Pants

I always thought the Orange Glow in the eyes was pretty slim evidence to go on...untill I saw Blade Runner on the big screen. When seen on the big screen very large the glow in the replicants eyes is very pronounced and you see it through out the film in all of the replicants eyes. The glow shows up briefly in Deckert's eyes and it's much more noticable as well.

Jackskeleton

You know, I love the theater (voice over) cut better, but it's pretty common knowledge that Decker is a replicant. Get over it and be like me, get the Criterion LD and just pretend you don't know the truth.

Rivero

1. Gaff tells him he's done a "MAN's job" at the end.

2. Gaff knows about Deckard's dream.

3. Deckard's eyes glow like a replicant's in the scene with Rachael in the kitchen.

4. The pan of his many pictures from his childhood, just moments after the scene where Rachael learns that the picture and memory of her mother is an implant.

5. Batty knows Deckard's name.

6. Gaff seems to show up at the most opportune times.


Rick Deckard is a replicant.

END OF STORY.

beefjerky

Man, after reading your comments in all the matrix trilogy threads, you must live in a lot of denial.

Rivero

yeah, Jack pinpoints flaws and things he finds fault with in his favorite movies and has them surgically removed from his memory like Jim Carrey in Eternal sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Jackskeleton

it's not just a river in eygpt.

Main difference is I acknowledge the existance of a directors cut of Blade Runner. I'll forever go on only knowning that there was 1 matrix film. Ignorance is bliss.

fumanstan

I'm not arguing either way since i'm not a big fan of the movie (but happened to see it twice over the last year in film class), but from IMDB's trivia:

"The dialogue in all releases of Blade Runner alludes to another replicant who dies before Deckard's final battles with Pris and Batty. The conflicting dialogue occurs in the first conversation between Deckard and Bryant. Bryant initially tells Deckard there are four "skin jobs" on the loose, but minutes later says six escaped, and one was killed by the "electronic gate", which should leave five. The explanation is that the script originally contained an additional replicant named "Mary", but time and budgetary constraints resulted in her being written out. M. Emmet Walsh who plays Bryant, reports that new dialogue was recorded to change the number of replicants in this scene, but Scott inexplicably only used half of the new dialogue, resulting in the inconsistency."

"The error concerning the number of replicants was dealt with in the never-made sequel to the movie (which was instead made into a novel) in which Deckard is the remaining replicant."

"In July 2000, director Ridley Scott said that Deckard is, in fact, a replicant."

"'Ford, Harrison' takes issue with Ridley Scott's revelation that Deckard is a replicant. "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant," Ford said."

"All the replicants are called by their names and the humans are called by their surnames. Rick Deckard is called by both his name and surname."

"At some point of the movie every replicant has a red brightness in their eyes (Rachel in Deckard's home, Pris in Sebastian's). Deckard also has the shining in his eyes while talking to Rachel in his house."

NoahWhtly

My take on this is that Blade Runners where replicants because they were basically tracking people down and murdering them. Humans would have moral/guilt problems with this, so they use replicants because they're not supposed to have emotions and would kill mercilessly.

Deckard used to be like this. He is referred to as a one man slaughter house at one point. However, as we find out, replicants do start to develope emotions after a time, so this would explain Deckard's wanting to quit and his alcoholism.

That's just my pet theory though. Nothing to back it up but my observations of the movie.

Supermallet

Humans wouldn't have a problem killing replicants, because they're not actually human, and they all have the five-year self destruct thing, anyway.

Again, I don't see why anyone would ever want to think Deckard is a replicant. The whole point of the ending of the film is that Batty, in saving Deckard, is more human than a human. He gains a soul. The theme falls apart if Deckard is another replicant. Also, the whole love story with Rachel also falls apart thematically. Scott has said outright that Deckard is a replicant, but in my opinion, that just makes Scott a complete idiot.

I'm glad Ford got mad and said "We definitely agreed he wasn't a replicant" because there's NO POINT to the story if he is.

NoahWhtly

Deckard certainly has problems with killing replicants (moral problems that is, but he has plenty of normal problems in that area too ). Also there's that whole thing at the begining that said "... this was not called 'murder', but retirment". or something like that.

I mean sure, you can say they're just high tech robots, but that look completly human, act completly human, talk completly human, and of course bleed and die just like a real human.

Also the replicants in the movie where an exception in that they where hunting people down. Most that Deckard would have had to deal with would have just been trying to get away.

I don't know. To me, that's what the movie was all about. Where is the line between human and replicant?

Giantrobo

Bullshit. Harrison "Wooden acting 101" Ford needs to shut up. He's no expert. Sure, if you want a regular odinary Sci Fi flcik then having Deckard as human works. But if you want to make the story deeper a replicant Deckard is the way to go.

Making him a replicant makes the story tragic. Killing your own...not knowing what you are....Having someone you care about question your motives....

