Would I run off with Sean Young? Hell yes. I've heard a lot of arguements for Decakard being a replicant. But "he has to be a replicant because no human would run off with Rachael" is new.

I said Rachael, not Sean Young.:D

Seriously....you would do a robot???

Actually, if you think about it, Deckard running off with a time-span limited Rachael is a very impulsive, very human thing to do. Grab whatever happiness you can while you can and worry about the consequences later. Not real machine-like logic; that sort of behavior practically defines humanity. ;)

I don’t give a hoot if Deckard, is a replicant, or not it’s a matter of opinion. I just like it for picture story and sound, end of discussion. Now please someone shot that, unicorn, and stuff its head on the wall!:D

Deckard’s narration rules OK!:D

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/BladeRunner5.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/BladeRunner10.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/BladeRunner11.jpg

LOL!
Dude, what else would we be talking about except the new Final Cut released on Tuesday?
And I have stated that I prefer the "D is a rep" scenario many times at this Forum.
You're not reading my posts closely.

Let me see...you replied to a post from a poster explaining the "Deckard is human" theory that referenced the theatrical cut and attempted to apply a "Deckard is a replicant" theory on top.

Obviously, this poster is talking about the theatrical version (and stated so)finally released to DVD on Tuesday and not the final cut. Remember more then one cut of the film made its way to DVD for the first time this past Tuesday. It is obvious that you prefer the "Deckard is a replicant" theory by your post, but you attempted to apply a theory that doesn't work with the version he referenced. So who is reading posts incorrectly, again?

That's the problem now when tossing out different explanations. You have to preface it with which cut of the movie you are applying the theory to. Once you do that it's over because the two camps prefer different cuts, so it is no longer and apples to apples comparison.

I said Rachael, not Sean Young.:D

Seriously....you would do a robot???

As long as it's equipped with an "off" switch . . . I fail to see the down side :)

Let me see...you replied to a post from a poster explaining the "Deckard is human" theory that referenced the theatrical cut and attempted to apply a "Deckard is a replicant" theory on top.

Obviously, this poster is talking about the theatrical version (and stated so)finally released to DVD on Tuesday and not the final cut. Remember more then one cut of the film made its way to DVD for the first time this past Tuesday. It is obvious that you prefer the "Deckard is a replicant" theory by your post, but you attempted to apply a theory that doesn't work with the version he referenced. So who is reading posts incorrectly, again?

That's the problem now when tossing out different explanations. You have to preface it with which cut of the movie you are applying the theory to. Once you do that it's over because the two camps prefer different cuts, so it is no longer and apples to apples comparison.

LMAO you lot are taking this way too seriously, why Ridley Scott, has really gotten to you’re minds, with the best mind f&^%k in years.:D

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/BladeRunnerRidleyScott2.jpg

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee18/DemolitionMan3417/BladeRunnerRidleyScott3.jpg

LOL He looks like a bloodhound, in that last picture, that’s been kicked in the bollocks. :D

How about another possibility?

Is it possible Deckard had quit as a replicant hunter before the start of the movie because he began to empathize with reps?

Remember there was a very strong, implied threat by The Man if he refused to un-retire and take the case.
.:)

Unfortunately, there's nothing in any versions of the film that give any clues as to why he was retired. So all we can do is speculate about it. I can just as easily speculate that he retired to try to save his failing marriage....



Yes, D did have an epiphany on the rooftop. But could this not also happen to a rep....say, Roy on the roof and Rachael in D's bed?
And the question of Roy's altruism doesn't completely explain his motivations.
Perhaps Roy couldn't kill Deckard because he realized D. was a replicant and there was nothing he could do to prolong Roy's life. It was stated earlier in the movie that Roy's model had an unusually short life-span. Shorter than other reps.
.:)

I'm sure I'll get accused of copping out on this one. But, Roy is a secondary character and unfortunately secondary characters often have unexplained motives and inconsistant actions too if it's needed to further the story line. It's D's motivations that the film is supposed to be about. If D is a replicant what are his motives, why do we care about his motives and what is this movie about?



Why would D run off with Rachael if she was a rep and he wasn't?
Willing to risk his human life for a robot, and likely a short-term bot at that?
Knowing that he would probably be hunted down?
A human would do this?
Would you?
Not likely....however, if he WAS a rep, it would be the logical choice for D to do just that.

Just my 2 cents.:)

I think the term "robot" is responsible for a lot of the confusion about this film and the book. But replicants aren't "robots" in the sense that we think of it today, of being a mechanical device. Replicants are carbon-based life forms, but they aren't gentically humans.

I cut PKD a lot of slack on this issue since when he wrote the book, genetics and genetic engineering wasn't commonly and the language wasn't available to really describe what the meant. Unfortunately, the film also uses the term "robot" in at least one case and continued the confusion.

So it's not like D is running off with a mechanical device. He's running off with a really good looking humanoid with different genetics. And AFA running off with someone you know is likely to die in a few years, I'll just point to the real life of Noble prize winning physist Richard Feynman who married his first wife even though he knew she had Hodgkins Lymphoma and only had a few years to live and against the wishes of both his and her families.

