What is so special about Blade Runner?

[Paul_C]

Here's an interesting piece on both the film and the book.

Blade Runner’s 1968 source material predicted our political present

 

[Stewart Hotston]

Ridley Scott himself has stated that Deckard is a replicant. The origami unicorn is proof enough.

yes, but Villeneuve has disagreed with him in public, stating that it's just not that simple. They had a good bicker about it in an interview. I think it's better for the narrative for Deckard to be human.

I think that it also deals with issues live then and live now - slavery, the consequences of being an underclass and how this messes with the humanity of both those oppressed and their oppressors.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

To be precise, Villeneuve does not disagree with Scott over the nature of Deckard, but over whether or not that nature should be revealed to the audience.

He has also said that his opinion regarding the "RepDeck" question depends on which version of the movie you're watching. Paraphrasing: "The theatrical cut of BR is the story of a human being falling in love with a replicant, but the Final Cut is the story of a replicant who finds the human being inside him."

 

[Radrook]

What is the point of building robots/androids who can pass for human?
And then top it off by giving them such a short life span???

If they lived too long they began getting rebellious. So they had to be terminated and replaced on a regular basis. That's the explanation the film provides.

 

[Marks]

BLADE RUNNER was surely a spectacular visual and aural achievement. No doubt. But that isn't what makes the film special. There are lots of visually stunning movies. What makes BLADE RUNNER great is that it is genuinely about something.

Many have said that BLADE RUNNER is about what it means to be human. Sure. But that isn't the conflict. The conflict is about how our actions and that of society rob us of our humanity --- and it does so in a very clever way. Because Deckard is not the hero of this movie. He's actually the bad guy. Roy Batty --- the one the movie sets you up to think is the villain --- is actually the hero. And the ending is one of the best scenes ever put to film. Deckard finally admits that he is the bad guy and decides to act on it. And the hero decides to show mercy to the bad guy, giving him the gift of life, not only in that moment but the promise to actually do something better with is life.

 

[Vaz]

All of this^

Plus the whole is Deckard a replicant or not adds another layer to it.

Still one of my enduring favourites. 2049 wasn't bad either.

v

 

[psikeyhackr]

Because Deckard is not the hero of this movie. He's actually the bad guy. Roy Batty --- the one the movie sets you up to think is the villain --- is actually the hero. And the ending is one of the best scenes ever put to film. Deckard finally admits that he is the bad guy and decides to act on it. And the hero decides to show mercy to the bad guy, giving him the gift of life, not only in that moment but the promise to actually do something better with is life.

Deckard is another victim. He did not want the job. He was told that he was "Little People" and could not get out of it.

Society is a trap that does not teach us what is really going on.

Like this emphasis on schooling for JOBS but does not teach everyone 700 year old double-entry accounting. That makes sense?

You are "Little People". Deal with it!

 

[KGeo777]

Deckard is never presented as the traditional hero though. He is cynical, washed up, subdued. Even Dirty Harry had more wit.

The characters that have the best actor moments are Gaff (at least in the brief English bit where he makes the "but then again, who does?" line), Holden, Chew, Tyrell, Bryant, Sebastian, and Batty. Ironically, the first five would be considered more villainous than Deckard, and yet they are more alive on screen (especially as Film Noir characters). And Sebastian is presumably murdered by Batty.

Batty is the Creature of Frankenstein in a sense--he can be good and evil, but the message of "live life to the fullest" has been done before.
The depiction of 2020 Los Angeles as a hellhole of mass migration and technological overkill is timely of course, I think some have compared it to Soylent Green which it shares some similarities with. But a much bleaker future in SG.

But there is so much indecision in Deckard, and compared to those other characters he comes across as so robotic at times ( I realize it may have been intentional).

 

[Marks]

Plus the whole is Deckard a replicant or not adds another layer to it.

The whole thing about Deckard being a replicant is something Ridley Scott invented years later. Ever seen the documentary Dangerous Days about the making of Blade Runner? They have a short bit about this. All the producers says Deckard was never intended to be a replicant. The writers says he was never meant to be a replicant --- and strongly object to the notion. Harrison Ford and all the other actors says Deckard is not a replicant. The only person who thinks this is a good idea was Ridley Scott, who admitted post-production that the movie was beautiful but he had no clue what it was really about. It was just a gimmick he came up with for subsequent cuts.

