So weird, for years I was like the only guy who thought being human was better than the replicant reveal. I don't mind people feeling otherwise but I felt like the lone voice in the wilderness, where were you guys?
.

It will probably happen again.I suppose it's happened before.The replicants could turn on the humans and hunt them across the stars.... hmmm, seems familiar.
My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.
What I mean is, it's clearly not a memory in any way unless unicorns are real, so (if taken as proof that Deckard is a replicant) it implies that Tyrell Corp. not only implanted memories into Rachael and Deckard but potentially every little passing thought that runs through their mind on a daily basis. Which would make them (in my mind) even less human than the other Nexus 6 replicants.My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.
On a certain level, what's the difference? It wouldn't be a real memory, it would be equivalent to a false memory. It stands to reason that if they can implant false memories such as the one described by Rachael and Deckard, they can implant unicorns.
The replicants could turn on the humans and hunt them across the stars.... hmmm, seems familiar.
What I mean is, it's clearly not a memory in any way unless unicorns are real, so (if taken as proof that Deckard is a replicant) it implies that Tyrell Corp. not only implanted memories into Rachael and Deckard but potentially every little passing thought that runs through their mind on a daily basis. Which would make them (in my mind) even less human than the other Nexus 6 replicants.My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.
On a certain level, what's the difference? It wouldn't be a real memory, it would be equivalent to a false memory. It stands to reason that if they can implant false memories such as the one described by Rachael and Deckard, they can implant unicorns.
I prefer to see the unicorn in a less prosaic light. That Deckard daydreams of a unicorn, and when later Gaff leaves a piece of origami to tell Deckard that he has been there, rather than it throwing Deckard's whole worldview into question, he sees it as one of life's wonderful little funny coincidences.
But as I say, the real beauty of it all is that there is no true answer. The director says one thing, the actor and writer say another, the audience get to decide for themselves. Some resolve to watch it again this weekend for the umpteenth time.![]()
Of course the real reason it's there is to justify Ridley using the 'Blade Runner' budget to pay for some sneaky R&D for 'Legend'.![]()
Of course the real reason it's there is to justify Ridley using the 'Blade Runner' budget to pay for some sneaky R&D for 'Legend'.![]()
The unicorn footage was edited in to Bladerunner long after both movies had left theatres.
Bummer. The only reason I would have possibly wanted to see a Blade Runner sequel is because Ridley Scott was directing. Without him it just seems even more unnecessary (and that's even after factoring in how much of a disappointment Prometheus was).
And really, we don't see Ford until the last act of the movie?
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...rect-blade-runner-sequel-shares-story-details
Does having an old Harrison Ford in the movie mean that Deckard is definitively not a replicant?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.