Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Noodle all you want, but I think you're really inventing concepts that don't relate to the reality of the film. Like I said in a slightly earlier post, I see nothing in the movie that counters the concept that Rachael is a replicant. Y'know, if we really wanted to do so, we could dig into the flick and find reasons to call all the human characters replicants, and we could find reasons to call most of the replicants humans. (Batty's really the only one whose replicant status seems to be totally without question due to his death scene.)

But what's the point? Other than Deckard, the only one open to analysis is Tyrell himself, and even that interpretation receives credence mostly because of material planned for the film but not shot/used. If we're told someone is a replicant, I see no reason to question that...

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

In my observation, Deckard is a
Warning Spoiler! Click to show Why? I just think he was desensitised to all the "retiring" of Replicants and just needed a break from it all.
He was probably tired of his job being a BLADE RUNNER and was planning on taking a much needed vacation before taking on the task for the rest of the film.
(I'll edit this more later. Going to include Ray McCoy too.)

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Someone mentioned he needs "evidence". Why? Blade Runner would be a different kind of film if it provided the audience with "evidence". Blade Runner does however have a strong visual narrative which is endlessly more powerful than its verbal narrative. Many visual clues have already been discussed here, with the unicorn reverie (linking to Gaff's origami) being the most obvious of them all. There's the glowing eye effect. Deckard's eyes glow when he's in the background saying to Rachael, "No, but somebody else will." There's the obsession with his precious photos. One of the photos (cut from movie) even shows Deckard and his ex-wife standing on the same porch that we know from Rachael's photograph. Another clue might be Holden. Some viewers mistake Morgan Paull for Harrison Ford. Is this done deliberatly? Is it meant for our subconscious mind to think that all Blade Runners have the same appearance? Are they coming from the same assembly line? And apparantly, Holden's eyes glow too just before he gets shot by Leon Kowalski.

Of course, none of this is evidence but if you put them all together then you cannot deny the author's intent. In the back of Scott's mind, Deckard is definitely a replicant. Okay, the character wasn't written that way. It wasn't in the script but somehow Ridley has managed to paint this assertion on his canvas. If you don't see it, you're missing the author's intent.


Alex

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Whether Deckard is human or not is irrelevant. He believes he is human. From everything shown in the movie Deckard displays ordinary physical and mental attributes. A difference which is no difference, is no difference.

What he learns about the value of life is what is matters.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Not only that but, if he is a replicant, it's pretty clear that it needs to remain top secret to the public since, not only are they illegal, but even if they were legalized they would likely be feared/hated by the public. If other people were to see Deckard's superior strength then it wouldn't be a secret very long. I assumed that he was an experiment that Tyrell was doing, likely with the support of the higher-ups in the LAPD. While "normal" strength may not be optimal for survivability, one of the advantages of using a replicant to hunt other replicants (a job that is clearly incredibly hazardous) is that they are expendable.

Watching the film for the first time in a while last night, one thing really stood out to me. Deckard doesn't really live up to his billing as the top of the heap of Blade Runners. If they hadn't been interrupted in the dressing room, Zhora probably would have killed him, Leon would have killed him without Rachel's intervention, and Batty obviously could have killed him. Triss is the only one where it was close and I believe she was the only one that didn't have the super-strength of the others.

Further, he's not even that good of an investigator. The Zhora investigation if fine, but certainly not brilliant, but Leon *finds him*, not the other way around, and he's gets directed to the Bradbury from his boss. Really, Deckard does very little in the way of pushing forward the investigation.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Watch Blade Runner. It's a really great film where the hero is completely crap at everything he does.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

This has been a really great thread. Enjoyed reading it, although its late and I'm bleary eyed. Don't know if others have covered these few points.

The argument that its illogical for the police to use Deckard as a blade runner, knowing he is a replicant, is faulty. We have no idea if the police even know that Deckard is indeed a replicant. Seems to me Tyrell has the police on a string. Corporations are apparently extremely powerful in this future and it wouldn't surprise me if they are above the law and managed to get the replicant onto the force without the police being aware.

If Deckard is indeed a replicant, and Tyrell was responsible for putting him there, it would make sense for them to design Deckard to be as weak as a human and potentially ineffective.

