maybe their eyes are closer to those of a cat or a wolf, which glow in the dark
they're supposed to be more physically capable than regular humans, I assume improved night vision would be part of that
but that would be an in universe explanation, in reality it was just a stylistic choice to let the audience know (read: hack, fraud)
How? The movie is about questioning what it means to be human? What is the defining element of human condition? The answer is that it is something intangible and spiritual. The soul. Dekard is a replicant but he is also more human than the actual humans that use him to kill his kin.
Are you fricking moronic? Deckard is there to contrast the artificial replicants genuinely cherishing their short lives by being a soulless homosexual drone despite being a natural human. After understanding how much the replicants valued their own lives despite literally being made to be expendable, he starts valuing his own.
It actually makes the movie more thematically sound.
See above. Him being a replicant makes the story thematically boring. He was just being used by le system to hunt his fellow robots oh no. Deckard having a life altering experience that allows him to be more human after running into these artificial people is much more compelling.
Anon that's not a good interpretation. They have the VK test to literally see who is and who is not a replicant, and it matters enough that they have a job called a Blade Runner 2049 who kills replicants trying to just be people n sheit.
You should, in a way, the Blade Runners really underline the fact that replicants are not the same as humans.
I wonder what that could mean in our film called Blade Runner?
>They have the VK test to literally see who is and who is not a replicant, and it matters enough that they have a job called a Blade Runner
Right. That's all laid on you at the beginning. You as the viewer are supposed to learn while watching the movie that they're all human and this witch hunt is just that. Deckard being a replicant reinforces all that.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, you are walking in the desert and you come upon a tortoise. It's flipped over on its back in the hot sun, and despite that, you're not understanding the plot. >what do you mean I'm not understanding the plot
I mean you're not understanding it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I mean, you are just taking the first facts given to you in the movie at face value and ignoring all the character growth everyone goes through lol.
9 months ago
Anonymous
There's no reason to doubt that he's a human
9 months ago
Anonymous
Oh for sure. It's framed as a mystery, because it doesn't matter. That's the core theme.
9 months ago
Anonymous
His humanity isn't framed as a mystery
9 months ago
Anonymous
>She won't live then again who does >You've done a man's job >origami from his dream
9 months ago
Anonymous
>She won't live then again who does >You've done a man's job
Neither are questions of whether or not Deckard is a human >origami from his dream
so?
9 months ago
Anonymous
They're just hints, anon. I can't point you to the proof, it doesn't exist either way. That was the filmmaker's intent.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I can't provide evidence
well now isn't that just convenient
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yep, no one can except maybe Ridley Scott or some production crew.
9 months ago
Anonymous
> all the character growth everyone goes through
Uh, Leon just tries to shoot everyone who makes him think. He does that until he dies without growing.
Explain how that character grows lmao.
9 months ago
Anonymous
He's just a brute. Perhaps the only character without growth and you know that's why you only brought him up.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Wait but I thought the replicants were the same as the humans and all the characters had growth?
What about Pris, who goes from using sex to manipulate people, and then by the end is manipulating people with sex!?
I think you don't have a good point to make about "growth" or whatever. It's a very generic point that doesn't work here at all. They're replicants. They don't grow.
>How? The movie is about questioning what it means to be human?
It's not so much asking what is human (though that is involved; what's real and what's a simulation if you can't tell?). It's also about freedom/slavery, and who gets to decide what.
That's was Roy's chief beef, that he was enslaved by humans. That's why he let the dove go away at the end, it represented his soul and freedom. The robot automation that dude had were more symbols of slavery, and what's real / what's not. Blurring the lines between what's "real", yet these things were created as objects to control.
Deckard and Rachel were both slaves as well, in different aspects. They were both given freedom (as Gaff knew they were there) based on Deckard's work in killing all the replicants.
It makes absolutely no sense him being a replicant. The entire point is that he is human and roy is the replicant.
And in roy's final moments he learns what is is to be human, by showing compassion towards the actual human.
Hence the fricking tagline "more human than human".
>It makes absolutely no sense him being a replicant. The entire point is that he is human and roy is the replicant.
But he can show mercy toward a human or a replicant. To Roy it was the same, he didn't think of humans as more deserving. Only the humans thought that.
1. Replicants are consistently portrayed as somewhat, even K in BR2049 is shown to have superhuman resilience and strength
2. Deckard is portrayed as physically weak even compared to female replicants
3. Deckard is a human
a simple coincidence, used to further confuse and blur the distinction between humans and replicants, to drive home the point of the film, 'what really is the difference between the two?', not only for the audience but for Dekard himself.
Now he's thinking 'how would I know that I'm not a replicant too?' which increases his newfound empathy for replicants and his love of whatsherface.
>a simple coincidence, used to further confuse and blur the distinction between humans and replicants
No it's not a coincidence. Both unicorns? Come on...it's obviously meant that Gaff knows Deckard's dreams, given that Deckard is a replicant.
It's notable that Gaff made various origami of different creatures throughout the film. It's more likely that the unicorn is meant to represent Rachel.