^^^^
How come everyone else gets quoted, what am, I chop liver.:D

As long as it's equipped with an "off" switch . . . I fail to see the down side :)

LOL!:)

^^^^
How come everyone else gets quoted, what am, I chop liver.:D

You have to ask?


Just kidding.:D
And thanx for the screenshots.;)

Deckard is not a replicant. If you notice all through the film, that all of the known replicants have a gold glow in their eyes. Not a single scene does Deckard ever have this 'glow'. There are plenty of other things throughout the film that would indicate Deckard's not a replicant as well. Way more than there are things that would. Even in the Final and Director's cut. Also the whole Unicorn dream is completely forced, and seemingly appears for no reason. It should have never been added.

You have to ask?


Just kidding.:D
And thanx for the screenshots.;)

Only too happy, too participate in this thread.:D I’m glad to see that Ridley, saw it from the point of view of many, cult Blade Runner funs, unlike George Lucas he sucks, he's too tight to realise Star Wars originals, you know the 70mm six-track Dolby stereo originals 1977 1980 1983. Good on you Ridley you just show that tight milking Lucas who’s the boss!:D

Deckard is not a replicant. If you notice all through the film, that all of the known replicants have a gold glow in their eyes. Not a single scene does Deckard ever have this 'glow'. There are plenty of other things throughout the film that would indicate Deckard's not a replicant as well. Way more than there are things that would. Even in the Final and Director's cut. Also the whole Unicorn dream is completely forced, and seemingly appears for no reason. It should have never been added.

I only no of one good place for that unicorn, and that's stuffed and hanging on my wall!:D I mean why didn’t Deckard just dream of “electric sheep” then we would have known for sure. We all dream and the fact there’s a unicorn for a brief 10 seconds or so, I don’t know what the time count is and you’ll have to pay me to put that version on and do a screen capture.

Anyway I’m not going to allow this to mind f&%$k with my mind at least he was merciful and gave the fans the original versions, well done Ridley, and thank you for the originals.:)

Deckard is not a replicant. If you notice all through the film, that all of the known replicants have a gold glow in their eyes. Not a single scene does Deckard ever have this 'glow'. There are plenty of other things throughout the film that would indicate Deckard's not a replicant as well. Way more than there are things that would. Even in the Final and Director's cut. Also the whole Unicorn dream is completely forced, and seemingly appears for no reason. It should have never been added.

Last night when I was watching the HD-DVD I was looking for signs as to whether he was or wasn't. In one scene when Sean Young was in his apt I could have sworn he had a little glow in his eyes. I didn't go back and look. I really don't care if his is or isn't. :) Based on what I saw I don't think he is a replicant. Great movie, I hadn't seen it in a while and the hidef encode looks awesome.

larry

Deckard is not a replicant. If you notice all through the film, that all of the known replicants have a gold glow in their eyes. Not a single scene does Deckard ever have this 'glow'.
What about chapter 21 (1:06:32) of The Final Cut? :rolleyes:

What about chapter 21 (1:06:32) of The Final Cut? :rolleyes:

What about it? Just to make sure, I put the disc in and looked. The gold glow isn't there.

The thing is, philosophically the film doesn't work if Deckard is a replicant. Frankly, I think Scott made that statement just to stir up controversy. And had he never said it, no one would have ever thought of Deckard as being a replicant. Like I said, even in the final cut, there are far more things throughout the film that would indicate Deckard's not a replicant than there are that would.

Deckard is not a replicant. If you notice all through the film, that all of the known replicants have a gold glow in their eyes. Not a single scene does Deckard ever have this 'glow'. There are plenty of other things throughout the film that would indicate Deckard's not a replicant as well. Way more than there are things that would. Even in the Final and Director's cut. Also the whole Unicorn dream is completely forced, and seemingly appears for no reason. It should have never been added.

The problem with identifying replicants by a gold glow in their eyes is that is pretty much invalidates the whole need to identify them using sophisticated testing, which also kills much of the plot. Killer replicants on the loose? Just put out an APB for anyone with a gold glow to their eyes and shoot on sight.

I truly think that the ambiguity of whether Deckard is a replicant or not is one of the most compelling things about the story. In a story where the lines between what is human and what is not are blurred to begin with, having a main character who identity is also in question is absolutely beautiful. Discussion and debate over whether he is or isn't a replicant is fun, coming up with a definitive proof one way or the other is ruinous.

What about chapter 21 (1:06:32) of The Final Cut? :rolleyes:

I think I know the scene you're referencing.
I have seen the eye glow in previous versions (which is a big tip-off IMO).
Although I missed it in the BD Final Cut, that could have been because I had Lasik 2 weeks ago.:o
Will have to go back and look again.;)

all of the known replicants have a gold glow in their eyesIt may have been done for cinematic purposes, like how villians are often lit from below. But it's not something other characters in the film saw.

Deckard tells Tyrell that it usually takes 20 to 30 cross-referenced questions to distinguish a replicant from a human. Why go through the elaborate Voight-Kampff test if replicants could be identified by something as simple as a gold glow in their eyes?

