Do you prefer Deckard as a human or as a replicant?

Ridley Scott purposely made the film ambiguous. In the 1982 version, he "lightly" hinted that Deckard was a rep. In the DC, he hinted "slightly more". The ambiguity of BR is part of what makes it such a timeless film. I mean, look at us! 22 years later, and fans find themselves equally divided and are still debating the issue. I think half the topics in this board alone have to do with the human/replicant debate.

And for the record, I still prefer to view Decard as human.

I've read interviews with Ridley from 1982 and he stated that he was disappointed that he had lost the battle to make it more obvious - I have posted the excerpt somewhere else on the forum at some point. I'll go and find the thread...

Hi,
I am a rookie on this forum so i have not read all the response on the humanity of Deckard, may be i will repeat things already written.
In my opinion, the logic wants that Deckard be a Human for several reasons :
- Nexus 6 have incredible strength and physical resistance : Deckard is a weak man and spends the half of his time hurt and wounded by all the hits he took from Leon Zorah Pris and Roy.
- Nexus 6 have a "superior" intelligence : Deckard is far to be perfectly clever ( his behaviour with Zorah ... ).
- Roy saving Deckard as a rep (it was said by Glowie) would make weaker the greatest moment of the movie.
The ambiguities brougth by the changes in the new version of BR increase the trouble.

So it is the problem with the changes on old movies : sometimes it is usefull, sometimes it is not.

Welcome to the BladeZone, Brucephale. You will find plenty of reading material in this forum with very insightful thoughts as to what Deckard really was (is).

I myself prefer to see him as human; however, have in mind that replicants come in different levels of strength and intelligence (Level A, B, & C). "A" being the strongest. Those who prefer to think of Deckard as a replicant argue that he had a lower strength level than the other replicants (about Level C), and was slightly less intelligent (with the excepting of Leon).

Welcome to the BladeZone, Brucephale. You will find plenty of reading material in this forum with very insightful thoughts as to what Deckard really was (is).

I myself prefer to see him as human; however, have in mind that replicants come in different levels of strength and intelligence (Level A, B, & C). "A" being the strongest. Those who prefer to think of Deckard as a replicant argue that he had a lower strength level than the other replicants (about Level C), and was slightly less intelligent (with the excepting of Leon).

...and that he had implanted memories like Rachael

I didn't read the whole thread or all the threads concerned with this, but here's one I'd like to get an opinion on:
All the Nexus 6 seem to be less human because of they are so perfect. Let's assume Deckard is a replicant. He's as far from perfect as he could possibly be. Doesn't this make him human

That's something I've been thinking about: Everyone seems to seek perfection - the perfect body, the perfect job, the perfect brain - when in fact this would make us less human. How can you expect humans to be humane, when it seems so hard to accept their very nature - imperfection.

This could of course be a German issue. People are so afraid not to be intelligent or not to be skinny that they can't forgive anyone else who is less than perfect and envy everyone else who is. (DRAMATIZED)

(I would be thankfull for a hint, where to find that discussion. If I was just being too stupid to find it - flame me!)

Interesting, I?d like to put a little twist on this last reply. Fist of all, I sincerely respect everyone?s religious or non-religious beliefs. I?m simply voicing my own personal thoughts. That being said?

A Christian who believes that God created man would argue that in the beginning, Adam and Eve were created as perfect human beings with the intention of living forever in a paradise on Earth (according to the Bible). But because of their sin, they became imperfect and passed this on to their offspring, hence, perfection was lost. Wouldn?t this explain why humans (for the most part) constantly ?seek? perfection? Because deep down, subconsciously, humans feel they have lost something and are desperately trying to re-attain it?

Imperfection may be our nature ?now?, but according to the Bible, God did not intend for humans to be imperfect, and thus he has taken certain measures for one day man to obtain what he lost so long ago.

Going back to what you said, Luba Luft, it reminds me of what Agent Smith said in THE MATRIX about how the first Matrix was designed to be perfect, but people couldn?t accept it and went mad (?Entire crops were lost.?). Then he said something like, ?Humans define their existence through pain and suffering.?

I can understand how many might share that point of view.

I am atheist but I am quite interested in religion(s) - always have been. I might not believe in God or any other deity, still, I respect many of the basic concepts of christianity (it's the only religion I really know about).

The question is, what does it mean to be perfect?

And I suspect that most people's definitions of perfectionism would not fit into any religious concept.

I remember that thing from THE MATRIX. But I do not really believe that imperfection and suffering have to go hand in hand. Even though I can't deny that I sometimes tend to define my existence through pain and suffering.