Wrong. In the second movie, Deckard is living in Vegas, a nuclear contaminated wasteland. When Luv comes, the human henchmen are all wearing respirators while Luv, K, and Deckard aren't.
Harrison Ford himself has said Deckard is human and called Ridley's idea ridiculous since it completely ruins the meaning of it all (which I agree with). Ridely just want some "what a twist" bullshit in it.
Actors are just tools directors use to get the job done. Nothing Harrison Ford has ever had to say about his roles has ever proved to be enlightening or particularly insightful because I don't think he thinks about them all that much. He says the words and throws punches when told to.
Is he, though? Zhora fricking garrottes him and he's fine as soon as she lets go, no fractured neck, no crushed windpipe, no trouble breathing or anything. Then Leon tosses him around and gives him multiple hard smacks across the face and, again, he's mostly fine. No broken jaw, no facial fractures, all his teeth still perfectly in place. Considering we see Leon punch through a metal dumpster in the same scene Deckard probably should have more than a bloody lip after his encounter.
If Deckard were an experimental replicant with memory implant to make him believe he was human giving him full-on super strength would blow his cover immediately. So he's not as physically capable as a labor bot or combat model like Batty. But he might have slightly superhuman durability which is why he manages to survive encounters with replicants that killed normal cops. He doesn't have to win a fair fight with them, just survive long enough to get a shot off
Is he, though? Zhora fricking garrottes him and he's fine as soon as she lets go, no fractured neck, no crushed windpipe, no trouble breathing or anything. Then Leon tosses him around and gives him multiple hard smacks across the face and, again, he's mostly fine. No broken jaw, no facial fractures, all his teeth still perfectly in place. Considering we see Leon punch through a metal dumpster in the same scene Deckard probably should have more than a bloody lip after his encounter.
If Deckard were an experimental replicant with memory implant to make him believe he was human giving him full-on super strength would blow his cover immediately. So he's not as physically capable as a labor bot or combat model like Batty. But he might have slightly superhuman durability which is why he manages to survive encounters with replicants that killed normal cops. He doesn't have to win a fair fight with them, just survive long enough to get a shot off
so explain the unicorn. and sloprunner 2049 is irrelevant, neither him nor rachel has the abilities of the mining replicants.
Deckards unicorn dream and then the unicorn origami from that cane dude
*as somewhat superhuman
frick I need to sleep. Anyways Deckard is obviously not a replicant.
1. Replicants are consistently portrayed as somewhat, even K in BR2049 is shown to have superhuman resilience and strength
2. Deckard is portrayed as physically weak even compared to female replicants
3. Deckard is a human
K is the son of Rachel and Deckard. Deckard is superhumanly resiliant, just not to the degree of other replicants. Deckard is special in two ways, he has a human (standard length) lifespan, and he can reproduce with other replicants.
Rachel can also reproduce with other replicants and is the first replicant to have human emotions, but she does not have a human lifespan as a result.
I'm not sure if Tyrell knew with any real accuracy how long Deckard or Rachel would actually live, and we can't say if Rachel had an artificially shortened lifespan or not since she died in childbirth but this is essentially correct.
My own pet theory is that Deckard's prolonged lifespan my have been more of a side effect than a deliberate goal. Whatever genetic mechanism capped the replicants' lifespans might have interfered with gamete formation and sexual recombination so Tyrell had to just leave it out completely and as a result Deckard had an open-ended lifespan but he did "age" like a human for the same reasons (physical wear and transcription errors during DNA replication).
I think Tyrell wanted to create actual humans/life, and in doing so, created both Roy and Deckard as twin sides of a coin for the experiment. Finally, after attempts to extend the lifespan, increase the intellectual capabilities and strength (Roy), there was the final experiment before Tyrell was killed by Roy, Rachel, who was the first replicant able to pass the VK test.
Rachel failed the VK test though, it just took much longer than the average replicant
>Tyrell: how many questions does it usually take to spot one? >Deckard: I don't get it, Tyrell >Tyrell: how Many questions? >Deckard: 20 to 30, cross-referenced >Tyrell: it took more than a hundred for Rachel
9 months ago
Anonymous
Dats da point anon. But it's a replicant giving her the test and he's really good at being a Blade Runner because of his implanted memories.
Also that's why the guy with the Fedora and paper animals follows him for the entire movie -- he is a Blade Runner ready to retire Deckard on the first sign that Deckard starts acting independently.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>that's why the guy with the Fedora and paper animals follows him for the entire movie -- he is a Blade Runner ready to retire Deckard on the first sign that Deckard starts acting independently.
Now that I 100% believe. People don't give enough thought to Gaff and Bryant's attitude towards Decker but they should. They do not treat him like a peer or a co-worker, especially not a valuable one who's doing what other cops can't. They treat him dismissively, and basically just tell him what to do and expect him to do it.
Although in a way that makes it that much cooler that Gaff lets him and Rachel escape in the end but leaves Deckard the Unicorn to let him know the deal. Deckard had earned some respect in his eyes and wasn't just a disposable utensil any more
9 months ago
Anonymous
Only problem with this is that Deckard is retired at the beginning.
