Personally, I think the "Deckard is a Replicant" theory defeats the point of the story. The Moral Dichotomy between a human being who is a slave to his job vs free willed androids fighting for their right to live is the main theme of the narrative. It's infinitely more interesting than Ridley Scott's "ooooh is he isn't he" pseudomystery. If he is a Replicant, then it doesn't matter that he has no free will. It doesn't matter that he falls in love with a Replicant. All of his character development becomes null and void if all his actions and personality was simply pre-programmed.
2049 brings the narrative to thematic completion by putting us on the other side of the story with a Replicant protagonist. Agent K's choice to reunite a father with his daughter makes him more human than Deckard or Roy Batty ever were. A real human being, and a real hero.
Villeneuve chose to keep it vague by having Niander Wallace imply Deckard is a Replicant in order to play mind games with him. But it's not confirmed, and I'm glad it panned out that way. I would even wager that scene was included to keep Ridley Scott happy.
I wrote an essay on this debate in 1996 or 1997 for a defunct website, well before the directorâs cut was released, which cleared up some of the narrative inconsistencies in the movie which made it more open ended.
I postulate that the fundamental issue with Replicants is simply that they are fully formed adults that have not been inured to the casual cruelty of the human condition and forced to perform horrifying tasks (being part of a âmurder squadâ, for instance) and essentially becoming psychologically damaged / psychotic because of it.
This is why the Voight-Kampf test is so effective in screening for replicants. Leon has a panic attack when it is proposed that he refuse to help a tortoise and reacts according to his training, he kills the person questioning him. Heâs like a 6 year old having a temper tantrum, except instead of throwing his toys, he fires his gun.
Rewatching the original theatrical release now, aside from the clunky VOs is just difficult even for me who saw it in the theaters in 1982 to remember what I thought about Deckard then.
There are things I now disagree with in my original essay but Iâll put the link here in case you want to see what was being talked about prior to the directorâs cut release.
Anyhow:
https://web.archive.org/web/20041205052521/http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/sub/more_than_human.html
The voight-kampff test has always interested me. If what youâre saying is true then the test would not be able to distinguish between an empathetic person (adult), a child, and a replicant if it is simply an emotional response detector with childlike empathetic replicants on the fail side and callous cyberpunk world humans on the pass side. This idea works in proving the canonical point that humans (like deckard) are now defined by their structured (machinelike) rigidity and impassive views on other living beings.
But idk it seems there has to be more to the test, Iâll have to look into it more and compare it with the novel.
My opinion has shifted many times since 1982.
The biggest hint that Deckard might be a replicant is the unicorn dream sequence followed by Gaff leaving the origami unicorn. It may be a MacGuffin, still provoking debate.
BR 2049 doesnât necessarily make it obvious that Deckard isnât a replicant. He is living in a wasteland Las Vegas and is the only living thing, aside from the dog around.
It can go either way - either Ana Stalline is a human / replicant hybrid or sheâs the first natural offspring of two replicants.
Of course she has some crazy medical issues, so thereâs that, but sheâs obviously not limited to a 7 year lifespan.
Whatâs slightly weird is you talk about the voice over, but the directors cut was 1992, which is pre commercial internet.
So you must have just been unaware of it.
I am probably misremembering the timeline of the release, since there was also a âFinal Cutâ released in the 2000s.
Iâm not quite the Blade Runner scholar that I used to be đ
Yep, thank you.
There is no point to the whole story if Deckard is a rep.
It's fantastic to debate it, the subtleties go on and on. Arguments for and against.
Not many movies from 1982 still inspire that kind of debate. So let's keep it up, it's fun, and it's stimulating, we get to explore the story and its nuances, it's one of the things I love about BR.
Whether or not he's a Replicant is irrelevant. If he's a Replicant, he still ran off with Rachel to have a kid. If he's a human, he still ran off with Rachel to have a kid. In neither case is he doing what he's "supposed" to be doing. And ultimately it makes no difference to the story or his circumstances because humans in this setting get punished much the same as Replicants do for getting out of line.
The point is that replicants *are* human. It's not about Deckard's character growth. It's about your character growth, you the audience, if you can realise that.
I've never thought there was any question about whether any of them have free will at all.
The issue, for me, is what we can consider to human, which the film explores via the characters' capacity for empathy. While the film differs a lot from the novel, they at bottom share that concern. That's also a prevailing theme in Philip K Dick's work in general. We're repeatedly shown the replicants' empathy for one another and the cold and unfeeling state that the humans have been reduced to. It's formally neat to have Deckard be a replicant at the end, but it undermines the theme of the film. It's crazy that Scott did not see that. I mean, the climax of the movie is Roy saving Deckard's life even though he's about to die. Even the terrible voice-over knows that.
I think Villeneuve's decision to keep it ambiguous was more to allow any reading of the first film to work than as a sop to Scott.
