More important than this stupid question is resolving the film's plot hole:
The intro text tells us that Replicants were made illegal on Earth after a mutiny by NEXUS 6s. Thus, by deduction, Blade Runner Units were established after the creation of NEXUS 6s. Deckard is supposed to be a veteran Blade, so how the hell is it he needs both Bryant and Tyrell to explain what a NEXUS 6 is? Has he never seen one before? Why does he know nothing about the things he's supposedly an expert at hunting?
I think a certian level of ambiguity makes it awesome, raising questions about the nature of what defines life, conciousness and even humanity. If it's too certian either way, it loses some of the thoughtfullness.
Hmm, we have a problem with replicants running around on earth. Let's get one, make it physically inferior to the ones we want it to hunt and kill, tell it absolutely nothing about the Nexus 6 replicants (so we will have to fill it in ourselves), and stuff it full with the borrowed personality and memories of someone who doesn't actually want to help us.
@Scytheriah maybe they wanted to tell that way..that there are more replicants than people actually think... and no one could be sure if he is a human.
I agree with you. I think the Tyrell corp allowed advanced replicants to "mingle" with humans on earth. The replicants also turned out to be more HUMAN than the humans. Deckard was going to blow roys brains out but he saves him-- Roy proves to be the better "Human."
As was told previously, the studio told Ridley to cut the unicorn scene because it was "too artsy." This probably included the Deckard replicant theme as well.
Without the unicorn dream there is simply no indication in any of the BR cuts that Deckard is a replicant, indeed it makes absolutely no sense if he is and it destroys several key elements of the film. Adding the unicorn dream is vastly more damaging to the story than the 'happy ending' Scott removed.
He was made to kill his own kind when he thought he was human. He thought he was going against his morals when falling in love with a replicant. He cruelly revealed to Rachel that her thought were all a lie, when he himself, never thought could be one of them. The scenario is mostly based on the concept of irony and not so much on the question of "who's to say what is human and what isn't".
People are really getting bent out of shape over this. I honestly look at it as if the ending is supposed to be ambiguous. Even though Ridley directed the movie, It's meant to be unclear, and this is just his opinion and take on it. Yet you still have to decide whether you believe he's a human or a replicant. I think he really gives you the power to draw your own conclusions.
re: drbobbeatie: I just read 'Sociopath Next Door.' In it she writes: most soldiers will sabotage their chance at a kill. 80% or something like that. You're right. I think no one should discuss this movie. It's open for interpretation but to each -their own. Fantastic, iconic movie
Hey Ridley, screw you. You didn't invent the character. Deckard was not a replicant in the book. He was not meant to be a replicant, and if all you have to sell us on that he is one was a stupid unicorn dream, you did a horrible job, and you punched a huge plot hole where there otherwise wouldn't be one. It makes no sense for Deckard to be a skin job.
That's ludicrous. The film was inspired by the book, not based on it. The replicants of the novel are nowhere near as empathetic as those depicted in the film, nor was the concept of Mercerism included in the movie, among other things. It's its own animal.
1:Assuming Deckard is trained to identify replicants wouldn't him being a replicant himself create a conflict of interest?It would seem likely that Deckards training would eventually lead him to suspect that he himself is a replicant.Self preservation would lead him to help his quarry.It doesn't make sense.
2:Having Deckard be a replicant means that pretty much everyone in the movie is a replicant.Where is the human the audience is supposed to identify with?It throws the movie out of wack.
Why can't we identify with a replicant? He thinks he's human for a time, which is meant to make us question the concept of humanity and personhood as well.
@Voesyy I suspect that Deckard's memories are actually from Gaff (which explains why Gaff knows about them, and the dreams - and also why he knows that he'd get the horn for Rachel). Perhaps Gaff used to be the number one Bladerunner before he got injured?
@glennbroadway I agree. I think Deckard is a Nexis 7. A new version like Rachel without added strength and planted dreams so he wouldnt suspect hes a robot. The humans on earth had humans do there dirty work so why not have them be Blade runners. Theres so many clues hes more robot then human. They way Gaff follows him around. The way he can take damage from powerful replics. They way he dosent know how to deal with Rachel in there love seen, and how he obessed over photos.
It's not for Ridley Scott to say if Deckard was a replicant or not. Only Philip K Dick is/was qualified to pronounce on that matter, and (unfortunately) he's dead. So who's ever to know?
Director Ridley Scott is making a logic assumption. But i tend to believe Deckard is a human. In 2019 who wouldn´t have seen an unicorn in video, or even a CGI animation? Whoever produced the implanted memory images must have had some refference. The movie is so inmense that it evolves with modern society. A story so deep that new appreciations can be made as time and technology move on.
Hi. The original book was set in 1992, not 2019. They changed the time with the reprint because by then 1992 had passed and no androids. I think even 2019 is too early.
Ridley confirms nothing. It's only what he wants us to believe. Deckard is a replicant is not in the film. He has sold the replicant idea by saying that the unicorn and the oragami mean that he is. They mean no such thing. The reasons for those two scenes are left to the audiance to sort out and there is no other supporting evidence in the film, only mr Scott's suggestion post film. Deckard could be thinking about Rachel's nature as a replicant. "What am I doing?" The oragami means Gaf was there
@astromax468 Graf makes those origamis because he knows what Deckard is thinking. He makes a chicken when Deckard almost chickens out of his assignment, he makes a stick man with a boner to show he's attracted to Rachel and at the end makes a unicorn because he knows exactly what's inside of Deckard's head. Graf is supervising Deckard all throughout the movie, he is the real Blade Runner.
Very interesting.....I never read the book the film is based on...is Deckard a replicant in the book story? Can't wait for Blade Runner 2, its been along time waiting ......I had wanted to make a sequel since I first saw the film when I was a kid.
@NotHenryMarkum I suspect because he has to believe he is human (different) to be able to kill them. I read an interesting thing recently. In battle something like 80% of soldiers do not shoot directly at the enemy. It is so ingrained in us not to kill our fellow man.
@drbobbeattie Just like the girl...she had no reason to believe she was a replicant other than when he told her.
I guess that makes a bit of sense, but something that deep should have been a major issue in the movie, A struggle for him to realize who he truely is rather than to come to understand the Replicants.
Yeah I heard something about that too. I think that was discovered in world war 2, that's why Boot camp for marines is so fucked up, they try to dehumanize the troops. Or so I'm told.
@NotHenryMarkum I get the feeling it might have something to do with durability. I definitely need to read the book, but Tyrel had told Roy that a light that burns twice as bright burns out twice as fast. Maybe by making him more human, they were hoping to give him not only longevity, but also a realistic and believable existence, for his sake and the sake of others working with him, Gaff not included obviously.
@NotHenryMarkum Because like Rachel he is a new version Nexis 7. Like Rachel he dosent know hes not human. So not only did they give him dream implants, they made him weak. Although he does seem more durable with the beating he took fighting the others. Its clear the humans had Androids do there dirty work. So why not have Android be blade runners, and if they got killed so what just create more. Theres lots of clues. Gaff always watching him. Rachel asking if he took the test. Batty letting him
Racheal didn't know she was either. The american cuts missing sequence/scene would give more clues. The Harrison day dream of a unicorn (was cut). All the replicants had the same dream. Gaff watched over Deckard and at the end put a tiny paper unicorn in his apartment. Gaff knew all of Deckard dreams because he was told of them. Just as Deckard was told of Racheal's spider memory.
Harrison ford fought will Scott because he wanted ONE character to be human...Ford won;)
I was going to say that if Deckard is a replicant, then he has no character growth throughout the film. Assuming he is human, he grows as a character because he comes to empathize with the replicants and even falls in love with one. If he is a replicant, then there is no growth because he didn't change his opinion.
However, if he's a replicant that thinks he's a human, then he holds the same beliefs about replicants that a human does. Therefore, his character grows. So there's no difference.
This is exactly why Blade Runner sucks. This unicorn thing makes absolutely no sense. The audience is suppose to say, "Oh! A unicorn! Clearly because he imagined one once this means he's a replicant."
@cinnamonclaw wrong, you forgot the part where the asian cop leaves a origami unicorn in deckards appartment.. of a unicorn. THAT is when you realise that he is a replicant, why would he know deckards thaughts? maybe it is your observation that sux? :P
I always figured that if Deckard was a replicant, then all the blade runners were replicants, designed specifically to eliminate other Nexus 6ers. It seems to me that only a Nexus 6 would have the necessary skills to track and destroy another Nexus 6.
