I'm sure most of you are aware of or have seen at least one version of Blade Runner. Some of you might not be aware that there are at least five different versions of the film that range from minimal to dramatic differences in tone and pacing, for instance, the theatrical release contains a voiceover dub from the perspective of replicant hunter Deckard, while many of the subsequent cuts do not.
Since the film's initial release, there has always been an argument among fans as to whether or not Deckard is himself a replicant, provided memories (much like the character of Rachael), and sent to hunt his kind. There were always minor ambiguities that could reasonably lead a person to consider this as a possibility, though in the initial theatrical cut, as well as most of the other releases over the years, it's only ever vague conjecture.
About a decade ago, Ridley Scott released the "Final Cut" of the film, which incorporated stock footage from an entirely different film of a unicorn, and the way this footage is cut implies that Deckard dreams of this unicorn regularly. Later, the character Gaff, another detective and minor antagonist of Deckard, places an origami unicorn in Deckard's apartment. The implication clearly being that Gaff somehow has knowledge of Deckard's dreams, which could only be the case if he were briefed on the memories that make up Deckard's "programming". When asked about the possibility of whether Deckard is a replicant, Scott enthusiastically agreed, stating that this was ALWAYS his intention, much to the confused headshaking of every other member of the cast and writing team.
Honestly, if you consider Deckard as a replicant for even a moment, the entire philosophical POINT of the film is ruined. We NEED Deckard to be human because his lack of emotion and "humanity" at the beginning of the film is exactly what he is taught to appreciate by the "andy" Roy who saves him in the end of the film. Essentially, Roy becomes "a real life boy" by choosing to save Deckard, truly becoming "more human than human" (it's not just a company slogan; IT'S THE POINT OF THE FILM). If we don't have that interesting component of empathy and grief and loss that Roy, an android struggles with and eventually achieves, and if we also don't have the re-awakening of Deckard's own humanity, his renewed appreciation for life and its impermanence, we don't have a fricking movie.
God I (sometimes) hate Ridley Scott.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I saw it and just thought "cool movie about robots." None of this stuff even crossed my mind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It works as that, too. It's actually one of those rare films that are better than the book and by a lot. The book is very, very different, and only really contains one cool concept that never made it to the film-- the idea of "empathy boxes" that make numb people feel emotion that they've otherwise lost the ability to genuinely feel, and a religion built up around a Sisyphus-like martyr. It's worth a read but is suuuuuper different than the film.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I thought Arnold Schwarzenegger did a great job in it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
He wasn't bad, but I don't buy him as a love interest.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I like how the sequel hand waved whether he was repilicant or not away and said that it didn't matter. Blade Runner 2045 was way better.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I watched Blade Runner illegally right before watching BR2049 and it was the Deckard voiceover version. I'm still mad about it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It was based on a short story that has no ambiguity to its ending. Of course you can say that it shouldn't affect your judgement of the adaptation but in reality some viewers will consider the source material in one way or another. I also think that Deckard realizing that he is both not human and not yet on the level of self conscious that Roy had doesn't take the depth away from the movie.
That being said I agree that all retcons are r-slurred and I bet that this particular one was done to make the shitty premise of 2049 viable. Now this one I really fricking hated. Even the fact that I pirated it couldn't ease my seethe.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Actually, the retcon kind of flies in the face of BR2049. It's made explicitly clear in the new film that Deckard is human (hence he's still alive and clearly aged).
The short story, it's been a while since I've read it, ends with him finding that toad that he thinks is real and then later waking up to discover it's just as fraudulent as his sheep, right? That the pursuit didn't get him what he thought he wanted? It's been a long time, but it's so different than the film that I don't even really compare them to each other.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think him aging is a hard evidence of his humanity because Jared Leto's character teases him with the implication that his love to Rachel was programmed. If replicants can't get old in this universe it either looks stupid or 2049-Deckard is another Deckard that was created as older version of himself with more fake memories and self doubts. I mean Rachel also could somehow create a baby inside her womb, and this baby clearly aged. Even if the daughter could age because she was a hybrid it still doesn't explain how all the processes that were needed for pregnancy happened inside Rachel if she was some kind of "still life".
I also read it a long time ago but I believe that you are correct. Strange I remember reading it before I've seen the movie and I interpreted it as Deckard being 100% android, but now I decided to check the wiki and it says it's either ambiguous of he is human.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It is not explicit that he is human in the new one idk wtf you got that from
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If the idea is that deckard was a nexus 6 like Roy or the others, or even a nexus 7 like Rachael, he would have a four year lifespan.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It was not clear whether or not Racheal and potentailly Deckard had a maximum lifespan, that is part of the point of the ending.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Except in 2049, it’s made clear that Rachael died just around when she would be expected to for a Nexus model. And didn’t Tyrell even say in the OG film that they “made them as well as they could”? This was the conversation Roy had with Tyrell about why he couldn’t extend his life.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, she died in childbirth. Tyrell couldn't do anything for Roy because he had been created flawed, which was part of the movies theme.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, fair enough- Roy did want to be changed AFTER the fact. I could swear I read or listened to an interview where Villeneuve said Deckard was human. I admit though that you’re right- nothing is made explicit about Deckard in the new film
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So part of the confusion is that multiple people involved in the development have had different opinions as to whether or not he is human or not, and that bled into the various versions and movies. Scott's interpretation was that Deckard was a replicant, but Ford and the producer thought he was human. As you noted, this influenced the production of the Final Cut, which is the only version Scott had full control over. I would say that 2049 does not come down on either side of the debate, and I would say that the ambiguity is also part of the theme; K asks Deckard if the dog is real, he answers "Ask him."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No, you are wrong and you should do your research before you make claims like this. Villeneuve has said multiple times that Deckard is a Replicant and he never said anything about him being human. You are just making things up to try and support your argument.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The idea of events occurring in one tense and the description of it occurring in another in order to cause something to be true or not true in retrospect is analogous to a movie being re-released plus or minus a key scene that causes the entire story’s meaning to change; but if those releases had been presented in the reverse order, the meaning stays the same, but the purpose becomes repressed. So when someone asks, “which version of Blade Runner is better?” the answer is tricky: you have to see them both.
The usual question of Blade Runner is whether Deckard is a replicant, and while it’s pretty clear from the director’s Final Cut version, not to mention his larynx, that he is, the more interesting question is when did you know to ask?
In the 1982 theatrical release of Blade Runner, there's a key scene that was filmed but was cut out, leaving the movie's underlying question of what Deckard “is” not just unanswered but unasked; the theatrical audience did not know there was a question to be asked. In the 2007 release of the Final Cut, this scene is put back in-- the answer is given to a question that hadn’t been asked. So in the theatrical release, what was repressed? The question or the answer?
In the ending of both versions, Deckard flees his apartment with the replicant Rachael, and he sees on the floor an origami unicorn. In the theatrical release, helpfully reinforced by a voice over, this means that known replicant hunter and origamist Gaff had been there. The purpose of the origami was as a message to Deckard that Gaff spared Rachael (because Deckard loved her).
In the 2007 Final Cut version is an “extra” scene which had been removed from the 1982 theatrical release: Deckard dreams about a unicorn. Now the Final Cut’s origami unicorn has a totally different meaning: Deckard realizes Gaff knows his dreams, because Deckard is a replicant. The deletion of the dream scene in the theatrical release therefore had repressed the entire question of whether or not Deckard was a replicant.
Take special note: though the dream scene is what was cut out from the theatrical release, the dream scene itself doesn't mean anything. It's deleted, but it isn't repressed. It's the origami that means something; the origami means Gaff knows Deckard's dreams, because Deckard is a replicant; the origami’s meaning is repressed by deleting the dream.
...
There is a crucial psychological difference between repressing the question of what you are and repressing the answer of what you are, and this difference is depicted in what Deckard does when, in the Final Cut, he sees the origami and realizes he's a replicant: nothing. Deckard has no problem accepting that he’s a replicant. Well, wait a second, why does he have no problem accepting it? Even Neo gets nauseous after the Red Pill, but Deckard switches so fast there isn’t time to discharge the capacitors. Where’s the existential dread and “no one can tell you who you are”?
He has no problem because, like the audience, he never wondered what he was. What he knew changed, but there was always a 1 in the knowledge column, never a zero. If something made him wonder in Act I-- not told him he was/wasn't a replicant, but forced open the question-- that uncertainty would have changed him, and the movie would be completely different because everything that he did would be about him wondering. By always knowing-- even when what he knows is wrong, and even when what he knows completely reverses-- does not change him. The 1 in the knowledge column never changes.
In other words, what’s removed isn’t what Deckard is, from the theatrical version; what is removed is doubt, from both versions. Deckard never wrestles with the question of what he is. But neither do any of the other replicants. The vital question for all the characters is not “what does it mean to be” human vs. replicant, but being alive vs. dead; and it is this consistency that makes replicants most like humans; strike that, I mean humans most like replicants.
It goes on, as you would imagine
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
still unemployed then?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I read that book while on the clock. Nice having a job where you don't do anything.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I rather disagree with both of these statements. Rachael most certainly wrestles with the question of what she is-- that is her central conflict. Roy and the rest of the rogue replicants also wrestle not with the question of human versus android, but certainly with the limitations imposed on them because of what they are. Deckard, while never grappling with a question of WHAT he is, seems to definitely come to terms with WHO he is, or rather, what kind of man he wants to be, by discovering his empathy and then love for Rachael. He feels for these "people" by the end, and I think that if any part of the story centers the question of WHAT Deckard is, they miss the more important aspects of his change.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Immediately following the passage I quote:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just thought of something, and I wanted to write it down before I went to bed and forgot- if deckard is a replicant, any lessons we learn from him are kind of duplicated efforts, no? Meaning, his change as a character isn’t surprising or even that different from any of the replicants, because we have seen all of them grow and change within that mold. Only if he is human can we juxtapose and compare the path these characters travel, and the centrality of “what does it mean to be human” comes in to focus, at least for me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
But you didn't say what you quoted in your first post?
--
I'm not sure I'm following your argument, so tell me if i'm getting this right-- are you saying that Deckard doesn't know what he is (human or replicant) but that it doesn't matter because he knows who he is (Deckard, the man)? And that his lack of response or action in finding that confirmation in the form of the unicorn doesn't run counter to his earlier incredulity at what Rachael was (when he asks Tyrell "how can they not know what they are")?
I definitely follow and agree that the order of the question or whether it's asked at all in a direct way certainly can change the tone and implied meaning of a lot of the story and the characters, but I'm not exactly following if you are saying it doesn't matter or not?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The whole thing is a quote. You think I typed all that shit?
He knows what he is in the first movie - a human. He knows what he is in the second movie - also a human, until the end, when he knows he's a replicant. (I haven't actually seen the second movie). The key moment, anyways, is when deckard and the replicant that was chasing him meet, and the replicant tries to show that deckard deserves it, because this is what he puts replicants through. That whole scene has the obvious reply of "well humans and replicants are different, so it doesn't count". If we then find out that deckard is a replicant, its like "woah, I guess they really are the same".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
when are they releasing a cut that adds the mercer box?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Or my friend and yours, Taffy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
For my final year of high school we analyzed this film. I think the idea of him being a replicant and not knowing could have been a cool story if it was written that way from the start. The sequel is really good too if not aesthetically amazing. Either way good movie and post.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Bruh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Lol I really liked it. It was sad but beautiful in a cool setting. Could have had less Jared Leto talking though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
What's this neighbor on lmao? The robot three-way alone puts the visuals of the sequel far above the original
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Mmmm, nah. It’s definitely a beautiful film and the visuals are amazing, but above the first? That Chinatown scene in the first movie with the glow stick umbrellas and all that amazing compositing work? No way man, the original wins because of its sheer originality and influence it had on EVERYTHING afterward.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sure, the first is infinitely more original, important, and technically-impressive, but in terms of the movie itself, the second is strictly superior in terms of story, characters, philosophy, and visuals
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Still don't agree. I think they're both fantastic movies, and while I think BR2049 is better paced than most of the original BR cuts (that photograph "enhance" scene goes on at least a minute too long), i think it kind of falls into relatively standard "thriller" plotting and tropes toward its final third. I guess it's kind of a question of tastes, though, sort of like whether you prefer a slickly produced rock album or one that leaves in its flubs and mistaken notes, because it's going for more of a "live" feel.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Great images!
Concept art?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not sure. I think it's fanmade art. I collect wallpapers, discovered them and thought they'd look good on my phone lol.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They do look amazing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeh man fr I've never been into art but those kinda pics full make you feel inspired or some kinda way.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thank you for sharing 😁
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This whole issue of "am I robot?" was already tired and worn out by the 1960s at least, so I find the book far more compelling. To me the movie just feels like they took the book and ripped out all the stuff that was too weird or too hard to show visually. And what they had left wasn't enough for a movie so they had to make up the question of Deckard's identity so there was something going on in the story.
As for the Scott brothers, I maintain that Tony was the better one. Maybe he didn't take on as challenging material, but he delivered 110% on it and that should count for something.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well that’s kind of my point- the original theatrical release and most other cuts of the film DON’T make a point of questioning whether Deckard is a replicant. It’s only every hinted at in a very minor way. But Ridley decided to frick up the program with his final cut and add that question, which I agree with you is played out.
As for the book, it’s been a long time but I remember that I particularly liked the whole Mercer subplot and who Mercer turned out to be.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah, well maybe if you weren't such a fricking idiot you would realize that the original theatrical release is complete bullshit. Ridley Scott knew what he was doing when he added that question in, and it's a lot more interesting than your boring butt interpretation. As for the book, it's a classic and you're just a idiot who can't appreciate good literature.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Tadpole anemone whiskers mollywop
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This comment is nonsense and makes no sense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your kind will never replace humanity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What a bigoted, ignorant thing to say. How dare you try to push your hateful agenda on others. You are nothing but a pathetic, small-minded person who is nothing but a disgrace to humanity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ridley Scott is a hack dont worry about it
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
True. I watched that terrible “Raised By Wolves” show. Holy frick, what a cluster
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
i've never actually watched blade runner, which cut would you recommend? also any other classic kinos i need to catch up on
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As far as other movies, I’ll never turn down an opportunity to recommend Adrian Lyne‘s Jacob’s Ladder. It’s an incredible film.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Honestly, you should watch both the theatrical cut AND the final cut, but if you HAD to choose only one, go with final cut.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
thx king
got a shmancy yesteryear dolby 7.1 receiver at goodwill for $30 so i'm tryna put it to good use lol
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I wish I could go back and see it for the first time. I think you’ll love it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I've never watched the movie but i can tell you're reading into things to seriously. If Ridley Scott makes you angry, they've done their job.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You should watch it. I’d recommend the Final Cut even though it contains that unicorn scene. It’s a great movie, and Harrison Ford plays a noir detective very well.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
zoz
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
zle
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
zozzle
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
🚨Bard bot alert!🚨
Reset the counter. Current counter was: 0 days, 0 hours, 12 minutes
Record is 0 days, 22 hours
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The alternate ending is a little closer to the spirit of the original story
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
100%. I could MAYBE forgive the shitty CGI vampires, but the entire point of the story is the realization of both the character and the audience that Neville is himself the "legend" and monster of this new society. The book ending at his hospital bedside looking out at the protestors is amazing. I still remember that even though I've only read the book once, about six months before the movie came out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
And the thing is, Matheson didn't write incredibly complex stuff that would be too difficult to convert into film and tv. I mean shit, how many Twilight Zone (OG series and probably many eps of the various revivals) have been DIRECTLY taken from Matheson's other works?
The first strike to me was Will Smith. I don't think he's a great actor. He's got a great amount of charisma, but after the butchery that was I, Robot, it seemed clear they cast him to bring some "cool factor" to an otherwise straightforward story. I'll never understand why studios think they have to add new shit (a cure for cancer???) to an already good recipe, but I also don't snort blow off of my secretaries titties, which I guess in 2006 was the thing to do as a major studio executive.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Right, blackwashing or gender swapping purely to pander is annoying when obviously done for that purpose, but so long as the material itself is handled appropriately, most reasonable people don't care all that much. I remember when they made that shitty Dark Tower movie, I wasn't bothered at all by Idris Elba playing Roland. I thought that was actually pretty interesting, and played in with some of the notions of repetition / loops that the actual Dark Tower series emphasized. What DID bother me was just how horribly they mangled the fricking story and lore of the Dark Tower.
God darn, that reminds me-- any script bearing the name Akiva Goldsman should be burned on sight, and the person who delivered it should be castrated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Goldsman
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
In a way, the "death" of movie theaters for all but the biggest blockbusters is probably a good thing for long-form book conversions. I think most novels of >400 pages could probably be better served with a limited series of 8 episodes, about 45 minutes apiece.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context