FAQ  •  Login

Deckard is a Replicant!!!

<<

starramus

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 45

Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:34 am

Location: Off the shoulder of Orion

Post Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:18 pm

Hugo! Hugo! Hugo! :lol:
<<

Deckard

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 176

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:23 pm

Location: Virginia

Post Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:51 am

starramus wrote:Deckard is a human or the story loses all meaning.


That pretty much says what I believe too. If Deckard isn't human, then Roy's final act, saving him from certain death. loses its incredible, climactic impact, and just becomes one Replicant helping another.

I think with the title "Do ANDROIDS Dream of Electric Sheep", PKD is dropping a hint that maybe Deckard is a replicant, because Deckard owns an electric sheep; however, Deckard dreams of Real sheep and animals. I think that it is more likely P.K. Dick slipping the reader a bit of his own paranoia and psychosis through the vehicle of his character.
Deckard

"They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession: ex-cop, ex-BladeRunner, ex-killer."
<<

Planta

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 215

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:49 am

Location: Italia

Post Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:31 am

Deckard wrote:If Deckard isn't human, then Roy's final act, saving him [...] just becomes one Replicant helping another.


or probably Roy thought Deckard was human, because of his noticeable weakness, or he somehow knew Deckard was a new generation Nexus, those with no lifespan restraint? who knows...
<<

Deckard

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 176

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:23 pm

Location: Virginia

Post Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:02 pm

Good points. :roll:
Deckard

"They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession: ex-cop, ex-BladeRunner, ex-killer."
<<

Brick Deckard

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 24

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:04 pm

Post Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:58 am

Does anyone know if the Unicorn sequence was actually just leftover footage from Legend, or did Scott actually shoot it with Blade Runner in 1982?
Deckard as a replicant is an interesting idea. I'm just not entirely convinced that it's true.
<<

espergritblues

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 34

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:19 am

Location: United Kingdom

Post Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:17 am

Brick Deckard wrote

Does anyone know if the Unicorn sequence was actually just leftover footage from Legend, or did Scott actually shoot it with Blade Runner in 1982?


Paul M. Sammon makes it absolutely clear on the 5 disc Final Cut set that the unicorn footage was not only NOT lifted from outtakes of Legend but in fact was shot at the time of Blade Runner, and then ultimately cut out by the powers that be.

Personally, I hate the fact that Ridley has made it explicit that Deckard is a replicant. Much better to have left it ambiguous. Philip K. Dick was all about questions, not answers. Blade Runnner, too, is great at leaving the viewer with many questions - except in this one glaring instance where Ridley spells it out. So in that respect, given the many other philosophical questions that the movie poses but does not answer Ridley should categorically NOT have 'answered' this question of Deckard being a replicant as it complete jars with the rest of the movie's ambiguous content.
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:23 am

The movie is still ambiguous about it.

I'm aware of what Scott has said in person, but let's face it, the unicorn bits make you think.
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
<<

eccentricbeing

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 117

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:31 pm

Post Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:56 pm

If Ridley wanted to shove in our throats that Deckard is a replicant, then maybe he should've inserted those extended scenes that make it more blatant that Deckard could be a replicant.
<<

msgeek

User avatar

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 416

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:49 pm

Location: Paranoia City, Valley Sector, LA County

Post Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:13 pm

If Ridley wanted to make the "Deck-A-Rep" thing explicit, when he takes off his shirt, you see the same pattern of tattooes on his skin that you see on Batty.

I think the fact that the controversy continues is evidence that he still kept things a little ambiguous.

Still...I'm on the Deck-a-rep side of the controversy. I think the scales tip that way. But I don't think that's the only "right way" to look at the story.
Yes, I really live in Los Angeles. Srsly. And yeah, life really does imitate art here. Especially now we've got those video billboards. No spinners yet. But I suppose that's next.
<<

ridleyville

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 239

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:53 pm

Location: Billericay UK

Post Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:06 pm

the unicorn footage was not only NOT lifted from outtakes of Legend but in fact was shot at the time of Blade Runner, and then ultimately cut out by the powers that be.


After watching dangereous days i got the impression that Ridley was doing a bit of filming on the side for Legend because in the narration we are told Ridley was using the Blade runner resources unofficially.
I am going to look at that bit again to make sure i got it right. But the main point is that espergritblues and most of the rest of us knows it was not outakes from legend, as it was not even in full production at that point.
More human than human
<<

Longevity995

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 12

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:23 pm

Location: Bournemouth, UK

Post Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:17 pm

Is he or isn?t he? That?s matter of opinion.

I don?t think he was, I mean he was getting the living daylights kicked out off him by Zhora, Leno Pris and Roy.

Image

Image

Maybe Gath, know he had a crush on Rachael, and that she didn?t really present a threat, so he spared her, and the (unicorn from Legend) I think Ridley, is trying to mess with are minds, and he?s pretty much succeeded.
I?ve seen things you people won?t believe.
Image
<<

Planta

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 215

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:49 am

Location: Italia

Post Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:38 am

Re: Is he or isn?t he? That?s matter of opinion.

