So was he a replicant?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
So was he a replicant?
So was he a replicant?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
dont the writers say he is? what debate is there?
Don’t the writers say no? Only ridley scott says yes.
Ford says so too, he just wants it to remain more debatable instead of being obvious
Everyone who worked on the film except Ridley says Deckard is human.
Ridley Scott waffled. At first he said nah and then years later after he had sold out and realized it made his movie sound deeper then it was he said oh sure yeah totally a replicant
In the book there is no debate. The debate is whether or not “human” is anything more or less complex than “robot” since humans and robots are both shown as dispassionate and caring for self-preservation.
Makes zero thematic sense for deckard to be a replicant.
The movie is certainly fantastic but not at all is it “better” and it diverges enough to not even be all that comparable. Like the Bourne books and films in a way, the books and films are completely different animals that make different points and come to different conclusions.
Are the Bourne books any good?
no he isn't
No he fricking wasnt
He was a tin foil unicorn.
no, otherwise the themes become meaningless
I would say a definitive answer would make the themes meaningless, rather than him being specifically a replicant
Only good answer ITT
Yes he was a replicant that was the whole point you dumb brainlets. EVERYTHING YOU SEE from grubs to eagles to humans is all replicants. No real life is left on Earth, the company already owns it all. Dumbasses. How is this even a discussion?
Why isn't Deckard a registered synth if even Tyrells super secret private project is on the books in the blade runner HQ?
Those are industrial synths intentionally limited for a purpose.
All synts are industrial.
They serve an industrial purpose. The general human replacement synths are “free range”
>the sign you see “get off world now!”
Everyone is already gone dude.
Why they didn't just use magnets to sus out replicants?
Replicants are artificially made humans, not mechanical robots.
In the original story they have to do bone marrow tests to prove they killed a replicant and not a human. The point is that you can't tell without being an expert.
>bone marrow
Don't those hurt a lot?
No. Blade Runner is and always was a story about a dehumanized man finding his humanity through compassion for the synths. Reducing it to a "machines are humans too dude" is a huge downgrade. Scott can cry all he wants about his moronic super secret replicants working in the force.
He isn't in the novel.
It's EXTREMELY moronic to hint that he is. Basically Ridley Scott being a moron.
>DUUUUUDE I just go the best idea... *hits on bong* You're uuuuh.... *snnnnniiiiifffff* You're a replicant
of course. the movie makes no sense otherwise. how would gaff possibly know about the unicorn if he wasn't a replicant?
He dreams about them AFTER seeing the paper unicorn. And only in the moronic later cuts.
What if Gaff is the replicant?
Only the book is canon and in that he is married and clearly human obsessed with artificial animals
The movie and the book have completely different themes. In the book, replicants are irredeemable monsters with Rachel ending up doing the most evil thing she could to Deckard purely out of spite.
Blade Runner retroactively ends up more thematic parallels with Total Recall than with Do Androids Dream.
It felt like PKD had about ten different underlying themes in mind when writing that book, had no idea how to fully develop them and ended the story about 100 pages too early.
A rare case of movie > book
PKD was a pretty bad writer for the most of his career tbh senpai. He wrote 40+ novels and out of them maybe 4 - 5 are actually good. He didn't become actually good at writing prose until the early 1970s, which was ultimately the final stretch of his career before he died. I enjoy DADOES very much and vibe with it thematically, but it's one of those cases where the ideas of the work are stifled by the execution.
Also, one has to remember that PKD was constantly lampooning and satirizing himself in his own novels, so if you don't know much about his personal life, some elements in his novels become incomprehensible. Like a huge underlying theme of DADOES people keep missing out on is Dick's very obvious frustration with having to live as a hand-to-mouth working poor guy and inability to provide for his wife. Which in turn leads into the books main theme of those conditions pushing you towards inhuman actions
Thanks for the info, I went out and binge bought a whole shitload of PKD from this cheap bookstore a few years back before it closed down. Have only got around to reading Do Androids Dream and Scanner Darkly so far. One day I'll get around to reading the rest of his shit. I heard Valis was supposed to be good.
