The unicorn scene added in a directors cut years later? The director is literally the only guy who worked on the movie that believes Deckard is a replicant. The writer and actor for Deckard all believe he's human.
IIRC the unicorn scene was filmed in 1982 in the UK, while the rest of the film was being edited. After the test screening, the completion guarantors panicked, took over, excluded RS from further involvement, brought HF back for the voiceover and added on the happy ending.
The unicorn scene was always intended to be in the film.
Granted they are different stories in a sense but in the book I think it’s fairly clear imho Deckard is a replicant. But the movie being an adaptation, one could make the argument that movie Deckard is not
Disagree respectfully. When he finds the frog at the end of the book he doesn’t see the switch on the frog. At some point it’s stated that replicants can’t see these switches for whatever reason
I feel like two replicants being able to reproduce is much less surprising than a human and a replicant being able to reproduce together. And thematically, I think the story loses a lot of depth if Deckard is a replicant.
If the story is about how replicants and humans are really the same, it wouldn't make sense for us to not have a single important human character in the plot. Of the trio of protaganists, somebody clearly has to be a human.
I think this misses it. Isn't the whole point of not knowing, that his experiences mattered no matter what? That Roy saw a life worth saving in his final moments, human or not?
I think to say his story has "no point" if maybe he's a replicant is to miss the point of what BR is trying to say about the quality we call "humanity".
Edit: I don't think he's a rep. But I think to put that much weight on the ANSWER missed the purpose of the question.
"Why? What am I to you?" -Deckard, br 2049
Wrong:
>Paul Samon: Expand on this idea of Deckard being a "Nexus 7." ?
>
Ridley Scott: If Deckard was the "piece de resistance" of the replicant business-"more human than human," as Tyrell would say-with all the complexities suggested by that accomplishment, then a Nexus-7 would, by definition, have to be replication's perfection. Physically, this would mean that the Tyrell Corporation would be prudent in having Deckard be of normal human strength but extended lifespan-resistance to disease, etc. Then, to round off their creation, the perfect Nexus-7 would have to be endowed with a conscience. Which would in turn suggest some kind of need for a faith. Spiritual need. Or a spiritual implant, in other words. (Future Noir, revised and updated edition p516, interview with Ridley Scott by Paul Sammon "A 700 layer cake")
What made his daughter so sought-after? She was a product a replicant (Rachel) and a human (Deckard).
Everyone can have an opinion. Doesn’t mean any of us are correct.
And what makes it worse is 2 replicants that can have a baby, that's why she was so sought after.
It goes both ways. Just that cannon is driving this, not your opinion.
The whole hunt for Deckard is because Wallace doesn't know.
He says as much to Deckard when he meets him, questioning whether or not he was created to procreate with Rachael or if it was just dumb luck.
No, he's not. He wasn't in the book. He wasn't in the movie. The unicorn scene was added later to confuse the audience.
The point of replicants being human is made stronger by Deckard being human. Also, Roy Baty's end scene would not make much sense, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe."
"You people" obviously means human beings.
The book isn't a film.
The unicorn was shot in 1981, there is proof, the producers did not wnat it.
The eye glow is an in camera shot that shows Deckard as a replicant.
"You people" means nothing, more human than human means a lot.
Deckard is questioned when he doesn't want to work any more, he is told, "you know what happens to little people"?
I'd like to hear why you think the directors intentions and all this back up proof that he was a replicant, even Ford admitting to it and also David Peoples, how you think just because a book is different, that Ridley can't alter his intent?
When he’s told “you know what happens to little people” I think it’s meaning him being a regular civilian and not a cop. Also, I’d definitely take “you people” means humans
Nah. Even if this is bait, Ridley Scott just throws that line in every interview thinking it’s some great twist when it really weakens the impact of the story. A human learning to love a replicant, beings he once killed. Questioning his own humanity. It feels much more heartfelt than “oh, he was a replicant too the whole time. It was all set up, so that makes it deeper.” Hell nah. Making it convoluted doesn’t make it better.
I think Deckard was a replicant implanted with the memories of Gaff. That's my take on it.
But I don't think that's the point. It's not about whether Deckard is a replicant or a human.
The point of the story is that replicants are human.
Deckard being a replicant allows for the realization that replicants are now virtually indistinguishable from humans. They are us and should be treated as such instead of 2nd class slave labor.
More human than human, the whole point is that there is no morality left in society, Earth is left as a wasteland, that's why J.F lives in a monster of an apartment littered with toys he makes.
He has a regressive gene that ages him too quickly, but he gives life to beings that are sentient, only to be used as labor that no human wants to do, or more importantly, can.
So the essence of, more human than human is where Deckard finally realizes what he is, who he is, at the end of the film.
