Question for Centauro

Thank you for you response. "And let there be light" is all I can say on how I felt after reading it. But perhaps it wasn't left out 100% intentionally, who knows.<BR><BR>I'm going to read through the previous postings tonight, but in the mean time:<BR><BR>Why do you feel he's human? The movie seemed to lean overwhelmingly in favor of him being a replicant. The dream of the unicorn, then the later origami of a unicorn, seemed to indicated that "he" (can't remember Olmos' character's name off hand) had knowledge of Decart's dream. Knowing a bit or two about literature and film, this seemed to lead down only 2 probably possibilies:<BR><BR> 1. Olmos' character is a sort of "divine" character, having knowledge that would not normally be allowed to a non-divine, or normal, character. In this case, Decart is very human, and Olmos' character is kind of the "magical fairy", having knowledge one would not normally be privy to.<BR><BR>2. Which I'm sure you're all to familiar with, that his dreams are on-file, just as Rachael's were, not leaving much room in that particular category.<BR><BR>The previous plus the love sequence, seem to lean heavily in favor of his being a replicant. However, I am more than willing to listen to any words you might be willing to spare for the contrary. Or you could have some fun with it, and just perhaps tell me a few things to look for and reconsider and perhaps your evidence might present itself for me.<BR><BR>Thanks again for you reply. <BR><BR>PS, what's you top 3 movies? My #1 is Brazil, European version (which I was blessed with a theatre viewing last time I was in Manhattan a few years ago), followed not too far by . . . well, that should be obvious.

I know I'm not actually the person you asked for, but heres my 2 pence (I'm English, ok?). I feel that, in the Theatrical Relice, he's human. For my best explination, its always good to quote from the Blade Runner FAQ:<BR><BR>The "AGAINST" case<BR>------------------<BR><BR>- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.<BR><BR>- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in BRDC was a result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.<BR><BR>- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police trust Deckard?<BR><BR>- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell.<BR><BR>- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife. <BR><BR>- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work?<BR><BR>- Deckard was not a replicant in DADoES, although he has another Blade Runner test him at one point just to be sure.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Damn I love that FAQ....<BR>
[addsig]

Ejem. Very good, tomtrek. You just saved me some typing.<BR><BR>I'd like to open my reply saying that is a better idea to keep the messages open to everyone. There's a lot of people in the forums and all of them can be very informative (and fun).<BR><BR>As for the question, I think it is a matter of preferences. The strongest reason for me to believe he's human was already said: I find it then a more meaningful lesson than if Deck was a rep. Of course, if he was, there would be another powerful meaning: the nonsense that the BR world is. I'm not very optimistic about the human race, but I like to think that Roy's last choice -that of saving his nemesis- "revived" the human in Deckard, which was lost, even when long ago he was born, not made. By realizing they're equal, the diference vanishes, and they both become human, in a more elevated sense.<BR>
[addsig]

Here we go again <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>I'm not convinced by any of the arguments put forward by the FAQ - they don't prove anything and appear to be based on assumptions rathers than (fictional) 'facts'.<BR><BR><!-- 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>A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>Really? Who says? I thought the major point of the film was to ask "What does it mean to be human?" and does artificially created life have the same rights as naturally created life...<BR><BR><!-- 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>Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in BRDC was a result of having seen her implants. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>Where did that come from? I don't recall seeing or reading anywhere that Rachael had a 'unicorn' dream.<BR><BR><!-- 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>Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>Surely a replicant (a "machine" without empathy) is more likely to finish the job, than a human who is capable of 'feeling sorry' for his prey - in todays world we have humans killing other humans because of the way we treat animals...also a Replicant can take more physical punishment than a human - Deckard took a lot of beatings from all the Replicants and still came out top.<BR><BR><!-- 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>Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>Why shouldn't there be a conspiracy between Tyrell and the police? Detecting and retiring rogue replicants on Earth is in both their interests - they both have a lot to lose if the public find out what is really going on.<BR><BR><!-- 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>Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>Deckard remembers having a wife - but, as we all know, a Replicant can't rely on memories...<BR><BR><!-- 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>If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work? <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>If you're trying to convince a Replicant that it is human, then surely it would be suspicious of remembering 'happy times' about retiring Replicants.<BR><BR>I noticed something that Leon said to Deckard, that I've not seen mentioned anywhere else:<BR><BR><!-- 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><BR>Leon: How old am I?<BR><BR>Deckard: I don't know.<BR><BR>Leon: My birthday is April 10, 2017. How long do I live?<BR><BR>Deckard: Four years.<BR><BR>Leon: More than you. <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>What did Leon mean by "More than you"? Obviously, Deckard is in his thirties which is a lot older than four years. Did Leon know Deckard was also a newly created replicant? You could argue that it was a slip of the tongue or that Leon really did know the score about Deckard being a replicant. Depends on your point of view and preference.<BR><BR>There a several instances in the movie where other characters appear to question Deckard's human status:<BR><BR>(these are from memory)<BR><BR>Rachael: "Have you ever taken that VK test yourself?"<BR><BR>Zhora: "Are you for real?"<BR><BR>Holden: "If you're not cop, your little people"<BR><BR>Roy: "Aren't you the big man?"<BR><BR>Gaff: "You've done a man's job, sir"<BR><BR>It's an interesting exercise trying to convince people (or yourself) that Deckard is one thing or the other, but I came to the conclusion quite a while ago that because the movie is so ambiguous you can't 'prove' Deckard is either Human or Replicant - it all boils down to personal preference, which is why I raised the thread 'Forum's verdict' over twelve months ago.<BR><BR>I wonder if any of the restored scenes in the special edition will throw more fuel of on the fire...<BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR>Richard Gunn<BR>News and Content Manager for Bladezone<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><A HREF="mailto:richardg@bladezone.com">richardg@bladezone.com</A><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2002-11-01 06:58 ]</font>

Thank you Centauron and all others who responded to my question. I am impressed by everyone's intimate knowledge of the movie. Of course, the movie is art and any ideas we receive from that art are and will always be just an inpretation. I think if a "Fair Wittness" were to watch the movie, they would not honestly be able to say either way.<BR><BR>Here's my theory:<BR><BR>Deckard is a rep, he couldn't retire Rachael, Gaf was sent to Dec's place to retire both Rachael and Dec. But I think Gaf knew that they were all reps and decided to let them live the way Roy had just done. If the Nexus 6's were able to start working together in this way, it wouldn't seem that humans would have too much time left. <BR><BR>Why put a human in harms way to kill a skin job? Skin jobs are completely expendable, one dies, just make a new one, give him memories of a bitter job he's trapped to, an ex-wife - your average cop who's had a bellyfull. Conspiracy between Tyrell corp. and police? Hey, now you're on to something.<BR><BR>Roy killed JF, the only person in the movie that willfully helped and harbored Roy, but he allowed Dec to live. The only thing he knew of Dec is that he just killed his beloved Pris (and possibly knew of him killing the others, but that is pure speculation). He kills JF and saves Dec. What differences exist between Dec and JF that would lead Roy to make his decision as he did. Ponder this, on the Tree of Woe.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: skywalker1187 on 2002-11-03 15:05 ]</font>

<!-- 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 2002-11-01 06:38, Deckard BR26354 wrote:<BR>Holden: "If you're not cop, your little people"<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>That was actually Bryant, but hey.<BR>I think that the Original Cut's voice over had Deckard explaining what Bryant meant my 'little people', and I <!-- BBCode Start --><I>think</I><!-- BBCode End --> it was something like, if he wasn't a cop, he'd be a 'victim'... or something like that. Either this means that he was a rep, or he was so low in the social ladder that he'd be 'just a face in the crowd', as it were, and that maybe Gaff's 'You done a man's job, sir.' Is Gaff saying how Deckard has earnt the right to become a higher class of person, and that he has earnt Gaffs respect (which might be wy Gaff didn't kill Rachel).
[addsig]

Whoops, slipped up on the Holden thing...<BR><BR>Ambiguous dialogue, by it's very nature, is open to different interpretations. This is my whole point about the debate. Let's just accept that you see it one way and I see it another.
[addsig]

Accepted, allthough I see both ways. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif"> <BR>(Original cut- human, DC- rep. Easy)
[addsig]

you all might be interested in a book that explores these very issues of machine intelligence and humanity. It's "The Age of Spiritual Machines" by Ray Kurtzweil. It's non-fiction science. It speculates about the "evolution" of machine intelligence and humanity's interaction with it. I found it very interesting.

A terrific book and I would like to add that his website is one great place to hang out (if you're into looking at tech and man and the future.) <!-- BBCode u2 Start --><A HREF="http://www.kurzweilai.net/" TARGET="_blank">KurzweilAI.net</A><!-- BBCode u2 End -->
[addsig]

Didn?t Issac Asmov?s Foundation series and Robots of Dawn also explore this? I?ve heard a lot about these books but never had the chance to read them.<BR><BR><BR><BR>