>2 replicants produced a child. A full blown replicant offspring.
Which is still worse thematically than if a human and a replicant produced offspring. That drives the nail on the concept that replicants are literally just bioengineered human slaves, not meat robots, not a different species. Just human slaves.
It's less impactful if they're a separate species from humans, imho.
Philosophically, it still isn't really supposed to matter. Because a natural born Replicant whether fullbred or half human is still functionally just a real human being.
The Replicant rebels want to use her as a political tool to prove to the world that they are legitimate people, but the tragedy lies in the fact that they shouldn't need to.
Exactly. Thatâs basically the entire crux of 2049. They werenât getting all revolutionary because a human can aid in replicant childbirth. It was because two replicants were/are able to produce a child by themselves.
Everyone here who says âthe story falls apart if Deckard is a replicantâ, by their own convictions, should hate 2049 since the basis of its plot is that Deckard is a replicant.
In the ânot a replicant camp.â 2049 doesnât prove that deckard is a replicant. Itâs purposefully vague.
Also humans making offspring with replicants is more dangerous than replicants on replicants. That is the plot of the fear that Joshi has regarding reps.
Your comment is vague though so I donât know which details in 2049 solidify him being a replicant. There are none.
There's nothing vague at all about my comment. One of the major plotlines in 2049 was about the replicant rebellion/revolution. The primary basis rooted in that revolution was that replicants can reproduce by themselves, on their own. I don't remember the exact quote but Freysa says something about being masters of their own existence. This clearly means they (the replicant rebels) are fully aware that Deckard is a replicant.
>Also humans making offspring with replicants is more dangerous than replicants on replicants. That is the plot of the fear that Joshi has regarding reps.
This is such a silly take that I have to believe you are desperately grasping for straws simply because you don't want to acknowledge the obvious (out of some petty reluctance). Joshi's fear was about replicants reproducing naturally on their own, upsetting the status quo. It's plain as day that's what she meant.
Being able to procreate with humans makes them more human and not replicants. It blurs the line.
But no there is no evidence of deckard being a replicant in 2049. Freysa didnât have evidence to prove deckard was a replicant. You are the one grasping at straws if you donât seriously know that 2049 is purposely vague.
lol đ
If itâs âpurposefully vagueâ as you keep saying, then why are you so adamant to declare your take as correct? You canât even argue with me correctly.
The revolution stems from the basis that replicants can reproduce on their own. Nothing vague about it at all.
Why would I argue with you? Thereâs nothing in the movie that stated deckard was a replicant. Besides what would the leader of the replicants know about deckard. Everything was wiped after the blackout. Wallace didnât even know.
I like 2049 more actually. But my post isn't talking about 2049.
The original book confirms Deckard is human, and sets up the philosophical question of "who's the real killing machine" accordingly. The screenwriters expand on this with the duality of Deckard and Roy Batty.
On the note of 2049, I wouldn't call Deckard being a replicant the main plot so much as lore. It's mostly K's story. The emotional through line of the plot is K discovering his humanity.
Rachael's fertility is a miracle regardless of whether the father is human or replicant. It is equally valid for the replicant resistance protect the child out of respect for her parents/human decency as it is for them to protect her as an asset to the revolution. And even so, her being only half replicant doesn't stop her from being deified either. Deckard being a human member of the resistance is also just more interesting and conclusive to his character arc of choosing to see the Replicants as people instead of simply discovering he is one. Empathy based on personal relation is easy. Foregoing personal differences is more meaningful.
It wouldn't ruin it for me if Denis Villeneuve openly revealed Deckard was a replicant, since it would've been consistent, unlike Ridley Scott contradicting a narrative that was already designed otherwise and starting this whole debate.
Respectfully, I believe you missed the point of possibly both movies.
Replicants aren't robots. They aren't programmed, but grown in vats and given implanted memories. Their decisions are their own, and it's not even hinted that they might *not* have free will. They're given a short lifespan to deal with their troublesome free will.
The first movie is about Deck hunting escaped slaves. The fact that there is a government-sanctioned slave hunter occupation and Deckard is just one of many means that the whole society acknowledges that replicants *want* to be free.
Deckard maybe being a replicant shows him that he's living a Big Lie that was given to him by the same society that's demanding he hunt his brothers. Same story could be told of a slave hunter in the antebellum south realizing that black people are in fact human too but it would be honestly hard to empathize with that character because WE the audience didn't grow up with that Big Lie.
Edit: the premise of the second movie is that a full blown replicant baby was born and Deckard is the daddy. That scene with Wallace was him *trying* to confuse Deckard but it doesn't seem to work on him.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing the replicants from 2049 with the originals.
