They really didn't before because they were born as "adults" and they died with a limited life span. Now, even if Deckard was the perfect Replicant that could age, he was never "more human than human". I think that Scott was, again, trying to be ambiguous and suggest that he was no better than they were and, in fact, less human than they were because Deckard lost his empathy after killing replicants. I think he came to this conclusion, just as he did some of the stuff for "Alien", years later seeing connections that weren't there before. It makes a great story. Ambiguity makes for better films IMHO. By the way, having seen the sequel, I don't think that we get a definitive answer either.
A lot of it is interpretation, and I'll add one maybe farfetched one. When Roy saved Deckard from falling, he seemed to have a sudden epiphany. Now Roy was very smart, so I believe all his talking and asking questions was his Voight-Kampff test. And finally he figured out that Deckard was a replicant.
No. I don't get that at all from the scene. Roys epiphany is as he's dying he realizes how precious life is. The bird represents the fact that he has developed a soul and is no longer a " creation". At least I think I remember a bird. I might be daydreaming it like Ridley Scott.
Just thinking about this whole concept for a second ( and I'm so tired of rehashing this argument I don't want to waste time trying to figure it out): If Deckard was an android why would he have be allowed to retire and why would they have had to jump through hoops to get him back on the job? Creating an android whose reluctant to do his job, as Jake LaMotta said, would defeat its own purpose. Would you consider it smart to create a dog catcher who might start empathizing with the dogs? but I just like the guy in this thread who said just watching the androids kick the crap out of Harrison Ford gave him his answer.
well put. Whenever I heard the "Deckard was a replicant!" argument, I get the impression that I'm expected to react by saying "WHOA! YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND!" My actual reaction is, "Huh. That makes no sense." And yes, I'm aware of the red eyes and unicorn clues. It still doesn't make any sense within the context of the story.
No. Harrison Ford played him as a human. The screenwriter wrote him as a human. The novel is clear that he is human. The whole message of both the novel and the film is destroyed if he isn't a human.
I think it does but it meant something different when Scott first made the film--again, when Deckard found the little origami unicorn, he recalls Gaffes' comment "she'll never love but who does?" Deckard nods his head in understanding--again it makes sense that Rachel is a "mythical" creature -- a replicant who is indeed more human than human. I think that taking Ridley at his word, is an example of the maker's rationalization of a different conclusion than the one he made when reading the script. I personally think that the reflective eyes bit was originally meant as nothing more than a red herring or hinting, not that Deckard is a replica, but he's become no better than some of the replicants he is hunting having lost his empathy. Whereas Roy discovers his humanity and empathy.
That scene in his flat was much longer........where there was tenderness cut out due to the studio wanting the run time cut down. If he had been a replicant and Roy knew it..........why would he say 'You people wouldn't believe' instead of 'these'. Hopefully they issue a long version one day with everything that's still usable........with multiple soundtracks including the voice over and the audio outtakes.
There's a lot of speculation of the meaning to the origami unicorn, I always thought it was a message from Edward James Olmos which meant: "Yeah. I found you. I was here. But I'm letting you go."
I voted no. As far as I'm concerned, the film works fine with Deckard as human and I don't feel it adds anything if he's a replicant.
I first started reading PKD at 11 and I've read every PKD book and most more than twice. In this book I do not believe that Dick intended Deckard to be a replicant.
No. As I have said before Ridley Scott makes **** up in all his interviews over time. If you look back his opinion changes in the wind. I re watched Bladerunner last night and there are a few scenes that just really jar with Deckard being a Bladerunner (nothing to do with him being or not a replicant). The scene where the Captain fills him on on the skinjobs just doesn't work as it's all exposition and technical details that the 'best' Bladerunner would know. It's clumsy and would have worked better with a voice over explaining or a rewrite of the scene where the captain and Deckard have to explain the reasons to a newbie or something. Still looks a damn fine film though. Going to see the new one this evening.
Nah, I don't think that works. Deckard would know, it's just clumsy storytelling. Put it another way, we have a full time Bladerunner at the start looking for these super deadly killers (of 23 dead so far apparently) and he is fully up on their capabilities yet he just interviews them casually with no protection or security and pays the price. Like blindly poking under a rock for rattlers. So you call in a guy who has been out of the loop for how many years instead? He also deals with it...less than cleanly and to be honest pretty amateur. In fact he is terrible and should have died in Zora's dressing room. It just gets better and better! I think the script could have done with another sanity check pass but there you go. It stuff like that that just makes this film slip under my top 20 all time.
