Technically, it does.
Blade Runner 2
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
Technically, it does.
^ I'll send a telegram when I give a crap about what the director thinks.
Last edited:
He has a photo of him with his wife.
I disagree. Each cut of the film has differing levels of implying it, but none make it definitive.
Why does there need to be?
A theory based on a single example.
Which the movie never presents as definitive proof of a Replicant.
In your opinion.
It's not in the finished script or film, but either way I would argue that you're taking that way too literally. In my opinion, he's speaking of god and free will and all that good meaty stuff. What is human? What makes a human human that a Replicant doesn't have?
Of all the little implications about Deckard's origin, my favorite is the deleted material from their "Happy Drive" at the end, where Rachael says to Deckard, "You know what I think? I think we were made for each other." And Deckard gives her this little (maybe worried) look for a moment as he considers both ways to interpret that line.
For the record, opinions on Deckard being a Replicant...(This is not meant as proof one way or the other, just note-keeping)
Ridley Scott: Yes.
Harrison Ford: No.
Hampton Fancher: No.
Last edited:
It's pretty clear David Peoples (who took over the screenwriting from Fancher beginning with the December 1980 draft) started the whole 'Deckard is a replicant' ball rolling at Ridley's behest, as the July 1980 draft (done by Fancher alone) didn't have it. Fancher left the project after that draft because Ridley kept trying to force 'certain elements' on the script that he objected to. I guess we now know which elements those were.
Those are unfilmed potential endings, and both still refer to Deckard as human. (God is the unknown creator in Deckards case. No matter where a person stands on religions, it's easy to see that's what they are reaching for. Same is true of the Combat Model statement...Roy was made a Cimbat Model by design, and Deckard is shaped into one by the system that insisted he be a Blade Runner.) All the the 'Deckard is a replicant' readings of those scenes are so painfully literal, they make me fear for the future of art. And regardless, they are unfilmed. Just like the retired Rachael endings. Also please note....they are driving through a forest. Which shows that some form of the 'happy ending' scene was planned.
Never used in any cut, probably because it's too much like Rachael's photo. Wasn't her name...Irani? Something like that.
It doesn't get a close up, but you can still see it sitting on the right hand side of Deckard's piano when he gets up to use the Esper.
I will have to dig out the DVD, have seen the photo itself, but would be interesting to see it in situ. It doesn't go much either way in the 'argument' so just for curiosity's sake. (So much is made out of the replicants attachment to photos...but really it's only Leon. Rachael's photo is not even of her after all.)
Deckerd only became a replicant when Scott realised how much money he could make by re-editing the film. He made two world class films one after the other and never managed to reach that white heat of creativity again. What to do? Lightbulb moment, snaps fingers.
Indeed. I never brought it up to prove a point, only to refute the idea that Deckard has no personal photos. (And as mentioned, it wouldn't matter anyway.)
I love that no one is right or wrong. For every reason to believe Deckard is a Rep, there's another reason to discount the idea. There's nothing concrete for either stance.
Films have no "intention."
Their creators have intentions. Directors, writers...
The director of Blade Runner has made his intentions known.
I think the thematic point of the movie is that it doesn't matter -- replicants are as human as anyone else, so it's a meaningless distinction.
Prezackly. I made this point after the pilot of BSG on this very board but it took 2.5 seasons of genius and a couple if years of shite for the series to catch up with me.
That was the case at one time, and it was fun to speculate and talk about it. But with the theatrical re-release of 1992 Scott weighed in to effectively wipe out that ambiguity, which was kind of a drag.
And when Deckard is a human and makes that realization and does a noble thing for Rachael, that's an inspiring ending. Deckard the replicant realizing "Oh shit, I better get going before someone comes to retire me," not so much.
I think the idea, though, is that Deckard is either a human being or a replicant who believes he's a human being. If he knew all along that he was a replicant, that would change the whole story rather drastically, I think.
Many people ignore his words and only judge the material.
Yeah, I don't think there's any question about that.
And I'm one of them. I have very little idea of what Scott has said on the subject.
What was the one big, glaring, obvious addition to the '92 release? The unicorn. It was added to tie Gaff's origami to Deckard's daydreaming. The implication being, Gaff knew Deckard's thoughts, the same way Deckard knew about Rachael's spider memory, because they weren't real. That's an intentional counter to the ambiguity that was there before.