Yes, hence why Gaff's earlier dialogue: "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" repeats in Deckard's mind as he examines the unicorn.
My take on why he is clumsy st that moment--he's been away for quite sometime and detests what he does and these replicants are the most challenging yet. In fact, as I recall of the Nexus 8 models, this is the first time that a Decker has encountered that model. Sounds like being a Bladerunner is so specialist that it was just Decker and Holden that did the job for the police department in L.A. It's also one of the tropes of these kind of movies but, in a sense, it works here--the LAPD are desperate and, if we take what is said in the latest film at face value, Tyrell specifically requested him for the case. In the case of Zora, it sounds like he had not dealt with her kind before hence the briefing giving their background. Decker although out of active n for some time, was also over confident about his abilities with these new models.
The idea that Rachel. Igor be an exception to the limited life span perhaps or that she was one of a kind replicant almost mythical because she had achieved the more human than human motto by developing empathy (something that Roy works towards as part of his transcendence and develops a "soul" or finds humanity just as he dies. In the original novel Roy isn't like this at all and is downright evil, without any empathy. I think it was a stroke of genius to make their leader the one who discovers his humanity-brutal as he is-through loss.
The fact that these inconsistencies exist in the original film make it fascinating for debate but also is the result of rewriting. With Fancher being rewrites by Peeples, being rewritten by Fancher plus as I recall another writer being brought in (besides the person doing the narration) and no doubt Scott demanding changes that worked as he made the film but then would change his mind. The film was rewritten on the fly and under constant distress. It's a mi or miracle it was completed at all.
Yep. When the camera captures someone at the wrong light. If it were that easy to spot then Deckard would have to go to the trouble of testing them would he? Again, I think that on the set or the night before Scott decided it would be cool to create that ambiguity during the making of the film. It's no where in the original script nor was it suggested it in. Scott sometimes makes decision on set, no matter how well prepared, he is and goes with his gut. I don't think it gives us anything definitive by itself. IF Scott were a Nexus 8 like Roy and the others, he would have their strength and we don't get any sort of sense otherwise. In a sense he IS. a Replicant--devoid of empathy and like the Replicants he does use photos but for a different purpose--to remind himself of his humanity. We should also note that the replicants kept pictures less as a memory and almost as proof that they are more than machines treasuring each real memory. All of Decker's are old photos none of them of him recently. Rachel's photo was from a real memory from Tyrell's niece. I do think it would have been interesting to find out that Tyrell was a replicant all along though.
I have gone back and forth over this question over the decades. Today I voted "yes"-tomorrow I don't know what I'd vote. I've seen 2049-instant classic, by the way-and it has some relevant insight but in the interest of fairness to those awaiting their viewing I will not invoke data from that movie, other than the obvious Deckard lives and is old. Film-makers, writers, all kinds of artists like to %$^& with us-in a way, it's like playing God, I guess. For a long time, I was in the camp that "the replicants are more human than Deckard a real human" but I am no longer certain that core tenet is essential to at least my enjoyment of the films (there was always more than one, even before 2049). I will note Tyrell could have been a liar about one or many things, and that a replicant born as an adult would not necessarily be expected to stay the inception age through decades. And, I always found the initial scene between the police captain and the "state-of-the-art bladerunner" a bit illogical. What if the violent attack on Holden had the powers-that-be thinking "whoa, this sh!* just got real with these Nexus 8 models. Let's send a skinjob after skinjobs, AND let's make the first one essential human in physical prowess, unless this test run backfires."
Well animals can have that ceeepy reflecrior n as well but again that scene by itself doesn't give us a definitive answer one way or another. As o stated earlier, Scott wanted to create ambiguity and doubt in the viewer. I always took that one scene as existing for precisely that one reason. Even all of those involved with the film don't agree and they were involved in the MAKING of the film. According to Ford, Scott never mentioned that Deckard was anything what he appeared to be. That decision was made on set it wasn't in the original script and Ford didn't play Deckard as a replicant. They (Ridley and Harrison Ford)still have that argument over lunch periodically when they meet. There are so many things in the script that point to the opposite conclusion as well (his lack of super strength, while he's smart, he's not as clever as someone like Roy). i don't think that, I tially, it was meant literally but metaphorically. Also, the reflection of the Owl's eyes in the original shooting WAS real. In post-production Scott had You g relook her line to say that it was artificial. The creepy look from the eyes of the Owl wasn't intended to indicate it was artificial at the time. That decision was made much much later in the production.
