FAQ  •  Login

Deckard is a Replicant!!!

<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:45 am

Just my ideas:

The "Deck-A-Rep" question sort of redundant. Real question is "Is Batty (and all the other Replicants) human?".

What is a Replicant?

From the film:

Opening crawl
The Nexus 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and a least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them.

Tyrell
Commerce is our goal here. More Human Than Human is our motto.

We began to recognise in them a strange obsession, after all they are emotionally inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences we take for granted. If we gift them a past we create a pillow or cushion for their emotions and consequently we can control them better.

Chew
Just eyes. Genetic design. Just eyes. You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.

JF Sebastian
I?m a genetic designer.


In the deleted hospital scene Holden says ?They?re becoming us?, but they always were us. Replicants are human. Genetically engineered to be stronger, faster, smart, but still human. Only considered sub-human by their slave masters, their creators and marketed as such to the masses by the multinationals. As Parker said in Ridley?s previous film "The Damn Company".

Batty is the same as you or me, or rather a variant of us, it?s just that his light burns half as long and twice as bright.

Batty and Deckard aren?t brothers because they?re both Replicants. They?re brothers because they?re both human.
Image
<<

protectadeck

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 158

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:10 pm

Location: south carolina

Post Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:50 pm

Brick Deckard wrote:So why isn't he as strong as the other ones?
Good one :!: :!: :!: ..but maybe he's an older model? or.. maybe he programed to get weeker or tired at certain times in his life like a man does? :idea:
<<

Millennium

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 12

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:12 am

Location: UK

Post Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:29 pm

I must admit, I'm surprised there is a debate at all. In the Final Cut/Directors Cut, Deckard is a replicant. Whether as fans we split hairs over whether being a replicant is simply a manufactured form of human or not, Deckard is a replicant. The Director leads a film, it's his vision which ultimately intrepret the script into a cinematic story.

Whether one likes it or not, in the FC and the DC, Deckard is most definitely a replicant. Whatever reasons one finds to question this, Deckard's apparent frailty, Ford's disapproval of the idea etc, Scott says Deckard's a replicant, Deckard is a replicant by canon.

THAT SAID, in the WP, International and Domestic cuts, the debate is differenty. Scott create a narrative which offers this notion, be it from initial choice to play ambiguity, time or simply preference. The footage was there to make Deck a rep; Gaff makes a direct assertion in one cut as to whether Deckard is even a man, "are you sure you are a man", or a line to that effect, Deckard and Rachel's comments in the spinner at the end are clearly pushing this question forward, Rachel makes an ambiguous comment about being made for each other, and of course, the unicorn scene was shot for this film. But for whatever reason, the STATEMENT, the director makes in the early releases is ambiguous - I'd even go so far to say that Deckard is human.

So for me, there are two wonderful versions of events which through a couple of lines paint entirely different pictures. In one, Deckard is a man who is on the edge of becoming cold and empty, who through his interaction with androids/replicants, finds his humanity once more, and there is one where Deckard is a replicant, who discovers that just being the hunter doesn't separate you so easily from the hunted; that you might just be the creature you've been created to destroy. In the former there is an initial opening of disassociation; Deckard has lost his wife and his job, in the latter - the DC/FC - Deckard becomes disassociated as he finds himself more drawn to the replicants and the truth to his own existence.

Personally, as a film, I prefer the DC, but I do like the questions raised in the more Deck-a-hume version of the international cut. I think its fascinating how we can have two different versions of the film, and I don't see the problem in finding that very conclusion to this question. We accept that, say, a video game of a film isn't a precise version of the film, or even a novelisation of a film (which can be very different as well), so why no accept there is suitable logic to both arguments?


I think one would be hard pushed to suggest that Deckard is a rep in the Domestic/International/Work Print - I don't think that was Scott's intent - he had the footage, and for whatever reason - could simply be to make it more audience friendly in a period where there were concerns about audience reaction - the end result is that Deck seems very human, and the film draws from that notion.

I also think it verges on non-sensical to assume Deckard is human in the FC/DC. Not just because Ridley says so, but his edit inserts elements which give a narrative consistency to the notion that Deck is a rep.