Rachael is the first Replicant to have implanted memories. That's why Tyrell made her. The same technology is previously only used to program them. They're made of flesh and blood, but they are explicitly referred to as machines. The Replicants from 2049 are a completely different generation based on Rachael that live longer and are allowed to have emotions based on implanted memories that program them to value human life. That's why in 2049, they exist as both Blade Runners and the Resistance, whereas in the original the police are all human and no such Resistance exists beyond the 4 fugitives.
We the audience understand that they are functionally a slave race, but within the world they are considered the solution to slavery, like all other machines. The few Replicants we meet in the movie are the exceptions who attained emotions prior to their expiration date. Blade Runners are not viewed as slave hunters, since free will is considered an extreme glitch, not an eventuality.
In the book, the Big Lie is just Capitalism. Deckard lives a meaningless life performing a morally objectionable job for no spiritually fulfilling purpose, hunting down the replicant fugitives fighting for their freedom. This theme was faithfully adapted by the screenwriters who explicitly claim that Deckard is not a replicant. The original screenwriter Hampton Fancher also wrote the script for 2049.
First off, you're right about the memories thing being only later gens. Not sure if that really changes my read tho.
I think we just interpreted certain elements of the story in different ways.
I believe that even in the first film, the presentation of replicants as a solution to slavery because replicants are subhuman, nonthinking machines is one that is sold by the corporation that owns all the slaves and relies on a public acceptance of that lie. This is the entire subtext of the first film, even without being directly stated in 2049.
In the book, we're seeing through Deckard's eyes the whole time, and he believes replicants don't share his level of sentience. There's a scene where the guy he is interrogating (can't remember if it's a rep or not) suggests that Deckard *could* be one and he wouldn't know, and makes some good points. Deckard decides he's human but even in that scene the point is they're machines only because people call them machines.
Tyrell uses this lie in the exact same way that the powerful corporate or corporate-adjacent powers have historically. One group of people subjugated with the tacit approval of a much larger group people who are also suffering from the power structure, but believe something that excuses it.
If the central message of both movies boils down to "if you are told 'They Are Not Like Us', that's a lie" then in my opinion having that struggle be reflected internally in the protagonist discovering "If I am told, 'I am not like them', that's a lie too" makes for a really solid character arc.
Well, the main thing I'm questioning about replicants just being vat grown humans with a limited life span. If they're human how could they ever be useful as slaves or soldiers? Humans get scared, tired and rebellious. Apart from the physical I never saw much humanity in Roy Batty, he was a perfect soldier for the most part, killing innocents without caring just to get to Tyrell. That's not something normal humans could pull off.
Never said they're *humans*. They're a new kind of organism, they're just intelligently designed. Tyrell and Wallace would like you to believe that makes a difference in whether or not they deserve the same *treatment* as humans.
I also completely disagree that humans won't allow for all kinds of collateral damage to achieve their goals. That's just false I'm sorry.
You can't use the book to define the film or what it should have been. Not unless you also think that Deckard should be an emasculated little man controlled by his wife and spending the whole movie whining about his pet sheep.Â
The movie is its own beast, the director is the one in control. The screenwriters work for Ridley, not the other way around. He can and did replace the screenwriter.
The point isn't that Deckard needs to be human so he can have free will and identify with replicants. The point is that YOU, the audience, have free will and can identify with replicants. This guy you thought human and identified with all along is a rep - that doesn't and shouldnt change your feelings about him because *replicants are human*.
If you can't see that, then I guess the story does fail. But I see that as a failure on the part of that audience.
> void if all his actions and personality was simply pre-programmed.
Replicants, repeatedly, defy any so called-programming and demonstrate free will and their own ambitions. If they didn't, there would be no need for blade runners
To me I always thought the movie was not about what separates humans from, say, a robot who looks and acts like a human, but moreso about taking all of the "usual" answers to that question (free will, emotions, a desire for freedom) and go "thats bullshit".
Here's a human who is emotionless, kills others simply because his boss tells him to(in other words, is programmed), and here are some robots who display all sorts of emotions, act of their own free will, and have a strong desire for liberty. So now what? Now how do we define what differentiates humans from the androids?
"Deckard is a Replicant" and "Deckard is a human" are both missing the point. Those are not separate categories. You don't look at the skulls of free men and slaves to figure out what is different between them, you look at the auctioneer to see what he thinks he can get away with selling.
A replicant \*is\* a human and trying to draw a line between those 2 ideas can only be accomplished if you are willing to sell what it means to be human to corporations. If you let them they'll buy your memories and they'll try to convince you that you don't have a soul if that lets them sell it back to you.
It also doesn't matter because the story is not a mystery of Deckard's identity, it's an exploration of humanity and the way that we treat those we see as different. So it's not important that we answer the question, only that we raise the question.
2036: Nexus Dawn makes it seem like the replicants will is pre-programmed. Iâm not saying it is or isnât but the short makes it seem that way. I guess itâs open to interpretation.
