Bladerunner: Is Deckard a Replicant?

[EddieChingLives]

That was the question on the back of the Bladerunner director's cut dvd.

"As with all things in the future, you must discover the answer for yourself."

What's to discover, of coarse he's not. Replicants have strength better than humans. He got his ass whupped by every replicant he faced. The topless chick even kicked his ass. He's nothing without his gun. He couldn't leap across the building at the end, poor Rutgar Hauer had to help his ass. Is he a replicant? Of coarse not!

[bushiboy]

Gaff is the Blade Runner, Deckard is his weapon, or his tool.

He has numerous photos at his place, to reinforce his "memories".

The police would not waste a human on hunting down a replicant. He was made to believe he was human so he would not be bothered by hunting down his own kind.

His eyes glow in there somewhere too.





AND there were six androids that came to earth. One died, and Deckard was hunting four.

[Dash Martin]

Plus Ridley Scott announced about 6 months ago that he was indeed a replicant. Can't get any better proof than that.

[EddieChingLives]

How come he can't stand his own agains any other Replicant? Even Daryl Hannah kicked his ass? If Deckard is a replicant, why is he such a wuss?

And now I'll be watching every frame looking for his eyes to glow.

There's supposedly a sequel in talks, but I don't know how they'd pull that off with such a gap in time. It would be really cool if they made an anime sequel or a cgi sequel.

[Dash Martin]

Well, wouldn't it be kinda fishy for a normal human being to be able to beat the shit out of a replicant? There wouldn't be any mystery in the film then...it'd be obvious. Also, since he didn't know he was a replicant, maybe he didn't know he was as strong as the replicants and therefore didn't take advantage of it. The point, however, is moot. Ridley Scott said he was a replicant so he's a replicant.

[bushiboy]

Here's a harder question:
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[EddieChingLives]

Ridley directed the film. He didn't write it.

Ridley also thought it was a good idea to take out the voice-over at the end, which many, including me, miss it.

Another confusing problem is that the movie is based on a novel (that I haven't read) has multiple screenplay versions with different endings, and different release versions.

In Hampton Fancher's screenplay, Deckard shoots Batty and pushes him off the building. Batty's last words being "crap". Deckard takes Rachael to the snowy woods and snuffs her. Ridley demanded a re-write, so I guess I gotta give Ridley some credit.

He got David Peoples to re-write, and thank goodness he did, with the amazingly powerful dying speech by Batty.

Reading the David Peoples screenplay, he agrees with you. If only Ridley left in this last voice-over it would explain it all:

DECKARD (V.O.)
I knew it on the roof that night.
We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!
Combat models of the highest order.
We had fought in wars not yet
dreamed of... in vast nightmares
still unnamed. We were the new
people... Roy and me and Rachael!
We were made for this world. It
was ours!

But the original screenwriter agrees with me. He also mentions the eye thing.
http://www.trussel.com/bladerun/jma.htm

You can compare the screenplays here:
http://www.trussel.com/f_blade.htm

[EddieChingLives]

According to the people at amazon.com, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is just as confusing in book form.

Reading the book however explains a few holes the film has, such is:

Why real snakes are so expensive, due to all of the extinction from the world war.

And also talks about the "task to "retire" 6 extremely intelligent androids of the Nexus-6 type".--(quote by a reader, not author).

But no reader nor review mentions that there is a confusion about wheather or not Deckard is a replicant, but that he struggles with getting attached to something he is hired to kill.

However, they explain that Deckard has an obsession with wanting to own a real animal, "Ashamed of his electric sheep, Deckard pines for a real animal"--(quote by another reader)

[Nitemare]

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?


Of course they dont dream of them.. they count them to get to sleep.. once your asleep.. the sheep are no longer necessary.

[CharlieM]

Plus Ridley Scott announced about 6 months ago that he was indeed a replicant. Can't get any better proof than that.

Ridley Scott didn't write the script nor the story. His claim is meaningless.

And addressing questions about Deckard's eyes -- no, they don't glow. They never come anywhere close to glowing...AT ALL. There's one scene in which orange lighting slightly reflects off his eyes -- but it clearly reflects off the white of his eyes. In a replicant, it's the pupils that glow. A screen capture and zoom in this scene prove that his pupils aren't glowing.

And besides, you can always depend on one indisputable philosophy: If it's not in the movie, it doesn't exist. Period. None of this "but the filmmakers intended..." or "the subtext implies..." or "you're supposed to use your imagination..." NO. It's a fictitious world existing only in those two hours between when you hit play and hit stop. If it's not clearly revealed in those two hours, it's not so. Maybe the filmmakers did intend for Deckard to be a replicant. But he isn't, because it's not demonstrated in the film. Likewise, Deckard also isn't Santa Claus for the same reason. The fact that he may have worn a red and white shirt in one deleted scene doesn't change that.