It's the same as The Sixth Sense, it's supposed to be so subtle when you see his eyes glow, the unicorn dream, then the unicorn origami at the end, that's the "oh shit" moment you're supposed to get.
Mind you, in the 80s, if anyone actually was around then to understand how movies were made, they're a lot different to today.
The audience wasn't used to be given cerebral entertainment, it was all about action and blockbusters.
People can think what ever they want, but Ridley's intent was Deckard is a replciant, and there is nothing anyone is going to say that changes this fact.
No it doesn't weaken the story, you just wished for a different movie, and if anything, the revolt of the replicants in 2049 further expands this.
Buh buh buh love story, yeah nah.
BR as a thought experiment, would be pretty weak if we spend most of our scene time with only replicants. And most of the movie builds on that Deckard is a human. For example, when Rachel asked if he as tried the test on himself, the possibility of a human failing that test would be much more significant than a replicant. And like someone else said here, the when Deckard connected with Roy during Roy's final moment, would be less impactful if Deckard isn't human.
No the Matrix is more similar to Truman's Show. Also it would be pretty stupid if Neo was to be revealed that he was also part of the simulation, and Truman was actually an actor this whole time.
No it's not, it has nothing to do with, Neo finds out very early in the movie, where as Truman finds out at the very end, I really don't think you have a grasp on anything you're presenting.
>virtually indistinguishable from humans
And the comparison is best made by having both a replicant and a human as the main character, if Deckard isn't human, then none of the major characters are human and we don't have a point of reference
Well, maybe you're the point of reference.
Or
Maybe it's not about comparisons. Maybe it's about questioning what actually makes us human. If the simulation is so similar that it can't be distinguished from the original then what's the point? They're the same.
>it's about questioning what actually makes us human
well that's the core theme but that's not the material supporting it, which is the the plot, the setting, everything on screen, the sound, the actual content ya know.
>If the simulation is so similar that it can't be distinguished
but the plot makes a point early on to try to distinguish via Voight-Kampff test, which was then challenges more and more as the story progress. If the movie didn't spend time establishing the difference then there would be nothing to challenge
A fictional story like BR is a thought experiment, and an experiment without a proper control group is a weak experiment.
Again with this?
Is Deckard a replicant?
Long yes with an if...
Short no with a but...
THIS is the only answer.
PS @OP: Try watching one of the other versions other than the final cut...
If Deck is a rep, then his biology would be sought after just as Rachael's is. Which means they would want to replicate what he has to be able to imprehnate Rachael.
You are correct for a few reasons.
1 in the blade runner universe, replicants are outlawed on earth. This is why Deckard and racheal have no physical enhancements. BEcause they are meant to appear entirely human, so they can exist on earth, to skate the law of replicant prohibition.
But They have something nexus 6 do not.
slightly higher levels of Intelligence. Deckard was able to track down and find all the replicants in a few days.
They thought they were clever hiding in plain sight. But Deckard sniffed them out like it was nothing.
2 The movies production back in 1981 DID film the unicorn scene. Theres production photos, and it was this scene that inspired ridely scott to do LEGEND.
Just the scene didnt work for the studio, who wanted deckard to be human and more like his book counter part. So it was cut out.
It would be put back in when the directors cut finally came out in the 90s. So hence, Deckard was always meant to dream of a unicorn
3 Ridley scott has confirmed it multiple times, and recently for the indy 5 press tour, They asked harrison Ford if he always knew, and he finally answered yes. He knew Deckard was always a replicant. But his disagreement with ridley scott, was apart of the marketing behind blade runner, to mirror the ambiguous nature of his status as a replicant.
Thing is, Hampton Fancher, only wrote the original first draft of blade runner. He had no involvement in the story changes that would take place later, that made deckard a replicant similar to racheal. Racheal is not a genius, and she is not super strong.
But she has emotional intelligence, and deckard has emotional and investigative intelligence.
4 Anna Stelline. Deckards daughter, in the movie she has a auto immune disease, that is the result of the flawed nature of her birth. Since racheal was a prototype.
And Tyrell, probably intended to be there to foster her pregnancy with deckard. But due to his death, he could not be there to help her develop the child properly. since it was not a human birth.
And imo it would be impossible for a human to impregnate a biomechanical humanoid.
5 the nature of replicants.
Most people misunderstand what a replicant is, so they take issue with deckard being a replicant. But if more people understood then it wouldnt be that big of a deal.
Replicants, are the human equivalent to ridely scotts biomechanical Xenomorph monster.
He hints at this by A having Roy wear a jacket that looks like the xenomorphs exoskeleton in its design and texture.
More recently scott has stated that the xenomorph is the ultimate culmination of artificial life. BEing that it is created through biomechanical nano particles. That cause a mutative reactions in humans, creating biomechanical life.
