Deckard is Human or Replicant? - Page 24  

It works either way because there's nothing to preclude Deckert from being a replicant within the TE, but I personally believe the ambiguity was an afterthought, based upon nothing more than Deckert's brief reaction upon finding the origami unicorn. His expression doesn't reflect a fundamental revelation about himself. It's more a look of concern, followed by a slight nod, as in: "Uh oh, he was here........but he's letting us go". Of course, he could also remain oblivious, while only the audience is in on it. *shrug*


Other than the rather insignificant discontinuity I pointed out above, How?

Exactly. It's good to see a few here get it. Are you paying attention RTO?

Absolutely, but apparently some of you haven't been paying attention

I've repeatedly tried to make clear that there's no distinction between human and replicant, other than certain replicant capabilities which have no impact on their humanity. There is no meaningful difference in the way they work, behave, love, reflect, dream, and cling to life in fear of their own mortality. If there's no real distinction between human and replicant, your points are meaningless.

So you think that Roy's act of sparing the life of Deckard is of equal significance whether he (Deckard) is human (the species who are persecuting the replicants and wants them dead) or replicant (one of his own kind)?

It does not work both ways and the reasons have been posted already.

"insignificant discontinuity" is just that because RS tried to change what's already done as one theme. It would've been different if the whole thing was made to be another theme from the beginning. For that matter, the alteration is a bit of compromise. I’ll revert back to artist’s painting analogy.

There’s nothing in the movie that suggests such thing. But it can be a valid point if you start stretching things. Heck, anything can be a valid point if stretched far enough!


“If Roy isn't fully human”, “If he doesn't have a soul” ??? One of those symbolic pictures maybe? Yeah, lets stretch it. Well, Roy knew that his life span is nearing the end when his hand started to close on its own (cramp?) and he had to put a nail through it to relax it after saying “not yet, not yet”.


Replicants do have their own memories but only 4 years long at the most. Maybe longer for Rachael. See below.


They are equal in intelligence of the engineers who created them as explained in text at the beginning of the movie. Also, they develop their own emotion (love, hate, anger… etc) per Capt. Bryant’s briefing to Deckard.

In either case, Roy recognizes the humanity within himself and empathizes for Deckard's predicament. If Deckard were a replicant, it would imply that Roy can not only see his own humanity but also sees the importance of life in other machines. It is interesting to think that Roy can see the value in saving the life of a human, but I think it is more interesting to think that Roy can see the value in saving the life of another machine.

I personally don't care whether Deckard was a human or a replicant. I think that it works both ways. On the one hand I think that a replicant not knowing he is a replicant who is then programmed to unknowingly hunt down and kill his own kind is an interesting story. On the other hand, I think that a human questioning what makes an individual human and then falling in love with someone he knows is a machine is also interesting.

If Deckert is a replicant, Roy isn't aware of it, so it makes no difference. Even if he somehow knew, it wouldn't change the fact that Deckert killed some of his friends along with his lover, so the same measure of mercy would be necessary to spare his life.

The entire premise of the film, is that there is no distinction between human and replicant, with respect to what defines humanity, for good, or ill.

It's a false analogy. This change isn't significant in the least, you're just imagining that it is.

Demonstrably false assertion. The questions were there, and the DC removed the doubt.

It's only a stretch in your mind. Others clearly differ in finding it not so much of a stretch, so it's a matter of opinion, not fact.


Then why the dove? In Western culture, it's a traditional, essentially universal symbol for the human spirit or soul. Sorry, but nothing about this is a stretch in the least, in fact, I'd say it's as plain as the nose on your face.


Whether the memories are implanted or not, is irrelevant. Implanted memories are no less real to the replicant carrying them than their memories of actual events, or any 'normal' humans' memory of actual events. Remember at one point Rachel is playing the piano, and she says that she doesn't know if her ability is due to actual lessons, or implanted memories of them.