Doesn't the movie itself make it obvious how powerful Tyrell is? In one moment we are told that replicants are illegal on earth. In the very next moment, Bryant sends Deckard over to the Tyrell corporation to 'put a replicant on the machine'. Aren't replicants illegal on earth? What is one doing running around at Tyrell? Shouldn't they be built, perhaps briefly tested, then shipped off to the colonies where they are legal?

On another point most of us probably can agree that it was a positive thing that the better cuts of the film exclude the 'happy happy' ending with Rachel and Deckard driving away into the sunset. However, after having watched the deleted scenes recently, there WAS something very interesting there.

In the driving away scene, Rachel tells Deckard that this is the happiest day of her life. She then adds to that "I think we were made for each other". Deckard gives Rachel a rather incredulous look after she says this. Given that Rachel knows and accepts that she is a replicant at this point, I think its pretty interesting dialogue.

Hmmm.

I guess just another example of Ridleys true intention with Deckard.

Personally, I do prefer that Deckard not be a replicant, but I can see the accumulated evidence (what was and was not included in the final cut) and can see what the intent of the director was, and I accept it. It doesn't diminish the film for me, but rather does force me to consider many exchanges in the movie differently.

I can live with that.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I've also found the debate enjoyable, but any direct conclusion is ultimately hollow. As Fancher points out, the question is fascinating but the answer is stupid. Very similar to two more recent (but not nearly as active) debates regarding two 2006 films: Pan's Labyrinth (is the fantasy world "real") and The Fountain (is Future Tom "real"). Oddly enough, both of those are films directed by men clearly influenced by Blade Runner itself.

In the end, in those debates, I found the same conclusion for myself that I do for Blade Runner. The question is a mechanism for a higher truth. The point of Blade Runner, to me, is that there is no difference between a replicant and a human. There are clearly surface differences (physical and mental attributes, lifespan), but the measure of humanity lies in the choices someone makes. In the end, Batty is more human because of his mercy...a mercy not shown to him by his creators. The reason the question endures is profound - what is human? What is "real"?

Does the enormity of the themes rest on Deckard being one or the other? I don't believe it does. Either way, he has a clearer vision of his life, of humanity at the end of the film.

As for what the director believes...the film is shared art between the creator and the audience. My input can be as meaningful as his. I understand his interpretation, and it may or may not be mine. In short, there isn't a right answer...not from Dick, not from Ford, and not from Scott.

The point of Deckard being Batty's "brother" is that we are all replicants - we are placed into this world, shaped by forces beyond our control, and subject to uncontrollable limitations. We will all die. What defines us, what we control, are the choices we make. Whether he is a replicant or human does not change any of those observations.

What makes the story work for you?

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I shall chip in a bit of late defense for the 'HE ISN'T' case.

Scott did not write this.
He simply MIS-READ it. Then he has this rubbish in his head.

There is nothing in the film, bar a throwaway daydream which could mean other things, that backs up him being a 'Replicant'.
And the false reasons people use can be easily shot down, while all the reason why he isn't are simple facts.

Oft used rubbish reason #1
The red eyes.
Do people who call themselves big fans of this (I'm only a casual fan myself) really use this?
So pray tell, why do you need trained Blade Runners to ask dozens of questions while staring at the Replicants IN THE EYE to find out if they are one then?
Why does Deckard need nearly 100 questions to find out Rachael is a Replicant when, before he has asked a single one, her eyes glow red as she puffs on the cigarette?

If it was THAT easy (freakin red glowing eyes!) to tell a Replicant why does half the film even exist?
To me these are just artistic lighting touches that mean nothing plotwise. Just like there is no way you could get that flickering lighting, like it's reflecting off water, effect when we first see Rachael walking towards Deackard. There's nowhere for that light to come from (this was even mentioned in the documentary) but Scott wanted it for artistic reasons.


Oft used rubbish reason #2
The photos Deackard has.
Another farcical clutching at straws. OH LOOK, he has photos of his family around the place, and Replicants like to keep photos.
Yeah, but who kept photos first? MAN or Replicant? Yes that's right it was MAN.
MAN keeps photos of friends and family and what ARE Replicants? Androids made to be like Humans, androids who attempt to be like MAN.
So Deckard's photos do not prove he's a Replicant, they just show he's a normal Human with a family, something the Replicants are COPYING. Not the other way around.

