Bladerunner: Was Deckard a replicant?

[Leto]

If you want mopre of the same universe (or quite similar enough), check Flow my tears, said the policeman, Still K Dick, still replicant problem. A lot less naive.

[JED]

I don't think he was , the whole film is about him dealing with the rouge replicants and then breaking away with the girl, but, the film is annoyingly ambiguous to say the least...

[Tomk1]

Personally I don't see what sence it would make for Deckard to be a replicant. Like there had to be more than 6 or 8 replicants in existance, it would be reasonable to assume that the hunting of replicants was not a new thing. He had to study them like any law enforment and and even became obsessed with them. (like any hollywood-cop-baddie movie)

Just I question was there a follow up book because I think I had a Blade runner book when I was young of which I only read fist few chapters and it went like "Decker and Rachael was on the run/hiding out in a cabin in the mountains and the cabin was surrounded by cops".

any idea?

[F'Lessan Amused]

nope there wasnt...the bladerunner book and dick's android is very different having read both

[starman7]

Ridley Scott intends to Deckard to be a replicant. Therefore he IS.

[F'Lessan Amused]

but ford acted as if he was human

[Vladd67]

Originally Posted by Tomk1

Just I question was there a follow up book because I think I had a Blade runner book when I was young of which I only read fist few chapters and it went like "Decker and Rachael was on the run/hiding out in a cabin in the mountains and the cabin was surrounded by cops".

There is
Blade Runner 2 The Edge of Human
Blade Runner 3 Replicant Night
Blade Runner 4 Eye and Talon
all by K W Jeter

[Heretic]

I say Replicant because in the fighting scenes, while Deckard and his opponents fought in regular speed, the background slowed down; and replicants I think are fast.

[marty.hale]

I recently wrote an essay on the book. The main theme of the book (and all of Dick's works), is that there *cannot* be one base reality experienced by everyone. Every person's reality is equally valid as they experience it.

Running throughout the book is Deckard's questioning of his own humanity and a strange duality; Chaos and order/life and death/human or synthetic/ real or unreal - also please look into the 'phantom twin' motif explored in many of his works; he was born with a twin sister who dies shortly after birth; this loss haunted his works

In one chapter Deckard is arrested by a cop who claims he has no record of Deckard on file as a registered blade runner. He takes him to a parallel police HQ, which turns out to be run entirely by androids, with a human blade runner working (the only blade runner and human in the department). Therefore with these themes of duality/mirror realities it is strongly suggested that it is entirely possible that Deckard is in fact a replicant himself, albeit one with implanted memories to make him think he is human. - He may well be the only <i>replicant</i> working in a department full of humans! It all depends on whose viewpoint you choose to take.

-- see also 'Impostor' and 'A Scanner Darkly' for more extreme examples of this same running theme in Dick's work.

Androids are indeed illegal on earth, however; Rachael is living legally on earth as she is technically the property of the Rosen Association. As a programmed android working for the police department (or maybe also for the Rosen association to clear up the mess and bad publicity caused by some of their creations running amok), Deckard would also then technically be allowed on earth.

The book strongly implies that Rick may or may not be synthetic, but is strongly ambiguous. This is to emphasize the point that reality is totally subjective. The film isn't nearly as confrontational in this respect, although the final cut does do more justice to the book in this respect.

Anyway I am producing a series of illustrations for the book (4 plus cover) based around the themes stated earlier; Chaos and order/life and death/human or synthetic/ real or unreal, and would really appreciate anybodies feedback and especially suggestions on where I could take this or suggested passages from the book.

- Look forward to some input guys

[Chmee]

Picture a world were there can make a machine that can think like a human and is stronger than a human.

What else might then have invented? Maybe they can for example implant dreams into someone. Maybe the want him to think he was a replicant.

if anyone can see a flaw in this please point it out.

[nedergras]

In the beginning of the film after Deckard meets up with Brian Tucker to go over the videos of the replicants of Leon, Roy, Zhora, and Pris... Tucker tells Deckard "you tell me pal, thats what you're here for" after Deckard asks what the Replicants want with the Tyrell Corporation. Watch as Tucker analyzes Deckards reactions as Tucker pans from Zhora to Pris... and watch Tucker's reaction after he tells Deckard that the designers of the Replicants built in a failsafe device or 4 year lifespan. Tucker seemed concerned at first that Deckard might realize that Tucker is also referring to Deckard while talking about the 4 year lifespan, but after seeing Deckard's reaction Tucker is relieved that Deckard didn't get the vibe. Then after Tucker tells Deckard to go to Tyrell to meet up with a Nexus 6 and to put the machine on, Tucker seems surprised at Deckard's reply of "not if the machine doesn't work" which opens the door on whether Deckard realizes hes a replicant too or doesn't.

[Jacob Larch]

For what it's worth, I think it's one of the great pieces of cinema to pose such a question and then not provide an answer. Bit like the spinning top at the end of Inception.

Was Deckard a replicant? Does it matter if there is a definitive answer? As intelligent cinema audience and science fiction readers, we all have our own thoughts, and who's to say that any of us are wrong?

did we enjoy the film? Whether we did or did not, opinion is never wrong!

[shackle5]

I'm not sure if he was. I didn't think so.

Another thing about the film; it's set in 2019. Why wasn't the year something like 2219? Clearly the year 2019 depicted in the film is way, way off.

There's a series called State of Syn (2012) set in 2043. Again, the society depicted is not accurate. Why do Hollywood movies etc. always seem to get the 'future year' so wrong?

[Abernovo]

It might be said that they didn't get the year wrong. It might simply not be our reality, which considering PK Dick, would be apt.

In this case, it's not so much Hollywood, but Dick himself who described the world. The film is very different to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but the world is very much based on the novel and Dick's ideas. Plus, it was written in 1968, when 2019 was a good way off.

As to Deckard being a replicant - it goes back to the question of whose reality is it? I like the unanswered nature of it.

[Morbius]

In the interview I saw, I remember how Ridley Scot was initially hesitant to answer the question because he was surprised by how this became an emotional issue for so many people. But eventually in a round-about way he indicated Deckard was a replicant. That surprised me completely 'cause it went right over my head when I first saw the movie. But in the end it sorta makes sense & is an interesting twist.

Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty had some amazing & unforgetable moments too. Like when he was on the roof in the rain, after saving Deckard's life:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe! Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die."