If Deckard was a replicant why doesn't the Voight-Kampf test effect him?
It seems to work where the replicant gets uncomfortable and unsure of an answer to a particular scenario. The tortoise thing for Leon, and I think it's like a dinner party serving boiled dog for Rachel. But why would these stories not also effect Deckard?
Because Scott is a hack.
fpbp
he's a moron who mastered crafting beautiful visuals but should stay from the script
He was a replicant… literally everything you see on the screen is a replicant. The cop, the animals, the bugs, the chinks serving dog noodles and the dog meat too. That’s the point of the movie.
we live in a simulation even everyone is an npc
dhengs ;D;D;D;D beoble wouldnt believ. addagg shibbs ;D;D;D;D of a mangensium benis 8-----D
beams shubb dannhausers gatorade. all the benis... goen :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:DD:
whoa i never thought about it that way
Kek
This. Everyone before then agreed he wasn't a replicant, then he changed his mind and everyone else in the production and casting said "Hmm no...".
IIRC if he is a replicant he's a different model
Well wouldn't he be basically the best model if the test doesn't work on him? Why not just make all of them his model?
Experiment, just like Rachael
I don't think he's a replicant, FWIW
That's like asking why they didn't make every plane a jet plane in WW2.
What is there to remember? This is a moronic theory with no basis in reality.
>IIRC if he is a replicant he's a different model
But how are you supposed to figure this out as a viewer? There aren't enough clues.
Why did they need a test anyway? They had pictures of all the replicants. Surely they could have caught Leon just by looking at him.
they got the pictures after the first Blade Runner was shot
and even with pictures you probably want a way to be sure, to prevent accidental retirement.
I would love to accidentally retire
>f Deckard was a replicant
He only is in the directors cut that came out in like 1993, Ridley scott just decided to take a shit all over the scriptwriter and introduce a contradicting moronic plotpoint at the end of the movie that makes no sense. And worst of all the fricking sequel based itself on the directors cut.
deckard possibly being a replicant is a part of the book the movie is based on, it's intentionally left open ended. there's nothing in the book that proves he is or isn't a replicant.
What? He has a wife in the books, and he gives himself the test, proving he is human. There is absolutely parts of the book which prove he is a human. The androids try to get him to doubt himself when they take him to the fake police station, and then after he tests Phil, he tests himself, coming back human. If he were an android, Phil would have retired him. The book makes absolutely no sense if he is an android, because the book concludes that the androids are fundamentally different from humans, and do not have an inner conscience or empathy. They have their own motivations, and mimic certain emotions and behavior, such as curiosity, but they are hollow. Rachel literally says that the androids don't dream in the book, and Deckard is not at all special in the book. He is not even the main bounty hunter sent after them, but is only substituted in when the other is injured. So there is absolutely no bullshit asspull about how the Rosen association actually made this super secret special android which operated as a bounty hunter. One of the themes of the book is that humans can be like androids, merciless, schizoid, and cold-blooded, while androids cannot be like humans.
Can we all agree that calling the movie adaptation Blade Runner is one of the smartest title changes in history?
Yeah, the book's title is kind of stupid.
>Can we all agree
hi r3ddit!
>deckard possibly being a replicant is a part of the book the movie is based on, it's intentionally left open ended
No, it isn't. There is a little subplot about him and another blade runner suspecting each other of being replicants, but in the end neither is. It should also be noted that in the novel replicants are much dumber than in the movie, and it's never made a point that they're equal to humans in any way. It's an entire different beast.
he is human in the book and according to Phillip k Dick. In the first film he is human as well.
the possibly replicant was claimed later by Ridley to create some noise, some discussion around the film.
>part of the book the movie is based on
Loosely based on. The book was pretty horrible.
It was pretty mid. An uncommon case of the movie adaptation being far superior to the book.
Not that uncommon to be honest, ive read The exorcist, American Psycho, Starship troopers and First Blood and the movie versions were all better. Granted its not always the case but its more common than you think.
The book was better than the movie, lmao. It's not even close. Blade Runner has almost none of the interesting themes and content of the book, and is carried by its aesthetic.
>The book was better than the movie
I thought the book was shit.
>And worst of all the fricking sequel based itself on the directors cut.
You're such a brainlet, that you didn't even notice that 2049 puts equal amounts of supporting evidence towards Deckard being and not being a replicant.
Dont they literally confirm he is a replicant in 2049? Was a long time ago since i watched it and being bored to tears probably didnt help with concentrating so i could be wrong. But i was certain they literally confirm it in the movie.
>Dont they literally confirm he is a replicant in 2049?
No, Denis literally goes out of his way to be a fencesitter. Even going as far as having K ask Deckard if the dog is real, and Deckard goes "Does it matter either way"(or whatever the exact phrase was). Very meta moment for the auidence, and have Denis tell us what his opinion is.
Which is technically the correct conclusion, but not the correct process. You're supposed to arrive at that conclusion, through consideration, not through disgust/apathy.
>He only is in the directors cut that came out in like 1993, Ridley scott just decided to take a shit all over the scriptwriter and introduce a contradicting moronic plotpoint at the end of the movie that makes no sense
You mean the Director's Cut, that Scott had no actual input in? That Director's Cut?
The frick are you on about, hes the director of the movie, its called the directors cut for a reason. How would he have no input over his own fricking cut of the movie? Are you moronic or something?
>so Deckard is a replicant, just a new advanced model
>e only is in the directors cut
He's not even one in the director's cut.
That theory is based on the unicorn dream, as if a real person couldn't possibly ever think of a unicorn.
It simply serves to blur the lines in Dekard's perception of Human vs Replicant, which was the point in the theatrical as well.
>as if a real person couldn't possibly ever think of a unicorn.
It's not that a real person couldn't. It's that Gaff was letting Deckard know, that Gaff knows Deckard's internal thoughts/dreams.
>It's that Gaff was letting Deckard know, that Gaff knows Deckard's internal thoughts/dreams.
No he wasn't. His animals were purely random.
>His animals were purely random.
lol
lmao even
They weren't random at all. Go watch again. They were tailored.
Gaff makes a chicken to call Deckard a coward.
Gaff makes a man with a tail (i'm pretty sure it's not a huge penis) to give some cred to Deckard that he's manning up.
Gaff makes the unicorn to show Deckard that he knows about the Unicorn Dream.
Not random.
That being said, hate the fricking notion of Deckard being a replicant. The movie was to show how much humanity had lost compared to the struggle Batty and the other strive to survive. Can't happen if Deckard is just a different model of replicant.
The entire point of the film is to question what makes us human, and it shows that a replicant, Roy, is far more human than the actual human tasked with hunting him down.
>Roy has friends he cares about, Deckard doesn't
>Roy is in a relationship with a woman, Deckard isn't
>Roy shows compassion and empathy towards his opponent, Deckard doesn't
The film just doesn't work the same if Deckard was actually a replicant.
Agreed
I sometimes see an argument like "oh well if Deckard is a replicant that drive the films message even more because you watched the whole movie thinking he was human but he's actually a replicant"
But it doesn't, it just makes it feel cheap because there's no core thing about Deckard's character that gives us that impression beyond superficial things like his dream and his eyes in that one scene
>The film just doesn't work the same if Deckard was actually a replicant.
wdym
its like the basic thing of a noir. character goes through an introspection to find himself yada yada
in this case how is there a bigger point about humans and machines being not that different if the person hunting these machines think he's a human but actually isn't?