If you experienced Scanner Darkly already you might as well call it quits as it was, objectively, his best written novel. VALIS is good for getting schizopilled though
ive run out of shit to read, love sci-fi written in 50's-70's, any more suggestions?
Thanks in advance
No but un his police headquarters they implantes him a few fake memories
Pretty much ^ this
I love this book cover art. I haven't read the book but is the art cover accurate to the novel?
I think PKD’s MAIN theme in this book is “how do we even determine what’s real in a world of hyperreality, and in some cases does it even matter - frick I’m losing my mind”
homie the book and the movie are two completely different things that only share character names. it's like roadside picnic and stalker. there's no point in bringing it up
Deckard isn't a replicant. On a related note, the wrong Scott brother died
yes, but a special kind of replicant. you see deckard didn't have an expiration date. he was made a child replicant so he could go trough puberty as replicant. same for the woman deckard decks.
blade runner 2049 shows a deckard beating up the goose replicant. a very old deckard.
K isn't fighting back in that scene
indeed, but deckard can still make k bleed. a very very old deckard. a human could not have done that.
>Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, “Well, isn't it corny?”
>I said, “Listen, I'll be the best fricking judge of that. I'm the director, okay?” So, and that, you learn -- you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no fricking chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien.
>So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, “You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.”
>Harrison, he was never -- I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, “Uh, I don't know about that.” I said, “But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, ‘I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a fricking unicorn!’”
>Right?
>So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is “Duh.” So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other.
So uh Ridley, why does Deckard think of a Unicorn when he gets drunk?
>Because I wanted to use leftover footage from Willow, okay? I'm no spring chicken, I'm a very experienced director. If you can't understand that then you and Harrison can go frick yourselves.
Scott claims he is and Ford fought in every scene to downplay his alterations to the script. There is even a interview with the cast members that say Ford intentionally turned his head againat the director in some scenes so Scott can't get the shining eye effect that is supposed to differentiate synths.
Based Ford.
Frick Ridley Scott, he's a fricking moron.
Why would Ford do that? Did he say how he feels about Deckard being a rep?
He thought it was a moronic idea that fricked with the premise of the film like everyone else on the project but Scott.
But how does it frick with the premise
The film is about comparing a human who's lost touch with his humanity to a synthetic human and realizing they're so similar that they're both effecitvely human, meaning there's more to being human than just physically being human. If you don't have a flawed human like Deckard you can't make that compsrison though.
Who cares we are under full assault from ~~*Bolshevik communism*~~
No, and frick Scott.
no
Yes, that explains the unicorn stuff and that's how he had a child with another replicant.
All shit that doesn't occur in the original film
if you can drink booze with a split lip without flinching you're clearly not human
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
If he's a replicant parts of the story don't even make sense
No
Him being a replicant would undermine the dynamic between Deckard being grey, dull, cold and ruthless and Roy being a character full of charm and joie de vivre
This
BUT on a meta level it directly asks the audience to ask themselves if they even know what’s human if he could be a replicant
So both play on the same theme but deckard being a replicant is cheaper since it doesn’t really ask us to consider the conditions of consciousness, instead it does a sort of bait and switch on the audience to sorta schizobrain narrative cues rather than engage the material on a more abstract level
Whereas deckard being human suggests a deeper question on what makes us human. It’s a more philsophical and thoughtful prompt
Only Scott fed this idiotic notion, in passing, it wasn't even a big deal and noone cares, movie is not about that. It's amazing how many great films Scott has done despite how stupid his instincts are when left unchecked (his last 15 years of work). What are the chances that he was constantly sorrounded by the right people to keep him in check? He's not humble or anything, by all accounts he's a cameron-tier butthole. Look at george lucas, when he had sorrounded himself with yes men he started making garbage. what gives?
