Page 5 of 6

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:12 am
by titan-8
I believe the original script was that Deckard was a human. The notion of the inferior human hunting the Nexus 6 superior Android gives the story an edge of 'can Deckard be succesful?'.
The film shows Deckard emotionally connected to an Android (Rachael) the very being he is paid to track and terminate. The impact is the fact he is human, set in his ways of old and not impregnated memories of another!
This is a dabate I believe has no definitive answer.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:56 pm
by pris25
This is my first post so please forgive me if I seem "a little wet behind the ears". I have always preferred to think up Deckard as a human. I'm not sure if this is because the first time I saw the movie it wasn't the director's cut or because it is frightening to think that a replicant could mimic a human so closely...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:53 pm
by deleted
I like to think that Paul Sammon nailed it with the "maybe" answer.

Of course, there is the notion that replicants are humans.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:25 pm
by Masao
Now that I have seen the interviews, Paul Sammon and Future Noir are now just laughable as sources.

-He gets the description of the blaster wrong. He was right there and can't describe what he saw.

-He laughs about he walked on the Tyrell set and scuffing up the floors after watching everyone else using protective booties. The floors had to be re-polished causing a costly delay.

-He admits to wandering into a shot and being yelled at by RS for being on camera. He cost the production another take!

Here is a dufus that was actually there and was so clueless he interfered with production!

How can anyone take his account as gospel??

If you like BR how can you like Sammon???

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:23 pm
by deleted
Why are you posting this in multiple topics? Do you have a vendetta against him?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:15 pm
by ridleynoir
Yep, Masao has lots of strong opinions, and you know about what they say about opinions.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:23 pm
by The White Dragon
I like to think that Paul Sammon nailed it with the "maybe" answer.

I like to think of the answer as 'maybe' too. I like not knowing or not being totally sure either way because every time I watch it, it still has that bit of mystery and i like searching for clues with each viewing. That might be one of the things that makes BR so enjoyable to me after all these years.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:55 am
by Masao
deleted wrote:Why are you posting this in multiple topics? Do you have a vendetta against him?

No, but it needed to be said. What need is there to make a issue of it??

The fact that there are so many people consider this source as the "BR Bible" is justification enough to make the point whenever someone starts thumping it.

It is a not-so-little point that over time, people forget. Even the "experts" forget who did what and how.

I am reminded of the guy who was researching the Batman series motorcycles. He managed to track down the alleged builder and got the information he sought. I was interested in this information too and was also searching it out.

The tale of construction included the source and the deal to secure the bike and the make and the model...After reading the information posted on his website, I was suddenly struck by the fact that the original designer apparently got the entire story wrong. (This would not be a surprise later, since it turned out that the person asked claimed credit for more work than he actually did BTW)

The type, make and model were wrong. There are enough photos to bear this out. Conversely, the vague recollections I had gotten from one of the stars matched the photos.

Normally, we would expect that someone who actually created a thing...or at least was present, would be more accurate than someone who comes along later. This assumption is as wrong as all assumptions.

Only correct is correct. Nothing else qualifies.

I have nothing against him personally, I just can't accept his work as a useful source of information.

And Ridleynoir...we should be so lucky. Opinions are a rarity these days.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:22 am
by martinland
The White Dragon wrote:
I like to think that Paul Sammon nailed it with the "maybe" answer.

I like to think of the answer as 'maybe' too. I like not knowing or not being totally sure either way because every time I watch it, it still has that bit of mystery and i like searching for clues with each viewing.[...]


It's called Deck-an-Ambigous (vs. Deck-a-Rep, Deck-a-Human... ;-))

Heave a better one,


Have a better one,

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:38 pm
by ridleynoir
Masao wrote:And Ridleynoir...we should be so lucky. Opinions are a rarity these days.

Not on the internet they aren't. Maybe well researched and informed opinions. Of course it all reminds me of the story of the four blind men and the elephant.

I agree that PMS's 'facts' can be flawed, but how you stated it was more of a personal manner than just by presenting the 'facts' ahead of time with a warning. You imediately tossed the baby out before the bath was even filled. I myself have found inaccuaracies in his articles, especially when reading some of his later stuff. His article in Cinefantastique though is still one of the best I have ever read about the movie. All of the stuff from other Journalists have their flaws too. Don't forget that Paul still gets invited on the set of movies all the time, and was even in several of them, including Starship Troopers. I guess the guy can't be that much of a screw up. Now if you were there on set in 1980-81 too and had a difference of opinion, I would be all ears. :)

PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:30 pm
by protectadeck
I like the replicant side a good deal, but still I prefer Deck as a ordinary man . The movie seems to lose some of it's important meaning by making deck a replic. I don't agree with Ridley on every thing he says,I appritiate and consider,for instance,how he says he didn't like the happy ending,well ,I did ,and it does work for myself in different ways.
(One way) is this dreamy greenery place with a new day like feel could be a place that deck and rach have together ,a place of tranquelity within themselves that they believe in ,a place of escape that was created with their relationship, they are in love I think ,and found this together. 8)

Drops 2 Cents & Runs...

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:12 am
by Kalish
As a newbie to the forum I will step out onto the slippery slope of this historically heated topic only after a few qualifying statements:

1. My thoughts express my "preference" as a viewer not my "proof" in support of either side of a debate.

2. I truly enjoy (and respect) the postings of all sides of both the preference & proof camps.

Having gotten that out of the way (thanks for bearing with me) my personal preference is to view Deckard as a human. As funny as this may sound, this is not due to any specific supporting evidence in the movie. I am grateful to Ridley Scott and everyone else involved for creating a fantastic movie, but I respectfully do not take into account what RS's intent was. My view is that once a piece of art is in the public domain as it were it is fair game for anyone's interpretation.

I like seeing Deckard as a human because then for me the movie tells a great story about the convergence of man and his creation. Three quick things that I think of along the lines of this convergence:

Deckard is a human with poor social interaction skills especially in the romance department. His ex-wife called him a "cold fish" and in the movie he develops his own feelings towards the replicants. He is then paired with Rachel who is a replicant also coming to terms with feelings towards a human. In this case the human is robotic enough and the replicant is human enough that they can come together and have a relationship. "We were made for each other."

Sebastian refers to his companions in his apartment as "toys" that he created but when talking with Roy & Pris he says "there is some of me in you". I take this as indicating he sees them as almost human compared to his toys. But JF can also relate to them due to his case of Methuselah Syndrome (apparently inspired by Progeria, an actual condition). I wonder if the "some of me in you" quote is also a reference to his disease?

In the end (via Roy's death scene) it is man's creation that teaches him something about life and death.

Just some thoughts from a rookie...

PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:15 pm
by Gene Ettix
J.F. & the Replicants (hmm.. :-k I think I remember that band) definately have something in common. As Pris so aptly put it, "Excellerated Decrepitude".

Nice post, Kalish :)

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:21 am
by Kalish
Gene Ettix wrote:J.F. & the Replicants (hmm.. :-k I think I remember that band)

LOL. I can't believe that there wasn't a new wave / electronic 80's band somewhere with that name.

Gene Ettix wrote:Nice post, Kalish :)

Sincere thanks, but it really pales next to all the very insightful posts from this forum's senior personnel. I am just enjoying being here...

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:17 am
by endzem
In the Japanese anime classic, "The Bubble Gum Crisis" from the mid 80's, the group of girs-heros are form a band called "The Replicans". The lead singer's name is Pris.