That seemed more like a hint just for the viewer. Those in the film wouldn't be able to see it with any test. Kind of like flashes of light around the sun as the camera swings by. The viewer sees it but no one else. Again clearly another hint. Maybe another poll choice could be "purposefully ambiguous". That would be where I'd fall.
I don't really see the reflecting eyes as metaphorical-in the context of that scene of that cut of the film, they are there or they are not-otherwise, if we are imagining things, did Deckard really bleed when so-and-so hit him, etc. Every replicant doesn't necessarily have super strength and super smarts-for example, all these Nexus 8 mpdels were enhanced one way or another but not all to the same specs. And as to the ultimate answer? Do we go by the actor or by the person who is overall responsible for the film entire and not just the one character, albeit the main or at least of the two main characters? In that case, we would never have a definitive answeer to any question on a film, if anyone involved states there opinion and it is canon. On a timeline, I think we could point out in around 1982 and Scott would say "not a replicant, but let's film some stuff just in case we change or just in case we want to mess with the viewer." Later on, maybe a change in mind. Now, having seen 2049, I think that at this point in time, in my opinion, he's a skinjob-and this after decades of holding onto the opposite viewpoint.
Scott,shot a sequence with the unicorn dream that was never integrated into,the film. When they went looking for,it, they couldn't find the footage so they used an outtake from "Legend".
Right on. A pleasure replicant will still be strong but not the strongest. Deckard could have been built for other purposes and repurposed as a Blade Runner when some replicants became a threat.
Yeah...I think that's something no one really thought about ever. Would you want an underpowered replicant to go out and hunt superpowereed replicants? Heck, even Pris was stronger than the average person.
Like I just threw out there-IF Deckard was the first try at a rep hunting reps, why make him superhuman-if he turned or otherwise didn't work out, then you've got one more supervillain, this one with at least a smattering of inside knowledge.
Sorry I don't buy it. He isn't the only one that does it. Holden did too and really does it take a replicant to think like areplicant? Certain Police officers can't think like a criminal all the time. It's a gift but it's a gift that ultimately can destroy those doing it in many cases as it takes its toll. This would be akin to hiring a serial killer to catch and kill other serial killers. He was exceptionally good st his job and it destroyed him. He lost his empathy and humanity in the process. I also personally think,it robs the film of its emotional core--rediscovering his humanity from something considered less than human and a slave at that. Would you want someone not trained to take on violent criminals, take on violent criminals? From a storytelling perspective, it's lazy and makes no sense. Even if he did find out he was a replicant, he would do everything to other replicant as a result. The most valuable tool would be to keep him in the dark about his identity because, super strong or not, once he find out he's still a problem. He knows how to operate within the police department and take advantage of the unit. No matter what he's still a threat so why even do it particularly if he really IS better than everyone else in the department at doing what he does. He would be an even more formidable opponent and, given that there are only two Balderunners, it also makes it more of a challenge. The other issue is that If you had an underpowered replicant hunting other replicants, he's more likely to fail at his job because he isn't capable of doing what they do.
The value of the journey in the film is the fact that we compare humanity to a slave work force and find that they are like us in unexpected ways. In many respects, the loss of empathy, humanity and connection that a Deckard has and the journey to rediscover that as his life is in danger and the noble last moments of a "slave" help him rediscover that humanity. The other story--a replicant that doesn't know he's one, kills his own kind, still doesn't know he's one at the end (there was no big moment of realization, understanding or suspicion on his part exhibited either--no sense of self discover in that regard-- ales it a lesser story simply because, as it is portrayed, we don't sense that a Deckard ever discovers who he is. That robs the film of the emotional resonance particularly if he never had empathy to begin with.
I think that it really depends on which version of the film you see as well.i never liked the narration (Ford's delivery of it is pretty awful) nor the happy ending tacked on. The director's cut makes it more explicit that Deckard could be a replicant however, there is still doubt. Regardless, the sequel, to me, makes it clear he isn't because in the director's cut there is never a discussion of longer life spans for the replicants nor that they can grow old something that the. Nexus latest models couldn't do--they still had limited life spans. While original writer Hanton Fancher toyed with the idea. The misreading of a brief voiceover as Roy dies in Peeples' script inspired Scott in that direction. Asthe director of the sequel has stated, his vision of the sequel was formed by the original theatrical release where a Deckard is, most decidedly, NOT a replicant although that ambiguity is still suggested in the original theatrical cut. Oh, by the way, I was in error about the Unicorn scene--that was shot but an outtake was used because it was the only surviving footage.
Only every time someone uses an on camera flash that bounces off the back of the eyeball and makes a red pupil in the image. Many photo editing programs have settings specifically to fix "red eye."