Sanjay

The problem with identifying replicants by a gold glow in their eyes is that is pretty much invalidates the whole need to identify them using sophisticated testing, which also kills much of the plot. Killer replicants on the loose? Just put out an APB for anyone with a gold glow to their eyes and shoot on sight.

I truly think that the ambiguity of whether Deckard is a replicant or not is one of the most compelling things about the story. In a story where the lines between what is human and what is not are blurred to begin with, having a main character who identity is also in question is absolutely beautiful. Discussion and debate over whether he is or isn't a replicant is fun, coming up with a definitive proof one way or the other is ruinous.

IMO, the gold glow of the eyes are not really part of the plot (notice none of the characters in the movie said a thing about eye glow).
Rather, it was RS sending a little hint to the audience and not part of BR story per se.

A big part of BR is that is a sci-fi mystery.
You have characters that are not aware they are reps, as well as characters that appear indistinguishable from humans.

D as a rep, adds greater power and a darker, twisting irony than if he is a human.:cool:
YMMV.:)

2 little details that stood out to me as ridiculously out of place was Rachael using a flick-lighter to light a cigarette and Decker using a payphone. For all the techno-futuristic imagery that is beat over your head in this movie, didn't anyone figure in 1982 that there would be a more modern way that far into the future to light a cigarette (a "laser" [making quote mark gesture]) or call somebody (did cellphones hit some sort of evolutionary dead end along the way) ?! ;) I mean, c'mon...they've perfected the science of "more human than human" replicants, and the best way to light a cigarette is still to strike a piece of steel against a flint? :p

Ok, I just saw the Final Cut tonight. I could only make out a couple very minor things that were different from the directors cut. So I'm not sure this was worth buying. Sure the picture quality was better
Anyway, at the end of the picture I was convinced Deckard was a Replicant. I have kept hearing people talk about the unicorn dream, actualy a day dream, and I never thougth much of it. So what the guy has a daydream about a unicorn. But there is the part of the story where they talk about putting false memorys into the replicants. The cops know what the typical storys are. Like when Deckard starts asking the girl if she remember the stry about the spider. They they are memorys of the inventor neices...
Anyway, the Edward James Olmos character is always leaving his caling card everywhere. little orogamys or the match stickman. At the end you see Deckard spots the one left outside his door as they are leaving. I always figured the guy was there and just decided to et them go. Which I still think he does. But this time, maybe because of the clearer resolution of the movie, I noticed that the little thing Deckard pick up is a little unicorn! Now, maybe you all know this but I never noticed what it was. To me that, meaning that the cops who supposedly know what the fake memorys are might know any other thought or dreams or whatever would be loaded into the replicants. It just seemed like too much of a coincidence. That along with the Olmos character saying that too bad she would die anyways but so does everyone or something like that.
So does anyone else think the little unicorn is a good clue?

So what was the origami stick figure with huge erection supposed to symbolize? I just think Gaff had a vivid imagination that, on occasion by chance, might match-up with what you are thinking and spook you out. :D

It may have been done for cinematic purposes, like how villians are often lit from below. But it's not something other characters in the film saw.

Deckard tells Tyrell that it usually takes 20 to 30 cross-referenced questions to distinguish a replicant from a human. Why go through the elaborate Voight-Kampff test if replicants could be identified by something as simple as a gold glow in their eyes?

Sanjay

Of course it was done for cinematic purposes. The VK test well established that the characters in the story couldn't tell a replicant that way. But that doesn't diminish the point that ALL the replicants had this 'glow'. Which establishes that at the time the film was made, Deckard was not, and was not supposed to be a replicant. But again, that's only one item. There are too many other aspects to Deckard that would also indicate that he wasn't a replicant. Because if he was, then he wasn't like any other replicant ever described or seen in the film.

If you take away Scott's comment (which is completely external to the film anyway), and you forget that silly 'forced' unicorn dream (which appears as added and out of place as the original 'sappy' ending), there is nothing in the film to suggest Deckard's a replicant. In fact, quite the contrary.

Scott has said the "eye glow" was not intended, it just happened. Gaf's origami figures are up to you but his first one suggests that Deckard is a "chicken." The stick figure hinted that he knew Deckard was falling for Rachael. The Unicorn could mean several things, Gaf knew Deckard's dreams (day dreams, his eyes opened just before the unicorn appeared) or it could be a reference toward Rachael and letting her go knowing that she would only live four years. I base that on my feelings that unicorns are usually associated with girls. YMMV

Scott

What about it? Just to make sure, I put the disc in and looked. The gold glow isn't there.
Are you sure? Rachael has it but D doesn't? I'm not trying to say it's a definite giveaway but his does on my screen during 1:06:30 - 1:06:35.

Anyone else notice it?

Of course it was done for cinematic purposes. The VK test well established that the characters in the story couldn't tell a replicant that way. But that doesn't diminish the point that ALL the replicants had this 'glow'. Which establishes that at the time the film was made, Deckard was not, and was not supposed to be a replicant. But again, that's only one item. There are too many other aspects to Deckard that would also indicate that he wasn't a replicant. Because if he was, then he wasn't like any other replicant ever described or seen in the film.