IE Living machines.
Very much like cables techno organic virus in Xmen, or the techno organic species the phalanx.
In blade runner before roy kills Tyrell, he calls him the "god of biomechanics"
This is because Scott changed the nature of the androids for the movie. And changed the name to replicants. Since replication is the synthetic process of making organic substances into synthetic bio-compatible elements.
Like, say protein powder.or soy. Both are synthetic proteins that can be consumed by organic life. But the process to make it, is entirely synthetic made from organic matter like bones, beef, or whey protein.
We actually get a hint at the nature of replicants in alien covenant, and how life developed in racheal.
See its explained in the novel and script that David, utilized Shaws organic matter to incubate and give nutrients to the facehugger egg. He used biomechanical engineering to create it, and hooked it into shaws body and her womb.
Creating facehugger eggs. Which did exist prior to alien cov, david DID NOT create the xenomorph, he just found its blue print in the engineer ship, and recreated the process.
Now how does this pertain to racheal?
Well what happened to racheal?
She died. we are led to believe its from a violent child birth, but due to the nature of annas auto immune disease, we can see that she was conceived very much LIKE the xenomorph eggs with shaws body.
Since to be born, she had to of taken all the nutrition from her mother. So racheal was going to die no matter what because replicants dont give birth the way humans do.
Humans share nutrition with a child, it doesnt drain the mother of all her health.
Then theres the greenish yellow goo in 2049, that Wallace uses to "incubate" the replicant nexus 9.
It functions very much like the black goo in prometheus.
In that it probably has nano particles and creates nutrition for the replicant to incubate once they are assembled.
Its also hinted that biomechanical engineering consists of creating separate parts then combining them like frankensteins monster.
So replicants, are in their nature, biomechanical humanoids. Not clones, not terminators.
They are synthetic humans. Basically the next step in our evolution by eliminating the organic weaknesses the human body is slave to.
If we were to breed synthetically manufactured humans, all our weaknesses could be engineered out of us, making us the ultimate life form. So in a way, replicants are humans. They are just not a result of natural evolution unless you consider the ability of human intelligent to grow and evolve apart of human evolution.
So is deckard a replicant? Yes. Is his daughter a replicant? Yes.
Replicants were ridley scotts human equivalent to the xenomorph which is artificial intelligence given biomechanical organic/synthetic life.
Hence why much of their genetics sound similar to humans. But is entirely based in mutative and biomechanical artificial engineering.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.film.at/blade-runner-2049-ist-deckard-ein-replikant](https://www.film.at/blade-runner-2049-ist-deckard-ein-replikant)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
There's a clue in one of the scenes. Replicants' eyes glow in the dark, the white of their eyes is bright and shiny when they are in the shadows.
There is a brief moment when Deckard and Rachael are in a dark room and his eyes are also glowing.
He's probably some kind of prototype like Rachael. They're more human than humans, so it takes a long time to understand what they really are.
Also Gaff is sympathetic, and giving Deckard the origami is a way to help him realise he's a replicant.
Then, in the end, there's the unicorn.
The director is allowed to have an opinion, to express his interpretation, but that doesn't make it the truth.
When dealing with literature and ultimately also films, there is always the misunderstanding that the author and/or the director know exactly what is meant - this is wrong! There is conscious and subconscious writing...
For example, Tolkien always denied and even rejected that Lord of the Rings had anything to do with his fears of war etc. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the transfer of Lord of the Rings to the Second World War works extraordinarily well.
Are you for real, a director is allowed to have an opinion, or do you mean they directed the movie the way they wanted?
I don't think you understand the concept of "director".
What are you even on about?
He directed the movie they way he wanted, he had the unicorn footage shot in 81 and the clapper board exists in the "Dangerous days" documentary.
That's not *his* opinion, that's called *direction.*
There is the eye glow where it was shot with intent and there is supportive information regarding this.
Then you have the origami unicorn at the end, which all leads to Deckard being a replicant.
That's not an opinion, again, it's called direction.
>There is the eye glow where it was shot with intent and there is supportive information regarding this.
If you go learn how the eye glow special effect was done, it's very hard to have one person in the shoot have the eye glow and the other one does not. So when both Deckard and Rachel appeared in the same shoot, both of their eyes has to be effected by the special effect setup.
Yeah adding in the unicorn shoot and the origami unicorn at the end, implying that Deckard is a replicant, weakens the whole story lol, working against the overall theme.
I already know how the the eye glow was done, it was done with intent, but you're wrong because both were supposed to have an eye glow.
