You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Awesome film from start to finish. Every thing about this movie rocks! One of those flicks you can watch again and again..
But one question...
Was Deckard a replicant.. and is that why the Roy Batty character doesn't kill him at the end...?
Ive never watched it with the commentary on or making of etc.. i expect it tells you on that, but ive always wondered if he is or not.
Is that a no then....?
You just asked for a definitive answer to THE most debated question of the entire film. Many many many internet wars have been fought over the answer to that one.
Whats your opinion on the matter...?
It's a popular theory that Deckard is a replicant, but it doesn't make much sense. You'd think that a replicant model sent after rogue replicants would have been given mental and physical 'upgrades' to help him, but no, even the pleasure model is able to completely wipe the floor with him. That's a practical reason why he's not a replicant.
Storywise and thematically, part of the story is that the replicants are in many ways more human than the humans. Their desire to live and their group dynamic in that shared goal is a stark contrast to the almost robotic way the humans behave and live, all in isolation in lifeless buildings, apartments or penthouses. Having Deckard be a replicant just undercuts it all. The story would thus become a muddled affair where it's most powerful dramatic angle, that of a guy hunting down his own kind unawares, is missed in favour of one ambigous shot.
In terms of the film's crew, Scott and I believe one of the producers have come out and said that he's replicant, whilst the screenwriter and Ford himself have said that he's not.
There's no debate to it. In the Final Cut, Deckard dreams of a unicorn and Gaff makes a unicorn origami figure. Deckard proved to Rachael that she was a replicant by telling her what was in her dreams. Gaff is doing the same thing.
The fact that the actor and others knew that it is completely stupid for Deckard to be a replicant doesn't change the fact that the director made it the case in the film.
I have similar problems with Total Recall and Minority Report for similar reasons. The directors fell in love with the alternative reading idea, and the movie ended up stupid.
Oh no.. what have i started here. But truth be told i wondered the same thing, why he makes the unicorn model. But the other fella has a point.. If he is a replicate, why do the others man handle him so easily..?
You both have written superb replies to my question.
The book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) is reasonably clear that Deckard is not a replicant, but I think it's been stated that the movie was only loosely adapted from the book. Certainly lots of other parts are rather different too (no electric sheep, the whole Mercerism thing, the other main character J.R. Isidore, most of the plot, and the ending).
Honestly, as far as I could tell it didn't really matter whether the whole lot of characters in the movie were replicants. Certainly they didn't act like humans. To be fair, the book was not much better at making me give a damn about the characters.
I think he's a replicant. A different kind of replicant. Not one of the military ones like the two guys and pris were. The other one was a pleasure model, and while she did kinda kick the crap out of Deckard, it was a cheap shot that got that fight started. Instead of trying to kill him off, tho, she ran away. Rachael never seemed to be physically powerful or anything. I'm guessing that they'd have kept Rachael and Deckard at a more human strength level to prevent them from catching on.
I won't go into my other theories, cause that killed that last thread this came up in 
Last edited by Squiggly_P (2011-10-02 23:30:16)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