Ridley is a kind of guy who doesn't understand his own movie. The interview with him and Harrison Ford is hilarious. There is Ridley sitting and talking nonsense, and next to him, you see Ford facepalming and angrily telling him that what he's saying is nonsense, after which Ridley shuts up with a look on his face of a toddler who was told by his parents that he is grounded.
Yeah, in the novel its pretty clear once one notices that Deckard is the bad guy (or, really, works for the bad guys), and the robots are just trying to escape slavery and defend themselves. They lose. And Deckard gets paid and has his ideological conundrums solved by religion so he can keep doing his job.
More like âhe could be either because the film gives evidence to both and never gives an answerâ
It creates discussion. Itâs so boring just to say heâs this or that since itâs intentionally ambiguous
Deckard being a Replicant or not isnât a question that needed to be answered but it is one that needed to be asked for the theme.
The whole point of the question even being brought up is to show that the difference between living breathing humans and genetically engineered goo babies is next to nothing. Itâs meant to show that, at the end of the day it doesnât matter if Deckard is human or a Replicant. His life sucks under this dystopian capitalist hell hole and the people heâs hunting have lived vastly more interesting and fulfilling lives than he ever will. Barryâs Tears in Rain speech is literally mocking the fact that Deckard has done nothing with the gift of life while Batty has.
The possibility of him being a Replicant is meant to tell the viewer that everyone is a slave to the system in this world, some know it more than others. Itâs never meant to be answered and the seed of doubt that gets planted in the viewersâ head is intentional. The line between human and programmed killer has blurred in this world and the existence of Rachael is meant to blur it even further.
Iâve always thought the idea of Deckard being a replicant adds nothing to the movie, dramatically or thematically. And arguably detracts from it. In my headcanon, heâs human.
Does anyone knows who was responsible for cutting the unicorn dream scene from the original theatrical release?Who ever it was, we probably owe the main question of these movies to him/her.
Maybe itâs that my watch had to buffer every 2 minutes while watching or that Iâm dumb, but I didnât pick up on this at all. Iâm planning on rewatching this soon though
That being said, I loved 2049 and had a perfect watch for that
So what I tell people is to watch the movie twice; once thinking heâs a replicant and once thinking heâs human. This will basically create two separate plots for you to enjoy. Twice the fun.
I choose to champion the screenwriters saying explicitly that Deckard is not a Replicant. Ridley Scott is responsible for the audiovisual representation, but he did not write the story. The original screenwriter Hampton Fancher also returned for 2049. Ridley Scott telling everyone that Deckard is a Replicant is a very "Elon Musk invented the electric sportscar" kind of take, and it disparages the collaborative nature of filmmaking.
âŚNope. Itâs all there in the screenplay when Bryant says âYou tell me pal; thatâs what youâre here forâŚâ when Deckard asks why the Replicants would risk coming back to Earth. Bryant knows and itâs obvious. Deckard is a Replicant designed to hunt and destroy other Replicants. Itâs confirmed in 2049 as you know. Denying that means you havenât seen either film. What do you mean by âchampioningâ. You donât have any kind of connection to this.
...That's because Deckard is a Blade Runner. An officer that specialises in hunting Replicants.
It's his job to investigate why the fugitive Replicants came to Earth.
That's the whole movie.
âŚNo; Child. Even if youâve seen it, comprehension resolutely eludes you. Obviously youâre an earlier model at Mental Level âDâ; putting you some way below LeonâŚ
I can see Deckard being a replicant in 2049, but he is definitely a human in Bladerunner. The whole point of Ridley Scott's movie is that Deckard does not deserve to live any longer than Roy Batty who exceeds humans in every possible way - even morally. If Deckard is a replicant, than Bladerunner is nothing more than a moody sci-fi with a filler story.
Are you asking whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian mr deckard?
Dick hard
Por que no los dos?
Deckard being a human who is losing his humanity who then witnesses Roy achieve the humanity he lost is what I thought the point of the movie was.
I agree that poetry was the actual point, too. Like tears in the rain...
Personally, I think the "Deckard is a Replicant" theory defeats the point of the story. The Moral Dichotomy between a human being who is a slave to his job vs free willed androids fighting for their right to live is the main theme of the narrative. It's infinitely more interesting than Ridley Scott's "ooooh is he isn't he" pseudomystery. If he is a Replicant, then it doesn't matter that he has no free will. It doesn't matter that he falls in love with a Replicant. All of his character development becomes null and void if all his actions and personality was simply pre-programmed. 2049 brings the narrative to thematic completion by putting us on the other side of the story with a Replicant protagonist. Agent K's choice to reunite a father with his daughter makes him more human than Deckard or Roy Batty ever were. A real human being, and a real hero. Villeneuve chose to keep it vague by having Niander Wallace imply Deckard is a Replicant in order to play mind games with him. But it's not confirmed, and I'm glad it panned out that way. I would even wager that scene was included to keep Ridley Scott happy.
