So when did Gaff suspect Deck was a Rep? And how??? - Blade Runner (1982) Discussion

[–] edisonnosidE 8 years ago

Origami is like a calling card/commentary for Gaff, a "strange obsession," if you will.
We don't know if this is Gaff's opinion, a taunt, a message system or what he knows.

Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

Did Gaff suspect all along or did something happen to make him do some digging? Gaff doesn't seem to have told Bryant and even Tyrell didn't seem to know.

We don't know but I suspect that Deckard is an experiment and that Bryant and Gaff are in on it. It explains why they're always happen to be around. It's because they are monitoring Deckard to evaluate how he is faring. One of the cut scenes in the bonus section of the Blu-ray set seems to confirm this.

Alex

reply

[–] Collector-Man 8 years ago

We don't know but I suspect that Deckard is an experiment and that Bryant and Gaff are in on it. It explains why they're always happen to be around. It's because they are monitoring Deckard to evaluate how he is faring. One of the cut scenes in the bonus section of the Blu-ray set seems to confirm this.

You mean you think he was a Replicant designed and programmed to specifically to be a Blade Runner?

I disagree. If that was the case then why was Deck an ex-Blade Runner then? Gaff had to drag his ass to Bryant's office and even then Deck still said no to the job until Bryant changed his mind.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

If that was the case then why was Deck an ex-Blade Runner then?

- Well, they are not going to make it easy and obvious for you.

- Because he has the memory implants of a Blade Runner who disliked his job?

- It's a red herring. Precisely because of his reluctance towards his job, the surprise that Deckard is a replicant is all the more greater.

Alex

reply

[–] Snake_MacReady82 8 years ago

If Deckard is a replicant, then it makes sense for Tyrell, Bryant, and Gaff to all be in on it from the beginning. They played along with the deception for the sake of the experiment, but Gaff started to sympathize with Deckard. This lead to him sparing Rachael and leaving the unicorn origami as a message/warning.

Thit and thpin!

reply

[–] Collector-Man 8 years ago

You mean you think he was a Replicant designed and programmed to specifically to be a Blade Runner?

I disagree. If that was the case then why was Deck an ex-Blade Runner then? Gaff had to drag his ass to Bryant's office and even then Deck still said no to the job until Bryant changed his mind.

reply

[–] Snake_MacReady82 8 years ago

I actually believe Deckard to be human. I am open to the possibility that he may be a replicant, but lean more towards him being a naturally born unaltered human being.

Thit and thpin!

reply

[–] fjk1138-731-161881 8 years ago

I feel the same way.

While I do agree that Gaff seems to show up at convenient times, the reason why could be something much simpler. For example, he seems to show up when replicants get retired. Los Angeles is a huge city filled with tons of people. So if Deckard shoots Zhora and kills her in front of a bunch of people who is to say that some bystanders didn't call it in, Gaff was alerted internally from the office or whatever, and he showed up to the scene a few minutes later. The police were still using radios/basic communication devices so it's quite possible. And since Zhora was a known replicant to the police so if her description was called in that would have made it even easier to locate the scene.

reply

[–] Collector-Man 8 years ago

Me too. I want him to be human. Making him a replicant seems pointless to the plot and feels like Scott just did that for the sake of putting a twist in the film...But it fails because the twist doesnt go anywhere and is left unresolved. Whether he's a replicant or not, Deckard still runs off with Rachel and the ending and plot aren't changed or affected so why have it? Anyway contemplating the question 'can a human really love a machine?' is a far more interesting question...

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

I want him to be human.

That's why you don't see. To me, replicant or human, it makes no difference, so I go with what the director (through his movie) is telling me.

Alex

reply

[–] Collector-Man 8 years ago

I'll go with what Scott says but I dont have to like it so I'll go with human. Just like people don't want to believe Han Solo is dead or that Alien 3 or Resurrection didn't happen.

reply

[–] Benjatron26354 8 years ago

I don't really think the movie works so well if Deckard is a Replicant. I mean say that he is, why would they give him a full apartment that looks like it's been lived in for years just to conduct an experiment?
Also, why would they let 4 replicants roam the city and causing the deaths of 3 others, just to see what an experimental replicant would do? And another thing, in a city that size that must employ hundreds if not thousands of Blade Runners, you would think one of them would've killed Deckard on sight instead of letting him freely roam the city. You could argue that's why Gaff kept so close to Deckard, but of this was just an experiment I'd imagine things would have been watched more closely so the head of the Tyrell corporation wouldn't have died as a result.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

These are some of the strangest arguments I've ever read, WmTIe. The apartment is too full with stuff? There must be thousands of blade runners in the city? What?! I think most people understand that Scott saw no difference between a human or a replicant Deckard.

reply

[–] Benjatron26354 8 years ago

Yes, I'm feeling very under the weather today : P

reply

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

It's just hype and nonsense. It's a point of ambiguity intentionally left that way. Gaff probably, from the POV of the story, knew from the start. But they had to let Deckard finish his job before he could finish off Deckard. That's assuming Ford's character is a replicant.

