Blade Runner - Deckert a Replicant?

Cafe Society
1

I heard this a while ago on the radio that Rdley Scott, who directed Blade Runner, finally answered a question that had been bothering several BR fans; Was Deckert himself a replicant?

This was an interpretation I had not even considered until I heard this announcement. Scott said yes, he was a replicant. There are no allusions to this in the movie, so I’m wondering how so many people came up with this question in the first place.

I’ve watched BR countless times; it’s one of my top three picks for all-time cinematography, and this is a puzzler that keeps me awake at night sometimes.

So what are the ramifications?

And do you dream of electric sheep ?

2

In ‘Do Androids Dream of Electris Sheep?’, a major part of the plot is whether Deckard is an android. IIRC he turns out not to be, but all sorts of questions about existence and self-awareness are raised, with hilarious consequences.

However the film was, at best, a fairly loose adaptation. Although there is no explicit discussion of Deckard’s status Ridley Scott planted clues into the film that he was indeed a replicant. The major one is the repeated use of the unicorn: first we see Deckard dream about the unicorn, then Gaff leaves a origami unicorn at Deckard’s apartment, implying that he knew the content of Deckard’s dreams. The explanation is apparently that his dreams were part of his programming, which Gaff knew about.

I suppose the point of the story - given that Deckard is a replicant - is that the only way to stop the androids was to build an even better one to send after them.

Or something.

Alex

3

Deckard - embarrassing spelling screw-up…

OK, so you must’ve seen a version that I never have. Clearly the movie is different from the book it was based on (nothing new there). You’ve filled in a BIG GIANT gap for me though. I always wondered what the deal was with the origami; the version of the movie I have has no Deckard dream sequences.
Thanks Alex B

4

You’re welcome, kuroashi.

The version I’m familiar with is the Director’s Cut, released in 1993: it doesn’t have any voice-over explaining the plot, and no Hollywood-style happy ending tacked on.

Alex

5

So, what it ends with the two of 'em going down the elevator? Don’t answer that. I’m about finished at work here and I’m gonna go to the video store and pick up the Director’s Cut pronto.

Then I’ll get a copy of the book as well. I’ve been meaning to read it, but fiction rarely finds its ways to my fingers. I get enough of what should be in fiction books in real life. Case in point; last week I saw an old lady sitting down by the side walk. She was clipping her toenails while her pet turtle wandered off. She occasionaly stopped clipping long enough to pick her turtle up and set it back down near her. She would then proceed to clip, and the turtle would proceed to walk. I wondered if she was going to clip the turtle’s claws next. Actually, I wondered a lot of things at that point.

6

Sheesh, haven’t you people ever heard of spoiler warnings?

What next? “Citizen Kane - Rosebud a Sled?” :wink:

7

Sorry, didn’t realize there were still people who haven’t seen it.

It’s not really a spoil though. The ending is not about the story really, and neither are the other parts; they just add to the character.

8

And what do you mean Rosebud was a sled? I thought she was his nanny!

:smiley:

9

Spoilers, of course.

It’s made even more complicated by the fact that while Scott apparently always intended Dekard to be a Replicant, Harrison Ford strongly disagreed.

It really depends on which version you’re talking about. The director’s cut makes it pretty clear that he is, the original version (which I haven’t seen in years) almost leaves it the other way. There are about 8 other cuts floating around as well, just to confuse the issue. :slight_smile:

It sounds like you’ve got the ‘original’ version. In the directors cut, Deckard has a dream of a unicorn, (Actually a bit of footage from Legend, of all things) and wakes up to find Gaff left him a little origami unicorn. An obvious parallel to the ‘orange body, green legs’ thing with Rachel.

There’s still a few hints in your version, though. All the replicants surround themselves with old photos, so does Deckard. Gaff’s presence, always showing up just AFTER the fighting is done, makes more sense if you take him as the real BR, with Deckard being a weapon that he uses to do the dangerous parts. Like that.

There were also a lot of earlier script versions that basically gave the whole thing away. After ‘You’ve done a man’s job, sir!’ he added ‘But are you really a man?’

The 5/6 thing, though, (the chief tells Deckard that ‘six escaped, but one was fried passing through a barrier,’ but there are only four reps, Roy, Leon, Priss, and Zhora) whatever Scott says now, wasn’t supposed to be a clue. There were six replicants in one version of the script, (there were a LOT) but the ‘nanny’ rep got cut out

Some people think that this kills the ‘man learning the value of life’ message, but I disagree. It really doesn’t MATTER if Deckard is a replicant or not. They’re just as alive, and just as aware, as humans are.

