Deckard -- Replicant or Human: Would the film be better?

[I, Brian]

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence.

The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Issues such as Deckard climbing with broken fingers I'd put down to just artistic licence - "heroes" traditionally do such feats - and Roy knowing his name as a continuity/scripting issue.

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities.

2c.

[phase38]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence.

The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Issues such as Deckard climbing with broken fingers I'd put down to just artistic licence - "heroes" traditionally do such feats - and Roy knowing his name as a continuity/scripting issue.

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities.

2c.

All excellent arguments.. but Ridley Scott gave it away that he is a replicant.

But I agree with everything yo`ve said, and still like to watch the film from a different point of view.

[Paige Turner]

In the original screening, before the unicorn, I thought it was the photographs that suggested that Deckard was a replicant. It's as if they gave replicants the sense of history they needed. Rachel clutched hers desperately, and was quick to offer it as proof of her humanity. Leon risked his life to go back to the hotel to retrieve his. And Deckard's place was conspicuoulsy filled with old family portraits. He just didn't know he was a replicant.

I don't think this detracts from the pathos in any way. Shortened time lines nowithstanding, the truth that unites people and replicants is that, inevitably, one day, it will be "time to die."

[phase38]

Originally Posted by Paige Turner

I don't think this detracts from the pathos in any way. Shortened time lines nowithstanding, the truth that unites people and replicants is that, inevitably, one day, it will be "time to die."

How very morbid... but true i suppose.

[Loner]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

But as said, overall I prefer for the point to remain ambiguous.

I agree. I thought ambiguity was the point. The fact is that the line between humans and replicants is so fine that we cannot tell the difference. It makes you ask yourself why do replicants have less right to live as they choose than a human? They are portrayed sympathetically so that you feel for their plight. They feel just as a human does but are made to do all of the horrendous work humans don't want - even hunting and exterminating their own kind.

It's that old cliche - man's inhumanity to man (or replicant)

[greenman]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence.

The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Issues such as Deckard climbing with broken fingers I'd put down to just artistic licence - "heroes" traditionally do such feats - and Roy knowing his name as a continuity/scripting issue.

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities.

2c.

The other obvious pointer to me is Deckards obsession with old photographs and sheet music, very similar to Leon's "precious photographs".

I personally don't think its really a "man vs machine" film at all as Roy and the other rebel replicants don't share much of a connection with Deckard. Its IMHO much more a study on the nature of humanity divided between two stories(Deckard/Rachael and Roy) that interconnect.

[Whitestar]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence. The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Actually, the unicorn and origami scenes indicates that Deckard is a replicant because Gaff knew about his dreams, that is, they were implanted dreams and it was his way of telling Deckard that he is indeed a replicant but he was willing to let him go because he "did a man's job".

Originally Posted by I, Brian

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Maybe they didn't know anything about him.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Agreed, however, it's also ironic too. Plus, if Deckard is a replicant as Riley Scott insists, then it also means that he is a traitor to his own kind and doesn't even know it! How's that for a twist?

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities. 2c.

There is another scene that states that Deckard is a replicant, where Rachel saves Deckard's life and asks him if he would come after her and he replies no, you'll see that they both have shining robotic eyes. Check out the link for what I mean:

BRmovie.com: BR FAQ: Is Deckard a replicant?

Some fans have questioned how can Deckard be a replicant if the replicants he has to deal with are clearly all stronger than him? This is a very good question. Here is a direct quote from the Blade Runner F.A.Q. site:

"The videos that Bryant shows Deckard include a mental and physical rating for each of the replicants. In all cases, they are rated "A" physically. If Deckard was a replicant designed to think it was human, it would probably be made a "B" physical, which would correspond to average human strength. The fact that Deckard could slam shut a door that the replicant Rachael was trying to open hints that Rachael was a "C" physical.

The replicants he was up against were all physically superior (A-level); Rachael, to name another replicant was also Nexus 6, yet she did not exhibit any of the superhuman abilities/traits the other reps have.

So evidently you have all kinds of replicants, from A-level (the strongest) to possibly B- and C- classes. (As evidenced in the information given at the briefing by Capt. Bryant, there are also mental classes ranging from A (your regular genius) over B (average?) to C (not too bright).

This inevitably brings up the question: what is the purpose of making a rep with average human abilities. Once again, consider Rachael's case. She was a replicant who wasn't supposed to know about it. In order to pull this off, she would have to have "average" human abilities, not the superhuman qualities that Batty or Leon, for example, had (because otherwise she would find out right away that she was a replicant). And implanted memories, but that's another discussion in itself...

Likewise, if Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and he wasn't supposed to know about it, the *only way* to pull it off (without letting him find out or making him suspicious) would be to give him average human skills and abilities, and NOT make him a terminator of sorts. Unfortunately this would indeed mean he has to deal with physically stronger opponents."

