FAQ  •  Login

Deckard wasn't a replicant

<<

Guest

Post Fri Mar 15, 2002 6:22 pm

Ok, I know this has been done to death, but this was the first BR board I came across while surfing the net, so I'd just like to voice my opinion. <BR> <BR>1.) The eye glowing theory may just be the camera lights reflecting off the actor's eyes. <BR>2.) The unicorn dream could be either two things: a simple daydream of Deckard's (consider the cold, wet, dreary environment he's in; it's only natural that he thinks of better places), or a recollection of one of Rachael's inserted memories. He could be jealous of her memories because of his own dehumanization. <BR> <BR>3.) Gaff left the unicorn for Deckard to find at the end not to tell him that he was a droid, but to tell him that he will soon go after Rachael. Remember, any Blade Runner on the case could have seen Rachael's memories. <BR> <BR>4.) If Deckard was a replicant, then why would the other droids fight him? Also, why was he so weak compared to Leon? <BR> <BR>5.) If Deckard was a droid, why would the police give him a somber, withdrawn attitude towards his job? <BR> <BR>6.) If Deckard was a replicant, he wouldn't have been rubbing his hurt jaw at the sink. Also, he wouldn't have cried out when Roy broke his fingers, or when the nail that was in Roy's hand went into Deckard's hand when Roy prevented him from falling towards the end. <BR> <BR>7.) If he was a replicant, it goes against the whole point of the story: who's more human, the actual humans, or the people they create? At times, Rachael and Roy seemed more emotional than Deckard. This was why the film was made. If Deckard was a droid, then all this is thrown out the window, and it turns into a regular futuristic thriller with a twist ending, without any philosophy.
<<

Dystopian Resident

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 41

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: China Town

Post Sat Mar 16, 2002 12:41 am

In the General Blade Runner Discussion "Life before the police department" topic, this issue has been touched with conflicting arguments between myself and BRmovie. Actually, my opinions are not so distant from yours or BRmovies' as is obvious at first. That could be because I haven't fully explained my perspective (which I will try to do here to some extent). <BR> <BR>Yes, many contradictions arise if we assume that Deckard is a Replicant, but the film has its fair share of contradictions and errors in general (e.g. missing 6th replicant due to budget constraints) <BR> <BR>I don't follow other's opinions that easily, and I especially don't follow the opinion of cine-critics and cine-experts. But ultimately, the film is Ridley Scott's, it was his vision that Deckard is a Replicant, he has stated that the film is built around that theme. For that I accept that Deckard is a Replicant (and not based on the evidence in the film in which case you can argue for either, although as far as I'm aware the most popular belief, as also stated in "Future Noir" is that he could be a Replicant in the theatrical release and that he is a Replicant in the DC-but this is based on the so called "evidence" in the film)I will illustrate what I want to get to with an example: <BR>Say I spent a large amount of effort to create a painting displaying some people dancing, drinking and eating in a field, and someone asked me what it's all about and I said "they're celebrating the harvest" and then the other person said "no, it's not about the harvest because there is a woman wearing white and a man in a suit, so it must be a marriage, it's all about a marriage", then what is the painting about? <!-- BBCode Start --><I>IMO the most accurate version of the "truth" is that of the creator's intention </I><!-- BBCode End -->, although art is open to interpretation and some artists aim for that. However some creations are aimed to signify/portray/reflect on, specific themes. I want my painting to portray the harvest celebration, Ridley Scott wanted Deckard to be a Replicant. The evidence in a film can be argued for in any way, but you can't state that Deckard's eyes might have flashed due to the camera, because then you're saying that Deckard is not a Human nor a Replicant he is...an Actor! Also, R.S. aimed for that glow. <BR>On the lines of "evidence in the film" I can argue for the scenario that every citizen of LA 2019 was a Replicant in order to maintain a workforce and a consumer base on a dying planet (Earth)by an off-world human elite and that the so called "Replicants" were merely a cover, hence the contradiction, my evidence is the fact that they display similar empathy to everyone else, why does the V.K. work on them only? Because it was made to work on a specific group to provide the illusion that everybody else is human. Or I could argue that there are no Replicants at all, the Tyrell corp. research and development in Replicant genetic engineering was a complete fiasco and they had to come up with another solution in order not to lose the money coming in from their shareholders/investors. So they did, they conspired with LAPD who gave them criminals/life sentenced persons, and these individuals had their memories erased, had others inserted, were given strength enhancing drugs and steroids which can account for them dying after 4 years. <BR> <BR>But again, my opinion is that the director wanted something specific. <BR>
[addsig]
"I've hypothesised things you people wouldn't believe"
<<