Like Deckard said..."How can it not know what it is?"

Supermallet

No, it's tragic if he's human. He's human but his whole world revolves around these replicants, he even falls in love with one. And he's going to outlive her. His story is more tragic if he's human.

Giantrobo

I thought she was an experimental model with no expiration date?

NoahWhtly

In the original release, yes. In the directers cut, no.

rennervision

I recently watched the laserdisc of the theatrical version, so I'm glad these questions were asked. I actually had another question after seeing it, and perhaps someone has a theory.

In the scene where Roy breaks Deckard's fingers, he specifically breaks one for Zhora and one for Pris. Since Roy wasn't present at the time of those killings, I'll accept the fact that he presumed Deckard shot them. But how did he know Deckard did not shoot Leon?

DeeKay

I always thought that the unicorn was a symbol of purity. Therefore, Decker dreaming of the unicorn was a symbol that his soul was pure, in spite of all the "retirements" he did.

The fact that origami at the end was a unicorn, to me, signified two things:

-- Gaff had been to Decker's home, saw Rachel and decided NOT to "retire" her. He was leaving Decker a sign that he wouldn't be following her to kill her.

-- The fact that it was a unicorn, again, to me seemed to signify that Gaff also thought that Decker was innocent or had atoned for all the mudered he had committed.

-- If Gaff knew that Decker was a replicant plus the fact that Gaff knew that now Decker and Rachel would be on the run, don't you think that Gaff would have left some better sign to Decker that he was a replicant. In other words, "run because the other runners are going to be after you now"?

-- I agree that the whole concept of how the replicants were more human than human, that was the whole point of the Rutger Hauer's death scene.

Pants

The root of the "is he replicant vs. human" issue is best illustrated by the very arguement we are having here. The only absolute thing that we can all agree in is that there is ambiguity as to whether Deckert is a replicant or a human.

The point the film is trying to make isn't made specificly within the film, but rather comes to light only when the audience leaves the theater and begins discussing it.

These "replicant or not" arguements boil down to one thing: There are enough suggestions sprinkled throughout the film (all versions) to raise doubt in viewers' minds that he may not be human. And once that doubt is raised it will never be erased. That's what the film really seems to be about; that once the possibility of not being human is raised, the doubt will never be erased. The stigma of not being human will haunt you.

Supermallet

Funny thing is, in Do Androids Dream Of Electronic Sheep, the protagonist goes through a period where he thinks he is a replicant, but once he realizes the other cop is a replicant, he knows he's human, and doesn't doubt it anymore.

I know that the movie isn't the book, just something I found interesting.

Patman

If Gaff knows that Deckard is a replicant, why does he throw back Deckard's gun back to him (right after Roy expires)? Why would a blade runner give a replicant a gun back?

Jackskeleton

He's a replicant. Deal with it.

Rivero

Maybe in the end Gaff just felt sorry for the guy, his being deceived all this time, and let him and Rachael go even though they both will be hunted in the future. Kinda like the end of Mystic River where .

SilverScreen

I completely agree with everything Suprmallet said. To me, the whole story loses it's meaning if Deckard is actually a replicant.

In addition, there are alot more facts / coincidences that scream Deckard is human it's pathetic. All you have to do is look at his senses and the fight scenes. He bleeds real red blood, he has bones that can be broke, he has normal senses, he can be snuck up on by a replicant, his strength is normal for a human, he feels pain, he has normal human endurance, I could go on and on and on....

I could personally give a flying f&%$ whether or not Scott in hindsight said he was a replicant... the movie sure makes a hell of alot less sense and has a TON of flaws if he is one...

I choose to believe he's human... end of story.

Jackskeleton

That's why you buy the Criterion Laserdisc and you live like me. in denial.

mgbfan

Not very darned much ambiguity as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, you have to pay attention and do a little work to arrive at the conclusion, but I think the orgami scene leaves really no doubt at all to anybody who has paid attention.

For those desperate to assert that he's not a replicant, how do you explain the orgami scene? Ignore all the other clues for the moment. Explain that scene. Why is it there if not to tell us, POINT BLANK, that Deckard is a replicant?

That's the only possible reason for the scene. It's really an open-and-shut case.

This may be why so few directors are willing to make subtle points.

Patman

I not only have the Criterion LD, but ported it over to DVD.

Is there a point to all the other pieces of origami that Gaff leaves behind locations, plus the matchstick man?

The unicorn left behind could just mean that Gaff was fine with leaving Rachel to Deckard because Gaff was counting on Rachel expiring like the rest of the replicants, and the last bit of narration by Deckard just points out that Deckard hit the jackpot because of Gaff's gaffe. Leaving a unicorn means that Gaff allows Deckard to get his "mythical" creature (Rachel) by Gaff's lack of action in the matter of Rachel.