At first I thought "no".
Then I thought, " The pictures on the piano give him away as a replicant ".
Now, I will not say.
The original movie, no. The second, I thought it was a possibility. Actually, a yes. But I only saw the movie twice. Back to back.
shareHe was human in the book. Ridley Scott is simply a narcissist who thought he could tell the story better than Philip K. Dick.
shareI've never liked the idea of Deckard as a replicant. In the first place, why make a replicant like him, who lacks all the advantages of the other replicants? He doesn't have the strength that Batty and Leon have, and it sure would be a nice thing for a blade runner going after replicants to have. The idea that Deckard was one seems more like an idea that occurred to someone as an afterthought, and that they ran with, than something that had been planned for the story, or that had been thematically intended. In the second place, one of the themes of the movie is suggested by the Tyrell Corporation motto: more human than human. In Blade Runner, we see a world where the replicants are showing more humanity in some ways than the human characters. They are desperately struggling to preserve and extend their lives, and to help each other in this struggle, where humans have become cold and callous, casually terminating the replicants, when they're not exploiting them for slave labor. The replicants are displaying more humanity than the humans are.
I think the story works better with Deckard as a human who has been desensitized by his society, reawakened to his humanity when Batty saves his life at the end, seemingly since Batty can't save his own. Thus he's motivated to try to help Rachel escape. I think his character arc is more profound, more moving, and more admirable if he's a human who reconnects with his humanity in that dystopian world, than just another replicant who's now going to join his replicant brothers and sisters in their struggle.
^^^This is the best answer to the "is-he-or-isn't-he" question I've ever read!
share"why make a replicant like him"
"More human than human is our motto". Why wouldn't a huge corporation want to eventually see if they can make a replicant that is very human-like just to see if they can?
"The idea that Deckard was one seems more like an idea that occured to someone as an afterthought"
It wasn't. It was in the original 4 hour cut before they had to start removing material which included the unicorn scene.
"I think the story works better with Deckard as a human"
So do I but everything you've said can easily be dismissed.
"More human than human is our motto". Why wouldn't a huge corporation want to eventually see if they can make a replicant that is very human-like just to see if they can?
Not really. They're just really supposed to be discovering who they are with the test and then blowing them away.
Besides Tyrell made Rachel so that she didn't know what she was. If Deckard was beating the shit out of replicants he'd get suspicious pretty quickly.
And Deckard's not tough? He survives Zhora karate chopping him to the face with full on rage, she doesn't even break his nose, she was choking him for a good few seconds before being interrupted, he still got up, Leon was bashing his body around, Pris twisted his neck around, he's still able to climb onto rooftops with broken fingers... By the end of the film all he's got are a few bruises to the face. Seems pretty strong to me.
Not really. They're just really supposed to be discovering who they are with the test and then blowing them away.
Besides Tyrell made Rachel so that she didn't know what she was. If Deckard was beating the shit out of replicants he'd get suspicious pretty quickly.
And Deckard's not tough? He survives Zhora karate chopping him to the face with full on rage, she doesn't even break his nose, she was choking him for a good few seconds before being interrupted, he still got up, Leon was bashing his body around, Pris twisted his neck around, he's still able to climb onto rooftops with broken fingers... By the end of the film all he's got are a few bruises to the face. Seems pretty strong to me.
Got any proof that they'd have been able to actually kill him? If they were four or five times as strong as you said in a previous post, he should've been dead or severely injured in the moments I described.
shareYeah, I have proof: the movie would have ended if Deckard had died; he had to have enough plot armor to survive.
Sorry, but this I have no patience for: people being willfully obtuse. This is just bullshit "I won't ever concede a point, no matter how wrong I am."
Deckard was being strangled to death with his own necktie, and he was not able to stop Zhora and you know it. Leon was about to drive his middle and index fingers through Deckard's eye sockets, and you know it. It's unmistakably obvious in the film; there's nothing remotely ambiguous about it. Deckard hits Batty in the head with a pipe as hard as he possibly can; it would have caved any normal human's skull in, and it didn't even phase Batty. Then he almost plunges to his death because he's not strong enough to jump a distance that a Nexus 6 replicant already in the process of shutting down, and mere moments from death clears effortlessly.