For those of you who are apparently having difficulty getting past labeling which this film clearly illustrates is actually meaningless and arbitrary, imagine for a moment that instead of 'replicants', Roy and his pals are lo-tech, carried-in-the womb humans who were genetically altered with special abilities and drastically abbreviated lifespans to serve as slaves on off-world colonies, forever banished from their home-world. Would any of their actions seem out of character for fully human beings; simultaneously capable of murderous retribution, selfless love and sacrifice?

Indeed, rto, that with which Tyrell imbued the replicants seemed to them like LIFE. When Tyrell asked Roy what he wanted, Roy replied, "I want more LIFE, Father." (FC version; theatrical release through DC had the movie's lone obscenity in place of the paternal nod. I think the FC line works better, given the "prodigal son" angle.)

True. But none of that has any bearing on whether or not Deckard is a replicant. It also has no bearing on the theme of the film. As I said before, you are getting lost in the details of the film, and overlooking the overall story arc represented.

One more time: The film is about Deckard. It's HIS story. Also, regarding Deckard, one overwhelming fact that is just completely getting ignored by the 'replicant' crowd, is the fact that Replicants are incapable of empathy. It's the very thing that the VK test is based on.

Deckard shows overwhelming empathy throughout the entire film. When tapped for the mission, he's a 'quit' Blade Runner drowning his sorrows. Why? Empathy for his 'victims'. He only takes the mission because he's forced. As he systematically starts retiring the 'Skin Jobs', he shows enormous empathy for every replicant he retires. As the story moves along he completely falls for Rachael. A known Replicant. All of these things Deckard displays are very 'empathetic'.

The most poignant part of the film, which several have already brought up, was Roy saving Deckards life. The questions is raised, 'why?' The later deleted VO addresses some of the reasons. But with or without the VO, is appears that Roy had developed a sense of 'empathy'. And this last part with Roy, completely falls apart into meaninglessness, if Deckard isn't Human.

And BTW, his name is 'Deckard'. Not Deckart.

This is self-contradictory. If replicants are truly incapable of empathy, how has Roy developed that capacity? You keep asserting that if Deckard is a replicant, the final scene doesn't work, but still haven't supplied a single credible reason as to why.

Rutgar, your most recent post is a very good one, but the opinions you express in it are unconvincing. Not to mention, explicitly rejected by the director.

Your notes on empathy are very good, and I agree that empathy is a key factor in the story of the characters in "Blade Runner." As you noted, Roy seems to develop it. As you probably noticed but did not note, Rachel also seems to have some empathy. Her V-K test took unusually long, and Tyrell explained that it was because she didn't know she's a replicant, but was "beginning to suspect." (Also interesting is Rachel's challenge to Deckard: "You ever take that test yourself?")

Wouldn't it be interesting if another "experiment" of Tyrell's was a replicant who is so like the slogan "more human than human" that he is completely unaware of his own nature, and whose job it is to hunt and kill rogue replicants? Yes, that would be interesting. And that's the story Ridley Scott tells in his movie.

I don't think my view of the 'Roy' scene is being contradictory at all. I didn't conclude that Roy developed 'empathy', and I don't think the film does. It just opens the ambiguous possibility at the end, which is what makes it a poignant moment. Like I said, the VO in the theatrical release explores Roy's motives more deeply.

Rachael: In the scene where Rachael asks if Deckard has ever taken the VK test himself. You have to look at the context. I saw this scene as nothing more than a 'dig' from Rachael because at the moment, Deckard wasn't being very 'empathetic' to her situation. But looking closer at Deckard, it was quite clear that he had tremendous empathy for Rachael and was in personal conflict. So I think the question isn't as much evidence that Deckard is a replicant, than it is questioning Deckard's humanity, thus a plot device to further move Deckard toward Rachael.

Nevertheless, Rutgar, the theme of the film is still quite satisfying to those of us who do not deny the director his choice in having told the story as he did. Seeing Deckard as a replicant as the director presents him does not destroy the deeper questions of "HIS (Deckard's) story," it just opens other questions for consideration. Still a very entertaining and thought-provoking movie, even after the question of Deckard's humanity was asked and answered.

This is like watching an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" play out before our eyes.