OK Endzem,
I had not seen the different levels, but don?t you think it would be more usefull for the authorities to have most intelligent and strongest Replicants to fight against Replicants? And about implanted memories, Tyrell explains that Rachel is an experimental subject, which justify her unlimited life: we can imagine that the project is to test how long an implanted Rep can be kept under control. So, if Deckard is an implanted Rep, he is from a generation which does not exist yet !? Illogic again ...

About perfection Luba luft,
Remember in the movie, the word is used by Sebastian when he is whith Roy and Pris. Roy is asking why Sebastian is looking at them and he answer : ?you are so perfect? (it is in the french version). Perfection in this case is a ?superficial? perfection : body, strength, ?mecanical? intelligence (very strong at chess). But you can see how Roy does not want to be seen as a robot, as a perfect machine. Roy considers himself as a human being, and what he feels : love, anger, and all the sinical crimes he comits keep him to the low condition of a vulgate human. But at the end when he saves the life of Deckard, it is exactly at this moment that he becomes ?more human than human? and he is nearer from a true perfection than ever in his life : the christian reference is clear here (note the nail is his hand and the bird which escape when he dies). It is his capacity to surpass his condition of revolted slave with this final saving, which gives him an access to god. This is the genious of Ridley Scott and even if I am an atheist like you, i appreciate the strength of the christian message when it is related in this way.
So, in my opinion the quest of Roy is the good quest : he wants more life to learn about love, simply about life. He is looking for humanity and he found perfection.

There is a lot more to say about that, perhaps less lyrical...

Bucephale, I am a "he's human" follower, too. Nice arguments, by the way. I'd like to read the comments on that one.
About perfection: So basically we'd have to differentiate between superficial perfection and "true" perfection as in a religious way.
I perfectly agree with you, that Roy is extremely human when he looks for answers like "Where do we come from?"
What bothers me is, that most people seem to be looking for the superficial perfection. How many people get plastic sugery only to become more "perfect"?
I still believe that this kind of perfection makes people less human - more like replicants really. It's not that I think plastical surgery should be banned. I'm just worried that it becomes more and more important and that no one will bother to ask the real questions anymore, like "What does it mean to be human?"

And that's how I voted. Both sides have their points and it's not an argument that can be truly settled as, IMO none of the versions of the film make it irrefutable one way on another.

I prefer Deckard as a human, but I do think something's amiss with him. Maybe something was done to him (implants?). Maybe something is done to all Rep-Detects, to make them something other than (less than?) human. Maybe it's just "part of the business."

I prefer Deckard as a human because it shows that even humans can be "products" and, even worse, less self-aware than something than it manufactures. The irony there is rich, and in my view, a real warning to all of us.

My point is: part of Blade Runner's brilliance is its ability to make us question it on so many levels. The answer to the question of whether Deckard is a human or Replicant isn't nearly as important as the debate of what does it mean to be human.

...Remember Tom Selleck in '84's Runaway...? Ugh. I mean, GENE SIMMONS...? David Lee Roth would've been a better pick as an amusing techno-sociopath-prick...That BR rip-off wouldn't have happened if Selleck had landed the Indy Franchise anyway (good thing too, huh?)
So let's say (in a Bizarro World) Selleck played Deckard...His '82 voice-overs during the movie would have sounded more believable, even if he weren't trying (as Ford famously admits)...
So in conclusion i think Higgins was definitely gay, though he may have not known it himself.
I hope this helps (':roll:')
Merry xmas!

[Kipple]

...Remember Tom Selleck in '84's Runaway...? Ugh. I mean, GENE SIMMONS...? David Lee Roth would've been a better pick as an amusing techno-sociopath-prick...That BR rip-off wouldn't have happened if Selleck had landed the Indy Franchise anyway (good thing too, huh?)
So let's say (in a Bizarro World) Selleck played Deckard...His '82 voice-overs during the movie would have sounded more believable, even if he weren't trying (as Ford famously admits)...
So in conclusion i think Higgins was definitely gay, though he may have not known it himself.
I hope this helps (':roll:')
Merry xmas!

"Oh...my...God, Magnum!"

While it is certainly true that Deckard was tested and found to be human in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, this does not apply to Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.

Gaff's Origami and the added "Unicorn Dream" sequence indicate that Deckard is a Replicant.

Deckard's eyes have the "Replicant Glow" in at least one sequence. Anyone remember if this was also the case in the original version?

Early in the movie Bryant states that six Replicants made it to Earth.

1. ???? killed in the crash
2. Leon
3. Roy Batty
4. Pris
5. Zhora
6. Deckard ?

Rachel was not a part of this group of Replicants. Who was the sixth Replicant? It is possible that LAPD forgot about the final Replicant, but it could have been Deckard. A Replicant with implanted memories who thinks he is a Blade Runner would be smiliar to an ex-druggie who is hired by the police because he would make a great NARC. It's also a PKD-style theme!