dekard probebly had a bad accidend and had replicant parts to save his life and that is why he is able to take a beating from the replicants that he is hunting.
Right? . . . Ford’s belief just adds to the whole thing. After all, just like Rachel, Dekard would be in denial, even if he was a replicant, right? “More human than human,” was Tyrell’s stated goal, and the amusement he must have gotten, out of watching a replicant test a replicant, struggling to get a result in an unusually long Voight Kamph test, makes that scene so loaded on second viewing. Of course Ford’s empathy is with his character, therefore his take is different. Like a replicant himself, he is deceived by the technology of his own being, because that’s how they made him. A poetic disagreement that only makes the narrative that much more sublime, and goes a long way toward explaining why it’s one of the best movies ever made, let alone the best sci-fi genre flick in existence. But, the origami unicorn settles it, for anyone paying attention to the plot, for me at least. “it can’t be any simpler than that,” really, can it? The guy had seen inside his head, his dreams of a unicorn, which is simply impossible under any other circumstance. But, I wouldn’t want to rob anyone of their take on it, either. That’s what art is for; great art in particular. The question is raised again in the superb sequel, via metaphor, and handled with real ingenuity. K asks Dekard if his dog is real, and Dekard says, “I don’t know . . . Ask him.” It’s a direct nod to the ambiguity of Dekard’s status, and the movie’s way of telling us it will remain ambiguous. However, it’s also pretty clear, if you’re paying attention, that the dog only seems real, while things are quiet. Note it’s disconnected behaviour when it’s master is brutally beaten and kidnapped, after the whole place has been blasted to smithereens? If that’s a real dog, it must have been drunk on that whiskey! Which I also took as another nod to the last movie, but this time, to Scott’s point of view: it clearly isn’t acting like a real animal, when we last see it . . . What did you think? ✌️
I'll drink to that. And she was a great actress. She played the femme fatale role in Blade Runner to perfection and captured the essence of the classical Hollywood-style femme fatale. She was too hot for Hollywood to handle.
Did you notice her in Bone Tomahawk? She never gets a closeup. But she’s the mayor’s wife in the early scenes. Much is made of the way she’s really running things in the town of Bright Hope, and how the Sheriff (Kurt Russell) doesn’t even bother to acknowledge the mayor when he’s telling her what needs to be done, before they set off on their search for the kidnapped townsfolk. Great movie, btw. But, if you haven’t seen it yet, and watch it just for her, note that she only gets 3 or 4 minutes of screen time. Warning: it’s also the most horrific horror western (is that even a genre?) ever made and NOT for the faint hearted. But you will get to see her again, and looking good. She’s aged, but nicely, like fine wine. She haunted my teenage dreams in all the best ways. I never understood how she never became a mega star? She’s talented and breathtakingly beautiful 👍
@@Silvio67 : She hated filming that scene, apparently. Because she kept setting off the metronome as was in the script, but Ford kept stopping it again, until he told her off. He was being too cool for school and kept stopping it, to make it easier for the editors to cut the shots, without having to keep the metronome in perfect time between each cut. It wasn’t what he was doing, but the way he did it that bugged her. We’ve since learned that Ford struggles with a social anxiety disorder, which makes him come off as rude and sarcastic, when he’s just being totally defensive and scared. But, she said she was genuinely frightened by Ford and, during that rough sex scene, she wasn’t acting; she was genuinely crying with fear of what he might do to her. It’s all in the mountains extra material that come with the definitive box set. ✌️
it's worth noting that the replicants aren't "artificial" in the sense that they are made of mechanical inorganic parts. they're *synthetic*, synthesized from separate biological, genetically engineered parts. they're biologically human. the point, i think, is that the differences don't really matter.
I always wanted a prequel for Bladerunner focusing on Roy Batty. I wanted to see the "attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion" and the "c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate". That would be a great movie..... if done well.
I think that might destroy Roy's character. We go into Blade Runner with the impression Roy and friends have gone rogue. At the end, we start to wonder if they were rogue, or just the product of their design and experience. If we go back to see Roy develop from a blank page, through war, the horrors of death and then come to terms that his life is cut short by design. How much will that change our view of Deckard as the good guy in the movie, who learns what it is to be human as his story develops? Knowing Roy and the other replicants are just trying in their own misguided ways, trying to hang on to life, just like humans do, make Deckard into the bad guy stopping them from reaching the answers they seek from Tyrell? What we needed from 2049 was the inverse of Blade Runner, with K being resigned to being a replicant, but his growth towards humanity changing his world view. Much like the final moments that sees Deckard realise that he and Roy are not that different during the 'tears in the rain' moment. 2049 Starts out with potential, but gets distracted by how pretty the film is and at the end we have no emotional connection with K, Deckard or his daughter.
After watching Blade Runner a million times, reading about it, watching the 2049 release, kudos to you for illuminating something I had not read before or realized, the unicorn at the end, proving that someone knew his dreams, meaning he must be a replicant. What a fantastic movie, in my list of top three movies of all time. (By the way, in the original release, I don't think the dream about the unicorn was in there, so would have been hard to realize this from the original).