There's no question that Deckard is physically inferior to the replicants.
Throwing your toys out of the pram because you was challenged😂
shareResorting to personal insults because you can't refute any of my points. 😂
shareWhy would I refute all your points? I already said I prefer the idea of him being human or have you got the memory of a gold fish as well as being a child?😂 I just like debating the theory about it.
shareWhy would you refute all my points? Oh, I don't know... because you think you're right? If you are, you should be able to argue your position logically. If you're resorting to insults, and thowing in smirking emojis, you're not arguing logically, you're engaging in theatrics. Playing to the gallery. That's what someone with a weak case does. As Carl Sandburg said (speaking of lawyers and trials) “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
Now you're pounding the table.
You want to debate, debate on the facts. Use logic, reason, and evidence. Don't waste my time.
"Don't waste my time"
Who the fuck do you think you are? 😂Fuck off.
Who do I think I am? I think I am a man as worthy of courtesy and respect as anyone. So, if you are going to debate me, have the decency to be serious and honest, and not disingenuous, willfully obtuse, and intellectually dishonest.
As Shakespeare put it "Look you, if you take the matter otherwise than is meant... peradventure I shall think you do not use me with that affability as, in discretion, you ought to use me, look you, being as good a man as yourself..."
But since you clearly don't feel the need to be bothered using that affability that decency and common courtesy require, I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself with a rusty saw.
I never saw Deckard as a replicant.
shareIMO the whole point is that we don't know for sure, and we can never know. And more important, Dekard doesn't know. The fact that it's an unanswered question is what gives it value. To answer the question deletes any weight of importance the story had.
I've always leaned very far toward assuming he's human. But every version of the film introduced some doubt, e.g. with Rachel asking him "Have you ever taken that test yourself?"
I agree with pretty much what you say. One thing I would add though is that there's no doubt that his interactions with Gaff make much more sense if he is a replicant.
Look at the way Gaff stares at him at he's ordering his booze. The way he always shows up after Deckard has killed a replicant like he's constantly watching him. In the deleted scenes, it's shown that Gaff and Bryant are often monitoring him. Even some of Bryant's expressions towards him - when he says "4 year life span" for example.
There's a fan theory that Deckard has been implanted with Gaff's memories and thoughts because Gaff is now a crippled Blade Runner and can't hunt them anymore. Hence the different oragami because he knows what's going through Deckard's mind.
But yeah I agree, the question itself is more interesting.
I prefer that he's not. One of the reasons why I prefer The Terminator to T2 is because it's just more powerful to me that it's human Vs machine instead of machine Vs machine.
Of course, Blade Runner's not that type of good Vs evil plot but it's still more powerful to me that Deckard's human, and he's become emotionally dead because of his job, and he ends up falling in love with a non-human, and that he starts to regain his humanity through that and Batty saving his life and telling him about his experiences.
Ridley Scott directed it, it's up to him how he wanted the audience to feel but I think co-writer Hampton Fincher was right when he said "I think the question's more interesting than the answer".
I got from the movie and other PK Dick movies that it doesn't matter if a human loves you only that the love is happening.
I used to work for the prison system and am a white man. Black inmates would ask me if I was racist, etc. I used to tell them that I would rather be trapped on an island with a nice black person than a psychopathic white one.
What matters is personality, kindness, etc.
I think that's a VERY interesting science fiction topic. If you met an android, artificial person, AI personality, etc that was much nicer and more interested in you than any human has been, how much would you care?
I see Blade Runner as being partly about that and so it matters if he is human.
Meanwhile, I read the book and it is not about that. He ends up blowing Rachel apart because she is a psychopath type as she's a mechanical android that doesn't have emotions. So, the movie is a whole new idea and theme.
I never got the feeling watching the movie that they were even going for that or making that a question. It's all the subsequent talk since the movie came out that even talked about that.
share