Deckard -- Replicant or Human: Would the film be better?

[greenman]

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence.

The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Issues such as Deckard climbing with broken fingers I'd put down to just artistic licence - "heroes" traditionally do such feats - and Roy knowing his name as a continuity/scripting issue.

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities.

2c.

The other obvious pointer to me is Deckards obsession with old photographs and sheet music, very similar to Leon's "precious photographs".

I personally don't think its really a "man vs machine" film at all as Roy and the other rebel replicants don't share much of a connection with Deckard. Its IMHO much more a study on the nature of humanity divided between two stories(Deckard/Rachael and Roy) that interconnect.

 

[Whitestar]

I watched this again at the weekend - still a brilliant film, and could easily compete in the cinema as a new release, IMO.

As for the replicant issue - I watched the Director's Cut but although there is some innuendo, I really don't think there's anything that points to clear evidence. The only attempt to really stake a claim is with the Unicorn scene tying up with the origami - but this seems more an attempt by the director to suggest a point, rather than the actual script. As has been mentioned in the other thread, there's a lot of symbolism involved around Unicorns, and the unicorn scene insertion I never felt really sat in the film.

Actually, the unicorn and origami scenes indicates that Deckard is a replicant because Gaff knew about his dreams, that is, they were implanted dreams and it was his way of telling Deckard that he is indeed a replicant but he was willing to let him go because he "did a man's job".

That there were 6 replicants, 1 died, and only 4 to hunt doesn't necessarily implicate Deckard IMO - it could even imply Rachel was the 6th. And if Deckard had been among them, why no apparent recognition from the hunted replicants if they should have known him?

Maybe they didn't know anything about him.

Personally, I don't think the film can have so much impact if Deckard is a replicant - it's a classic "man vs machine" exploration as a theme, and Deckard as a replicant weakens that considerably.

Agreed, however, it's also ironic too. Plus, if Deckard is a replicant as Riley Scott insists, then it also means that he is a traitor to his own kind and doesn't even know it! How's that for a twist?

Still, there's enough innuendo to suggest the possibility, the script itself never really tries to offer any real evidence, IMO - simply applying a more interesting ambiguity to open up the scope of the film to possibilities. 2c.

There is another scene that states that Deckard is a replicant, where Rachel saves Deckard's life and asks him if he would come after her and he replies no, you'll see that they both have shining robotic eyes. Check out the link for what I mean:

BRmovie.com: BR FAQ: Is Deckard a replicant?

Some fans have questioned how can Deckard be a replicant if the replicants he has to deal with are clearly all stronger than him? This is a very good question. Here is a direct quote from the Blade Runner F.A.Q. site:

"The videos that Bryant shows Deckard include a mental and physical rating for each of the replicants. In all cases, they are rated "A" physically. If Deckard was a replicant designed to think it was human, it would probably be made a "B" physical, which would correspond to average human strength. The fact that Deckard could slam shut a door that the replicant Rachael was trying to open hints that Rachael was a "C" physical.

The replicants he was up against were all physically superior (A-level); Rachael, to name another replicant was also Nexus 6, yet she did not exhibit any of the superhuman abilities/traits the other reps have.

So evidently you have all kinds of replicants, from A-level (the strongest) to possibly B- and C- classes. (As evidenced in the information given at the briefing by Capt. Bryant, there are also mental classes ranging from A (your regular genius) over B (average?) to C (not too bright).

This inevitably brings up the question: what is the purpose of making a rep with average human abilities. Once again, consider Rachael's case. She was a replicant who wasn't supposed to know about it. In order to pull this off, she would have to have "average" human abilities, not the superhuman qualities that Batty or Leon, for example, had (because otherwise she would find out right away that she was a replicant). And implanted memories, but that's another discussion in itself...

Likewise, if Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and he wasn't supposed to know about it, the *only way* to pull it off (without letting him find out or making him suspicious) would be to give him average human skills and abilities, and NOT make him a terminator of sorts. Unfortunately this would indeed mean he has to deal with physically stronger opponents."

Here is the link:

BRmovie.com: BR FAQ: Is Deckard a replicant?

 

[Jon George]

It’s been my understanding that ‘sixth’ Replicant was ‘lost’ in the editing process. (I think she was supposed to be an apple-pie mom.) When Leon takes the test, his eyes change colour when he’s stressed about the turtle – which is where all the ‘glow-in-the-eyes’ references come from. I also believe that in the original script, Tyrell himself is found to be a Replicant.

As to which interpretation I prefer – I’m as seemingly as fickle as the weather about this. I was blown away when I saw the original version (having a suspicion that Deckard was not human), but I also love the director’s cut and the more obvious assertion that he’s a Replicant.

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

I'll cast my vote in favour of the Deckard-is-a-Replicant camp. His own ignorance of his own origins (as well as his cynical and callous comments) adds to the levels of poignancy and irony. There is one other compelling bit of business that seems to be overlooked - and one that was extant in the original theatrical version - is the look of utter pathos on Inspector Bryant's face as he watches Deckard viewing the profiles of the Nexus Six fugitives. That was the first big tip-off for me even when I viewed the film for the first time.