What's so beautiful is the key changes influence other scenes. I do think the "red eye" on Deck was an accident. Ford seems to think he never intended to be placed in Rachel's light, though that said, it is possible that Scott's skill meant that he knew what the placement of Ford would offer him on the dallies. But things like the photos, in the FC are evidence of Deckard's replicant need for memories, in the Domestic Cut it's a reminder of how lost Deckard has become as he clings to the past; the only things that keep an old man feeling human. Just a slight change to the edit and we have very clearly different answers.

A directors intentions cannot be ignored in this debate. He is the cinematic spokesperson, and the DC/FC does make a clear editorial comment on this question. The other versions are a little more ambiguous, but I'd say the lack of direct question on this point, the internal monologue and the removal of the script/scenes which even support the notion of a question as to Deck being a rep imply to me that the other versions he is human.

Anything beyond these two answers seems to me to be either a fight for territorial superiority (my opinion is better than yours), a bit of fan fun (which I think this thread is) or just personal preference devoid of canon.

Interesting question, but I think the answer can only be concluded by separating out WHICH version you are talking about, because picking references from different cuts just gives an erroneous answer.

For instance, I don't think the WP and the FC are giving the same answer in any way whatsoever.

BTW, hi, great community you have here!
<<

Kipple

User avatar

Honorary Member

Posts: 1266

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Satellite 2

Post Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:52 pm

Great response Millennium. I agree with you entirely.

I have considered locking this topic for "read-only". The conversations on whether Decard is a Replicant or not tends to go in circles. But, then we would not have had your insightful common sense shared here.

Locking this topic is something I am considering. Have you any thoughts on this...anyone? :-k
<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:56 am

As far as I can tell the only differences between the earlier cuts and the FC is the unicorn reverie, which coupled with Gaff’s origami unicorn is supposed to indicate that Gaff knows what Deckard’s implants are: therefore Deckard is a Replicant.

But why would a memory of a unicorn be implanted into Deckard? What possible purpose could this have?

Apologies if the answer to this has been posted elsewhere.

And finally, although Ridley says that this shows that Deckard is a Replicant, the evidence in any cut of the film does not support this beyond reasonable doubt, so the viewer may make up his, or her own mind.
Image
<<

Millennium

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 12

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:12 am

Location: UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:51 am

Thanks for the kind words Kipple!

Tryfan915 wrote:As far as I can tell the only differences between the earlier cuts and the FC is the unicorn reverie, which coupled with Gaff’s origami unicorn is supposed to indicate that Gaff knows what Deckard’s implants are: therefore Deckard is a Replicant.

But why would a memory of a unicorn be implanted into Deckard? What possible purpose could this have?


Well, that's what I like about ambiguous fiction. In real life not everything makes sense from the outside. If you look at the papers, they'll cry how law courts, companies, governments do "mad" things, yet if you are privy to the inside, the answers are actually sensical and not as weird as those who sell papers prefer.

It may look nonsensical that Deckard seems a weak model (for a potentially more advanced rep), or that he'd have such an odd dream implant, but as I said, so much in real life seems nonsensical it actually feels quite realistic.

Story writing biggest danger is to play to the audience too much. Its a gut need to feel you have to justify your story - any writer will probably tell you that the urge is to add more than is required. A good story will not capitulate to the audiences urges for validation of every fact and leave some elements floating - just like real life does.

However if you want an opinion of what the unicorn MIGHT represent, I'd say that perhaps each model has a memory tag; a reoccurring memory, maybe a motif of the designer, or a company "serial number" manfested as a visual image in the memory implants.

If Gaff had access to this information (by sneaky means), and knew Deck was a rep and which model, then he might know this implant stamp.

As for the earlier question about Deck's strength. The motto of Tyrell Corp is more human than human. That suggests that the core ideology is realism, not power. Batty was a combat model. Deck is a detective, a detective who could have probably been built as a high grade rep to deal with low grade prolific problems like Nexus 3s. Given the implication that the 6s are rare and never come back to Earth, Deck could be constructed as a Nexus 6 himself (given Rachel seems to be considered by Tyrell as top of the line, or maybe he was just curious to see if a Rep could successfully voight kampf such a similar quality model), and wasn't build with the expectation of coming up against the Nexus 6.