Furthermore, Blade Runner sucks anyway. Yeah, that's right. I said it. It's a painfully overrated, self-contradicting mess praised only because of its once incredible visual effects. There are virtually no story developments, no character development, no depth to the relationships, and...a random unicorn. If that film was released now with updated effects, it would be forgotten in weeks -- besides the unicorn, which would be hated for centuries.

[Singles]

Wow, you registered and dug up a four year old thread to talk about a movie you hate?

Welcome to Penciljack, I guess.

[Finnegan]

well, seeing this thread pop up out of the abyss makes me wanna go watch Bladerunner again. i think i'll do that.


=BoB=

[GuardianOdin]

Ridley Scott didn't write the script nor the story. His claim is meaningless.

And addressing questions about Deckard's eyes -- no, they don't glow. They never come anywhere close to glowing...AT ALL. There's one scene in which orange lighting slightly reflects off his eyes -- but it clearly reflects off the white of his eyes. In a replicant, it's the pupils that glow. A screen capture and zoom in this scene prove that his pupils aren't glowing.

And besides, you can always depend on one indisputable philosophy: If it's not in the movie, it doesn't exist. Period. None of this "but the filmmakers intended..." or "the subtext implies..." or "you're supposed to use your imagination..." NO. It's a fictitious world existing only in those two hours between when you hit play and hit stop. If it's not clearly revealed in those two hours, it's not so. Maybe the filmmakers did intend for Deckard to be a replicant. But he isn't, because it's not demonstrated in the film. Likewise, Deckard also isn't Santa Claus for the same reason. The fact that he may have worn a red and white shirt in one deleted scene doesn't change that.

Furthermore, Blade Runner sucks anyway. Yeah, that's right. I said it. It's a painfully overrated, self-contradicting mess praised only because of its once incredible visual effects. There are virtually no story developments, no character development, no depth to the relationships, and...a random unicorn. If that film was released now with updated effects, it would be forgotten in weeks -- besides the unicorn, which would be hated for centuries.

Damn! who pissed in your cheerios?

[scrawl]

Ridley Scott didn't write the script nor the story. His claim is meaningless.

And addressing questions about Deckard's eyes -- no, they don't glow. They never come anywhere close to glowing...AT ALL. There's one scene in which orange lighting slightly reflects off his eyes -- but it clearly reflects off the white of his eyes. In a replicant, it's the pupils that glow. A screen capture and zoom in this scene prove that his pupils aren't glowing.

And besides, you can always depend on one indisputable philosophy: If it's not in the movie, it doesn't exist. Period. None of this "but the filmmakers intended..." or "the subtext implies..." or "you're supposed to use your imagination..." NO. It's a fictitious world existing only in those two hours between when you hit play and hit stop. If it's not clearly revealed in those two hours, it's not so. Maybe the filmmakers did intend for Deckard to be a replicant. But he isn't, because it's not demonstrated in the film. Likewise, Deckard also isn't Santa Claus for the same reason. The fact that he may have worn a red and white shirt in one deleted scene doesn't change that.

Furthermore, Blade Runner sucks anyway. Yeah, that's right. I said it. It's a painfully overrated, self-contradicting mess praised only because of its once incredible visual effects. There are virtually no story developments, no character development, no depth to the relationships, and...a random unicorn. If that film was released now with updated effects, it would be forgotten in weeks -- besides the unicorn, which would be hated for centuries.


sooooo no?


the original release had the voice overs, and not due to ridley scott. The directors cut has no voice overs as scott originally intended. I liked the unicorn, it was a nice way to reveal that he was a replicant.

Although i find this discussion completely pointless, so I'm off to the thread where they're discussing whats the blur in the eye of the Spidey 3 poster.

[red7ine]

damn, can't wait till Charlie M joins the discussion on 'Secret War'. I really want to hear his thoughts on the Beyonder.

[Popninja]

Not until he finds the thread where we talked about whether or not Gwen Stacy's neck snapped when Spidey tried to rescue her from that fall in the latest issue of Spider-Man.

[Inkthinker]

I always thought it was the unicorn dream (and Gaff's subsequent origami unicorn, left in front of Deckard's door) that was the strongest evidence that Deckard's a replicant.

