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

No, the film doesn't work for me if he isn't human.

The whole point of the origami unicorn was to reflect the scene where Deckard tells Rachel about the spider dream/story she thought was her own secret and how they were memory implants, Gaff is doing the same to Deckard by saying he knows what his dreams are thereby implying Deckard also has implanted memories.

I'll probably get run out of town for saying this, but I saw Blade Runner when it first came out in theatres, and didn't like it very much at all.

(I know, blasphemy)

:(

Nobody has yet mentioned Deckards random collection of old photos, but it was mentioned in the film that replicants tended to collect things that gave them an illusion of having a past.

Robert

I'll second the recommendation for KW Jeter's sequels (actually, I think BR2 is better than BR3) and their take on the replicant/ human question.

smokeyroan, go stand in the naughty corner right now! :)

When I started this, I never expected it to draw so many responses. And so many thoughtful responses at that. I'm just glad I wasn't alone in thinking there was more to it.

I went looking on IMDB at Ridley's directorial history, to see if there were any clues to his intentions in Blade Runner.

His first work was one episode of Z Cars in the 1960s, so no luck there. Later, though, he did The Duelists, which was based on a Joseph Conrad novel. Now, I brought Joseph Conrad up in a Star Wars thread the other day. Whenever I see a Conrad connection a light bulb comes on.

I took a degree in English and History, and it was my work on Conrad that earned me my First Class Honours. So Conrad has a special place for me. My take on Conrad was a postmodern one: disconnected images, reality hidden in darkness, disguised by illusions and glaring light, those who face reality/darkness risking insanity, whilst others live comfortably in the light with shallow thoughts etc. I went deep into his novels, and the more I think about Ridley's Blade Runner, the more these terms could to apply to it.

The Conrad connection to Ridley Scott is quite open in Alien. The spaceship is called the 'Nostromo', after the title of one of Conrad's novels. Then there's the escape ship 'Narcissus' from another Conrad tale (the title containing a word I cannot write here). The connection continued into Cameron's Aliens: USS Sulaco referring to a town in the novel Nostromo.

And I found a unicorn icon here, too!

Matt

I love the barrels of random stuff! Nice work on the cabinets.

Wingnut

Ohhhh bug strike. Bug strike. Not my post above.

This was mine:

To me, absolutely he is a replicant.

He may not have been as strong as the other replicants, but the amount of punishment he could soak up was definitely superhuman.

He fits the profile. The photos but no actual connection with anyone in them. No phone calls, no indication they are in his life currently.

The Rutger Hauer replicant's decision to let him live is most explicable to me if he recognises decker as a fellow replicant.

The origami unicorn is a clincher.

"She won't live. But then who does?" (or similar. can't be bothered looking up exact quote)

Or earlier: "Have you ever taken that test yourself?"

Replicant, yes.

Still a favourite movie, and Mr Scott is one of my favourite Directors ever. He has an amazing visual sense and is a great storyteller to boot. Even now Blade Runner looks fresher and more 'real' than any later sci fi pic I can think of offhand.

His genius is in what he doesn't show. The rain and the darkness obscure detail, allowing us to fill it in with our imaginations.

Dang, must watch it again soon.

I[ts 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".]

I may be wrong, but I think that line was in the original release as part of the 'Chanderesque' v/o, but not in the director's cut.

Still a favourite movie, and Mr Scott is one of my favourite Directors ever. He has an amazing visual sense and is a great storyteller to boot. Even now Blade Runner looks fresher and more 'real' than any later sci fi pic I can think of offhand.

His genius is in what he doesn't show. The rain and the darkness obscure detail, allowing us to fill it in with our imaginations.

Whatisitgood4atwork, like you I had the same response. I hadn't seen the film in years, and I bought it only because I saw the DVD at a car boot sale, it looked in perfect nick, and was only £1.00 GBP At that price I just had to add it to my collection.

