rodneyfaile
Sr Member
That is not true at all.
Blade Runner: Where to begin?
- Thread starter Risu
- Start date
That is not true at all.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
So a guy makes a movie and in an interview divulges facts regarding his intentions in making the movie and you guys are gonna tell him he is wrong. That is pretty arrogant.
Larry Young
Master Member
Stop talking about "truth." All stories are "true." But what's it mean to you, then? Muppet shall never kill Muppet? :lol
MooCriket
Master Member
This guy nailed my feelings on the matter. Anyway, read this.
There is considerable evidence that Deckard is not a replicant.
Deckard is thrown about like a rag doll by every replicant he scuffles with (with the possible exception of Rachael, who doesn't try very hard, also see footnote). His ass is kicked even by Pris who was described as a "basic pleasure model." If you were assigning a replicant to blade runner duty, you would probably pick one whose physical capacities were at least equal to those of a basic pleasure model.
Deckard believes that he has quit the police force. He doesn't like his bosses or coworkers, he has to be threatened into returning to work, and he is insubordinate to the point of allowing Rachael to escape. If you were programming a replicant for blade runner duty, you would probably make him more enthusiastic about his work.
The memory-implant technology is new, but Bryant refers to Deckard as the "old blade runner" and acts as if they have worked together for a long time. Granted, this could be an elaborate lie (although why concoct a rocky relationship, see above) but at least it shows that if Deckard is a replicant, then the police know about it and are lying about it. The same police are sufficiently paranoid about replicants that they want to whack even the inoffensive Rachael as soon as Tyrell reports her missing. This does not jibe too well with them letting a new and experimental replicant roam Los Angeles with a badge and a gun.
The coincidence of the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn is not exactly the same as Deckard showing off his knowledge of Rachael's childhood memories. A recent dream is not the same as a childhood memory, and a unicorn is a single ambiguous symbol, not a detailed story like the two that Deckard tells Rachael. In other words, it could just be a coincidence, or show that Deckard and Gaff have similar taste in symbols. Gaff's origami chicken meant, "You're acting like a chicken," not, "You dreamed about a chicken last night." The unicorn could mean something like, "You're chasing an impossible goal," not, "You dreamed about a unicorn and I know about it."
Gaff does not say to Deckard, "It's too bad neither you nor she will live, but then again who does?"
In short, it's amazing how easily people are taken in when a lying Ridley Scott replicant gives a few interviews. Come to think of it, have those interviewers passed a V-K test lately?
[Footnote: If Rachael has no built-in expiration date, as stated in the original cut, that's consistent with her apparent lack of superhuman strength. After all, the light which burns half as bright burns twice as long.]
Richard Mason
There is considerable evidence that Deckard is not a replicant.
Deckard is thrown about like a rag doll by every replicant he scuffles with (with the possible exception of Rachael, who doesn't try very hard, also see footnote). His ass is kicked even by Pris who was described as a "basic pleasure model." If you were assigning a replicant to blade runner duty, you would probably pick one whose physical capacities were at least equal to those of a basic pleasure model.
Deckard believes that he has quit the police force. He doesn't like his bosses or coworkers, he has to be threatened into returning to work, and he is insubordinate to the point of allowing Rachael to escape. If you were programming a replicant for blade runner duty, you would probably make him more enthusiastic about his work.
The memory-implant technology is new, but Bryant refers to Deckard as the "old blade runner" and acts as if they have worked together for a long time. Granted, this could be an elaborate lie (although why concoct a rocky relationship, see above) but at least it shows that if Deckard is a replicant, then the police know about it and are lying about it. The same police are sufficiently paranoid about replicants that they want to whack even the inoffensive Rachael as soon as Tyrell reports her missing. This does not jibe too well with them letting a new and experimental replicant roam Los Angeles with a badge and a gun.
The coincidence of the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn is not exactly the same as Deckard showing off his knowledge of Rachael's childhood memories. A recent dream is not the same as a childhood memory, and a unicorn is a single ambiguous symbol, not a detailed story like the two that Deckard tells Rachael. In other words, it could just be a coincidence, or show that Deckard and Gaff have similar taste in symbols. Gaff's origami chicken meant, "You're acting like a chicken," not, "You dreamed about a chicken last night." The unicorn could mean something like, "You're chasing an impossible goal," not, "You dreamed about a unicorn and I know about it."