If you take away Scott's comment (which is completely external to the film anyway), and you forget that silly 'forced' unicorn dream (which appears as added and out of place as the original 'sappy' ending), there is nothing in the film to suggest Deckard's a replicant. In fact, quite the contrary.

^^^Yo, what the man said. :)

Loved the new 'Final Version'. Thought it was a much better movie.
NO, Deckard is NOT a replicant. There are too many reasons, watching even this version of the movie, to deduce that he could be a replicant. Even with the Unicorn dream, there is just not enough evidence, and very little reason, to reach the conclusion that Deckard is a replicant...No matter what the director says.

Lets try to make Deckard a replicant.
1) Deckard has been around for a while. Safe to conclude, but could be argued that it is all implanted.
2) Deckard is not environmentally resistant, or stronger, or any other quality which could explain being a relicant. Even Pris (just a entertainment model) can stick her hand in boiling water. OK, could be argued that making the Replicant the 'same' as human would allow them to 'believe' they are human longer.
3) Deckard is an older model without super attributes. OK, but why does he have better implanted memories than even Rachael? Tyrell stated Rachael was an experiment and even she was already starting to suspect she was a Replicant. Tyrell also was surprised with the exam results. Assuming he is not a good enough actor, that implies Rachael 'WAS' an experiment and revolutionary. This does not work well with Deckard being implanted too.
4) So there are some ways to argue that Deckard 'is' a replicant. Mabie Tyrell was impressed that Deckard could detect Rachael without hurting his own self image. Could be imagined, but hard to deduce.
5) The unicorn dream is an implant which allows someone to 'convince' Deckard he is a replicant. OK, but explain why this would be done. Does not make sense.
6) Replicants on earth are illegal. Yes Rachael is there, but she is relatively harmless, and an unknown experiment. How could anyone conclude that a Relicant built to hunt Replicants (working for the cops no less) would be safe and allowed? Also, giving him back his gun and letting him go after the job is done makes NO SENSE AT ALL. If he was activated to hunt replicants who get to earth, than he would have been terminated immediately upon completing his job. Not armed and let go.

All in all, I can see the arguments that Deckard is a replicant, but it makes very little sense.

Chris.

Of course it was done for cinematic purposes. The VK test well established that the characters in the story couldn't tell a replicant that way.From your earlier post I (and seemingly others) couldn't tell if you meant that replicants had the eye-glow in the context of the story or just for the audience. Since you clarified that it's the latter, we're on the same page. BTW, I agree with you that nothing in the film originally pointed to Deckard being a replicant.

Sanjay

....
So does anyone else think the little unicorn is a good clue?

Not as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant.

IMO, part of the problem with interpreting this film is that the script writers were writing one film and Scott was filming another film and then someone else came along and tacked in the narration in the theatrical cut.

I think the scriptwriters actually knew they were making a film about the ethics of killing non-humans. AFA Scott is concerned, I think he considered it just another sci-fi action flick like Alien. And this is where the inconsistancies creep in.

I suspect that the origami unicorn was originally inserted by the script writers and that they were playing around with the myth of unicorns and virgins like Scott1094 alluded to in an earlier post and perhaps also playing around a little with the idea of the unicorn's horn healing ability (since both D and R need to be healed in some way) and with the idea that the unicorn is immortal as long as it's horn isn't removed.

For example this quote from wikipedia:

The unicorn also figured in courtly terms: for some thirteenth-century French authors such as Thibaut of Champagne and Richard de Fournival, the lover is attracted to his lady as the unicorn is to the virgin. This courtly version of salvation provided an alternative to God's love and was assailed as heretical

So I think the script writers wanted Gaff to implying that he knows that D is the lover that has found his lady like the unicorn finds the virgin. :o

OTOH, I think Scott hi-jacked the unicorn image for the day-dream sequence. Although, it does occur right after Rachael leaves his apartment so perhaps it's supposed to be a foreshadowing of D and R hooking up.

But all this is just speculation, I really can't come up with any evidence to support any of this.


EDIT: Oooh I just found a really interesting quote in wiki:

One traditional method of hunting unicorns involved entrapment by a virgin.

In one of his notebooks Leonardo da Vinci wrote:

"The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it."

I wonder if one of the script writers were aware of this da Vinci quote. In that case, perhaps the original script included Rachael being used to hunt down and capture D in the end.

For all the techno-futuristic imagery that is beat over your head in this movie, didn't anyone figure in 1982 that there would be a more modern way that far into the future to light a cigarette (a "laser" [making quote mark gesture]) or call somebody (did cellphones hit some sort of evolutionary dead end along the way) ?!Apparently not. The cigarette lighter I could understand, for stylistic/nostalgic reasons. But the pay phone is probably the film makers not predicting how ubiquitous cell phones would be in the future.

It's not uncommon: remember in '2001: A Space Odyssey' Dr. Floyd not only uses a pay phone to call home, but does so by stepping into a phone booth. Having a phone booth, albeit a futuristic looking one, is more a reflection of the times than anything else. I'm fine with that; actually I feel it's one of the charms of older sci-fi movies.

