Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 13:50:04 GMT -4
And now for something completely different. A new version of Bladerunner came out in December, and I think I've watched it at least four times since then, along with listening to the commentaries and watching the documentaries that came with it. Yeah, I'm something of a fan. And then someone started talking about Bladerunner on the BAUT forum, which brought up the most contentious issue of the movie: was Deckard a replicant? I thought a poll might be interesting. Plus it allows me to take a time out from politics and torture and talk about something really important.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 30, 2008 14:17:32 GMT -4
I didn't like the movie the first two times I saw it (probably because I was too young to get it) but I watched the new "Final Cut" and I liked it a whole lot more. While the movie is kind of vague about whether or not Deckard is a replicant, I personally think he is, mostly because Riddley Scott has said that he is. I haven't read it, but apparently in the original Philip K. Dick story he isn't a replicant, so I guess it depends on who you want to believe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 14:40:16 GMT -4
Ridley Scott has said he was, but Harrison Ford insists that he wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 30, 2008 14:45:32 GMT -4
I have the new version, but haven't watched it, yet.
I have to say the Deckard was not a replicant. Bryant knows him from a long time before the events of the movie, strongly suggesting he is not a new creation. The memory implants seem to be a new technology. The other replicants don't think he is a replicant.
The unicorn wasn't added until 1992.
My 2 cents. And I think Ridley should just do a new movie if he's not happy with Blade Runner.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 14:50:25 GMT -4
Actually the new version just does minor cleanup work, mostly on the effects. There's really no substantial difference from the '92 Director's Cut. He doesn't have Greedo shoot first, or Jabba the Hutt show up, or turn guns into walkie-talkies.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 16:13:58 GMT -4
I voted no - Deckard is human. There are a couple reasons for this:
1) The memory implant technique used on Rachel seems to be very new. Tyrell says Rachel is "an experiment", which implies that she is the first to undergo the procedure. Deckard had apparently never come across a replicant that didn't know what it was, either.
2) Deckard shows no sign of superhuman strength. In fact, Deckard gets beat up by every replicant he fights, and most of them are women. Roy and Leon are obviously far stronger than Deckard.
3) It makes more sense dramatically. If Deckard isn't human, then none of the principle characters in the movie are. Deckard's character arc is that he re-discovers his humanity through his relationship with Rachel and his empathy for the replicants he is being forced to kill. In the end he decides to run with Rachel. If he's a replicant then there is no human story being told.
4) It's too complicated a conspiracy for too little benefit. If Deckard is a replicant, then Bryant is in on it, since they know each other from the "old bladerunner days". Bryant doesn't seem the type to willingly work with a replicant, or subtle enough to lie at length to one. Bryant wants Deckard to quickly hunt down and kill the replicants because their presence on Earth is "embarassing". How much more embarassing would it be if the public finds out the police were using replicants in their own forces? What purpose is served in using a replicant to hunt down others if he doesn't know his own strength is a match for theirs?
The strongest arguments for "Deckard is a replicant" seem to be: 1) The Unicorn. Obviously the unicorn dream and Gaff's use of a unicorn calling card imply that Deckard is a replicant. However, Deckard doesn't see the unicorn and have an "oh no, I am a replicant after all" moment. He merely nods his head while repeating Gaff's last words to himself. It's possible that both bladerunners are using the unicorn to refer to Rachel. Deckard made an unconscious association (presumably with innocence or uniqueness) and Gaff used the same symbol to show that he had the opportunity but chose not to kill her. Deckard is nodding his head to show that he and Gaff understand each other - as long as he leaves with Rachel Gaff will not come after them. That's my take, anyway.
2) In one scene, Deckard has glowing eyes, just like all the replicants. He's out of focus behind Rachel, but yes, he does have glowing eyes. The question then is "is this intentional, or was it a result of the process used to create the glowing eyes". The commentaries reveal that the glowing eye trick was done in-camera. Anyone who was in front of the camera with the lighting gear set up would have the glowing eyes. The glowing eyes seem to be something that only the audience sees, by the way. If it were seen by the characters in the movie it would be pretty easy to tell that someone is a replicant.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:17:01 GMT -4
Personally, I believe Deckard is a replicant. I have to say the Deckard was not a replicant. It really depends upon which version you watch. The original version leads you to believe he's human. The Director's / Final cut both lead you to believe he's a replicant. Bottom line is that Ridley Scott has always maintained that Deckard was a replicant. In a 1992 interview for Details magazine, Harrison Ford said: "Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for." All that implies is that, assuming Deckard is a replicant, Bryant knows that Deckard has had memories implanted and he is playing along with the "experiment", in the same way that Tyrell plays along with the implanted memories of Rachel being his niece. That just goes to show how close to being human a replicant has become, that one of their own can't tell from outward appearances or behaviors that someone is a replicant. There is, however, the point that at the end of the movies, when Batty is chasing Deckard through the Bradbury building, that Batty calls Deckard by name. Nowhere in the movie is it shown or implied that Batty was given this information. Ridley's original shooting script included a unicorn scene. The producers insisted that it be cut from the original release, feeling it was "too artsy". The footage WAS shot for the '82 release, but after it was cut, it was lost. The footage added to the Director's Cut was derived from surviving outtakes from the original unicorn scene shot for the original release. However, all that said, there probably isn't a "definitive answer" to the question and this one issue is probably the most hotly contended issue in regards to the movie. From the Blade Runner FAQ: Also from 2019: Off-World • Blade Runner-related Essays and MiscellaneousIs Deckard a Replicant: The Case For- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I knew it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"
- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, therefore Gaff knew what dreams that Deckard had been implanted with. (BRDC only)
- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of them are recent or in color. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his flat.
- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here."
- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.
- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.
- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't go after her, "but someone would". Deckard is standing behind Rachael, and he's out of focus.
- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it.
- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants, particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work. Of course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing to hunt down other replicants.
- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real Blade Runner, and that Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.
The Case Againt- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.
- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in BRDC was a result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.
- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police trust Deckard?
- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell.
- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife.
- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work?
- Deckard was not a replicant in DADoES, although he has another Blade Runner test him at one point just to be sure.
So it really boils down to how you interpret the clues presented in the different versions of the film. While I do believe that Deckard was intended upon being (and is) a replicant, I think that the more important issues brought up by this whole debate is the question that one must ask in order to start to answer it: "What is it that makes us human and does it mean to be human?" He was not happy with the original release because of the changes that were imposed upon him by the producers, which is why he did the first Director's Cut. The advent of new technology gave him the impetus to create "the final cut" (which according to him involved "seven years of intense research and meticulous restoration, technical challenges, amazing discoveries and new challenges") which he himself has called "the definitive director's cut" of the movie. The 5-disc version of the Final Cut includes a 3 1/2 hour "Making Of" feature which goes into incredible detail of the history of the original film and the creation of the Final Cut. Cz
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 30, 2008 16:31:34 GMT -4
The problem with all the above is that the screenplay just doesn't support an ending where Deckard turns out to be a replicant. Subtlety is one thing, but a complete lack of development of that outcome is something else. If he is a replicant, then there should be an "a ha!" moment where all the evidence comes together.
Ridley Scott did not write the screenplay. Even if Scott wanted to make Deckard a replicant in 1982, he apparently never did any work on the script to create a storyline that supported that idea. Whether he stuck in a unicorn in 1982 or 1992, no other work on the screenplay ever occurred. The story as told does not support Deckard as replicant in content or structure.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 16:37:34 GMT -4
There is, however, the point that at the end of the movies, when Batty is chasing Deckard through the Bradbury building, that Batty calls Deckard by name. Nowhere in the movie is it shown or implied that Batty was given this information. That one is a mystery. But how does making Deckard a replicant mean that Batty will know his name? [/li][li] Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of them are recent or in color. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his flat.[/quote]There is a color photo of Deckard with his ex-wife in his apartment. The deleted scenes of the new release show this quite clearly. The piano is stretching it. Perhaps Deckard keeps old photos because he's nostalgic. [/li][li] Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here."[/quote]The deleted scenes have this scene intact, which means it was shot. But why would Gaff suggest to Deckard that he's a replicant and then toss him his gun? [/li][li] Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.[/quote]Deckard doesn't do anything really superhuman, and the fact that he takes those beatings shows that he's not as strong as the replicants. [/li][li] Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.[/quote]Nope. Police are almost omnipresent in Bladerunner, and they wear gestapo-like uniforms. Bryant's comment simply means that the police can push around civilians however they want. [/li][li] The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants, particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work.[/quote]Except that they sent Holden first. Is Holden also a replicant? [/li][li] Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real Blade Runner, and that Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.[/quote]Or Gaff could be watching Deckard for a mistake that he can use to get Bryant to give him Deckard's job. In the end he spares Rachel apparently so that Deckard will leave. I would agree. That's the point behind Rachel's questions of "have you ever retired a human by mistake?" and "have you ever taken that test yourself?"