Oft used rubbish reason #3
The dreaded Unicorn.
Well first lets have a few facts here. It was not in the book, it was not in the original screenplay, people on the film at th e time wondered what the hell Ridley was doing.
On it's own it proves nothing at all of course, it's simply a daydream.
Of what? Freedom? Escape? A creature made up by man like those Deckard hunts.

The little origami figure? Well Gaff has been making all sorts of things throughout the film. He's also a shrewed man, he can see what makes people tick. Which is why he leaves a figure of a Man in Leon the Replicants flat. The naughty little scamp.
He knows Deckard wants out, knows he hates the job, knows he's falling in love with a Replicant. The unicorn then was just ironic. Coincidental irony, which is why Deckard smiles at just how close Gaff truly is.
It's also a sign that says he was there and could have killed/captured Rachael but did not. It's also a warning as the majestic creature of myth was hunted out of existence by man, in almost all fiction where Unicorn's appear thay are the last, or the ones in danger.
It was a sign, a joke, irony, shrewdness and a warning. It was not 'proof' Deckard is a Replicant. And as for it not being proof he isn't....you can't prove a negative.


And that's it! No other dubious reasons are used that I've seen of heard and all have just been debunked.

And when you add the plain old FACTS that point to him being Human the case falls apart.

Why make a Replicant (like Rachael) who does not know he is one and then give him a job hunting Replicants when at the same time you have supposedly (as what other explanation is there for it!!??) made him as weak as a Human to keep him in the dark?
Surely, like Rachael, you would give him a different job!
Deckard gets beaten up, thrown around and would have been dead at least twice if outside chance had not stepped in, or he was saved.
This supposed Replicant has his hand crippled by broken fingers, while Batty can shove a freakin nail through his palm and feel nothing!
Deckard can't make a jump that Batty makes with ease.
Deckard has not even got the strength to pull himself up! Yet Batty does it with one hand!

If they were THAT eager to see their experimental Replicant destroyed why not just drop off a cliff!
And what is the entire point of this supposed plot? Lets send a really weak Replicant after these escaped dangerous ones because.........
Yeah. i don't know either!

And Deckard does not seem to just have memories and photos. He seems to have been known by people for years. Or is it one massive conspiracy just to show they can send Deckard the Replicant out to be killed by THE FIRST Replicant he comes across!
Which is what would have happened if the other showgirls did not suddenly get back to the dressing room thus making Joanna Cassidy's character flee before killing the now helpless Deckard!
Seems a LOT of trouble to go to, a lot of conspiracy, for simply being able to send him out to be destroyed!

Nothing holds up.
In fact the film literally falls apart if you go down that 'he's a Replicant' line.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Er, I don't know the official term but the glowing eyes is a hinting device meant for the audience and is not seen by the characters in the movie. I thought that was rather obvious.




Nobody is talking about evidence or proof. Blade Runner isn't in that sort of business. They are suggestions. If you don't like the author's take on it, feel free to interpret them how you like. Personally, I have no problem with recognizing or even accepting the moviemaker's general intentions.



Fact: the author has put the reverie sequence in the film solely to suggest that Deckard is a replicant. And frankly, when we look at all the suggestions, it is the only logical conclusion.

BTW, every other (mythical) interpretation is not in line with the straightforwardness of Gaff's other figurines.


Alex

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

That he is not a replicant, yes. Bitingly obvious, and anything else rips the film apart.
Straws at clutching. No logic is being used.

Big missed out section there you didn't quote as well. I wonder why? Because it logically makes no sense at all in any way to make a weak replicant into a Blade Runner (conspiracy and all) to get creamed by strong repilcants...numerous times.

If you want to throw the word logic around you have to be careful it does not come back to bite yer.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Alex,

You can "er" all you want but I don't think that much is obvious in this film. As I've mentioned, Scott plays the whole movie quite straight and he goes for the 'only the audience sees this' trick?

I willing to accept that Scott intended it. Are you willing to accept it was a poor idea?

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

It's already been mentioned that there's one very logical reason to make Deckard less powerful than the replicants he chases: so he doesn't figure out that he's one of them. If he realizes he's not human, he won't be so eager to kill his own kind. He's imbued with enough smarts, tenacity and ingenuity to do the job without the same level of physical power. Give him superhuman strength and he'll turn against the humans because he'll side with his brothers...

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

But there is no logic to that...as I stated above.

As he was about to die at the hands of the very first replicant he finds, and almost every other one after that.
He was saved by people entering the dressing room from Zhora.
Saved by Rachael shooting Leon.
Saved by Batty giving him a break in general and then explicitly stopping him from falling.
As such he obviously (explicitly!) can't do the job without their strength.

Surely, like Rachael, you would give him a different job then!
If the experiment was to fool Deckard himself and all those around him that he was Human (for whatever unexplained reason) why make him a Blade Runner to do it?
Why not a politician?
A businessman?
Anything!
If they were THAT eager to see their experimental Replicant destroyed why not just drop off a cliff!
And what is the entire point of this supposed plot? Lets send a really weak Replicant after these escaped dangerous ones because...???

There is no reason why, there is no damn plot-line or motive for it, and certainly no logic to it.


And as for the red eyes, yes, why this utterly unique moment of audience acknowledgment from Scott?
Why is he, in a film where nothing else like it happens at all where realism (in a sci-fi sense) is all, is he suddenly breaking the wall and shouting to the audience?

And is this replicant theory really valid when to even have a weak chance of making it fit you have to make-up, and write yourself, whole chunks of plot and motive that aren't anywhere in the film as it exists, even The Final Cut?

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I'm sorry but your entire argument is based on the assumption Deckard was built for the purposes of being a Blade Runner. There's nothing to support that in the film so why should anyone bother rationalizing it?

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

WHAT!?

Are we saying that Deckard was not designed (unlike every other Replicant in the film I might add!!) for a specific purpose?

Are we saying he was manufactured and then just...just....let out to roam?

Are we saying he could have ended up selling 'Light 'em and Go' umbrellas, or fast food shrimp?

Are we saying he just happened to get into Blade Running via health food store management (far from satisfying, he knew it was time to move on), then a brief but unsuccessful turn as a street mime (Hey, it rains all the time, it was too damn soggy), before going into middle management at a see-through raincoat company (where it was all too transparent he was aiming too low) before finally, and coincidentally, turning to bounty hunting in the end because the gun was cool?

There's nothing in the film to say that IF...IF...IF Deckard was a Replicant he was not actually designed to BE a Blade Runner?
Are you serious?

Do 'He's a Replicant I tells yer' groupies really have this much desperation burning a hole inside of them to prove their theory that they literally go so far into flights of cosmic fantasy they're totally off-world (now there's an in-joke).

What was Deckard manufactured for then?
Interior design? Hairdresser? Sushi chief?

Answers on a postcard please to the;
"We love those straws because we like to grasp 'em" competition,
P.O. Box Nexus 6
Scott Towers,
Ridleyville.


EDIT...Oh silly me! I know what you mean. You mean he was not made to be a Blade Runner but THEY put him right into the job of being a Blade Runner from the start!

Even though he was obviously not remotely up to it.

Hmmm....Hold on that goes back to my point then anyway;
If they were THAT eager to see their experimental Replicant destroyed why not just drop off a cliff!
And what is the entire point of this supposed plot? Lets send a really weak Replicant after these escaped dangerous ones because...???

Nope sorry, that does not hold up either.
Nurse? Can you send in the next one please....

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I'm pretty sure this argument has been made in this thread already.

1. They need blade runners to kill the replicants.
2. The people doing this value human life over replicants life.
3. They therefore don't want to send a weak human against a replicant, because the weak human will definitely die, and they value human life.
4. It is therefore logically better to send a replicant, since if the replicant dies, no big deal.
5. They need to make him weaker so that he doesn't realise he is a replicant.
6. Besides, who is to say he actually is as weak as an ordinary person. All we know is that he is weaker than the replicants he is hunting - we don't know how well a human would have done. They could have given him heightened skills and abilities desirable for a blade runner - increased intelligence, detective skills, strength - that may not be at the super level, but that he might be able to dismiss as "that's just a natural advantage I have" as long as he doesn't have the ability to throw people through walls.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I wouldn't normally reply to a post I find so... distastefull, but your child-like arguments are cute.