Gaff does not say to Deckard, "It's too bad neither you nor she will live, but then again who does?"
In short, it's amazing how easily people are taken in when a lying Ridley Scott replicant gives a few interviews. Come to think of it, have those interviewers passed a V-K test lately?
[Footnote: If Rachael has no built-in expiration date, as stated in the original cut, that's consistent with her apparent lack of superhuman strength. After all, the light which burns half as bright burns twice as long.]
Richard Mason
Larry Young
Master Member
I just assumed both Deckard and Gaff were wishing they were still virgins.
Why would they let a replicant loose on the streets as an ex blade runner to begin with?
They would have just retired him too. Replicants were slaves.
Another heavy theme of the film was slavery.
They weren't gonna let him run loose free. But they did.
Because he quit and was free to go, because he was human.
Until the problem arose where Holden, Deckard's human replacement got
messed up by Leon.
They would have just retired him too. Replicants were slaves.
Another heavy theme of the film was slavery.
They weren't gonna let him run loose free. But they did.
Because he quit and was free to go, because he was human.
Until the problem arose where Holden, Deckard's human replacement got
messed up by Leon.
Larry Young
Master Member
Yeah, thematic concerns aside, LAPD isn't going to have a unit of replicant hunters that includes replicants. That just doesn't make any sense.
If Deckard was replicant, Then a lot of scenes need to be reshot to fit that.
Michael Deeley, "I never thought Deckard was a replicant. That was just a bull****, an extra layer Ridley put in. Also an obfuscation. Not only did I never believe Deckard was a replicant, I also thought it was futile to try and make him one. That was Ridley's theory, even if it didn't make any sense. Why would you do that? Deckard would be the first replicant you'd knock off if you were getting rid of them. Anyway, just because you say, 'Wouldn't it be funny if Deckard was a replicant?' doesn't necessarily make it so"
Philip K. Dick
".....The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?
"Seeing Rutger Hauer as Batty just scared me to death, because it was exactly as I had pictured Batty, but more so. I could have picked Sean Young out of a hundred different women as Rachael. She has that look.
"Ofcourse Harrison Ford is more like Rick Deckard than I could have even imagined. I mean it is just incredible. It was simply eerie when I first saw the stills of Harrison Ford. I was looking at some stills from the movie and I thought, this character, Deckard, really exists. There was a time that he did not exist, now he actually exists. But he is not the result of any one individual's conception or effort. He is to a very large extent, Harrison Ford's efforts. And there is actually, in some eerie way, a genuine, real, authentic Deckard now. "Friends of mine who looked at the photographs, who read the novel, said, 'Do you realize that if you had not written that book, Harrison Ford would not be wearing that tie, he would not be wearing those shoes?' And I said, 'That is true. But what is more exciting is that if Harrison Ford had not played that role, Deckard would never become an actual person.' Ford radiates this tremendous reality when you see him. And seeing him as a character I created is a stunning and almost supernatural experience to me."
robstyle
Master Member
Again guys, this is about the MOVIE, not the book, not the short story, not any of that, the movie itself.
Why did Pris have pimples, Batty receding hair, Leon fat, Zhora was a ginger... People keep referring to physical strength as a replicant right of passage but this isnt true. Replicant Tyrell (again this was part of the original film) didnt have it nor did Rachel. If you want to go into off film territory, chalk any super human strength up to their jobs Off World. Its the easy way out but so are most of the theories that Deckard isnt a replicant.
Things on a film set are not always what they seem nor are ideas set in stone. Things change on the fly all the way up to a films final edit, and these days years beyond. Its like a game at times. Heads bump and egos clash. Blade Runner is a perfect example.
Why did Pris have pimples, Batty receding hair, Leon fat, Zhora was a ginger... People keep referring to physical strength as a replicant right of passage but this isnt true. Replicant Tyrell (again this was part of the original film) didnt have it nor did Rachel. If you want to go into off film territory, chalk any super human strength up to their jobs Off World. Its the easy way out but so are most of the theories that Deckard isnt a replicant.