I know Scott has said he could be a Nexus 7, which I think is logical. Given that Deck is a rep that is actually more human than human, he's built to actually discern subtle differences in the VK test, and most likely pass it himself. It would explain Tyrell's curiousity as to whether a Nexus 7 built to retire low Nexus' on Earth mainly through detection and VF, would be able to see the subtleties in a model so close to his own - a more complicated model which Deck was not built to contest with, but when Holden is taken out (who is a human equipped with dealing with Nexus 6) it falls to the rep built to deal with Nexus 3s to take on his role.

It's worth remembering the ideology of Tyrell is not that the more powerful, the better the rep, but the more real, the better the rep.
<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:53 am

Millennium wrote:However if you want an opinion of what the unicorn MIGHT represent, I'd say that perhaps each model has a memory tag; a reoccurring memory, maybe a motif of the designer, or a company "serial number" manfested as a visual image in the memory implants.

If Gaff had access to this information (by sneaky means), and knew Deck was a rep and which model, then he might know this implant stamp.



It's possible, but I'm afraid you haven't convinced me (but then again, you don't have to).

I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether Deckard is or is not a Replicant. What matters is his transformation from a Human (or Replicant) without humanity, to a Human (or Replicant) with humanity.
Image
<<

Millennium

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 12

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:12 am

Location: UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:23 am

Tryfan915 wrote:
Millennium wrote:However if you want an opinion of what the unicorn MIGHT represent, I'd say that perhaps each model has a memory tag; a reoccurring memory, maybe a motif of the designer, or a company "serial number" manfested as a visual image in the memory implants.

If Gaff had access to this information (by sneaky means), and knew Deck was a rep and which model, then he might know this implant stamp.



It's possible, but I'm afraid you haven't convinced me (but then again, you don't have to).


It's hard to convince someone of an answer when they don't honestly know the answer themselves. :) Personally I don't think it really matters how or why a company implanted those images, or whether it was personal to one model or part of an image that a real "Deckard" whom Deck could have been templated on, might have been fixated on and like Rachel's spider, was on file as a memory engram.

The bottomline is that the Gaff's motif links to a memory only Deckard would know, giving the rep conclusion, but I don't think its too hard to see rational possibilities even if on the outset they seem bizarre. I think it being either a corporate signature or a memory that was from an original human - or even an engram created in the lab for the rep, all make sense.

Might not be ones that convince individuals like yourself, but as I'm sure you'll agree, these possibilities are not silly or nonsensical.

I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter whether Deckard is or is not a Replicant. What matters is his transformation from a Human (or Replicant) without humanity, to a Human (or Replicant) with humanity.


I agree with that as a general conclusion. It's about obtaining humanity, be it from a human source or a rep source, the protagonist journey doesn't really make a whole lot of difference whether he's a rep or a human, the journey is from cold detached loner, to someone with a cause, empathy and understanding.

Certainly the nuances paint a different character evolution, there is a big difference in perspective between a rep discovering his own humanity and living up to his motif of being more human than the cold SOB's like Gaff, Tyrell (not technically being labeled a rep in any of the releases) or Bryant, and a human who has lost his way finding his humanity through the "inhuman" creatures he is ordered to kill.

Nuances make for a different appraisal of the character, so I disagree with your point in that sense, but I do agree overall, the protagonist journey is largely the same in whichever he is.
<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:48 am

Millennium wrote:Certainly the nuances paint a different character evolution, there is a big difference in perspective between a rep discovering his own humanity and living up to his motif of being more human than the cold SOB's like Gaff, Tyrell (not technically being labeled a rep in any of the releases) or Bryant, and a human who has lost his way finding his humanity through the "inhuman" creatures he is ordered to kill.

Nuances make for a different appraisal of the character, so I disagree with your point in that sense, but I do agree overall, the protagonist journey is largely the same in whichever he is.


Which is why I prefer to think of Deckard as human. We have Roy's transformation from a Replicant's point of view, so we, *cough* sorry, I need Deckard to be human. :wink:
Image
<<

Millennium

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 12

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:12 am

Location: UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:53 am

Tryfan915 wrote:
Millennium wrote:Certainly the nuances paint a different character evolution, there is a big difference in perspective between a rep discovering his own humanity and living up to his motif of being more human than the cold SOB's like Gaff, Tyrell (not technically being labeled a rep in any of the releases) or Bryant, and a human who has lost his way finding his humanity through the "inhuman" creatures he is ordered to kill.