Let's take it as a given that Deckard is a replicant (as far as this side of the argument is concerned). That said, not only is there nothing in the film to suggest he was built to be a blade runner, there are numerous elements that show us otherwise.

Deckard doesn't know he's a replicant. The other Blade Runners on the force are not replicants. At the start of the film, Deckard is not, in fact, a Blade Runner at all. All of these facts make it clear that whatever the circumstances of Deckard's creation, he is a beautiful and unique snowflake. He didn't just roll off some blade runner assembly line.

What was his purpose for creation? The audience doesn't know, nor does it matter. We do know he's a special case and thus have no motivation to make assumptions about his creation. I've posted in this thread already what I imagine the basic backstory to be, this isn't supported by the film it's just what I like to believe.

None of my logical conclusions really matter though because your whole argument is that Replicant Deckard is unable to perform his job with the qualities of a human..so therefore he must be human. That's asinine, if you could ever prove your case then all you would have done is prove that he couldn't possibly be human, because he would be unable to perform his job.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Visually, I think the film is anything but straightforward. The glowing eyes is not part of the plot.

In my book, any idea that evokes debate and discussion ad infinitum is a good idea.



Alex

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

They are all these straw grasping, utterly made up in your own head and nothing to do with what we see in the film, always put across with spitting arrogance, arguments are worth!
And what you find distasteful is your laughable arguments having circles run around them.

Sarcasm is all they merit, as does the arrogant attitude most 'Replicant he be' groupies naturally have it seems.

If you want to write an entirely new script full of things that either aren't in the film or supported by the film, or go against the basic facts we see in the film just to prove a nonsense then a guess that nonsense is not really there.

Asinine is re-writing the film to fit your view and then saying 'LOOK! SEE! IT FITS"!

,

Not at all. It would indeed be a dangerous job where the Replicants would indeed have the advantage.
But that's probably why they get paid a lot.
Or like the thrill. Whatever.
A bounty hunter is a bounty hunter and you take the risks. And as we SAW (not as we made up in our heads) he was reluctant and basically washed out.

If they instead sent out Replicants to track Replicants they would naturally make them as strong.
And why not!??
This crap about them not wanting Deckard to find out as he would then 'turn' or something did not stop them making other Replicants with massive strength and/or combat skills for the jobs they were ALL...I repeat...ALL...designed for who did know they were Replicants.

And seeing as they have 'made' Deckard as weak as a Human it would hardly matter a damn if he did 'turn' as he's no more of a threat than any man! So no need for all this false memory fuss then.
And you use the word logic.

And hey, if he lays down arms so what? Just build another one!
Logic again.

And in fact his Boss (M Emmet) openly speaks of his past work as a Blade Runner. So much for there not being anything in the film that says he was!
Oh right! He's just part of this big cover up as well for a plan that has no motive whatsoever for existing.

HEY! Perhaps M Emmet is also a Replicant but does not know it! Why stop with Deckard!



What? Run that by me again.
So you are saying that all the other Blade Runners ARE Human (thus backing up all the reasons why Deckard, even as a Human, would do the job) it's just that Deckard isn't because...er...well....for whatever reason your imagination makes up to fit the totally re-written movie you have in your head.

Logic? You obviously have no idea what the word means. But be of good cheer as you are still unique as a snowflake as that comes with simply being HUMAN.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I think Chuck makes a great point. Each viewer will find a solution that works for them. And while I think Scott leads too much rather than just telling the story, the takeaway Chuck suggests is both true and poetic.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Agreed. That was a fine way of putting the fact that it ultimately does not matter into words.
And indeed Batty could be seen as having more humanity at the end than a lot of the human characters.

But that is ultimately a different topic. That's not 'is he/isn't he'. That's 'does it really matter'.

The simple fact is (as we have heard with comments like 'my own backstory is that...') to make Deckard a replicant you have to not only re-write parts of the film, ignore parts of the film but make-up entire bits of the film that aren't even there!

All because of a completely open to meaning 5 second unicorn in the woods shot! A shot that was not in the novel, not in the screenplay and not in any version released for years.

Whereas seeing the paper unicorn as simply ironic coincidence, a perceptive warning and message, while leaving Deckard human, requires NO re-writing, NO changes and NO utterly made-up backstories.