Yes. Great art asks philosophical questions of its viewer. It doesn’t have to, in order to qualify as great art, but it’s truly wonderful when it does. We reach different conclusions, and that’s OK. There isn’t one answer. Though I’m firmly in Scott’s camp. Ford is a great actor, so he naturally empathised with his character. So, naturally, he’s just as deceived as Dekard is. That makes it all the more moving, from a dramatic point of view. But what else can we possibly take from the origami unicorn? The guy had seen inside his head; his dreams. Suggesting it’s actually Rachel’s dreams that Dekard is reflecting on is just reaching, with absolutely no indication given in the movie, for us to see it that way. But, I’m not about to rob anyone of what they need from a great work of art either. They’re not wrong, they’re just getting what they need. 👍
There is a cut scene from the original from when Deckard and Rachel are flying away together, and Rachel says "I think we were made for each other." Then, Deckard gets a freaked out look on his face, like he knows what that must mean. I suspect that is where the whole scene with Jared Leto comes from in 2049.
Did you guys know that there was a Blade Runner adventure game with multiple endings whre sometimes you are a replicator and somethimes you were human? I love that game. I had found it when I went through some old CD's. With some tweaks I actually got the game to run on win 7.
The thing everyone gets wrong about Blade Runner: The question people ask is... 'Is he a replicant?' The question people should be asking is...'Does it matter?' It's the entire premise of the film (and book).
How do you answer that question when we have no clue what replicants really are? Scott himself talks about them in an early interview and uses words like android, robot, and cyrborg interchangeably. Are replicants entirely biological? We have no way to know and no basis on which to decide if they're human or just machines. Like Deckard himself said, "How can it not know what it is?"
The real question to ask is, "Is anyone enlightened yet?" (sadly, the answer is still 'no') (but, just to plug it, enlightenment is here - read the Philosophy of Broader Survival, which properly classifies life, and by doing so, answers your question) (and many others).
I have been waiting for this debate for awhile, so tell me what you think. DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT 1. No matter what version of the movie, it is clearly stated that the nexus 6 model is the latest version, no models after it. For Ridley Scott to say (as he did in the video) that Deckard is an even newer model contradicts the first mins of the movie. 2. In the scene with inspector Bryant, it is clearly implied that Deckard and Bryant had know each for a period of time before the events of the movie. If Deckard was a replicant he would have to be an OLDER model with a longer lifespan. 3. The scene with inspector Bryant clearly states that only Nexus 6 replicants can develop emotions. So older model Deckard could NEVER fall in love with Rachel in the first place(A RATHER MAJOR PLOT POINT) 4. The scene with inspector Bryant also clear states that the 4 yr lifespan is a failsafe for when the emotions manifest. It can be argued that Deckard should have started to die, if not be dead well before the roof top fight, and this would have started during the love scene.( I should call it a hate scene since Harrison Ford and Sean Young hated each other) For Ridley Scott to stick a glowing eye scene, and few unicorn shots, and ignore the BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS ( that he himself put in) from the first half of the movie and state a different conclusion is incoherence at best, or maybe he was just on cocaine, like most of Hollywood in the early 80's. Interested in other thoughts.
Of course he is not. 1. Ridley Scott didn't start talking about it until after fans had brought it up, he clearly didn't think about Deckard being a replicant during filming. 2. Let's suppose for a moment Deckard is a prototype. What that means is, Tyrell corp convinced the police to hire a morose, depressed, weaker, alcoholic replicant, pretend he had worked for them before, to hunt down top of the line escaped replicants of which at least two were highly combat trained and that were actually killing people and going after Tyrell of Tyrell Corp. Let's face it, even as a human Deckard is pretty crappy...and oddly billed as one of their best. I'd hate to see the others in action. Why test such incompetence with so much on the line? If Tyrell or Tyrell Corp just wanted to test a new prototype, there would be thousands of better ways to unleash such a test. Now the movie doesn't entirely make sense anyway. The four year lifespan, being so close to finishing, why hunt them in the first place? Honestly I think Deckard should have saved himself a world of hurt and just hung out in his car for a few hours and then phoned in that Roy and Pris were dead. Why hunt them at all? You'll just catch them in the last 24 hours or so of their life span anyway and they've already killed pretty much everyone they planned to try to get more life from. They were directionless and at their end.