It works way better to have a replicant behaving like a human and a human behaving like a replicant since that blurs the line between what's real and what isn't- allowing for reflection on what it actually means to be human. If everyone's a replicant none of that matters since there's no exploration of a human character who's lost touch with humanity.
this
perfectly said anon
>anon failed Tyrell's test
Shameful. You're unable to change your beliefs, once new information is given to you. Rejecting the facts, to stick with your existing narrative.
Don't worry, you're in good company, as 2/3s of people are unable to accept new information that changes their worldview.
Correct. DADoES? Is about how a man can be a machine. BR is about how a machine can be a man.
Go back.
Nonsense. It still provokes all of those thoughts and then twists it when Adama gives him the origami horse. This implies the other cops were humans and knew deckard's dreams because someone planted them there for him. You think it was just a coincidence? It allows deckard to see that he really isn't any different from Roy after all, and gives him a reason to run out of the city with Rachel - even if hes only got a little time left, its better than working until your 4 year timer is up.
That‘s a shot scott added in a later version of the film. In that version he is a replicant, no ambiguity left. The point is that that decision by scott was moronic
There is still ambiguity.
Thinking that the Unicorn origami could only be a direct reference to Deckard's dream is simply a lack of imagination.
It's there to muddy the waters more, certainly, but it's not necessarily a confirmation.
The unicorn is a fake creature, thus what he's seeing can't be a "memory", which is what is implanted. I don't think there is any mention implanted dreams IIRC.
He's seeing something fake, albeit pure and beautiful, free in a world that is real, it's a metaphor for Rachel. It's his ideal, what he has been looking for to give him meaning and purpose in life
On top of that the unicorn is a symbol of rarity, a one of a kind thing, something you're not likely to find ever. Gaff is signalling that he understands that Deckard has found something special here and it's why he decides to let them go.
It makes Deckard question his humanity, but it may just be a coincidence.
The director's cut makes Deckard's eye glow red to remove all ambiguity
good thing the director's cut isn't canon and Scott is moronic
That effect happens to people in real life so not really an objective indication of being a replicant.
It also makes no sense to make a psychological test to figure out if someone's a replicant when all it takes is to look at their eye under low light conditions
but again, Ridley Scott is a moron
A great director, but still a moron
what about Deckard speaking while asleep?
checkmate gay.
>HUMANS ARE THE REAL MONSTERS
thank god Ridley Scott saved us from this trite garbage
Ending: by not killing Rachel, and living the city with her, Deckard is showing now his Humanity.
Or is he paying his debt to Roy, and the Replicants? Roy, the replicant who didn't kill him, and even saved him from a certain death?
In the end, Deckard realized exactly how shitty his life had become. No wife or family, no friends. A pawn of the state forced to do their bidding. He realized that he wasn't "retiring" replicants, but murdering innocent people, and that didn't sit well with him. In saving Deckards life, both Rachel and Roy made Deckard realize how precious life actually was, and Deckard resolved to finally start living it again.
Harrison Ford has always been on the right side of this one. Deckard being a replicant in a 100% Ridley Scott’s shitty headcanon.
didn't know ford had a strong opinion on this.
He definitely does. Ford and Scott feuded over it for years.
>why doesn't the Voight-Kampf test effect him
He never took it, something Rachel asked him directly.
>I don't think he's a replicant
From Ridley Scott himself:
>Totally intentional, sir [the eye glow]. I was hoping there'd be those who'd pick up on that. Since Blade Runner is a paranoid film, throughout there is this suggestion that Deckard may be a replicant himself. His glowing eyes were another allusion to that notion, another of the subtle little bits and pieces which were all leading up to that scene in the end where Deckard retrieves Gaff's tinfoil unicorn and realizes the man knows his secret thoughts.
>Actually, though, my chief purpose in having Deckard's eyes glow was to prepare the audience for the moment when Ford nods after he picks up the unicorn. I had assumed that if I'd clued them in earlier, by showing Harrison's eyes glowing. some viewers might be thinking "Hey, maybe he's a replicant, too." Then when Deckard picked up the tinfoil unicorn and nodded a signal that Ford is thinking, "Yes, I know why Gaff left this behind" [having had the unicorn dream]-the same viewers would realize their suspicions had been confirmed.
Doubting Deckard is a replicant is gaytier, wrong, gay, R*ddit, non-white, unbased, etc.
Why would you need to frick around with a Voight-Kampf test if all you have to do to clock a replicant is to look at the eyes?
Kek, and in the book they have that spinal test thing which is even faster.
shut up
same reason the israelites deploy fact checkers to prove that reptilians don't exist
Harrison Ford so vehemently disagreed with Scott over this that he went over his head and got the studio to intervene and he was right to do so. Ridley Scott has legitimately terrible instincts.
man i have to read up on this lol. i always thought deckard being a replicant was moronic and that the eye glow thing was just a way to get the audience thinking about what it means to be human vs a replicant.
>Harrison Ford so vehemently disagreed with Scott
Actors are puppets for the director's vision.
directors are puppets for the producers' vision
>Doubting Deckard is a replicant is gaytier, wrong, gay, R*ddit, non-white, unbased, etc.
Believing it is the gaytier gay reddit take, why it only shows up in the directors cut over a decade later, was never in the original so frick you homosexual.
>it only shows up in the directors cut
First, Scott had no control over the Director's Cut. Second, the idea originated in the Workprint. Third, the studio thought that the average moron wouldn't understand what the movie was doing(they were right), and required the voiceover for the theatrical. The theatrical is the first version that was deliberate about Deckard being human, when that was never the plan.
>Called the directors cut
>Director supposedly has no control over it
Poor bait
>Sammon, Paul M. (1996). "XIII. Voice-Overs, San Diego, and a New Happy Ending". Future Noir: the Making of Blade Runner. London: Orion Media. pp. 353, 365. ISBN 0-06-105314-7.
>"Scott provided extensive notes and consultation to Warner Bros., although film preservationist/restorer Michael Arick was put in charge of creating the Director's Cut."
What bait? The Director's Cut title has no legal definition, so they can put it on whatever they want. The Director's Cut is Michael Arick's cut.
>Ridley Scott's Final Cut (2007, 117 minutes), or the 25th-Anniversary Edition, [...] is the only version over which Ridley Scott had complete artistic control, as the Director's Cut production did not place Scott directly in charge.
Do you guys even know the basics about the history of Blade Runner's creation?
because a director has to explain with convoluted and sybilline words what's happening on his movie, after the movie release.
coping that hard.
i'm not convinced.
i'm convince Scott has a full moron mode.
i have to accept that this is ridley's version. i dont have to accept that this is a good version. i am at liberty to consider scott a moron for making that choice
>Gets his ass kicked by Zhora.
>Gets his ass kicked by Leon.
>Gets his ass kicked by Pris.
>Gets made an absolute fool of by Roy.
>Can't jump near the same distance that Roy does with ease.
Some "replicant"...
I-it's an experimental model, bro!
This has always been it for me. Deckard shows all signs of being a regular human and has zero replicant qualities, not to mention that the idea of creating and hiring replicants to hunt and kill other replicants is as moronic as it gets. So naturally 2049 took the idea and ran with it.
>Deckard shows all signs of being a regular human and has zero replicant qualities
Actually the movie signposted the frick out of it, yet still didn't scream it at you. One of those "show, don't tell" examples that are too subtle for most people. It's the same problem that 2001 runs into, with the intro and ending.