9 months ago
Anonymous
That's literally an implanted memory given to him. Damn anon read between the lines.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Sure, but that doesn't seem like a useful memory to give your replicant hunter replicant, to make him think he has no job to do. But whatever, you can argue hypothetical shit forever.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Sure, but that doesn't seem like a useful memory to give your replicant hunter replicant, to make him think he has no job to do
It actually seems EXTREMELY useful if you're trying to test out a new experimental model who has never done that thing before and would need to be babysat and needs a quick reason to STOP doing the thing. 😉
I really think you're just not able to understand the plot.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I really think you're just not able to understand the plot.
Because I disagree with some shit you pulled out of your ass lmao
9 months ago
Anonymous
>film establishes characters have implanted memories to make them act a certain way >reveals the main character is a replicant >"but actually you pulled those facts the film states out of your ass"
Is my ass the filmprint? Is "Pulling" what your kind of dumb person calls "watching the film" to where "pulling out of my ass" means to you, "this guy watched the movie".
???
Because otherwise you're just mad you don't get it lol.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If they weren't sure if Deckard was going to have a much longer lifespan than other replicants, having him skip straight to the "grizzled veteran lone wolf who works on his own" stage Makes sense. And they can apparently yank him out of retirement whenever they want so they cover story didn't compromise his availability. to the police.
Also, if his real purpose was to be a sperm donor for Rachel having him being kind of burnt out on the replicant killing gig makes more sense. If he's still in the "frick it, they're just objects" stage he probably doesn't see her as a potential romantic interest. They wanted him to walk away at the end
9 months ago
Anonymous
But they don't let him stay retired and actually threaten him if he doesn't come back to work. You'd think an cop coming out of retirement to take on an incredibly dangerous assignment would be treated with some courtesy and instead they're like "yeah, you're gonna do this or else, no real choice buddy"
Could just be hard-nosed noir shit but again, I find it kind of odd and it certainly isn't out of line with the idea the Deckard is a replicant
9 months ago
Anonymous
Sure, but that doesn't seem like a useful memory to give your replicant hunter replicant, to make him think he has no job to do. But whatever, you can argue hypothetical shit forever.
Only problem with this is that Deckard is retired at the beginning.
He's not retired. He's never done the job before. "I'm a retired Blade Runner" is an implanted memory in Deckard. Geez louise do you guys really not get this?
They don't let him just "turn the job down" because he's an experiment.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>He's not retired BECAUSE HE JUST ISN'T OKAY?!?!?
9 months ago
Anonymous
This
Weren't they supposedly Gaff's memories anyway?
Probably pulled him out of retirement too.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, and the film specifically gives us angles of Gaff that show he is not a replicant.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I now am convinced:
"Deckard" was a replicant blade runner before the events of the first film. Who was KILLED by Gaf. This is why he "comes out of retirement" at the start of the first film. (Remember, they referred to killing replicant as retiring them). Meaning that the Deckard we see in blade runner is actually a second model. This might even be implied in 2049 with the new Rachel model given to Deckard. It also provides a sort of rebirth metaphor thing.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>They do not treat him like a peer or a co-worker, especially not a valuable one who's doing what other cops can't.
Deckard isn't a cop, he's a Bladerunner. He's basically a bounty hunter.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Deckard had earned some respect in his eyes and wasn't just a disposable utensil any more
That's why Gaff says "You've done a MAN'S work". A human's work.
Wrong. In the second movie, Deckard is living in Vegas, a nuclear contaminated wasteland. When Luv comes, the human henchmen are all wearing respirators while Luv, K, and Deckard aren't.
Voight Kampf with Deckard and Rachel was an experiment. Rachel is a replicant but she can pass the VK test because she has human emotions. Deckard is a replicant with memories made to convince him that he's human, but lacks the ability to fully experience human emotion.
No, it's not a red herring lol. In fact, it holds no importance whatsoever whether or not Deckard is a replicant. The point of the movie, the whole message, is that is doesn't matter. The replicants are as human as we are.
Actually sweaty, that's not the point. The main point of Blade Runner (and to a lesser degree Blade Runner 2) was that choice is ultimately that which creates man. Deckard is shown to have no choice vs the superhuman Roy, but in a moment of choice, Roy chooses to save Deckard from the life of fear that he has lived.
Roy becomes human through choice, not by someone else's hand.
I guess that's your take. I don't really know where you got that from. I always got more of a question of what it means to be human. Roy's monologue cements that his experience makes him human, because he experiences thing s the same way we do.
No his monologue is really more about how he's done and seen things that are well beyond most human comprehension or capability and he still has to deal with them and their petty world. He loves Pris, and she gets killed because he can't protect her. Who can he protect? Ironically, Deckard, who wants to kill him.
Roy at that point has already learned from Tyrell that there was/is no hope in extending his life, so the experiences he has are the last moments. The final things. It's pointless to kill Deckard to him, just as pointless as it would be to kill the dove he captures in the end. They're just animals, in the end. (this is the paper animal motif again!)
But what Roy chooses is like the https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/kierkegaard-on-self-ethics-and-religion/teleological-suspension-of-the-ethical-and-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac/836E401557EB11C1819E414E9B7A4C27 and understanding that it's meant to be an Abrahamic moment, where his hand is stayed by greater forces.