@@frequencydecline5250 excellent reply my friend. It never occurred to me that Ridley might have been trolling fans. My negative reaction to Ridley's troll comes from the transcript of an interview he did with author Paul Sammon, in the transcript Ridley states that if you didn't know Deckard was a replicant you were not paying attention. Classic troll that I missed. In Paul Sammon's book, he mentions that toward the end of the writing process, Ridley heard the idea of Deckard being a replicant, and thought it was a twist ending similar to the stories in "Heavy Metal" magazine. What was unclear in that account was if any clues were inserted into the theatrical cut. You are quite correct in that the movie doesn't make much sense. Anybody who studies business, or has worked in any job, knows the actions of Tyrell, and their customers do not make any sense for a "greedy capitalist society" and their "product" is not much use. I often wondered why the Deckard replicant crowd never answered the question about why the police dept did not have Deckard "programmed" with an almost Nazi zeal in hunting down the replicants? Again nice reply
@@frequencydecline5250 For years after Bladerunner Ridley Scott denied Deckard was a replicant but people kept asking that same question every time for 20 years til finally Ridley Scott said fine, OK he's Replicant and some people were "I knew it all along". IMHO Deckard being a Replicant destroys the original ending. At the end Roy Batty stands and watches Deckard strugglng to hang on, to live for even just a few minutes more. At that moment Roy Batty develops a new emotion he was not familiar with...compassion. Roy is a combat models trained to be ruthless and cold and at the end he feels compassion and displays mercy to his enemy and rescues him. In 2049 Deckard and Rachel were considered something of a miracle and their results were not reproducible.
Deckard is both human and replicant at the same time. The character was always intended to be ambiguous. People continuously debating is-he, isn'-he are really missing what both Blade Runner films are attempting to convey philosophically. All the other replicants are humans too. The films are meditations on humanity, dehumanisation, slavery etc. Can't really go into it now as I'm hungover. Sorry.
Scott is right. In his versions of the story, “it can’t be any clearer.” But the beauty of Ford’s disagreement with Scott is, as a replicant, he would be in denial, right? Just as the character of Rachel was in denial, Ford’s performance is enhanced by his own, misguided belief. Replicants that believe they’re human are, “more human than human,” Tyrell’s stated goal. It’s what makes the drama so compelling, moving and both tragic, yet optimistic . . . A bitter sweet ending. Models with an unknown termination date built in, is the ultimate gift to them, when they flee. Like the rest of us, they cannot know how long they’ve got, so their last act is a completion of their journey toward humanity. But, there’s really no need for anyone to be upset about either point of view, as that is what art is for . . . taking what YOU need from it. I might argue the point with a friend, but I wouldn’t want to rob them of their interpretation. One of the best movies ever made.
Deckard is an enhanced human. Replicants are not allowed on Earth under pain of death. Therefore he must be something else that can be allowed on Earth but still be capable of hunting and killing Replicants. He could be the Jason Borne of engineered Blade Runners complete with artificial memories. Great movie, great review.
Rules for thee but not for me. The government could have found it expedient to use replicants to control replicants. I am sure a man like Tyrell would have promised the Moon and played ball too.
@@1pcfred A replicant designed to hunt replicants would have more in common with the Terminators than Rick Deckard--who, as a cop, seems barely able to get out of his own way.
When I saw Rachel in 2049 I was blown away... that effect looks so good man, I remember there being like a second of uncanny valley but I could be wrong because looking at it there she looks spot on and if you didn’t know that she couldn’t possibly still be that young, to an uninformed viewer I doubt they would be able to tell
The unicorn part that was forced into the movie was taken from another Ridley's movie legend that was filmed years after BR. Don't be fooled into thinking it was deleted from BR.
The ending of the original BR was seamless even if it was so called forced in but the unicorn was not seamlessly placed in at all and feels completely out of place in the movie. Thing is Ridley is a good director but he is terrible in writing and even worst for taking credit for ideas that was not his, Blade runner and Alien for example two great movies that Rileys claims are his but clearly are not as you can see in the credits.
@@UberNoodleThe ending of the theatrical cut was the ending of the script, sans that Gaf isn't chasing them, which is how the script ends, so, while they may have used the Shining's footage, it was not forced in. The unicorn dream is not in the script. It was inserted by Scott because he wanted Deckard to be a replicant, even though a unbiased reading of the script would clearly suggest otherwise. Scott left out the scenes with Deckard's old friend Holden, because it would have made that fact even more clear. Also, how did Gaf get Deckard's files? If he knew he was a Replicant, than did Bryant? Both of them hated skin-jobs, so why would they have permitted Deckard to work among them for so long? How would Tyrell have planted Deckard into the department when replicants were illegal on earth, and it was a department whose specialized in hunting and killing replicants? None of it makes sense.
Too many people fall for Ridley's nonsense reasons in his different cuts of BR and tries to make it seam like the whole movie is his brain child which it clearly wasn't when you read the credits. Here something else they say Harrrison hated doing the voice over work and sounds like he is calling it in but never once has Ford said anything about the voice over and in truth he never sounded bored or like he was calling it in, it sound just right for the character, Tired of the job, wish he never took it and just wants to rest. Too many sheep watch video's like this and just except what they watched is fact without going back and rewatching all the versions of the movie and confirming what was said fits and the worst part is video's like this just repeats what other video have already said with the same results. People please go watch every version of BR and all the documentary on BR first.
@@sailorrenek7823 I'm a big fan of the theatrical cut. The only reason people enjoy the director's cut is A) they are told it is superior and B) they are already familiar with the story. If BR had been put out originally, without the noir voice-over, it would be as forgotten Damnation Alley. As you said, Harrison Ford's demeanor in the voice over is exactly right for the character's state of being.
