He's far from the type who is a hopeless romantic. Did the studio mandate the shoehorning of the romantic subplot?
There's ZERO chemistry between Deckard and Rachael. It makes no sense for him to get all luvvy duvvy.
It was very much like this in the book, too.
I didn't really like the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", because Deckard wasn't very likable in that either.
He still wasn't much of a romantic, and his relationship with Rachel was even colder and more distant than in the movie.
You do make a good point about the romance being shoehorned in.... I felt like in some ways Deckard was just lonely and Rachel, in his mind, was attractive.
From what I gathered from the movie, he cared very little about whether or not she was a replicant or if she could love him, he just wanted some pie.
Why isn't he a romantic? He's a particularly cynical person after his years in a grinding job, but the fact that he does obsess over Rachel says something. Doesn't that make him a romantic? Even if he doesn't seem to have the outer demeanour or the temperament of a romantic, his actions belie otherwise.
What else could it be?
Well, as he goes deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole, hunting creatures he perceives more and more as fundamentally "human", maybe he starts taking all of his piling-up feelings about the morality of artificial life and stockpiling them with Rachel.
Deckard is the type to F a woman and then go off and do something else. He wouldn't get all sentimental.
shareYeah, that's very much what I gathered from the character.
What's interesting is that Harrison Ford just seems to be like that in real life, yet women fawn all over him for it.
Really? Because he's been with Calista Flockhart since 2002. Again: the impression isn't the action, so what character are we really talking about here?
shareCalista Flockhart.. yeah.. it's weird, they don't seem compatible, but hey... it's none of my business, but yeah, those two together, it's weird.
shareYeah. I agree, Harrison Ford doesn't seem like the long-standing monogamous relationship type, but here we are (assuming monogamy, anyways). Maybe Deckard is the same deal?
shareMaybe both?
He may be with Calista Flockhart but we really have no idea what their relationship is like.
Ford always came across to me as aloof and distant; bitter and yet somewhat aware of his lack of introspection toward being more self-conscious of how he's perceived.
In some ways, Deckard in the movie is depicted as a more confident version of how Ford comes across in real life.
In the book, Deckard was a hard sell because his motivations and feelings were pretty shallow in how they were depicted. Then again, maybe that was the point?
But maybe all of this is just overthinking the entire thing. Maybe the simplest answer is what you alluded to in your previous comment: that the life Deckard led had chipped away at him enough to stockpile a litany of feelings regarding the morality of life, and he expressed that -- in a very banal way -- with his brusque display of affection toward Rachel.
Sure, we don't know what it's like, but it's lasted well over a decade, unless they're just staying together to torture each other. Absent a tell-all interview, though, I'm going to assume they've got a relationship the same as a lot of people do.
Book Deckard was different, yes, and I think it is to make a point, as you say. I think it's to question the humanity of the characters. Philip K. Dick was probably going, "Look, these machines basically have feelings and wants and desires, and they're empathetic and compassionate, but the human is kind of emotionless and cold. What's really human?"
I'm not sure there is a simple or easy answer. We can watch Blade Runner and there are facts, and then we can draw conclusions. So, one fact is that Deckard lays a LOT on the line for Rachel. Is that love? Or is he just trying to prove to himself that he can feel emotions? Or does he feel sorry for Rachel? Or is this some kind of penance he puts on himself for failing to realize how human Roy was until the end?
For myself, I'd say that he is attracted to Rachel and does start to fall for her. Then he gets lost, doesn't know how he feels, starts freaking out about life and existence. Roy's speech throws it all into perspective for him, though: tears in the rain, baby. Deckard refocuses on what's really important and on what has the best chance of making him human again: love.
For myself, I'd say that he is attracted to Rachel and does start to fall for her. Then he gets lost, doesn't know how he feels, starts freaking out about life and existence. Roy's speech throws it all into perspective for him, though: tears in the rain, baby. Deckard refocuses on what's really important and on what has the best chance of making him human again: love.
Deckard became more human as the story played out. Maybe even, ironically, getting to a level of humanity that the Replicants have already achieved...
shareI think that was probably the biggest thing missing from the book: Deckard's more human-like transformation.
The movie did a good job of showing that progression, to some extent. You sort of had to fill in the blanks to get the gist of how Deckard may have felt, and it seemed like a bit of cop-out to have to watch Blade Runner 2047 to fully understand how he really felt after the ordeal (if not from what he said, at least through his actions, or rather the extent of his and others' actions).
Fame and money are strong aphrodisiacs.
shareWell now that we know they are both replicants, surely this is the reason there is 'no chemistry'?
shareI was thinking the exact same thing. I agree with Voltaire that the romantic subplot was unbelievable because Deckard / Ford was ice-cold. But that quality also made it easier for me to believe Deckard was a replicant when people started speculating about that possibility.
shareWell the sequel kind of shot that speculative possibility dead in the water.
share