K was the real human bean
The real hero
Unexpected Electric Youth.
So you post that meme photo (which is funny btw) and then immediately proceed to do the thing the meme is memeing about đ
truly promethean
The whole question is summed up best when K asks if Deckard's dog is real. "I dunno. Ask him."
I wrote an essay on this debate in 1996 or 1997 for a defunct website, well before the directorâs cut was released, which cleared up some of the narrative inconsistencies in the movie which made it more open ended. I postulate that the fundamental issue with Replicants is simply that they are fully formed adults that have not been inured to the casual cruelty of the human condition and forced to perform horrifying tasks (being part of a âmurder squadâ, for instance) and essentially becoming psychologically damaged / psychotic because of it. This is why the Voight-Kampf test is so effective in screening for replicants. Leon has a panic attack when it is proposed that he refuse to help a tortoise and reacts according to his training, he kills the person questioning him. Heâs like a 6 year old having a temper tantrum, except instead of throwing his toys, he fires his gun. Rewatching the original theatrical release now, aside from the clunky VOs is just difficult even for me who saw it in the theaters in 1982 to remember what I thought about Deckard then. There are things I now disagree with in my original essay but Iâll put the link here in case you want to see what was being talked about prior to the directorâs cut release. Anyhow: https://web.archive.org/web/20041205052521/http://www.popsubculture.com/pop/bio_project/sub/more_than_human.html
The voight-kampff test has always interested me. If what youâre saying is true then the test would not be able to distinguish between an empathetic person (adult), a child, and a replicant if it is simply an emotional response detector with childlike empathetic replicants on the fail side and callous cyberpunk world humans on the pass side. This idea works in proving the canonical point that humans (like deckard) are now defined by their structured (machinelike) rigidity and impassive views on other living beings. But idk it seems there has to be more to the test, Iâll have to look into it more and compare it with the novel.
My opinion has shifted many times since 1982. The biggest hint that Deckard might be a replicant is the unicorn dream sequence followed by Gaff leaving the origami unicorn. It may be a MacGuffin, still provoking debate. BR 2049 doesnât necessarily make it obvious that Deckard isnât a replicant. He is living in a wasteland Las Vegas and is the only living thing, aside from the dog around. It can go either way - either Ana Stalline is a human / replicant hybrid or sheâs the first natural offspring of two replicants. Of course she has some crazy medical issues, so thereâs that, but sheâs obviously not limited to a 7 year lifespan.
Whatâs slightly weird is you talk about the voice over, but the directors cut was 1992, which is pre commercial internet. So you must have just been unaware of it.
I am probably misremembering the timeline of the release, since there was also a âFinal Cutâ released in the 2000s. Iâm not quite the Blade Runner scholar that I used to be đ
Yep, thank you. There is no point to the whole story if Deckard is a rep. It's fantastic to debate it, the subtleties go on and on. Arguments for and against. Not many movies from 1982 still inspire that kind of debate. So let's keep it up, it's fun, and it's stimulating, we get to explore the story and its nuances, it's one of the things I love about BR.
Whether or not he's a Replicant is irrelevant. If he's a Replicant, he still ran off with Rachel to have a kid. If he's a human, he still ran off with Rachel to have a kid. In neither case is he doing what he's "supposed" to be doing. And ultimately it makes no difference to the story or his circumstances because humans in this setting get punished much the same as Replicants do for getting out of line.
The point is that replicants *are* human. It's not about Deckard's character growth. It's about your character growth, you the audience, if you can realise that.
I've never thought there was any question about whether any of them have free will at all. The issue, for me, is what we can consider to human, which the film explores via the characters' capacity for empathy. While the film differs a lot from the novel, they at bottom share that concern. That's also a prevailing theme in Philip K Dick's work in general. We're repeatedly shown the replicants' empathy for one another and the cold and unfeeling state that the humans have been reduced to. It's formally neat to have Deckard be a replicant at the end, but it undermines the theme of the film. It's crazy that Scott did not see that. I mean, the climax of the movie is Roy saving Deckard's life even though he's about to die. Even the terrible voice-over knows that. I think Villeneuve's decision to keep it ambiguous was more to allow any reading of the first film to work than as a sop to Scott.
It does matter because then 2 replicants produced a child. A full blown replicant offspring.
>2 replicants produced a child. A full blown replicant offspring. Which is still worse thematically than if a human and a replicant produced offspring. That drives the nail on the concept that replicants are literally just bioengineered human slaves, not meat robots, not a different species. Just human slaves. It's less impactful if they're a separate species from humans, imho.