As soon as the movie started to play I was struck at how modern and fresh it looked. It was remastered back in 1991.

Even though real science has overtaken science fiction in many aspects (such as the cathode ray tube, curved monitors that appear in Blade Runner, and in Aliens), it doesn't seem to matter. The film has internal integrity. It's a retro future, and that seems to be in vogue right now. I was told there's a magazine called 'Stuff' whose front cover proclaims: 'Forget digital, go analogue' (referring to cameras).

More than the visuals (all that lovely rain, the towering buildings, the grim industrial, used-up future), it has a message that is pertinant for all-time, and one which we are still discussing over a quarter century later.

Matt

I dont think Rachel is special, the 'no termination date' comes from the studio imposed voiceover of the original release to give a happy ending, it wasn't actually in the story if I remember correctly, this gives Gaffs comment about who lives a bit more meaning.

All through the film there are references back to the replicant behaviours and attributes with photos, eyes, memories and so on.
The last scene is Deckard and Rachel escaping to a new and uncertain future,living for the moment and driven by emotions….much in the way that Roy and his group arrived on earth in the first place.

Quote – 'Will you come after me?'
'No, …..but someone will.'

Found this essay this morning, which may be interesting to Ridley Scott fans. It runs to 15 pages with notes and references, and deals primarily with 'The Duellists', but there are allusions to Blade Runner.

link

Haven't had a chance to read it all yet.

Matt

You might find this an interesting read too.

link

You might find this an interesting read too.

link

edit: how'd I manage to post this twice? I only pushed one submit.

Monstyr, must be your human and your replicant sides doing their own thing!

Thanks, for posting that link. It was a very interesting read, which took me back to the world I loved so well. The postmodern critiques of Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson et al. I missed the Blake quote when I watched the movie, but it makes sense. The Tyger of revolution burning in the dark forest of ignorance. The search for answers in a grim, used-up industrial landscape. The loss of individual self – which Marx so literally warned in the Communist Manifesto – when man becomes no more than a machine within a machine.

Matt

Whatisitgood4atwork –

Of course Deckard and Racheal are not enchanced, any enchancement would reveal that they are not human! And that would ruin the whole point of implanted memories.

The only people you can be totally sure of being human are those with Physical flaws. Tyrel with his thick glasses, Sabastian with his "aging" disease. Those people have to be real, no replicant would be created with physical flaws.. Although I totally admit this logic is refuted by the orignal script (Tyrel is actually a replicant in the original script and the real Tyrel is in cold storage because of illness).

One feature of replicants is that they must have design limitations built in – part of this is because they become mentally/emotionally unstable after a number of years (which Tyrell Corporation thinks can be overcome by implanting memories). Other reason that replicants have to have an end date are that it forces purchasers to replace them (good for business), and keeps them from competing with and displacing humans.
As long as they only have a few years of function, replicants can be used as throwaway labor. About the time that they become aware of things like fairness, and would begin to resent their second class status and demand equality under the law, they self destruct.

Decker is a loner, has some failed relationships behind him, and has a job that places even more emotional distance between himself and others. He has no surviving family – only a collection of photos and memories.
He discovers that there are replicants that have false memories implanted – replicants that seem to have more interest in being members of the human community than he is – replicants that seem more human than he is.
Decker begins to question both his own humanity, and the replicants' lack of humanity. And that is the philosophical question at the heart of the book/film: what does it mean to be human?

A bit OT but perhaps related. Something has bugged me right back fron the first time I saw the original movie in the cinema. The police captain (or whatever he is) says "I've got 4 skin jobs walking the streets" – thats Roy, Leon, Zhora and Pris. Later when he is briefing Deckard on the Nexus 6 models and the individuals he says "6 of them jumped a shuttle" and "One got fried going through an electrical field". So where is the other one? Its not Rachel.

Have I missed something?

After a quick google, looks like a continuity error that has apparently been fixed in the FINAL CUT version.

Deckard was a Cylon….