Making Deckard a replicant ruins the whole point of the movie. The idea was supposed to be that since consciousness is such a mysterious and unknowable thing, who's to say what is human and what isn't? This was communicated by the romance between Deckard (organic) and Rachel (replicant). Scott just turned it into a romance about two robots. Harrison Ford, in his infinite awesomeness, was opposed to this frivolous twist ending and fought with Scott about it vigorously.
@hayesism Can anyone blame him!? He was certainly right. It works best with Deckard as a human. Him being a replicant just takes so much away from the emotion of the film. It takes so much away, she's just as much human as him according to Scott: that is not at all. I'll just pretend Scott never said this... :)
@hayesism i dont think it ruins the point of the movie - the character who we've engaged with throughout is often ambiguous, deeply faceted, and extremely human-like, particularly in his relationship with Rachel and on his own. The movie blurs the line between human and robot most by simply allowing the audience to watch how deckard behaves around other people, and in private.
No, this detail made the film the perfect masterpiece it is. It is your idea, not that of the original script. The human Deckard ending was produced, because it wouldn't startle the blockbuster viewers too much.
@SoylentHolger "It is your idea" No, it's Philip K. Dick's idea. His book, unread by Scott, had Deckard as a human. It even explored the possibility of him as a replicant but rightly dismissed it as absurd. And it wasn't in the original script as you say -- Hampton Fancher's draft had none of that nosense unicorn business that Scott insisted upon. And since when do blockbuster viewers not like twist endings? Since Inception? The Sixth Sense? The Usual Suspects? Planet of the Apes? Citizen Kane?
@hayesism I totally agree. The idea that Deckard might be a replicant, as suggested by the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn that Gaff leaves, it a terribly predictable and pointless 'twist' in the story that destroys the poignancy of Roy's death scene (where he saves a pathetic human because he views all life as beautiful rather than just because Deckard is another replicant). Deckard's love for Rachel is far more meaningful if he transcends the human/replicant divide.
@Scytheriah Oh yeah, I hadn't even thought about that! Yeah, the replicant Deckard spin diminishes the love story, but I hadn't considered what it takes away from Roy (who is a much more interesting character anyway) and even the "I've seen things you wouldn't believe" monologue -- one of the canons of movie quotes. That's one more thing to annoy me about this SO CLOSE to amazing film. Thank you and god damn you at the same time :P
"Who's to say what is human and what isn't?" Precisely. We assume Deckard is human and the replicants are simply "skin jobs." Turns out that's not the case.
@hayesism I always thought deep down Ford new. Looks how he plays Deckard. He plays him very strait, serious, with no back story. Like the replics when faced with a new emotion he gets angry. You see this when Rachel tries to leave because she is confused my her attraction to him, while he treats her in a rough manner...robotic. I think Scott was trying to show that there is no difference between the to. The fact that viewers dont know proves the point. I think this movie is a masterpiece.
@b7r7u7c7e Well if that's how you saw it, that's how you saw it. However I doubt that many would agree with your interpretation of Ford's performance. I thought he simply had the reserved nature of any hard-boiled detective. As a blade runner, he would also empathise with his antagonists. At any rate, Ford, like the author, actually said that he was a human, and Dick was amazed by his performance, essentially saying that he brought the character to life.
@hayesism At the time of watching you don't know this though, so those themes still arise. On top of that you get the ultimate headfuck in that the person you assumed was human all along, the person that guided you through the film is now replicant. So it directly adds to the identity crisis/consciousness themes you claim the film lost.
The reason Harrison opposed it is because he thought the audience wanted a human to relate to, not because it ruined any of the ideas.
It's better if he's not a replicant. Why doesn't he have replicant strength? It ruins the plot because the moral issue or dilemma is a human being having compassion for a replicant, even though they are not of the same species ( so to speak).
I didn't take the movie that way when I saw it, and it sits better with the human and replicants understanding or (grasping with understanding) each other.
This is my faverate film of all time been watching it for years and I never clicked I am speechless but I don't now if it's a good thing or a bad thing someone help
you guys who want him to be human are just kidding yourselves. take a step back and think logically. the unicorn, the eye glint, the similarity to Holden, his lack of history, his mindless pursuit of replicants. Would you send a human to kill superior replicants, and with so much possibility for corruption? Why WOULD he be human?
@Astrales "you guys who want him to be human are just kidding yourselves. take a step back and think logically. the unicorn, the eye glint, the similarity to Holden, his lack of history, his mindless pursuit of replicants. Would you send a human to kill superior replicants, and with so much possibility for corruption? Why WOULD he be human?" ----- This guy is right. Replicants have feelings, they can develop love. Deckard is strong as a human, of course he must believe it.
@jigga69000 blade runner is based on the book 'do androids dream of electric sheep' in it deckard is not only human he has a wife and he does not give a shit about the replicants or have any love for rachel she is just a lay.
he is a materialistic asshole and doesn't think twice about killing replicants.
@Astrales I agree. There are other clues. Rachel knows hes a Replic. Thats why she ask if he took the test. The beating he could take from powerful combat replics. His obsession with photos like the other Replics. The fact that Gaff follows him around but is never with him our providing back up when comfronting replicants. His reaction to Rachel during there love sceen is non human. Very rough, and without emotion. I also think its the reason why Batty dosent kill him at the end.
Deckard's eyes glow for a brief second just like a replicant in the bathroom/love scene with rachael . go see for urself and pay attention at deckards eyes!
@TheSorrow696 I saw it on Blue Ray and you can see clearly that there RED. There are so many other clues that hes a Replic. Gaff dosent back him up on any of his missions. Hes there to watch him, to make sure he does his job. They didnt make him strong so he wouldnt suspect hes a replicant, but he has the durability to take damage from the combat replics. Rachel knows hes not human thats why she ask if he took the test. Theres more clues of him being non human then human.
The Unicorn was Rachel. The movie was about what horrible things we do to each other but in the middle of it when we find out humanity, we still win. If we find out who we are amongst the rules invented by other men & then do something to shed those rules, we win.
I don't think he is a replicant. He kept getting his ass kicked constantly by the actual ones throughout the movie. Also you'd think he would be programmed into doing his job gladly (instead of being forced to)
@MGMan37 perhaps he was designed to be more man-like to seem less conspicuos, and maybe rachel is like this too although we never see rachel display her prowess in the movie
@metalore It's been a while since I've seen it but from memory, the paper unicorn was left for him to find so that he could figure out that all his memories were implanted. It was like a little calling card that said we know about your unicorn dreams because we put them there.
@metalore At the end of the movie Gaff leaves an origami unicorn for Deckard to find. It was him letting him know, "We know about your dreams because we put them there". Deckard hadn't told anyone about the dream
why would they make a mediocre Replicant such as Deckard to be a Blade Runner one who supposedly is a professional at hunting Replicants. Take for example the girl Replicant, Pris who was not primed for strength and was made for entertainment. She kicked Deckard's ass. So why would some dancer replicant be able to kick a trained Blade Runner "replicant"'s ass?
@elitestar Because Deckard was created to be a replicant that believed he was human just like Rachel. Rachel wasn't strong either becuse then she would have known she was a replicant! If Deckard found out that he was a replicant he would never have continued with his job, so he couldn't have been made super strong. He was like an expendable hitman who was kept in the dark.
@elitestar Maybe he was part of the prototype series. Just because present replicants are so strong doesn't mean they all are. Either way, it doesn't matter whether he's a replicant or not: the film's theme was how arbitrary this sort of distinction is. In the ending of the film, it's a replicant who does the most human act you see in the entire film: a selfless act of compassion to save Decker's life, even though his own life was over.
Ridley Scott is a blockhead to make Deckard a replicant.
The plot really doesn't allow that situation in any way, Ridley knows this too as the Unicorn reference is a slim premise. As mentioned before, Deckard can't even beat up Pris, who is a basic pleasure model. What does that make Deckard a Nexus 2?
The voice overs bring in dialogue from the book that as well as allowing the viewer know hate that should be associated with the term "skin-job". Another bad move in omitting them.
@BobbyD167 Why do you think Gaff was always looking over Deckards shoulder? Always just a step behind, appearing from nowhere. Gaff used the Replicant as a stalking horse, an expendable asset. Remember what Gaff said in the end: "You've done a MANS job, sir!"
@gulskjegg Interesting double meaning. But I always thought "Man's job" meant like "every other blade runner is just a boy compared to you. you're a real blade runner. the best. not a boy. a MAN!"
