Blade Runner - Is Deckard human or replicant

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello everyone.

Today I purchased Blade Runner 5-disc complete collectors edition on Blu Ray, then
watched both the Final Cut, and the Workprint.

Shortly after that I watched most of the featurettes, and it raised more questions for me,
perhaps thrown a spanner into the works.

Is Deckard human or replicant ?

The first time I watched it I thought he was human. I would guess it's more logical for
anyone watching BR for the first time to believe Deckard is human. I guess it would
depend which cut/version you saw first.

I will invite you to vote for two reasons, what you believe Deckard is, and what you
in your heart wished he is.

Feel free to reply justify your vote if you wish.

For those who have not seen more than 1 version of it, it will be difficult to pick up on
clues in the film to possibly support the opposite of what you believe.

[Mr Peabody]

I know I'm a minority, and especially here, Blade Runner got a lot of talk when it first came out on BR. I honestly didn't remember the movie but I am a big Sci Fi fan so I thought I might be missing something. I rented the movie and found it extremely slow and boring.

[Auricauricle]

This is a popular question amongst BR fans, and the speculation involves alot of evidence such as the reflection of light in Deckard's eyes; the presence of the unicorn in the doorway of Deckard's apartment, and others. In the meantime, the sci-fi writer K.W. Jeter penned a book, Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human to offer some resolution of the matter with some scenarios involving Deckard and Holden, who become in a loosely spun plot involving Batty, The Real Rachel and others.....

So, is he or isn't he? No, not in my mind. Deckard is decidedly human. More about proofs later, perhaps....

Oh, and thanks for the minority report, Mr. P!

[thekid]

My sense from reading the book was that he was human. The Rachel character is a lot more interesting in the book than in the film and a lot more in control of events than portrayed in the film.

[Groundbeef]

In 2000 Ridley Scott in an interview confirmed that Deckard was in fact a replicant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm

Discuss.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi, thanks for the feedback so far.

On the featurettes Ridley Scott revealed that Deckard is a replicant. That is his
interpretation, however he didn't write the original novel. It's Scott's film so he's allowed
to portray the characters any way he chooses.

Let's open the floodgates on this one. If he is replicant, it makes sense to leave with
Rachel when he sees the paper unicorn (left by Gaff) at the end as he wouldn't live as long
as if he was human. In one of the featurettes one of the views was that how did Gaff know
that Deckard dreamt of unicorn unless it was a dream implanted by someone and Gaff
had access to Deckard's file ?

When Rachel was staring with that "replicant" reflection on her eyes, in the background
for a split second you see the same reflection in Deckard's eyes. Some people moaned
and whinged when they saw that bit, but we get red eye from photos, doesn't mean
we're possessed hehe. It's a teaser, and open for much interpretation, a moment when
you can make the decision yourself.

Then there's the theory that Deckard was a newer Nexus series, which would explain
why he was able to do his job so easily. If that was so, one would think a superior
series would at least match the physical prowess of the Nexus-6 models, which he
clearly did not.

Then again the comment that Gaff left Deckard that nobody lives forever, is refering to
Rachel. Either interpretation Deckard was going to come back for Rachel and leave
together.

Another comment on the Deckard featurette was the the unicorn dream was pure
coincidence, and in one version of the film the dream sequence was left out.

It was discussed in the movie that the replicants are able to copy many human
traits, behave similarly to them, but are not as developed emotionally. If Deckard was
in fact replicant, would of he been able to show Rachel passion, love, lust, back in his
apartment ? It would support more of the possibility that Deckard is in fact human.

Trying to remain as open-minded as possible, after watching Deckard's behaviour
throughout the film, I have not seem many emotionless/automaton traits, not enough to
support that he's a replicant. He shows moments of suprise when he tried to clock
Leon with little to no success. Knowing that to kill Leon was the only pain he was going
to feel, Deckard still tried to clock him. That is a good demonstration of pure human
stubbornness and stupidity lol. That moment reminded me of the ol Captain Kirk was
gets prewarned his opponent has 5 times his strength, still doesn't stop Kirk from trying
to clock them lol.

If anyone belives he is really a replicant ? I've yet to see any votes to support that.

