Unable to load image

Blade Runner, or: Why Ridley Scott is an r-slur

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.

45
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

![](/images/16589897886713889.webp)

![](/images/1658989788733109.webp)

![](/images/16589897894067075.webp)

![](/images/16589897895983224.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The sequel is really good too if not aesthetically amazing.

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.

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.

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.

![](/images/1659018557421253.webp)

![](/images/1659018605493655.webp)

![](/images/16590188398794668.webp)

![](/images/1659018840075678.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Thank you for sharing 😁

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.