But if Ford is playing a replicant, then why does he express emotion? Why is shown being happy and sad? How come he's trained to detect replicants with his screening kit? It could be he's a special police model or something, but if that's the case, then why is he allowed to live on Earth, and in LA of all places?

How come the genius at corporate HQ didn't know or recognize Ford's character right off?

Like I said, it's just hype, unless it's in the book and was specifically mentioned. And if that's the case, then you have to wonder why the possibility wasn't made clearer to the audience? It may have been a story line they chose to drop. And that seems to make more sense than anything else about this movie.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

But if Ford is playing a replicant, then why does he express emotion? Why is shown being happy and sad?

He shows less emotion than Roy Batty so it's not that hard to believe.

How come he's trained to detect replicants with his screening kit?

Because that's what blade runners use to detect replicants.

It could be he's a special police model or something, but if that's the case, then why is he allowed to live on Earth, and in LA of all places?

Deckard is 'allowed' on Earth because replicants have become so perfectly human that 'the powers that be' think they can get away with it and that replicants can replace humans for certain hazardous jobs.

Like I said, it's just hype, unless it's in the book and was specifically mentioned.

Well, Batty saving Deckard in the end was not in the book. In the novella, Batty didn't make the jump. More hype and nonsense? FYI, the book plays with the idea as well, perhaps even more than the film does. It really doesn't matter if it's in the book or in the script. New ideas don't stop there. Filming too is rewriting. Editing is rewriting. Ask any filmmaker.

And if that's the case, then you have to wonder why the possibility wasn't made clearer to the audience?

The point is that it's not clear because you can't spot them anymore. It took Deckard more than a hundred questions to establish Rachael was a replicant. Scott wanted to communicate the idea by inserting visual clues. After all, if Rachael is a replicant, then everyone can be a replicant. Personally, I thought the DC made it too clear, too obvious. It's much more ambiguous in the original release, the one Villeneuve grew up with.

Alex

reply

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

I am a film maker, which is why I put down what I did. Blade Runner is an allegorical look at sociopaths, and the possibility of them getting together and cooperating as a "team", so to speak.

Supposedly one in 20 people, on average, is sociopathic, so it makes sense that there are going to be sociopaths in all occupations, including police officers, or, in the film's case "blade runners".

But to knowingly hire one for the purpose of hunting other sociopaths ... eh, sociopaths are pretty basic. Highly intelligent at times, they're still predictable. You don't need to hire one to "think like one", which was the premise of the film.

So yeah, it is hype. We don't see Deckard's reflections and struggles with the possibility that he may be one. If he were, then it's a lost opportunity. You don't need a big bright neon sign pointing at him saying "Replicant Here!", but you do need more than just Olmos's character leaving little Japanese paper folds here and there.

I stand by my previous post.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

I am a film maker, which is why I put down what I did.

Well, then you are the first filmmaker who thinks you can't bring any ideas to a movie during the filming and the editing.

So yeah, it is hype. We don't see Deckard's reflections and struggles with the possibility that he may be one.

But why would it be necessary with replicants like Rachael and Deckard when the point is that there is no longer a difference between human and replicant? And yes, of course, it's a hype. I mean, we're still debating it 35 years later, right?

You don't need a big bright neon sign pointing at him saying "Replicant Here!", but you do need more than just Olmos's character leaving little Japanese paper folds here and there.

There is more. That's why I said the original version is more ambiguous. The unicorn reverie origami just happens to be the most blatant of all clues (comparable to your neon sign). It was cut during the editing and later back restored into the movie.

Alex

reply

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

Look, editing is about trimming excess and manipulating data to convey a message. But if you leave out too much information, then you really haven't done your job.

No one, and I mean NO ONE back when this film was released was talking about the possibility of Deckard being a "replicant". All of the after thoughts came after the movie had been around for a few years and had developed a following.

Deckar's character doesn't display "replicant" behavior. Ford portrays your typical detective.

We don't see him struggling with basic emotional decisions that you and I take for granted everyday. In fact we see him express emotions, all be they reserved.

We don't see any physical superiority either, which is odd since if you were to field a special police "replicant" then it would make sense to give it some kind of physical edge or comparable strength to a "combat model". That and he's susceptible to pain, unlike the "combat models". Again, is that what you want in a police version?