[Auricauricle]

I think it is a mistake to use the recent versions of BR to make arguments about Deckard's human-ness, etc., as their admittance allows any kind of revisionist theorizing and patching up. One of the first clues that Deckard is human, in my mind, is Bryant's threat when Deckard tells him that he is no longer interested in being a bladerunner:

Deckard: I was quit when I come in here, Bryant, I'm twice as quit now.

Bryant: Stop right where you are. You know the score pal. If you're not cop, you're little people.

This remark, "...you're little people", refers to a derisive term for humans who, having been deemed unfit to go the colonies, have been left on Earth to fend for themselves. If I remember the book, such humans were either genetically or mentally unfit--Sebastian was such a human.

The argument that Deckard was able to do his job easily doesn't wash, especially in terms of his questioning Rachel. Remember when Tyrell asks him about the Voight-Kapf test:

Tyrell: I'm impressed. How many questions does it usually take to spot them?

Deckard: I don't get it Tyrell.

Tyrell: How many questions?

Deckard: Twenty, thirty, cross-referenced.

Tyrell: It took more than a hundred for Rachael, didn't it?

Deckard: She doesn't know?!

Tyrell: She's beginning to suspect, I think.

Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is?

Tyrell: Commerce, is our goal here at Tyrell. More human than human is our motto. Rachael is an experiment, nothing more. We began to recognize in them strange obsession. After all they are emotional inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them the past we create a cushion or pillow for their emotions and consequently we can control them better.

Deckard: Memories. You're talking about memories.

Besides Deckard's realization of the importance of replicants' memories, he had to ask "more than a hundred" questions to determine Rachel's identity.

More in a bit, Oh Great Oz!

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hi there.

I don't think it's equally unfair to not use recent versions of BR, IF one happens to
buy BR collectors edition and watch the Final Cut or the Workprint first. There's no
set of instructions to recommend which version to watch first, nor does anything hint of
omitting any version.

The Final Cut was the intended version. Most directors are not happy with the
Theractical version because most of them are either rushed, or modified to make as
many people "get it" as possible. Hence the narration was necessary. However many,
including Harrison Ford did not believe it was necessary. There were some people who
are deemed a little beyond muppet intelligence and were capable of pickup up the
subtle hints, the emotional changes of the characters.

I find one perspective rather interesting that the majority of people back in 1982
were not really in a mood to take in anything but a "happy" kind of movie, which ET
clearly was. Many other movies were released on the same year, some were rather
bleak, and just couldn't impact as much. I admit I went to the cinemas and watched ET
myself, and was rather impressed with it.

Maybe 1982 was not the perfect year for BR to go out on cinema. The critics just didn't
get the idea or the messages the film intended to portray.

I'm diversing from the main subject, first time I did see BR it didn't cross my mind that
Deckard was replicant. There were many clues to me indicating that he was human, but
then again, I was 10 years old at the time I was watching it, and (if memory serves), I
wasn't really looking for clues that he was human or not, on purpose. I was dazed by
the special effects.

[Auricauricle]

Same, pretty much, here....That Deckard was a replicant or not really didn't enter my memory banks...Interesting comment about the timing of BR, but remember it was made hot on the heels of Alien, which was anything but a feel-good movie. I tend to think that Sci-Fi movies are products of a zeitgeist. I have to think about that year a bit to flesh this idea out, though...

[Groundbeef]

Same, pretty much, here....That Deckard was a replicant or not really didn't enter my memory banks...Interesting comment about the timing of BR, but remember it was made hot on the heels of Alien, which was anything but a feel-good movie. I tend to think that Sci-Fi movies are products of a zeitgeist. I have to think about that year a bit to flesh this idea out, though...

Not sure that you can compare BR to the release of Aliens. Aliens was more of escapism action. BR was a bit more of a "thinking" movie. Although it did have action, it wasn't the same type of film.

[Auricauricle]

My phrasing was not very good, here....I was trying to say that BR was, like Alien, a R. Scott film, which might acount for its tone....My bad.

There may be some similarity, yet, come to think of it....Seems to me that Alien was a cautionary tale about the sordid nature of "big business" and the risks that certain people make in keeping their vested interests viable. In Alien, the "Company" was intent on containing the monster, even at the expense of the crew, which Ridley finds to her horror (via Mother) is expendible.