I say Deckard is a replicant: My reasoning is this...He's supposed to be a retired Blade Runner, but Bryant has to explain to Deckard why Replicants are coming back to earth? Wouldn't this be something Deckard knows? To me, Deckard, just before the events of the movie, maybe months, maybe a year, is put into service and is one of the newer models, like Rachel, that doesn't have a 4 year life span. Deckard is simply tasked with living until called upon to retire the escaped Batty and crew. I believe that at one point humans were used as Blade Runners, but the constant murdering of the Replicants forced the government to use other Replicants to do the job. Deckard is then 'called' back out of retirement, explained what is happening, and sent off to retire Batty and the others. Also, Bryant tells Gaff that Deckard is the best and that he needs his old magic, but Deckard seems woefully under prepared for Batty and really only retires Zhora and Pris, and gets beaten pretty badly by Leon then Roy. Regarding the eyes...with so much attention to detail that Scott put into this movie, I think its highly unlikely he let something like Ford's eyes glow in a movie that specifically shows Replicant eyes glowing, if Deckard isn't a replicant. Finally, Deckard being old in 2049 doesn't prove he is human...We all know that Rachel was a replicant, yet she had a baby. Tyrell's whole goal was more Human than Human...and making a Replicant that can reproduce and or age would be his ultimate goal.
I don’t think he actually explains why. He says they might be trying to infiltrate the Tyrell Corp, but either way a lot of times dialogue is for the sake of the audience. Deckard being a replicant also would mean the Tyrell Corp made a morose melancholy alcoholic replicant which they then rely on to protect them and Tyrell himself, from their top of the line combat models. Deckard isn’t all that good of a shot, and also is physically weaker. Not exactly who you’d want on the case. Bryant never shows any disdain for Deckard either and has clearly worked with him for a long time. And Deckard knows and worked with Holden for a long time. Bryant treats him like an old buddy, not like a “skin job.” If the eyes “glowing” were enough you wouldn’t need the voight kampff test.
My argument against him being one is that prejudice against replicants was blatant, and I'd think he would have gotten some from fellow officers, like "Joe" did in the sequel.
Deckard is one of the newer models? You mean a replicant so real that it's weaker and slower and not all that smart either? Wow, that's some wild technology. Like how about we make some shovels with big holes in the scoop?
I disagree with the question of Deckard's nature to be the ultimate question. The question implies that there is an important hierarchical difference between replicant and human. The question is why should we care?
Is Deckard replicant? To me, he's not but ultimately it boils down to one simple thing, does it really matter? The same idea of Deckard finally understanding Roy at the end of Blade Runner, replicant or not, Roy is a living being.
Well, it's good to have a sci-fi movie with an obscure story, and a Intriguing vague ending.... I myself, saw the first release many years ago...so I"m biased for it.... I always considered it a 'film noir' style.... and the 'annoying sounding' narration fits with the style... just saying... now, when you watch it without the 'narration'...some parts become vague.... did Racheal have a 4 year lifespan?? We find out that in his narration, don't we... well.... and the original DIDN'T have the unicorn 'dream' at all....I say, the original release is a entirely 'different' story...
The script doesn't have the unicorn dream either, but it does have the unicorn origami. Deckard wasn't meant to be a replicant, but Scott, who was a director for hire when the first director quit, decided he wanted to change it.
That's right, it's called an open ending, it's up to the viewer and to determine what Deckard is or is not. To debate this is simply an exercise in futility which makes the film much less than it actually is.
Rick Deckard wasn't meant to be a Replicant. Ridley Scott, who was a director for hire, came in and altered the story for his own artsy agenda. The origami unicorn at the end is in the script, whereas the unicorn dream is not. Additionally, there were deleted scenes where Deckard visits his partner Holden in the hospital and they have an argument where Holden accuses him of having sex with Zhora "You fucked a washing machine, and you shut it off. So what?" Leaving in the Holden scenes would show, as it if it wasn't already clear with Bryant's conversations, that Deckard has been at this a long time and that he is well known. The idea that he is a replicant is patently silly. It was Ridley Scott being allowed to muck with the script for his own narcissism. I firmly believe that Scott purposefully did the lighting trick with the eyes, just like he added the unicorn dream, to push his twisted narrative. Obviously it is a lighting gimmick for the audience, or it wouldn't take more than a hundred questions on the Voight-Kompf test to discover a Replicant. Tyrell wouldn't just have to imbed memories in his Deckard replicant, he'd have to plant Deckard in the police department long ago, AND, would that would have to be known to others, like Gaff, in order for him to read the files. Given Bryant and Gaff's hatred of skin-jobs, this seems more than unlikely. And, as I said before, he'd have to have fooled his old friend Holden as well, who also hated replicants. Deckard knew about Rachel because after discovering that she was a replicant, he no doubt force Tyrell to give him data on her. Her even leaving the Tyrell building makes her a target, since Replicants are illegal. I could go on. Tyrell made a replicant hunting replicant that was inferior to other replicants in physicality? None of it makes sense.