He also eats, showers, brushes his teeth and everything else like a regular human being. We never see him examine one of his skin cells or hair follicles with an electron tunneling microscope, and discover a serial number or company name.

The origami wasn't that good of a subtle hint, in my book. It lacked other clues. The film, to me, makes sense about a man who's maybe seen too much of life, and shacks up with a robot hottie at the end. I mean, Deckard does tell Rachel that "it was a joke" after he confronts her with false memories. He smiles, he shows pain, anguish, and even lust.

I think the story is lacking in exposition. The false memories or dreams about unicorns wasn't reinforced with other clues or hints, so it becomes this artistic ambiguity. If you're going to send a message, send a telegram.

reply

[–] criztu 8 years ago

The film, to me, makes sense about a man who's maybe seen too much of life, and shacks up with a robot hottie at the end.

It is made clear that the replicants are humans, through and through:

1. you have the intro text reading "Tyrell corp advanced robot evolution [...] genetic engineers who created them"

This info, for anyone who is able to see the subtext, gives away the replicant industry as a slave industry. Replicants are human slaves.

2. Which is reinforced by Tyrell himself as he tells Roy that he can't control the processes in the DNA - aka human genome - to "give him more life".
3. reinforced again by the blood gushing out of Zhora's wounds, Pris' wounds, Roy's wounds and scratches.

That is, the replicants in the future of Blade Runner, are human beings, discriminated as "machines", by their masters. A parallel is made to the Nazis' "sub-humans" - in the doctrine of the Nazis, the Jews or the Slavs, were considered anything but human.

4. Roy Batty tells Deckard - "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave
5. confirmed by Tyrell himself, who claims that "we gift them with a past, we create a cushion or a pillow for their emotions, and consequently, we can control them better"

If it wasn't obvious so far that the replicants are humans, think just how absurd the concept is, of a machine whom you have to give memories for their emotions!!! to control it.

Just what kind of machines are those, that have to be controlled through emotions? How are these machines distinguishable from humans, at this point?

6. the replicants are indistinguishable from humans, because they are humans! The VK "test" is in fact the very method of control that Tyrell was talking about - "implanted memories".

The true nature of the VK "test" is revealed by Bryant as he tells Deckard to go to Tyrell's office and "put the machine" on Rachael.

Deckard is unknowingly, the very tool through which the replicants are marked as machines!

I mean, Deckard does tell Rachel that "it was a joke" after he confronts her with false memories.

7. False memories that Deckard himself put into Rachael's mind, when he was doing the VK "test" on her, when he was sent to "put the machine" on her:

We hear Deckard saying "bush outside your window [...] orange body, green legs" during the "test", and later, when Rachael comes to his apartment to show him her photo with her mom, he asks her "-You remember the spider that lived in the bush outside your window? Orange body, green legs?"

He then tells her "-Implants. Those aren't your memories!".

Watch how sophisticated a writing:
Deckard asks Rachael if she remembers a spider, bush outside window, orange body green legs.
Rachael does remember a spider, bush outside window, orange body, green legs.

She heard about it during the "test" at Tyrell's office, but she is unaware of that! She now thinks she saw that spider when she was a child! She is in grave error.

But so is Deckard - who thinks that "replicants are like any other machine"!
He thinks his job is to identify robots, when in fact his job is to implant a sequence of word associations in the minds of humans, marked as machines. Once those humans refuse to be slaves anylonger, and run away, his job is to murder them.

Ask yourself, what purpose did the scene with Deckard "putting the machine" on Rachael, have.

The origami wasn't that good of a subtle hint, in my book. It lacked other clues.

Yes, you are right. The origami are not about Deckard having implanted memories. He dreamed a unicorn, that is not a memory.

The origami are a very subtle hint, but for a different thread: Gaff puts Deckard on the path to enlightenment.

Gaff is a metaphor for Hermes/Mercury, as Blade Runner is a gnostic work. The rooster origami references the initiation in the chamber of reflection

The stick man origami references the temptation, as Deckard is about to face Zhora, who is Salome with the Snake, the murderer of John the Baptist.

The unicorn origami references the allegory of The Virgin and the Unicorn - The Chymical Wedding by Rosenkreutz

reply

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

I get the slave thing, but I'm not sure I agree with you on the biblical references. But that just could be my atheism at work. But, assuming it is true, then it's out of place in this film. It's a movie about artificially created beings serving mankind.

I also tend to think of them as machines, and not humans, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve rights, unless of course they aren't fully functioning human beings, and that's kind of the focus of the film.