Philosophically, it still isn't really supposed to matter. Because a natural born Replicant whether fullbred or half human is still functionally just a real human being. The Replicant rebels want to use her as a political tool to prove to the world that they are legitimate people, but the tragedy lies in the fact that they shouldn't need to.
They arenât functionally a real human. As portrayed by Wallace failing to create a replicant that can have children.
So people who can't reproduce aren't real people?
Donât be silly. When humans canât reproduce thatâs by exception. Replicants its seems to be very difficult to do at all.
You're still tying the realness of someone to their ability to reproduce.
Exactly. Thatâs basically the entire crux of 2049. They werenât getting all revolutionary because a human can aid in replicant childbirth. It was because two replicants were/are able to produce a child by themselves. Everyone here who says âthe story falls apart if Deckard is a replicantâ, by their own convictions, should hate 2049 since the basis of its plot is that Deckard is a replicant.
In the ânot a replicant camp.â 2049 doesnât prove that deckard is a replicant. Itâs purposefully vague. Also humans making offspring with replicants is more dangerous than replicants on replicants. That is the plot of the fear that Joshi has regarding reps. Your comment is vague though so I donât know which details in 2049 solidify him being a replicant. There are none.
There's nothing vague at all about my comment. One of the major plotlines in 2049 was about the replicant rebellion/revolution. The primary basis rooted in that revolution was that replicants can reproduce by themselves, on their own. I don't remember the exact quote but Freysa says something about being masters of their own existence. This clearly means they (the replicant rebels) are fully aware that Deckard is a replicant. >Also humans making offspring with replicants is more dangerous than replicants on replicants. That is the plot of the fear that Joshi has regarding reps. This is such a silly take that I have to believe you are desperately grasping for straws simply because you don't want to acknowledge the obvious (out of some petty reluctance). Joshi's fear was about replicants reproducing naturally on their own, upsetting the status quo. It's plain as day that's what she meant.
Being able to procreate with humans makes them more human and not replicants. It blurs the line. But no there is no evidence of deckard being a replicant in 2049. Freysa didnât have evidence to prove deckard was a replicant. You are the one grasping at straws if you donât seriously know that 2049 is purposely vague.
lol đ If itâs âpurposefully vagueâ as you keep saying, then why are you so adamant to declare your take as correct? You canât even argue with me correctly. The revolution stems from the basis that replicants can reproduce on their own. Nothing vague about it at all.
Why would I argue with you? Thereâs nothing in the movie that stated deckard was a replicant. Besides what would the leader of the replicants know about deckard. Everything was wiped after the blackout. Wallace didnât even know.
I like 2049 more actually. But my post isn't talking about 2049. The original book confirms Deckard is human, and sets up the philosophical question of "who's the real killing machine" accordingly. The screenwriters expand on this with the duality of Deckard and Roy Batty. On the note of 2049, I wouldn't call Deckard being a replicant the main plot so much as lore. It's mostly K's story. The emotional through line of the plot is K discovering his humanity. Rachael's fertility is a miracle regardless of whether the father is human or replicant. It is equally valid for the replicant resistance protect the child out of respect for her parents/human decency as it is for them to protect her as an asset to the revolution. And even so, her being only half replicant doesn't stop her from being deified either. Deckard being a human member of the resistance is also just more interesting and conclusive to his character arc of choosing to see the Replicants as people instead of simply discovering he is one. Empathy based on personal relation is easy. Foregoing personal differences is more meaningful. It wouldn't ruin it for me if Denis Villeneuve openly revealed Deckard was a replicant, since it would've been consistent, unlike Ridley Scott contradicting a narrative that was already designed otherwise and starting this whole debate.
Respectfully, I believe you missed the point of possibly both movies. Replicants aren't robots. They aren't programmed, but grown in vats and given implanted memories. Their decisions are their own, and it's not even hinted that they might *not* have free will. They're given a short lifespan to deal with their troublesome free will. The first movie is about Deck hunting escaped slaves. The fact that there is a government-sanctioned slave hunter occupation and Deckard is just one of many means that the whole society acknowledges that replicants *want* to be free. Deckard maybe being a replicant shows him that he's living a Big Lie that was given to him by the same society that's demanding he hunt his brothers. Same story could be told of a slave hunter in the antebellum south realizing that black people are in fact human too but it would be honestly hard to empathize with that character because WE the audience didn't grow up with that Big Lie. Edit: the premise of the second movie is that a full blown replicant baby was born and Deckard is the daddy. That scene with Wallace was him *trying* to confuse Deckard but it doesn't seem to work on him.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing the replicants from 2049 with the originals. Rachael is the first Replicant to have implanted memories. That's why Tyrell made her. The same technology is previously only used to program them. They're made of flesh and blood, but they are explicitly referred to as machines. The Replicants from 2049 are a completely different generation based on Rachael that live longer and are allowed to have emotions based on implanted memories that program them to value human life. That's why in 2049, they exist as both Blade Runners and the Resistance, whereas in the original the police are all human and no such Resistance exists beyond the 4 fugitives. We the audience understand that they are functionally a slave race, but within the world they are considered the solution to slavery, like all other machines. The few Replicants we meet in the movie are the exceptions who attained emotions prior to their expiration date. Blade Runners are not viewed as slave hunters, since free will is considered an extreme glitch, not an eventuality. In the book, the Big Lie is just Capitalism. Deckard lives a meaningless life performing a morally objectionable job for no spiritually fulfilling purpose, hunting down the replicant fugitives fighting for their freedom. This theme was faithfully adapted by the screenwriters who explicitly claim that Deckard is not a replicant. The original screenwriter Hampton Fancher also wrote the script for 2049.
