saving him, Roy the Replicant proves that he is more human than Deckard, who doesn't mind shooting a woman in the back.

Replicant

in my mind he will always be human..

Now if you asked the question..

" Who was the first guy taken over on the film the thing, with the shadow on the wall "..!!

Well it still puzzles me

Beowulf, I agree that it would be unlikely for Deckard to be a replicant. If he was he would have to be one of Tyrell's newest models – so utterly human in thought, emotion and physical capabilities, that he would be undetectable. And that begs the question, 'why?' Rachael plants doubt in his mind when she asks him if he'd ever tested himself with his own machine.

Roy does redeem himself by saving Deckard, but only after brutally killing his creator, for intentionally creating him imperfectly (a four-year lifespan).

Matt

Hu-man…

Ridley Scott confirmed that he believed that Deckard was a replicant in the Channel 4 documentary (which is rather good and worth a look for any fan anyway) "The Edge of Bladerunner". It's available on youtube, I believe. Harrison Ford has gone on record as saying that he didn't think Deckard was.

G.

I have the Director's Edition but I still miss the voice over. I know most people don't like it for because it dumbs down the movie in an attempt to keep the plot straight for the viewing public but I enjoy it for it's Chandleresque quality.

David S.

link

This link quantifies it all.

Best Discussion, my favorite movie and the most quotable movie, along with Caddshack in my house.

Scott has with no hesitation, in fact confirmed, that Deckard is a Replicant. Now, I assume the question is unanswered, but the points made on the link are compelling.

Not this topic again! Grrr! Sometimes a dream unicorn is just a dream unicorn!

He's a human, and he shot Greedo first! So there!

Deckard's dream, Sebastian's unicorn, and the unicorn left by Admiral Adama strongly suggest Deckard is a Cylon, er, replicant.

" Who was the first guy taken over on the film the thing, with the shadow on the wall "..!!

That's Norris' shadow, for sure.

What Eli said.
I think that he was a Human.

So, I guess the writer isn't telling one way, or another.

It's been a while since I read the book but I thought Deckard chose to trust his senses and believe he was human, whether or not that was really the case. Dick didn't tell us either way.

And yeah, whatever Scott's take is, I think it's up to the viewer to decide whether Deckard is a replicant or not.

ljumpajav, thanks for the link.

Deckard is most probably a human. But as for Harrison Ford, well, I've seen him in interviews, and he might just pass for a Nexus 1.

Matt

'How can it not know what it is?'
is a quote by Deckard about Rachel

….possibly applies to him too, Ridley Scott says yes he is, one of the themes is humanity and what defines it. Your supposed to be unsure of what Deckard is, thats one of the endearing qualities of the film.

I like the spin of the original movie. Its a bit twee but the fact Rachel has no termination date, makes her pretty much human like the rest of us, and as Deckard says "None of us know how long we've got". She's no different from humans in this respect.

Oh yes, I've read the book too. Didn't thinkk much of it. In fact, apart from the general jist of the story the book and film are pretty much unrelated. It was a while ago now. Perhaps I need to dig it out again.

Gewiss.

Something else just occurred to me, not that it probably has any bearing on this particular story.

Dick was on amphetamines (speed) whilst writing a number of his works. I read that his writing was supporting his family, and he was under pressure to churn out work quickly just to make ends meet. If you've read any William Burroughs, you'll understand what drugs can do to the creative mind. Ballard said he tried LSD once, and regretted it for the side affects that never went away.

It's a shame that Dick's real fame came after his death in 1982.

link

Matt

The real question is, if it is so hard to tell replicant from human and that the difference comes down to compassion then the final scene with Roy shows even that line is blurred. In fact Deckard is less compassionate than Roy and in many respects they swap roles – Deckard hunts Roy until Roy hunts Deckard, Deckard is hunting Roy because he is a souless uncompassionate machine and yet at the end Roy talks about beauty and saves Deckard's life and had the tables been turned Deckard would not have saved Roy's life.

It's more complex than if Deckard was or wasn't a replicant. It's about the definition of pure human and what that means.

The story that the movie is based upon is quite different. To me the way they changed things to make the movie is actually a huge improvement.

CorpCommander, that's an interesting interpretation.