Blade Runner opens with the eye, shows that the eye is the key to knowing if you're a replicant, has you see the eye developer, and even shows you what to look for in a synthetic eye(with the owl).
Yet, most of the audience never picks up on this. Which goes to show that the idea of "show, don't tell", isn't actually a good idea. It's more like "do the most painfully obvious narrative being shown, and then let the audience know that this is the important part through music/etc making them think that they figured it out for themselves".
Then there's the unicorn dream and origami.
>inb4 it wasn't in the theatrical cut
Yeah, we already know that the studio thought everyone was too moronic to understand most of the movie, and made changes. The fact that we're still having these conversations, shows that the studio was right, people are too moronic for Blade Runner.
Which is why most people who watch it, at best, call it a style over substance movie, because they're actually not even capable of understanding it.
Hell, The Matrix trilogy reconfirmed this. People don't want to think while watching a movie.
Wow you noticed that eyes are a big thematic element in the movie. Fricking galaxy brain over here. None of this explains why Deckard has none of the qualities that every replicant has.
>Wow you noticed that eyes are a big thematic element in the movie. Fricking galaxy brain over here
And you clearly missed everything that went on with the eyes.
>None of this explains why Deckard has none of the qualities that every replicant has.
Yes it does. He's not a miner, sex robo-assassin, etc. He's a test model, like Rachel. The next generation, that thinks it's human. You don't give a replicant that's supposed to thin that it's human, super-human abilities. That defeats the purposed of the test. Do you even think? Because it's clear that you didn't understand what Rachel was, even though Tyrell told us plainly.
The eyes are one of the ways that the audience can identify who are replicants, and who are actual humans.
Your cope is pathetic.
It made more sense in 2049 since those replicants were easily distinguishable (even randoms on the street notice he's a "skinjob" basically at first glance) and constantly monitored to ensure they were remaining compliant
>>Gets his ass kicked by Zhora.
>>Gets his ass kicked by Leon.
>>Gets his ass kicked by Pris.
>>Gets made an absolute fool of by Roy.
>>Can't jump near the same distance that Roy does with ease.
>
>Some "replicant"...
Not to mention the fact he took a steele pipe to Roy and couldn't take him out, only for Roy to take it away from him like an adult taking a toy from a child. If you're going to make a replicant to hunt replicants, you're going to make it as stronger or stronger so you can get the job done. Deckard wasn't a replicant.
>If you're going to make a replicant to hunt replicants, you're going to make it as stronger or stronger
Not if your goal is to make one think it's a human. If you gave it superhuman strength, then it would much more quickly realize that it's a replicant, or someone else would quickly identify it as a replicant.
The intro that showed you the info pages on the escaped replicants, showed that they have various strength and intelligence levels. So Tyrell already has the ability to make a replicant at the human level of intelligence and strength.
>so you can get the job done
Gaff was the true Blade Runner. He followed Deckard around, and would have shot him, if Deckard got out of control.
>Not if your goal is to make one think it's a human.
It wouldn't be. It would be to kill replicants....that are stronger, faster, and smarter than most people.
Except it is the goal. Your autism is in the way of understanding this. Sorry.
No. It's not. You're just a fricking moron.
It is, you're just not paying attention.
He isn't. The power of Roy using his last act to save a human life is crucial. Ridley is a moron.
If Roy thinks he's human it still works.
But it's such a cheap cop out if the only clues are his eyes and the dream. It's so obviously not built into the core of his character
>It's so obviously not built into the core of his character
Never was, Ridley scott just decided to shoehorn that bullshit into the movie with his directors cut.
It's almost like everyone else on the production knew he wasn't a Replicant except for one deluded old man desperately trying to cling to relevancy.
Hes not a replicant ridley scott is just moronic, sometimes the director is wrong like with starship troopers too
If he's not a replicant in the book then he's not one in the movie. That said there was a really good part of the books plot where his entire police department is a replicant except him and he didn't know who to trust so Deckard has to "retire" them all.
I thought it was completely implausible. How can an entire replicant police department be around without anyone noticing?
Ok maybe I remembered wrong. There's two police departments? Deckards and another character's? Each thinks the other one is the fake one full of replicants. The plot gets kind of crazy at that point in the book.
>If he's not a replicant in the book then he's not one in the movie.
Deckard is a replicant in the movie.
He's not an android in the book, but that's a different thing altogether
Because he's not a replicant
>why doesn't the Voight-Kampf test effect him?
It's an emotional reaction machine. The questions aren't being asked of him.
>But why would these stories not also effect Deckard?
Deckard is the same new model as Rachel. He has artificial memories of a full life, which makes the test less effective. As it took 5x the number of questions on Rachel, for Deckard to know that she was a replicant.
The test needed to be improved, to account for the further developments in replicant technology, which is what the "Cells Interlocked" scenes in 2049 were about.
Why do we even let brainlets watch these movies?
>Durr everyone in the movie's a replicant
Then you miss out on exploring a human character who's out of touch with their humanity and how they compares to a replicant which makes for an infinitely shittier movie. Which makes sense why a hack filmmaker like Ridley Scott wanted to do that and the cast and crew pretty much bullied him out of it
Or you're not a moron and accept that there's two different stories being told, depending on if you watch the theatrical cut or the final cut?
But people with autism(You), aren't able to have such complex ideas.
It's easy to accept that the theatrical cut has him as a human and the final cut as a replicant.
The ultimate message of Blade Runner is that it doesn't matter if Deckard is or isn't a replicant.
If Deckard isn't, then Roy's saving at the end was an act of compassion for another species.
If Deckard is, then Roy's saving at the end was an act of brotherhood towards his own species.
Either way, it displays the complex intelligence and abstraction abilities of Roy, showing that replicants are worthy of personhood.
Your claims about the discussion about what is a human, are still there, you just have them in a different way, if Deckard is a replicant. You've gone through the entire film, thinking that he's a human, and then discover that he's not. Challenging YOUR idea of what is a human, proving Tyrell's experiment a success.
Though, your rejection shows that it's a failure, since you're unable to come to terms with the reality that Deckard was able to accept.
>its called the directors cut for a reason
And Scott only provided notes and consultation, but WB put Michael Arick in charge of creating it. the "Director's Cut" label was just aping off of the trend that was popularized a few year previous.
>How would he have no input over his own fricking cut of the movie?
The only cuts he had actual input over, were the theatrical cut, which was interfered with by the studio. And the final cut, which is the only time Scott had full control over. Thus the "Final Cut" title.
>Are you moronic or something?
Are you? I'm actually informed about the history of this film, while you're not.
>The ultimate message of Blade Runner is that it doesn't matter if Deckard is or isn't a replicant.
a toaster wrote this
It's literally the message of the sequel.
>K ask's, "Is it real?" referencing the dog. Deckard replies, "I don't know. Ask him."
Thanks for agreeing with everything else I said. Glad that I convinced you.
I agree. Don't know why people get so upset that he was a replicant it makes the film more interesting. The fact that you're watching machines that are so incredible that they can fall in love is better than a guy is a human who goes around killing robots but he's a bit like a robot himself and the robots are more human than him. Thinking about it that is completely reddit and Ridley was 100% right on this one.
They aren't machines though. The whole subtext of the film is that they are just lab grown humans that society pretends are soulless machines so they can continue using them as slaves.