I just want to say the Blade Runner threads have been especially kino recently and are filled with actual discussion and well thought-out replies and not just memes and shitposts. These movies bring out the best in /tv
>Rachael's proportions, he noticed once again, were odd; with her heavy mass of dark hair, her head seemed large, and because of her diminutive breasts, her body assumed a lank, almost childlike stance. But her great eyes, with their elaborate lashes, could only be those of a grown woman; there the resemblance to adolescence ended. Rachael rested very slightly on the fore-part of her feet, and her arms, as they hung, bent at the joint: the stance, he reflected, of a wary hunter of perhaps the Cro-Magnon persuasion. The race of tall hunters, he said to himself. No excess flesh, a flat belly, small behind and smaller bosom -- Rachael had been modeled on the Celtic type of build, anachronistic and attractive. Below the brief shorts her legs, slender, had a neutral, nonsexual quality, not much rounded off in nubile curves. The total impression was good, however. Although definitely that of a girl, not a woman. Except for the restless, shrewd eyes.
just a mistake. they achieved the effect by reflecting a light back at the replicants. in this shot both deckard and rachel are facing the reflector so it also caught deckard's eyes. haven't seen if the final cut adds some frickery, but there's not a single other shot where deckard's eyes shine liek this
Look, we already covered this in the last thread. They don't just have the actors wandering around randomly, especially not in a scenario like this where they need to be at a specific angle for the shot to work. You act like this wouldn't occur to them, but of course it did. They rehearsed the scene and planned out everybody's marks. They would have done multiple takes ad in every take they would have the DP and the lighting guys confirm the effect was showing up in camera because otherwise it was a wasted shot. And if they could see that she had it, they could see that he had it. It was 1000% intentional.
For frick's sake, do you people really think that directors just point a camera in the general direction of something, hope the shot looks good and live with whatever happens? Like it's all a black box? YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S IN THE FRAME LIVE DURING FILMING YOU moronS
Dude you don’t know Jack shit about film. The reason cinematographers were so skilled back then is they couldn’t see exactly how it would look, they had to plan things properly. A subtle reflection in somebody’s eyes would be impossible to predict perfectly.
What the frick are you talking about? The point is it could happen accidentally, not that they couldn’t do it on purpose. Fricking morons on this site, I swear to god.
Black person don't blame me because you don't know how to write so people can understand you. You should have used the word inadvertent or accidental to describe the reflection not subtle.
Phillip K. Dick said Decker is human.
Ridley Scott said Decker is a replicant.
Harrison Ford said Decker is human.
Bladerunner 2049 establishes Decker is human.
Take it for what you will. The film makes it enigmatic if Decker is a replicant which I think was what Scott was going for. From the film alone its not totally clear if Decker is a human or a replicant which is meant to blur the line between the two and make you question what it means to be human.
ah, true. based off how the plot was, replicants would only live for as long as they were useful, and deckard was wanting to retire and those escaped replicants were his final job. so he should've just passed away not long after completion.
>make you question what it means to be human.
That was better portrayed through a human trying to end the life of something that wanted to be human, whereas the "what if replicant" just makes it some lazy twist.
The novel is much more trippy than the movie I like the visuals of the original movie but I want a faithful adaptation of the book
I don't know if I'm misremembering the booking since it's been a few years, but doesn't Rachel also push Deckards beloved sheep off the roof or something? The book had some really interesting sequences.
The fact that the "Deckard is human" crowd honestly seem to remember nothing from the movies just makes me all the more sure he's not. It's the smoothbrain take
>The fact that the "Deckard is human" crowd honestly seem to remember nothing from the movies just makes me all the more sure he's not. It's the smoothbrain take
Yeah Deckard is the only "human" living in a nuked out Las Vegas for decades.
>From the film alone its not totally clear if Decker is a human or a replicant which is meant to blur the line between the two and make you question what it means to be human.
There are several versions of the film and some lean towards Deckard being a human and some towards him being a replicant. But you are correct, the real issue is to ask what it means to be human and everything else is autism and Star Wars EU.
that's not CGI, the effect is done with a camera, meaning that they did their best to make Harrison Ford's eyes do not look like that, and perhaps in the original version it didn't appear, but you can't really trust in the people who remasters films as they are complete morons most of the times, specially those who adds green/blue/yellow filters.
>You've done a MAN'S job sir (turns head, looks directly at camera 2, winks at it)
Real subtle Ridley, real subtle
>did you ever take that test yourself?
>he say you repricant
Worst director's cut since Cinema Paradiso
Replicants are genetically modified human clones, they are not terminators, why would their eyes be red?
maybe their eyes are closer to those of a cat or a wolf, which glow in the dark
they're supposed to be more physically capable than regular humans, I assume improved night vision would be part of that
but that would be an in universe explanation, in reality it was just a stylistic choice to let the audience know (read: hack, fraud)
Him being a replicant ruins the movie thematically. Ridley is a hack.