IntelliDroid

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 141

Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Fourth Sector

Post Sat Mar 16, 2002 3:11 am

<!-- BBCode Quote Start --><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE> <BR>On 2002-03-16 06:41, Dystopian Resident wrote: <BR>Or I could argue that there are no Replicants at all, the Tyrell corp. research and development in Replicant genetic engineering was a complete fiasco and they had to come up with another solution in order not to lose the money coming in from their shareholders/investors. <BR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --> <BR> <BR>From what I had read in an analysis of the movie's plot (and what I had assumed to be true anyway), Tyrell Corporation was privately held by Dr. Tyrell. In this summary (and I will grant that it wasn't mentioned in the movie), it was stated that Tyrell relied on financial backing at the inception of the Corporation in order to get his business off the ground. Later on, he either bought out or forced his backers out of the picture and became the sole owner. <BR> <BR>As far as Deckard's being a replicant or not, convincing arguments can be made for both points of view. However, I personally see Deckard as human because this theme relies on Deckard's gradually becoming less human, so to speak, while his opponents are seeking to become more human. Cutting him from the same cloth as the renegade replicants removes this from consideration. <BR> <BR>I could go on and on about this as I can with a lot of topics. I have a curse of being able to see and understand opposing points of view. But, for me, Deckard is a human...just a poor schmuck who didn't realize what he got himself into with his last assignment. <BR> <BR>As for Ridley Scott's opinion, how do we know that <!-- BBCode Start --><B> he's </B><!-- BBCode End --> not a replicant? Hmm?
<<

Wilkins Rep-Detect BR2349

User avatar

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 441

Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Arizona

Post Thu Mar 21, 2002 6:44 pm

Ridley has ALSO said that its each individual viewers choice to make, Is deckard a rep or a human? Dont try to convince someone who thinks he is human that he is a rep, and vice versa. <BR> <BR>And i think he is human.
[addsig]
Image
Gaff: "You've done a man's job, sir! I guess you are through?"

Deckard: "Finished".
<<

The Dark Knight

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 166

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Gotham - Dublin

Post Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:41 pm

I agree with Wilkins Rep-Detect BR23499. Rather than replicating myself, see related topic <!-- BBCode u2 Start --><A HREF="http://www.bladezone.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=150&forum=1&13" TARGET="_blank">here</A><!-- BBCode u2 End -->.
[addsig]
Image
<<

BRmovie

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 264

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Black Ops

Post Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:11 am

As Dystopian Resident mentioned me specifically, I suppose I ought to say something.... <BR> <BR>Really, all I want to say is that my impression is that at the time, RS wanted to create the impression that Deckard *might be* a Replicant, (and this is backed up by comments from the screenwriters and interviews that RS did back in 1982.) <BR> <BR>Clearly HF played Deckard as a human. Other actors and crew thought (and still think) that Deckard is Human. For all of these reasons, this is one movie where taking the Director's view as the only correct view is the least valid. You can if you want - thats your choice. Or you can choose to view it as a piece of fiction that stands separately from the people who made it. <BR> <BR>The comments by Dice that start this topic are very valid - I can add to the very valid possible interpretations of such things as unicorn dreams. Suffice to say, I'm a Deck-a-Human all the way, but the important question at the end of it all remains, "What is Human?" <BR>
[addsig]
Visit www.BRmovie.com - Web home of alt.fan.blade-runner, The Blade Runner FAQ, News, Encyclopedia, Analysis, BR Game, BR comic, BR Magazine, fan fiction and lots more!
<<

OffWorldAgent

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 32

Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 3:34 pm

Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 6:09 pm

Ok, I know this has been done to death, but this was the first BR board I came across while surfing the net, so I'd just like to voice my opinion.

