Blade Runner (Beware: SPOILERS!) About Deckard (1 Viewer)

[Travis Brashear]

I have to chuckle because I think, without being remotely aware of it, you just answered your own question.

 

[rich_d]

Very persuasive points. Well said.

 

[Matthew_Def]

I agree with Travis. You just answered your own question, Edwin. The whole point of the memories are that they are very specific and random. Also, doesn't it make sense for Deckard to dream of a fairytale world? Where do you think those tales came from? The people in the worst situations often create the most beautiful art, it's about survival. In many ways his day-dreaming is the first hint of his humanity coming back (or emerging depending on your view). From every angle that unicorn scene only enhances the film.

Furthermore, I think you're going a little too far with the literalness. You have to understand this is fiction, and there need to be threads that weave together. Themes are thought out and executed in a way that often seems unlikely in life. But they are there for a reason, that don't relate to the practicallity of the story but rather to it's message. It's the same way the shine to the eyes of the replicants is a cue for the audience not the characters.

I also don't think there's anything definitive about what the Final Cut suggests. It's merely enough hints for Ridley to justify Deckard being a replicant. It's still pretty damn easy to defend Deckard being a human.

In the end, the answer is irrelevant. It's the question. I would say Batty was the most human character in the film, but does his synthetic nature null that? The whole film is about Deckard finding his humanity, and whether he's a replicant or not doesn't matter because by the end he obviously is very human.

 

[JonZ]

Im pretty sure in the new documentary that it stated that Ridley has always wanted the unicorn scene in and the exes hated it,not understanding it, and asked him to remove it.

So its not like he put it there years later.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I was going to put this in the big BR thread, but I didn't want it to get "lost" there.

Anyway, I'm aware of all the history, the unicorn scene, and I just watched the Deck-a-Rep featurette, and I still don't think he can be a replicant, or else there's a sizeable "mistake" then in the movie.

Near the end, where Deckard jumps from one building rooftop to another, he barely make its. Roy easily makes it. And then Deckard almost falls, losing his grip when he's holding on to the i-beam. Roy reaches down and lifts him up and saves him. So there are two examples there of Deckard acting more human than replicant: he barely makes that jump, and then he almost falls from the i-beam. Yeah, he's got 2 busted fingers, but still, Roy easily plucks him out of mid air with one arm. So if Deckard was a replicant, he should have easily been able to make that jump, and to hold on to the i-beam even if with just one arm.

Just curious if anyone else spotted this. Doesn't change the fact that it's an awesome movie, but even after seeing it many times since it was released originally, this just occurred to me watching it this time.

 

[jack phillips]

Not all replicants are equal.

 

[Matthew_Def]

The main problem with Nexus 6 are that they are so strong, so when they become uncontrolable, things get real bad. The ones in the film were built for strength as well.

Rachel who is a replicant, is weaker than Deckard who you believe to be a human. Rachel seems to be next generation, let's say Nexus 7. If Deckard is Nexus 7 or even 8. It would seem logical to make him weaker than the 6s.

Let's not forget he takes a beating that few humans would be able to stand. You could also take into account that he thinks he is human, therefor he doesn't know his strength.

He also pulls himself up the building with those two fingers on his hand, after having his ass royally kicked. I would even say he doesn't make the jump because he was in a rush on a wet rainy day. Roy took his time. Deckard slips because the beam is wet. Strength doesn't matter there.

Also, it has become more and more obvious to me that whether Deckard is a replicant or not is truly irrelevant. The film is about what makes a human human. I think everyone can agree Batty is very human, inspite of his inauthentic origin. The films themes work exactly the same, to me, whether Deckard is a replicant or an authentic human.

I think people have this idea, that inspite everything the film tells us, replicants are illegitamite beings. I know people seem to hate the deck-a-rep idea because it invalidates the human nature of the film, but those people seem to me to be like Bryant and would throw around the term skinjob.

Let's not forget that the whole point of the replicants' trip, and subsequent crimes, is a rather human need. They were short changed in life and only reacted naturally. I don't find their actions too out of line with the american civil rights movement. They are the oppressed members of the Blade Runner world.

 

[Sumnernor]

I have a question. At the very beginning, Deckard is "forced" to accept the Blade Runner job. I didn't understand why? Could it be that he would be "retired" if he didn't accept the job????