And I like the Scott ending a lot more, the door slams down and the movie is done. It makes Deckard's sacrifice a lot more significant, knowing that she'll die in time... the "happy ending", with it's deus ex machina "oh, we didn't mention this, but she's special and has no expiration date" just feels as tacked on as it is, espescially given that the expiration of replicants was due as much to technological limitations as built-in obsolescence, as evident in Roy's conversation with Tyrell right before he poked the man's eyes out.

[Ed]

plus it makes it look like there's a green part to the world, which destroys the visual continuity.

[Keith]

The unicorn/origami is the best evidence, there are no real coincidences, not as many as in that movie anyways.

Gaff was always 2 steps ahead of him, always in the right place at the right time, even on the roof at the end. He was his leash. The glow in his eyes when he's with Rachel is also good evidence, since only the replicants had it.

On the other hand, the "6 replicants" theory doesn't really fly with me, since Deckard seemed to be long on the world before the others. And Deckard was significantly weak like a human would be, if he was a replicant, he certainly didn't show it. So it could/will be argued until the end of time.

The real reason I like Blade Runner though is the director's cut lets you lead to your own conclusions, one of the few movies that lets every individual take something different from the movie. I wish Harrison Ford would re-dub Deckard's commentary if a DVD boxset ever happens, since it's so god-awful, but yet still adds to the movie.

[Inkthinker]

Keep in mind, the "glow in the eyes" isn't a glow, really, but a reflection... you see it in the eyes of the replicant owl at Tyrell Corp, and in Rachel's eyes, and in a few other places. It's similar to the reflection of many animals' eyes (cats, dogs, deer) in direct light.

I'm trying to remember if Deckard is definitely a replicant or not in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep... it's been a long time since I read it, and I don't recall the ending exactly.

But the question of whether or not he was a replicant was a major theme of the book, so it follows that it should also be thematic of the film.

[ielle77]

i never got the origami stuff or the unicorn dream. I'm sorry but dreaming of unicorns means you're a replicant? Is it because his partner knew he had the dream, similar to how deckard knew rachel had seen baby spiders being eaten? Bah? Whatever, i'm happy with it without thinking Deckard is one of them.

[Inkthinker]

i never got the origami stuff or the unicorn dream. I'm sorry but dreaming of unicorns means you're a replicant? Is it because his partner knew he had the dream, similar to how deckard knew rachel had seen baby spiders being eaten? Bah? Whatever, i'm happy with it without thinking Deckard is one of them.

That exactly what it is, actually. Deckard knew about Rachel's dreams because they were implanted by Tyrell, and he was given the report.

Gaff knew about Deckard's dream... but how? Coincidence? A message? It certainly seems unlikely that Deckard ever told him about it, since they didn't like each other and barely spoke unless necessary.

There are other bits of evidence, one mentioned early in the thread is that replicants have an obsession with photographs, since they represent memories. Deckard appears to have NO interpersonal relationships aside from his work, but his apartment has a lot of photographs framed on the walls, on the piano, on the shelves... perhaps this is indicative of a past that we're not informed of, but then again it's logical that, like Rachel, they're simply memories of places and people that were never his.

If Deckard is a replicant, then Gaff's comment that he'd "done a man's job" suddenly takes on new irony as well.

Of course there's no DIRECT STATEMENT of his status, that's the POINT... to make you question, to make you wonder and theorize, to make you discuss the film with your friends and argue about it all night. It's one reason (aside from the excellent designs of Syd Mead, or Ridley Scott's artistic, mood-driven direction, or the inspiring performances of the cast) that the film continues to stand as a benchmark of science fiction cinema even today, some 25 years after it was made.

[Digital Klown]

Wasn't there a sequel to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"? I remember reading a novel where Deckard encounters the human from which Roy Batty was modeled after.

[Inkthinker]

Derek Jeter (I think that was his name) authored a series of supposedly "canon" sequels to the film. I remember reading the first one like, ten years ago, and not caring for it much.

It does, however, follow DC continuity insofar as Rachel is dying, and Deckard is keeping her in some sort of suspended animation until he can find a solution. Don't recall if they had Deckard as a replicant or not.

[sdowner]

Derek jeter? The baseball player??

[Digital Klown]

Derek Jeter (I think that was his name) authored a series of supposedly "canon" sequels to the film. I remember reading the first one like, ten years ago, and not caring for it much.

It does, however, follow DC continuity insofar as Rachel is dying, and Deckard is keeping her in some sort of suspended animation until he can find a solution. Don't recall if they had Deckard as a replicant or not.

Right.. that's the one. So I guess it was more of a sequel to the film than the original novel, huh? I can't remember if it had Deckard as a replicant either. It probably didn't address the issue.