Speaking of older sci-fi films, almost none seemed to predicte the popularity of the internet. During the parts of 'Blade Runner' that are a police procedural, you see Deckard researching clues in several ways, but never by checking information on the 'net.

Sanjay

Apparently not. The cigarette lighter I could understand, for stylistic/nostalgic reasons. But the pay phone is probably the film makers not predicting how ubiquitous cell phones would be in the future.

It's not uncommon: remember in '2001: A Space Odyssey' Dr. Floyd not only uses a pay phone to call home, but does so by stepping into a phone booth. Having a phone booth, albeit a futuristic looking one, is more a reflection of the times than anything else. I'm fine with that; actually I feel it's one of the charms of older sci-fi movies.

Speaking of older sci-fi films, almost none seemed to predicte the popularity of the internet. During the parts of 'Blade Runner' that are a police procedural, you see Deckard researching clues in several ways, but never by checking information on the 'net.

Sanjay

I was watching a documentary on Youtube this summertime just gone; they have been working on video phones or the idea for decades. There was demonstration at the (world’s fair) in New York City around the late 1960’s but the idea never caught on.

Today it’s done though the internet with MSN messenger webcam, and its far cheaper than the phone.

Apparently not. The cigarette lighter I could understand, for stylistic/nostalgic reasons. But the pay phone is probably the film makers not predicting how ubiquitous cell phones would be in the future.

It's not uncommon: remember in '2001: A Space Odyssey' Dr. Floyd not only uses a pay phone to call home, but does so by stepping into a phone booth. Having a phone booth, albeit a futuristic looking one, is more a reflection of the times than anything else. I'm fine with that; actually I feel it's one of the charms of older sci-fi movies.

Speaking of older sci-fi films, almost none seemed to predicte the popularity of the internet. During the parts of 'Blade Runner' that are a police procedural, you see Deckard researching clues in several ways, but never by checking information on the 'net.

Sanjay

Yes. Both the internet and cell phones, although invented, were extremely new technologies at the time and had at least a decade to go before beginning to become the well known publicly used systems of today.

At the time, BR was a uniquly styled vision of the future, and it's style has been copied several times in movies since. But actual technology is a difficult thing to predict.

During a G4TV interview they asked Ridley if Decker was a replicant and he answered yes.

The major technology miss which I noticed were all the clunky CRT monitors -- in the apartment, spinner, videophones, and Voight Kampff. Flat panel LCD research had begun in the 1960s.

During a G4TV interview they asked Ridley if Decker was a replicant and he answered yes.

This is the only movie I can think of wherein the Director's explanation isn't accepted by 90% of its fans.
Usually the Director's word is the law, as far as film buffs are concerned.

Another peculiarity of BR...:cool:

Speaking of older sci-fi films, almost none seemed to predicte the popularity of the internet. During the parts of 'Blade Runner' that are a police procedural, you see Deckard researching clues in several ways, but never by checking information on the 'net. As we progress into "the future," we see more and more that the science fiction writers vastly overstated the speed of societal change. We live in a world that would feel very familiar to Ozzie and Harriet; sadly, there are still no flying cars.

As for the internet - while I can't think of any stories predicted the communication aspects of the internet, there are many stories with all-knowing computers with vast stores of knowledge.

This is the only movie I can think of wherein the Director's explanation isn't accepted by 90% of its fans.
Usually the Director's word is the law, as far as film buffs are concerned.

Another peculiarity of BR...:cool: Huh? I don't think it unusual at all. There are been a strong shift in artistic analysis to understand works of art by the work itself, irregardless of the intent and/or motivation of the creator. I don't know of any film or critic where the director's word is taken as law.

As far as fans and film, there have been countless movies where fans disagreed or disbelieved a director about the meaning or motivation of their film. The most extreme cases are when a director says something long after the making of the film for which there is no obvious evidence in the film, nor any evidence in the real work that the director held these views at the time the film was made (see Lucas comma George).

The major technology miss which I noticed were all the clunky CRT monitors -- in the apartment, spinner, videophones, and Voight Kampff. Flat panel LCD research had begun in the 1960s.

Agreed. I can live with the other "misses" because its impossible to predict where technologies are going with 100% certainty (besides, people still use pay phones despite cellular technology being the norm and people still use lighters that feature the same technology that my Grandpa used), but the CRT sets used in this film were straight out of the current day... flat panels or holo-panels would seem an easy guess to me.

However, its a film and the point of it wasn't to showcase LA technology in the near-future so I'm not losing any sleep over it.

But, I always said to myself that if I made a ethically/morally heavy sci-fi film I would set it far enough into the future to make anything I add acceptable, meaning old technologies may have resurfaced for economic reasons and things that may or may not ever be invented can be explained away because its so far into the future we are nowhere near inventing anything similar...

Like if I made BR I would have set the date at 2419 or something a few more hundred years in the future...