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I do agree with this , just that the ending creates a contradiction to the premise that Deckard is a replicant.

Cool thread, I do now have to go back an reread it all!

 

[AlexCremers]

I recognize the author's intent, I read the clues and I agree that all of this leads to an inescapable conclusion, namely, Deckard's a replicant. However, I do feel that the unicorn reverie is forced upon the movie and I strongly believe that this is the main reason why there are two opposite camps.


Let me explain why I feel its inclusion feels unnatural:


- The idea of a unicorn reverie came very late in the production process.

- The reverie is not scripted nor storyboarded.

- the galloping unicorn could be test footage coming from one of the original planned and storyboarded (!) endings involving a "real" unicorn in a dying forest.

- Deckard does not interact with his strange unicorn reverie. He does not even shakes his head when it's over.

- The unicorn reverie deletes another scene (including its music) that shows a pan shot of photos on the piano, a shot that feels more subtle (the photos could be another hint) and completely in line with the rest of the scene.

- Deckard response, when he finds Gaff's unicorn origami, is somewhat underwhelmed considering its dramatic meaning and revealing nature.



Alex

 

[JonZ]

"Not all replicants are equal."

You are correct. When Deckard is having the briefing with Bryant,looking over the replicant profiles, you can see theyre given physical and mental grades. Even though Leon has Grade A strength, he has Grade C intelligence. Roys stats show someone who might be given a leadership role, but Leon is prob someone who would have a follow orders/do labor/grunt role.


"Rachel who is a replicant, is weaker than Deckard who you believe to be a human. Rachel seems to be next generation, let's say Nexus 7. If Deckard is Nexus 7 or even 8. It would seem logical to make him weaker than the 6s."


"More human than Human" is what Tyrell is aiming for.The difference is that Roys group knew they were replicants. Rachel didnt.Rachel herself thougth she was human. It would have been a huge tipoff if she was able to stick her hand into boiling water and be unaffected or the like. Her strength has to be brought down to human female level to blend in with others and fool even Rachel herself.
The escaped Nexus 6 replicants were designed for combat = amped up strength. Its even mentioned in the final cut that Leon can haul 400 pounds loads all day.




" Deckard slips because the beam is wet. Strength doesn't matter there."

Deckard doesnt make it to the beam. He comes up short, lands on the edge, and grabs for the beam. Strength would matter for making that jump.Deckard doesnt have the strength to make it across. Roy makes it easily.


"Or that later Nexus units were purposefully created weaker than earlier units."

As I mentioned on the last page,Deckards lack of strength compared to the others was always my main argument for his being human. Its not just the confrontation with Roy and not being able to do a jump Roy makes easily. Were shown, clearly, that Zhora, Pris and Leon all are significantly superior to Deckard in strength. He simply doesnt stand a chance against any of them. You can argue that if Deckard is a replicant, shouldnt someone who hunts replicants have a higher grade in the strength department. But thinking about Rachel made it clear about Deckard. IF Deckard is a new type of replicant like Rachel, complete with memories and all, he would have to be human enough to even fool himself, so he would be given human level strength.


"Also, it has become more and more obvious to me that whether Deckard is a replicant or not is truly irrelevant. The film is about what makes a human human."

Exactly.

 

[rich_d]

Agreed. As Pink Floyd wrote:

I don't know what it is
But it fits on here like ...

As to the unicorn scene, I had been neutral to the scene. But reading some of these posts has me agreeing ... awkward overkill. I think that the film is better off with a nice duality, with reasonable points on both sides versus scenes that telegraph their intent.

 

[Matthew_Def]

I don't think there's anything overkill about it. When you can use the unicorn scene, like Darabont has, to prove Deckard's a Human nothing is telegraphed.

 

[Zen Butler]

ADMIN: WHere did you dig up this fossil? I never recall starting this thread and by its' first post it looks as if I'm responding to someone, some thing. It doesn't appear to be a cornerstone post.

Great, blame me for all of this (and if I may note, I sure would like to get a hold of whatever I was smoking in 2004)

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I did reread all of the thread. I am now finding a disconnect that I think explains what we all "see", in our own way.