The replicants were designed to be physically superior to their human creators in all but one way: their lifespan. Therefore, it would be a foolish tactic to pit a mere human blade runner against a desperate replicant fugitive with para-military training. What better instrument of subjugation and extermination than another replicant specially designed for the purpose?

 

[Gylfi]

The only relevant thing IMO is that Deckard is a HUMAN for P.K.Dick in Do Androids

What Scott did in his DC (thank god not in the official movie)is kind of like making a Romeo & Juliet movie and getting Juliet to dump Romeo and run away with Thelma

The little "hints" are just to make you suspicious about the whole story, plus they make you think about what's humanity... but that's it...

 

[greenman]

The only relevant thing IMO is that Deckard is a HUMAN for P.K.Dick in Do Androids

What Scott did in his DC (thank god not in the official movie)is kind of like making a Romeo & Juliet movie and getting Juliet to dump Romeo and run away with Thelma

The little "hints" are just to make you suspicious about the whole story, plus they make you think about what's humanity... but that's it...

Films don't exist purely be be adaptations of their source material. If you produce a version of Romeo and Juliet were she leave him at the end and its a great peace of work I'd say it would be perfectly valid.

 

[Connavar]

Even in the book it was not totaly sure in much of the story that Dekkard was human. There were scenes both Dekkard and the reader wasnt sure he was an android or a human.

Being not sure what he is seems to one of few elements the movie captured from the original story.

 

[Gylfi]

Sure He has doubts... just to add more philosophical meaning... Are men humans anymore?

In the story another blade runner runs V-K on Deckard, just because He's not sure about it... That solves everything I would say.

Being a literature teacher I believe that if Deckard were UNdoubtedly human, the tale would have felt a bit less interesting...inserting doubts and uncertainties is a clever strategic writing stratagem to stir things up.

Films don't exist purely be be adaptations of their source material

I disagree completely. He who has the intellectual property of the story and came up with it first is right. Sure You're free to take someone else's work and change stuff (IF the inventor doesn't sue you) but the father of the idea "dictates" what is true and original and what isn't.

Sure You can get Hamlet to call on Schwarzenegger and terminate the King of Denmark and love it (i would), but the original one is the TRUE one.

 

[greenman]

Sure He has doubts... just to add more philosophical meaning... Are men humans anymore?

In the story another blade runner runs V-K on Deckard, just because He's not sure about it... That solves everything I would say.

Being a literature teacher I believe that if Deckard were UNdoubtedly human, the tale would have felt a bit less interesting...inserting doubts and uncertainties is a clever strategic writing stratagem to stir things up.

Yeah I agree with that, the main point of the story is the uncertainy rather than whether Deckard is or isnt a replicant. I'd guess that part of the reason Ridley Scott leaned towards him being one is that it allowed for that uncertainy to be put across in a more visual way

I disagree completely. He who has the intellectual property of the story and came up with it first is right. Sure You're free to take someone else's work and change stuff (IF the inventor doesn't sue you) but the father of the idea "dictates" what is true and original and what isn't.

Sure You can get Hamlet to call on Schwarzenegger and terminate the King of Denmark and love it (i would), but the original one is the TRUE one.

The writer obviously deserves credit/compensation when his work is used but I don't understand how you can say that any adaptation from the page to the screen is automatically invalid and inferior. Is that is any different than say someone coming up with a film script then a director or other screen writers making alterations, yes they often maybe for the worst but not automatically so.

In the case of something like Shakespear I agree any adaptation is never going to be considered the "true" version but thats due to the status of his works. I'd say the case here is exactly the opposite though as Scott's film is far more well known and praised than the book.

 

[SchnickTech]

Theres a clue early on in the film. When he takes on the job hes told that Six skin jobs escape, one fries on an electric fence. That leaves five but we only ever see four.

I saw the Final Cut of Blade Runner and I guess it must be different in the Director's Cut because the Final Cut (Ridley's True Vision) has 2 replicants dying on the electric fence so the 4 that we see: Leon, Zora, Pris & Roy Batty are the only ones not accounted for so there is no other replicant that was missing on the Final Cut.

On another point about whether Deckard is a replicant, I believe, Ridley Scott and company made him a replicant but there is an inconsistency in the science in the movie.

This movie is about artificial intelligence is it not? What is the Voight-Kampff test but the psychological/medical version of the Turing test of artificial intelligence. My point is with bringing this up is who or what can administer the Voight-Kampff test? Can a human distinguish between a human and a machine? Is that not the point? However, can a machine distinguish between a human and a machine if the machine administering the test does not know what it is to be human?

Therefore if Rick Deckard is a replicant, how can he tell the difference between a replicant and a human if he himself is not and does not know what it means to be human?

 

[Dave]

I don't think there is a problem with the science, but rather with the film adaptation from the short story. Obviously, a machine cannot administer the Voight-Kampff test. Deckard is unsure of the result in the book precisely because he thinks he is human, but in reality is not. Blurring of the lines in the film results in the inconsistency.