@BobbyD167 No, check the documentary "Dangerous Days: Making of Blade Runner, it has clips that were cut from the movie. One of them is Gaff saying "You've done a mans job sir...but are you sure you are a man?" I noticed Gaffs insinuation 20 years ago, and now it has been confirmed.
haha no one questioned the out of place "and it means?"... this was just a monologue of Scott saying what he thought the audience was asking, (They wanted to know if) he was a replicant.
Its an out of context quotation. The foil horse just means he's turned from the side of the government and enforcer, to outlaw... his former partner left it to let him know that they weren't safe there and quite rightly Deckard depard with haste, to run away forever with his love, herself a replicant.
Why exactly would they suggest Deckard is a Replicant? If anything I figured if he helped Rachel that would mean they would "treat him" as a Replicant. Through out the movie I figured Deckard was Human - especially toward the end when he clearly was out-matched by every fucking Replicant who seemingly beat his ass at will with little to no struggle.
Deckard is Human; but will be considered a Run-Away Replicant if he helps Rachel.
the good thing about this movie is despite what ridley says it can be open to interpretation...being honest i don't care if he is or not, the movie was F**king awesome. after watching the film a few more times in the future maybe i'll come to my own conclusion about it :P
Deckard would be unable to love IF he was a replicant. The model for the replicants in the movie was human sociopathy... no conscious, inability to love, unable to feel guilt, etc. In fact, the biometric eye test used to discover replicants only checked for the lack of normal emotional response to stimuli. Deckard's love for Rachel provides positive proof he is no replicant. If that was the intent, then it's one hell of a contradiction.
@mnpd007 The whole point of the film was to show replicants were capable of emotion, etc...how else do you explain Rutger Hauer's final act of compassion when he could easily have killed Deckard?
@mnpd007 I have to disagree. Clearly replicants were capable of feelings and emotion whether they were programmed to or not. Otherwise Roy wouldn't have cried after finding Pris' dead body
@mnpd007 Or is it proof that he is a replicant that hasn't been given a three year lifespan? It explains in the movie how the reason they give them lifespans is to stop them from maturing emotionally. This explains why near the end of his life, Roy Batty begins to develop emotions. Which is why he cries over Pris' dead body, why he forgives his creator and why he has the compassion to save Deckard. Because near the end of his life, he was beginning to mature emotionally.
@mnpd007 did you watch the movie ? Don't you see replicants have feelings ? By the way Rachel... love him... she is a replicant. Pris ? Anyone ? ----- Replicant streng ?? Not every replicant must be strong. And Deck must believe that he is a human. So why do you do to make believe a replicant is a human ? You give him human ability
@mnpd007 Not true though because Roy and all the other applicants wouldn't even go on their quest for longer life and an explanation to their existence if they had no emotion, concious, and an inability to feel love, its the love that they had for each other and pure emotion is what drove them
"Replicants aren't supposed to have emotions. Neither are bladerunners."
I love the directors cut to this movie the monologue just adds so much more details to pick through. I feel as if that quote really shows just how similar Dekard is to the rest of the replicants. It also shows that irony that Scott touches on in the interview, that in a way Dekard always suspected he was himself a replicant
@bighonkintits That's called voice over, not monologue and you're thinking of the theatrical release. Directors Cut and the Final Cut do not have the voice over. It was a poor voice over (by Ford and Scott's own admission) and the movie is better without it.
Clearly Dekard is NOT a replicant, no matter what Ridley says (to sow mischief, confusion and mystery). Throughout the movie he is, if compared to Roy and all the other replicants, a weak human. Why was Roy saving Dekard?
He saved him because he realised that it matters not - in what body or shape a SOUL moves around in. Throughout the universe, all beings are like leaves who grow on the same tree. There are no aliens.
Anything is possible, but in Dekards case it would make no sense of making him weaker on purpose, should he have been 'made' to hunt down superior replicant. I think the story is much better - if Dekard is and remains human.
I knew he was one, it shock me cause the scene in the bathroom after he was spitting out blood the girl ask him something he went behind and answered her question his eyes shine like a replicant eyes, so that proves he was one of them too, sorry i couldnt get the unicorn part but the scene with him in the bath room showed it all
very smart.... i have seen the movie allot....never occured to me that he is a replican and that the unicorn resebles part of his memory oh which that police officer is aware off. " too bad she wont live....yet again who does ? "
@MrRjmac i have began reading the book do androids dream of electric sheep in my opinion the book and film are superb in there own right unlike some adaptations (like harry potter) when i read about deckard i dont see harrison ford :s cause his character is so different i actually picture phillip k dick as deckard when i read the story and there so different even though im only on chapter 4 both are amazing the book is phillips vision the film is ridleys vision :)
The movie is about the death and birth of a human soul. Your soul can die while your body lives, and this is the replicant metaphor. Conversely, a replicant can find salvation, rebirth -- a human soul can be born inside the dead.
The "replicant creator" is you, you tell kill your soul inch by inch when you compromise with your principles. But it is also live itself that makes us put our souls in the straighjacket and forget about them as they lie in the corner.
@Commonwealth96 precisely...and I think that's the best thing about it, its the sort of film where either possibilty is equally interesting to explore without the need to know which one is right, Scott and Ford didnt agree which makes it fascinating.
Nice theory, worth thinking about. The thing I don't get is why he reveals to Deckard what she really is? It's like he burned her. It's not legal to have here there, he must have known the minute he told Deckard she would be on his "retirement" list. But then he even goes and tells the cops about her too, so Deckard almost has no choice. Was it a big experiment by Tyrell or something?
I think the story is far more interesting if he's a Replicant himself. Instead of just another human who's job is to "retire" skinjobs. Here he is, tasked with killing Replicant's while also falling in love with one, while slowly coming to terms with his own realization of what he is. He's supposed to kill Rachel, but because of the inner conflict it makes the story more deep and engaging.
Sadly I don't see how Rachel can be saved if Tyrell himself couldn't.
@5and7Dynasty Sure, Ridley Scott made him a Replicant, but according to PKD he is a human, and that's all I care about, Ridley Scott thought he knew better. He didn't.
I think Ridley Scott knows a bit more about making a good movie than you do. Had Blade Runner been an exact film translation of PKD's Electric Sheep story, it would have failed. You have to take create liberties to make a successful film. Your tone seems to somehow indicate Ridley Scott ruined the story or something. Scott made the greatest homage to PKD, and the greatest science fiction movie, that anyone could have imagined. Nobody has eclipsed it in since, and probably wont.
@Reclaimer77 You know I thought I would respond and address your incorrect assumptions and your condescending tone, but it occurred to me that someone like yourself is oblivious to reason and contradictory argument, so I'll just say that this is in fact my favourite movie.
Now I sincerely apologize if I took this the wrong way. No need for name calling. But you have to admit it does come off a bit...hostile. Maybe you should craft your statements a bit finer if you don't wish others to have "incorrect assumptions". I'm not condescending at all, in fact by claiming to know Scott "thought he knew better, YOU are being. Neither am I 'oblivious' to reason and arguments, obviously.
Also in a way I think it is completely up to the viewer to decide. Deckard being a replicant is Ridley's opinion on it. Even though it's his movie, that doesn't make it right or wrong. If you want to believe he's human or a replicant, it's okay. It's up to you.
@zev007 In the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", Deckard is human. In the movie "Blade Runner" (which is what is being discussed here), Deckard is a replicant.
@KesMonkey I understand that, and that is my point. To change such a fundamental aspect of the book is a mistake. I hope the potential sequel is not so poorly misinterpreted.
@zev007 that's why it's based on the novel and not a strict adaptation. The unicorn stuff is such a subtle inference anyway and what's more it's only in the directors cut ...so watch the initial cinema release version and your problem is solved.
@zev007 All versions are now available. I assume it is the original theatre release you are talking about? I have it on a 5 movie set, with every version ever cut. Cost me about £17 on DVD.
there are TWO theatre releases, US and Europe. One directors cut. One early print version. And one Final cut, which is now called the definitive version of the movie.
It seems like Ridley kind of hesitated before saying "He's a replicant." Like he would have rather had it be up to the viewer to decide, but he ended up saying it anyway.
Planted memories is a newer innovation. If he was given memories, and made to forget the fact he is a new model replicant, this does not constitute for the sleazy cop alluding to the fact that deckard served, and is now coming out of retirement. surely that has to be in a time slot of more than 4 years. the final cut doesnt make sense. maybe deckard was an earlier model with longevity and less strength... but no way was that unicorn was a "memory" and implies he is a replicant based off that.