Agreed. Plus, the very idea that it takes 100 questions to figure out who's a replicant is insane. Any real corporation would have them stamped all over with serial numbers. Scan their fingerprints and Bingo! Hit a key on a fob and shut them down.
@@Cryptonymicus Good point. I audibly groaned when I was playing Detroit: Become Human and it was revealed they could suddenly take off their HD light on their temple. If you are going to make near human android, you'd always want something to easily identify them.
Its an open ended movie, similar to Pulp Fiction never ending debate on whats in the briefcase, the directors will never tell you because if up to you...Great video.
i just think its better that he had replicant parts to save his life after he had a realy bad accident to explain the eyes and how he became a top bladerunner cos of his replicant parts giving him more strength and durabilaty.
Gaff is demonstrating his empathy toward the pair by way of the origami unicorn figurine. He knows. He understands that Decker does as well, though on a subconcious level. Perhaps Gaff is a replicant as well?
The rare video that actually gets Blade Runner ultimately isn't just another vision of a dystopian future. It's about how life - fragile, fallible, and fleeting - is precious to, and for, everyone. This is an anti-war, anti-violence, anti-hatred masterpiece.
Or, perhaps Gaff left the origami figure as a message but it being a unicorn was simply a coincidence. IMO, the best way to present Deckard is to make his humanity ambiguous with evidence either way but never enough to actually draw a proper conclusion.
*It's funny...I feel the same way about my life from 19 - 35 as Batty does at the end.* From the beginning of the online age, to raves, to industrial goth clubs to playing pool and drinking my life away to karaoke nights,...I've done and seen things most people wouldn't believe and they will all be lost in time.
RIdley Scott had 20 years to decide what the film was about and this from the guy who couldn't seem to decide if replicants are cyborgs, robots, or androids, since in an early interview he uses the words interchangeably. He does a great job of world building and a lousy job of storytelling. 1) If Deckard is a replicant he's the weakest, slowest, stupidest replicant in the film. And apparently Harrison Ford didn't get the memo since all the rogue replicants are played like robots and Deckard is played like a human. 2) Deckard is a lousy detective. He tracks down exactly ONE replicant: Zora. Leon finds Deckard. Bryant sends Deckard to JF's apartment and again Priss and Roy find Deckard. And, ok, Deckard retires Zora and Priss but would have been killed by Roy and Leon and Priss except for luck. 3) Scott knows so little about police work and mysteries that during the production Harrison Ford had to tell him, "I'm playing a detective who does no detecting." In the earliest scenes filmed Deckard spent most of his time narrating because Scott didn't know how to tell the story. 4) The idea that the LAPD (or whoever) is going to assign one detective to track down and retire an entire squad of replicants is just idiotic. Put it in the modern world and substitute "terrorists" for "repllicants" and guess how many hundreds of real life cops would take part in the hunt. In short, Scott did such an awful job with this film that his attempt at revisionist history is just laughable. Sure, it's a great visual feast. But that's all it is. And nothing is more hilarious than in BR 2049 when Deckard says what a great blade runner he is. Yeah, with blade runners like him the Earth would be overrun by rogue replicants.
I've always felt the exact same way. If Deckard's a replicant, why is he so much weaker than the rest? He could be an older, more obsolete model, but why would the police send a weaker model? It's not like Terminator 2 where the resistance sends a T-800 model with the same appearance as the first Terminator to fight a more advanced T-1000 prototype because they have no other choice. The police could easily commission a more advanced model to be made to get the job done. Also, why would they send a replicant anyway? The whole point is to hunt down rogue replicants that wish to be human. No one's perfect, but isn't an actual human potentially less likely to sympathize with the other replicants? If I were going to send something weaker after them, it might as well be a flesh-and-blood human.
@@TheLukeMonster You're spot on about Terminator and you're hitting on the biggest flaw in BR: the "police department." Total fail. No police department in a major city is going to assign one detective to hunt down what amounts to a terrorist cell coming to town. Remember, these guys already slaughtered a couple dozen people before they even reached Earth. The cops would have a task force ready and waiting. They would have an army of cops working the job and that would include FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, and agencies most people never even heard of. Hell, they'd call out everybody including the postal inspectors and the IRS. So, I mean, it's a great looking film and the soundtrack is great but the basic premise is total fantasy.
I agree that Wallace was probably messing with Deckard. However I don’t have a set verdict on whether Deckard was a replicant or human, but I think I’d side with him being human. But it doesn’t have to be set and stone which is why we still talk about the film over 35 years later
In the original film the unicorn represents Rachel - the replicant with no fixed life span. When Gaff says "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" he is saying to Deckard that they might not have long together but that Deckard wasn't living life before he met her. When Deckard nods to show he understands this.
Lol I kind of wondered that too. At least for certain tasks/jobs/assignments it would seem to make sense. That would though likely change the nature of the piece and bring race into it which was never the point Dick was exploring.