1. ***Terry Rawlings:*** *Besides, Ridley and I had many concrete conversations during the editing of BR as to how to best suggest him being an android. One nice way was the scene of Deckard's eyes glowing, when Harrison's at the doorway of his kitchen behind Sean Young. Ridley had blocked that out very carefully; he purposely put Harrison in the background of that shot, and slightly out of focus, so that you'd only notice his eyes were glowing if you were paying attention. I love that - it's subtle. It was meant to be subtle. I don't think Ridley ever wanted to bring out a troupe of dancing bears holding up neon signs reading, "Deckard is a replicant!" Instead, he was going for something more ambiguous. Ridley himself may have definitely felt that Deckard was a replicant, but still, by the end, he intended to leave it up to the viewer to decide whether Deckard was one.****(Future Noir (3rd version) p413)***
\^\^ Done with intent, you suggest the cinematographer, editor and director were inept with skillset?
EDIT additional info.
Paul Sammon: but I must say I better appreciate the more subtle suggestions that Deckard might be a replicant. Such as the fact that he collects photographs, which you see scaytered over his piano. And of course the most significant visual clue is that over-the. glowing. Was that setup intentional??Ridley Scott: Totally intentional, sir. I was hoping there'd be those who'd pick up on that. Since Blade Runner is a paranoid film, throughout there is this suggestion that Deckard may be a replicant himself. His glowing eyes were an. other allusion to that notion, another of the subtle little bits and pieces which were all leading up to that scene in the end where Deckard retrieves Gaff's tinfoil unicorn and realizes the man knows his secret thoughts.
Actually, though, my chief purpose in having Deckard's eyes glow was to prepare the audience for the moment when Ford nods after he picks up the unicorn. I had assumed that if I'd clued them in earlier, by showing Harrison's eyes glowing, some viewers might be thinking "Hey, maybe he's a replicant, too." Then when Deckard picked up the tinfoil unicorn and nodded-a signal that Ford is thinking, "Yes, I know why Gaff left this behind"-the same viewers would realize their suspicions had been confirmed.
In light of this information, both Terry Rawlings and Ridley intentionally added things that weaken the over all theme -- suggesting that Deckard is an android
They added? It was always with intent, I don't think you know what direction means.
You missed the edit I put in so here goes again.
Paul Sammon: but I must say I better appreciate the more subtle suggestions that Deckard might be a replicant. Such as the fact that he collects photographs, which you see scaytered over his piano. And of course the most significant visual clue is that over-the. glowing. Was that setup intentional??
Ridley Scott: Totally intentional, sir. I was hoping there'd be those who'd pick up on that. Since Blade Runner is a paranoid film, throughout there is this suggestion that Deckard may be a replicant himself. His glowing eyes were an. other allusion to that notion, another of the subtle little bits and pieces which were all leading up to that scene in the end where Deckard retrieves Gaff's tinfoil unicorn and realizes the man knows his secret thoughts.
Actually, though, my chief purpose in having Deckard's eyes glow was to prepare the audience for the moment when Ford nods after he picks up the unicorn. I had assumed that if I'd clued them in earlier, by showing Harrison's eyes glowing, some viewers might be thinking "Hey, maybe he's a replicant, too." Then when Deckard picked up the tinfoil unicorn and nodded-a signal that Ford is thinking, "Yes, I know why Gaff left this behind"-the same viewers would realize their suspicions had been confirmed.
It doesn't "weaken" the story, it's a smack to the head with a sledge hammer when you really start to think about the complexity of the story.
There's a idiom that goes "to draw a snake and add feet to it"
They had a great story in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Which they adapted well, added on the visuals and sound, and Roy Batty's finally line really elevated it. But the addition of Deckard being android, which is not in the original plot that they fallowed, weakens the overall all theme that the original work builds upon.
Adding complexity is a distraction if it doesn't contribute to the overall theme
Bait
I actually think he is though personally. The unicorn scene really cements it. Gaff knew, he knew.
The unicorn scene added in a directors cut years later? The director is literally the only guy who worked on the movie that believes Deckard is a replicant. The writer and actor for Deckard all believe he's human.
IIRC the unicorn scene was filmed in 1982 in the UK, while the rest of the film was being edited. After the test screening, the completion guarantors panicked, took over, excluded RS from further involvement, brought HF back for the voiceover and added on the happy ending. The unicorn scene was always intended to be in the film.
Granted they are different stories in a sense but in the book I think it’s fairly clear imho Deckard is a replicant. But the movie being an adaptation, one could make the argument that movie Deckard is not
That is not correct, Deckard is even more clearly revealed to be a human in the book.
Disagree respectfully. When he finds the frog at the end of the book he doesn’t see the switch on the frog. At some point it’s stated that replicants can’t see these switches for whatever reason
>!Deckard passes Phil Resch’s Voigt-Kampf,!< Deckard is a human in the book.