@CupboardNinja He thinks he is human, and so the jump will be diffiicult. He expects it to be difficult and approaches and executes the jump with this mind set - half hearted.
@CupboardNinja While I agree that the film is better ambivalent, this is a problem I have with "director's cuts." Which one do we take as the 'official story'? The director's cut or the theatrical release? The origami unicorn only appears in the director's cut, which implies it was added to the film afterward by the director, not the writers. The screenwriters and actors in the film never acknowledged Dekkard as a replicant, only Ridley Scott does. He is the director, not the storyteller.
@Byrnzi360 as i recall, the origami unicorn is in the theatrical version of the movie too/only. I do not, however, recall seeing the unicorn memory/dream in the theatrical version of the movie. Also, how would a unicorn scene classify as a memory since unicorns cannot possibly exist?
@EsdaileApe The unicorn itself doesn't mean anything as I understand it, it's the fact that Gaff knows about it is supposed to indicate a planted memory, much in the way Dekkard knew of Rachel's childhood. Which confuses me even further, I was lead to believe from the film, and what appeared to be Dekkard's astonishment of the technology, that planted memories were a new innovation specific to the fugitive androids. Planted memories shouldn't exist for him if he is a "previous" model replicant.
@Byrnzi360 Although the script writers might have intended for Deckard to be a replicant, and especially Sir Ridley Scott, the "memory" of the unicorn can only be an organic idea which Deckard created, so there would have been no way for Deckard to have been a replicant, and the origami scene near the end just does not work with the rest of the movie. I know its attractive to flirt with the idea of Deckard being a replicant, but its just not plausible considering the evidence contrary to it.
@EsdaileApe Sometimes people have a recuring dream, a dream that is very personal to them
that recurs through their life. I imagine this was Dekkards dream. re; how would a unicorn scene classify as a memory since unicorns cannot possibly exist?
@Byrnzi360 I might add that the final cut is the consitered the true version. I don't quite understand the explanation, but at least all the "clues" are present for us for our personal opinion
@CupboardNinja I think -- although I am not sure -- it was implied at the end that Dekkard was from an older generation of models that either possessed equal or inferior attributes to regular humans.
The thing is that the replicants become more human that humans, Deckard is a replicant. Rachel fell in love whit him, because she found that extra cuote of humanity in Deckard´behaviour. Another reason: Roy saved the life of Deckard, in spite he didn´t know he was a human or not. And you have to ask yourself , Could a human being h
Deckard is not a replicant. He got his ass kicked by Zora, Leon and Batty....each time someone had to save his life. He could not defend himself....maybe he's just a very weak human strength and endurance replicant....what would be the point of that??
@ZatoichiBlindSword if he were a replicant and a cop....wouldn't they want a tough cop that could get the job done?? Why would they want him to think he was human??? Rachel was the experiment....she was the one they were trying this on.....he was human.
ok he is a replickant but why should we understand it thanks to the unicorn? what does it mean I dont get it?
He is a replickant because he dreams of unicorn? and how gaff knows this?
cepomwa 6 days ago
More important than this stupid question is resolving the film's plot hole:
The intro text tells us that Replicants were made illegal on Earth after a mutiny by NEXUS 6s. Thus, by deduction, Blade Runner Units were established after the creation of NEXUS 6s. Deckard is supposed to be a veteran Blade, so how the hell is it he needs both Bryant and Tyrell to explain what a NEXUS 6 is? Has he never seen one before? Why does he know nothing about the things he's supposedly an expert at hunting?
Scytheriah 1 month ago
Then how do you explain the dead unicorns?
azzieinfo 1 month ago
I think a certian level of ambiguity makes it awesome, raising questions about the nature of what defines life, conciousness and even humanity. If it's too certian either way, it loses some of the thoughtfullness.
Amosral 1 month ago
Hmm, we have a problem with replicants running around on earth. Let's get one, make it physically inferior to the ones we want it to hunt and kill, tell it absolutely nothing about the Nexus 6 replicants (so we will have to fill it in ourselves), and stuff it full with the borrowed personality and memories of someone who doesn't actually want to help us.
Seems legit.
Scytheriah 1 month ago
@Scytheriah maybe they wanted to tell that way..that there are more replicants than people actually think... and no one could be sure if he is a human.
MrKerag 1 month ago
@MrKerag
I agree with you. I think the Tyrell corp allowed advanced replicants to "mingle" with humans on earth. The replicants also turned out to be more HUMAN than the humans. Deckard was going to blow roys brains out but he saves him-- Roy proves to be the better "Human."
As was told previously, the studio told Ridley to cut the unicorn scene because it was "too artsy." This probably included the Deckard replicant theme as well.
bobzeda 1 week ago
Without the unicorn dream there is simply no indication in any of the BR cuts that Deckard is a replicant, indeed it makes absolutely no sense if he is and it destroys several key elements of the film. Adding the unicorn dream is vastly more damaging to the story than the 'happy ending' Scott removed.
Scytheriah 1 month ago
He was made to kill his own kind when he thought he was human. He thought he was going against his morals when falling in love with a replicant. He cruelly revealed to Rachel that her thought were all a lie, when he himself, never thought could be one of them. The scenario is mostly based on the concept of irony and not so much on the question of "who's to say what is human and what isn't".
psychobitch1988 1 month ago
People are really getting bent out of shape over this. I honestly look at it as if the ending is supposed to be ambiguous. Even though Ridley directed the movie, It's meant to be unclear, and this is just his opinion and take on it. Yet you still have to decide whether you believe he's a human or a replicant. I think he really gives you the power to draw your own conclusions.
bumblefritz 1 month ago
re: drbobbeatie: I just read 'Sociopath Next Door.' In it she writes: most soldiers will sabotage their chance at a kill. 80% or something like that. You're right. I think no one should discuss this movie. It's open for interpretation but to each -their own. Fantastic, iconic movie
samcapo 1 month ago
Hey Ridley, screw you. You didn't invent the character. Deckard was not a replicant in the book. He was not meant to be a replicant, and if all you have to sell us on that he is one was a stupid unicorn dream, you did a horrible job, and you punched a huge plot hole where there otherwise wouldn't be one. It makes no sense for Deckard to be a skin job.
Rikalonius 2 months ago
@Rikalonius
That's ludicrous. The film was inspired by the book, not based on it. The replicants of the novel are nowhere near as empathetic as those depicted in the film, nor was the concept of Mercerism included in the movie, among other things. It's its own animal.
JWFernel 1 month ago
If you want to know just read the book
flinty107 2 months ago
Now I'm pissed.
bnew241 2 months ago
Well I wish I didn't watch this video.
bnew241 2 months ago
"Death of the author"
Says that if the author says that there is ONE interpretation, then this is limiting what the text/movie/show is saying.
Usul573 2 months ago
Comment removed
muaddib878 2 months ago
1:Assuming Deckard is trained to identify replicants wouldn't him being a replicant himself create a conflict of interest?It would seem likely that Deckards training would eventually lead him to suspect that he himself is a replicant.Self preservation would lead him to help his quarry.It doesn't make sense.
2:Having Deckard be a replicant means that pretty much everyone in the movie is a replicant.Where is the human the audience is supposed to identify with?It throws the movie out of wack.
NenoBrown24 3 months ago 2
@NenoBrown24 2. we don`t have to indentify with caracters simpily liking them is enough!!!!
reviewreviewer1 2 months ago
@NenoBrown24
Why can't we identify with a replicant? He thinks he's human for a time, which is meant to make us question the concept of humanity and personhood as well.
JWFernel 1 month ago
So do all replicants/androids have this unicorn memory or what's the significance of the paper unicorn?
Voesyy 3 months ago
@Voesyy I suppose it's a good way to tell the difference between replicants and humans. If you have memories of a unicorn then you have a problem.
Thanks for posting the clip though. Never really understood that bit up to now. But with 20-20 hindsight it had to be an embedded memory.
drbobbeattie 2 months ago
@Voesyy I suspect that Deckard's memories are actually from Gaff (which explains why Gaff knows about them, and the dreams - and also why he knows that he'd get the horn for Rachel). Perhaps Gaff used to be the number one Bladerunner before he got injured?
glennbroadway 1 month ago
@glennbroadway I agree. I think Deckard is a Nexis 7. A new version like Rachel without added strength and planted dreams so he wouldnt suspect hes a robot. The humans on earth had humans do there dirty work so why not have them be Blade runners. Theres so many clues hes more robot then human. They way Gaff follows him around. The way he can take damage from powerful replics. They way he dosent know how to deal with Rachel in there love seen, and how he obessed over photos.
b7r7u7c7e 1 month ago
MIND BLOWN!