People think that emotions are what make humans human, which an artificially intelligent entity would laugh at, understanding what emotions really are: Tools to affect outcomes, which is easily programmed into an A.I. entity, and easily learned by self-learning A.I.. The key question is whether a consciousness (no matter what its physical platform) is enlightened or not (see the Philosophy of Broader Survival for that).
I grew up with Blade Runner and the multiple incarnations of each cut released. After all is said and done, to me, it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. During the film, he learnt what humanity was. Blade Runner 2049 missed this point completely. It was a pretty film, but it it's far to ham fisted to be worthy of the title Blade Runner. It's just a pretty collection of exposition and clunky story elements in an overlong film. Somehow they, and I blame the studio more than Villeneuve, managed to waste the characters. K was just a walking placeholder, he has almost no agency. Leto's Wallace was criminally underused and Luv overused as a plot Macgyver able to 'happen' to be in the right place at the right time with the right fix, that almost works. Deckard went from a self aware and empowered character with autonomous agency, to a token callback to the original. The Las Vegas scene is jarring and in it's over-exuberance completely manages to miss the decadence of the old city and instead replies on the whitewash of nostalgia with a popular period music track. At the end of the original, I felt a connection with Deckard. Was he a replicant? Was he a human? It didn't matter. At the end of BR 2049 I lost that connection with Deckard, Didn't care about K. I just wondered where the nearest bathroom was. The three short films released before BR 2049 promised so much. They seemed to capture the feelings and emotions the original drew out of me. 2049 failed in so many ways.
This debate is moot. Ridley Scott is the director. He says Deckard is a replicant. Case closed. It doesn’t matter what Harrison Ford thinks, or Hampton Fancher thinks. Scott is the director. His explanation is the ONLY explanation. He is the “author” of the film. Plus....it’s much more interesting that way.
One thing's for sure: Deckard being a replicant or an ordinary human is totally over-analyzed. It's a pretty meaningless aspect to the whole great movie in its entirety. I don't understand why some people are so hung up on it either way, it's a minor plot aspect when you look at the movie overall. Except as a Hollywood marketing technique to keep things 'controversial' - which the movie doesn't need. It's fantastic on its own without this grade-school movie student debate anyway. Like looking for meaning in a Tarantino hyper-commercialized movie - it just isn't there.
Is it a vase or two faces, it’s a question of reality vs perception. We want Decker to be human but in the end if we real see the truth then the clues are that he’s the more human than human replicant model that Tyrell spoke of.
Deckard is a replicant, period. Doesn't matter what Harrison Ford wants, he an actor who reads lines he's given. He has no expiration date, like Rachel.
I find it interesting that this video ignores the source material. There are differences with the movie that I find striking. Philip K Dick's story is set in San Francisco in a world that reels from Nuclear disaster. That's why life on the planet is compromised with shit like replicas and the scarcity of animals. Having real animals is a motivating factor for Deckard to take the job. The scenes with the rain has a different impact---its fallout. Also Deckard is married. I know the movie is a different creature (a replica of the original?) but I often think the question the movie raises is a puzzle with no solution----which is the way advertising places products into people's heads
why do they make these FUTURISTIC movies not so far from now?? They should have them take place in 2100 or something....not 2019 because in 2100 most of us wont be alive to see what the future may actually hold. But when you make it a year like 2019....as soon as 2010 comes, the movie could potentially lose interest because people are gonna be like....UHH YEAH, pretty sure in 9 years were not gonna be driving space ships to work....im just saying. THATS BEING SAID...this is one of my favorite movies LOL AND NO NO NO AND NO!!!! Deckard is NOT a replicant, he is 100 percent human. Thats what makes the films climatic moments so INTICING....because a man square off with a cyborg and somehow succeeds. If i found out Deckard was a replicant the film would go from a 10/10 to an 8/10
It's too bad they cast two of the driest actors of their respective generations to play the leads in both films. Ford at least showed some life in his acting. Peanut Head Gosling looked like he was permanently sleep-walking.
Hat ein Mensch und eine künstlich erschaffener Mensch ein Kind oder zwei künstlich erschaffene Menschen ein Kind? Wie geht die Menschheit um mit diesem Kind? Ist so eine Zukunft denkbar? Rick hatte Respekt vor den künstlichen Menschen, genau wie vor den natürlichen.
The meaning of any film is unique to the watcher , same as music ........... why do people need 'answers' when most have different answers .............. whats wrong with just being happy with your own meaning .........The Individual forms their own opinion ......... sheep ask others for their opinion
I just have to say: when a piece of art is left with ambiguous ending (open or not fully resolved) is it perhaps on purpose? I get the point of this video and i get the people in need of this. But fuck if I don't hate it. In High school I got an assignment to analyse a piece of poetry. Even then I thought it was unnatural. There's obviously a market for analyzing stuff like this. But then again for who is it for? If you don't get it or can't live whit uncertainty, then as Brie Larson put it elocuently "It's not made for you". I absolutely love your videos about troubled history of some productions but have to categorically dislike all this "excplained for you"-shit. Are you doing videos for idiots or for people with some knowledge with films; as they say in Tokyo Fist: "Why don't you make your mind?" (apologies for horrible translation, lol)
It is the acme of stupidity to say both theories of Deckard as human and as android are valid. Ridley Scott was the fucking director! This, ultimately, was his decision, and he admitted as such. Harrison Ford was an actor; one who did not have any substantial creative control, so you go with the director's vision; not the hired actor! Deckard as android made for a more intriguing plot and the biggest divergence from the novel. True fans are not debating this shit anymore. Even the sequel assumed the protagonist was a replicant. You also got it wrong about Deckard retiring all the replicants. Deckard was ORDERED to kill Rachel. He obviously refused. Rachel was a special model, and her lifespan was never specified. Deckard, left on a dystopic Earth, was a fucking android. This was 'The Final Cut' meaning the final director's cut as you mentioned; Ridley's movie, Ridley's vision, Ridley's idea that Dekkard be an android.