How? The movie is about questioning what it means to be human? What is the defining element of human condition? The answer is that it is something intangible and spiritual. The soul. Dekard is a replicant but he is also more human than the actual humans that use him to kill his kin.
Are you fricking moronic? Deckard is there to contrast the artificial replicants genuinely cherishing their short lives by being a soulless homosexual drone despite being a natural human. After understanding how much the replicants valued their own lives despite literally being made to be expendable, he starts valuing his own.
See above. Him being a replicant makes the story thematically boring. He was just being used by le system to hunt his fellow robots oh no. Deckard having a life altering experience that allows him to be more human after running into these artificial people is much more compelling.
In my personal interpretation, you missed the point. It simply does not matter who is or isn't a replicant. Their just people.
Anon that's not a good interpretation. They have the VK test to literally see who is and who is not a replicant, and it matters enough that they have a job called a Blade Runner 2049 who kills replicants trying to just be people n sheit.
You should, in a way, the Blade Runners really underline the fact that replicants are not the same as humans.
I wonder what that could mean in our film called Blade Runner?
>They have the VK test to literally see who is and who is not a replicant, and it matters enough that they have a job called a Blade Runner
Right. That's all laid on you at the beginning. You as the viewer are supposed to learn while watching the movie that they're all human and this witch hunt is just that. Deckard being a replicant reinforces all that.
Anon, you are walking in the desert and you come upon a tortoise. It's flipped over on its back in the hot sun, and despite that, you're not understanding the plot.
>what do you mean I'm not understanding the plot
I mean you're not understanding it.
I mean, you are just taking the first facts given to you in the movie at face value and ignoring all the character growth everyone goes through lol.
There's no reason to doubt that he's a human
Oh for sure. It's framed as a mystery, because it doesn't matter. That's the core theme.
His humanity isn't framed as a mystery
>She won't live then again who does
>You've done a man's job
>origami from his dream
>She won't live then again who does
>You've done a man's job
Neither are questions of whether or not Deckard is a human
>origami from his dream
so?
They're just hints, anon. I can't point you to the proof, it doesn't exist either way. That was the filmmaker's intent.
>I can't provide evidence
well now isn't that just convenient
Yep, no one can except maybe Ridley Scott or some production crew.
> all the character growth everyone goes through
Uh, Leon just tries to shoot everyone who makes him think. He does that until he dies without growing.
Explain how that character grows lmao.
He's just a brute. Perhaps the only character without growth and you know that's why you only brought him up.
Wait but I thought the replicants were the same as the humans and all the characters had growth?
What about Pris, who goes from using sex to manipulate people, and then by the end is manipulating people with sex!?
I think you don't have a good point to make about "growth" or whatever. It's a very generic point that doesn't work here at all. They're replicants. They don't grow.
Also Deckard gives up being a Blade Runner in the end, that's his growth. SO what does that mean?
>How? The movie is about questioning what it means to be human?
It's not so much asking what is human (though that is involved; what's real and what's a simulation if you can't tell?). It's also about freedom/slavery, and who gets to decide what.
That's was Roy's chief beef, that he was enslaved by humans. That's why he let the dove go away at the end, it represented his soul and freedom. The robot automation that dude had were more symbols of slavery, and what's real / what's not. Blurring the lines between what's "real", yet these things were created as objects to control.
Deckard and Rachel were both slaves as well, in different aspects. They were both given freedom (as Gaff knew they were there) based on Deckard's work in killing all the replicants.
It actually makes the movie more thematically sound.
It makes absolutely no sense him being a replicant. The entire point is that he is human and roy is the replicant.
And in roy's final moments he learns what is is to be human, by showing compassion towards the actual human.
Hence the fricking tagline "more human than human".
>It makes absolutely no sense him being a replicant. The entire point is that he is human and roy is the replicant.
But he can show mercy toward a human or a replicant. To Roy it was the same, he didn't think of humans as more deserving. Only the humans thought that.
1. Replicants are consistently portrayed as somewhat, even K in BR2049 is shown to have superhuman resilience and strength
2. Deckard is portrayed as physically weak even compared to female replicants
3. Deckard is a human
*as somewhat superhuman
frick I need to sleep. Anyways Deckard is obviously not a replicant.
Deckards unicorn dream and then the unicorn origami from that cane dude
a simple coincidence, used to further confuse and blur the distinction between humans and replicants, to drive home the point of the film, 'what really is the difference between the two?', not only for the audience but for Dekard himself.
Now he's thinking 'how would I know that I'm not a replicant too?' which increases his newfound empathy for replicants and his love of whatsherface.
>a simple coincidence
So a red herring?
Not really, because it ultimately does contribute to the philosophy of the film and the protags change of heart.
>a simple coincidence, used to further confuse and blur the distinction between humans and replicants
No it's not a coincidence. Both unicorns? Come on...it's obviously meant that Gaff knows Deckard's dreams, given that Deckard is a replicant.
It's notable that Gaff made various origami of different creatures throughout the film. It's more likely that the unicorn is meant to represent Rachel.
Harrison Ford himself has said Deckard is human and called Ridley's idea ridiculous since it completely ruins the meaning of it all (which I agree with). Ridely just want some "what a twist" bullshit in it.