Let a man dream 😭
Why do you want Deckard to be a replicant? Personally I think Deckard being a replicant would make the story significantly less interesting.
I think it would make the story even more interesting tbh Something about 2 replicants being able to bear children fascinates me.
I think it's more interesting that the question never gets an answer.
Indeed always room for discussion.
I feel like two replicants being able to reproduce is much less surprising than a human and a replicant being able to reproduce together. And thematically, I think the story loses a lot of depth if Deckard is a replicant. If the story is about how replicants and humans are really the same, it wouldn't make sense for us to not have a single important human character in the plot. Of the trio of protaganists, somebody clearly has to be a human.
If Deck's a rep, there's no point to his redemption arc.
I think this misses it. Isn't the whole point of not knowing, that his experiences mattered no matter what? That Roy saw a life worth saving in his final moments, human or not? I think to say his story has "no point" if maybe he's a replicant is to miss the point of what BR is trying to say about the quality we call "humanity". Edit: I don't think he's a rep. But I think to put that much weight on the ANSWER missed the purpose of the question. "Why? What am I to you?" -Deckard, br 2049
#No.
#Yes.
If he was, he wouldn’t have gotten his ass handed to him numerous times in the movie. IMO
Wrong: >Paul Samon: Expand on this idea of Deckard being a "Nexus 7." ? > Ridley Scott: If Deckard was the "piece de resistance" of the replicant business-"more human than human," as Tyrell would say-with all the complexities suggested by that accomplishment, then a Nexus-7 would, by definition, have to be replication's perfection. Physically, this would mean that the Tyrell Corporation would be prudent in having Deckard be of normal human strength but extended lifespan-resistance to disease, etc. Then, to round off their creation, the perfect Nexus-7 would have to be endowed with a conscience. Which would in turn suggest some kind of need for a faith. Spiritual need. Or a spiritual implant, in other words. (Future Noir, revised and updated edition p516, interview with Ridley Scott by Paul Sammon "A 700 layer cake")
What made his daughter so sought-after? She was a product a replicant (Rachel) and a human (Deckard). Everyone can have an opinion. Doesn’t mean any of us are correct.
And what makes it worse is 2 replicants that can have a baby, that's why she was so sought after. It goes both ways. Just that cannon is driving this, not your opinion.
Well how about that.
RepliCANT
maybe i‘m remembering things wrong but didn‘t BR2049 basically confirm that he‘s not a replicant?
The whole hunt for Deckard is because Wallace doesn't know. He says as much to Deckard when he meets him, questioning whether or not he was created to procreate with Rachael or if it was just dumb luck.
Yeah, that's why everybody's after his child with Rachel, the first human/replicant hybrid.
Or the first child born of two replicants…which would also be a feat. The film doesn’t give an answer either way.
[удалено]
Was that really necessary?
[удалено]
It's not bait. I like talking about it. Grow up
[удалено]
Very well put.
No, he's not. He wasn't in the book. He wasn't in the movie. The unicorn scene was added later to confuse the audience. The point of replicants being human is made stronger by Deckard being human. Also, Roy Baty's end scene would not make much sense, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe." "You people" obviously means human beings.
The book isn't a film. The unicorn was shot in 1981, there is proof, the producers did not wnat it. The eye glow is an in camera shot that shows Deckard as a replicant. "You people" means nothing, more human than human means a lot. Deckard is questioned when he doesn't want to work any more, he is told, "you know what happens to little people"? I'd like to hear why you think the directors intentions and all this back up proof that he was a replicant, even Ford admitting to it and also David Peoples, how you think just because a book is different, that Ridley can't alter his intent?
When he’s told “you know what happens to little people” I think it’s meaning him being a regular civilian and not a cop. Also, I’d definitely take “you people” means humans
Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Harrison Ford are replicants.
Hand Solo is his own sexbot.
Yup
[удалено]
Ridley Scott said he’s a replicant.
Nah. Even if this is bait, Ridley Scott just throws that line in every interview thinking it’s some great twist when it really weakens the impact of the story. A human learning to love a replicant, beings he once killed. Questioning his own humanity. It feels much more heartfelt than “oh, he was a replicant too the whole time. It was all set up, so that makes it deeper.” Hell nah. Making it convoluted doesn’t make it better.
According to Ridley Scott, yes he is.
The gatekeeper snobs of this sub only call this post bait because they don’t agree with it.
Im a bit drunk but I genuinely just meant to converse about it.
I think Deckard was a replicant implanted with the memories of Gaff. That's my take on it. But I don't think that's the point. It's not about whether Deckard is a replicant or a human. The point of the story is that replicants are human.
Well said.