Yusef, Except Ridley didn't come up with Deckard being a replicant until quite awhile after the movie came out. Deckard potentially being an android is explored in the book. And if he is or not, is hardly the biggest divergence from the book. Hell the movie plot is driven by termination dates, which don't appear in the book. Animals and empathy, aren't in the movie, the stripper is an opera singer, there is an entire fake police bureau of replicants in the books. Mercerism is absent in the movie, which the entire end of Electric Sheep focuses on. Deckard is married in the book, single in the movie. Deckard is fairly competent in the book, but in the movie not so much. The book he sets a 24 hour retirement record. ....really the movie has very little in common with the book. And as I have said before: Let's suppose for a moment Deckard is a replicant. This means, Tyrell Corp and/or the police opted to send a weaker depressed alcoholic replicant after some state of the art ones. And not just under any circumstances, but under the circumstances where they were trying to infiltrate and were killing Tyrell's genius employees and presumably coming after him as well. So, let's say you have six world class assassins coming after you. Would you go to the police and say, hey, I want to test out hobo bill here, so just deputize him real quick and put him on my case. So the larger picture then is: Tyrell makes a few "special" models. Rachael being one of them, Deckard another. And for whatever reason opt to make him retired, aging, weaker than any previous models, alcoholic, divorced, messy, a bad shot, etc. And then convince the police, since replicants are illegal on the movie earth presumably with bribing them, to take that replicant on, pretend he has always been around, and put him on the escaped replicants led by an advanced combat model. And no, 2049 did not assume he was a replicant. They left it pretty unanswered.
@@frequencydecline5250 I read the book. Deckard, in the book, was, upon closer inspection, human. There was little ambiguity about that in the book. Yes, there were plenty of other differences, however, the point of this video was to explain the ending of the film which strongly suggested Deckard was an android. The plot of the book was severely altered to the point that it is almost irrelevant. What does matter is was Deckard human or machine? In the original film, why were there origami left for Deckard to find especially one of a unicorn? If he were human, and since we did not see Deckard talking to anyone about his dreams, how could someone know that kind of detail about Deckard and why would they let him know that they were aware? The 2049 version made it clear that the protagonist, NOT Deckard, was an android, and that was what I said. That is the main reason why I hated the latest version of Blade Runner. It implied Deckard was human.
xcellent toe bee! so? nexus design models do not knowingly kill (in the sense of make dead as word typically known as, not necessarily sense of "change" or "by effecting & interacting with, making something different in one or several significant ways", definition) nexus design model do not knowingly kill/make-dead other nexus models, even other versions! one of the key design features, that made them Superior to humans for settling the new world's, planets & moons and such! they simply don't, unless, toe bee, there is some grander intrigue going on, the purposes of Tyrell Corporation in 'first' movie that include means of nexus models being slain, are the breeding of Rachel, supposedly we are told nexus6 model, possible a nexus6 variant, yes? in any case breeding her with Deckard, leading a situation that achieves a mating, with why Deckard particularly chosen, in fact a slayer of nexus models, and the best at it? perhaps unknown, the question apparently open as whether he nexus model replicant, or human, very intriguing question.. Deckard was set-up in first movie, the question is? what is the set-up to who or whom? In the second movie, and what are the purposes of the revised Corporation under new ownership, the particular intrigue or even several as to why nexus models would be slain? in the second movie Joe is clearly aware of he is slaying other nexus models? what purposes of the Corporation, as well the nexus model replicants? would be so severe they would go so far with even awareness to a nexus model is slaying another of it's kind?? as we know, Tyrell himself is slain in the first movie, by Roy, who is not given, there clearly seems evasion on Dr Tyrell's part about how to keep a nexus6 model alive longer, and strangely, a moment of unease, not at all typical of the always confident doctor and corporate master, Roy gets frustrated with his human creator, then we see clearly Tyrell being suffocated, his head & eyes squeezed, as always he looks quite sharp and tidy, well dressed even in readying for sleepy retire, but he is undone, made dead, Tyrell Security with some type of apparent lapse we are not told about, how exactly Roy too, would be able to get in.... so not only in the first movie are we left wondering about Deckard's identity, but also of Tyrell, at least the slain creature of Tyrell's figure, was that a replicant in Tyrell's form? or? did Tyrell allow his own death? and if so were or was there a replicant of Tyrell, still then? in form, & implanted with his memories some or many & which? we also simply aren't clear if Roy did in fact die, we are told nexus6 models have a 4yr lifespan, the only verification of that is Roy's apparent death, when he lets Deckard live