 

[SchnickTech]

I not really commenting on any specific case in which Deckard administered the Voight-Kampf test but it appears as thought Deckard has a history of a career as a Blade Runner and if he tested humans before, my point being, how would he know that he tested humans if he does not know what being human is? I seem to think this movie is about artificial intelligence therefore if Deckard is a replicant, he is a machine, he is a computer trying to figure out if the test subject of any Voight-Kampf test is a human or replicant. Doesn't this point out that if Deckard is a replicant and prior to the film in the story timeline he had tested humans and correctly detected to be humans there would be something wrong in the logic of the science?

 

[marklaing]

Deckard was NOT a replicant. P. K. Dick said he wasn't, Hampton Fancher, the original writer said he wasn't, Harrison Ford said he wasn't and played him as human. The whole climax of the movie goes down the toilet if he's a replicant. Ridley Scott picked all that up from Fancher when Fancher was alluding to God, got the wrong end of the stick and thought: "Cool, we can make him a replicant, yeah!"

Why would Roy Batty talk to a fellow replicant and ask him how it feels to live in fear, as a slave if Deckard was also a slave\replicant? Doesn't compute. Wouldn't Roy KNOW? The unicorn scene was shot in Blighty, using footage from "Legend" and looks completely out of place (after all acid rain has washed away the trees or so it seems in 2019 LA and beyond) and heavy-handed. You could make it work but you'd have to rewrite the script, shoot additional teaser\hint scenes and THEN you could have a plausible "what if?", but even then you'd still have to reshoot the ending.
I saw it at a smoke-filled Electric Cinema in Brixton close to when it came out in the UK and it's still my favorite film or three films. The Director's Cut is an abomination, the Final Cut, with all the cleaned up CGI redeems itself. Somewhat. But I LOVED the gumshoe voiceover in the original 1982 version. The definitive one for me is the International theatrical release, which has had a bit more punch than the US theatrical version (and the UK I daresay) including more of the superlative Joanna Cassidy and more graphic violence. IMHO.

 

[marklaing]

People here keep talking about the "photographs" and how that "proves" he was a replicant. Human beings cover their homes in photos. Mine is, pretty much all of our friends' homes are plastered with photos, framed and otherwise. How does this prove he was a replicant?? They went to the trouble of producing, in black and white and sepia, ALL those old photos with separate backstories for each, so he could have a good memory bank? C'mon.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I never thought he was a replicant and nothing in the story had me thinking he was replicant. I don't remember any story he wrote where the hero wasn't a person but a robot, android, replicant. It seemed important that the stories had a human perspective however dysfunctional the characters were so the plight of people could be showcased. It appears to be more like a case of the book world vs the movie world because the only driving force that makes Deckard a replicant is the director's voice/opinion. I think the book does a good job of describing what is going on so I am letting the book story answer any questions the movie might pose. Movies leave things out of books because the story has been edited to fit the time constraint. I'm sure there are movies that I think describe a book story better than the book does but for me this isn't one of them. In this case the movie enhances the book story. I also like the first movie better than the second movie. The second one has some spectacular moments but it also had some empty spaces to wade through which I didn't find happening in the first movie.

 

[tinkerdan]

First of all I can't say that I've seen anything except the director's cut of the original Blade Runner.
However, based on my own recall of the books I have read of Philip K Dick, an ambiguous ending with questions of Deckard's humanity might easily fit. And, I certainly can't recall that same moment of poignancy in the book with Roy Batty. Even with the unicorn scenes and that niggling notion that Deckard might be something more than we thought; what Roy Batty does still struck me and stayed with me.

Looking at the scenes with a sense of story and knowing that nothing is introduced that doesn't have a purpose, I do have to say that the unicorn dream and the origami at the end strongly suggest that Deckard is not what he thinks he is. So removing it to strengthen that scene with Roy Batty makes perfect sense although as I mentioned; for me it didn't make a difference. However, from the standpoint that I have a prejudiced view about PKD and his writing that whole thread makes perfect sense for his usual style.

On another note: I'm not sure that there were enough places in the script to help support what conclusions might be drawn when Roy Batty saves Deckard in the end. It almost seemed way and far out of character. When you add up everything else that he had done prior to this whole dramatic action sequence with the two main characters--It doesn't make sense that all of a sudden he shows more humanity than Deckard has shown. Yet there it was.

For me in that sense the movie is trying to say that Roy Batty was showing more humanity than the humans and yet it was jarring because there really wasn't enough in his background to support that hypothesis. With that in mind from my standpoint I could see that the story was really about all life and the constant struggle in life being the pushing back of death. Every action is an action that attempts to keep death at a distance and death is when we give up and realize that it is finished. Roy may not have been showing compassion in saving Deckard, but just acknowledging that for him it is finished and it really no longer matters if Deckard live or die because he was done. At best he might have been saying 'I was never out to kill you, just trying to stay alive as long as I could.' And, if Deckard were dead, then no one would ever know he made it to the end.

And to me that was enough, because it was clear from the start that Deckard was out to kill Roy Batty.