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.

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.

![](/images/16590291175141187.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyeyeroll:

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.

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