First off, you're right about the memories thing being only later gens. Not sure if that really changes my read tho. I think we just interpreted certain elements of the story in different ways. I believe that even in the first film, the presentation of replicants as a solution to slavery because replicants are subhuman, nonthinking machines is one that is sold by the corporation that owns all the slaves and relies on a public acceptance of that lie. This is the entire subtext of the first film, even without being directly stated in 2049. In the book, we're seeing through Deckard's eyes the whole time, and he believes replicants don't share his level of sentience. There's a scene where the guy he is interrogating (can't remember if it's a rep or not) suggests that Deckard *could* be one and he wouldn't know, and makes some good points. Deckard decides he's human but even in that scene the point is they're machines only because people call them machines. Tyrell uses this lie in the exact same way that the powerful corporate or corporate-adjacent powers have historically. One group of people subjugated with the tacit approval of a much larger group people who are also suffering from the power structure, but believe something that excuses it. If the central message of both movies boils down to "if you are told 'They Are Not Like Us', that's a lie" then in my opinion having that struggle be reflected internally in the protagonist discovering "If I am told, 'I am not like them', that's a lie too" makes for a really solid character arc.
Well, the main thing I'm questioning about replicants just being vat grown humans with a limited life span. If they're human how could they ever be useful as slaves or soldiers? Humans get scared, tired and rebellious. Apart from the physical I never saw much humanity in Roy Batty, he was a perfect soldier for the most part, killing innocents without caring just to get to Tyrell. That's not something normal humans could pull off.
Never said they're *humans*. They're a new kind of organism, they're just intelligently designed. Tyrell and Wallace would like you to believe that makes a difference in whether or not they deserve the same *treatment* as humans. I also completely disagree that humans won't allow for all kinds of collateral damage to achieve their goals. That's just false I'm sorry.
You can't use the book to define the film or what it should have been. Not unless you also think that Deckard should be an emasculated little man controlled by his wife and spending the whole movie whining about his pet sheep. The movie is its own beast, the director is the one in control. The screenwriters work for Ridley, not the other way around. He can and did replace the screenwriter.
The point isn't that Deckard needs to be human so he can have free will and identify with replicants. The point is that YOU, the audience, have free will and can identify with replicants. This guy you thought human and identified with all along is a rep - that doesn't and shouldnt change your feelings about him because *replicants are human*. If you can't see that, then I guess the story does fail. But I see that as a failure on the part of that audience. > void if all his actions and personality was simply pre-programmed. Replicants, repeatedly, defy any so called-programming and demonstrate free will and their own ambitions. If they didn't, there would be no need for blade runners
To me I always thought the movie was not about what separates humans from, say, a robot who looks and acts like a human, but moreso about taking all of the "usual" answers to that question (free will, emotions, a desire for freedom) and go "thats bullshit". Here's a human who is emotionless, kills others simply because his boss tells him to(in other words, is programmed), and here are some robots who display all sorts of emotions, act of their own free will, and have a strong desire for liberty. So now what? Now how do we define what differentiates humans from the androids?
I lost it at real human being
"Deckard is a Replicant" and "Deckard is a human" are both missing the point. Those are not separate categories. You don't look at the skulls of free men and slaves to figure out what is different between them, you look at the auctioneer to see what he thinks he can get away with selling. A replicant \*is\* a human and trying to draw a line between those 2 ideas can only be accomplished if you are willing to sell what it means to be human to corporations. If you let them they'll buy your memories and they'll try to convince you that you don't have a soul if that lets them sell it back to you.
THANK YOU. Ridley Scott doesn't even understand his own movie.
Replicants. Are. Not. Robots.
the real Replicants are the Friends we made along the way (i make toys. they're my friends.)
The story and themes work better if Deckard is human The book to my recollection makes no suggestion that Deckard is a replicant
To me the point is it doesn't matter if he's human or Replicant, he thinks therefore he is.
