FAQ  •  Login

Would the real Deckard please stand up?

<<

glacial906

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 15

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:12 am

Location: Tennessee

Post Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:28 am

Would the real Deckard please stand up?

I am of the opinion that it would've been infinitely cooler for Ridley Scott to have not specifically stated whether or not Deckard was a replicant. But, after reading the Cold Hard Proof thread, I have to accept that he is indeed a replicant. If you are watching a movie, you are making a concious decision to accept what the director is showing you. For example, what are you going to do, just not count "The Phantom Menace" because it was a load of crap movie? In the Star Trek mythos, all of the old sixties TV episodes really happened in that continuity, despite how jarringly they fit into the whole picture. (There was an episode of one of the newer ones, either Next Generation or DS9, where some of the crew went back in time to the point where the tribbles were invading the original Enterprise.) It does suck that Deckard is a replicant, and now that mystery is gone. But what else can I do..?
My main point is this: If Rachel was a rep based on Tyrell's niece, then who and where was the REAL Deckard, the human that the rep was based on? In Jeter's "The Edge of Human," Rachel is like, a carbon copy of Sarah. Are all replicants based on real people? If so, could the real Deckard have been some human on the off-world colonies on Mars, or was he a Blade Runner originally who maybe got killed? If the human originally was a Blade Runner, that totally does not explain why the rep-Deck would've arrived on Earth with Baty and the others... I guess maybe I'm delving into uncharted waters here; maybe the makers of the film didn't really think about this. But if Ridley Scott decided long ago that Deck was a replicant, then he should've thought of things like this. Otherwise, he would've been much better off just letting it be decided by the minds of the viewers.
Image

All those...moments...lost. Like...tears...in...rain.
<<

bousley

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 105

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:20 am

Blade Runner is a beautifully flawed work. One of the main things I love about it is the imperfect story telling that leaves so much to the imagination. I much prefer the idea of leaving the state of Deckard's humanness ambiguous. Ridley Scott?s idea of taking away that ambiguity seems to have originated within the last few years. It seems odd that if the story was meant to have clearly defined Deckard as a replicant that over half the cast and crew interviewed in the documentary ?On the Edge of Blade Runner? dismissed that idea.
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:37 am

Ridley Scott?s idea of taking away that ambiguity seems to have originated within the last few years.


Well let's not forget that he wanted Deck to be a Rep from the very beginning - this was one of the main issues of contention between Ridley's direction and Harrison's acting...
Richard Gunn

We each live in our own realities - who's maintaining yours?

The only thing that you can be 100% sure of, is that you can't be 100% sure of anything.
<<

The Old BladeRunner

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 123

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:46 pm

Location: CT

Post Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:09 pm

of all rappers, y did u have to use an Eminemish line like tht. Jeeeeeeez

surprise surprise a BR fan knows a lil about the hip hop world and the BR world, at least u could hvae used something clever from
Tha Pharcyde or Pete Rock & CL Smooth Black moon need i go further?????????????? Do You Want more??!?? hahahahhaa
That hurt! That was irrational of you. Not to mention ... unsportsmanlike.Heh heh...ha ha ha! Where are you going?"
<<

The Old BladeRunner

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 123

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:46 pm

Location: CT

Post Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:11 pm

sorry for the outburst tht has nothing to do whatsoever w Blade Runner, and yes i must agree tht Deckard is beautifully flawed enabling room for opinion without being wrong.
That hurt! That was irrational of you. Not to mention ... unsportsmanlike.Heh heh...ha ha ha! Where are you going?"
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:40 am

Deckard BR26354 wrote:
Ridley Scott?s idea of taking away that ambiguity seems to have originated within the last few years.


Well let's not forget that he wanted Deck to be a Rep from the very beginning - this was one of the main issues of contention between Ridley's direction and Harrison's acting...


I dont know what "contention" means.
Scott wanted Deck to be a rep from the very beginning.. but did anyone in the cast know? Was Harrison told? Was he allowed to by the moviecompany? I`ve always thought that the rep thing was something he might have discussed with fellow directors,screenwrighters and maybe producers but never with the cast and never was he allowed to proceed with he`s replicant ideas. Its not until recently that he has stated (after the DC? ) that "Deck is a rep" and the 1982 movie has no obvious signs to Deck beeing a rep.
(imho..)
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

bousley

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 105

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:22 am

I didn't say that Ridley's idea of Deckard being a replicant originated in the last few years, I said that Ridley's idea of 'taking away that ambiguity' seems to have originated in the last few years.

If Ridley had kept the idea of Deckard being a replicant to himself in hopes of garnering a certain performance from the cast, than obviously his original intention was to create an ambiguity about the state of Deckard?s character. As Rutger says about Deckard being a rep: "I know Ridley _wanted_ him to be, but I think that was like a joke." For someone who had such a great working relationship with Ridley, Rutger is far from emphatic about the subject. I think this is another clue that the idea in the original film was to raise questions, not answer them.

Ridley also has a history of mis-remembering facts. Like the time he was giving a talk prior to a showing of Blade Runner in recent years and kept referring to Ford's character in Starwars as 'Skywalker'.