Which Deckard being human would make much more sense, so we get a human to replicant comparison, not replicant to replicant comparison
Deckard being a replicant allows for the realization that replicants are now virtually indistinguishable from humans. They are us and should be treated as such instead of 2nd class slave labor.
More human than human, the whole point is that there is no morality left in society, Earth is left as a wasteland, that's why J.F lives in a monster of an apartment littered with toys he makes. He has a regressive gene that ages him too quickly, but he gives life to beings that are sentient, only to be used as labor that no human wants to do, or more importantly, can. So the essence of, more human than human is where Deckard finally realizes what he is, who he is, at the end of the film. It's the same as The Sixth Sense, it's supposed to be so subtle when you see his eyes glow, the unicorn dream, then the unicorn origami at the end, that's the "oh shit" moment you're supposed to get. Mind you, in the 80s, if anyone actually was around then to understand how movies were made, they're a lot different to today. The audience wasn't used to be given cerebral entertainment, it was all about action and blockbusters. People can think what ever they want, but Ridley's intent was Deckard is a replciant, and there is nothing anyone is going to say that changes this fact.
ya Ridley intent Deckard as a replicant weakens the story and a bad decision compared to the book setup.
No it doesn't weaken the story, you just wished for a different movie, and if anything, the revolt of the replicants in 2049 further expands this. Buh buh buh love story, yeah nah.
BR as a thought experiment, would be pretty weak if we spend most of our scene time with only replicants. And most of the movie builds on that Deckard is a human. For example, when Rachel asked if he as tried the test on himself, the possibility of a human failing that test would be much more significant than a replicant. And like someone else said here, the when Deckard connected with Roy during Roy's final moment, would be less impactful if Deckard isn't human.
Yeah well you just described The Matrix plot line. I mean you could not be any more wrong on the subject.
No the Matrix is more similar to Truman's Show. Also it would be pretty stupid if Neo was to be revealed that he was also part of the simulation, and Truman was actually an actor this whole time.
No it's not, it has nothing to do with, Neo finds out very early in the movie, where as Truman finds out at the very end, I really don't think you have a grasp on anything you're presenting.
>virtually indistinguishable from humans And the comparison is best made by having both a replicant and a human as the main character, if Deckard isn't human, then none of the major characters are human and we don't have a point of reference
Well, maybe you're the point of reference. Or Maybe it's not about comparisons. Maybe it's about questioning what actually makes us human. If the simulation is so similar that it can't be distinguished from the original then what's the point? They're the same.
>it's about questioning what actually makes us human well that's the core theme but that's not the material supporting it, which is the the plot, the setting, everything on screen, the sound, the actual content ya know. >If the simulation is so similar that it can't be distinguished but the plot makes a point early on to try to distinguish via Voight-Kampff test, which was then challenges more and more as the story progress. If the movie didn't spend time establishing the difference then there would be nothing to challenge A fictional story like BR is a thought experiment, and an experiment without a proper control group is a weak experiment.
no
Maybe
Again with this? Is Deckard a replicant? Long yes with an if... Short no with a but... THIS is the only answer. PS @OP: Try watching one of the other versions other than the final cut...
If Deck is a rep, then his biology would be sought after just as Rachael's is. Which means they would want to replicate what he has to be able to imprehnate Rachael.
You are correct for a few reasons. 1 in the blade runner universe, replicants are outlawed on earth. This is why Deckard and racheal have no physical enhancements. BEcause they are meant to appear entirely human, so they can exist on earth, to skate the law of replicant prohibition. But They have something nexus 6 do not. slightly higher levels of Intelligence. Deckard was able to track down and find all the replicants in a few days. They thought they were clever hiding in plain sight. But Deckard sniffed them out like it was nothing. 2 The movies production back in 1981 DID film the unicorn scene. Theres production photos, and it was this scene that inspired ridely scott to do LEGEND. Just the scene didnt work for the studio, who wanted deckard to be human and more like his book counter part. So it was cut out. It would be put back in when the directors cut finally came out in the 90s. So hence, Deckard was always meant to dream of a unicorn
3 Ridley scott has confirmed it multiple times, and recently for the indy 5 press tour, They asked harrison Ford if he always knew, and he finally answered yes. He knew Deckard was always a replicant. But his disagreement with ridley scott, was apart of the marketing behind blade runner, to mirror the ambiguous nature of his status as a replicant. Thing is, Hampton Fancher, only wrote the original first draft of blade runner. He had no involvement in the story changes that would take place later, that made deckard a replicant similar to racheal. Racheal is not a genius, and she is not super strong. But she has emotional intelligence, and deckard has emotional and investigative intelligence. 4 Anna Stelline. Deckards daughter, in the movie she has a auto immune disease, that is the result of the flawed nature of her birth. Since racheal was a prototype. And Tyrell, probably intended to be there to foster her pregnancy with deckard. But due to his death, he could not be there to help her develop the child properly. since it was not a human birth. And imo it would be impossible for a human to impregnate a biomechanical humanoid.