Making Deckard a replicant actually undermines the entire moral point of the ending. If Deckard is a human who finally gathers the courage to admit what he's been doing is wrong and walk away from it, and if Deckard is human and Batty chooses to save his life anyway ... that has weight. That has real pathos. If Deckard is just another replicant, then it's just back to an us vs. them mentality and he's back on the right team. Blech.

 

[Marks]

Deckard is another victim. He did not want the job. He was told that he was "Little People" and could not get out of it.

That's the point though, isn't it? Deckard knows what he's doing is wrong, but he does it anyway. "Hey, it's just my job. I was only following orders." That's a bad guy no matter how you paint it. You could set this story during WWII and Deckard would make a fine SS officer.

Batty and the replicants are the ones who have the courage to rebel. And that's the great irony of the movie. The humans have become less than human, while the non-humans have truly become "more human than human."

 

[psikeyhackr]

That's the point though, isn't it? Deckard knows what he's doing is wrong, but he does it anyway. "Hey, it's just my job. I was only following orders." That's a bad guy no matter how you paint it. You could set this story during WWII and Deckard would make a fine SS officer.

SS-Junkerschule Bad Tölz - Wikipedia

I think most SS Officers wanted to be SS Officers.

 

[BAYLOR]

There is no other film quite like it.

 

[Rodders]

I must confess that I am a bit thick and didn't pick up on the whole "Is Deckard a Replicant, or not", subtext until the directors cut came out and even then, i didn't dwell on it.

I love it just because i think that it's just a beautifully made film.

Ridley Scott is an excellent director, whose style is very visual. Sid Mead's designs are superb and hold up, even now. The costumes are great, the acting is great.

Batty's final scene still puts a lump in ,my throat after over 35 years of watching.

Vangellis's soundtrack has be one of the best ever, in my opinion. That opening scene. WOW!

 

[Paul_C]

This thread has proved me wrong. I have always been adamant that the original version which I saw in the cinema was the best one, and that Deckard is human.

Whilst both the above are still true for me, I have read enough counter-arguments here to accept that I no longer have any problem with other people holding different views to mine, as there does seem to be value in believing him a replicant (as daft as that might be , no Paul, relax, let it go).

No-one can convince me about Batman Begins though

 

[Marks]

This thread has proved me wrong. I have always been adamant that the original version which I saw in the cinema was the best one, and that Deckard is human.

Whilst both the above are still true for me, I have read enough counter-arguments here to accept that I no longer have any problem with other people holding different views to mine, as there does seem to be value in believing him a replicant (as daft as that might be , no Paul, relax, let it go).

No-one can convince me about Batman Begins though

No. You were right the first time. Deckard is human. Turning him into a replicant after the fact is a daft gimmick dreamed up by Ridley Scott years after finishing the movie.

 

[HanaBi]

No. You were right the first time. Deckard is human. Turning him into a replicant after the fact is a daft gimmick dreamed up by Ridley Scott years after finishing the movie.

Similarly, I was never convinced he was a replicant. And as you say it was more of a gimmick to add some mystique to the film, as well as keeping the BR chatrooms buzzing for weeks and months, even years as people debating that very same subject ad infinitum.

 

[Lumens]

I think he is a unicorn.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I think he is a unicorn.

From Luma.

 

[Judderman]

No. You were right the first time. Deckard is human. Turning him into a replicant after the fact is a daft gimmick dreamed up by Ridley Scott years after finishing the movie.

Probably that idea was a good part of getting an angle for a sequel. They didn't mention he could be a replicant in the sequel either.

 

[Toby Frost]

Leaving aside its inherent unlikeliness (if Deckard is a replicant, why is he so physically weak compared to the actual replicants?), I don't think the question adds anything of much interest to the film. By the end of the film, it is established that replicants are stronger than humans and have false memories. Deckard barely speaks about his own memories, and clearly isn't stronger, so he might as well be a man. The "realisation" that he is a replicant doesn't lead to a different understanding of the film like, say, The Usual Suspects or Fight Club. I think it's just a way of drumming up fresh controversy.