Deckard's hunting down of Zhora is just as brutally shocking as Roy's killing of Tyrell. After all, Zhora appeared to pose no threat, yet Deckard chased her through a busy street, endangering others, just to make sure she was dead.

It's the complexities that make it such a compelling, and haunting, film.

Matt

I still have the old pc game of bladerunner.If you replayed it the characters (including you) were supposed to reset so you didn't know who was a replicant. Its best features were playing with the ESPER image enhancer and the Voight-Kampf emotion tester (I think that was what they were called).

No I do not think Deckard was a replicant. Rachel was the only one of the latest "advanced" models. None of the other older ones had memories.

Deckard cleary had memories and had been around for many years as he was well known by police and others.
So he could not have been "engineered" as of late. Unless..

Unless the REAL Deckard was killed in the line of duty. And Tyrell corporation was hired to replace him by the authorities, or they replaced him, unknown to the authorities. In which case they would have "built" him with a complete set of memories to see if they could "fool" both the authorities and the replicants. But I have not heard anyone mention this idea other than myself.

Essentially Ridley Scott decided during filming that Deckard could be a replicant. He says that is the point of the origami unicorn left by Edward James Olmos' character -- it shows he knows the dreams Deckard had been having, which included a unicorn.

The studio didn't like the idea and cut the dream sequence of the unicorn. They also had additional voiceover added after polling audience members at a work print airing.

The reason the actors and writers say Deckard's not a replicant is, it's not in the script that was used during filming. The origami shape as a calling card was important, but what animal it represented wasn't significant.

After production wrapped in Los Angeles, Ridley Scott took the film to England (London possibly? I forget) to film the ending and also to do the unicorn dream sequence and (I can't remember) possibly some additional footage supporting the replicant Deckard idea. I can't remember if that's where the glowing eyes were added. But the production ran out of funding; the unicorn sequence was not finished, and the ending wasn't even shot. They used outcuts from "The Shining" to have an ending where Rachel and Deckard fly into the Pacific Northwest.

Later (maybe 1991?) the work print surfaced and was re-aired -- this had a brief unicorn sequence, less voiceover, and the credits rolled over Deckard and Rachel getting into the elevator outside his apartment.

Some years later Scott got funding to do a Director's Cut. But it turned out his additional footage had been destroyed as unneeded offcuts. So all he could salvage was the unicorn dream sequence from the work print.

So that's what we have.

Of course Roy Batty showed humanity at the end that was what was driving them, Tyrell says they started to develop their own emotional responses, the solution to stop this was….four year lifespan. Roy was at the end of his and those were his own developing emotions.

Deckard could have easily been implanted with memories and operated in 'bladerunner units' seperate from the normal police, the fact he was known by the police chief tells us nothing, the chief would switch him on and off like any other machine or task him like any other human policeman. His recall from 'being quit' could also be interpreted as his own innately developing emotions telling him to stop the killing.

One detail from the book that wasn't used in the film was the models of Pris and Rachel were indentical clones of each other,much in the way BSG has used this idea now, Deckard could also be a clone amongst many.

Whatever your conclusions its certainly retained a depth of mystery over the years that few other films have managed, maybe thats why its still so influential.

Roy in dealing with his impending death deals with the situation and reaches a point of acceptance…the last thing he has to offer the universe is to allow his fellow replicant to live…yes Deckard was a replicant.

There is a sequel to "do androids dream of electric sheep." Its called -rather unimaginatively 'Blade Runner 2: The edge of Human' and written by KW Jeter. (c) 1995. It bears a forward by Ridley scott and seems in someways to be endorsed by Philip K Dick (who died long before 1995…)

The book is a pretty good read and it answers many questions from the film… including the fact that decard is indeed a… well, that would be telling.

;-)

I have heard the "origami means he is a replicant" idea and I do not understand Scott's interpretation. If the origami were indicative of thoughts/dreams Deckard had, does that mean Deckard also dreamt of chickens? Gaff makes a chicken origami first because he figures Deckard opted out of his job because we was, essentially, chicken and ran away. Makes no sense to me. The "you've done a man's job, sir!" comment may simply be this: You are no longer a chicken, you've gained a measure of respect from me. Gaff may leave a unicorn because Deckard could simply be the first, if not the only, Blade Runner to escape his dead-end job.