In BR, a dialog between Rachel and Deckard (after Leon has been retired), Rachel reminds Deckard, "I am the business". The "mutiny" of the replicants may be considered an unforseen glitch that was handled effectively by the Tyrell Corporation via memory implant. Still, the mutiny occurred, and Roy et al. returned to Earth, despite the risk of doing so....

[OzzieAudiophile]

Well it appears that the Human vote wins it.. for now.

I also believe psychologically we as human beings wish the main character to share
as many qualities as ourselves, or our race, nationality, persona, as possible, than
opposite.

It's still very worth watching as many versions of BR as possible, with the mindset from
start to finish beliving that Deckard is really Replicant, then when it finishes, take some
time to have all the info sink in, ask yourself, can you believe it ? or it's not possible,
he IS human. OR... maybe the story is better if he was.

You see that was one of Philip K. Dick's intentions, to make you think, as Sci Fi
ought to. If it's only just to make you go 'wow' good effects/ideas, without putting much
thought, then, it's just a flavour of the month/year.

[Auricauricle]

I like to see sci-fi more along the lines of speculative fiction. Descriptions of possible future scenarios allow writers some license to pursue any line of thought they want to. PKD was such a writer, and he used the genre to explore any number of issues: Epistemology (Martian Time Slip), the Birth of the Messiah (Intergalactic Pot Healer), Drug Abuse/Enforcement (A Scanner Darkly), and Mortality (Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep).

Still, this was a fun thread!

So, what's next, Brown Cow?

[Mr Peabody]

Androids don't dream they are machines. The question is do hemorrhoids dream of black holes?

Total Recall must have been a good Sci Fi because it got me to thinking when I saw the woman with three breasts.

[thekid]

Androids don't dream they are machines. The question is do hemorrhoids dream of black holes?

Total Recall must have been a good Sci Fi because it got me to thinking when I saw the woman with three breasts.

I once saw a women with 4 breasts but I think a large amount of rum was involved......

[Groundbeef]

I once saw a women with 4 breasts but I think a large amount of rum was involved......

or you were in a barn...and in that case we don't want to know.

[Auricauricle]

Hoof hearted?

[thekid]

or you were in a barn...and in that case we don't want to know.

That's udderly ridiculous........

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello all.

I would agree with the director and novelist, that one of the points being conveyed
to the viewer/reader is that once in a while, one can lose track or their "human"
identity. In addition that from time to time one should take their own emotional
temperature and checks.

I have met, worked with, or seen many people who behave like "replicants" or androids
in one way or another. Either emotionless, or purely seeking for self-gain only. The latter
is very easy to do in this day of fast-paced, increasing improving world of technology.

Some ways society are changing, we as a human race are de-evolving, and the future
in generations to come will in fact end up like in Blade Runner. I'd say there are more
selfish acts that are done now than selfless.

I heard a phrase today which had me forced to agree, the only people who have seen the
end of war are the dead.

[Auricauricle]

Oh, boy,Ozzie, have you opened a BIG can of nightcrawlers!

[Mr Peabody]

GB, you had me rolling with that one, it was worth a chicklet but I must be about spreading some more around first.

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello, well I did say I welcome all theories, ok perhaps BR is not suited to everyone,
however there are many viewers who are capable of thinking for themselves, who do not
require everything to be spelt out to them.

Some of us are capable of figuring things out for ourselves, to walk aways and discuss
various points of view, theories, is a sign of a good Sci Fi film/book.

This discussion is not the first of it's kind, just the first on this forum for at least a while
from my understanding.

Your opinions are valued on here, if you really believe Deckard is replicant, tell us, and
justify your reasoning (apart from the ones already mentioned on this post).

It's very easy to simply watch a film and take it for what it is. It would sure to be
rather confusing to the viewer at first, to the selected few, it would of grabbed their
attention, and make them walk away and think about it all. Why not ? why can't we
have more of the "too hard basket" films ? We have to simply films enough so it's
suitable for sheep ? I understand some first-screenings have some dogs, if enough
of them bark loudly, then it will be a howler of a movie.

Maybe we live more in a sheep world now. We believe whatever we're told to believe.
The governtment relays that message to us on telly.