Things on a film set are not always what they seem nor are ideas set in stone. Things change on the fly all the way up to a films final edit, and these days years beyond. Its like a game at times. Heads bump and egos clash. Blade Runner is a perfect example.
A lot of characters would have had to been in on a big conspiracy.
Too many. From Bryant right on to Tyrell, and probably the beat cops too.
He would have to be Nexus 7, brand spankin' new replicant
For him to be Nexus 7 means a lot of people pretending around him because
he couldn't have been around very long. Pretending that he had been around a long time.
And who could act natural about a REPLICANT stomping around freely
in the station and the streets?
Deckard as replicant was clearly only to be hinted at and only to the point
such that we question ourselves.
David Peoples....
"At this point I invented a kind of contemplative voice-over for Deckard. Here, let me read it to you [Peoples now quotes from his December 15, 1980 script]:
"'I wonder who designs the ones like me... and what choices we really have. I wondered if I had really loved her. I wondered which of my memories were real and which belonged to someone else. The great Tyrell hadn't designed me, but whoever had hadn't done so much better. "You're programmed, too," she told me, and she was right. In my own modest way I was a combat model. Roy Batty was my later brother.'
"Now, what I'd intended with this voice-over was mostly metaphysical," People's continues. "Deckard was supposed to be philisophically questioning himself about what it was that made him so different from Rachael and the other replicants. He was supposed to be realizing that, on the human level, they weren't so different. That Deckard wanted the same things the replicants did. The 'maker' he was refering to wasn't literally Tyrell, either. It was supposed to be God. So basically, Deckard was just musing about what it meant to be human.
"But then Ridley--" People says, laughing "--well, I think Ridley misinterpreted me. Because right about this period of time he started announcing, 'Ah-ha! Deckard's a replicant! What brilliance! How Heavy Metal!' I was sort of confused by this response, because Ridley kept giving me all this praise and credit for this terrific idea. It wasn't until many years later, when I happened to be browsing through this draft, that I suddenly realized the metaphysical material I had written could just as easily have been read to imply that Deckard was a replicant. Even though it wasn't what I meant at all. What I had meant was, we all have a maker, and we all have an incept date. We just can't address them. That's one of the similarities we had to the replicants. We couldn't go find Tyrell, but tyrell was up there somewhere. for all of us.
"So what I had intended as kind of a metaphysical speculation, Ridley had read differently, but I now realize there was nothing wrong with his reading. That confusion was my own fault. I'd written this voice-over so ambiguously that it could indeed have meant exactly what Ridley took it to mean. And that, I think, is how the whole idea of Deckard being a replicant came about."
Interesting the dreaded voice overs were also supported early on.
Too many. From Bryant right on to Tyrell, and probably the beat cops too.
He would have to be Nexus 7, brand spankin' new replicant
For him to be Nexus 7 means a lot of people pretending around him because
he couldn't have been around very long. Pretending that he had been around a long time.
And who could act natural about a REPLICANT stomping around freely
in the station and the streets?
Deckard as replicant was clearly only to be hinted at and only to the point
such that we question ourselves.
David Peoples....
"At this point I invented a kind of contemplative voice-over for Deckard. Here, let me read it to you [Peoples now quotes from his December 15, 1980 script]:
"'I wonder who designs the ones like me... and what choices we really have. I wondered if I had really loved her. I wondered which of my memories were real and which belonged to someone else. The great Tyrell hadn't designed me, but whoever had hadn't done so much better. "You're programmed, too," she told me, and she was right. In my own modest way I was a combat model. Roy Batty was my later brother.'
"Now, what I'd intended with this voice-over was mostly metaphysical," People's continues. "Deckard was supposed to be philisophically questioning himself about what it was that made him so different from Rachael and the other replicants. He was supposed to be realizing that, on the human level, they weren't so different. That Deckard wanted the same things the replicants did. The 'maker' he was refering to wasn't literally Tyrell, either. It was supposed to be God. So basically, Deckard was just musing about what it meant to be human.