To have a theory he's a Replicant is fine. To then make-up entire chunks of story to actually make it fit and then ponce around with an arrogant smirk saying how its the logical conclusion is anything but fine!

Unless you write and make-up your own story to add into the film the replicant idea does not hold up to what we have actually seen in the movie.
As such it's anything BUT a logical conclusion.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Either theory requires a number of assumptions and/or leaps of faith. Admittedly "Deckard is human" requires just one, but a big one: that Gaff coincidentally made an origami unicorn, without having any additional knowledge or particular reason for doing so, then left it at Deckard's apartment.

"Deckard is a replicant" needs us to make some other assumptions, none of which IMHO are particularly huge leaps of faith, though. E.g. he 'replaced' an earlier human Deckard and received his memories as implants (not a huge leap since Rachael has Tyrell's niece's memories implanted), was deliberately built no stronger than humans to avoid detection (not a huge leap since Rachael appears to be 'ordinary') etc.

Either interpretation works, as Chuck described very eloquently. So why get all riled up when you disagree with someone else's interpretation? We can all politely agree to disagree, but there's no need to call someone else's views asinine or nonsensical.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

You're joking, right? You can't really believe that it takes less of a leap of faith to assume Deckard is a replicant based on a group of assumptions, none of which are ever indicated or even hinted at in the film, than to believe that Gaff could have coincidentally made a Unicorn origami?

The original cut of this film did not require a person to make any large leap of faith regarding Deckard's humanity. The origamis, except for the first one, could be interpreted as calling cards. The first one, The Chicken, was Gaff's way of calling Deckard a coward.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

FWIW, I personally prefer the Deckard is human interpretation, so that the contrast between humans and their lack of humanity in coldly retiring replicants is contrasted with Batty's 'earned humanity' in sparing Deckard, and appreciating his short life and what he saw during it.

But why is that a larger leap, you ask? Remembering that Deckard's daydream is specifically about a unicorn, since unicorns are mythical creatures, there is simply no reason why Gaff would make one other than to send the message "I know what you dreamt" to Deckard; there is no reference elsewhere in the movie to mythical creatures, nor does Gaff make any other such. In particular if we take your "I'm telling you you're chicken" point, this would arguably reinforce the notion that Gaff very deliberately sends coded messages through his origami. If the message was to say he spared Rachael, why not leave an origami snake, to remind Deckard of his retiring Zhora?

So it is to my mind a huge coincidence if Gaff randomly decides to make a unicorn without any knowledge as to Deckard's daydreams, just to tell Deckard that he was there and spared Rachael to let them run off together. And believing it be just a coincidence is therefore a bigger leap of faith than the other little points going the other way (e.g. replicant doesn't know he's one; replaced a real person and got his memories), which have some basis in the movie (Rachael/Tyrell's niece).

In the original theatrical cut, there is no other context as to why a unicorn origami was made. So that is a purely random event/choice, even if a bit odd bearing in mind my earlier note that unicorns are mythical. Indeed I'd take the view that Deckard's humanity isn't even questioned at all in the original cut. And the fact that the fracas about the missing 'fifth replicant' was purely a continuity error (now proven to be one by its removal in the FC) goes to show reinforce this, since this was one of the main reasons previously advanced for this interpretation under the original cut.

But in the DC and Final Cut, the unicorn dream sequence is there, and at the end Gaff leaves a unicorn origami. In those versions, we are therefore presented with this to mull over: mere coincidence, or did Gaff actually know what Deckard dreamt of? If the latter, Deckard is a replicant. (Unfortunately, I might add, in my view.)

It is still inconclusive: there is no indication in the movie whether Gaff actually knew about the unicorn dream, or just coincidentally made a unicorn. You can opt for your version and I won't disagree, both are viable. But Gaff not knowing, i.e. it's sheer coincidence, is to me a huge coincidence, and therefore oddly now a bigger leap of faith.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Well, if you want to go with a non-replicant interpretation of the unicorn origami, you could argue that Gaff is saying that Deckard's hope for a life with Rachel is just a fantasy?

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Yes, the unicorn points to the Replicant idea.
BUT the unicorn crud only exists because Scott alone put it in because he misread the damn screenplay/misunderstood remarks by the writers.

