Maybe I’m not that bright, which I’m not, but what was the end of Blade Runner the Directors Cut all about? I take it of course that it means that Harrison Ford is a replicant- The police officer leaves an origami unicorn and a unicorn appears in Deckards dream- but it makes no sense why he should do this. Its a nice way to let the audience know he’s a replicant but it doesn’t fit in with the plot- why should the police let him know he’s a replicant? So he can retire himself? Or so he can go and have fun with his lady? I think i’ll lie down now.
I don’t get any of that replicant unicorn type shit, so the unicorn was in deckards dream, how does this tell us he is a replicant who was created in a lab? How do the police know that he’s going to dream about unicorn’s anyway? Was he programmed to do this? i don’t understand.
I recently watched BR again. Here’s what I think.
Olmos’s character was letting Dekkard know personally, to give him a chance to grab a last bit of happiness with Rachel before thay both shut off. He was also letting him know that the police knew he was a replicant, so to get out and hide.
Clearly, Rachel and Dekkard were part of the same experiment - give replicants an identity and a full set of artificial memories and they would stay sane and stable. Since there was no indication that either was going to go mad and start killing people, they were let go, probably because neither knew how much time they had left, but it was probably a matter of only days or weeks. Problem over for the police.
This was a hotly debated point by fanboys until recently, when Ridley Scott resolved the issue by stating openly that Dekkard was a replicant and the origami unicorn was the main clue. Apparently, the unicorn dream was part of his implanted memories, but no-one would have reason to know that unless it was in the sealed police file. Olmos’s character was probably some sort of watch-dog, keeping an eye on Dekkard in case he started to go insane.
Ohhhhh, I get it. That’s pretty good actually.
There are other clues, too. The replicants are portrayed to have an affinity for photographs. Scott makes a nice little joke out of this when he shows Deckard’s photograph collection. Most of them are a particular kind of photograph: tin-types.
Get it? Tin-types, Tin Woodsman, robot, replicant, ha ha ha.
Deckard’s boss always looks at Deckard in a patronizing, knowing way.
Rachel asks Deckard if he’s ever taken the test himself.
Deckard has no friends, and no living family that we know of. The one guy who does appear to know Deckard (besides the cops) is the slimy club-owner, and we can’t really be too sure of that.
And then there is the change of title from Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (in which Deckard is a human) to Blade Runner. You know, the knife’s edge of humanity and all that.
When Roy Batty grabs Deckard’s hand, you can make him out saying, “kinship.”
“Too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”
Oh, yeah. And then there is the “missing replicant.” Six escaped, one of them “got fried.” We meet four. Seems to be more of a minor plot discontinuity than anything.
Incidentally, according to this site, the goofy scene at the end of the original was cobbled together in part from outtakes from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining.
This is true. Deckard was not a replicant in the book. IIRC, he was a somehow-defective human; and whatever genetic problem he had, kept him from emmigrating off-world to a better life. (It’s been years’n’years since I’ve read it.)
As far as there being six escaped replicants, they were Leon, Zola, Pris, Roy and Rachael (the chief adds her after she leaves the Tyrell Corp.), plus the one that got fried.
I know that Scott said that Deckard is a replicant; but since the book says Deckard is human, I’ll have to disagree with the director! Personal preference. Having Deckard turn out to be a replicant is too cliché.
As far as Deckard’s and Rachael’s escape, the implication I got was that her lifespan is indefinite. That is, she’ll live as long as a human. I’ve only seen the director’s cut once (thank the gods he got rid of the stupid voiceover!) and I don’t remember exactly how it ended.
Sofa King wrote: Oh, yeah. And then there is the “missing replicant.” Six escaped, one of them “got fried.” We meet four. Seems to be more of a minor plot discontinuity than anything.
…except that the sixth, we now know, is Deckard.
Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies of all time. I remember watching it in theaters when it first came out, and being blown away with it (even with the hokey voice-over). 
Am I the only person on Earth who liked that voice over? I thought it made the movie much easier to follow.
I think Dekkards problem in the book was the level of pollutants or radiation in his system. I read the book just last year, but I still can’t remember. But I do remember being struck with how different the book and movie were. Dekkard is the main character in the movie, but he is the plot of the book, i.e. there isn’t a single scene which is not from his point of view. And in the movie the replicants are strong, smart, and aggressive. But in the book he kills most of them with relative ease. The movie also excised any mention of the value of real animals, mood organs, Dekkards wife, etc.
I really can’t believe that Kubrick expected people to go along with Dekkard being a replicant. If that was true, then how come the other replicants beat him up so easily? Wouldn’t Dekkard be as strong as them?
Still like the movie though.
Nope… that was the “Happy ending” in the original.
In the Director’s cut, there was no mention of Rachel’s lifespan. It also ended at the moment Deckard closed the door to his apartment elevator.
Better ending. Not the “drive through the trees to happiness” bit.
blech.
This was the only thing that bothered me as well…
Anyone got any ideas?
Ridley Scott directed.
This is one place where the book is a lot better than the movie. The book has Deckard human, and searching for something living in a world that is more and more artifical by the day. The movie? Bleah. I actually prefer the happy ending. I imagine in some small way that’ll tick Scott off, which makes me happy.
I have to disagree here. I read the book in order to understand the movie better (that never works; I don’t know why I bother), and came away with nothing. I read it a long time ago, but it seemed like Scott just took the idea of the book, and made a completely different movie out of it.
Following up on Sofa King’s list of other clues:
The first time that I watched this movie, it never occurred to me that Harrison Ford’s character might be a replicant himself. However, I was puzzled over one thing: when Leon encounters Deckard for the first time and assaults him, Deckard calls out his name as if he knows him. When he exclaims, “Leon!”, it really sounds like he means to say, “Leon! It’s you!”
I liked both the movie and the book, but in completely different ways. At least Scott kept some of the book intact, although like many of his films it is more about the look and feel of the the thing than the action. More about style than substance.
Off the main point a bit, watching it again after so many years, I was really impressed with how it has held up visually. No mean feat considering the advancements made in sfx over the last 18 years.
The Unicorn is a symmbol of eternal life. Olmos’s character leaves it as a clue to Dekkard that he, like Rachel, has a normal lifespan and will not “burn out” like the others. It’s his way of letting Dekkard know that he and Rachel have as much time as they want together.
The final, tacked on scene in the original release, was indeed cobbled together from leftover footage from “The Shining.”
In either case, the ending was something of a copout: the allegory of Dekkard as the angel of Death is sustained throughout the movie, only to be discarded for a romantic ending. Less blatantly in the director’s cut, but discarded nonetheless.
I’ve often wondered about the line that Gaff says to Deckard towards the end: “You’ve done a man’s work, Sir!” You could take it as a straight compliment, or you could read it as Gaff comparing Deckard to a normal man.
Seems like Deckard absorbed a lot of punishment for a heavy drinking cop. Perhaps he wasn’t optimized as highly as the Offworld replicants, which would explain his getting the crap beaten out of him by every one that he encountered.
Incidentally, I like both the book and the movie equally well, but I do prefer the director’s cut over the original theatrical release (for the ending, not the lack of voice-over).
Take a look at the following FAQ on Blade Runner:
http://www.bit.net.au/~muzzle/bladerunner/
It makes the case that there’s an good argument each way about whether Deckard is a replicant. Also, read the book Future Noir by Paul M. Sammon. It’s sort of a “making of the film” book about Blade Runner, but it’s vastly better than any other such book about a movie that I’ve ever seen before. Both the FAQ and the book tell you everything you want to know about the various versions of the movie.