So, maybe Ridley himself isn't necessarily an unimpeachable source about the state of ambiguity of the character.
<<

THX1138

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1411

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Denver, Colorado

Post Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:18 pm

hahaha, skywalker? lol. im cracking up. but i do that occasionally, its a brain thing. i mean one thing, but say another. happens to everyone, but it happens to me more than often.

i like it being ambiguous, human/rep that is. i prefer him being a rep though.
"Don't be a dick!" -Wil Wheaton
<<

Centauro

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 729

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Bogota, DC [CO]

Post Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:58 am

I'm Rick Deckard, Yes, I'm the real Deckard, All you other Rick Deckards are just imitators...

Haha, guess it's a Rick Deckard in all of us........ Fuck it, let's all stand up.

:roll:

Off-Topic: Hey, THX1138, you've been upgraded to mod. I didn't notice that before... When did it happen? Congrats!
-------------------------------------------------------------- Revel In Your Time --------------------------------------------------------------

Image
<<

THX1138

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1411

Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Denver, Colorado

Post Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:34 pm

thanks. happened after the hack, the forums are getting too crowded. in fact, i see a double post now, lol.
"Don't be a dick!" -Wil Wheaton
<<

Kipple

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 1266

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Satellite 2

Post Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:13 pm

It is my understanding that Deck as a Rep was NOT the original intent. It happened by accident during a conversation with Hampton Fancher and Scott during a re-write. DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS. If there is disagreement with my "understanding" of this amongst us, I will take the time to search my source and present it if desired. Maybe someone else can corroborate this?

Cheers!
Image
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:55 am

Kipple wrote:It is my understanding that Deck as a Rep was NOT the original intent. It happened by accident during a conversation with Hampton Fancher and Scott during a re-write.


What I do know is that I read an interview that Ridley gave in 1982 where he implies that it was always his intention to suggest that Deckard is a Replicant. Whether it came about during script re-writes, I don't know, but I don't buy the idea that Ridley has only decided recently that he wanted Deck to be a Rep.
Richard Gunn

We each live in our own realities - who's maintaining yours?

The only thing that you can be 100% sure of, is that you can't be 100% sure of anything.
<<

Centauro

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 729

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Bogota, DC [CO]

Post Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:24 am

That's right: The intention of SUGGEST was there form the start, but I think that this "DEFINITIVE ANSWER" attitude came later, more recently, as Boulsey said.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Revel In Your Time --------------------------------------------------------------

Image
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:36 am

I'm sorry Bousley but your arguments just don't convince me.

Centauro wrote:That's right: The intention of SUGGEST was there form the start, but I think that this "DEFINITIVE ANSWER" attitude came later, more recently, as Boulsey said.


I don't agree. BTW, those are my words not Ridley's. He may have not used 'SUGGEST' in the interview - in fact as I remember it, he was pretty determined that Deck was a Rep. But, in the end he lost the battle and had to remove the unicorn scene and tack on the ending - the decision was taken out of his hands.

At the end of the day does it matter what Ridley says now? You can take both movies any way you want - Ridley never confirmed Deckards origins in the either movie anyway. My view has remained consistent - both perspectives on Deckard's origins are equally valid.

I really don't understand why the possibility of Deckard being a Replicant seems to cause so much grief for some people or why it should matter if Ridely appears to have 'changed his mind' in recent times (which I'm not convinced he has).

If you don't like the idea that Deckard could be a Replicant then fair enough - but the option is there whether you like it or not. You can make the case that none of the characters in Blade Runner are either human or replicant if you so wish - doesn't a change a thing.
Richard Gunn

We each live in our own realities - who's maintaining yours?

The only thing that you can be 100% sure of, is that you can't be 100% sure of anything.
<<

bousley

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 105

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:15 pm

?I'm sorry Bousley but your arguments just don't convince me.?

I'm sorry Deckard BR26354 but your arguments just don't convince_me_?

?he was pretty determined that Deck was a Rep.?

If the state of Deckard?s character wasn?t ambiguous in the film (any version), we wouldn?t be having this dialog. Ridley claiming that the state of the character is unambiguous, is either a) admitting he did a piss-poor job of story telling or b) doesn?t understand that the beauty and value of the film is not what questions it answers, but what questions it raises.

?- both perspectives on Deckard's origins are equally valid.?

I agree that both perspectives are worthy of suggestion, and both are indeed suggested by the film. This is why Ridley making an absolute declaration one way or the other smacks of a cop-out. ?Gee, I?m tired of answering this question. I?m just going to tell them what they want to hear and hope it shuts the little SOBs up.?

?At the end of the day does it matter what Ridley says now??

In a way, it doesn?t. From this vantage, twenty-some years after the fact, Ridley?s perspective on the film is, in many ways, no more relevant than yours or mine. People grow and change and so do their perceptions. Does it matter that Ridley?s current _opinion_ is that the character is unambiguous? No, not really. But if even the fanatical fan-base of the film can?t reconcile his statement with reality, then his statements should be held to the same standards of scrutiny as everyone elses.

?If you don't like the idea that Deckard could be a Replicant then fair enough ?

Don?t you see that by embracing the ambiguity of the character, I also have to embrace the possibility of Deckard being either a replicant or a human?


? - but the option is there whether you like it or not.?

Exactly. Now you?re getting it. ?The option?. What Ridley?s recent statements do is attempt to deprive us of an option. He attempts to take something away from us. He opens this huge realm of possibilities, encourages us to form our own perspectives, and then ,years later, tells us exactly what we should think. Sorry, doesn?t work.
Next

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron