I voted maybe. I don't want to throw this thread off track but this film has just never done anything for me beyond its visual appeal. I understand the themes that are supposed to be there, but I just don't think they come off well in the movie. I much prefer subtlety in a film than in-your-face questions about what it means to be human (2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest film ever made, IMO) but I just think that most of the characters in this movie are unlikable (except Rachel) and cloud the themes that were, apparently, meant to be there. I've watched it numerous times and all I see is a good sci-fi film with out-of-reach themes...albeit a good looking film.
But again, I'm pretty sure that in the 1982 cut, there's no allusion to Gaff's knowledge of Deckard's dream. If you combine the unicorn origami with the unicorn dream, then yes, it strongly implies that Gaff knows Deckard's dreams and Deckard is a replicant. But without it, the unicorn origami can be viewed in different ways. Did they actually shoot the unicorn dream in 1981/82? I seem to recall hearing they didn't - I have it in my head they ended up with outtakes for "Legend" - but I could be 100% wrong on that. I did a little poking and found that Scott claims he always wanted to include the unicorn dream in the film but was overruled in 1982. I'd want to see circa 1982 comments to believe that - sorry, but if Scott never said that until 1991 or so, I'm disinclined to believe him...
I am not sure about the shooting dates, I doubt it was reshot to imply Deckard was a replicant. If Scott intended it to be in the film in 1982 then I can only assume it was part of the original shoot.
Editor Terry Rawlings states in the doc that the unicorn scene was part of the original 4 hours of footage. Plus other small scenes were cut which were supposed to make the audience question wether he was a Rep.
If I remember correctly, the purpose of the limited life span is to keep replicants from developing full emotions.
I remember when Scott was first talking about the unicorn scene, and he characterized it as just a little character building. I don't remember the year, but it was before the DC was released. At that time he certainly did not mention anything about Deckard being a replicant. I think this is him making revisions after the fact, realizing he could work that twist into the story years later given the material he had put together. It wasn't the original intent of the film, and it most definitely wasn't the intent of Dick's book (I know, two different things). Scott is now 100% that Deckard is a replicant, but this creates a big plausibility problem with the original film. As others have noted, why created a replicant-hunting replicant who's burned out because of how dehumanizing his job is. Fan boys can find a way of explaining that away as a clever ploy by the Tyrell Corporation in league with the police, but I don't buy it. That opens up other narrative issues that I don't think Scott has thought through. Again, great visualist, not a deep thinker.
I used the same fact to explain by Deckerd ISN'T a replicant. Deckerd being a replicant would have been a HUGE twist in the Blade Runner story. So why would PK Dick (and Scott) merely hint at a huge plot point? I think it's baloney.
Yep. I remember that, too. Find the first interview where Scott is introduced to the idea of Deckard being an android (by some nerdy interviewer) and I remember a sort of half-hearted "Well, I guess that could be...." kind of response. He's just fueling speculation to generate discussion and PR. Look at this thread... "The only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you."
Yes, but as I said, I believe the unicorn featured in the later cuts of the film was actually one of the unicorns featured in "Legend". I poked around and couldn't find confirmation, but I compared pics of the "Legend" unicorn and the "BR" unicorn and I'm pretty sure the "BR" unicorn is from "Legend" outtakes - everything about the shots looks VERY similar. Maybe Scott shot the unicorn in 1981 but they lost the footage and couldn't use it in the 1990s - dunno. I do remain pretty sure the "BR" unicorn scenes we see in the film now were "Legend" outtakes, though...
I don't think Dick's intentions matter, honestly. The movie isn't 100% true to the story, so it can go down whatever paths it chooses. I still don't think Scott originally intended Deckard to be a replicant, but Dick's intentions don't impact the discussion, IMO...
Well, I was just contradicting Vidiot's intimation that he did so intend. I think that's nonsense. I agree with you otherwise. If you look at the original film, no, I think Deckard is human. The Director's Cut. . . well I don't watch that as often, and it's ambiguous and I don't care either way, I'm into the film for the Dickian not the Scottian elements.
if they're worried about the possibility of the replicant refusing to pursue his brethren, then why send a replicant at all? why not play it safe and send someone human? what advantage would there be in sending a replicant? for that matter, what point would there be to creating a replicant with only human abilities in the first place?
I'm not sure we disagree. The origami unicorn makes sense as evidence of Deckard's artificial origins had we been shown or told of dreams about a unicorn. But the original edit(s) mentioned nothing of the sort.
Did you read the original novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Phil Dick was famous for twists like this, and I think the novel makes it fairly clear -- it's more than a hint that perhaps all of Deckerd's past memories are false. I read a whole pile of Phil Dick books about 10 years ago, and the conclusion I came to was that the author wanted to make the reader uneasy and create some anxiety as to what was real and what was illusion... and that was an ongoing theme throughout many of his stories.
Yeah but that can be answered pretty simply--1) The Unicorn (perhaps Gaffe was pointing out that, like a Unicorn, Rachel is "mythical" i.e., a Replicant that didn't know she was one) Deckard, likewise, thought of the same creature. Here's the thing--HOW would Gaffe know about the dream if HE wasn't also one? What, they go around showing this one dream that they all have? Nah, it was symbolic just as Gaffe pointed out that, perhaps, Deckard was a "chicken" for not wanting to kill the other skin jobs. Deckard is rough with her because he hates the fact that he's falling for one of them and also regrets killing them taking it out on her at first. We don't see if it does turn tender later but could be. Roy saves Deckard because, as the hated narration says, he loved ANY life at that point even if it wasn't his and recognized that Deckard had spiritually become like a Replicant--devoid of human feeling, closed off and living in his own false little world surrounded by photos of his past to drown out the memories of his present and recent past. It's an attempt to try and reconnect with his humanity. Also, IF Deckard was a Replicant WHY wouldn't Roy try and talk him out of killing him and how would he know? It's not like they had a serial number stamped on his forehead and the Replicants could exist side-by-side without the test truly revealing who they are. Hampton Fancher and David Peeples who wrote the script say he isn't a Replicant. Ford says he isn't either. I buy them and think that Ridley thought of this after the fact and that the sequence where his "eyes" look like a Replicant is meant, again, to symbolize the loss of his humanity which Rachel helps him rediscover. I'd also point out, he wasn't the only Blade Runner. His predecessor Holden also spotted them he just wasn't prepared for Leon to try and kill him so quickly.
The OTHER possibility that P.K. Dick left open is that the Voight-Kompf test could give a false positive a human who lacked empathy. His "dark haired girl" theme , in which women with dark hair where attractive and very bad news could be applied to Rachel. In the book the manufacturer was actively trying to invalidate the empathy test results.
Nah, I thought it was pretty clear that Dick was messing with his readers. Sheep is one of my fav Dick novels. Dick does, indeed, use uncertainty to create anxiety in the reader but Dick's novel truly was focusing on the fact that Deckard and humanity weren't any better than the Replicants. Dick liked to leave things ambiguous as throwing both the character and the audience into confusion. He would also use that ambiguity to suggest that, perhaps, his characters were losing their minds or losing touch with reality something which, ironically, Dick himself later suffered to a degree. In the film, Fancher and Peeples focused in their script on the fact Deckard BECAME no better than a replicant and that the replicants had discovered the roots to humanity. His experience helps Deckard reconnect with his humanity again something that he had lost as just another face in the crowd killing creatures that were more alive than he was. Deckard lost his empathy as a killer and, as a result, Rachel's comment is meant to be ironic.