Nuances make for a different appraisal of the character, so I disagree with your point in that sense, but I do agree overall, the protagonist journey is largely the same in whichever he is.


Which is why I prefer to think of Deckard as human. We have Roy's transformation from a Replicant's point of view, so we, *cough* sorry, I need Deckard to be human. :wink:


That is a fair enough preference. I can relate to that. Personally, while I prefer the FC/DC to the other cuts, and thereby my canon preference would be rep, on a simple level, I do actually prefer the notion that Deck is human, simply because we begin to grow so short of human characters. In fact, given Bryant, Gaff and Tyrell's roles are so minimal, the only other real human we get is JF. In this angle, we get to see how the reps are more human than the human; that their fear breeds a more human, and ultimately relatable character for the audience.

On a deeper philosophy, I think Dec being a rep, or at least the postuation he is, offers a question which in the way captures one of the key issues in the film by the throat. VK machines, Blade Runners, reps, humans aside, who can really say what is human? If Deck is a rep, the protagonist the audience has been following on a personal journey, it really does slam home that question, does it matter who is a rep and who is a human? I think this is why Scott prefers it, because it takes the audience on a darker journey by allowing them follow Deck as a human and the pretense of "us" vs "them" and ends with a "guess what? the "us" you've been following is actually a "them" - so come on now dear audience, the lines are so blurred, does it matter who is rep and who is human when so many of the characters are so intertwined, and identical?

Which leads back to your original notion today - does it matter who is a rep and who is a human? Ultimately the journey's point is to show how blurred those notions are, that the reps are as - or even more - human than the humans. Therefore, Deck being a rep makes little to no difference to him being a human, the lines are really that incongruous.

This is why I love both versions, there offer such a deeper complexity to the film by breaking it into two different starting points and end points to the same journey.

So yes, you have a very valid point; that we have one rep's journey to enlightenment, but then maybe Deckard rep identity doesn't so much mimic Roy's, but exposes the prejudices in the audiences; that whether you've been rooted for Roy as a rep or Deck as a human, as soon as Deck is exposed as a rep, the audience truly realises how insular and irrelevant the question is when even the viewer can't distinguish between the characteristics of a rep and a human. It really does expose the conceit of the BR world, and the absurd nature of the Blade Runner. It's a very dark message; that the BR is pretty much a murderer living a fallacy of prejudice that boils down to slave and master, and nothing whatsoever to do with one being a duplicate of another. After all, we're all duplicates of something - in a roundabout genetic argument.

Thanks for tolerating and responding to the waffle so succinctly. I do see precisely where you are coming from, and that's the brilliance of having two different conclusions for this movie.
<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:18 am

Millennium wrote:So yes, you have a very valid point; that we have one rep's journey to enlightenment, but then maybe Deckard rep identity doesn't so much mimic Roy's, but exposes the prejudices in the audiences; that whether you've been rooted for Roy as a rep or Deck as a human, as soon as Deck is exposed as a rep, the audience truly realises how insular and irrelevant the question is when even the viewer can't distinguish between the characteristics of a rep and a human. It really does expose the conceit of the BR world, and the absurd nature of the Blade Runner. It's a very dark message; that the BR is pretty much a murderer living a fallacy of prejudice that boils down to slave and master, and nothing whatsoever to do with one being a duplicate of another. After all, we're all duplicates of something - in a roundabout genetic argument.


And how pointless and destructive it is to exclude people just because of our prejudices. Although prejudices are part of being human. Aren't they? 8-[

Thanks for tolerating and responding to the waffle so succinctly. I do see precisely where you are coming from, and that's the brilliance of having two different conclusions for this movie.


You're welcome. Your posts have brightened up a dull day at work.

And anyway, after watching the film a few more times I'll probably change my mind again. I have in the past. That's the thing with Blade Runner, ones appreciation of it evolves and mutates. :wink:
Image
<<

gromitspapa

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 6

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:55 pm

Location: Tahoe

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:34 am

I think part of the problem is many viewers want to believe Deckard is human. I agree with Harrison Ford that the story makes more sense that way. This is reinforced by the earlier versions that support him being human. Obviously, Ridley Scott created the film originally for Deckard to be a replicant and has stated that he is. I think he bowed to pressures to keep the original version from making Deckard a replicant. But don't assume Ridley is the ultimate authority on the issue. Maybe that belongs to the author, and although I haven't read the book, my understanding is the implication of Deckard being a replicant was mild at best. So, accepting Deckard as a replicant just means you're accepting Ridley Scott's interpretation. Somewhere in the FC set it was mentioned that Deckard's red eyes was an accident, but Ridley was okay with it.
<<

Millennium

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 12

Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:12 am

Location: UK

Post Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:45 pm

Tryfan915: I'm the king of flip flop on this issue, so I won't think any less if you do switch opinion. Who knows, might mean we BOTH have switched our arguments by tomorrow! :)

Gromitspapa, I hope you can excuse my rush and poor ettiqute while I break down your post so I can easily reply! :)

gromitspapa wrote:I think part of the problem is many viewers want to believe Deckard is human. I agree with Harrison Ford that the story makes more sense that way. This is reinforced by the earlier versions that support him being human. Obviously, Ridley Scott created the film originally for Deckard to be a replicant and has stated that he is. I think he bowed to pressures to keep the original version from making Deckard a replicant.


From what I've read and seen, I totally agree. The material was shot for Deck to be a replicant, but not added in the earlier cuts, reinforcing the more audience friendly notion that he's human.

But don't assume Ridley is the ultimate authority on the issue. Maybe that belongs to the author, and although I haven't read the book, my understanding is the implication of Deckard being a replicant was mild at best.


As with the notion of using two different cuts of Blade Runner to find a universal answer to the question, I would say that viewpoint is hard to sustain under scrutiny. Phillip K Dick's book is nothing like Blade Runner in many of the main aspects. You'd be hard pushed to see Deck in the book and Deck in the film as the same character. The interpretation of character and universe differ too much to define

So far as the films go, I would say a common sense balance between narrative content and director's choice go a long way to concluding the answer to this question. I do agree with you on Dick's perspective though, he wasn't an android in the book as I recall, the is a moment when he's made to think he is, but androids are so much more removed from humans in Dick's book, it would be hard to even believe that is a suggestive quality. Yes, the rep issue is really only a film universe question.

So, accepting Deckard as a replicant just means you're accepting Ridley Scott's interpretation. Somewhere in the FC set it was mentioned that Deckard's red eyes was an accident, but Ridley was okay with it.


As I recall, Ford says he wasn't told about the glare and he believes it was an accident. I could see it being a fortuitous accident, but then, given Scott's amazing ability to judge set lighting and manipulate his actors, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't tell Ford (especially as I recall Ford saying he was never told to play Deck as a rep, despite Scott's clear attempts to make that question part of his production), but took some shots with and without. He's too much of a perfectionist with his lighting, direction and acting control to exclude the possibility it was intentional.

But yes, as Scott's the Director, his interpretation does make the movie, especially a director who takes total control as Scott does.

I do agree with you that his early cuts is Scott saying Deck's a human, to capitulate with the lukewarm responses, but I think equally its clear than he's a rep in Scott's preferred interpretation. We should all be glad that because he's released more than one cut, those who prefer Deck as a human have the alternative to Deck being a rep, as Scott ultimately prefers.
<<

protectadeck

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 158

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:10 pm

Location: south carolina

Post Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:25 pm

CALL IT, FRIENDO !

If Deckard was programed to work for the department,you would think they would have adjusted his wiring up there,so to speak,so that he didn't drink.We know the best cop, would be one that didn't drink. Just think how that would reflect on the department, if they had a alcohalic, replicant, blade runner working for them.They're illegal,aren't they? The public can see a policeman take one drink and they'll talk up a storm if he has one little accident! I like the rep. idea ,and I don't wont to step on any body's toes, but how much it works ,I don't know. I've thought about ways it can work, although other things have to be considered.
1. Replicants are illegal on earth, and that would go against police policy, according to the story, visably. And who would arrange this?

2. Couldn't they get something stronger, like robo cop, for an example. :lol:

3. Bryant hates them to the core,he ordered Deck to eliminate Rachael,who was harmless. He probably would not have listened to Deckards feelings ,if Deck had explained. Bryant called them skinjobs,a name that Deckard compares to a racist term , spoke about in history books,(voice over vers.) .