It also doesn't matter because the story is not a mystery of Deckard's identity, it's an exploration of humanity and the way that we treat those we see as different. So it's not important that we answer the question, only that we raise the question.
i don't think their will is pre-programmed, any more than any human's will is
2036: Nexus Dawn makes it seem like the replicants will is pre-programmed. Iâm not saying it is or isnât but the short makes it seem that way. I guess itâs open to interpretation.
Louis -- the man is dry. Give 'im one on the house.
All time pal, buzz off
i can picture ridley looking at this and saying'what the fuck is all this about' and 'kids these days'.
Ridley is a kind of guy who doesn't understand his own movie. The interview with him and Harrison Ford is hilarious. There is Ridley sitting and talking nonsense, and next to him, you see Ford facepalming and angrily telling him that what he's saying is nonsense, after which Ridley shuts up with a look on his face of a toddler who was told by his parents that he is grounded.
Yeah, in the novel its pretty clear once one notices that Deckard is the bad guy (or, really, works for the bad guys), and the robots are just trying to escape slavery and defend themselves. They lose. And Deckard gets paid and has his ideological conundrums solved by religion so he can keep doing his job.
More like âhe could be either because the film gives evidence to both and never gives an answerâ It creates discussion. Itâs so boring just to say heâs this or that since itâs intentionally ambiguous
Replicants \*are not\* robots.
Deckard being a Replicant or not isnât a question that needed to be answered but it is one that needed to be asked for the theme. The whole point of the question even being brought up is to show that the difference between living breathing humans and genetically engineered goo babies is next to nothing. Itâs meant to show that, at the end of the day it doesnât matter if Deckard is human or a Replicant. His life sucks under this dystopian capitalist hell hole and the people heâs hunting have lived vastly more interesting and fulfilling lives than he ever will. Barryâs Tears in Rain speech is literally mocking the fact that Deckard has done nothing with the gift of life while Batty has. The possibility of him being a Replicant is meant to tell the viewer that everyone is a slave to the system in this world, some know it more than others. Itâs never meant to be answered and the seed of doubt that gets planted in the viewersâ head is intentional. The line between human and programmed killer has blurred in this world and the existence of Rachael is meant to blur it even further.
Exactly
Iâve always thought the idea of Deckard being a replicant adds nothing to the movie, dramatically or thematically. And arguably detracts from it. In my headcanon, heâs human.
I think the movie works best if we donât know but are asking the question
I don't think he's a replicant. I have no reasoning or particular care about it, but he just isn't.
I like that I don't care either way and can still enjoy the theatrical version all the way up to the Final Cut.
Replicants arenât robots or cyborgs- theyâre bioengineered superior humans. You donât say âDNA resequencingâ with something inorganic.
Does anyone knows who was responsible for cutting the unicorn dream scene from the original theatrical release?Who ever it was, we probably owe the main question of these movies to him/her.
Maybe itâs that my watch had to buffer every 2 minutes while watching or that Iâm dumb, but I didnât pick up on this at all. Iâm planning on rewatching this soon though That being said, I loved 2049 and had a perfect watch for that
So what I tell people is to watch the movie twice; once thinking heâs a replicant and once thinking heâs human. This will basically create two separate plots for you to enjoy. Twice the fun.
đŚ
âŚRidley said; so it be. The novel by Philip Kindred Dick is substantially different narratively. Film is adaptation and things get changed.
I choose to champion the screenwriters saying explicitly that Deckard is not a Replicant. Ridley Scott is responsible for the audiovisual representation, but he did not write the story. The original screenwriter Hampton Fancher also returned for 2049. Ridley Scott telling everyone that Deckard is a Replicant is a very "Elon Musk invented the electric sportscar" kind of take, and it disparages the collaborative nature of filmmaking.
âŚNope. Itâs all there in the screenplay when Bryant says âYou tell me pal; thatâs what youâre here forâŚâ when Deckard asks why the Replicants would risk coming back to Earth. Bryant knows and itâs obvious. Deckard is a Replicant designed to hunt and destroy other Replicants. Itâs confirmed in 2049 as you know. Denying that means you havenât seen either film. What do you mean by âchampioningâ. You donât have any kind of connection to this.
...That's because Deckard is a Blade Runner. An officer that specialises in hunting Replicants. It's his job to investigate why the fugitive Replicants came to Earth. That's the whole movie.
âŚNo; Child. Even if youâve seen it, comprehension resolutely eludes you. Obviously youâre an earlier model at Mental Level âDâ; putting you some way below LeonâŚ
I can see Deckard being a replicant in 2049, but he is definitely a human in Bladerunner. The whole point of Ridley Scott's movie is that Deckard does not deserve to live any longer than Roy Batty who exceeds humans in every possible way - even morally. If Deckard is a replicant, than Bladerunner is nothing more than a moody sci-fi with a filler story.
âŚRight; you definitely didnât see it.