[jack_of_asses]

i always wondered what the significance of the unicorn was but thanks to the afforementioned info it makes alot of sense.
instead of being some fruity surrealistic crap whitch i thought was the intention it also gave me and some buddies a real laugh, 'cause unicorns are gay... when compared to a pegesus which is also lame but to a lesser extent.

[Marlowe]

i always wondered what the significance of the unicorn was but thanks to the afforementioned info it makes alot of sense.
instead of being some fruity surrealistic crap whitch i thought was the intention it also gave me and some buddies a real laugh, 'cause unicorns are gay... when compared to a pegesus which is also lame but to a lesser extent.

First, I'm not in the "Deckard is a replicant" camp. I don't buy that it's illegal for replicants to be on Earth, but Deckard is a replicant working for the police. He's not strong, he's not fast, he gets tossed around like a rag doll. If a replicant is going to be employed to kill other replicants they're going to make darn sure he's stronger and faster than the best replicant available. And Deckard's record with Bryant seems to go back more than 3 years. Their rapport is of two men who have known each other for well over a decade. This is subjective, true. But there are other valid arguments.

However, I will bring up something I don't think anyone has brought up before in this discussion. And I mean the worldwide discussion that's been going on for 2.5 decades now.

And the fact that Ridley Scott says he is doesn't hold water if he doesn't actually PROVE it on the screen. He can say Deckard is most definitely a pink elephant too, but if it's not up on the screen, that's just HIS opinion.

Scott and others point to the unicorn dream sequence, which was not in the original releases, and appears tacked on in the Director's Cut and the Final Cut. So the idea is that Gaffe somehow has seen the scans of Deckard's implanted unicorn dream? Why? Deckard has seen Rachel's because he's investigating her. But Gaffe seems lower on the totem pole in the Blade Runner unit. Why would Bryant show him Deckard's implant scans? Still, it's possible.

So when Gaffe places an origami unicorn on the floor outside his apartment he appears to be letting Deckard know he's seen the implanted dreams.

The problem being Unicorns have had heavy symbolism throughout history, and the most common being innocence and purity. It can just as easily be argued that Gaffe put one outside Deckard's door to show that he knows Rachel is an innocent and doesn't deserve retirement, unlike the murderous replicant escapees. That's how I read it when I first saw that in 1982, and after countless viewings my opinion on that hasn't changed.

However upon viewing the Final Cut and the Work Print, I noticed something I hadn't seen before, and I have never heard used on either side of the argument, and even Ridley Scott never mentioned it when he laid out his "proof" that Deckard is a replicant. But it's fairly obvious if you notice it.

Most pro-replicant theorists point to the two unicorn scenes in this film, linking them together. They say that the unicorn dream means Deckard is a replicant because otherwise the origami unicorn left by Gaffe means nothing. (I already gave a plausible reason for Gaffe doing so above.)

However what most people don't realize is that there are actually THREE unicorn scenes in the film. And it makes no sense that TWO of them are related, while the other is irrelevant.

The third unicorn appears on J. F. Sebastian's desk when he's asleep in his room filled with toys. At the upper right of the screen is a fairly easily seen unicorn image.

So if J. F. Sebastian works on genetic development for Tyrell, it makes sense that he had something to do with the creation of the implanted memories. We don't really know what J. F.'s job is, but it could entail many things involving the creation of replicants, and Tyrell trusts him implicitly. So it could be that J. F.'s obvious interest in unicorns led him to create unicorn implants for Deckard.

And while I am not on this side of the argument, I thought it certainly strenghtens the pro-replicant side greatly if people would only notice the unicorn on J. F.'s desk.

And it seems to me that with three unicorns being in the film, more people would have used J. F.'s to help prove Deckard is a replicant, yet I've never before heard of it being used on either side of the argument.

Why not? Did people just not notice it? Or did people notice THREE unicorns and only consder TWO of them important? That's ludicrous.

And if Ridley Scott is so adamant, why did HE not bring it up as part of his "proof"?

Anyway, more food for thought.

-Marlowe-

[e_t_i]

Deckard can hold onto a ledge by one finger. He is plenty strong. He's just old.

[McNiel]

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned that Harrison Ford states that he was always under the impression that Deckard was a human.

Prefers the original theatrical release.

[Marlowe]

It's true. Harrison Ford played Deckard as a human, so he says.

Still, this whole unicorn thing as "proof" reminds me of a great image someone I know found in a forum somewhere. Fark?

It's hilarious!

http://www.huxter.org/blog/lolunicorns.jpg

LOL indeed.

Marlowe.