Deckard was not a replicant in the original novel. The screenplay writer Hampton Fancher meant him also to be human. He was also plainly human in the original cut. But as explained earlier in the thread, it seems as though Ridley Scott misinterpeted something Hampton wrote, and he's the one who sort of ... changed things. So yes, Scott says he's a replicant, but he wasn't meant to be, and that's why there are story elements that support both sides of the discussion. In the end, I kind of like it this way, in that it's up to each viewer to judge for him or herself.

One person earlier made a comment that I 100% agree with: I wish there was a cut like the latest director's cut (without the narration), but also without the unicorn scene.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I have to agree with you. Plus as others have mentioned there are huge flaws in the logic of this when it comes to the many fight scenes and physical challenges. I mean what idiot created a Rep meant to chase down and kill other dangerous Reps but left him vastly inferior to them physically?

The whole point was to match his human fraility against their superiority. Not only this, but SCOTT AGREES!!! On the DVD you have Dick talking about how he viewed Rep's as sub-human and how Scott came back at him with the idea that they were super-human ("Superman without flight"). Except Deckard apparently.


I love the film and I can appreciate the interesting aspect of this debate going either way, but frankly this has become very Lucas like of Scott over the years. The more he goes back to fix it, the more intrusive it becomes. A lot of things don't match up and the strongest Rep indicators are also the most ham-fisted and awkward.

It's like the voice-over aspect. It didn't work because it was also ham-fisted and forced, trying too hard to be a noir detective film.

I also like Darabont's defense of Deckard as a human.


However we can all agree, this is a brilliant DVD set and includes so much good info all around that it lifts up this debate rather than ending it, in spite of Scott's own "this is the fact" statement on the issue.

 

[Matthew_Def]

It's been covered countless times, but Deckard's weakness as a replicant makes sense. The film proves it's humanity that matters, and ultimately it's humanity that does prevail. Being a replicant doesn't negate humanity.

Deckard's weakness as a replicant makes him more human than human. It's his stubborness and resilience that gives him human qualities, and make him better than the other replicants. He may be physically weaker than them, but he outlasted all of them. So he is a better replicant than them. In spite of the numerous reasons why he may not be able to man handle any of them, which are all in the film. Let's not forget Deckard almost died a ton of times in the film. With all the risks the job has, bringing in a worthless replicant makes sense, especially if they don't know any better.

Kevin C Brown, Scott directed the film, not Philip K Dick, not Hampton Fancher, not David Peoples. Fancher also toyed with the idea of Deck-a-rep, by the way. It's Scott's vision up on the screen not anyone elses (there ideas certainly led to it, but it is Scott's film). In Fancher and Peoples' script you can argue all you want that he is human because that was the intent, but in the film it wasn't Scott's. I also don't see anything in the domestic cut that proves he's a human either. It's left open because I think Scott truly likes the idea of the question more than the answer. He's just very clear with what his answer is.

I say all of those things but I still lean with Deckard being a human. It's my human prejudice that wants him to be human, I think.

 

[rich_d]

Wow. Talk about major spin.

Assuming for the moment that Deckard is a replicant ... did you say ... he outlasts all of them? That seems to forget/ignore that Rachael saves his ass from certain death and Roy takes pity on him.

Roy Batty shows great intelligence, a sense of humor, deep feelings, poetic phrasing AND great strength. Sheesh, I'm wondering if we watched the same film.

 

[Bob Spears]

In the final cut when we first see Roy in the phone booth as the camera pulls back from his clenched fist you can see someones hand on his shoulder. It is not Leon's hand because he is outside the booth. I am sure this has been covered somewhere in one of the BR threads but I cannot find it. Does anyone have a quick answer as to whose hand that is?

 

[rich_d]

Bob,

I think you mean Director's Cut, not the Final Cut as the hand is no more (as far as I can see).

The short answer comes from Paul Sammon who says the shot was actually 'borrowed' from the Tyrell death scene with Batty and Tyrell. So the hand is actually Tyrell's around Batty's shoulder that they 'used.'

Sammon is also on record as saying that Batty is using the phone to learn where the eye guy works.

However, the inexplicable reason they wanted to to use this footage of having Batty look back at someone and smiling is unclear. What were they going for?