Like if I made BR I would have set the date at 2419 or something a few more hundred years in the future...
Someone did already. And there's that golden glow in the eyes. :eek:
http://www.thebestlinks.com/images/thumb/1/1a/300px-Spiner_as_Data.jpg

For those of you in "Deckard is a Replicant" school, I just noticed something in chapter 7 (0:22:12 - 0:22:20) of The Final Cut that may seal the fate of that belief. If Tyrell (creator of Replicant) says that, then it's pretty clear what Deckard is or isn't. ;)
What say you?

Ridley Scott certainly leaves nothing up in the air during his commentary. He says he is a replicant. Says it many times. With the Unicorn seen now full as Scott intended I have to say that I must go along with this. Scott IS the director. It IS his film.

That's just my opinion. :)

Scott IS the director. It IS his film.

That's just my opinion. :) And Scott's opinion is just his opinion.

The question in these situation is who to believe - the director or your lying eyes. If Scott told us the Deckard was one of those wind-up toys, would you believe him? If he said Decard was a woman, would you believe him? If there's a conflict between what we see on screen, and what the director says, what's on screen is more important to me.

Blade Runner is an extreme case of this, as there is circumstantial evidence that Scott is just goofing on the fans. When he was making the movie, he told nobody else involved in the making of the movie that he wanted Deckard to be a replicant. He gave interviews at the time, and never mentioned it. It was only years later that Scott mentioned it.

Scott IS the director. It IS his film.
What about the direction the producer wanted to take and the screenwriters who were working under? Here's an interesting condition they are faced with.

"Changes in movie distribution and marketing in the 1970s and '80s gave rise to the modern-day phenomenon of the Hollywood blockbuster, which tended to bring power back into the hands of the producer. While marketing and advertising for films accentuates the role of the director, apart from a few well-known film makers it is usually the producer who has the greatest degree of control in the American film industry." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_producer

In my opinion, R. Scott believes it would raise sales by adding ambiguity via comments like "Deckard is a Replicant". More publicity, more sales. In a way, we are doing him a favor right now. Oh man, aren't we a bunch of suckers! :mad:

Like I said, I have my opinion based on what Scott is saying. But unlike many, I am not going to debate it or get all worked up over it. After all, it is just a movie. :)

Ridley Scott certainly leaves nothing up in the air during his commentary. He says he is a replicant. Says it many times. With the Unicorn seen now full as Scott intended I have to say that I must go along with this. Scott IS the director. It IS his film.

That's just my opinion. :)

Matt_Stevens

Oh we know it’s his film vision of the story and we all about the politics about the production of getting this on the DVD market. WOW that was DEEP and LOW I was listening to some classic FM music some kind of gothic music that had a pulsing tone towards the last 30 seconds that was pressing on my ears!!!!:eek::p

Merry Christmas to you and you’re family today.:)

And Scott's opinion is just his opinion.

The question in these situation is who to believe - the director or your lying eyes. If Scott told us the Deckard was one of those wind-up toys, would you believe him? If he said Decard was a woman, would you believe him? If there's a conflict between what we see on screen, and what the director says, what's on screen is more important to me.

Blade Runner is an extreme case of this, as there is circumstantial evidence that Scott is just goofing on the fans. When he was making the movie, he told nobody else involved in the making of the movie that he wanted Deckard to be a replicant. He gave interviews at the time, and never mentioned it. It was only years later that Scott mentioned it.

Well, yes, I would. At the end of the day BR is Scott's film and considering many of the scenes that help the "Deckard is a replicant" theory are on the directors and/or final cut of the film help nullify your theory that Scott never said anything alluding to Deckard being a replicant during its original theatrical run. We all know he wasn't happy with the cuts made to the film and the forced narration he had to add...I suspect all the talking he did prior to the directors cut in 92 was just that... generic talking from a director who felt one of his masterpieces was butchered beyond his control.

I also adhere to Scott's explanation of the derelict ship in Alien being thought of as a type of carrier of biological weapons (the Alien face hugger eggs) which he never spoke about until recent ALien DVD commentaries were released.

Im not saying we cant come up with out own conclusions, but Ill stick with what Scott has to say about the film. Likewise, Ill stick to what Dick has to say about the novel.

Well, yes, I would. At the end of the day BR is Scott's film and considering many Many? of the scenes that help the "Deckard is a replicant" theory are on the directors and/or final cut of the film help nullify your theory that Scott never said anything alluding to Deckard being a replicant during its original theatrical run. We all know he wasn't happy with the cuts made to the film and the forced narration he had to add...Take a look at what Scott was upset about - narrations, happy-endings. See all the opportunity he had to mention the replicant thing. Note that he didn't. Just as he never told anyone making the movie about it.

How many of you have come up with one conclusion after watching The Final Cut and another after hearing R. Scott words on Deckard’s identity? Personally, I would count his action over his words.

The Final Cut, which was released per his approval, has some ambiguous moments that may raise questions and add to the complexity of the movie itself. Movies with simple plot and predictability seem to have less than 4 year lifespan. :o Just the fact that people are still interested in talking about it even after 25 years shows the clever work that went into this movie which I appreciate R. Scott for but as for my conclusion, I would base it on the work itself, not his words. ;)

^Well said.
In spite of RS's explanation of Deckard is a replicant, I don't put much credence on it.
What is on the disk is what counts....as far as I am concerned.