Actors are just tools directors use to get the job done. Nothing Harrison Ford has ever had to say about his roles has ever proved to be enlightening or particularly insightful because I don't think he thinks about them all that much. He says the words and throws punches when told to.
Consider as well that Ford is also a fan of the book.
>t. the writing staff for the witcher (now cancelled lmao)
>Actors are just tools directors use to get the job done
this, a bit offtopic, but that same reason is why that strike is a circus
Ergo Harrison Ford is a replicant.
so explain the unicorn. and sloprunner 2049 is irrelevant, neither him nor rachel has the abilities of the mining replicants.
>Deckard is portrayed as physically weak
Is he, though? Zhora fricking garrottes him and he's fine as soon as she lets go, no fractured neck, no crushed windpipe, no trouble breathing or anything. Then Leon tosses him around and gives him multiple hard smacks across the face and, again, he's mostly fine. No broken jaw, no facial fractures, all his teeth still perfectly in place. Considering we see Leon punch through a metal dumpster in the same scene Deckard probably should have more than a bloody lip after his encounter.
If Deckard were an experimental replicant with memory implant to make him believe he was human giving him full-on super strength would blow his cover immediately. So he's not as physically capable as a labor bot or combat model like Batty. But he might have slightly superhuman durability which is why he manages to survive encounters with replicants that killed normal cops. He doesn't have to win a fair fight with them, just survive long enough to get a shot off
>Is he, though?
Yes
>Deckard is portrayed as physically weak even compared to female replicants
He's ancient for one as well
K is the son of Rachel and Deckard. Deckard is superhumanly resiliant, just not to the degree of other replicants. Deckard is special in two ways, he has a human (standard length) lifespan, and he can reproduce with other replicants.
Rachel can also reproduce with other replicants and is the first replicant to have human emotions, but she does not have a human lifespan as a result.
I'm not sure if Tyrell knew with any real accuracy how long Deckard or Rachel would actually live, and we can't say if Rachel had an artificially shortened lifespan or not since she died in childbirth but this is essentially correct.
My own pet theory is that Deckard's prolonged lifespan my have been more of a side effect than a deliberate goal. Whatever genetic mechanism capped the replicants' lifespans might have interfered with gamete formation and sexual recombination so Tyrell had to just leave it out completely and as a result Deckard had an open-ended lifespan but he did "age" like a human for the same reasons (physical wear and transcription errors during DNA replication).
I think Tyrell wanted to create actual humans/life, and in doing so, created both Roy and Deckard as twin sides of a coin for the experiment. Finally, after attempts to extend the lifespan, increase the intellectual capabilities and strength (Roy), there was the final experiment before Tyrell was killed by Roy, Rachel, who was the first replicant able to pass the VK test.
Rachel failed the VK test though, it just took much longer than the average replicant
>Tyrell: how many questions does it usually take to spot one?
>Deckard: I don't get it, Tyrell
>Tyrell: how Many questions?
>Deckard: 20 to 30, cross-referenced
>Tyrell: it took more than a hundred for Rachel
Dats da point anon. But it's a replicant giving her the test and he's really good at being a Blade Runner because of his implanted memories.
Also that's why the guy with the Fedora and paper animals follows him for the entire movie -- he is a Blade Runner ready to retire Deckard on the first sign that Deckard starts acting independently.
>that's why the guy with the Fedora and paper animals follows him for the entire movie -- he is a Blade Runner ready to retire Deckard on the first sign that Deckard starts acting independently.
Now that I 100% believe. People don't give enough thought to Gaff and Bryant's attitude towards Decker but they should. They do not treat him like a peer or a co-worker, especially not a valuable one who's doing what other cops can't. They treat him dismissively, and basically just tell him what to do and expect him to do it.
Although in a way that makes it that much cooler that Gaff lets him and Rachel escape in the end but leaves Deckard the Unicorn to let him know the deal. Deckard had earned some respect in his eyes and wasn't just a disposable utensil any more
Only problem with this is that Deckard is retired at the beginning.
That's literally an implanted memory given to him. Damn anon read between the lines.
Sure, but that doesn't seem like a useful memory to give your replicant hunter replicant, to make him think he has no job to do. But whatever, you can argue hypothetical shit forever.
>Sure, but that doesn't seem like a useful memory to give your replicant hunter replicant, to make him think he has no job to do
It actually seems EXTREMELY useful if you're trying to test out a new experimental model who has never done that thing before and would need to be babysat and needs a quick reason to STOP doing the thing. 😉
I really think you're just not able to understand the plot.
>I really think you're just not able to understand the plot.
Because I disagree with some shit you pulled out of your ass lmao
>film establishes characters have implanted memories to make them act a certain way
>reveals the main character is a replicant
>"but actually you pulled those facts the film states out of your ass"
Is my ass the filmprint? Is "Pulling" what your kind of dumb person calls "watching the film" to where "pulling out of my ass" means to you, "this guy watched the movie".
???
Because otherwise you're just mad you don't get it lol.
