FAQ  •  Login

Deckard WAS AREP and here is HARDPROOF

<<

ZooL

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:34 am

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:09 am

Deckard WAS AREP and here is HARDPROOF

<<

BR796164

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1146

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 3:39 am

Good god of biomechanics, this is such a NEEEEEW THING! Image

Now it means the because the director prefers Deckard to be a rep, we all should follow his opinion, forget all the obvious "AGAINST" arguments and believe he's a rep, too?
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:05 am

Now, now - let's play nicely :)

I really do not understand the reluctance to let Ridley state what he means by his movie. He says that Deckard is a Replicant. Case closed.

Let's not forget that the movie is 'Blade Runner' and not 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. Let's also not forget that Ridley always intended Deck to be a Rep from the very beginning and that it was only Harrison's winging that lead to the 'theatrical version' minus the unicorn scene.

I really don't see how you can argue against the director's own vision of a movie that is based on (not a literal translation of) a book. It's his film - if he says that Deck is a Rep in his movie then Deck is a Rep in his movie.

If that doesn't fit your vision of Deck as a human then you need to make your own version of DADOES in which you categorically show Deck to be human and forget about Ridley's 'flawed' vision.

Deck being a Rep doesn't 'hurt' the story in any way - it's a great twist in the end. Pure irony.

It's as simple as that in my opinion.


On a related movie, do you agree with the director of 'Total Recall', Paul Verhoeven, when he says that the whole movie is an implanted memory from the point that Quaid first get's into Rekall's chair and that Quaid is labotomised at the end of the movie? It's a similar sort of situation.
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.
<<

BR796164

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1146

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:37 am

Now wait..
Ford wanted the movie to be without the unicorn scene? That's unknown to me, I thought it's entirely a screwy idea of the producers...

Anyway. Originally, Scott has provided the audience with bunch of "FOR" arguments and other bunch of "AGAINST" arguments. None of these we can smash from the table with a single hand. You know them all, I am sure. All the arguments FOR and AGAINST make the origin of Deckard even more foggy and confusing. You can't find a single point in the movie where the director clearly says: HE'S A REPLICANT. I think he did it right so, he has just suggested us things.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladerunner-faq/
"The Blade Cuts", Starburst (UK) no. 51, November 1982.

McKenzie: Are you disappointed that the references to Deckard being a
replicant are no longer there?

Scott: The innuendo is still there. The French get it immediately!
I think it's interesting that he could be.


Please notice the last Scott's line. "I think it's intersting that he could be."
Then 18 years later he has told that Deckard SURELY is a rep. That's a bit strange change of opinion.

May it be as it is, the discussions amongst fans will continue, and I think it's right. Because if we all now start to massively believe that Deckard is a rep, the movie looses a BIG part of it's magic.


Total Recall - well frankly, if Verhoewen would say one day that all his movies were based on his drug trips, I wouldn't care. :wink:
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:46 am

Personally, I think if you take Ridley's line out of context in the way that you have done, then it does look like he's changed his opinion over time.

BUT, if you look at McKenzie's question, "Are you disappointed that the references to Deckard being a replicant are no longer there?", doesn't this show that Ridley intended that Deck was a Rep from the beginning?

Because if we all now start to massively believe that Deckard is a rep, the movie looses a BIG part of it's magic.


I can't express in words how much I disagree with that statement, so I won't bother - after all it's just your opinion, not a fact.

Well, I really thought I'd gotten over the urge to jump into another Deck-a-Rep debate - I guess I was wrong.
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.
<<

BR796164

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1146

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 9:07 am

Well, I like the noir-ish uncertainity - that the director provides us with a hint, but not an obvious proof.
Don't you think that the key question "Is Deckard a replicant or not"?
has made the movie interesting an popular, amongst other things?

I agree there, maybe I have pulled Scott's line out of context...

And hey, that's what this particular forum is for. For mild arguing. :D
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Wed Jul 23, 2003 10:29 am

I think the problem with the idea that Deck is a Rep is that it only works once - you have to watch the movie for the first time without any idea that his human/rep status will be questioned at the end of the movie. You would assume throughout the movie that Deckard is human - you'll feel for him and want him to succeed. You care about him as a fellow human being. Then when it's all over you realise you've been cheering for a Replicant; an artificially created being.

Doesn't that realisation drive home the question about what it is to be human as much as anything else in the movie? After all, the final revelation that the main 'hero' might also be a Replicant manages to involve the audience on a level that most movies don't.

Personally, I think it's powerful twist and only adds to the story rather than takes away.

I sometimes wish that Ridley had filmed a final scene that shows Gaff returning Deckard's 'file' back to the vaults in the Tyrell Corp building. That would leave us in no doubt about Deckard's replicant status.
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.
<<

BR796164

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1146

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Post Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:56 am

Well, that's my point as well - the doubts, questions about Deckard's origin give the story power. But whem Mr. Director walks in the hall after 20 years and without wink says he's clearly a replicant, it's neither funny, nor interesting. That statement of Scott was supposed to kill all the interesting doubts - "I he...? Isn't he...?

I sometimes wish that Ridley had filmed a final scene that shows Gaff returning Deckard's 'file' back to the vaults in the Tyrell Corp building. That would leave us in no doubt about Deckard's replicant status.


I really hope that such a shallow thing never hapens. It's sounds like an ending form random X-Files episode. Or like that famous, "surprising" I AM YOUR FATHER thing... :evil:
Last edited by BR796164 on Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Thu Jul 24, 2003 2:43 am

But whem Mr. Director walks in the hall after 20 years and without wink says he's clearly a replicant, it's neither funny, nor interesting.


Well, I'm saying that Ridley always intended him to be a Replicant. You quoted an article from 1982 where he's asked if he's disappointed that most of the references have been removed from the movie. So the idea of Ridley waiting 20 years doesn't really cut it for me. It's only 'cos he was asked the question 20 years later that he's restating his intention.

The extra Gaff scene is just an example - shallow or not my wish is for a defining moment in the movie where we find out for sure whether Deckard is human or not. I'd rather know one way or the other then go on debating it ad nauseum. But hey, I guess that's just me.

I wish we knew more about Gaff - I've always thought of him as Deckard's 'handler'.
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.
<<

BR796164

User avatar

Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 1146

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Post Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:04 am

Yes, Gaff himself would deserve a special sidequel. :)
<<

ZooL

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 11

Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:34 am

Post Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:01 am

One thing i would like to point out.

The unicorn thing-this is a possibility
Not all Replicants have to have the "SAME" memories, such as the unicorn scene. I DO believe however that Gaff knows that deck is a replicant, NOT ONLY THAT! but Gaff and the chief Brought in Deckard to hunt the reps but they knew deckard was a rep cause they went to tyrell to request him or possibly deckard is an experiment. (breathes)

"I" think that at the end when mr.batty saves deckard, roy knows that deck is a rep and saves him for that reason. Roy had no problem killing humans, i mean they killed alot of people just getting to earth, but deck...he spared him.
Precious life......time to..die.
*crys*

anyways thats just a theory or one of my "mabe" theories.
Anyways i love watching the movie and i'm gonna go do that.....now.
<<

BR12819

User avatar

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 441

Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Undisclosed

Post Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:30 pm

i like that theory but it truely cant be proven undisputedly either way but perhaps thats the point i used to think that deck was a rep and i suppose thats where my tendencies still are but that just my prefrence both sides have equal arguments
Holden:"It's a wipe out, they're almost us!"
<<

Kobold2001

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 44

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:17 pm

Location: England

Post Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:24 pm

You would assume throughout the movie that Deckard is human - you'll feel for him and want him to succeed. You care about him as a fellow human being. Then when it's all over you realise you've been cheering for a Replicant; an artificially created being.


I absolutely 100% agree. :) It drives home the message that reps are just as, if not more so, human than humans are.

I sometimes wish that Ridley had filmed a final scene that shows Gaff returning Deckard's 'file' back to the vaults in the Tyrell Corp building. That would leave us in no doubt about Deckard's replicant status.


No way! That would ruin the whole everything! If there was a clear answer what is the point of this topic? It's fun and interesting to debate this sort of thing. Leaving a clear answer would wreck the whole thing, the film woukd loose much of it's appeal. The whole point is that Deck could be a rep, or he may not be. This leads us on to discussing 'what is human'? If there was a final answer then people wouldn't question this, they wouldn't think about the philosophical issues, and the film would be a straight boring story, with nothing to make you keep coming back to it.
"More human than human" is our motto....
<<

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 5:55 pm

Yeah, you're probably right - that 'wish' came out of the frustration of trying to persuade people that it's okay to think of Deck as one thing or the other.
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 Dark Knight

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 166

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Gotham - Dublin

Post Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:47 am

I'm glad thats its left up to the viewer to decide. The argument is part of what makes the movie so facinating. I'd personally rather think of him as human as a fan of the book and because I can more readily identify with Deckard if he's not a rep.
Image
Next

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

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

cron