Which is WHY you have to re-write and make-up big parts of the film as a whole to get the idea to fit.
Because it DOESN'T fit. Because it was never MEANT to fit!

That's because he's not a Replicant and only this misreading by Scott and his out of place unicorn rubbish even opens up such a silly idea.
The rest of the film simply does not work and/or is less effective if you go down the replicant route.

So ignore it and have another more flighty reason for the unicorn to save the rest of the film from imploding then.
Coicidence does happen, irony is real. And yes I would far prefer to go down that route, and not have to make-up whole chunks of screenplay and backstory that simply don't exist in the film, to try and make the otherwise utterly spurious replicant idea fit (barely).

It's like the director of "Die Hard" doing a 'directors cut' anddeciding that John was part of the gang at the end as a big twist and everybody going along with it just because the director shoved it in!

The fact that the rest of the entire film then does not fit/make much sense suddenly doesn't matter??
That it means John did things he should not have done, but also that he that didn't do things he should have done suddenly isn't important??
And that you have to re-write half the film and create your own backstory for John to have any hope of making the idea fit is valid now??

No, it's not. Because nothing in the structure/logic/story of the film (that you don't have to make up yourself!) was ever meant to mean he was a member of the gang.

Just as nothing in the structure/logic/story of "Blade Runner" (that you don't have to make up yourself!) was ever meant to mean he was a replicant.
And from a simple artistic level AS WELL the idea hurts the film for many of the reasons stated above by me and others.

You're trying to make a mistake/misunderstanding by the director valid by changing the rest of the film.
No thanks, I'll stick with coincidental irony (and enjoy the moment for that) and thus leave the rest of the film unmolested.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

Indeed.



Correction: The replicant issue exists because Scott misunderstood the narration and this has led to a new idea. In fact, Fancher already had this idea (of suggesting that deck's a rep) before this Scott misunderstood Peoples' text. What's the big wrongdoing here? Many, if not most, ideas/inventions/creations are born out of mistakes.



Why? To stuff it with evidence? What if it was merely meant to suggest or to provide the film with a question, "What if ..."?



As it happens, to many fans, the replicant idea fits.



According to you.



Why? Seems to me you want solid proof before you are willing to consider the thought. Or are you afraid of replicants? Is this why you are so strongly against it?



Sorry, but observant viewers were discussing the Deckard-is-a-rep issue long before the unicorn sequence showed up. This tells me that one has to ignore more than just the mythical beast in order not to toy with the idea.



I always thought Blade Runner's forte is the way it presents ideas without feeling the need to explain them. That's why the film is so exciting and stimulating to the mind. It's one of the few films that invites you to "make up" things.



Not at all. Scott always wanted Deckard to be a replicant in the very first release of the film. And I know some viewers perceived him that way from the very beginning. I was always intrigued by the idea. Sadly, I think the unicorn is a little too obtrusive.



What doesn't make sense to you might make sense to others.



Structure? How does structure play a part in this? And can't structure be intentionally misleading?

Story? Are you forgetting Gaff's origami figurines? Each figurine reflects Deckard's state of mind. 1) Deckard's chickens out. 2) Deckard's has the hots for replicants. 3) Deckard's is a replicant.

Logic? In a film where replicants are becoming indistinguishable from humans, isn't it normal to ask yourself what is real and what is not?



Personally, I don't see how you are still able to enjoy this film. But hey, in the meantime we are living proof that the discussion never ends.


Alex

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

I can't enjoy it because I don't make-up entire backstory plot to get around all the things that point to him not being a replicant?

I have to think he's a replicant to enjoy the film? And if not you can't see how I can enjoy it?

The arrogance of replicant fanboys summed up in one handy sentence.

Re: Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard

In the last page or so, I think things have heated up a bit much. May I suggest that it's been an interesting discussion? So let's keep it that way.


Well, perhaps somewhat overstated. After all, Deckard does:

1. Finds the snake scale and follows up on it.
2. Finds the clue in the picture
3. Follows-up on the Sebastian lead.

He does seem to have a bit of J.J. Gittes (CHINATOWN) in him. Both men a bit smarter with their mouths than how they use what's given to them.