Longevity995 wrote:I don?t think he was, I mean he was getting the living daylights kicked out off him by Zhora, Leno Pris and Roy..


don't forget Tyrell's motto "More Humen Than Human". this would include human weakness. obviously Deckard (and probably Rachael as well) is supposed to be a Nexus-7 or so, i.e. no limited lifespan, yet physical weakness included.



Longevity995 wrote:and the (unicorn from Legend)...


the Unicorn is not from Legend.










...Gath!?! :roll:
<<

Nexus 66

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 2

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 6:40 am

Location: UK

Post Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:20 am

There is one thing I find slightly strange about Deckard being a replicant:
1. In the scene where Baty breaks two of Deckards fingers there is a cracking noise which sounds like bones breaking so what are replicants made out of then?
<<

msgeek

User avatar

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 416

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:49 pm

Location: Paranoia City, Valley Sector, LA County

Post Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:26 am

Nexus 66 wrote:There is one thing I find slightly strange about Deckard being a replicant:
1. In the scene where Baty breaks two of Deckards fingers there is a cracking noise which sounds like bones breaking so what are replicants made out of then?


Same thing you and I are made of. Carbon-based biological tissues. Skin, muscle, bone, cartilage, etc. etc.

"It's a wipeout, Deckard...they're almost us!"
Yes, I really live in Los Angeles. Srsly. And yeah, life really does imitate art here. Especially now we've got those video billboards. No spinners yet. But I suppose that's next.
<<

jaydubya

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 6

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:40 pm

Location: North East Lincs, UK

Post Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:36 am

This is my first post, and what a thread to start in, so please go easy on me!

Here's my view of the points raised by the original poster, answered out of order deliberately.

LtColumbo wrote:3. Rachael asks Deckard, "You know that Voight-Kampff test of yours? Did you ever take that test yourself?" deckard then falls asleep and never answers that crucial question... next scene his eyes glow as he tells Rachael he wouldn't come after her.


For me this is the start of the main queston of the film, what is human? Remember it takes a significantly larger amount of questions to identify Rachael as a replicant based on the fact she has memories. Well a human has memories too, how many questions would it take for a human to read as replicant? Could a human eventually be read as being a replicant? Remember Rachael also asks Deckard if he has ever killed a human by mistake. This suggests that there is a very fine line between being human and replicant.

LtColumbo wrote:4. When Roy catches Deckard in mid air on the building ledge he shouts," Kinship!" Now why on earth would a replicant that defiantly knows it's a replicant shout that out to a human who is not it's kin???


I don't think Roy's statement is literal. At the point Deckard spits and his hand slips, he is defiant in the face of certain death. And "defiant in the face of death" is very much what the replicants are. The fine line between replicant and human is again exposed. Roy's cry of "kinship" is a way of saying "now you know how we feel". Yet in grabbing hold of Deckard's arm, the replicant has preserved the life of the human but the humans will not preserve the life of a replicant. Suddenly Roy has become "more human than human" in his choice of actions. All this reinforces the idea of "What is human?"

LtColumbo wrote:2. Gaff saying "You've done a MAN's job, sir." Then immediately saying "It's too bad she won't live, but than again who does."
Now that's 2 questionable comments in the space of 2 min. I would only make that statement to someone if I meant to imply that they won't live as well. I would find it very unlikely that at such a moment as that, Gaff would be engaging in small talk.


The first comment could merely be referring to what Deckard's been through to get to that point, being that he is all beaten up. The second comment is the more important one as far as I'm concerned. Yes, Rachael might not live, but then everybody has to die sometime. So really what is the difference between the replicants and the humans? Again, the question of what is human is raised.

LtColumbo wrote:1. The unicorn dream being known by Gaff. Gaff knew deckard's dream, just like deckard knew Rachael's memories. He had access to his file.


This I'll admit is the kicker, but I personally prefer it as asking the question of whether Deckard is a replicant. I like the ambiguity. I wonder whether the question was even there in the original theatrical version. I know the eyes thing was hinting at it, but I don't think I would have seen the significance at the time. Having seen the DC first, and having read about the DC first, I've always been aware of the Deckard is replicant angle of the story so have been unable to see the film without it.

I watched the Final Cut last night and found myself unwilling to sit on either side of the debate. Mainly because of the implications one way or the other on the rest of the story. But as I'm typing this the thought has occured to me that the replicants are made of organic matter, (remember what we see when they are shot) therefore they are not robots, they are living tissue, they are living beings given a limited lifespan. Which means the line between human and replicant is virtually indistinguishable, therefore Deckard could well be a replicant that has developed to the point where he fits the definition of human, therefore if he fits the definition of human, then surely by definition he IS human. But if he is by definition a human, then surely by that very same definition he cannot be a replicant?

That final thought has never occured to me before until I wrote this, so now I'm either very muddled or I've just had an amazing moment of clarity. Any thoughts? :D

JW
That's the spirit!
PreviousNext

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

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

cron