Yondan saw fit to blast me in the Pit for not revealing information about this movie that may spoil other people’s enjoyment of the film. Yondan I have addressed, but from now on I am dropping all caution in this thread, so be aware that this post contains spoilers (not just plot spoilers, but “enjoyment” spoilers too).
Bryan, I don’t think there ought to be a solution one way or another, but I think you are being a bit harsh on Blade Runner when you say that revisions to the original theatrical version were carried out for purely materialistic reasons.
I don’t think this is the case. The director’s cut was released in 1992, and the answer to the riddle popped up in July 2000, or about 8 years later. Blade Runner is one of those cult movies that just seem to get more popular with time, and by providing the answer to the famous riddle Scott may have actually dampened interest in the movie rather than stirred it up. It’s been a topic of debate for a long time, and now that there is less to debate, the film is probably poorer for it.
From what I remember from scattered sources there was quite a bit of in-fighting when producing Blade Runner. Scott had his own ideas to the effect that Deckard should be seen as a possible (but not confirmed) Replicant, a view that was supported by at least some versions of the script, but the studio changed the movie until executives were satisfied that it was sufficiently dumbed down for the average viewer to appreciate it (apparently, the average viewer still did not appreciate it, leading one to wonder what the studio heads were thinking of).
It was the studio that insisted on the atrocious voice-over narration and the controversial happy ending (Scott’s original version (and the Director’s Cut) ends with Deckard and Rachel stepping into the lift–the scene after that out in nature is actually taken from spare footage from The Shining). The clues to the Replicant mystery are there in the original film (minus the Unicorn), so I am prepared to accept that this is something Scott had in mind since the beginning, without necessarily leaning one way or another (consider what really made Stockton’s The Lady, or the Tiger famous).
I disagree with a couple of points. Firstly, I wouldn’t say that Scott’s reference to a “man who wanted to change his whole way of life” is revealing: had he said “a replicant” he would obviously have given the secret away, and since Deckard is assumed to be a man he is named a man. But the really important point for me is that Replicants ARE men and women, just artificial ones constructed with the physical and mental attributes required by their functions. Some of them are made physically powerful, while others are endowed with greater mental abilities.
Most of the replicants are indeed emotionally immature, but can we say the same for Roy Batty? Not only does he have a top physical rating of A like his three on-screen replicant companions, but he is the only one to also have a mental rating of A (Pris and Zhora are B-class, while Leon is a lowly C). If you have the Blade Runner DVD, you can easily see the serial tags of the renegade Replicants by hitting pause at the right time. The serial tags contain information about the particular Replicant model (model version, inception date, sex, physical/mental abilities).
I think that Rachel and Roy (both of whom are Replicants) exhibit fairly high levels of emotional sophistication, certainly more than the other Replicants, more than chief Bryant, possibly more than Deckard (who searches alot but comes up rather empty-handed), and more than Tyrell in spite of the latter’s fondness of diversions and amusement. Even J.F. Sebastian seems low on emotion, and he is one of the most promising characters in the film in that sense! Like the toys he designs, Sebastian may seem “cuddly” but in the end he is as emotionally stunted as the others.
No such assumptions are necessary. The quote from Scott you posted supports the view that Deckard may be a Replicant, but let’s leave Scott’s words aside for now. You say that all the elements that point to Deckard’s emotional state contradict that he is a Replicant. I doubt it, because (as in 2001: A Space Odyssey) emotion was deliberately kept to a minimum for this film. Deckard even says that his ex-wife used to refer to him as cold fish. Deckard is looking for something meaningful, I think that much is obvious. But he is an empty shell of a man nonetheless. It seems he has emotions, but they never progress beyond the elementary film noir prerequisites of being haunted and searching for something that eludes him (does he find it after Roy dies, I wonder?).
We can also consider that Deckard is, like Rachel, an experimental Replicant model with unique or rare characteristics. Deckard’s adventures chasing other replicants could be nothing but a live field-test (this could explain why Gaff always seems to be hovering over Deckard, and why Bryant is utterly disrespectful of him–Gaff is the real Blade Runner, and Bryant thinks of Deckard as a lowly Replicant).
Plus, consider this interview from Details magazinbe, October 1992, with Harrison Ford:
My emphasis.
Deckard may have a physical rating of B, which would explain why he is able to rough Rachel up (she would be a C) but cannot face a physical-A Replicant toe-to-toe. If Deckard is an experimental model I doubt that he would have been endowed with class-A physical strength and then allowed to run loose among the population. Too risky.
On the issue of physical strength, do consider that Deckard, after enduring grave beatings from Roy (and others!), is able to struggle up the slippery, wet side of a building with one hand, two broken fingers, and a heavy soaked trenchcoat. Not only does he survive the beatings (and we see no other humans who survive such an encounter, never mind more than one!) but he is able to perform that feat of strength and coordination in the rain, and this from a washed-out man who doesn’t sleep enough, drinks too much, and has collected more than his fair share of rough treatment in the immediate past! I think we can make the case that Deckard is a little bit tougher than human, although nowhere near as powerful as the class-A strength Replicants.
It’s not the same case, because the clues were all present in the original movie, minus the biggest clue of them all (which is why the Unicorn scene is extremely important even if the studio had it removed before original release).
Another very important clue is the identification gimmick Scott used to mark out Replicants for the audience, which is glowing eyes. All Replicants’ eyes glow at some point in the movie, even the eyes of the Replicant owl. Deckard’s eyes glow at one point during a scene with Rachel, when he tells her that he wouldn’t hunt her down if she ran away.
I think Han Solo was modified because shooting first is a bit too rogue-like for the delicate sensitivities of popular movies, and Lucas may have felt that, while shooting first worked fine in the famous Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom scene, it was probably not appropriate in this age of being proper. Likewise, the kiddie insult “penis breath” has been removed from the recent re-release of E.T., but these are not changes on the same scale as the Unicorn scene.