Ehh ... yeah, I'm thinking that the biblical thing, again if true, is out of touch with the material. It's not a good clue, and even if it demanded the audience educate themselves to understand the references, then it's at odds with the fact that replicants are models manufactured for a purpose, as opposed to being raised by parents. And if you're lacking emotion, then that does make you sociopathic as opposed to human.

It doesn't strike me as being a sophisticated movie, because the characters themselves don't ask themselves why they are the way they are. NEXUS7 demands some answers from Tyrell, but we don't get that from Ford, Hannah, or any of the other replicant characters.

It reminds me of Babylon-5, and how the producer there tried to inject religious context into a science fiction "police in space" show. If you're going to invoke mythology (in Blade Runner's case it's Christian mythology), then you're at odds with the core of the genre.

It almost sounds like to me you're saying it's a kind of recruitment or inducement to discover the Judeo-Christian tradition, but again, there isn't enough there to substantiate "the message". It's too esoteric. And I think if you're going to cloud your message in artistic ambiguity, and not let the characters be themselves, then you haven't made much of a film, no matter how stunning it looks, nor how strong the performances.

reply

[–] criztu 8 years ago

It's a movie about artificially created beings serving mankind.

It's a movie about humans rebelling against god:

The name Eldon Tyrell means El-Don Tyre-El, that is god-lord evil-god. google "el deity wikipedia", "don etymonline", and "Tyre Ezekiel 28:2" and "Tyr god wikipedia".

The name Roy Batty means Mad Red/King, that is Lucifer. google "roy wiktionary", "batty wiktionary".

The name Rick Deckard means Strong King Philosopher. google "Richard wiktionary" "Geiseric wiktionary" and "Descartes wikipedia"

The name Rachael means 'ewe', that is 'lamb of god'.

The name Zhora means 'planet Venus' and 'queen', that is "queen of heaven". Planet Venus is also called Lucifer in Latin, the morning star. google 'Zohra meaning" or "Zohra wiki, Sarah name meaning", "morning star bible".

The name Pris means 'pristine' and 'prisca', that is, "purity ancient".
The name Sebastian means 'venerable'. google "sebastos wiktionary"
The name Gaff means 'hook, stick with a handle" and "trick". That is Hermes, the trickster god, and his caduceus. He goads Deckard on the path to enlightenment, with his cane, which is the Hebrew Lamed, the shepherd's staff, the second letter in the name of god - El (alef-lamed).

When Roy Batty puts a nail through his hand, that is Christ nailed to the cross.
When Roy Batty howls, after breaking Deckard's right hand fingers, that is the wolf Fenrir eating god Tyr's right hand.
When Roy Batty dies in the rain and a white dove rises to the sky, that is the dove as the divine spirit rising as Jesus was baptized by John - Mathew 3:16
When Roy Batty calls Eldon Tyrel "the maker, the god of bio-mechanics, father", that is Lucifer seeking to get back in heaven, and be like God El, Eloah, Allah, Elohim. - Isaiah 14:14
When Roy Batty talks to Eldon Tyrel, he is dressed in a black robe, and has white hair, while Eldon is dressed in a white robe, and has black hair. That is the masonic checker board.
When Roy Batty chases Deckard through that house, he goes with his head through a wall, that is decorated with checkered tiles. That is the skull and bones on the checkered floor.
When Roy Batty recites "fiery the angels fell" that is a reference to Lucifer as cast out of heaven. The verses are a paraphrasing William Blake's gnostic poem America: A Prophecy.
When Roy Batty "jumped a shuttle Off-world" with 3 other replicants, that is Satan rebelling in heaven and taking a 3rd of the angels with him. Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 12:4

And so on and so forth. Blade Runner is a gnostic artwork, through and through. NOT Christian. Gnostic.

I also tend to think of them as machines, and not humans

The replicants are as human as Deckard or Tyrell.

It's too esoteric

You're god damn right.

reply

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

Oh really? Great, thanks.

p.s. Venus is not Lucifer in Latin. They may refer to the same planet, but it's not a literal translation.

p.p.s. you're out of your mind.

reply

[–] criztu 8 years ago

yes, Lucifer refers to planet Venus, not a literal translation, since both are Latin words.
But Aphrodite (Latin Venus) also refers to planet Venus.

p.p.s. you're out of your mind.

Nah, it's just that you're not familiar with esoteric symbolism. Imagine the first philologists who tried to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs, before they got their hands on the Rosetta Stone, all those symbols, making no sense to them...

reply

[–] Gabe1972 8 years ago

I think of them as humanoid, derived from natural humans but tinkered with genetically.

Time wounds all heels.

reply

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by Blueghost;

"But if Ford is playing a replicant, then why does he express emotion?"

Rachel was a replicant. She smiled. She cried.
Replicants can have emotions.

Imo at least, BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

reply