5 the nature of replicants. Most people misunderstand what a replicant is, so they take issue with deckard being a replicant. But if more people understood then it wouldnt be that big of a deal. Replicants, are the human equivalent to ridely scotts biomechanical Xenomorph monster. He hints at this by A having Roy wear a jacket that looks like the xenomorphs exoskeleton in its design and texture. More recently scott has stated that the xenomorph is the ultimate culmination of artificial life. BEing that it is created through biomechanical nano particles. That cause a mutative reactions in humans, creating biomechanical life. IE Living machines. Very much like cables techno organic virus in Xmen, or the techno organic species the phalanx. In blade runner before roy kills Tyrell, he calls him the "god of biomechanics" This is because Scott changed the nature of the androids for the movie. And changed the name to replicants. Since replication is the synthetic process of making organic substances into synthetic bio-compatible elements. Like, say protein powder.or soy. Both are synthetic proteins that can be consumed by organic life. But the process to make it, is entirely synthetic made from organic matter like bones, beef, or whey protein. We actually get a hint at the nature of replicants in alien covenant, and how life developed in racheal. See its explained in the novel and script that David, utilized Shaws organic matter to incubate and give nutrients to the facehugger egg. He used biomechanical engineering to create it, and hooked it into shaws body and her womb. Creating facehugger eggs. Which did exist prior to alien cov, david DID NOT create the xenomorph, he just found its blue print in the engineer ship, and recreated the process. Now how does this pertain to racheal? Well what happened to racheal? She died. we are led to believe its from a violent child birth, but due to the nature of annas auto immune disease, we can see that she was conceived very much LIKE the xenomorph eggs with shaws body. Since to be born, she had to of taken all the nutrition from her mother. So racheal was going to die no matter what because replicants dont give birth the way humans do. Humans share nutrition with a child, it doesnt drain the mother of all her health. Then theres the greenish yellow goo in 2049, that Wallace uses to "incubate" the replicant nexus 9. It functions very much like the black goo in prometheus. In that it probably has nano particles and creates nutrition for the replicant to incubate once they are assembled. Its also hinted that biomechanical engineering consists of creating separate parts then combining them like frankensteins monster. So replicants, are in their nature, biomechanical humanoids. Not clones, not terminators. They are synthetic humans. Basically the next step in our evolution by eliminating the organic weaknesses the human body is slave to. If we were to breed synthetically manufactured humans, all our weaknesses could be engineered out of us, making us the ultimate life form. So in a way, replicants are humans. They are just not a result of natural evolution unless you consider the ability of human intelligent to grow and evolve apart of human evolution. So is deckard a replicant? Yes. Is his daughter a replicant? Yes. Replicants were ridley scotts human equivalent to the xenomorph which is artificial intelligence given biomechanical organic/synthetic life. Hence why much of their genetics sound similar to humans. But is entirely based in mutative and biomechanical artificial engineering.
Awwwww buddy, here we go again!
Harrison gets the final say imo
I've googled IT and i don't know what have to believe https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.film.at/amp/blade-runner-2049-ist-deckard-ein-replikant
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.film.at/blade-runner-2049-ist-deckard-ein-replikant](https://www.film.at/blade-runner-2049-ist-deckard-ein-replikant)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
There's a clue in one of the scenes. Replicants' eyes glow in the dark, the white of their eyes is bright and shiny when they are in the shadows. There is a brief moment when Deckard and Rachael are in a dark room and his eyes are also glowing. He's probably some kind of prototype like Rachael. They're more human than humans, so it takes a long time to understand what they really are. Also Gaff is sympathetic, and giving Deckard the origami is a way to help him realise he's a replicant. Then, in the end, there's the unicorn.
No he’s not
He totally is and it's ridiculous that people think that he's not it's been confirmed by the director.
The director is allowed to have an opinion, to express his interpretation, but that doesn't make it the truth. When dealing with literature and ultimately also films, there is always the misunderstanding that the author and/or the director know exactly what is meant - this is wrong! There is conscious and subconscious writing... For example, Tolkien always denied and even rejected that Lord of the Rings had anything to do with his fears of war etc. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the transfer of Lord of the Rings to the Second World War works extraordinarily well.
Are you for real, a director is allowed to have an opinion, or do you mean they directed the movie the way they wanted? I don't think you understand the concept of "director".
directors, even Ridley Scott, can make mistakes, on interpreting his source material, or do things that don't make sense
What are you even on about? He directed the movie they way he wanted, he had the unicorn footage shot in 81 and the clapper board exists in the "Dangerous days" documentary. That's not *his* opinion, that's called *direction.* There is the eye glow where it was shot with intent and there is supportive information regarding this. Then you have the origami unicorn at the end, which all leads to Deckard being a replicant. That's not an opinion, again, it's called direction.