If they weren't sure if Deckard was going to have a much longer lifespan than other replicants, having him skip straight to the "grizzled veteran lone wolf who works on his own" stage Makes sense. And they can apparently yank him out of retirement whenever they want so they cover story didn't compromise his availability. to the police.
Also, if his real purpose was to be a sperm donor for Rachel having him being kind of burnt out on the replicant killing gig makes more sense. If he's still in the "frick it, they're just objects" stage he probably doesn't see her as a potential romantic interest. They wanted him to walk away at the end
But they don't let him stay retired and actually threaten him if he doesn't come back to work. You'd think an cop coming out of retirement to take on an incredibly dangerous assignment would be treated with some courtesy and instead they're like "yeah, you're gonna do this or else, no real choice buddy"
Could just be hard-nosed noir shit but again, I find it kind of odd and it certainly isn't out of line with the idea the Deckard is a replicant
He's not retired. He's never done the job before. "I'm a retired Blade Runner" is an implanted memory in Deckard. Geez louise do you guys really not get this?
They don't let him just "turn the job down" because he's an experiment.
>He's not retired BECAUSE HE JUST ISN'T OKAY?!?!?
This
Weren't they supposedly Gaff's memories anyway?
Probably pulled him out of retirement too.
Yes, and the film specifically gives us angles of Gaff that show he is not a replicant.
I now am convinced:
"Deckard" was a replicant blade runner before the events of the first film. Who was KILLED by Gaf. This is why he "comes out of retirement" at the start of the first film. (Remember, they referred to killing replicant as retiring them). Meaning that the Deckard we see in blade runner is actually a second model. This might even be implied in 2049 with the new Rachel model given to Deckard. It also provides a sort of rebirth metaphor thing.
>They do not treat him like a peer or a co-worker, especially not a valuable one who's doing what other cops can't.
Deckard isn't a cop, he's a Bladerunner. He's basically a bounty hunter.
>Deckard had earned some respect in his eyes and wasn't just a disposable utensil any more
That's why Gaff says "You've done a MAN'S work". A human's work.
Wrong. In the second movie, Deckard is living in Vegas, a nuclear contaminated wasteland. When Luv comes, the human henchmen are all wearing respirators while Luv, K, and Deckard aren't.
Why even bother with Voight Kampf?
Voight Kampf with Deckard and Rachel was an experiment. Rachel is a replicant but she can pass the VK test because she has human emotions. Deckard is a replicant with memories made to convince him that he's human, but lacks the ability to fully experience human emotion.
No, it's not a red herring lol. In fact, it holds no importance whatsoever whether or not Deckard is a replicant. The point of the movie, the whole message, is that is doesn't matter. The replicants are as human as we are.
Actually sweaty, that's not the point. The main point of Blade Runner (and to a lesser degree Blade Runner 2) was that choice is ultimately that which creates man. Deckard is shown to have no choice vs the superhuman Roy, but in a moment of choice, Roy chooses to save Deckard from the life of fear that he has lived.
Roy becomes human through choice, not by someone else's hand.
I guess that's your take. I don't really know where you got that from. I always got more of a question of what it means to be human. Roy's monologue cements that his experience makes him human, because he experiences thing s the same way we do.
No his monologue is really more about how he's done and seen things that are well beyond most human comprehension or capability and he still has to deal with them and their petty world. He loves Pris, and she gets killed because he can't protect her. Who can he protect? Ironically, Deckard, who wants to kill him.
Roy at that point has already learned from Tyrell that there was/is no hope in extending his life, so the experiences he has are the last moments. The final things. It's pointless to kill Deckard to him, just as pointless as it would be to kill the dove he captures in the end. They're just animals, in the end. (this is the paper animal motif again!)
But what Roy chooses is like the https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/kierkegaard-on-self-ethics-and-religion/teleological-suspension-of-the-ethical-and-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac/836E401557EB11C1819E414E9B7A4C27 and understanding that it's meant to be an Abrahamic moment, where his hand is stayed by greater forces.
It honestly seems more schizo than anything. But sometimes those people are really smart.
HE'S HUMAN TO ME
I just want to say the Blade Runner threads have been especially kino recently and are filled with actual discussion and well thought-out replies and not just memes and shitposts. These movies bring out the best in /tv
>These movies bring out the best in /tv
Too bad they aren't particularly good
>Too bad they aren't particularly good
But then again, what is?
Hehe I suppose so
2049 is the worse of the two, the direction is just not up to par with the original
2049 is excellent. And the original has a really nice warm look and great atmosphere, if not a great movie.
Well there's always one turd in the punch bowl
replicant sex with Rachel for the purpose of making replicant babies
>Rachael's proportions, he noticed once again, were odd; with her heavy mass of dark hair, her head seemed large, and because of her diminutive breasts, her body assumed a lank, almost childlike stance. But her great eyes, with their elaborate lashes, could only be those of a grown woman; there the resemblance to adolescence ended. Rachael rested very slightly on the fore-part of her feet, and her arms, as they hung, bent at the joint: the stance, he reflected, of a wary hunter of perhaps the Cro-Magnon persuasion. The race of tall hunters, he said to himself. No excess flesh, a flat belly, small behind and smaller bosom -- Rachael had been modeled on the Celtic type of build, anachronistic and attractive. Below the brief shorts her legs, slender, had a neutral, nonsexual quality, not much rounded off in nubile curves. The total impression was good, however. Although definitely that of a girl, not a woman. Except for the restless, shrewd eyes.
if Replicants were so easy to spot you could tell just by looking at their eyes, then the voight kampff test served no purpose.