The whole point of the film, at least to me, is the last few moments of Roy Batty's life. At his end, he grasps there are few differences between human life and his own – everyone dies at some point thus making all the observations he has seen that much more worthy. In the beginning, Roy Batty is consumed with finding more life, whilst at the end, he understands what amazing things he has seen, so what is the point of taking Deckard's life now? Deckard will die at some point and, perhaps, he might reach the same plane Batty is on. Batty is a machine, which as the narration by Richard Deckard poignantly remarks, who cares more about anyone's life in its last moments because he has realized how much he loved his. Deckard just sits and watches him die and realizes he doesn't want to waste his life hunting anyone anymore. He is done being the "cold fish" his exwife supposed him to be.

If Deckard was a replicant, the film has almost zero point as the entire dichotomy between human/machine is removed and the characters have no empathy situations.

Brandlin, you could whisper it. If, indeed, you are the same Brandlin of Grymn fame, we could confiscate all your Grymn!

There are some interesting comments here. I do like a film that makes you think.

Matt

(clipped)If Deckard was a replicant, the film has almost zero point as the entire dichotomy between human/machine is removed and the characters have no empathy situations(clipped)

I disagree. I think the point was that there is little to distinguish between the two lifeforms and thusly is some comment about life as a whole; life meaning a soul rather than the day to day.

Once the process of creation is tapped then the real question will come to light and that is; does a created person have a soul?

And by soul does this simply mean a collection of electrons and sparks of energy within a matrix or does it imply something much more?

By Deckard being a replicant I think the idea was to explore the process of finding out and knowing…I think there for I am…as well as I feel there for I am.

Deckard and Rachael I believe were the next line of replicants, the ones who were find out who they are rather than what they are…this process was interupted.

The general feel I got was one of being lost and not knowing ones self…and the finding of the same is not always what we expect.

So rather than deal with the "what is a soul" I can see the ideal handled with something we can all grasp, a regular guy a detective that has issues and failings…going on about his day without direction and finds a reason to live.

Not so much how he started life but how he chooses to live the life he has.

The embodiment of empathy.

In my head, he was always human, but its totally set up to be vague about it.

nooooo leave my grymn alone!

and you'll almost certainly get more authoritative info than here.

i find that hard to believe :)

nooooo leave my grymn alone!

I knew there could only be one Brandlin!

and you'll almost certainly get more authoritative info than here.

i find that hard to believe :)

Sometimes fellow TMPers can surprise you!

I always thought that he was human. In all of his encounters with the replicants, he seems to be completely outmatched, physically. Physical strength and stamina seems to be one of the primary difference between humans and replicants, and Decker totally lacks that. So what would be the advantage in creating a replicant that is so much weaker than all the rest? I thought that his apparent weakness was a way for Ridley Scott to show a contrast between the two types.

MeroMero,
Rachel showed no signs of superior strength. If the purpose was have him not realize his true role in the storyline you certainly would not make him superior physically.

"More human than human, is our Motto here at Tyrel Corp"

"Let me tell you about my Mother" (I Love that one.)

The choices of what goes into a replicant would be a matter of upgrades, IMO.

So advanced strength is removed and advanced sense of being is added.

I always thought Deckard was human, but can see the possibility that he wasn't now.

I thought the origami unicorn was just a symbol for something that doesn't exist, and so his fellow officer was letting him know that he had been to his apartment, but had agreed to look the other way. No need to hunt for a creature that "doesn't exist".

I didn't really tie in his dream, with that point, and do recall seeing the flash in his eyes, briefly. Of course, he could have just told the other officer about his dream, at some point, that isn't included in the film.

Intriguing…..

For years I never understood why people kept suggesting he was a replicant (even after seeing the directors cut). When the unicorn/dream connection was pointed out to me I then understood why doubt had arisen. I had always taken it to show the other guy had been there and wanted to know he was letting Deckard and Rahcel get away with it.

For me Deckard will always be human because there was no questions raised in the original film (at least no blatant ones). However, I think it really is a mute point whether he is human or replicant as I think the film is trying to show us there really is no difference. Both are capable of evil and compassion and both want the same things at the end of the day – life and an understanding of where they come from and their purpose in the world.

Still ranks as one on my most favourite films, even after all this time. The fact it raises so many questions helps its longevity. Very unusual for a film to go to more depth than the book.