Billywask 3 months ago
It's not for Ridley Scott to say if Deckard was a replicant or not. Only Philip K Dick is/was qualified to pronounce on that matter, and (unfortunately) he's dead. So who's ever to know?
TheAccidentalMonk 3 months ago
It's nice to see this because I've always wondered whether Deckard was or not. Guess I'm still not convinced.
StarbuckMaelstrom 3 months ago
Comment removed
VZLNbiker 3 months ago
Director Ridley Scott is making a logic assumption. But i tend to believe Deckard is a human. In 2019 who wouldn´t have seen an unicorn in video, or even a CGI animation? Whoever produced the implanted memory images must have had some refference. The movie is so inmense that it evolves with modern society. A story so deep that new appreciations can be made as time and technology move on.
VZLNbiker 3 months ago
@VZLNbiker
Hi. The original book was set in 1992, not 2019. They changed the time with the reprint because by then 1992 had passed and no androids. I think even 2019 is too early.
Voesyy 3 months ago
Ridley confirms nothing. It's only what he wants us to believe. Deckard is a replicant is not in the film. He has sold the replicant idea by saying that the unicorn and the oragami mean that he is. They mean no such thing. The reasons for those two scenes are left to the audiance to sort out and there is no other supporting evidence in the film, only mr Scott's suggestion post film. Deckard could be thinking about Rachel's nature as a replicant. "What am I doing?" The oragami means Gaf was there
astromax468 3 months ago
@astromax468 Graf makes those origamis because he knows what Deckard is thinking. He makes a chicken when Deckard almost chickens out of his assignment, he makes a stick man with a boner to show he's attracted to Rachel and at the end makes a unicorn because he knows exactly what's inside of Deckard's head. Graf is supervising Deckard all throughout the movie, he is the real Blade Runner.
Shemassault 3 months ago
@Shemassault * Gaff :)
Shemassault 3 months ago
Very interesting.....I never read the book the film is based on...is Deckard a replicant in the book story? Can't wait for Blade Runner 2, its been along time waiting ......I had wanted to make a sequel since I first saw the film when I was a kid.
seanxrobins1 3 months ago
@seanxrobins1
I read the book before I saw the film, and he's not a replicant or android as they're called in the book.
One of the characters do ask him if he's had the test and he syas that he did when he got the job.
Voesyy 3 months ago
If he's an organic machine designed specificallly to hunt and kill these guys, why did they make him so weak?
That's like making a jig saw out of soft lumber.
NotHenryMarkum 4 months ago 17
@NotHenryMarkum I suspect because he has to believe he is human (different) to be able to kill them. I read an interesting thing recently. In battle something like 80% of soldiers do not shoot directly at the enemy. It is so ingrained in us not to kill our fellow man.
drbobbeattie 2 months ago
@drbobbeattie Just like the girl...she had no reason to believe she was a replicant other than when he told her.
I guess that makes a bit of sense, but something that deep should have been a major issue in the movie, A struggle for him to realize who he truely is rather than to come to understand the Replicants.
Yeah I heard something about that too. I think that was discovered in world war 2, that's why Boot camp for marines is so fucked up, they try to dehumanize the troops. Or so I'm told.
NotHenryMarkum 2 months ago
@NotHenryMarkum I get the feeling it might have something to do with durability. I definitely need to read the book, but Tyrel had told Roy that a light that burns twice as bright burns out twice as fast. Maybe by making him more human, they were hoping to give him not only longevity, but also a realistic and believable existence, for his sake and the sake of others working with him, Gaff not included obviously.
BobMillahhh 1 month ago
@NotHenryMarkum Because like Rachel he is a new version Nexis 7. Like Rachel he dosent know hes not human. So not only did they give him dream implants, they made him weak. Although he does seem more durable with the beating he took fighting the others. Its clear the humans had Androids do there dirty work. So why not have Android be blade runners, and if they got killed so what just create more. Theres lots of clues. Gaff always watching him. Rachel asking if he took the test. Batty letting him
b7r7u7c7e 1 month ago
@NotHenryMarkum because replicants were oficially forbidden...so he supposed to be more human.
MrKerag 1 month ago
@NotHenryMarkum So he wouldn't know he was a replicant.
MrGrevy 3 weeks ago
@MrGrevy
Racheal didn't know she was either. The american cuts missing sequence/scene would give more clues. The Harrison day dream of a unicorn (was cut). All the replicants had the same dream. Gaff watched over Deckard and at the end put a tiny paper unicorn in his apartment. Gaff knew all of Deckard dreams because he was told of them. Just as Deckard was told of Racheal's spider memory.
Harrison ford fought will Scott because he wanted ONE character to be human...Ford won;)
bobzeda 1 week ago
@NotHenryMarkum well it could be bad screenwriting
abarrathemaster 1 week ago
I was going to say that if Deckard is a replicant, then he has no character growth throughout the film. Assuming he is human, he grows as a character because he comes to empathize with the replicants and even falls in love with one. If he is a replicant, then there is no growth because he didn't change his opinion.
However, if he's a replicant that thinks he's a human, then he holds the same beliefs about replicants that a human does. Therefore, his character grows. So there's no difference.
BionicPants 4 months ago
This is exactly why Blade Runner sucks. This unicorn thing makes absolutely no sense. The audience is suppose to say, "Oh! A unicorn! Clearly because he imagined one once this means he's a replicant."
cinnamonclaw 4 months ago
@cinnamonclaw wrong, you forgot the part where the asian cop leaves a origami unicorn in deckards appartment.. of a unicorn. THAT is when you realise that he is a replicant, why would he know deckards thaughts? maybe it is your observation that sux? :P
spacecoke 4 months ago
I always figured that if Deckard was a replicant, then all the blade runners were replicants, designed specifically to eliminate other Nexus 6ers. It seems to me that only a Nexus 6 would have the necessary skills to track and destroy another Nexus 6.
jksonny 4 months ago
Making Deckard a replicant ruins the whole point of the movie. The idea was supposed to be that since consciousness is such a mysterious and unknowable thing, who's to say what is human and what isn't? This was communicated by the romance between Deckard (organic) and Rachel (replicant). Scott just turned it into a romance about two robots. Harrison Ford, in his infinite awesomeness, was opposed to this frivolous twist ending and fought with Scott about it vigorously.
hayesism 4 months ago 18
@hayesism Can anyone blame him!? He was certainly right. It works best with Deckard as a human. Him being a replicant just takes so much away from the emotion of the film. It takes so much away, she's just as much human as him according to Scott: that is not at all. I'll just pretend Scott never said this... :)
GTAfan421 4 months ago
@GTAfan421 Yep that's exactly what I do, too. "Deckard is a rep-"LALALALALALALICANTHEARYOULALALALALALALAL! Wow, I guess Deckard is a republican?
hayesism 4 months ago
@hayesism lol, yeah, I guess so!
GTAfan421 4 months ago
@hayesism i dont think it ruins the point of the movie - the character who we've engaged with throughout is often ambiguous, deeply faceted, and extremely human-like, particularly in his relationship with Rachel and on his own. The movie blurs the line between human and robot most by simply allowing the audience to watch how deckard behaves around other people, and in private.
hunkyzombie 3 months ago
@hayesism
No, this detail made the film the perfect masterpiece it is. It is your idea, not that of the original script. The human Deckard ending was produced, because it wouldn't startle the blockbuster viewers too much.
SoylentHolger 3 months ago
@SoylentHolger "It is your idea" No, it's Philip K. Dick's idea. His book, unread by Scott, had Deckard as a human. It even explored the possibility of him as a replicant but rightly dismissed it as absurd. And it wasn't in the original script as you say -- Hampton Fancher's draft had none of that nosense unicorn business that Scott insisted upon. And since when do blockbuster viewers not like twist endings? Since Inception? The Sixth Sense? The Usual Suspects? Planet of the Apes? Citizen Kane?
hayesism 3 months ago
@hayesism I totally agree. The idea that Deckard might be a replicant, as suggested by the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn that Gaff leaves, it a terribly predictable and pointless 'twist' in the story that destroys the poignancy of Roy's death scene (where he saves a pathetic human because he views all life as beautiful rather than just because Deckard is another replicant). Deckard's love for Rachel is far more meaningful if he transcends the human/replicant divide.