How many of you have come up with one conclusion after watching The Final Cut and another after hearing R. Scott words on Deckard’s identity? Personally, I would count his action over his words.

The Final Cut, which was released per his approval, has some ambiguous moments that may raise questions and add to the complexity of the movie itself. Movies with simple plot and predictability seem to have less than 4 year lifespan. :o Just the fact that people are still interested in talking about it even after 25 years shows the clever work that went into this movie which I appreciate R. Scott for but as for my conclusion, I would base it on the work itself, not his words. ;)

My conclusion is that their is sufficient evidence to make a case for either argument and after watching the final cut (for the 2nd time) I can go either way.

And because some of you perceived the final cut as portraying Deckard not being a replicant doesn't mean other people can't perceive the film in the opposite light. As I said, their are just enough maybes in the final cut to make a case for Deckard being a replicant so saying that the film speaks for itself is a bit misleading...

Nice sharing good work on net

2 little details that stood out to me as ridiculously out of place was Rachael using a flick-lighter to light a cigarette and Decker using a payphone. For all the techno-futuristic imagery that is beat over your head in this movie, didn't anyone figure in 1982 that there would be a more modern way that far into the future to light a cigarette (a "laser" [making quote mark gesture]) or call somebody (did cellphones hit some sort of evolutionary dead end along the way) ?! ;) I mean, c'mon...they've perfected the science of "more human than human" replicants, and the best way to light a cigarette is still to strike a piece of steel against a flint? :p

Blade Runner was never intended to be a hard scientific vision of the future. The movie blends the styles of many time periods from the 40s to the 80s into its futuristic world.

My conclusion is that their is sufficient evidence to make a case for either argument and after watching the final cut (for the 2nd time) I can go either way.

And because some of you perceived the final cut as portraying Deckard not being a replicant doesn't mean other people can't perceive the film in the opposite light. As I said, their are just enough maybes in the final cut to make a case for Deckard being a replicant so saying that the film speaks for itself is a bit misleading...
I wouldn’t say it’s misleading if someone says “I conclude that Deckard is a human based on …”. It’s just a conclusion made by that person. It would be misleading if a person said “Deckard is a Replicant.”

I’m just pointing out that in The Final Cut, what Tyrell tells Deckard in chapter 7 about Replicants having only a few years of life experience to base their reactions on and by providing a cushion of memories “which you and I take for granted”, is much more of a clear cut case than bits and pieces of ambiguous scenes such as unicorn daydream and origami of it on the floor.

Blade Runner was never intended to be a hard scientific vision of the future. The movie blends the styles of many time periods from the 40s to the 80s into its futuristic world.

The points I was making were mostly to just poke some fun at the visionary future theme of this movie (which is, otherwise, quite fantastic). No need to take it so seriously as to feel the need to defend the movie with something along the lines of "director intent". :p

I just thought it looked a bit funny that Decker needs to use a pay phone just to contact Rachael in that techno era. Maybe Ridley should have deliberately specified a rotary dialer to really set off this techno-mash-up videophone? ;)

Even the mechanical lighter could have used some techno-updating. Why in the world would there be such a crude, lowest-common-denominator of technology device in some room of a corporation which is supposedly the zenith of technological achievement in that world that makes more-human-than-human replicants and has a fancy-shmancy owl-bot flying around in the room? The least they can afford is a plastic Bic with a flint striker? C'mon! Why even bother with the zany auto-dimming skyline windows, when Rachael could have just yanked on a string to bring down some nostalgic veneer shades, right? :p

...
I just thought it looked a bit funny that Decker needs to use a pay phone just to contact Rachael in that techno era. Maybe Ridley should have deliberately specified a rotary dialer to really set off this techno-mash-up videophone? ;)

...

Maybe they are being really far-sighted and are predicting that the incredibly obnoxious behavior of cell phone owners in the early 2000's will lead bar owners to jam cell signals and thus the need for Deckard to use a pay phone. :p :D ;)

Perhaps! :) ...but then shouldn't smoking, as well, have been outlawed everywhere by then (let alone while you are at work)? ;) Something tells me the standards of personal conduct in the Blade Runner world were relatively lax, in a dystopian civilization that was most assuredly in the final throws of "swirling the drain".

Deckard Is Human!:D

Perhaps! :) ...but then shouldn't smoking, as well, have been outlawed everywhere by then (let alone while you are at work)? ;) Something tells me the standards of personal conduct in the Blade Runner world were relatively lax, in a dystopian civilization that was most assuredly in the final throws of "swirling the drain".

All of those elements in BR are taken from film noir.
A deliberate attempt by RS to evoke a gritty, less than enthusiastic world where life is cheap and the individual is insignificant.