If he's a machine then it doesn't work
While it's only a loose adaption of DADOES, the introduce someone who plays the "what's the difference between man and machine" with Phil Resch
so the super smart guy who builds replicants built one without a lifespan limit and planted him at the cop shop, where they apparently don't do background checks, and then watched when it showed up at his office to ask questions and interviewed his newest replicant, one that he's been trying to build to beat the voight kampf test, and then he chats with it afterwards about how hard it is to build a replicant that can pass as human?
No, Tyrell would have made a deal with the police.
>why risk your police and detectives hunting replicants, when we can use a replicant to do it for you?
>Gaff, the actual Blade Runner, can just supervise from afar, and kill the test subject, if anything goes wrong
The police would just play along, that Deckard is a human, that he's an alcoholic, and been divorced, etc.
Rachel still failed the Voight-Kampf test, it just took more effort, but you wouldn't tell them that detail. Do you know anything about marketing?
>then he chats with it afterwards about how hard it is to build a replicant that can pass as human?
Yes. Why wouldn't you marvel at your greatest success so far? Deckard is out on the streets, thinking that he's a divorced alcoholic. Tyrell would see it as his greatest success. Deckard and Rachel are one step closer to achieving the "More Human Than Human" motto.
>Don't know why people get so upset that he was a replicant it makes the film more interestin
Because the narrative they created in their head, about the entire movie was changed. There's a well known psychological study, that shows that humans reject new information that alters their previous understanding of the world, 2/3s of the time. It requires a great amount of willpower and effort to be willing to change your understanding of something, when new information is presented to you. We're evolutionarily predisposed to stick with what we know, over adopting new beliefs, as our current beliefs are what enabled us to survive, and a new belief is risky. Only in the case of fiction, it's just a failure of our human development. We didn't evolve to have such abstract concepts to deal with, so it's not something we're able to easily do.
The people who are unwilling to change their understanding of fiction, that we see in this thread, also have autism. Which is an additional hurdle to overcome.
tldr fan fiction tier head cannon
>tldr fan fiction tier head cannon
tldr: moron can't follow the movie, the psychology, and the philosophy discussed.
Still to regular action movies. You probably hated the story of the Matrix sequels, since it did more than Hero's Journey shit.
Whether Deckard is a replicant or not never mattered to me for some reason. It's probably true that it doesn't make sense but I still find the movie to be beautifully poetic and thought provoking. I think it's valid criticism but also overblown. It doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things tbh
tbh i think youre looking at it in the right way. I always thought that the was deckard a replicant more of a "if nobody hears a tree falling in a forest then does it make a sound?" kind of question where the object is more to get you think about the topic rather than to come to an absolute answer. In this case its to get you to think about what it means to be human rather than seriously considering if deckard is literally a replicant (which is stupid).
they should have tried the "how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast" test
>write film about what it means to be human
>the grand irony is that the human protagonist is less "human" than the machines he hunts
>everyone working on the film understands this
>but not the director
Scott could make beautiful films, but he doesn't get stories. His worst mistakes happen when he butts in on the scriptwriter's job. The WHOLE MESSAGE of Bladerunner is that it doesn't matter what you're made of, humanity is compassion for life. Scott sees this and his hack brain turns it into BUT HE WAS DA ROBOT ALL ALONG!!! DUN DUN DUN!!!!
This, scott should stay to directing and have 0 input on scriptwriting
Philip K Dick was an insane meth head hack and his books suck dick. If he was still alive today he'd be writing about how evil Drumpf is.
Every single person who isn't a religious schizo or a moron hates Donald Trump. All creative people hate Donald Trump.
How's your day of visibility going? Alone in your room again?
It's Easter, I spent it with my family and my biolgoical kids.
VR Chat is a helluva drug, homosexual.
Kanye West
Werner Herzog
Crispin Glover
KW Jeter (PKD's friend, originator of cyberpunk/steampunk)
And countless others who can't let their opinions be known thanks to cultist lunatics like you
All love Trump
You worthless wagie homosexual.
Cope
The book is much better than scott's shallow dogshit adaptation
>f Deckard was a replicant
hes not
>Is there really a difference between humans and replicants
that's the obvious takeaway
>Deckard is a replicant
that's what happens when Ridley Scott makes story decisions
>Is there really a difference between humans and replicants
The real question is: who cares? Replicants are made up. If they indeed qualify as human, that's because the writers of the story made them that way. It's all made up. I love this movie for its aesthetic beauty, not its fever dream of a story.
Yeah, humans in real life have never arbitrarily decided to treat certain people as lesser or like slaves.
Inafter OP's question triggers NPCs.
How would you feel if you didn't eat boiled dog for breakfast?
He was a Nexus 8. He should have perfomerd a Voight-van Brown v2.3 test.
Deckard being a replicant adds a unique personal dimension to his pursuit of other replicants as he grapples with his own existence, purpose, and the nature of humanity, believing he has been a human hunting replicants his whole life. The sequel teaches that distinctions between replicants and humans are negligible. In it, Deckard and Rachel bear a child, suggesting either that humans and Nexus-7 replicants, or just replicants, can reproduce and age, blurring the lines between them and humans completely. There's no difference anymore, so it doesn't matter.
>If Deckard was a replicant
He's not.
>why didn't they program the robot-hunter robot with the same weaknesses as the other robots?
asking the real questions, my dude
COLD FISH, OR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT MY WIFE CALLED ME
Never understood why people get so defensive over questioning Deckard's humanity. It's an interesting way to end the movie after spending so much time humanizing Roy Batty and Rachel.
If Deckard is a replicant, everyone on earth already is too. The unicorn represent the lack of animal life left on earth, remember the snake, he was fascinated by it, Deckard is an animal lover
The origami are animals too, he wasn't saying I know you are a replicant, he was basically making a reference to the Original story, Deckard hunts replicant despite the fact that they are basically humans because he's obsessing over real animals and wants to buy one but they are basically extinct because of human over-industialization.So they are very very rare and expensive, in fact they might just be all dead already, thus the unicorn._.
Why didn't he make a dodo instead of a mythical creature then?
Same thing really, but the unicorn was more fun to film than a fat chicken
It was just an example, you can substitute "dodo" for anything recognizably extinct, like a dinosaur. If you want to evoke "extinction" in the audience's mind a unicorn is a poor way to get there because it's more likely to lead them to think "mythical" or "spiritual".
Yeah but the world he lives in, hasn't had animals, so they might actually think unicorn existed once
What were the chances that Deckard would recognise it as a dodo? "Ah yes the dodo, I know by it its silhouette!"
You could read my next post, it's just one example of an extinct creature that might be recognizable to the audience, and you could make a T-rex or a sauropod if you wanted to get the idea of extinction. Modern audiences won't see a unicorn as an extinct animal, only a make believe one.
It was test footage for legend that was shot on the studios dime because Scott was becoming a hack
Scott filmed the origami in principal photography for Blade Runner.
The unicorn dream you disingenuous homosexual, if you can't follow the conversation shut the frick up
>if you can't follow the conversation shut the frick up
The conversation was about the origami Gaff was making, you shithead.
>over-industialization
It was from the third world war
He isn't one
Because he’s not hooked up to machine being asked questions
Next
Why would it be too bad that she won't live if he's going to die first anyway?
Love. You never want to see someone lose their lover. Though Zoom Zooms would probably struggle to understand Deckard & Rachel as lovers, because of the 1980s style love story. Zoom Zooms are from a post-#MeToo/post-Believe All Women/microagressions/rape culture, that they'd fail to understand it as a romance.