Scytheriah 2 months ago
@Scytheriah Oh yeah, I hadn't even thought about that! Yeah, the replicant Deckard spin diminishes the love story, but I hadn't considered what it takes away from Roy (who is a much more interesting character anyway) and even the "I've seen things you wouldn't believe" monologue -- one of the canons of movie quotes. That's one more thing to annoy me about this SO CLOSE to amazing film. Thank you and god damn you at the same time :P
hayesism 2 months ago
@Scytheriah
Does Roy know Deckard is a replicant? I don't think so.
JWFernel 1 month ago
@hayesism
"Who's to say what is human and what isn't?" Precisely. We assume Deckard is human and the replicants are simply "skin jobs." Turns out that's not the case.
JWFernel 1 month ago
@hayesism I always thought deep down Ford new. Looks how he plays Deckard. He plays him very strait, serious, with no back story. Like the replics when faced with a new emotion he gets angry. You see this when Rachel tries to leave because she is confused my her attraction to him, while he treats her in a rough manner...robotic. I think Scott was trying to show that there is no difference between the to. The fact that viewers dont know proves the point. I think this movie is a masterpiece.
b7r7u7c7e 1 month ago
@b7r7u7c7e Well if that's how you saw it, that's how you saw it. However I doubt that many would agree with your interpretation of Ford's performance. I thought he simply had the reserved nature of any hard-boiled detective. As a blade runner, he would also empathise with his antagonists. At any rate, Ford, like the author, actually said that he was a human, and Dick was amazed by his performance, essentially saying that he brought the character to life.
hayesism 1 month ago
@hayesism At the time of watching you don't know this though, so those themes still arise. On top of that you get the ultimate headfuck in that the person you assumed was human all along, the person that guided you through the film is now replicant. So it directly adds to the identity crisis/consciousness themes you claim the film lost.
The reason Harrison opposed it is because he thought the audience wanted a human to relate to, not because it ruined any of the ideas.
N330AA 1 month ago
It's better if he's not a replicant. Why doesn't he have replicant strength? It ruins the plot because the moral issue or dilemma is a human being having compassion for a replicant, even though they are not of the same species ( so to speak).
I didn't take the movie that way when I saw it, and it sits better with the human and replicants understanding or (grasping with understanding) each other.
robertslistening 4 months ago 2
Mr Ridley sounds prety unsure himself.He hesistats then givs a reply.
jgtdaw 4 months ago
Deck is 100% human as he wuz intended 2 b througout the film & books.The unicrn represnts something ov unique design(replicant),Rachael.
jgtdaw 4 months ago
@jgtdaw Or a clue from Gaff. That like a Unicorn you are not real...made up.
b7r7u7c7e 1 month ago
Harrison Ford is not a replicant he's a reptilian.
jgtdaw 4 months ago 2
@jgtdaw lmao
defragen1 4 months ago
This is my faverate film of all time been watching it for years and I never clicked I am speechless but I don't now if it's a good thing or a bad thing someone help
2000adamx 4 months ago
you guys who want him to be human are just kidding yourselves. take a step back and think logically. the unicorn, the eye glint, the similarity to Holden, his lack of history, his mindless pursuit of replicants. Would you send a human to kill superior replicants, and with so much possibility for corruption? Why WOULD he be human?
Astrales 4 months ago 2
@Astrales "you guys who want him to be human are just kidding yourselves. take a step back and think logically. the unicorn, the eye glint, the similarity to Holden, his lack of history, his mindless pursuit of replicants. Would you send a human to kill superior replicants, and with so much possibility for corruption? Why WOULD he be human?" ----- This guy is right. Replicants have feelings, they can develop love. Deckard is strong as a human, of course he must believe it.
jigga69000 4 months ago 4
@jigga69000 blade runner is based on the book 'do androids dream of electric sheep' in it deckard is not only human he has a wife and he does not give a shit about the replicants or have any love for rachel she is just a lay.
he is a materialistic asshole and doesn't think twice about killing replicants.
BrimisEntertainment 4 months ago
@Astrales I agree. There are other clues. Rachel knows hes a Replic. Thats why she ask if he took the test. The beating he could take from powerful combat replics. His obsession with photos like the other Replics. The fact that Gaff follows him around but is never with him our providing back up when comfronting replicants. His reaction to Rachel during there love sceen is non human. Very rough, and without emotion. I also think its the reason why Batty dosent kill him at the end.
b7r7u7c7e 1 month ago
Deckard's eyes glow for a brief second just like a replicant in the bathroom/love scene with rachael . go see for urself and pay attention at deckards eyes!
TheSorrow696 4 months ago
@TheSorrow696 I saw it on Blue Ray and you can see clearly that there RED. There are so many other clues that hes a Replic. Gaff dosent back him up on any of his missions. Hes there to watch him, to make sure he does his job. They didnt make him strong so he wouldnt suspect hes a replicant, but he has the durability to take damage from the combat replics. Rachel knows hes not human thats why she ask if he took the test. Theres more clues of him being non human then human.
b7r7u7c7e 1 month ago
The Unicorn was Rachel. The movie was about what horrible things we do to each other but in the middle of it when we find out humanity, we still win. If we find out who we are amongst the rules invented by other men & then do something to shed those rules, we win.
KurtRussell1963 4 months ago
I don't think he is a replicant. He kept getting his ass kicked constantly by the actual ones throughout the movie. Also you'd think he would be programmed into doing his job gladly (instead of being forced to)
MGMan37 5 months ago
@MGMan37 the fact that he didn't die from all that should tell you hes less frail than a human
defragen1 4 months ago
@MGMan37 perhaps he was designed to be more man-like to seem less conspicuos, and maybe rachel is like this too although we never see rachel display her prowess in the movie
malevolenceXXXensues 4 months ago
Could someone explain to me what having a dream about a unicorn has to do with being a replicant?
metalore 5 months ago
@metalore It's been a while since I've seen it but from memory, the paper unicorn was left for him to find so that he could figure out that all his memories were implanted. It was like a little calling card that said we know about your unicorn dreams because we put them there.
DingoBabyEat 5 months ago
@metalore At the end of the movie Gaff leaves an origami unicorn for Deckard to find. It was him letting him know, "We know about your dreams because we put them there". Deckard hadn't told anyone about the dream
Ashburnalley5 4 months ago
why would they make a mediocre Replicant such as Deckard to be a Blade Runner one who supposedly is a professional at hunting Replicants. Take for example the girl Replicant, Pris who was not primed for strength and was made for entertainment. She kicked Deckard's ass. So why would some dancer replicant be able to kick a trained Blade Runner "replicant"'s ass?
elitestar 5 months ago
@elitestar Because Deckard was created to be a replicant that believed he was human just like Rachel. Rachel wasn't strong either becuse then she would have known she was a replicant! If Deckard found out that he was a replicant he would never have continued with his job, so he couldn't have been made super strong. He was like an expendable hitman who was kept in the dark.
Makes perfect sense.
Cryer24597 5 months ago
@elitestar Maybe he was part of the prototype series. Just because present replicants are so strong doesn't mean they all are. Either way, it doesn't matter whether he's a replicant or not: the film's theme was how arbitrary this sort of distinction is. In the ending of the film, it's a replicant who does the most human act you see in the entire film: a selfless act of compassion to save Decker's life, even though his own life was over.
Salt0fTheEarth 5 months ago
Ridley Scott is a blockhead to make Deckard a replicant.
The plot really doesn't allow that situation in any way, Ridley knows this too as the Unicorn reference is a slim premise. As mentioned before, Deckard can't even beat up Pris, who is a basic pleasure model. What does that make Deckard a Nexus 2?
The voice overs bring in dialogue from the book that as well as allowing the viewer know hate that should be associated with the term "skin-job". Another bad move in omitting them.
Mark70609 5 months ago
I think Ridley Scott is a replicant. I just don't want to ask him about his mother....
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
decades have cone by and this film keeps people thinking . why can´t they make films like this more =,C ??
WakkoXtreme 5 months ago
it doesnt make sense. they would never keep a replicant alive, even if the replicant turned out to be a great replicant killer.
BobbyD167 5 months ago
@BobbyD167 Why do you think Gaff was always looking over Deckards shoulder? Always just a step behind, appearing from nowhere. Gaff used the Replicant as a stalking horse, an expendable asset. Remember what Gaff said in the end: "You've done a MANS job, sir!"
gulskjegg 5 months ago
@gulskjegg Interesting double meaning. But I always thought "Man's job" meant like "every other blade runner is just a boy compared to you. you're a real blade runner. the best. not a boy. a MAN!"