You completely glossed over the point that I made. It most certainly is NOT the "same measure of mercy" if Deckard is a replicant.

Again: So you think that Roy's act of sparing the life of Deckard is of equal significance whether he (Deckard) is human (the species who are persecuting the replicants and wants them dead) or replicant (one of his own kind)?

How can one be the same as the other? If Deckard is human, Roy is overcoming more by sparing Deckards life, such as prejudice against humans.

And even if Roy thought Deckard was human (but wasnt), it still shows how that question impacts the story....despite the fact that you said it doesn't make any difference.

There's absolutely nothing ambiguous about the fact that Roy spares the life of someone who killed his friends, blew a gaping hole through his lover, and made every effort to take him out. How many of us could do that? Replicant, or human, it makes no difference, because by this point in the film, it's become evident that the distinction is artificial.

I was thinking this:

But it DOES make a difference. You are correct as to the fact that he still shows great passion by sparing his life even if Deckard is a replicant.

But there is even more passion shown if he is human for the reason I stated. Surely you can concede that (simple) point?

So that's your answer? Ignore eveything presented in the film and go by what you think the Director's 'intent' was? If that's what works for you, that's fine. Personally, I prefer to take from films what I actually 'see' in the film, and not from what the Director says externally many years later his 'intent' was (which contradicts his position when the film was actually made, as has been stated.)

Frankly, I think that if you base your argument on what Scott said... you lose the debate. What counts, is what's in the film. I can keep quoting Harrison Ford, who said that he and Scott agreed that Deckard was Human when they were making the film. So I think basing you opinion on anything that was said external to the actual film itself is moot.

The problem is, the "question" was never asked during the movie's initial theatrical run, or in the intervening years, only "answered" in an interview a decade or so after the film had originally been released, likely just to generate controversy and addition sales. As has been pointed out, ad nauseum, there's nothing in the film that points to him being a replicant other than a brief piece of footage from an entirely different movie spliced into a new cut years later. And, as also been pointed out, there is plenty of evidence in the movie, even in the newer cuts, that points quite clearly to him being merely human. I mentioned a couple of those yesterday in this thread, which nobody was able to refute with contrary evidence.

Finally, it's just a better movie thematically if he's human, which has also been adequately explained. Simple as that, really. Yet, the debate rages on.

You persist in making false distinctions. Roy is a replicant who has demonstrated a transcendently human capacity for compassionate mercy, in saving an individual who just offed his lover. The notion that Roy would somehow naturally be more motivated to kill a human than another replicant under those circumstances, is spurious, as is the notion that he'd be more likely to save one over the other.

Uh...ok.

No, I view the film and see that Deckard is a replicant. That's what the film says to me. It says something different to some other people. That's cool; opinions are our own.

Then, later, the director chimes in. He explicitly says the interpretation of Deckard as a replicant was correct (where "correct" simply means it was his intent). He recuts the movie to remove the ambiguities that led to the debate.

--------------------------------------

Those of you claiming that the debate only started after the DC are simply factually incorrect. I was aware of the debate prior to the DC, particularly once the CAV LD from Criterion was released, and I studied it in 1988. Anecdotal evidence: I shared the movie on LD in 1991 with someone who'd never seen it. She pointed out that Deckard's eyes glowed just like those synthetic animals. She said she thought Deckard was a replicant. I hadn't prompted any such discussion, but then replied that there is a big debate about that issue.

Some contended (pre-DC) that there was other evidence of Deckard being a replicant, beyond the eye-glow. Some pointed to a line from Gaff that was cut short: "You've done a man's job, Sir. [But are you a man?]" Some pointed to the unicorn dream that had been cut from the TC. This was BEFORE the DC was released.

So, the timeline is thus:
1982: TC is released. Some debate Deckard's humanity or replicant status.
~1987: Criterion's CAV LD is released. Aspects of the debate are addressed in the supplements.
1992: DC is released. RS restores the primary item that supported the previously-debated position that Deckard was a replicant.
RS states explicitly that he considered Deckard a replicant. This did not start the debate. (But it obviously didn't end it, either.)

Closed.