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.
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.
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
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
More options
Context
More options
Context