BobbyD167 5 months ago
@BobbyD167 No, check the documentary "Dangerous Days: Making of Blade Runner, it has clips that were cut from the movie. One of them is Gaff saying "You've done a mans job sir...but are you sure you are a man?" I noticed Gaffs insinuation 20 years ago, and now it has been confirmed.
gulskjegg 5 months ago
haha no one questioned the out of place "and it means?"... this was just a monologue of Scott saying what he thought the audience was asking, (They wanted to know if) he was a replicant.
Its an out of context quotation. The foil horse just means he's turned from the side of the government and enforcer, to outlaw... his former partner left it to let him know that they weren't safe there and quite rightly Deckard depard with haste, to run away forever with his love, herself a replicant.
Cloress1 5 months ago
Why exactly would they suggest Deckard is a Replicant? If anything I figured if he helped Rachel that would mean they would "treat him" as a Replicant. Through out the movie I figured Deckard was Human - especially toward the end when he clearly was out-matched by every fucking Replicant who seemingly beat his ass at will with little to no struggle.
Deckard is Human; but will be considered a Run-Away Replicant if he helps Rachel.
There you go.
LeVaughnX 5 months ago
I do have to separate Blade Runner and Androids/Electric Sheep. I have to keep them separate, because they are different stories.
GriffenMorivan 5 months ago
the good thing about this movie is despite what ridley says it can be open to interpretation...being honest i don't care if he is or not, the movie was F**king awesome. after watching the film a few more times in the future maybe i'll come to my own conclusion about it :P
theducksknow 5 months ago
Deckard would be unable to love IF he was a replicant. The model for the replicants in the movie was human sociopathy... no conscious, inability to love, unable to feel guilt, etc. In fact, the biometric eye test used to discover replicants only checked for the lack of normal emotional response to stimuli. Deckard's love for Rachel provides positive proof he is no replicant. If that was the intent, then it's one hell of a contradiction.
mnpd007 5 months ago 2
@mnpd007 You seriously underestimate Tyrell Corporation, my friend.
gulskjegg 5 months ago
@mnpd007 Then how do you explain ROY BATTYS love for PRIS?! Replicants are most certainly capable of emotions such as love.
gulskjegg 5 months ago
@mnpd007 The whole point of the film was to show replicants were capable of emotion, etc...how else do you explain Rutger Hauer's final act of compassion when he could easily have killed Deckard?
DingoBabyEat 5 months ago
@mnpd007 I have to disagree. Clearly replicants were capable of feelings and emotion whether they were programmed to or not. Otherwise Roy wouldn't have cried after finding Pris' dead body
Ashburnalley5 4 months ago
@mnpd007 But doesn't Rachel feel love for Deckard ? or at least that's how the film portrays it and she is a replicant .
ushiuni82 4 months ago
Comment removed
MattLOLLINS 4 months ago
@mnpd007 Or is it proof that he is a replicant that hasn't been given a three year lifespan? It explains in the movie how the reason they give them lifespans is to stop them from maturing emotionally. This explains why near the end of his life, Roy Batty begins to develop emotions. Which is why he cries over Pris' dead body, why he forgives his creator and why he has the compassion to save Deckard. Because near the end of his life, he was beginning to mature emotionally.
Rechiau 4 months ago
@mnpd007 He is the newest model I assume, soemthing Tyrrel was experimenting with.
Tigerlilly0777 4 months ago
@mnpd007 did you watch the movie ? Don't you see replicants have feelings ? By the way Rachel... love him... she is a replicant. Pris ? Anyone ? ----- Replicant streng ?? Not every replicant must be strong. And Deck must believe that he is a human. So why do you do to make believe a replicant is a human ? You give him human ability
jigga69000 4 months ago
@mnpd007 But we don't know when Deckard was made so he could of been made the same time as Rachel meaning he could love as Rachel can
liamjhackett 4 months ago
@mnpd007 Not true though because Roy and all the other applicants wouldn't even go on their quest for longer life and an explanation to their existence if they had no emotion, concious, and an inability to feel love, its the love that they had for each other and pure emotion is what drove them
gunsncrocker 4 months ago
"Replicants aren't supposed to have emotions. Neither are bladerunners."
I love the directors cut to this movie the monologue just adds so much more details to pick through. I feel as if that quote really shows just how similar Dekard is to the rest of the replicants. It also shows that irony that Scott touches on in the interview, that in a way Dekard always suspected he was himself a replicant
bighonkintits 5 months ago
@bighonkintits That's called voice over, not monologue and you're thinking of the theatrical release. Directors Cut and the Final Cut do not have the voice over. It was a poor voice over (by Ford and Scott's own admission) and the movie is better without it.
chuck23gurus 5 months ago
Clearly Dekard is NOT a replicant, no matter what Ridley says (to sow mischief, confusion and mystery). Throughout the movie he is, if compared to Roy and all the other replicants, a weak human. Why was Roy saving Dekard?
He saved him because he realised that it matters not - in what body or shape a SOUL moves around in. Throughout the universe, all beings are like leaves who grow on the same tree. There are no aliens.
Finkelgruber 5 months ago
@Finkelgruber Or perhaps he was a uniquee model of replicant designed to have the flaws of humans for a specified purpose?
evilyig 5 months ago
@evilyig
Anything is possible, but in Dekards case it would make no sense of making him weaker on purpose, should he have been 'made' to hunt down superior replicant. I think the story is much better - if Dekard is and remains human.
Finkelgruber 5 months ago
dese replicants r takkin our jobs an entrin illegaly, i dno't care bout der rights dey need visas like evry1 else
fookfocketyfookfook 5 months ago
I knew he was one, it shock me cause the scene in the bathroom after he was spitting out blood the girl ask him something he went behind and answered her question his eyes shine like a replicant eyes, so that proves he was one of them too, sorry i couldnt get the unicorn part but the scene with him in the bath room showed it all
bclowns333 5 months ago
@bclowns333 He had the memory of the unicorn, a fictional creature.
The other guy that was going to hunt the woman in the future knew of this memory, and that Dekard was a replicant, so he left him a unicorn.
SuperHappyCow 5 months ago
very smart.... i have seen the movie allot....never occured to me that he is a replican and that the unicorn resebles part of his memory oh which that police officer is aware off. " too bad she wont live....yet again who does ? "
sphinxofthenewage 5 months ago
I wonder if anybody has read the book Do anroids dream of electric sheep. ? Cool book.
MrRjmac 5 months ago
@MrRjmac i have began reading the book do androids dream of electric sheep in my opinion the book and film are superb in there own right unlike some adaptations (like harry potter) when i read about deckard i dont see harrison ford :s cause his character is so different i actually picture phillip k dick as deckard when i read the story and there so different even though im only on chapter 4 both are amazing the book is phillips vision the film is ridleys vision :)
PikeeTube 5 months ago
@MrRjmac I have,only once. Good book at that. I also plan to find and read Phil Dick's other books,A scanner darkly and ubik.
Dunes 5 months ago
Why would that mean he's a replicant?
Because Gaff must have known of the dream of unicorn implanted in to his head.?
SupremeMystique2 6 months ago
@SupremeMystique2 Yeah. He left it there, he read his file.
jesus05uk 5 months ago
Maybe he Scott was referring to James Olmos character as being the replicant, not Decker.
firstmusic00 6 months ago
The movie is about the death and birth of a human soul. Your soul can die while your body lives, and this is the replicant metaphor. Conversely, a replicant can find salvation, rebirth -- a human soul can be born inside the dead.
The "replicant creator" is you, you tell kill your soul inch by inch when you compromise with your principles. But it is also live itself that makes us put our souls in the straighjacket and forget about them as they lie in the corner.
mindprism 6 months ago
is this unicorn scene in the final cut? i don't remember it. and it's the only version i've seen of the film.
blklightning330 6 months ago
The book writer and Ford said he isn't a rep.
It's up to interpretation.
Commonwealth96 7 months ago
@Commonwealth96 precisely...and I think that's the best thing about it, its the sort of film where either possibilty is equally interesting to explore without the need to know which one is right, Scott and Ford didnt agree which makes it fascinating.
AttilatheMike 6 months ago
@Thetacticalcorner
Nice theory, worth thinking about. The thing I don't get is why he reveals to Deckard what she really is? It's like he burned her. It's not legal to have here there, he must have known the minute he told Deckard she would be on his "retirement" list. But then he even goes and tells the cops about her too, so Deckard almost has no choice. Was it a big experiment by Tyrell or something?
Reclaimer77 7 months ago
@Thetacticalcorner
I think the story is far more interesting if he's a Replicant himself. Instead of just another human who's job is to "retire" skinjobs. Here he is, tasked with killing Replicant's while also falling in love with one, while slowly coming to terms with his own realization of what he is. He's supposed to kill Rachel, but because of the inner conflict it makes the story more deep and engaging.