1.) The eye glowing theory may just be the camera lights reflecting off the actor's eyes.

ugh? the director controlls the lighting the characters eyes have that glare becasue thats what the director wanted. Since it only happens when certain characters are on screan it leads some to belive that the reason is to hint at who is a rep.

2.) The unicorn dream could be either two things: a simple daydream of Deckard's (consider the cold, wet, dreary environment he's in; it's only natural that he thinks of better places), or a recollection of one of Rachael's inserted memories. He could be jealous of her memories because of his own dehumanization.

Why would he know her dreams? He only knows her memories, remember replicants aren't people, so their dreams and their memorys wouldn't neccesarily have anything in common like peoples would.


3.) Gaff left the unicorn for Deckard to find at the end not to tell him that he was a droid, but to tell him that he will soon go after Rachael. Remember, any Blade Runner on the case could have seen Rachael's memories.

hmm that does sound possible, but it seems that Deckard wouldn't be in a good mood when he entered the elevator, I mean if the guy found out that the women he loved was being hunted I think he would be realy pissed! Besides I don't think Gaff the cripple will be doin to much tracking you know with his bad leg and all :wink: . That and all of his other Origami things were specifically about what Gaff thought about Deckard so why would the last one be about Rachael? Dosen't realy make since.



4.) If Deckard was a replicant, then why would the other droids fight him? Also, why was he so weak compared to Leon?


Because he is trying to kill them, not all reps have the same abilities some are phsyically strong (soldiers) others have more emotional capabilities (leisure) some are more mentally strong (techs,ect) some are a jumble of these different characteristics.

You will also notice that Roy dosen't kill Deckard when he has the chance, I belive when he catches Deckard he yells "Kinship" implying that they were part of a team once.

5.) If Deckard was a droid, why would the police give him a somber, withdrawn attitude towards his job?

well they don't realy give him his somber attitude just his memorys which inturn gives him his outlook on his job, this makes it so he wouldn't question what he is doing, its just a job nothing else.

6.) If Deckard was a replicant, he wouldn't have been rubbing his hurt jaw at the sink. Also, he wouldn't have cried out when Roy broke his fingers, or when the nail that was in Roy's hand went into Deckard's hand when Roy prevented him from falling towards the end.

If Deckard noticed that he felt no pain when other humans would be screaming bloody murder he would start to suspect that he has been dupped.


7.) If he was a replicant, it goes against the whole point of the story: who's more human, the actual humans, or the people they create? At times, Rachael and Roy seemed more emotional than Deckard. This was why the film was made. If Deckard was a droid, then all this is thrown out the window, and it turns into a regular futuristic thriller with a twist ending, without any philosophy.


Well you would have to consider the fact that in a since they are all human.Deckard not being as emotional dosen't make him inhumane it just means he dosen't express his feelings the same, if Deckard was shown to be a replicant right off the bat then yes it would ruin the whole point of the movie, being (to me anyway) what makes a human?

If flesh and blond is human then replicants are human, if memorys makes you a human then replicants would still be a human the same goes for emotions like pain and love, if no one told you that Roy and the others were replicants just like with Deckard you would assume they were replicants becuase they posses all of the "qualities" that people do.

(and of course the movie is also dealing with the morality of the issue)
"a witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire

"Nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man then to take the path that leads to himself"--Herman Hesse
<<

Gene Ettix

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 618

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Tyrell Corp. U.S.

Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:13 pm

Yes, this has been done to death. To actually be a citizen in L.A.2019 would be to constantly wonder who might be artificial. That's the mood the film creates.That's the point.
As far as the glowing eye thing goes - Even Dave Holden's eye glows during the Leon VK interview at the beginning of the film. Only one,I believe.What do we make of that?
Anyway... I like to think of Deckard as a human but, anybody could be a replicant.
:roll: ...Here we go again...
ImageImageImage

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests