Blade Runner: Where to begin?

Going back to the Deckard-as-replicant thing, it's interesting that Dick's novel title, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' raises the question from the first, as Deckard is the only character with any interest in electric sheep...
 
It's tops. See it. It's just devoid of the little hiccups and jumpy edits the earlier versions have. Image quality is gorgeous too. A little lighter, a lot clearer, I don't know what the heck they did but it was good.

I do agree that the doubt over Deckard's humanity is more effective than a definitive answer. Even watching the Final Cut I still manage to maintain a bit of doubt: Gaff is insinuating something, but he's not coming right out and saying it. Maybe Deckard's a replicant, maybe he's been used in memory extraction experiments and then had his memory of that erased, maybe Deckard's ex-wife told Gaff that Deckard talks in his sleep.

In the Final Cut Batty's line remains "I want more life, ***ker". I guess CB was talking about the Director's Cut there.

Edit: I had to go look it up, didn't I? Nnggh...I don't actually have a copy myself, and I started to doubt my memory. So Wikipedia says this:

When Batty confronts Tyrell, he says, "I want more life, father"; this is from the workprint version, an alternate take intended for—but never used—in television broadcasts of the film, as opposed to the original line, "I want more life, ****er." The line also has a noticeably deeper tonal quality than the previous versions.

But Wikiquote says this:

* I want more life, father.
o In the "Final Cut" version, the line above is "I want more life, ****er." The line also has a noticeably deeper tonal quality than the previous versions.

And now I definitively...can't remember.

I'd see it but not if it has 'father'. And I don't know if I want a lighter image. I always liked the tones as they were.

Effer was definitely in the director's cut. I'd've jumped outa my seat if he'd said 'father'!
 
Before you answer the question of whether or not Deckard is a Replicant, first answer the question "what is the difference between humans and replicants?" , beyond the obvious.

What does it REALLY mean to be human? What makes humans special?

The Voight Kampff test identifies replicants though their lack of empathy.

Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another semi-sentient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion. (definition from Wikipedia)

Bryant tells Deckard that the Replicants might develop their own emotions. Tyrell tells Deckard that the Replicants are given memories as a reference point to cope with the emotions they develop. Imagine a person who is incredibly intelligent, physically strong, but emotionally as immature as a 4 year old.
In the end, Roy Batty develops empathy. He shows compassion in saving Deckard.

If Roy did not have such a short life span, had he lived and continued to emotionally mature, would he in fact BE human?

Yes? No? Why not?

What makes humans HUMAN?

Byant doesn't appear to demonstrate very much empathy as he jokes while Zora lies dead. but Deckard is VERY affected.

Roy Batty is very affected when Pris dies.

If you believe as Ridley Scott has overtly hinted that Deckard is a Replicant, it would seem that Replicants in Blade Runner are more human than the actual humans?

What does that say about humans? Have we become cold and inhuman? Are we like machines, just carrying out our assignments without regard, showing no empathy?

Its a deeply philosophical movie.

As for which version is better, why chose? In Blade Runner we are privileged to have 5 different versions and I think all 5 are great. I watch them all from time to time. I respect Ridley Scott for creating this masterpiece, so I tend to regard the FINAL CUT as the authoritative version. Phillip K Dick did create the source material "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", but make no mistake, BLADE RUNNER is the blood sweat tears and heart of RIDLEY SCOTT. Try watching the very long documentary DANGEROUS DAYS. It is very insightful regarding what went into making this movie, or to make any movie for that matter.

I love Blade Runner. Its my favorite movie by far.
 
Going back to the Deckard-as-replicant thing, it's interesting that Dick's novel title, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' raises the question from the first, as Deckard is the only character with any interest in electric sheep...


He dreamed of owning real animals, always.
No human would truly dream of owning an electric sheep, it was only to keep up appearances.

The title of the book is simply asking do androids dream like humans, do they dream at all?
 
4609-rom.jpg


Somehow R.S captured the melancholy mood he was going through, the art reflects the artist.

And that lighting and composition.

He captured the romance pretty well, a strange romance between hunter and prey. Wonder if a female director could have done it better?:)

Dude! How can you possibly slip a pic from the craptacular sparkling vampire movie into a thread about a classic film? There is no comparison. That movie is not in the same class as Blade Runner.
 
With Valentines Day quickly approaching, here is a nice little morsel of information:
Pris's incept date is February 14, 2016.
 
Before you answer the question of whether or not Deckard is a Replicant, first answer the question "what is the difference between humans and replicants?" , beyond the obvious.

What does it REALLY mean to be human? What makes humans special?

The Voight Kampff test identifies replicants though their lack of empathy.

Empathy is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another semi-sentient being. Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion. (definition from Wikipedia)

Bryant tells Deckard that the Replicants might develop their own emotions. Tyrell tells Deckard that the Replicants are given memories as a reference point to cope with the emotions they develop. Imagine a person who is incredibly intelligent, physically strong, but emotionally as immature as a 4 year old.
In the end, Roy Batty develops empathy. He shows compassion in saving Deckard.

If Roy did not have such a short life span, had he lived and continued to emotionally mature, would he in fact BE human?

Yes? No? Why not?

What makes humans HUMAN?

Byant doesn't appear to demonstrate very much empathy as he jokes while Zora lies dead. but Deckard is VERY affected.

Roy Batty is very affected when Pris dies.

If you believe as Ridley Scott has overtly hinted that Deckard is a Replicant, it would seem that Replicants in Blade Runner are more human than the actual humans?

What does that say about humans? Have we become cold and inhuman? Are we like machines, just carrying out our assignments without regard, showing no empathy?

Its a deeply philosophical movie.

As for which version is better, why chose? In Blade Runner we are privileged to have 5 different versions and I think all 5 are great. I watch them all from time to time. I respect Ridley Scott for creating this masterpiece, so I tend to regard the FINAL CUT as the authoritative version. Phillip K Dick did create the source material "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", but make no mistake, BLADE RUNNER is the blood sweat tears and heart of RIDLEY SCOTT. Try watching the very long documentary DANGEROUS DAYS. It is very insightful regarding what went into making this movie, or to make any movie for that matter.

I love Blade Runner. Its my favorite movie by far.

Read this post I quoted here again. And also, you can't reference the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" to prove Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner. The two have almost nothing in common. Ridley Scott got an idea from Phillip K Dick and took it in his own direction. He has told us Deckard is a Replicant. Saying he isn't is like telling Gerorge Lucas that Vader isn't Luke's father.
 
Read this post I quoted here again. And also, you can't reference the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" to prove Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner. The two have almost nothing in common. Ridley Scott got an idea from Phillip K Dick and took it in his own direction. He has told us Deckard is a Replicant. Saying he isn't is like telling Gerorge Lucas that Vader isn't Luke's father.


I think that it's ludicrous to dismiss the source material, there is as much IN common as there is not.

And Scott took years to get around to letting us know he supposedly wanted Deckard to be replicant.

Again Ford never knew such a thing during the whole time filming.
Guess you would keep that huge character point from your lead?

Scott decided to make his revelation years later.

What about all the others involved in the screenplay?

It's not like Lucas comes out in 1990 and says oh yeah, Han Solo is Luke's brother.


The truth is...
This is far more about Scott wanting to make a splash at director's cut time when directors cuts were all the new rage.
He needed to offer up some red meat, so he took a subtle back theme that should never have come out of nebulosity and polarized it.
 
Hampton Fancher interview..........

Is Deckard a replicant?

No. It wasn't like I had a tricky idea about Deckard that way. Until the last draft. It kept ending in different ways. We were already in pre-production when I wrote the last draft. In the last draft, which wasn't in the movie, I finally came to the last and best conclusion about the ending of the movie which was that Rachel is going to die. And they're in love, and he's become kind of human through this. He was less human than the people he was after, because they were machines. He was more of a machine. And he becomes less of a machine through the ordeal of falling in love with her.....

Hampton Fancher Interview
 
Fancher got replaced as writer during production.

This is Ridley's movie. You can pretend Deckard isn't a replicant if you want, doesn't make it true. He corrected HIS movie and made what he ORIGINALLY envisioned before the studio executives who didn't understand it got hold of it and ruined it.

The source material for the new Battlestar Galactica was the old Battlestar Galactica show. So should I insist that Starbuck is a tranny? lol

I suppose no matter what, Blade Runner is obviously a great movie, because people are still talking about it, despite it doing poorly at the box office. It was ahead of it time. I am glad it finally got the appreciation it deserves and Ridley was able to perfect his Final Cut.
 
Fancher got replaced as writer during production.

This is Ridley's movie. You can pretend Deckard isn't a replicant if you want, doesn't make it true. He corrected HIS movie and made what he ORIGINALLY envisioned before the studio executives who didn't understand it got hold of it and ruined it.

The source material for the new Battlestar Galactica was the old Battlestar Galactica show. So should I insist that Starbuck is a tranny? lol

I suppose no matter what, Blade Runner is obviously a great movie, because people are still talking about it, despite it doing poorly at the box office. It was ahead of it time. I am glad it finally got the appreciation it deserves and Ridley was able to perfect his Final Cut.


It's not just his, there are a lot of peoples names on that film.
He was hired to direct, he did so extremely well.

Deckard as blatant replicant is nothing more then him trying to slip something in years after the fact when all the other cooks have gone home.


"Harrison Ford, who played Deckard in the film, has said that he did not think Deckard was a replicant, and also states he and the director had discussions that ended in the agreement that the character was human."
 
Ridley did a lot more than just direct. Watch the documentary. He controlled every aspect of that movie. He was like a cruel dictator. Everyone questioned him. It was a harsh environment at times because he was so demanding.
Your idea that he "slipped something in" is entirely a made up theory of your own regarding something you had nothing to do with. Why are you to be believed over Ridley Scott?
What Harrison Ford thinks has no bearing.
 
You can pretend Deckard isn't a replicant if you want, doesn't make it true.

I really dismiss it when this argument is made (the other classic is the argument-from-authority "How do you know? Have you ever [fill in the blank?]); there is no "Truth" other than what a society agrees on, so your truth may be different than my truth.

As several people have put forth in this thread: if Deckard is a replicant, the story means nothing. And The Genius Ridley isn't going to fight and slave and sweat and battle to put forth a story for one's entertainment, discussion, edification, and philosophy that's meaningless. And make no mistake: a story about man-shaped robots who learn to rise above their man-made status by life-and-death struggles with a robotic-like man who learns what it means to be human by his love-and-death struggles with robots is something to see.

A story about a bunch of man-made creatures having adventures that impact only other man-made creatures is a really elaborate episode of The Muppet Show.

I'm pretty sure I know which one everyone on the Blade Runner team was going for, back then.
 
Ridley did a lot more than just direct. Watch the documentary. He controlled every aspect of that movie. He was like a cruel dictator. Everyone questioned him. It was a harsh environment at times because he was so demanding.
Your idea that he "slipped something in" is entirely a made up theory of your own regarding something you had nothing to do with. Why are you to be believed over Ridley Scott?
What Harrison Ford thinks has no bearing.

It's not what Ford thinks, it's what he said happened.
They had the discussion then and agreed, Deckard was human.
 
Back
Top