Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:03 am by Masao
Well. FN and all the other non related items are meaningless to me.
The film and the orginal novel are all that is pertinent. This includes any of the author's notes on the subject.
Using a half-witted sequel novel that controverts the original novel to explain a film based on the original novel is beyond any comprehension or good sense.
There are certain assumptions that are made about the whole situation:
1. Deckard is EITHER a Replicant OR is human.
We are assuming that the Deckard of the first scene is the Deckard whose eyes reflect later in the film. We ASSUME there is only one Deckard in the film. The correct answer to whether he is a replicant may be: 'both, yes and no'.
2. We also assume that Deckard has never had 'enhancements'
3.We also assume that replicant parts cannot be transplanted to humans. This includes memories.
This leads us to another idea. Was Rachael actually a Replicant? Could she have had memories EXTRACTED and eyes replaced? Could she have been in some debilitating accident and repaired? If memories can be implanted, isn't it possible to have other people sharing the memories of other real humans?? Maybe they can even remember it for you wholesale. Rekall Rekall Rekall?
Remember the first thing Tyrell offers Batty? "Do you want something enhanced?" This sounds like replacement parts. We have no idea of the level of replacement technology available for humans or what is routinely replaced or enhanced.
The whole eye issue may be a red herring. After all, if the reflections in the eyes are the indicator of a replicant, why not carry a small flashlight rather than a bulky VK machine??
This leads to whole piles of other questions, but that should pump new life into an old controversy.