The question is more interesting than the answer.
Does it matter?
Yes
It's completely irrelevant whether he is or isn't.
false. the story is about a human rediscovering his humanity through the humanity of robots. if he's a robot then that completely takes away any introspection on the human condition and what it means to be human. essentially boiling down humanity to only past memories.
no.
yes.
Was he one in 2049?
Who cares? That’s fan fiction of a flimsy (plot wise) adaptation. I love both though.
He has to be for that trainwreck of a plot to work.
2049 goes its way to maintain the ambiguity - showing that the people who made it understand BR.
if deckard is a replicant, why doesnt he get disturbed by the questions used to tell whether someone is a replicant?
Because, and this is covered clearly in the book, the test isn’t the first and is only in place because the others were proven to have higher failure rates than thought. He sees these things when they die or are caught and are facing inevitable termination, a much more human moment then when you’re asking someone questions.
I misread this because I assumed you were asking why he does… which he does…
When Rachel asks if he’s ever taken the test he clearly isn’t comfortable answering
The point of Blade Runner 1 and 2 become meaningless if he's a replicant, which he's not
IRAN! IRAN COME QUICK! IT'S ME RICK. LOOK IRAN , IT'S RIIICK. I'VE PERMANENTLY FUSED WITH MERCER IRAN. I'M MERCER RIIICK AHHHAHHHA I'M MERCER RICK
Kek, I hate that meme but that's a nice use of it.
No, he wasn't a replicant.
he was a replic**t yes
Were you?
Was Deckard a replicant?
In Dick's book No.
In Hampton Fancher's original screenplay No.
In the shooting script No.
However on set Ridley Scott had an idea to drop hints that he might be for reasons only he understood. However Harrison Ford rejected it completely and fought over it.
Literally nobody during production ever seriously thought Deckard was a replicant.
After shooting wrapped Scott was actually fired by the producers because they realised he was a complete fricking time wasting butthole, but when he threatend to sue them they backed off. Scott then sneakily put a plastic unicorn on a horse and filmed it running in a forest. The producers didn't know he'd spent their money filming a fricking horse for an entire weekend. Luckily he never got the chance to put it in the film because the movie tested really poorly prompting the producers to quickly stick Ford's shitty narration over it. When it was released it was a flop and most critics thought it was just a good looking but really dull film. Then it became a cult hit and eventually Scott reclaimed the movie and stuck his fricking unicorn in it.
No Deckard is not a replicant, but Ridley Scott is a c**t.
is the movie called "do androids dream of eletric sheep?"?
if not than only the director can say what the characters in the movie are.
also,
>producers
top ---------------------- kek
medium --------------- ___
low ---------------------- ___
why did he have a unicorn in the movie tho. not the real horse part
Yes, he was. The whole point of 2049 conflict is that 2 replicants were able to make a child. Which means they can live without humans, potentially.
>The whole point of 2049 conflict is that 2 replicants were able to make a child.
The point was a human and a replicant could make a child together, meaning humans and synths are the same and can coexist with one another as equals. If it's two synths making a baby that kind of screws up the idea that humans and synths are interchangeable with one another, because it'd still be an us/them situation at the end of the day.
the human/replicant interchangeability is metaphorical not literal.
the goal is to use "natural born" replicants as a generational slave workforce, not to mix them with humans.
thus proving, once and for all, that deckard is a replicant.
>the goal is to use "natural born" replicants as a generational slave workforce, not to mix them with humans.
Except Rachael obviously wasn't made with this in mind being a prototype that amounted to Tyrell wanting his niece back in as realistic a form as possible. So that's an irrelevant point to bring up.
rachel was made to breed, deckard was made to breed. tyrell made them both as adam and eve. well at least according to blade runner movie.
>tyrell made them both as adam and eve.
He didn't, that was just Jared Leto being a creep paraphrasing and overglorifying the past. He has no fricking clue why Tyrell made Rachael and is drawing his own unreliable conclusions, hence why Deckard says he got Rachael's eye color wrong indicating Leto is a moron at the end of the scene.
wrong. both deckard and rachel being replicants means they were made to breed, everything else is unintended.
also rachel has the same eyes, deckard just says the she doesn't.
>both deckard and rachel being replicants means they were made to breed
Do you have any idea how moronic that sounds though when you lay out the squence of events for that to be true?
>Lol let me make this male Synth capable of reproduction 20 YEARS in advance of making the female that goes with him
>Lol and while I wait for the female to get made I'll put the male on this SUPER DANGEROUS profession of hunting rogue synths
>Lol also I'll make the breeding synth look like my niece because I fantasize about my niece breeding
The logical line of events is what's given to you- that Deckard is a human who worked a dangerous and stressful job because he was out of touch with his humanity, that Rachael was a hyper advanced prototype synth made by a lonely old man that turned out to be incidentally capable of reproduction, and that their meeting was pure happenstance. For it to be some grand conspiracy is moronic overthinking. Simple as.
>Synth
lel.
No it wasn't.
Books are gay dog
I believe it's suppose to be ambiguous. Haven't watched it but the fact that the sequel doesn't answer this question and still manages to be ambiguous is fricking moronic and another reason why it shouldn't have been made.
I dont acknowledge the sequel, but if he was still alive doesn't that make him human? I've heard that they explain that they made replicants that can live longer and that suppose to explain why he could still be a replicant but thats probably the most moronic explination they could come up with.
Again never watched the sequel so I don't actually know.
Idk Blade Runner didn’t have a plot, its just long shots punctuated by silence and conversations about nonsense technobabble then there is a chase scene then its over. visually it is great but it does not have a plot or a story or any meaningful dialog.
Correct, and Ridley Scott adding in Deckard being a synth after the fact is a moronic attempt to add depth to the film that contradicts what little meaning it already had.
He wasn't and the sequel just confirms this
>but ridley scott sai-
Ridley Scott is a fricking washed moron. His new Napoleon movie will be shit
It's not about who's a replicant and who isn't. They're all humans. Roy Batty was a human, created out of human DNA and with a brain full of vivid memories and dreams about the future.
>It's not about who's a replicant and who isn't. They're all humans.
That's the conclusion you draw at the end of the film when you compare a flawed human and a synth and realize they're both the same at the end of the day. But to make that comparison you need Deckard to be human.
>Philip K. Dick wrote the character Deckard as a human in the original novel in order to explore the increasing similarity of humans and replicants.
>Hampton Fancher has said that he wrote the character as a human
>Harrison Ford considers Deckard to be human
End of discussion. The point is that Deckard is a flawed human who acts and behaves no better than a replicant while the replicants act more human than Deckard is. But that doesn't make him one.
an actor and a screenwriter don't decide. the director does.
cry more, gaygatolini
Hi Ridley, I hope your Napoleon movie doesn't fricking suck ass
i accept your concession.
What concession? Your entire post is your head canon opinion. Nice cope though. Last (you) btw.
obviously it can work both ways
the sequel most definitely made it work both ways and it doesn't tell you
anyone who is not able to flip perspectives is a brainlet (Scott himself included)
Some are replicants for real, but the tragedy is that 99% don’t know that they’re really just human
depends on what year you watched it and what version, he is in the current 2049 timeline though
the bigger miracle would be if Rachel got pregnant of a human though
true but that french canadien frick removed all subtlety by making him live out in irradiated vegas
maybe he swallowed all the iodine
>The dog was actually synthetic
>Also the bees
>Also whatever flowers they got nectar from
>Also all the guards that came to pick him up
That would be moronic
It's pretty open to interpretation in 2049 which leads you to default to the original film.
Boring ass movie
None of the themes in the movie make sense if he's a replicant. His whole thing with Roy is how replicants manage to be just as human as humans, if not more so. If they're both replicants that doesn't work.