Here is the link:

BRmovie.com: BR FAQ: Is Deckard a replicant?

[Jon George]

It’s been my understanding that ‘sixth’ Replicant was ‘lost’ in the editing process. (I think she was supposed to be an apple-pie mom.) When Leon takes the test, his eyes change colour when he’s stressed about the turtle – which is where all the ‘glow-in-the-eyes’ references come from. I also believe that in the original script, Tyrell himself is found to be a Replicant.

As to which interpretation I prefer – I’m as seemingly as fickle as the weather about this. I was blown away when I saw the original version (having a suspicion that Deckard was not human), but I also love the director’s cut and the more obvious assertion that he’s a Replicant.

[Curt Chiarelli]

I'll cast my vote in favour of the Deckard-is-a-Replicant camp. His own ignorance of his own origins (as well as his cynical and callous comments) adds to the levels of poignancy and irony. There is one other compelling bit of business that seems to be overlooked - and one that was extant in the original theatrical version - is the look of utter pathos on Inspector Bryant's face as he watches Deckard viewing the profiles of the Nexus Six fugitives. That was the first big tip-off for me even when I viewed the film for the first time.

The replicants were designed to be physically superior to their human creators in all but one way: their lifespan. Therefore, it would be a foolish tactic to pit a mere human blade runner against a desperate replicant fugitive with para-military training. What better instrument of subjugation and extermination than another replicant specially designed for the purpose?

[Gylfi]

The only relevant thing IMO is that Deckard is a HUMAN for P.K.Dick in Do Androids

What Scott did in his DC (thank god not in the official movie)is kind of like making a Romeo & Juliet movie and getting Juliet to dump Romeo and run away with Thelma

The little "hints" are just to make you suspicious about the whole story, plus they make you think about what's humanity... but that's it...

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Gylfi

The only relevant thing IMO is that Deckard is a HUMAN for P.K.Dick in Do Androids

What Scott did in his DC (thank god not in the official movie)is kind of like making a Romeo & Juliet movie and getting Juliet to dump Romeo and run away with Thelma

The little "hints" are just to make you suspicious about the whole story, plus they make you think about what's humanity... but that's it...

Films don't exist purely be be adaptations of their source material. If you produce a version of Romeo and Juliet were she leave him at the end and its a great peace of work I'd say it would be perfectly valid.

[Connavar]

Even in the book it was not totaly sure in much of the story that Dekkard was human. There were scenes both Dekkard and the reader wasnt sure he was an android or a human.

Being not sure what he is seems to one of few elements the movie captured from the original story.

[Gylfi]

Sure He has doubts... just to add more philosophical meaning... Are men humans anymore?

In the story another blade runner runs V-K on Deckard, just because He's not sure about it... That solves everything I would say.

Being a literature teacher I believe that if Deckard were UNdoubtedly human, the tale would have felt a bit less interesting...inserting doubts and uncertainties is a clever strategic writing stratagem to stir things up.

Films don't exist purely be be adaptations of their source material

I disagree completely. He who has the intellectual property of the story and came up with it first is right. Sure You're free to take someone else's work and change stuff (IF the inventor doesn't sue you) but the father of the idea "dictates" what is true and original and what isn't.

Sure You can get Hamlet to call on Schwarzenegger and terminate the King of Denmark and love it (i would), but the original one is the TRUE one.

[greenman]

Originally Posted by Gylfi

Sure He has doubts... just to add more philosophical meaning... Are men humans anymore?

In the story another blade runner runs V-K on Deckard, just because He's not sure about it... That solves everything I would say.

Being a literature teacher I believe that if Deckard were UNdoubtedly human, the tale would have felt a bit less interesting...inserting doubts and uncertainties is a clever strategic writing stratagem to stir things up.

Yeah I agree with that, the main point of the story is the uncertainy rather than whether Deckard is or isnt a replicant. I'd guess that part of the reason Ridley Scott leaned towards him being one is that it allowed for that uncertainy to be put across in a more visual way

I disagree completely. He who has the intellectual property of the story and came up with it first is right. Sure You're free to take someone else's work and change stuff (IF the inventor doesn't sue you) but the father of the idea "dictates" what is true and original and what isn't.

Sure You can get Hamlet to call on Schwarzenegger and terminate the King of Denmark and love it (i would), but the original one is the TRUE one.

The writer obviously deserves credit/compensation when his work is used but I don't understand how you can say that any adaptation from the page to the screen is automatically invalid and inferior. Is that is any different than say someone coming up with a film script then a director or other screen writers making alterations, yes they often maybe for the worst but not automatically so.

In the case of something like Shakespear I agree any adaptation is never going to be considered the "true" version but thats due to the status of his works. I'd say the case here is exactly the opposite though as Scott's film is far more well known and praised than the book.