I didn't vote because there are 2 answers. "No, he's not" if you go by the theatrical cut. "Yes, he is" if you go with subsequent cuts. As others noted, the later cuts make it pretty clear Deckard is a replicant, but as others also indicated, this feels like post-release tampering to me. I don't think we were supposed to view Deckard as a replicant in 1982 - I think Scott warmed to the idea over the years and decided to make changes that strongly implied Deckard was a replicant, but I don't think that was intended originally. Just like Vader wasn't Anakin in "Star Wars" - that didn't occur until Lucas thought about it and went that path for "Empire"...
To be honest, directors shouldn't be "objective" - at least not as a rule. They should go with their view of the matter and not try to be "objective" - they're artists who're there to provide their interpretation. That said, they should be able to have enough distance to recognize when something doesn't work. I think they should go with their guts most of the time but remain open to "objective" views...
I'm down with the ambiguity, the suggestion that maybe he is, which might again underscore Deckard's dehumanization, but I don't like it as a cut and dried thing, which is the way that Scott has sometimes made it sound. I tend to agree with Oats that Scott likely grew enamored with this idea later and then tried to insert it in the Director's Cut.
I don't get the logic of "let's send a replicant with human limitations after several super-human replicants." So I voted no.
Man I’ve been into the AI safety thing heavily here lately, watching TED Talks and YouTube stuff on it..fascinating stuff. Read on science daily some scientist have concluded the “singularity” is a little farther off than we thought (50) and opposed to I think 20. Once past AGI we won’t be able to understand what AI is doing. Neat stuff.
Yeah it does kind of feel that way, especially with the unicorn scene added in. It's pretty obvious that Scott wants him to be a replicant, but doesn't want to state it explicitly. Imo, adding the narration took a lot of greatness from the film because it took away the ambiguity of all of it. It could have been done better, and I get the old noir film inspiration behind it, but it was pandering to the audience and not letting us interpret things how we want to and so fourth. Same goes for the happy ending. The directors cut really openes that conversation and began the eternal debate. Like I said earlier, the theatrical version doesn't leave you with any doubt or second guessing regarding Deckard.
What unicorn dream? I don't remember it. Was it in the original? Edit: I just saw the "dream" but I still don't know if that was an alternative version of the film or the original. Scott seems now to want to say he was a replicant, but what's the point of making him a replicant if you don't bother to clear that up in the original film? If the unicorn wasn't in the original, then that saw to me, it wasn't a valid point to him back then and he only later thought he could add some "layers" to the story to justify a "director's cut" (which I'm starting to get sick of as I think they're more the "marketing firm cuts" than adding anything good to most films. It was a "directors cut" that absolutely ruins "Amadeus," for example. And the director's cut of The Lord of the Rings series manages to turn one of the most exciting films ever made into a bog). Frankly, I think Scott had some leftover unicorn footage of "Legend" and figured "What the hell? The controversy has people talking about my 40-year old movie again, so let's do it." I remember winning the Scholastic Writing Awards one year and at a celebration party people talking about the amazing symbolism and meaning behind some things in the story, and I just sort of nodded and smiled and said "That's right!" when I had not planned for a damn second the things they were pulling out of it. I can certainly see Scott being willing to bend the truth a little about his intent, just to get people talking again.
There's enough evidence to go either way, though I think there is more suggesting Deckard IS a replicant. And it works better story wise if he is. Despite whatever retcon is occurring with Harrison Ford in the new movie, Deckard will always be a replicant to me.
I highly doubt it. I kinda don't want it since it would mess up Deckard's development as a character, relearning his humanity through someone who isn't human (in the original's case, his relationship with Rachael and witnessing Roy Batty's "Tears in Rain" speech). I am curious where 2049 will go but I do hope they don't pull that twist.
Yeah, but: to do that, they have to be objective. Way too often, they get so close to their project, they won't consider another alternative in terms of story or some of the technical details. The smart ones do keep their options open. In the case of Blade Runner, I think author Phillip K. Dick always liked to turn the tables on his readers and keep them guessing. He had quite a few stories that basically got halfway through, then he would say, "OK, you think you know what's going on? Well, surprise: this is not really happening. THAT is what's really happening." So I think he always intended for Deckerd to be a replicant. I can't see this working with Harrison Ford, since he's 75 years old, but I have every expectation the new Blade Runner film will be very interesting. Early reviews have been terrific.
Deckard wasn't a replicant in the original edits, including the theatrical, home video and subsequent "unrated" home video release. IIRC, the primary difference between the rated theatrical and unrated home video edit was that we saw Terrell's eyes bloodily gouged by Roy Batty, whereas that was off-camera in the original. I don't recall if the Shining footage was still appended to that unrated release as well. Deckard-was-a-replicant-too was entered as a possibility, post-facto, by Scott in future edits and releases. The unicorn dream and Deckard's red eye reflections were not in the original.
I think this thread is a bit messy. Are we referring to the Book or Movie? If both then we are talking about two different concepts which makes the question on this thread rather redundant.
Just as Deckard knows Rachel's childhood memories or implants. In the original, though, there was no unicorn dream and the origami sculpture meant the other blade runner had located but spared Rachel.
Not really, I think that is a given and known to the Bladerunners. If Gaff knew what Deckard was dreaming, then we can assume that Deckard was a replicant himself, and Gaff knew he would be dreaming of a unicorn just the way Deckard knew about the spider outside Rachael's window.
Actually, I can get on board that. If you create a replicant for the purpose of capturing/stopping other replicants, you wouldn't want this replicant to KNOW he's a replicant. If Deckard had super-human abilities, he'd realize he was a replicant and presumably then refuse to pursue his brethren. With "normal" abilities, he doesn't question his humanity. I still think Scott's decision to paint Deckard as a replicant was after-the-fact Lucasizing, but I don't view Deckard's lack of exceptional abilities as evidence...
And I agree with that - I just argue that the director needs to go with his/her gut most of the time. Being "objective" about filmmaking is what leads to movies heavily influenced by screening panels and outside forces - ya gotta trust the artist and not worry about being "objective" all the time!
To be fair, that doesn't mean "movie Deckard" couldn't be a replicant. Movies are allowed to alter the source, y'know! Though like I've said, I still believe this was Scott getting clever after the fact. I have an old "Making of 'Blade Runner'" book - I should dig it out and see if it discusses evidence of Scott's intentions through the movie's 1982 release...
Yup! The unicorn origami is now so tied to the dream that people think it ALWAYS implied Deckard was a replicant, but that's not so. It was just part of Gaff's ongoing commentary on Deckard, ala implying he was a coward with the chicken. That's my new theory: Deckard was actually poultry!!!
I've only seen the Director's Cut that came out in the 90's, so I lean to the "He's a replicant" idea. However, knowing how muddled it apparently is among the various versions, I picked the third option.