"But then Ridley--" People says, laughing "--well, I think Ridley misinterpreted me. Because right about this period of time he started announcing, 'Ah-ha! Deckard's a replicant! What brilliance! How Heavy Metal!' I was sort of confused by this response, because Ridley kept giving me all this praise and credit for this terrific idea. It wasn't until many years later, when I happened to be browsing through this draft, that I suddenly realized the metaphysical material I had written could just as easily have been read to imply that Deckard was a replicant. Even though it wasn't what I meant at all. What I had meant was, we all have a maker, and we all have an incept date. We just can't address them. That's one of the similarities we had to the replicants. We couldn't go find Tyrell, but tyrell was up there somewhere. for all of us.
"So what I had intended as kind of a metaphysical speculation, Ridley had read differently, but I now realize there was nothing wrong with his reading. That confusion was my own fault. I'd written this voice-over so ambiguously that it could indeed have meant exactly what Ridley took it to mean. And that, I think, is how the whole idea of Deckard being a replicant came about."
Interesting the dreaded voice overs were also supported early on.
androidandy
Sr Member
There are still a lot of Myths surrounding Blade Runner. Watching the "Dangerous Days" documentary that comes with the 07' sets does address many of them. For one Rutger Hauer did not write his final words. he actually shortened what had been written and taken out a bunch of lines. It was thought for a long time that he had at least added the line "Like tears in rain", but Rutger recently said he had not written that either, but just paraphrased a line from the script to make it sound better.
Another myth is the first name last name difference, because Taffy Lewis is called by his first name, and Sebastian is often called J.F. as well.
It has also been busted that Harrison Ford purposefully read the voiceovers badly so they wouldn't be used. Harrison did say they were writing the VO the same day as they were reading them, and he was getting pretty tired reading the new lines all day. He still says he read them the best he was able, because he didn't want to have to keep doing them. I wouldn't be surprised though if his lack of enthusiasm showed unintentionally though.
Also even though he and Ridley disagreed about Deckard being human or not, Ridley did not give in, he just stopped arguing about it, probably because he realised that Deckard's character would have thought he was a human anyway.
It is kind of funny that the Deckard being a replicant has become the "Han shot first" of this film. Back before the Directors cut, it was actually pretty cool to think Deckard was a rep. I feel it works either way if you really think about it.
In the end for it to be a true film noir he has to be somehow cursed in the end. Replicants pretty much are artificially created humans, and therefore are the same as us, but just don't have the same rights to life and freedom naturally born humans do. Since man is their creator, they can now be owned by man. Even if Deckard is human, he has now condemed himself to their existence. To be on the run and hiding from the authorities. A "Little person", that probably has little expected lifespan. Essentialy it makes no difference if he is or isn't a replicant, as long as you think he is human at first. Humans and repilicants are the same anyway. The new question becomes do Replicant's have souls like humans do, or do humans just think they do, since replicants can also behave as if they have souls themselves?
The final point is, that if Rutger had sayed "Father" all along, would we be also be upset if they changed it to the "More vulger" wording? Most likely, because even though "Father" doesn't have the bite that the other word does, it has deeper meaning. Maybe this is the real "Han shot first" of this movie
In the end we just don't like them changing our movies we have already seen ad infinitum.
Andy
Another myth is the first name last name difference, because Taffy Lewis is called by his first name, and Sebastian is often called J.F. as well.
It has also been busted that Harrison Ford purposefully read the voiceovers badly so they wouldn't be used. Harrison did say they were writing the VO the same day as they were reading them, and he was getting pretty tired reading the new lines all day. He still says he read them the best he was able, because he didn't want to have to keep doing them. I wouldn't be surprised though if his lack of enthusiasm showed unintentionally though.
Also even though he and Ridley disagreed about Deckard being human or not, Ridley did not give in, he just stopped arguing about it, probably because he realised that Deckard's character would have thought he was a human anyway.
It is kind of funny that the Deckard being a replicant has become the "Han shot first" of this film. Back before the Directors cut, it was actually pretty cool to think Deckard was a rep. I feel it works either way if you really think about it.
