Oh I've said as much in this thread and elsewhere, it's a terrible idea. It's just interesting that it got so far in the process that it's at least in some written version of the script.
During Blade Runner 2049 there's a lot of talking about replicants being able to proocreate and the bad guys are looking for Rachel's offspring, but nothing about a hybrid is said, born from a replicant mother and a human father or the other way around. Maybe that's because they take for granted than Deckard is the same as Rachel, a replicant who doesn't know he's a replicant, with implanted memories an no expiration date. Strange than nobody on Blade Runner 2049 says anything about a hybrid, isn't it?
Jared Leto actually mocks Harrison Ford teasing him in a way that could suggest he's a replicant. My question is: how else did he manage to live in irradiated las Vegas otherwise?
That's a very good point. Only a replicant with their "higher" strengh could live in such enviroment, as well as Harrison's dog in the movie about Gosling asked if it was a "real" dog.
Isn't the ambiguity the point of the film, are they different than us (?), so you don't have to decide.
I agree that ambiguity is a factor, but the issue here is the way the movie's implications vary dependent on the version you watch. As noted, the 1982 cut makes the possibility of Deckard's replicant status much more vague than the later cuts do...
For the purpose of this discussion, I don't put any stock in what we see in "2049". Honestly, I view this issue based on what was intended in 1982, not when Scott tinkered with the movie later or what they decided to do 35 years later! The events in "2049" let us interpret how they want us to view Deckard now but doesn't impact the intent from 1982...
In great part I agree, but I think we have to ask the question and explore it to make it work, "it" being the point of the film from that perspective.
You're definitely meant and need to think about it but the inability to know chimes with the main point of the book and film.
I dig...it's like "the journey matters more than the destination" for me...going through the data and the exercise of fitting clues together gets me deeper into the film
It wasn't, though. Gosling's character sent out his little drone plane ahead of time, and it showed radiation levels were nominal.
It hard to believe the place wouldn't be festering with people after the "thousands of bottles" of whiskey.
There is no actual answer. The origami unicorn doesn’t HAVE to mean Gaff knew Deckerd’s dream. Unicorns have meaning on their own and Gaff could have been leaving a message of his own and the dream connection is a cool coincidence that even has Deckerd double/taking. Like Gaff could be saying that chasing love with a replicant is like chasing a unicorn. Oragami in general appeared earlier in the movie, right?
I just rewatched both films, love them both. But this is what I was thinking.. they mention that replicants only last 4 years. Yet Rutger Hauer "burns brighter" so dies sooner I believe.. so does Deckerd have a really slow burn so he can age or something? Any BR experts have thoughts?
Blade Runner The Final Cut is my favorite film. To me he is a replicant. Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? is also my favorite book. I can take them both as different stories since they mostly are. I liked BR2049 when it was first released but I think it was just the idea that I was getting a new Blade Runner film that made me feel that way. I tried watching it again recently and if it was anymore boring it would be the new Dune movie. Now I pretend it doesn't exist.
I worked on 9 or 10 Ridley Scott films as a sound editor/designer. When we were doing "Blade Runner: the Final Cut" I directly asked him, "Was Deckard a replicant?" He answered, "Of course he is."
Finally a solid answer! As long as he doesn’t change his mind. The bigger question is: Is Ridley Scott a replicant?
Never thought he was, though I do like that everyone has their own theories. I still maintain that he’s human.
This is not true at all. 2049 does not resolve the question either way. Wallace (Jared Leto) hints that he thinks Deckard is a replicant, but doesn't confirm one way or the other.
I keep re-watching BR2049 to see what I am missing, to try and appreciate the BR 2049 masterpiece that some say it is. So far, I have not reached that realization. The original BR is not perfect, but it has perfection in creating the illusion that you are in another "world." BR2049 tries hard, but it just misses the mark in creating that perfect illusion for me.
I haven't seen Blade Runner - 2049 yet so the following comments are based on what I observed in Blade Runner and knowing that Deckard appears in the sequel. I think the entire "4 year lifespan" is intentionally programmed in, rather than being a fact of life when it comes to making a replicant. Like with Rachel, it does not have to be programmed in. It is much like Data in Star Trek - The Next Generation, his lack of emotions was intentionally limited by his programming to ensure that he did not end up like Lore. Taking the Tyrell's "burns brighter" comment at face value, it could be that the lifespan of a replicant is affected by their superhuman-programmed-in abilities. Things like enhanced intelligence and physical abilities comes at the cost of a shorter lifespan, a reason they appear to be older after only 4 years of life. Combining the two above paragraphs, I think the reason Deckard appears to not be a replicant while actually being one is that that as he was designed to appear to be completely human. So no enhanced abilities, no enhanced intelligence, and no 4-year lifespan. This is why that, if Deckard is a replicant, he is allowed to operate on Earth since he wouldn't be considered a threat and there are plenty of other Blade Runners to take him down if it becomes necessary. Since Replicants are adults when they are released it could be that without the intentionally limited lifespan they could live as long as the average human minus 20 years (since they didn't have a childhood, or spending time as teenager). Although it appears that Roy's aging might be due to him reaching the end of his lifespan, he and the other replicants appear to be much older than young adults (assuming they would have physically in their mid-20s when released).