The glowing eyes = replicant is just a moronic fan theory that never made any sense.
just a mistake. they achieved the effect by reflecting a light back at the replicants. in this shot both deckard and rachel are facing the reflector so it also caught deckard's eyes. haven't seen if the final cut adds some frickery, but there's not a single other shot where deckard's eyes shine liek this
Look, we already covered this in the last thread. They don't just have the actors wandering around randomly, especially not in a scenario like this where they need to be at a specific angle for the shot to work. You act like this wouldn't occur to them, but of course it did. They rehearsed the scene and planned out everybody's marks. They would have done multiple takes ad in every take they would have the DP and the lighting guys confirm the effect was showing up in camera because otherwise it was a wasted shot. And if they could see that she had it, they could see that he had it. It was 1000% intentional.
For frick's sake, do you people really think that directors just point a camera in the general direction of something, hope the shot looks good and live with whatever happens? Like it's all a black box? YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S IN THE FRAME LIVE DURING FILMING YOU moronS
>oversights never happen in movies
Dude you don’t know Jack shit about film. The reason cinematographers were so skilled back then is they couldn’t see exactly how it would look, they had to plan things properly. A subtle reflection in somebody’s eyes would be impossible to predict perfectly.
>A subtle reflection in somebody’s eyes would be impossible to predict perfectly.
>A subtle reflection in somebody’s eyes would be impossible to predict
You just use a small spot light and shine it in Ford's eyes. Its not that complicated.
What the frick are you talking about? The point is it could happen accidentally, not that they couldn’t do it on purpose. Fricking morons on this site, I swear to god.
Black person don't blame me because you don't know how to write so people can understand you. You should have used the word inadvertent or accidental to describe the reflection not subtle.
blade runner directors cut or extended cut or whatever the frick its called is my favorite movie ever
will we ever get kino on such a level again?
2049 is the closest you'll get
Phillip K. Dick said Decker is human.
Ridley Scott said Decker is a replicant.
Harrison Ford said Decker is human.
Bladerunner 2049 establishes Decker is human.
Take it for what you will. The film makes it enigmatic if Decker is a replicant which I think was what Scott was going for. From the film alone its not totally clear if Decker is a human or a replicant which is meant to blur the line between the two and make you question what it means to be human.
>Bladerunner 2049 establishes Decker is human.
how so?
>how so?
He's still alive.
ah, true. based off how the plot was, replicants would only live for as long as they were useful, and deckard was wanting to retire and those escaped replicants were his final job. so he should've just passed away not long after completion.
>Riddley didn't write the movie
Like prometheus the director's cut is not canon
I'm just telling you the facts not what to believe. Phillip K. Dick's opinion is the one that matters to me.
>make you question what it means to be human.
That was better portrayed through a human trying to end the life of something that wanted to be human, whereas the "what if replicant" just makes it some lazy twist.
I don't know if I'm misremembering the booking since it's been a few years, but doesn't Rachel also push Deckards beloved sheep off the roof or something? The book had some really interesting sequences.
>Bladerunner 2049 establishes Decker is human
The fact that the "Deckard is human" crowd honestly seem to remember nothing from the movies just makes me all the more sure he's not. It's the smoothbrain take
>The fact that the "Deckard is human" crowd honestly seem to remember nothing from the movies just makes me all the more sure he's not. It's the smoothbrain take
Yeah Deckard is the only "human" living in a nuked out Las Vegas for decades.
>From the film alone its not totally clear if Decker is a human or a replicant which is meant to blur the line between the two and make you question what it means to be human.
There are several versions of the film and some lean towards Deckard being a human and some towards him being a replicant. But you are correct, the real issue is to ask what it means to be human and everything else is autism and Star Wars EU.
The novel is much more trippy than the movie I like the visuals of the original movie but I want a faithful adaptation of the book
>I've seen things *you people* wouldn't believe
What did he mean by this if Deckard was a replicant?
and what the frick was he talkin about he's seen starships? Bro was an astronaut?
what do u think off-world means
He wouldn’t know if Deckard was one or not, and either way he was talking about people who weren’t space faring ultra soldiers.
Book: not a replicant
films: a replicant
He is not in the original story, but in Ridley's head he is more interesting as a Replicant so he left this open ended question.
Why is this weirdo still getting roles? He was the worst part about 2049, which I still enjoyed because of Goose.
not reading this thread.
what have we concluded? replicant or not?
Deckard? A human
Ridley? Seething
/tv/? Winning
Deckard is Tyrell's first real human bean
that's not CGI, the effect is done with a camera, meaning that they did their best to make Harrison Ford's eyes do not look like that, and perhaps in the original version it didn't appear, but you can't really trust in the people who remasters films as they are complete morons most of the times, specially those who adds green/blue/yellow filters.