They'd just see Deckard raping Rachel, and then wonder why we think it's a romance, without seeing other movies of the era. Like Rocky, where they do a very similar love story arc. Their "lens" for understanding media is so fricked that "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is rape culture, but "W.A.P." is female empowerment. There's no way that they'd be able to understand the concept of "She's playing hard to get, but she secretly wants it", because they're been indoctrinated with the idea of practically needing notarized consent for each and every step towards sex.
But then it's too bad that Replicant Deckard would die. Presumably he's the older of the two. They've both only got 4 years.
That line only works if he's human and he's going to live for another 40 years after she inevitably dies within the next 3-4 years.
But if they're both going to die around the same time, then it's not really any much more of an issue than any other couple, nothing to really make a statement about.
>Presumably he's the older of the two. They've both only got 4 years.
No, we were told Rachel doesn't have a 4 year life span. For all we know, Deckard was "born" 5 seconds before the first scene we see him in.
>That line only works if he's human and he's going to live for another 40 years after she inevitably dies within the next 3-4 years.
No, the new model doesn't have the 4 year life span.
>But if they're both going to die around the same time, then it's not really any much more of an issue than any other couple, nothing to really make a statement about.
It's about love, you shut-in. Gaff is talking about how they're a couple, and it's too bad that she can't live forever.
Deckard only realizes that he's a replicant after.
>it's too bad that she can't live forever
You could say that about literally anyone, so it's a weird statement to make if her lifespan isn't significantly limited.
He then says "but then again, who does?" as if on the surface she's different (very limited lifespan), but in a broader, more vague way she's not really that different (since everyone's life is limited). But you're saying she's not different at all, rendering this statement meaningless.
It doesn't make sense if she's just like anyone else to begin with.
>You could say that about literally anyone
Yes. Gaff is saying that Deckard & Rachel are no different than humans.
>very limited lifespan
Come on, anon. The theatrical cut, the one you prefer, literally told you that she doesn't have a limited lifespan.
>"but then again, who does?"
Yeah, a recognition of their "humanness", for lack of a better word.
>But you're saying she's not different at all, rendering this statement meaningless.
No, because it's just ruminating about love. Gaff's saying that it's possible to create a replicant that can live forever, but she's not one of those.
>It doesn't make sense if she's just like anyone else to begin with.
She's not like anyone else(well technically her memories are based off of Tyrell's niece, so she's somewhat like her).
It's not even clear if Gaff is supposed to let Rachel and Deckard go, at the ending. But with the Tyrel Corp dead, he's probably just making a judgment call, that Rachel and Deckard aren't going to be threats to humanity, and let's them go.
>Yes. Gaff is saying that Deckard & Rachel are no different than humans.
Then what's "too bad"? Why would you go around telling people they're not different? It's redundant.
>The theatrical cut, the one you prefer
That's not the one I prefer.
>Yeah, a recognition of their "humanness"
You wouldn't need to recognize it if there's no difference in lifespan
>it's just ruminating about love
It's a weird thing to ruminate when it applies to literally everyone. It carries no significance or poignancy to the situation at hand.
It would be like if a young man tells you he is happy that he fell in love with a young woman and you say "yeah, but it's a shame she's gonna die when she's roughly 80 or so". Only the most moronic origami folding autist would ever think to same something stupid like that.
>Gaff's saying that it's possible to create a replicant that can live forever
Where the frick does this come from? You're just making shit up now.
>but she's not one of those
No one is, because as Gaff says "but then again, who does?"
>Then what's "too bad"?
That they'll both die, and their love will be lost. Like tears in the rain. Bro, did you even understand the movie?
>That's not the one I prefer.
Well, that's where it was established.
>You wouldn't need to recognize it if there's no difference in lifespan
We don't know how long it is exactly, nor do we know how long she's been alive.
>It's a weird thing to ruminate when it applies to literally everyone
And?
>It carries no significance or poignancy to the situation at hand.
Sure it does. Love matters.
>Where the frick does this come from?
They artificially restrict their lifespans. It's an assumption that they could do the opposite.
>No one is, because as Gaff says "but then again, who does?"
All the other replicants are. Gaff's saying that she's more like a human.
The emotional core of this movie, went over your head.
>Bro, did you even understand the movie?
You've reduced the movie down to "people die" making the movie a worthless piece of shit.
My mistake thinking there was something more significant and tragic about it.
>that's where it was established
That version had quite a few stupid additions as I recall.
>And?
And would you go around reminding everyone that they're going to die some day? Why would you do that if it wasn't a pressing issue?
>Love matters
It matters to everyone. Why bring up death like it's right around the corner in this scenario?
>It's an assumption
It sure is
>All the other replicants are. Gaff's saying that she's more like a human.
All the other replicants have a 4 year lifespan, and their impending demise freaks them out. If Rachel is more like a human then it's not a situation that warrants a "too bad" reaction. They're just like two young healthy humans in love, that's peak life, where's the "too bad"? They're gonna die in 50 years? It's a ridiculous thing to say.
>You've reduced the movie down to "people die" making the movie a worthless piece of shit.
>My mistake thinking there was something more significant and tragic about it.
No. You completely missed the love element. As I said, you're a shut-in.
>That version had quite a few stupid additions as I recall.
It mostly spelled things out for the audience. And Ford didn't want to do it, so the voiceover is pretty bad.
>And would you go around reminding everyone that they're going to die some day? Why would you do that if it wasn't a pressing issue?
You didn't understand the point of the message. He's saying that they're actually in love, real human love.
>Why bring up death like it's right around the corner in this scenario?
It could be, but as I said, you didn't understand the scene.
>It sure is
Not an inaccurate assumption though. If they're at the level of technology, to artificially create life, then they know how to extend a lifespan. We already have animals that live for hundreds of years, there's no reason to assume they couldn't splice that into replicants.
>If Rachel is more like a human then it's not a situation that warrants a "too bad" reaction
Of course it is. Because then their love ends.
>It's a ridiculous thing to say.
It's very noire. Almost as if...
>I met a girl at school today, dad!
>>heh, too bad she won't live forever. We're all gonna die, you know? *folds origami*
ah yes, the essence of love.
No one's questioning if your son is a human, there's two conversations happening in that scene. I've already explained it to you. But you choose to ignore it. You can't have that conversation the same way, from one human to another human, when they both know they're human, and there's no such thing as a replicant.
I hope you eventually experience love, anon. Then you'll understand what Gaff was saying. I think there might be a lack of experience problem, that you're having.
It's not a depressing rumination. It's supposed to give Deckard an awakening. And it did.
The only way it becomes significant is if she has the 4 year lifespan.
Other than that, her replicant-ism is not an issue, she is virtually human in every way as you've stated yourself.
If she doesn't have the 4 year lifespan, then she is no different from a human, and so no, there isn't 2 conversations going on, he's just telling a man that the woman he loves will eventually die at some unknown point in the future, like literally everyone else on earth, which would warrant the response "yeah no shit, detective, got any other big brained takes, you paper folding homosexual?".
>The only way it becomes significant is if she has the 4 year lifespan.
As I've already told you several times. It's not about the fact that she's going to die. It's about the fact that Gaff's saying that they're experiencing human love.
>If she doesn't have the 4 year lifespan, then she is no different from a human, and so no, there isn't 2 conversations going on
You just don't understand, is all.
>he's just telling a man that the woman he loves will eventually die at some unknown point in the future, like literally everyone else on earth, which would warrant the response "yeah no shit, detective, got any other big brained takes, you paper folding homosexual?".
Nope, and I've told you enough times, that I'm not going to respond again.
Gaff's telling Deckard that they're experiencing human love.
Best of luck, and I'll be hoping that you get to experience love one day.
>t's about the fact that Gaff's saying that they're experiencing human love
He didn't say that though.
The only allusion to love that could be drawn from what he's saying is that it's a bad thing for Deckard that's she's going to die because he's in love with her.
But the direct issue of his speech is her inevitable death.
>Gaff's telling Deckard that they're experiencing human love
He didn't say that at all. He explicitly says "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does" that's all. He doesn't need to tell Deckard what Deckard is feeling, Deckard knows better than Gaff about that.
You're interjecting so much shit that isn't there then acting all smug about being moronic.
>He didn't say that though.
As I've said repeatedly, there's two conversations happening. The text and the subtext. You're clearly autistic, and only understand the text.
>The only allusion to love that could be drawn from what he's saying is that it's a bad thing for Deckard that's she's going to die because he's in love with her.
Not at all. He's saying that it's real human love.
>But the direct issue of his speech is her inevitable death.
Only because you're an autist, who's unable to understand.
>He didn't say that at all.
What is subtext? (Hint: Something lost on you)
>He explicitly says "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does" that's all.
In the text, but not the subtext.
>He doesn't need to tell Deckard what Deckard is feeling, Deckard knows better than Gaff about that.
Gaff is telling Deckard that they're both experiencing real human love. You might second guess yourself, if you found out that you're actually a replicant.
>You're interjecting so much shit that isn't there then acting all smug about being moronic.
The entire love subplot is a significant portion of the Deckard and Rachel interactions. I'm not injecting anything in it. I'm explaining something from the 1980s, that's lost on a 2024 lens/understanding. As I said, people aren't going to understand the Deckard and Rachel sex scene as anything but rape now. It's no wonder you don't understand the entire love subplot, it's not being told to you, in a way that you're used to.
>there's two conversations happening.
And in your mind it goes like this -
The text: "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does". Meaning at some random undetermined point in the future Rachel is going to die like every other living thing on earth, including Deckard himself, and that's a shame because they're in love. And this random truism that applies to everyone and everything has no connection to any immediate pressing issue at hand. He just says it for the supposed subtext.
The subtext: "I, in my infinite wisdom, am here to let you know, Deckard, through a sentence about death, that you are experiencing real human love, and not some sort of weird fake replicant love that no one was thinking of"
How is this the case? Subtext need a logical basis to draw it from. Your interpretation doesn't connect. Seems more like wishful thinking on your part. What would Gaff know about Deckard's feelings? And why would he say this in such a vague way?
>What is subtext?
Apparently just whatever you want to invent in your mind based on no information given in the text.
The foundation for your subtext is lacking, and so I don't buy it. Just because Deckard is in love doesn't mean everything said to him is about that love.
The only reason to mention and lament someone's death is if it near.
If the theatrical claims she has a human lifespan, this might frick it up, but it's removal from the final cut could suggest it was only put in for "le happy ending for morons" that the theatrical was forced by the studio to have, where they literally drive off into the sunset to live happily ever after, completely shitting on the entire tone of the film. Rather, he's going to love her despite the short time they have together and the inevitable lifelong heartbreak that follows.
But even if she doesn't have a terminal date, would Gaff know that? I don't think he would, so it still functions the way I interpret it. I think you give Gaff some weird omniscient quality.
the entire movie is about blurring the line between the two and that it really doesn't matter who is or isn't, being human is how you spend the limited time you have and most humans are living to die and the replicants that escaped are dying to live
Because Ridley Scott is an idiot who doesn't understand his own film.
It makes no sense that Deckard could read through all these question and know how a potential replicant should respond towards them and not understand that his own responses towards them would lean towards him being a replicant.
If he was a replicant he should not understand the difference between a replicants response towards these question compared to a human.
Deckard isn't thinking about his own responses to the questions, because he's asking them. He also never points the machine at himself which you presumably need to see the readings of to determine whether the person is a replicant or not.
>Deckard isn't thinking about his own responses to the questions, because he's asking them
The point of the test is that a replicants emotional response towards those question is different from a normal human. And sure to see and measure that response in others you need tools. But Deckard would have to know his own emotions and he would know how a replicants emotionally responds to them so he would have to know if his response is similar to a replicant's.
I am aware it is the emotional response they are looking for my point still stands.
>my point still stands.
No it doesn't, because the test is looking for the things that we can't control. All the little psychological quirks that we have as humans. Deckard needs to establish a baseline, to figure out which ones you do/don't have, and then actually test for them.
It's not something you can meta-answer, because the actual answers aren't important, but instead looking for the involuntary movements that you can't control.
So your thinking is that Deckard is so skilled in human psychology that he can figure out all these small quirks in other people in a very short amount of time. But he has absolutely zero self-introspection when it comes to his own responses.
The point of the quirks that the test measures is that we can't actually see what the person is thinking, so instead we look at their pupil to see their emotional response. But surely you don't think that the pupil is responding independently of anything else.
The pupils react as it does because of the thoughts and reactions of the person. Deckard doesn't need any baselines or advanced tools to see his own emotions. Because he can read his own mind. He already knows how he emotionally responds in every situation he can imagine, including those on the test.
>So your thinking is that Deckard is so skilled in human psychology that he can figure out all these small quirks in other people in a very short amount of time. But he has absolutely zero self-introspection when it comes to his own responses.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter if you know that your can pupils dilate, when you lie, because you can't control it. A theoretical master of psychology, can't overcome the limitations of biology, even if he knows what the test will be looking for.
>But surely you don't think that the pupil is responding independently of anything else.
No, just the opposite. It's linked to the responses given. Showing a (lack of) reaction, when humans should react(though, just not only one question, but multiple and cross-referenced against each other).
>Deckard doesn't need any baselines or advanced tools to see his own emotions.
Doesn't matter, because the tester would be looking for the reactions or lack of reactions, to things that we can't control.
>He already knows how he emotionally responds in every situation he can imagine, including those on the test.
It's very doubtful that the questions are standardized, so much as ones that make you answer ethical questions or have connections to events. You would be able to make up new questions.
Not that it would matter, because it doesn't matter that Deckard knows or doesn't know how he's going to react to the questions. You can't control the involuntary movements.
Keyword: involuntary
There's no right or wrong answer to the tortoise in the desert question. Why you would or wouldn't flip it over, isn't of importance. It's not determining if you're ethical or not. It's looking to see how you respond to it.
You are not understanding what I am saying, the reactions the test is looking for are reactions based on emotions. They look for these reactions because those are the only way for the tester to get an idea into the emotions and feelings of the tested. Those involuntary movements you are talking about are an extension of the inner thoughts and feelings of the person, they aren't just independent reactions that replicants just happens to be designed with.
However, Deckard is already inside his own head. He knows his emotional reaction towards thing, regardless if those are involuntary or not. He also, as a requirement for being a blade runner, has to know the differences between human reactions and a replicants reactions. If he didn't understand the differences between human and replicant reactions enough to not be able to understand that his own emotional reactions are off he wouldn't be a good enough blade runner to do his job.
The issue is that the movie complicates it by making the case that the replicants do have inner emotions and compassion, so the movie udnermines its own premise with the Vought-Kampf test. If we take the conclusion that the movies have about the nature of the replicants seriously, the test is literally measuring dysfunction between the inner feelings of the replicant and the physiological response, and so it is a result of design flaws in the bodily functions themselves - or at least how they interact with the interior feelings.
