I just got done watching the film and I didn't see any particular moment where Deckard realizes he's a replicant. Matter of fact, I don't remember anything shown in the film hinting out to this.
Can someone help?
[deleted]
You must have seen the Theatrical Cut where it's less obvious. BTW, it's not "stated" either for that would require that it's clearly expressed in speech or writing. This isn't a recent movie, you know. You have to do a little thinking of your own. In any case, I hope you realize that Deckard being a replicant or not is not really what Blade Runner is about. Maybe you should watch it again.
Alex
Oh, alright.
It's just that I thought that him bing a Replicant was like a major plot twist, aka a revelation in the movie, and one of its focal points, since everywhere you go, the one thing you see getting mentioned about this film is that one thing.
It's just that I thought that him bing a Replicant was like a major plot twist, aka a revelation in the movie, and one of its focal points
During the movie it is heavly implied that Deckard is a Replicant, though others on this board disagree.
The origami models are visual clues
Replicants are humans, made slaves to Tyrell
Deckard is a human, made slave to Tyrell
I've done 35 years of thinking. Emmm... Nope, Deckard is not a replicant. And it's not about golden eyepupils or bloomin unicorn or Gaff. His relationship with Rachel makes him human.
shareThe weakest replicant going, he got man handled by near enough everyone
shareYes, he's like a human Blade Runner in every respect.
shareYes. Declard is physically weak compared with Roy.
But so was Rachel, who is definitely a replicant.
Tyrell corporation can make weaker replicants.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - π
Tyrell corporation can make weaker replicants.
Especially when they are intended to think and behave like humans.
by Alex;
"Especially when they are intended to think and behave like humans."
Of course Tyrell can make a replicant as close to a naturally born human as he wants. Tyrell controls their DNA.
- But that leads to Tyrell's trick doesn't it?
How human can he make a replicant and still sell it as a slave; and keep the general public believing that the replicants are robots, machines and skin jobs?
Racism, propaganda and slavery; It's a story as old as humanity just in a futuristic form.
imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - π
I disagree because he made it seem like Rachel was some new top notch model or the likes of it, which would make Deckard like a Nexus 9 or some shit comparing his level of intelligence, resourcefulness and life span.
shareThe replicant's incept data states their physical and mental levels. All four of the replicants are Phyisical Level: A, as shown in the scene in Bryant's office. So there are other physical levels. Who knows what Deckard and Rachel's might be. Deckard may be a B since he survived all the beatings be the other replicants, but wasn't quite as strong as them..
Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.
[deleted]
It depends on which version you saw, I'm assuming you saw the final cut, if that's the case then yes, Deckard is a replicant. How do we know this? Because when he is at the piano he is thinking of a unicorn. This could be two things, it's either his imagination of a unicorn or he actually remembers seeing a unicorn. At the end we see the other detective making an origami of a unicorn. This is not a coincidence. He did it because he had access to Deckard's memories or thoughts of a unicorn. The only logical explanation for him to know what's on Deckard's mind is for Deckard to have implanted memories, just like Rachel has implanted memories and the detective is privy to those, so in conclusion, Deckard is a replicant.
share[deleted]
Because a) he's a quack, and b) it's what's on the screen, deal with it.
shareIt seems unlikely that we are to hold the belief that in some cuts of the movie, Deckard is a replicant, and in others, he's not. Why would a director want to confound the viewing public to such a degree, about his own movie?
This is a lie. Why do people always have to lie? Sigh...
by Alex
"Why do people always have to lie? Sigh..."
This is the way I see it.
Ridley Scott can be a disruptive director for some audience members.
Scott knows that movies can be like magic shows where the magician purposely misleads the audience.
He knows that a mystery can tell the audience, 'this is the murderer', when the killer was someone else.
Movies are about manipulating the thinking of the audience.
Ridley knows this of course.
And now Scott made a movie about a society which is lied to and manipulated (about the replicants).
- So a message in all versions of "Blade Runner" is about what do people believe is the truth?
The answer; it is often what they are told is the truth.
** Scott then did something very clever with his movie imo.
- He first made a version of "Blade Runner" while under pressure from the producers which indicates that Deckard is not a replicant.
That was the 'truth' from the theatrical cut of BR.
- Then 9 years later Scott had another version made which was closer to his personal vision. Which indicates that Deckard is a replicant.
** Which is true?
Answer; They are both true depending on one's point of view (from Obi-Wan).
The viewer can search, if they wish, for their own truth in the many versions of "Blade Runner".
- Or some viewers can ignore Scott's disruption about how film manipulates the viewer.
These certain viewers can insist that they know that BR has only one simple interpretation.
And that these audience members know what that absolutely true interpretation is.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - π
He first made a version of "Blade Runner" while under pressure from the producers which indicates that Deckard is not a replicant.
Time for the real truth! In the TC, Deckard could be a replicant*. In the DC, he is a replicant.
Conclusion? If duality regarding the origin of Deckard matters, the TC is the better cut.
*because the strongest hint was taken out of the movie but the other hints were left in
Alex
to Alex;
"Conclusion? If duality regarding the origin of Deckard matters, the TC is the better cut."
Your logic is sound.
When I show "Blade Runner" to someone for the first time, I use the theatrical cut.
Then they can move on to the Director's / Final cut on their own.
I like to let people make up their own mind.
For me? I prefer the Director's / Final cut but that's just me.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - π
He first made a version of "Blade Runner" while under pressure from the producers which indicates that Deckard is not a replicant.
That was the 'truth' from the theatrical cut of BR.
There were still hints in the TC that Deckard might be a replicant - the red eyes and the question Rachael asks him about whether he's ever taken the VK test. He doesn't answer, because he's fallen asleep, but the several seconds' delay before we realise that means the question lingers in the audience's mind and never is answered.
There were still hints in the TC that Deckard might be a replicant - the red eyes and the question Rachael asks him about whether he's ever taken the VK test. He doesn't answer, because he's fallen asleep, but the several seconds' delay before we realise that means the question lingers in the audience's mind and never is answered.
Exactly. I guess the poster to whom you replied to only noticed the most blatant hint (unicorn shot) and missed the more subtle ones. If one knows so little, one shouldn't talk of truth. ξ
Alex
The screenwriters say no, Deckard isn't a replicant. The actor portraying him says no, Deckard isn't a replicant. The director says yes, he's a replicant.
So it all depends on who you choose to believe.
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain
Just because Fancher or rewriter Peoples didn't write it doesn't mean it's not in the movie. Writers, actors, designers and film crew all work to help accomplish the vision of the director. A writer writes the film only once. A director writes it three times.
BTW, in one of the many versions of the script, Fancher did see Deckard as a possible replicant. Fancher ended the script with Deckard's hand clamping in the exact same way Roy's hand did in the beginning of the story. However, Fancher says he prefers Ridley's 'red glowing eyes'.
Alex
He isnt a replicant which is clearly proven in blade runner 2049
shareYah he's human.. not sure about the replicant mumbo-jumbo. The film is great as it is without stupid plot twists!
sharePeople love to come up with plot twists though.
I'm pretty sure the sequel established deckard as a human definitively. The first BR left it ambiguous.
was it ambiguous though? he couldn't fight to save his life.. and he definitely outlived his life cycle
i do appreciate the sequel putting an end to the debate. hehe