In the end for it to be a true film noir he has to be somehow cursed in the end. Replicants pretty much are artificially created humans, and therefore are the same as us, but just don't have the same rights to life and freedom naturally born humans do. Since man is their creator, they can now be owned by man. Even if Deckard is human, he has now condemed himself to their existence. To be on the run and hiding from the authorities. A "Little person", that probably has little expected lifespan. Essentialy it makes no difference if he is or isn't a replicant, as long as you think he is human at first. Humans and repilicants are the same anyway. The new question becomes do Replicant's have souls like humans do, or do humans just think they do, since replicants can also behave as if they have souls themselves?
The final point is, that if Rutger had sayed "Father" all along, would we be also be upset if they changed it to the "More vulger" wording? Most likely, because even though "Father" doesn't have the bite that the other word does, it has deeper meaning. Maybe this is the real "Han shot first" of this movie
In the end we just don't like them changing our movies we have already seen ad infinitum.Andy
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
Before I had read the Dick quotation you posted, I wrote the following to explain my thinking re the title. (This is how the title and book come over to me, though it probably wasn't Dick's intention if that quotation is genuine):
The way you see the title is how I used to see the title, and is indeed one way of interpreting it. But it is curious that Dick should choose, of all the infinite things to dream of, an electric sheep, Deckard's current pet. Deckard's hacked off with his sheep, true, but at one point he must have desired it - even if for keeping up appearances - or he wouldn't have acquired it. So I reckon there's a bit more to the title than there seems, maybe. Let's not forget that a constant theme of Dick is the fragility of subjective reality. So many of his protagonists are subjected to astonishing crises of reality. To discover you may be an android is one such, and Dick certainly briefly puts Deckard through that in the book at one point. But he doesn't say, as Scott does, he IS a replicant; instead he keeps Deckard and the reader on shifting sand, at most.
About that Dick quotation. Where's that from? It contradicts everything I've come to understand about Dick's opinion of the film. I understood he was furious with the film for replacing his everyday schlub Deckard with the big movie hero schtick of Ford. In that quotation he cannot praise every aspect of the casting highly enough. Can we trust it? If so, who's responsible for the decades of misinformation that Dick hated the choice of Ford?
Last edited:
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Actually, the “cool” thing is pondering the question and its implications. Less cool is being given a definitive answer, especially one that blithely tosses out the thematic core of Dick’s story for the sake of a cheap, pointless, and pinheaded gimmick.
Seriously, this is one of the reasons writers frequently exhibit a heavy degree of fear and loathing when it comes to having their literary works adapted by “visionary” film directors.
No one is questioning Scott’s directorial supremacy; for better or worse, Blade Runner is ultimately his film. I just wish he’d demonstrated better creative judgement with regard to the “Deckard is a replicant” issue.
The question posed by Dick’s novel, i.e. “When does a human being cease to be human?” is as timeless as drama itself, and the reason the book exists.
The question “When does a replicant cease to be human?” is a dramatic non-starter. I mean, honestly, who gives a ****?
Scott would probably agree that replicants are the same as humans.
Dick, on the other hand, would probably be appalled the suggestion.
Again, no one is arguing with Scott’s right to make the sorts of huge, story-shaping decisions contemporary film directors get to make. It is, as we’re so often told, very much a director’s medium.
Nevertheless, when a director chucks a story’s THEME without having anything of substance to replace it with, he does so at his own peril.
A thought-provoking question in its own right, and an important part of the subtext of any version of Blade Runner. But it is just that; subtext.
I mean, if Scott had really wanted the “Do machines have souls?” question to be at the heart of his movie he should have made “A.I.”
Part of being a good director is knowing what the theme/ counter-theme of your story is.
In a tight screenplay every scene will tend to support that theme/ counter-theme in one way or another. In a muddled screenplay competing themes will cancel each other out, the net effect being a movie that doesn’t know what it’s trying to say.
As beautiful, moody, ambitious, and in some cases groundbreaking as Blade Runner is, it is simply not as strong dramatically as it might have been had Scott been more respectful of the source material (which I doubt he ever read).
I think what frustrates longtime BR fans is the fact that the unicorn dream business is so unnecessary. As you point out, the suspicion that Deckard may not be human (physically or metaphysically) is a really cool question for the movie to raise, and it’s present in each and every one of Blade Runner's various incarnations. Why Scott would choose, via the Director's Cut, to answer the question so clumsily and definitively is beyond me.
Concerning the Deackard=replicant idea, I like that the question is asked by the film but hate having the mystery ruined. I wish Ridley hadn't said his opinion outright.
It ruins the beauty of an unanswerable question. A narrative zen koan.
It should just act as a hypothetical question to inspire thought in the viewer.
Kinda like when they gave Wolverine or Boba Fett an origin story. Characters defined by their mystery are ruined once the mystery is finally explained.
That all being said the basic plot and thematic build doesn't work if he's just another replicant. PKD's qoute above about the role reversal between android and human is a paramount theme of the movie.
Ridley Scott makes pretty movies even if doesn't completely understands them.
Nick
EDIT- Carson Dyle- looks like we pretty much posted the same ideas at the same time. Funny.
It ruins the beauty of an unanswerable question. A narrative zen koan.
It should just act as a hypothetical question to inspire thought in the viewer.
Kinda like when they gave Wolverine or Boba Fett an origin story. Characters defined by their mystery are ruined once the mystery is finally explained.
That all being said the basic plot and thematic build doesn't work if he's just another replicant. PKD's qoute above about the role reversal between android and human is a paramount theme of the movie.
Ridley Scott makes pretty movies even if doesn't completely understands them.
Nick
EDIT- Carson Dyle- looks like we pretty much posted the same ideas at the same time. Funny.
Solo4114
Master Member
I still think the unicorn thing is ambiguous enough that it can be disregarded if you don't LIKE the notion that Deckard is a replicant. But I do agree that saying he definitively is or isn't is kind of stupid. The more interesting question, to me, is "what does it mean to be human?"
But yeah, the unicorn thing could be him knowing what Rachel's dreams are (as revealed by Tyrell), and thinking about it while she sleeps. Which would still work with Gaff's reveal at the end, when it shows that Gaff knows she's a replicant too, and may head after them both to retire her. Deckard knows this, but because he's gone beyond caring about the distinction between replicant and human (whether such a distinction even exists...), he doesn't care. But he does know they have to run. Gaff's parting words then become an interesting mixed statement of both understanding Deckard's choice, but still having his own job to do.
Now, most of that still works if you buy that Deckard is a replicant and Gaff's talking to HIM. But I rather like the notion that he isn't a bit better. And I don't think there's anythign in the film to DIRECTLY contradict my interpretation, regardless of what Ridley Scott thinks. But then, I'm long past accepting the director's decision as the final word. Deckard is not a replicant, and Greedo never got off a shot. So there!
But yeah, the unicorn thing could be him knowing what Rachel's dreams are (as revealed by Tyrell), and thinking about it while she sleeps. Which would still work with Gaff's reveal at the end, when it shows that Gaff knows she's a replicant too, and may head after them both to retire her. Deckard knows this, but because he's gone beyond caring about the distinction between replicant and human (whether such a distinction even exists...), he doesn't care. But he does know they have to run. Gaff's parting words then become an interesting mixed statement of both understanding Deckard's choice, but still having his own job to do.
Now, most of that still works if you buy that Deckard is a replicant and Gaff's talking to HIM. But I rather like the notion that he isn't a bit better. And I don't think there's anythign in the film to DIRECTLY contradict my interpretation, regardless of what Ridley Scott thinks. But then, I'm long past accepting the director's decision as the final word. Deckard is not a replicant, and Greedo never got off a shot. So there!
There is also he fan problem to the whole deal.
Sci-Fi geeks tend like definitive answers to things and get really bent out of shape when things don't add up perfectly.
That is troublesome in a movie like Blade Runner.
Nick
Sci-Fi geeks tend like definitive answers to things and get really bent out of shape when things don't add up perfectly.
That is troublesome in a movie like Blade Runner.
Nick
Similar threads