The movie actually explains this. The replicants when they are made are made without emotions. However since they are functionally humans, during their life they develop emotions, Which is why they are designed to die after 4 years, because otherwise they would never be able to tell who is and isn't a replicant.
Rachel for instance was so much harder for Deckard to 100% call a replicant because she had been given memories which in turn gave her more human like emotions because memories are experiences.
>she had been given memories
So were all the other nexus 6 replicants. Rachel was just a different model than the standard nexus 6.
?si=FHVlJc60P3zjUeSN&t=102
In this scene Tyrel explains that the thing that makes Rachael unique is that she had been given memories and that she was an "experiment" in this regard.
>So were all the other nexus 6 replicants
No they weren't. It was a new experiment for the Nexus 7. Rachel was the only one.
Nothing you said, disproves what I said. It doesn't matter if Deckard does or doesn't know the upcoming questions, because the answers aren't important. The tester could make up brand new questions for each test or could use the most generic intro to philosophy ethical questions. Neither change anything, because the test is looking for the stuff that we can't control. So regardless of if you know the questions or what the tester is looking for, doesn't matter, because the answers aren't what's important. The stuff we can't control, is what the tester is actually looking for. The questions are just the means to get to the actual "tells".
You can't meta-game the test, because the test is looking for the stuff that we can't control. If someone knew everything about psychology, every philosophical question and how humans vs replicants react, it still wouldn't matter. Because this answers given, aren't the goal. Seeing your reactions to the questions, is.
You can't control the involuntary actions your body does, when you lie. The test is looking for those involuntary actions, not if you're an ethical person.
>It doesn't matter if Deckard does or doesn't know the upcoming questions, because the answers aren't important
Once again you are obliviously not understanding what I am saying.
I am not talking about his "actual" response to the questions of the test. I am not talking about how Deckard would treat the turtle in the desert.
I am talking about the emotions that underline the "involuntary actions" you are talking about. These actions doesn't come from nowhere, they come from your emotions. And Deckard would have to know his own emotions without needing to look for any tells, because they are his own.
And to be able to properly administer the test as a blade runner he would have to have more than a surface level understanding of these tells and the emotions behind them because, as you say, the tester is the one that is mostly in control of what questions comes up. So for Deckard to have the knowledge and the emotional intelligence to not only come up with these question but also discern the emotional reactions to them he can't be a replicant.
>arguing with morons
You're wasting your time.
>And Deckard would have to know his own emotions without needing to look for any tells, because they are his own.
First, humans are terrible at knowing their own emotions, so a test replicant that thinks it's human would have the same fault. Second, it wouldn't matter if he did know his emotions, because you can't stop your emotions from happening. Deckard isn't testing himself, a different Blade Runner would be testing Deckard.
>he can't be a replicant.
Why? Roy has A+ intelligence, he could easily do the job.
Actually the artificial glow that the eyes have aren't diegetic. It's purely for the audience. Which should be the thing that people complain about, if they wanted to complain about what Scott did. Since there's nothing in the movie to tell us that they're non-diegetic, and it's something we have to learn from external sources.
>First, humans are terrible at knowing their own emotions, so a test replicant that thinks it's human would have the same fault
The difference being that Deckard's training in the Voight-Kampf test would give him knowledge about the emotional reactions that a normal replicant or even human wouldn't have. So Deckard isn't just any other human, he is a person specifically trained in being able to discern these emotions.
>Second, it wouldn't matter if he did know his emotions, because you can't stop your emotions from happening
His ability to "stop" his emotions is irrelevant, because he would still be aware of his attempt to stop them. As I said, he doesn't need anyone to test himself to know his emotions he has them.
>Why? Roy has A+ intelligence, he could easily do the job.
Roy also knows he is a replicant. So I don't see the relevance.
>So Deckard isn't just any other human, he is a person specifically trained in being able to discern these emotions.
Which doesn't matter, because we're talking about the test being done to him. He wouldn't be doing the test to himself. So his reactions would matter, it doesn't matter if he knows he's going to have them or not.
>His ability to "stop" his emotions is irrelevant, because he would still be aware of his attempt to stop them. As I said, he doesn't need anyone to test himself to know his emotions he has them.
It wouldn't be to test if he has emotions. It would be for the tester, to determine if Deckard is or isn't a replicant. No one's doubting if an individual can experience their own emotions. That's not the goal of the test, you can't run it on yourself.
>Roy also knows he is a replicant. So I don't see the relevance.
Because it doesn't matter if someone is or isn't a replicant. All they need to do, is be good at understanding human psychology. Anyone with a doctorate in behavioural psychology, and trained in identifying lies(like CIA training) would be able to administer the test.
But the test purpose is to discern the emotions of the tested, that is what the test is looking for. Emotional responses. And because the machine isn't a mind reading machine it instead looks for visual tells on the person. However Deckard can read his own mind so he doesn't need to test himself.
>Because it doesn't matter if someone is or isn't a replicant. All they need to do, is be good at understanding human psychology. Anyone with a doctorate in behavioural psychology, and trained in identifying lies(like CIA training) would be able to administer the test.
It is not only a question if they could administer the test. The question is also if they could administer the test while somehow also being completely unaware of they themselves being the thing the test is meant to test for.
>But the test purpose is to discern the emotions of the tested
No, it's to discern, if they're having emotions. Not the specific emotion. Because people with higher intelligence, would be aware of what's happening, and would try to beat the test. Which is why it looks for the involuntary movements, since you can't control them.
>However Deckard can read his own mind so he doesn't need to test himself.
And I've been saying the entire time(that you've been ignoring), that Deckard wouldn't be testing himself. The test would be run on him, by someone else. For the purpose of the tester, to determine if Deckard is a replicant or not(but you'll continue to ignore me saying this for some reason).
>The question is also if they could administer the test while somehow also being completely unaware of they themselves being the thing the test is meant to test for.
Why wouldn't they? You must not be aware of the irl event in psychology reserach. There was research being done on psychopaths, and being able to identify them through testing. The researchers, ran the tests on themselves, and they determined that the lead scientist was a psychopath, and he never knew.
I have no idea why you think it is significant whether it is physically Deckard that tests himself or another blade runner.
My point is that the test would be unnecessary because Deckard knows himself.
He, not anyone else, wouldn’t need to do the test on him because he should already know the answer.
>You must not be aware of the irl event in psychology reserach. There was research being done on psychopaths, and being able to identify them through testing. The researchers, ran the tests on themselves, and they determined that the lead scientist was a psychopath, and he never knew.
I looked it up and saw an article about a guy who found out he was a psychopath because of a brain scan.
Which is obviously a lot different from what we are talking. No matter how much you know about yourself or about psychopathy you can’t really scan your own brain without the right equipment.
>He, not anyone else, wouldn’t need to do the test on him because he should already know the answer.
Nope, as the movie already made it clear that Rachel didn't know she was a replicant, until Deckard told her about Tyrell's niece's memories that Rachel shares.
I've never once been arguing about his Deckard knows his own emotions, in fact I said the opposite. I'm saying that it wouldn't matter, because even with a perfect understanding of human psychology, of philosophy, and of the differences in human vs replicant, you still wouldn't be able to stop your own involuntary reactions.
Are you aware of when your eyes involuntarily dilate? Maybe during the times that someone shines a bright light in your eyes, but you wouldn't know about all the tiny involuntary dilations that happen while talking to others.
>I looked it up and saw an article about a guy who found out he was a psychopath because of a brain scan.