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:41:02 GMT -4
I voted no - Deckard is human. There are a couple reasons for this: 1) The memory implant technique used on Rachel seems to be very new. Tyrell says Rachel is "an experiment", which implies that she is the first to undergo the procedure. Deckard had apparently never come across a replicant that didn't know what it was, either. Never is it said that Rachel is the only replicant to have undergone the memory implant procedure. Neither does Rachel. During the scene where Bryant is showing Deckard the briefing on the other replicants, they are shown to have different physical and mental capabilities or "levels". Leon and Batty are combat models and therefore have higher strength. Batty is the leader so he also has a higher mental capacity, whereas Leon is shown to have a lower capacity. If they were to give Deckard the same levels as Batty, then he would be out of place, having abilities that someone who is apparently "just a regular guy" wouldn't have. However, there is also the fact that Deckard is able to take the beatings that Batty lays upon him, so where Batty has a high level of physical strength, perhaps Deckards is just slightly less than that - an A-level for Batty compared to a B-level for Deckard, for example. But the question DOES come up of what it really means to be human. Is a person just a collection of their memories or is there more to it? It actually makes a lot of sense. If they can prove that they can get a replicant to hunt down other replicants, it will save the lives of human police officers. If the replicant fails, you just "program" another one. If a human cop dies, you have a lot more costs incurred: training, insurance, etc. Since replicants are considered "commerce" rather than humans, in the end it makes more financial sense to use them instead of real people, if you can prove it will actually work. Again, so much of this issue is open to interpretation. My take on it is that Gaff knows that he is a replicant, knows that Deckard had the unicorn memory implanted and that he left the origami unicorn to let Deckard know he was a replicant. Perhaps it was a "humane" gesture to remove any doubt that Deckard may have had with his nod indicating that the unicorn confirms his suspicions, or a a "message" along the lines of "You can run, you may even be able to hide, but in the end you are just as dead as the others" (or something along those lines) with Deckard's nod indicating that his decision to run is the right one. The other "making of" feature included with the new version make more of a point in showing that the glowing eyes were meant, in the context of the story" to indicate that the person is a replicant. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:48:28 GMT -4
The problem with all the above is that the screenplay just doesn't support an ending where Deckard turns out to be a replicant. Subtlety is one thing, but a complete lack of development of that outcome is something else. If he is a replicant, then there should be an "a ha!" moment where all the evidence comes together. Ridley Scott did not write the screenplay. Even if Scott wanted to make Deckard a replicant in 1982, he apparently never did any work on the script to create a storyline that supported that idea. Whether he stuck in a unicorn in 1982 or 1992, no other work on the screenplay ever occurred. The story as told does not support Deckard as replicant in content or structure. It does if you take the issue of replicant versus human to be one that you are intended to decide on your own. Some of the best stories and movies are ones that don't come right out and tell you something, but force or lead you to think about the question being asked and discover your own answers. Keep in mind, too, that Scott was told (forced, really) to make certain changes to the final film- cut the unicorn scene, change the ending, add the voice-over - by the producers. Cz
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 16:50:52 GMT -4
Actually on the documentaries Scott reveals that the voiceover wasn't a last minute addition that he was forced to do. He agreed that it might be needed and was somewhat in keeping with the film noir vibe present in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 30, 2008 16:53:36 GMT -4
Actually on the documentaries Scott reveals that the voiceover wasn't a last minute addition that he was forced to do. He agreed that it might be needed and was somewhat in keeping with the film noir vibe present in the movie. Hmm... ok... I guess I'll have to watch the documentary again... not that that's really a bad thing... Cz
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 30, 2008 17:21:33 GMT -4
The problem with all the above is that the screenplay just doesn't support an ending where Deckard turns out to be a replicant. Subtlety is one thing, but a complete lack of development of that outcome is something else. If he is a replicant, then there should be an "a ha!" moment where all the evidence comes together. Ridley Scott did not write the screenplay. Even if Scott wanted to make Deckard a replicant in 1982, he apparently never did any work on the script to create a storyline that supported that idea. Whether he stuck in a unicorn in 1982 or 1992, no other work on the screenplay ever occurred. The story as told does not support Deckard as replicant in content or structure. It does if you take the issue of replicant versus human to be one that you are intended to decide on your own. Some of the best stories and movies are ones that don't come right out and tell you something, but force or lead you to think about the question being asked and discover your own answers. Keep in mind, too, that Scott was told (forced, really) to make certain changes to the final film- cut the unicorn scene, change the ending, add the voice-over - by the producers. Cz The funny thing about this is that many, many Philip K. Dick stories end with the main character realizing that he is not who, what or where he thinks he is. If the writers wanted to fashion a story of that type, they could have. But they really didn't, as most of the clues beyond the unicorn are not very good, convincing, intentional or even interesting clues. There is nothing to be learned by connecting these seemingly (and most likely) random bits of trivia. It all adds up to something of a yawn. He's a replicant? Really? Why? What does it add? What does it make me understand? After 25 years, I have to say it adds almost nothing. That's just my opinion, of course. I think you could write a great story that concludes with Deckard turning out to be a replicant -- but Blade Runner was not that story.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 17:26:17 GMT -4
Early script and storyboards also involved Tyrell being a replicant. Roy kills Tyrell, then realizes the blood on his hands isn't human, and has Sebastian lead him to the real Tyrell, who is frozen, Disney-like, in a techno-sarcaphagus in a secret chamber at the top of the Tyrell pyramid. I think they cut that for the same reason they didn't make Deckard a replicant - it didn't really add anything to the story. It's kind of a twist just for the sake of a twist.
|
|