4. Why didn't Deck acknowledge he was a replicant?,like R.,L.,P.,and Z.--
"how can it not know what it is?"-Deckard , Remember that Tyrell said that Rachael was special! only an experiment.
According to the above statement by Deckard ,it was a surprise to him,a replicant not knowing. Normaly,wouldn't he know that he was a replicant, if he was one?

5. Are people saying that Deck's a replic. because they want a sequel?

6. Rid. may have said that he's a replic.,but I'm still not convinced ,neither is Deckard. 8)

7. Ridley once decribed the replicants as supermen that can't fly,(reminding me of the villians in Superman 2). I don't believe he was thinking of Deckard's character too much as a replicant when he said this, ..do you?,especialy not a nexus six. Deckard got to where he was running from Roy,instead of hunting him down. You see it's a good thing he made it out alive.

8. "They're almost us"--Holden,deleted scene

:idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

:arrow: I think it's possible that a tranformation could have took place with Deckard, and you can't tell the difference anymore. Check out what I have to say about this under "Questions and answers for replics. and men",scroll down to," should've been?,views for yous". It's a cassarole of words you can't miss. I speak somewhat about a transformation that happens with Roy too .We know he died ,but it can be said that we never know how long we have here ,and maybe Roy had done something worth living for and dying for ,...he changed,he saved someone,deck, he said words with heart and meaning,was he able to obtain some kind of assurance of life before he passed. I don't believe he felt like a slave, in those final moments there on the roof top. I think there's something to be said about the light that shines on Roy before he runs to jump to "the other side", to pull Deck up.
There's so much more meaning that can be gathered from this movie rather than the replicant argument. This movie can work many ways, and thank God it got us talking.Thats'
more than human.


:idea: If Deckard was a replic.,when Gaff dropped the little unicorn,it could be an image that would trigger Deck to shut down soon after he saw it , because he had finished his original assignment. The trigger effect would work only after a certain implanted dream ran it's course. (This here was inspired by a comment above, from millennium, made about a serial number, like stamp/emblem.)
Get this,.......Gaff knowing that Deck is one of the "detect"ive replicants, that were issued to the department,so he drops the little unicorn outside Deck's door,knowing it'll catch his eye, and he'll pick it up.When he does,he sees the unicorn,the image/signal is sent to Deckard's central nervous system and registers for him to shut down within minutes or hrs.
Maybe there's a home base ,like a monitering station, (like west world) that gets the message sent from a sattilite, that someone needs to go pick him up to be repaired, or put in a warehouse until needed again.
The happy ending scene (intern version), could be a dream like state that Deckard goes into when he shuts down to be "shelved" ,and why,...well,...for the simple amusement of a mad scientist like tyrell.

If word got back to Bryant about Deckard harboring a fugitive,he could have ordered Gaff to retire Rachael ,after Deck shuts down,if he thought Deckard was going to be a problem.

Like I say ,I like the replicant idea to a certain point. Maybe I'm missing something,but if making Deck a replicant was Rid's intent, maybe he should have done more than he did,because incerting a dream just doesn't do much. I reckon the mystery is very cool though, and the ideas it provokes.
We have to understand ,the process in making this movie and others can be extremely complicated , people tugging back and forth, wanting this in and this out,etc.



Have you seen the album ,cover and back ,of Iron Maiden's classic "Some where in time"?Look who's on the front of the cover , they call him Eddie, he would have taken down the whole bunch,no question,they should have hired him and let Deck relax . :P Inside there's a picture of a spinner, with the band standing around it . On the back there's a movie theater( bottom left)featuring blade runner as one of the shows.
Last edited by protectadeck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:30 pm, edited 21 times in total.
"I'm kinda nervous when I take tests" -leon
<<

protectadeck

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 158

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:10 pm

Location: south carolina

Post Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:20 pm

Merc wrote:Holy thread revival Batman!

Anyway...

This could be explained by looking closely at the replicant information during Deckard's briefing. Each of the replicants has a Physical and Mental rating (A,B,C etc). If Deckard were a replicant, it would appear his Physical rating is lower than the Roy and his team's (although the fact that he survives the poundings shows that he is pretty tough).
Deck does survive a tough beating,saying this out loud,I must say,turns up the volume. :P
"I'm kinda nervous when I take tests" -leon
PreviousNext

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron