FAQ  •  Login

Do you prefer Deckard as a human or as a replicant?

How do you prefer to see Deckard?

I prefer to see Deckard as a human.
45
58%
I prefer to see Deckard as a replicant.
12
15%
I vote Deckard is a human because of the overwhelming evidence.
11
14%
I vote Deckard is a Replicant because of the overwhelming evidence.
10
13%
 
Total votes : 78
<<

sha

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 98

Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:26 pm

Location: uk

Post Fri Jun 04, 2004 5:53 pm

It,s only my version of what is and probally will continue to be debated but ....the way i see it .......Its deckard thats questioning is he a human or a replicant , ever been part of an organisation that for your wages demanded you to dehumanise, the small cog in the large machine, its deckards struggle to deal with following orders, just who exactly is he ect .....the question is he or isn,t he is one Deckard can,t anwser. so how can the viewer? :?:
<<

gaijin

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 129

Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:49 pm

Would you generous people allow a brother to recant?
I posted a reply some time ago stating that I liked Deckard as a Rep and that, as far as I was concerned, Ridley Scott's affirmation of the same was good enough for me.
I now find that (embarrasingly!) I disagree with my previous view. Not that Deckard is or isnt a Rep for definite either way but just that it depends on the viewer.
I go for human.
The Future Is Old
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:57 am

GLOWi wrote:This is my first Post. I apologize in advance for any mistakes because English is not my mother's tongue language.
Personally, I dislike the idea of Deckard beeing a replicant. Don't get me wrong, I do not claim that Deckard is human. I don't know. And I don't want to know.
I've read posts, where people wrote that Deckard couldn't be a replicant, because it ruins the story. That's exactly my opinion. But I've never seen or heard an opinion saying that Deckard beeing human ruins the story.
In my view (and not only mine, these issues were mentioned many times, of course), the fundamental question behind the movie is What makes us human? Who is more human, a bounty hunter who is dehumanized by constant mechanical killing, or replicants who seeks for the same answers as we do. With Deckard beeing a replicant, the questions comes down into Who is more human, a rep who kills other replicants to protect people or a rep who kills people to protect him(her)self. ;o))
Ridley Scott likes the idea of Deckard beeing a replicant. I really would like to know why. Because Deckard finds out that he is what he feared and hated the most? OK, but it's still far most interesting when he finds out that he is a replicant not literally, but he's became one of them through his deeds. Roy Batty saving Deckard's life because he came to understanding that all life is precious, not only his is much more challenging that Roy Batty saving his fellow replicant. Revelation that Deckard himself is a rep is cheap in my opinion the same way like the clumsy happy ending in the original theatrical release. It reminds me a cheesy tv series' script in which "suprising" twist is needed.
But I really like the ambiguity of Deckard's true nature. It fits into the world of P.K. Dick where there is nothing you can be certain of. I think that idea that Deckard MAY be an artificial being is much more provocative than explicitly stating that Deckard is or isn't a replicant. That's why I don't want to argue about Deckard's character even when I admit that if there were clearly said that Deckard is a rep, the movie would not be my favorite one. I would admired how it was beautifully shot, but I would not love it.


Thats a great post, i agree 200% !
I just saw the old version, without the unicorn scene, i really didnt get any "Deckard could be a rep" feeling when watching it, and Deckard beeing human feels sooooo right to that version (the whole story), atleast for me there was/is no hesitasion. He gets hurt like a human, he is very week. The little origami unicorn left by Gaff doesnt say shit either, it does not point towards Deckard beeing a rep, imho! If you`d asked Scott in 81 im sure he would have said ofcourse Deckard is human.

But the DC version, adding the unicorn dream scene, together with the unicorn left by Gaff it really makes you think, and yes id say that the DC version says that Deckard is a rep, but i dont like it, cos i think Scott did a stupid thing changing that, adding scenes that suddenly points out Deckard as a rep, he`s altered the movie quite a bit imho. Im positive that the original version is intended to show Deckard as a human and nothing else, and thats the way i like it, and will keep seeing it.

I hope for a Special Edition realese with 2 or 3 diffrent versions on DVD discs, so we all get satisfied.
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

sha

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 98

Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 4:26 pm

Location: uk

Post Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:09 am

I've recently read Phillip K Dicks "Time out of Joint" and "The Man in the High Castle" and in both of those books the theam of what makes ( or Corrupts) a human seems central to both plot lines, I've gained the impression that a lot of Phillips work was this exploration of the essential "Self" with his use of outter space as a metephore for the outer self, and encompasses the old "Nature/Nurture " debate, I find his writeing a very easy way to get in to quiet deep idears,but i always wind up with more questions than before, im almost angry with Dick for leaveing behind such a trail of questions and I wish i'd had the opertunity to talk with him, I expect im far from alone on that one though!.
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:28 am

I want to ask people here something.
When i watch the DC i do belive that Deckard is a replicant, i think the unicorn scene says that, wether i like it or not.


But for me the DC is not the real deal.. Blade Runner was made in 1982 and thats is THE movie. So my question is to thoose that say that Deckard is a replicant, when watching the original version with the voice over, do you feel that the movie/R.S are/is showing Deckard as a replicant? And if so, why...? I saw it recently, and frankly i dont see anything pointing at Deckard being a replicant.


And i want to ask another thing, has R.S ever said (regarding the original movie 1982) that Deckard might be, or IS a replicant? Wasnt all the replicant theories spawned by the DC movie? in 92 ? (there must have been some interviews in 84,85? When did the movie become popular exactly? :D

Regards
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

raymccoy

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 65

Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:54 pm

Post Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:42 pm

Deckard to me is a human who's paranoia is making him question whether or not hes a genuine human.
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:12 pm

According to an interview with Harrison Ford, part of the reason they did not get along(he and Ridley) was a differing view on whether he was human or not.

I know I said this a million times but I will express my views again...I believe that it is more poigniant for him to be human and suffer in comparison to the humanity shown by the replicants(as in the book DADoES). As a result we as viewers are more likely to question what it is that makes us "human". Also as far as the movies own life goes it is better to have left it ambiguous because it keeps dialog like this going on for years after the movie was released and continuing to give the movie life. Him being shown as a replicant in the end of the movie seems too much like a twilight zone, M. Night Shamaylan gimmick. IMHO that is...
Image
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:17 pm

ridleynoir wrote:According to an interview with Harrison Ford, part of the reason they did not get along(he and Ridley) was a differing view on whether he was human or not.

I know I said this a million times but I will express my views again...I believe that it is more poigniant for him to be human and suffer in comparison to the humanity shown by the replicants(as in the book DADoES). As a result we as viewers are more likely to question what it is that makes us "human". Also as far as the movies own life goes it is better to have left it ambiguous because it keeps dialog like this going on for years after the movie was released and continuing to give the movie life. Him being shown as a replicant in the end of the movie seems too much like a twilight zone, M. Night Shamaylan gimmick. IMHO that is...


So they acctually had discussions about that while recording the movie back in 1982 ? The original movie is pretty clear (imho.. tell me if im wrong) about Deckard being just a retired Blade Runner (human), i dont get any hints or messages in the movie.. that points to that he could be a replicant aswell.. i only get that in the DC version, the unicorn dream.

Please share your thoughts with us/me, about this.
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

Centauro

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 729

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Bogota, DC [CO]

Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:24 am

I mostly agree with ridleynoir, and I think that for some of us it is just like his case: we've said that a million times, so I don't know if many people are going to go at it again. Dig a little in the forums older posts. They are plenty of interesting arguments on this issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Revel In Your Time --------------------------------------------------------------

Image
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:28 am

Centauro wrote:I mostly agree with ridleynoir, and I think that for some of us it is just like his case: we've said that a million times, so I don't know if many people are going to go at it again. Dig a little in the forums older posts. They are plenty of interesting arguments on this issue.


My main question is acctually, did the question of Deckard beeing a replicant him self spawn after the original movie or after the directors cut?
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:53 pm

According to Ridley he "always intended Deckard to be a replicant"...also maybe someone with copies of the different scripts can help, but I believe the idea of him being a replicant was written into the final script.
Image
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:01 pm

ridleynoir wrote:According to Ridley he "always intended Deckard to be a replicant"...also maybe someone with copies of the different scripts can help, but I believe the idea of him being a replicant was written into the final script.


But why doesnt he show us Deckard as a rep or give us strong hints ?
The original lacks (acording to me) that. Im sure he intended but clearly that never happend with the original 1982 movie.
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:24 pm

@Partizan

Ridley always intended Deck to be a Rep - the movie execs made him take some scenes out and tack on a happy ending.

These lines were in the final script for the 1982 version:

Deckard (Voice over)
"I knew it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I! Combat models of the highest order. We had fought in wars not yet dreamed of in vast nightmares still unnamed. We were the new people ... Roy and me and Rachael! We were made for this world. It was ours!"


They were taken out.

Read 'Future Noir' and then come back to this.
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.
<<

Partizan

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 127

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:39 am

Location: Sweden

Post Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:42 pm

Deckard BR26354 wrote:@Partizan

Ridley always intended Deck to be a Rep - the movie execs made him take some scenes out and tack on a happy ending.

These lines were in the final script for the 1982 version:

Deckard (Voice over)
"I knew it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I! Combat models of the highest order. We had fought in wars not yet dreamed of in vast nightmares still unnamed. We were the new people ... Roy and me and Rachael! We were made for this world. It was ours!"


They were taken out.

Read 'Future Noir' and then come back to this.


Okey, ill ask no more, ill read the book first... "..ill be back!"
"..like tears in rain.."
<<

endzem

Elite Rep Detector
Elite Rep Detector

Posts: 420

Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Dune, Arakis, desert planet...

Post Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:07 pm

Ridley Scott purposely made the film ambiguous. In the 1982 version, he "lightly" hinted that Deckard was a rep. In the DC, he hinted "slightly more". The ambiguity of BR is part of what makes it such a timeless film. I mean, look at us! 22 years later, and fans find themselves equally divided and are still debating the issue. I think half the topics in this board alone have to do with the human/replicant debate.

And for the record, I still prefer to view Decard as human.
PreviousNext

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

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

cron