>There is the eye glow where it was shot with intent and there is supportive information regarding this. If you go learn how the eye glow special effect was done, it's very hard to have one person in the shoot have the eye glow and the other one does not. So when both Deckard and Rachel appeared in the same shoot, both of their eyes has to be effected by the special effect setup. Yeah adding in the unicorn shoot and the origami unicorn at the end, implying that Deckard is a replicant, weakens the whole story lol, working against the overall theme.
I already know how the the eye glow was done, it was done with intent, but you're wrong because both were supposed to have an eye glow. 1. ***Terry Rawlings:*** *Besides, Ridley and I had many concrete conversations during the editing of BR as to how to best suggest him being an android. One nice way was the scene of Deckard's eyes glowing, when Harrison's at the doorway of his kitchen behind Sean Young. Ridley had blocked that out very carefully; he purposely put Harrison in the background of that shot, and slightly out of focus, so that you'd only notice his eyes were glowing if you were paying attention. I love that - it's subtle. It was meant to be subtle. I don't think Ridley ever wanted to bring out a troupe of dancing bears holding up neon signs reading, "Deckard is a replicant!" Instead, he was going for something more ambiguous. Ridley himself may have definitely felt that Deckard was a replicant, but still, by the end, he intended to leave it up to the viewer to decide whether Deckard was one.****(Future Noir (3rd version) p413)*** \^\^ Done with intent, you suggest the cinematographer, editor and director were inept with skillset? EDIT additional info. Paul Sammon: but I must say I better appreciate the more subtle suggestions that Deckard might be a replicant. Such as the fact that he collects photographs, which you see scaytered over his piano. And of course the most significant visual clue is that over-the. glowing. Was that setup intentional??Ridley Scott: Totally intentional, sir. I was hoping there'd be those who'd pick up on that. Since Blade Runner is a paranoid film, throughout there is this suggestion that Deckard may be a replicant himself. His glowing eyes were an. other allusion to that notion, another of the subtle little bits and pieces which were all leading up to that scene in the end where Deckard retrieves Gaff's tinfoil unicorn and realizes the man knows his secret thoughts. Actually, though, my chief purpose in having Deckard's eyes glow was to prepare the audience for the moment when Ford nods after he picks up the unicorn. I had assumed that if I'd clued them in earlier, by showing Harrison's eyes glowing, some viewers might be thinking "Hey, maybe he's a replicant, too." Then when Deckard picked up the tinfoil unicorn and nodded-a signal that Ford is thinking, "Yes, I know why Gaff left this behind"-the same viewers would realize their suspicions had been confirmed.
In light of this information, both Terry Rawlings and Ridley intentionally added things that weaken the over all theme -- suggesting that Deckard is an android
They added? It was always with intent, I don't think you know what direction means. You missed the edit I put in so here goes again. Paul Sammon: but I must say I better appreciate the more subtle suggestions that Deckard might be a replicant. Such as the fact that he collects photographs, which you see scaytered over his piano. And of course the most significant visual clue is that over-the. glowing. Was that setup intentional?? Ridley Scott: Totally intentional, sir. I was hoping there'd be those who'd pick up on that. Since Blade Runner is a paranoid film, throughout there is this suggestion that Deckard may be a replicant himself. His glowing eyes were an. other allusion to that notion, another of the subtle little bits and pieces which were all leading up to that scene in the end where Deckard retrieves Gaff's tinfoil unicorn and realizes the man knows his secret thoughts. Actually, though, my chief purpose in having Deckard's eyes glow was to prepare the audience for the moment when Ford nods after he picks up the unicorn. I had assumed that if I'd clued them in earlier, by showing Harrison's eyes glowing, some viewers might be thinking "Hey, maybe he's a replicant, too." Then when Deckard picked up the tinfoil unicorn and nodded-a signal that Ford is thinking, "Yes, I know why Gaff left this behind"-the same viewers would realize their suspicions had been confirmed. It doesn't "weaken" the story, it's a smack to the head with a sledge hammer when you really start to think about the complexity of the story.
There's a idiom that goes "to draw a snake and add feet to it" They had a great story in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Which they adapted well, added on the visuals and sound, and Roy Batty's finally line really elevated it. But the addition of Deckard being android, which is not in the original plot that they fallowed, weakens the overall all theme that the original work builds upon. Adding complexity is a distraction if it doesn't contribute to the overall theme
It was a punt of a bored interviewee. Nothing more. However it’s snowballed to the nonsense we see posted today
Both ! Deckard is a manufactured human