You might want to check out the Blade Runner Movie Faq, at BLADE RUNNER Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Now, the real question is whether or not Silia is a Boomer. :slight_smile:

Is is POSSIBLE to spoil Citizen Kane? It’s been prespoiled by about a million sitcoms and pundits.

10

That’s why I chose it as my example. I’ve seen Blade Runner (both versions) many times, so this thread wasn’t a spoiler to me. I just know some people hate it when a potential spoiler is posted in the thread title.

Carry on. Great topic.

(And besides, you’ve got Harrison Ford playing Deckard. If THAT isn’t a clue that he’s an android, I don’t know what is.)

11

In my version, “You’ve done a man’s job.” The part “But are you really a man” is missing. I had thought about that line though, “You’ve done a man’s job.” And the photos I saw as a comparison between human and replicant, revealing that, indeed, there really was no difference.

Oddly, all these versions work together to illustrate the point even more strongly.

I’m outta here

12

I don’t think ‘are you really a man’ was ever in a filmed version, actually. There were a LOT of script versions. :slight_smile:

13

Well there are a couple book sequels to the movie by K. W. Jeter. Neither of which are what I would call very good, more ok. I wont tell you what they say, mostly cause I can’t recall.

But who exists to tell us they are cannon?

14

Argh. This is an eternal peeve of mine.

First, I think there is very little evidence in the film of Deckard being a replicant. You can argue that the question is raised, but there’s nothing to say for certain what the verdict is.

Second, to me, the question makes no sense. Why would Deckard be a replicant? What on earth would that accomplish, other than “being cool”? Within the context of the film and the story given in the film, does it make any sense whatsoever for Deckard to be a replicant? No. I’ve heard people weave very intricate and delightful theories of what is “really” going on in the movie for Deckard to be a replicant, but alas, none of that stuff is actullay in the movie.

Third, bite me, Ridley Scott. You made the movie, you even nearly invented the popular notion of the Director’s Cut, now LET IT GO. You do not come back 15 years later and declare what it was “really” about. Make another movie if you feel you must expand on the ideas in the first, or remake the first and this time actually remember to include the stuff you might want in 15 years later. But I don’t care if you are the director, if it’s not in the movie, it’s not there, no matter what you “meant”.

Fourth, that being said, I kinda wish Ridley would declare that Deckard is actually a flying ballerina with a carrot in his nose the whole time, but the clues are very subtle. I’d love to see the millions of fan pages gleefully declaring the genius of Ridley Scott in hiding the clues to the carrot.

15

Duh? The Unicorn horn? Could it BE any more obvious.

Now I must ridicule you over in alt.sf.bladerunner.ballerina.

16

Exactly! It reminds me of what Lucas “really meant” when he had Han Solo use “parsec” as a unit of time. There are all sorts of ex post facto explanations about that – “He was having fun with the farmboy.” That sort of thing. But it wasn’t in the movie, so it didn’t happen. It was an error. Jeez, live up to it!

As for Deckard being a replicant, I can see that the clues are there. But having read the book, I say that in spite of what Scott says Deckard is human.

17

But it is a unit of time – in that universe.

It was clearly stated that SW takes place in a universe far, far away. Why would their units of measurement be the same as ours?

As far as the OP is concerned, Scott has said his intention was to imply that Dekard was a replicant. That was an issue raised in the book and, unfortunately, dropped immediately. The idea of an andoid hunter hunting androids is too good to be let off that cavalierly.

18

I don’t think the parsec thing is a good analogy. The replicant/human thing was pretty obviously intentionally vague, whether you think he was or wasn’t. Parsec was a throwaway reference which turned out to be incorrect.

I’ve never heard a fan argue that that BR’s continuity problems (disappearing and reappearing wounds, Deckard carrying around a bottle before he buys it, and so on) had any deeper meaning than ‘they made some last minute changed to cover a script mistake’

19

Not to nit-pick or anything, but Blade Runner was made in 1982 and Legend was made in 1985. Of course Dick would let you travel through time if you were using the drug in his novel Now wait for last year.

Does anybody know where to get a copy of the theatrical release of Blade Runner? I have not seen it in several years and would like to compare it to the directors cut.

20

Which is why I said ‘in the director’s cut.’ Which came out in, I belive, 1991, thus elimiating the need for a time machine to use footage from a movie released six years earlier. :slight_smile:

The unicorn scene is obviously not in the theatrical version, as both I and kuroashi said. I’m not sure where you’d find a copy of the older version, though, unless you can find an old copy in a video store. (96, I belive, so it shouldn’t be THAT hard if you check out small rental joints)

There’s a new DVD release in the works, which might include both versions. That’s what this is all about, after all. Scott was trying to drum up intrest with his radio relevation.