No doubt about that. I'm not quite sure if our comments are really in disagreement. In a film noir world, where you choose to smoke or use (or not use) a cellphone would not strike me as particularly high concerns.

shouldn't smoking, as well, have been outlawed everywhere by thenIt appears everyone will have to smoke by then to have "conditioned their lungs" to the pollution. Obviously the filmmakers should have set the story in China and not La-la land! Arnold rules!

The irony, after having viewed the behind the scenes interviews, is that the poor air quality of the "simulated" environment had an actual impact on the real actors and crew as the film was shot. This wasn't just a "fake" smoky atmosphere they were acting in. They were really filling the set with thick, thick smoke!

Back in the eighties "smoked sets" were the big thing. There's much less of that now.

I wouldn’t say it’s misleading if someone says “I conclude that Deckard is a human based on …”. It’s just a conclusion made by that person. It would be misleading if a person said “Deckard is a Replicant.”

I’m just pointing out that in The Final Cut, what Tyrell tells Deckard in chapter 7 about Replicants having only a few years of life experience to base their reactions on and by providing a cushion of memories “which you and I take for granted”, is much more of a clear cut case than bits and pieces of ambiguous scenes such as unicorn daydream and origami of it on the floor.

Tyrell was also trying to engineer replicants that thought they were human, aka Racheal. Also, prior to Deckard discovering she was a replicant, Tyrell had no intention of telling her she was one...in fact, that whole scene, IMO, was to test out his new models ability to pass off as a human...

... so based on that series of events why would Tyrell tell Deckard he is a replicant when its in Tyrell's best interest to make Deckard think he is human?

Well, if you think about it, that whole scene would have been a big waste of time for Tyrell, since it would have been a flawed test from the start. A replicant performing a VK test on another replicant- what would that prove? How do you know that a replicant performing a VK test on someone else isn't adding an extra (and needless) degree of uncertainty in the result? How do you know if a replicant asking such emotionally tedious questions isn't going to freak himself out, and in turn, skew the test results by cueing the test subject? How do you know that a replicant performing a VK test hasn't gotten wise that he is "fingering" his own kind by doing so, and subsequentially decides to just give a "passing" result to any replicants he detects to protect their native origin?

There just seems to be no reason anybody other than a properly trained human should be performing a VK test on someone else.

...and if Tyrell has actually reached the point of "human-illusion" in replicants that is implied in a "Decker is a replicant" theory, what would even be the point of having a "Rachael" experiment? If Decker-replicant is/has already been "released for field use", then clearly Tyrell Corp development has already reached an AI stage that surpasses Rachael-replicant.

Like a said earlier, that whole scene would have been an entire waste of time for Tyrell- a "more emotionally advanced" replicant performing VK test on an" experimental", but earlier model of replicant? It just seems the theory falls apart entirely at that point, imo.

Tyrell was also trying to engineer replicants that thought they were human, aka Racheal. Also, prior to Deckard discovering she was a replicant, Tyrell had no intention of telling her she was one...in fact, that whole scene, IMO, was to test out his new models ability to pass off as a human...

... so based on that series of events why would Tyrell tell Deckard he is a replicant when its in Tyrell's best interest to make Deckard think he is human?
I personally did not notice any hint of Tyrell trying to keep a secret (acting wise) from Deckard during the memory implant explanation in chapter 7. In other words, it didn’t look like the director tried to address it.

What about Holden at the beginning of the movie? Is he a Replicant running VK on Leon? And Gaff, perhaps he shares unicorn images because it's been implanted to him as well? Or is the entire police force made up with Replicants? Well, why not if one wants to take that route.


Interesting point Hanky.

Is it possible that Ridley Scott accidentally mixed up his manuscripts and made a film adaption of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (pilot titles in the vein of: "Blade Snatchers" or "Dangerous Snatches") instead of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? :D

I think it's time for a remake of Blade Runner. This time, it will be released in two versions simultaneously. Though maybe 90% or so of the versions will be identical, the remaining scenes will demonstrate conclusively that Deckard is human in one version and a replicant in the other. Now, if we could only find an audience for it.....

Deckard Is Human!:D

ACTUALLY!!!!!


RIDLEY SCOTT IS A REPLICANT

I enjoyed "The Final Cut," but was surprised by a couple of things that were not changed. For example, when Deckard uses Leon's photo for surveillance (obviously not possible as portrayed, but it's sci-fi), the scanner always had the same numbers rolling up in response to his voice commands. That would have been a relatively simple fix, but RS didn't bother.

Similarly, the fact that the music Rachel played did not match the music on the sheet would have been fairly easy to fix, but he didn't bother.

I did like the removal of the movie's lone profanity and replacement with the word "father." It emphasized the "Prodigal Son" angle on that scene. Of course, the prodigal son did not then squish his father's head...

I did like the removal of the movie's lone profanity and replacement with the word "father."I haven't heard mention of this before and look forward to it when I do sit-down to watch it all-the-way thru (have only scanned to-date). I can already say though that I am most appreciative that they did fix Zhora's retirement where previously a stuntwoman was clearly in play.

WTF was the point of sticking in a two-second shot of a couple of women in hockey masks twenty-five years after the fact?

Did one of those women need a screen credit in order to get their SAG card?