Which is obviously a lot different from what we are talking.
You might want to keep reading then, because it was more than just brain scans, as he also did genetic tests and additional neurological and behavioral research. It shows that you don't need to be aware of the requirements.
Rachel is not a trained blade runner, she is obviously not familiar with the test at all. Deckard has the knowledge and training to be able to discern what separates a replicant from a human and Rachel doesn’t.
That is why he figures out that she is one ultimately.
I don’t need to know that my pupils dilate involuntarily when someone shines a bright light in my eyes because I can still feel the sensation of that light without seeing my own eyes dilate or contract.
I can from this experience add my knowledge that pupils contract when exposed to bright light to assume that my own eyes must have contracted when someone shone the bright lights at them. I don’t need some third party to study my eyes to come to this conclusion.
>as he also did genetic tests and additional neurological and behavioral research
The fact that he needs brain scans and genetic tests shows it is a far more complex matter than compared to replicants.
>I don’t need to know that my pupils dilate involuntarily when someone shines a bright light in my eyes because I can still feel the sensation of that light without seeing my own eyes dilate or contract.
But that's not the point. The point is that you don't know when your pupils dilate normally. Because you can't feel it happening. If you say you can't you're fricking moronic, because it happens quite often, and you never notice.
No one is that hyper-aware of their body. No one.
Deckard wouldn't be able to meta-game the test, when someone else does it to him.
>The fact that he needs brain scans and genetic tests shows it is a far more complex matter than compared to replicants.
My point is that you don't need to be aware of being a replicant(or psychopath), to be able to determine if someone else is or isn't.
Anyways, you're clearly too moronic, to understand. Just like the dude who doesn't understand the love subtext. I don't care to keep having this conversation with either of you.
I am not talking about Deckard somehow cheating the test or “meat-gaming” I am only talking about that Deckard wouldn’t need the test to figure out whether he himself is a replicant.
Nobody has asked Deckard such questions though, and given that the questions in both scenes are unique, there's likely some tailoring to the subject that's a part of the skill set of the Blade Runner, and Deckard couldn't necessarily come up with an interrogation designed to trip himself up. The interrogator and the interrogated occupy vastly different emotional territory before a single question has been asked, because the process is directed at one person.
>It makes no sense that Deckard could read through all these question and know how a potential replicant should respond towards them and not understand that his own responses towards them would lean towards him being a replicant.
There is no "correct" response. Because the test isn't looking for answers to the questions. It's looking for emotional reactions, or the lack of emotional reactions.
It's the automatic eye movements/pupil dilatations/etc that the test is looking for.
>If he was a replicant he should not understand the difference between a replicants response towards these question compared to a human.
It wouldn't matter what the actual response is, because the test isn't looking for the words.
It's like how this is a more advanced version, testing for even more subtle emotional reactions. K knows he's a replicant, yet he's not able to beat the test.
>all these morons pulling shit out of their asses
Whatever we both know deckard is bisexual. Hahaha yes
>know deckard is bisexual.
Nah, we DO know you're a homosexual, though...
He and the woman are special replicants, and the entire premise of Blade Runner was to get them to meet.
did his eyes ever turn red?
deckard was a replicant
Just look at a person's eyes in the dark and if his eyes turn red he's a replicant. They didn't even need that stupid voight-kampf test
If humanity is based on compassion and the capacity for self-sacrifice, then are schizoids the real androids?
Deckard is treated like a replicant (as in a slave, which is what replicants narratively stand for) by the other humans. Whether he really is one or not, the point is that he has every reason to sympathize with replicants and side with them.
No he doesn't. He has every reason to retire the replicants and then emigrate to Mars with the funds. That's clearly what is in his best interests, replicant or not.
Why didn't they just send eagles to ask people if they were robots?
The test in the book is an allegory for thought control. The replicants can't do the test because they are allegedly like 2-4 years old and haven't been around human cultures. The human population has been brain washed through advertising to believe that they can only get their companionship needs met through purchasing a rare and expensive animal (all real animals are almost extinct in the dystopian future). So the questions are basically asking replicants to answer what to do with animals when they come across them. The reader obviously knows that humans in real life do all sorts of things when running across animals, mostly ignore them. In the book though it would seem obvious to all the humans that a real turtle is the apex of value and must be saved at all costs. The replicants, because they haven't been force fed propaganda their whole lives have identified their replicant friends as meeting their companionship needs, ironically making them more human that the alleged humans themselves, who only believe the propaganda. The other point from the movie is that when they visit the man who the government has propagandized as the "brilliant inventor" who invented the replicants, he is a mentally ill weirdo who makes comically unlifelike puppets, who aren't even close to people. Indicating that the replicants are something else entirely, possibly even real humans who have been brainwashed and given something to make them die in a 4 year span. The best part of the whole movie is meeting the inventor and realizing that he can't make shit. In terms of a detective movie, where the general plot is supposed to lead into a lead character and the audience coming to truths both in story as an audience, we are left with pieces of a truth so profound the pieces can't be picked up and held even in part by the main character. He can only sit and observe the emotional truth of the man dying before him.
TLDR Deckard may or may not be a replicant and it doesn't matter.
>The reader
>In the book
This isn't Cinemaphile, and none of that is part of the movie. You'd have done better to talk about how the replicants represent different animals, as that's what actually happens in the movie.
You can't cross so much of the book's understanding into the movie, because the movie barely draws from the book.
fans of Bladerunner should play Observer System Redux
Deckard isn't a replicant or a human. He's a cyborg.
He say you brade runner
>ITT: bigger morons than Ridley Scott posting
Deckard being a Replicant doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense logically.
It doesn't make sense plot-wise.
It doesn't make sense thematically.
Doesn't matter if Ridley Scott says so, he wasn't the writer, and it'd hardly be the first time a director gets something wrong about his own movie.
Based Dennis proving Deckard wasn't a replicant and making a movie about literally me (a replicant) instead
Deckard Being a replicant ruins the book.
Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep really barely has a plot and is mostly just putting like half a dozen differing characters through different "Are you an android?" thing so PDK can make points about what being human means.
The main characters in the novel are
>Deckard, a near-sociopathic human
>John Isidore, the chicken-headed moron with a heart of gold
>Rachel Rosen, an android with supposed "good nurturing"
>Pris, an identical model android to Rachel with supposed "bad nurturing"
>Phil Resch, the most ambiguous human/android in the novel. Passes the empathy test which suggest he's human but everything else suggests otherwise
The whole fricking point of Deckard is that he's a terrible person driven by greed and selfishness, he doesn't care about the greater good of killing the androids. He even questions if it's even ethical if they're basically conscious. But he decides to continue anyway because he wants to buy a fricking real animal to show off to his neighbors. He doesn't want to actually care for the animal, he doesn't give a frick about the animal. He wants the social status of having a living animal because he's bought into the Mercerism cult.
PDK uses Isidore as the moral crutch because Isidore is an 80 iq down syndrome moron and yet he's the most caring and loving character in the story, he has the best qualities a human being should have. The message is that a lot of humanity, like Deckard and Resch are evil but that we have the potential for true empathy that we can't be sure the androids are even capable of possessing- given that Rachel (the supposedly good-natured model) kills Deckard's goat for no reason near the end of the book.
FRICK Ridley Scott. Bladerunner is a terrible fricking adaptation aside from the sick visuals.
>Deckard Being a replicant ruins the book.
Replicants showing genuine empathy already ruins the book.