Sadly I don't see how Rachel can be saved if Tyrell himself couldn't.
Reclaimer77 7 months ago
The unicorn dream was an implanted dream in a replicate. The unicorn shows the authorities know what dreams he was implanted with.
JerrysFunhouse 7 months ago
@5and7Dynasty Sure, Ridley Scott made him a Replicant, but according to PKD he is a human, and that's all I care about, Ridley Scott thought he knew better. He didn't.
zev007 7 months ago
@zev007
I think Ridley Scott knows a bit more about making a good movie than you do. Had Blade Runner been an exact film translation of PKD's Electric Sheep story, it would have failed. You have to take create liberties to make a successful film. Your tone seems to somehow indicate Ridley Scott ruined the story or something. Scott made the greatest homage to PKD, and the greatest science fiction movie, that anyone could have imagined. Nobody has eclipsed it in since, and probably wont.
Reclaimer77 7 months ago
@Reclaimer77 You know I thought I would respond and address your incorrect assumptions and your condescending tone, but it occurred to me that someone like yourself is oblivious to reason and contradictory argument, so I'll just say that this is in fact my favourite movie.
zev007 7 months ago
@zev007 "Ridley Scott thought he knew better"
Now I sincerely apologize if I took this the wrong way. No need for name calling. But you have to admit it does come off a bit...hostile. Maybe you should craft your statements a bit finer if you don't wish others to have "incorrect assumptions". I'm not condescending at all, in fact by claiming to know Scott "thought he knew better, YOU are being. Neither am I 'oblivious' to reason and arguments, obviously.
Reclaimer77 7 months ago
@Reclaimer77 if you could only do what matters most and remember the future
i so hope your right
way2muchNFO 7 months ago
Also in a way I think it is completely up to the viewer to decide. Deckard being a replicant is Ridley's opinion on it. Even though it's his movie, that doesn't make it right or wrong. If you want to believe he's human or a replicant, it's okay. It's up to you.
bumblefritz 7 months ago
that ruins the purpose of deckard a bit.
solve809 8 months ago
He fucking with you guys simple as that, its up to the individual to decide
bioshockt 8 months ago 2
I don't buy it.
jkenney2 8 months ago
Ridley Scott, I'm sorry to say this, got it wrong. He made a great movie, but Deckard is human.
zev007 8 months ago 3
Comment removed
KesMonkey 5 months ago
@zev007 In the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", Deckard is human. In the movie "Blade Runner" (which is what is being discussed here), Deckard is a replicant.
KesMonkey 5 months ago
@KesMonkey I understand that, and that is my point. To change such a fundamental aspect of the book is a mistake. I hope the potential sequel is not so poorly misinterpreted.
zev007 5 months ago
@zev007 that's why it's based on the novel and not a strict adaptation. The unicorn stuff is such a subtle inference anyway and what's more it's only in the directors cut ...so watch the initial cinema release version and your problem is solved.
DingoBabyEat 5 months ago
@DingoBabyEat I wish I could find that version.
zev007 5 months ago
@zev007 All versions are now available. I assume it is the original theatre release you are talking about? I have it on a 5 movie set, with every version ever cut. Cost me about £17 on DVD.
there are TWO theatre releases, US and Europe. One directors cut. One early print version. And one Final cut, which is now called the definitive version of the movie.
w0bbl3r 5 months ago
Ridley Scott a replicant?
gathersteel 8 months ago 2
It seems like Ridley kind of hesitated before saying "He's a replicant." Like he would have rather had it be up to the viewer to decide, but he ended up saying it anyway.
bumblefritz 8 months ago
I think whe whole thing with Dekard being a replicant adds so much depth to an otherwise "good-but-not-great" Sci-Fi film.
FetaCheese222 8 months ago
Planted memories is a newer innovation. If he was given memories, and made to forget the fact he is a new model replicant, this does not constitute for the sleazy cop alluding to the fact that deckard served, and is now coming out of retirement. surely that has to be in a time slot of more than 4 years. the final cut doesnt make sense. maybe deckard was an earlier model with longevity and less strength... but no way was that unicorn was a "memory" and implies he is a replicant based off that.
dadasurfco 8 months ago
OMG
CrackshotProductions 8 months ago
Wait, if he's a replicant, why is it that he couldn't jump to the other building but Roy could?
CupboardNinja 8 months ago
@CupboardNinja Modified Replicant, but notice he withstood heavy damage from the fights, no normal human being could take those beatings
AceHalford 8 months ago
Comment removed
temperance123 8 months ago
@CupboardNinja He thinks he is human, and so the jump will be diffiicult. He expects it to be difficult and approaches and executes the jump with this mind set - half hearted.
temperance123 8 months ago
@temperance123 But he tries to pull himself up, and that wasn't a half-hearted try.
CupboardNinja 8 months ago
@CupboardNinja While I agree that the film is better ambivalent, this is a problem I have with "director's cuts." Which one do we take as the 'official story'? The director's cut or the theatrical release? The origami unicorn only appears in the director's cut, which implies it was added to the film afterward by the director, not the writers. The screenwriters and actors in the film never acknowledged Dekkard as a replicant, only Ridley Scott does. He is the director, not the storyteller.
Byrnzi360 8 months ago
@Byrnzi360 as i recall, the origami unicorn is in the theatrical version of the movie too/only. I do not, however, recall seeing the unicorn memory/dream in the theatrical version of the movie. Also, how would a unicorn scene classify as a memory since unicorns cannot possibly exist?
EsdaileApe 8 months ago
@EsdaileApe The unicorn itself doesn't mean anything as I understand it, it's the fact that Gaff knows about it is supposed to indicate a planted memory, much in the way Dekkard knew of Rachel's childhood. Which confuses me even further, I was lead to believe from the film, and what appeared to be Dekkard's astonishment of the technology, that planted memories were a new innovation specific to the fugitive androids. Planted memories shouldn't exist for him if he is a "previous" model replicant.
Byrnzi360 8 months ago
@Byrnzi360 Although the script writers might have intended for Deckard to be a replicant, and especially Sir Ridley Scott, the "memory" of the unicorn can only be an organic idea which Deckard created, so there would have been no way for Deckard to have been a replicant, and the origami scene near the end just does not work with the rest of the movie. I know its attractive to flirt with the idea of Deckard being a replicant, but its just not plausible considering the evidence contrary to it.
EsdaileApe 8 months ago
@EsdaileApe Sometimes people have a recuring dream, a dream that is very personal to them
that recurs through their life. I imagine this was Dekkards dream. re; how would a unicorn scene classify as a memory since unicorns cannot possibly exist?
bucketonamonkeyshead 8 months ago
@bucketonamonkeyshead Because Gaff knows about it. That's what makes the Unicorn scene important.
FetaCheese222 8 months ago
@Byrnzi360 I might add that the final cut is the consitered the true version. I don't quite understand the explanation, but at least all the "clues" are present for us for our personal opinion
TheInspector3000 8 months ago
@CupboardNinja I think -- although I am not sure -- it was implied at the end that Dekkard was from an older generation of models that either possessed equal or inferior attributes to regular humans.
EsdaileApe 8 months ago
The thing is that the replicants become more human that humans, Deckard is a replicant. Rachel fell in love whit him, because she found that extra cuote of humanity in Deckard´behaviour. Another reason: Roy saved the life of Deckard, in spite he didn´t know he was a human or not. And you have to ask yourself , Could a human being h
felixromelio 9 months ago
i knew it
deckardisareplicant 9 months ago
well it doesn't matter what Ridley Scott says. Philip K. Dick wrote the book and in there Deckard is a human. that is all.
inkster 9 months ago
@inkster Thumb this man up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this reminds me of the total recall argument. in the end you have to go the the source material which was the novels.
Deckard is human, and Total Recall wasn't a dream.
smokeyandcraig 8 months ago
Deckard is not a replicant. He got his ass kicked by Zora, Leon and Batty....each time someone had to save his life. He could not defend himself....maybe he's just a very weak human strength and endurance replicant....what would be the point of that??
smuffjules 9 months ago
@smuffjules To make him think he's human?
ZatoichiBlindSword 9 months ago
@ZatoichiBlindSword if he were a replicant and a cop....wouldn't they want a tough cop that could get the job done?? Why would they want him to think he was human??? Rachel was the experiment....she was the one they were trying this on.....he was human.
smuffjules 9 months ago