and even saves him.... did he die? if so and the 4yr lifespan notation given to LAPD by Tyrell Corporation true? that also replicants found out about? did he die but as he exceeded his capacities in the fight with Deckard, even going so far as to heft Deckard up to safe purchase amongst the heights, when both had run out energy basically too tired for anything more, for different bodily & mental reasons or the same? if so? knowingly exceeded or unknowingly? we are left with numerous important questions.... non-explanations & non-answers, with the second 'following' film even more, but clearly, the nexus model replicants were an extremely sensitive issue, many or even most of the humans were uneasy about the whole project, how Tyrell Corporation even was able to proceed with the project in the first place? ..is unclear, what is clear, is LAPD was contracted to slay any nexus models on Earth before their 4yr lifespan ended..... (strangely enough, Roy and several other replicants, well it was a surprise the 4yr lifespan, they did not see or even hear about any nexus6 models die in such way, when they were in the offplanet colonies, if nexus6 models were dying after 4yrs, it would quickly have become common knowledge among them all, so at least we are left with one answer, nexus6 models do not die after 4yrs, likely something some random number of lifespan best to appease those against the project, get them to accept it, partly faulty 'machines', in several ways, inferior to humans in what were considered the most important things making a creature alive, and with just a very short lifespan there was no way to get them beyond 4yrs, technically impossible, but they would be able to do unwanted jobs in tough horrible conditions offplanet)
I know Blade Runner is filled to the brim with nuances but I just don’t understand the meaning of the origami unicorn and Deckard’s dream of the unicorn. WHATS IT ALL MEAN?!
Great channel and ground breaking film, but I have to greatly disagree that Deckard and Rachel "fell in love". He trapped her, then angrily and obviously forced himself on her with frightening disregard to any possible feelings she may have had. She later escaped with him probably so that she could also escape the tyranny she'd known all her life, and I had always assumed she would have split off from Deckard as soon as he fell asleep. Or killed him for his cold brutality towards her. I believe the sequel retconned this aspect solely to continue the debate about life.
Lol and the unicorn scene was also not included in the movie and was part of another film. So it’s also pieced together like the outtakes or the shining. Your point?
I love how Scott says Dekard is a replicant & Ford says he isn't. It just adds to the ambiguity! What a lovely video, thanks 🙂
dekard probebly had a bad accidend and had replicant parts to save his life and that is why he is able to take a beating from the replicants that he is hunting.
Right? . . . Ford’s belief just adds to the whole thing. After all, just like Rachel, Dekard would be in denial, even if he was a replicant, right? “More human than human,” was Tyrell’s stated goal, and the amusement he must have gotten, out of watching a replicant test a replicant, struggling to get a result in an unusually long Voight Kamph test, makes that scene so loaded on second viewing. Of course Ford’s empathy is with his character, therefore his take is different. Like a replicant himself, he is deceived by the technology of his own being, because that’s how they made him. A poetic disagreement that only makes the narrative that much more sublime, and goes a long way toward explaining why it’s one of the best movies ever made, let alone the best sci-fi genre flick in existence. But, the origami unicorn settles it, for anyone paying attention to the plot, for me at least. “it can’t be any simpler than that,” really, can it? The guy had seen inside his head, his dreams of a unicorn, which is simply impossible under any other circumstance. But, I wouldn’t want to rob anyone of their take on it, either. That’s what art is for; great art in particular.
The question is raised again in the superb sequel, via metaphor, and handled with real ingenuity. K asks Dekard if his dog is real, and Dekard says, “I don’t know . . . Ask him.” It’s a direct nod to the ambiguity of Dekard’s status, and the movie’s way of telling us it will remain ambiguous. However, it’s also pretty clear, if you’re paying attention, that the dog only seems real, while things are quiet. Note it’s disconnected behaviour when it’s master is brutally beaten and kidnapped, after the whole place has been blasted to smithereens? If that’s a real dog, it must have been drunk on that whiskey! Which I also took as another nod to the last movie, but this time, to Scott’s point of view: it clearly isn’t acting like a real animal, when we last see it . . . What did you think? ✌️
What is your thinking !!!!!! We all have an opinion ? !!
*1980s - early 1990s Sean Young was super beautiful.*
I'll drink to that. And she was a great actress. She played the femme fatale role in Blade Runner to perfection and captured the essence of the classical Hollywood-style femme fatale. She was too hot for Hollywood to handle.
one of my favorite scenes is when she is playing the piano and undoing her hair
Did you notice her in Bone Tomahawk? She never gets a closeup. But she’s the mayor’s wife in the early scenes. Much is made of the way she’s really running things in the town of Bright Hope, and how the Sheriff (Kurt Russell) doesn’t even bother to acknowledge the mayor when he’s telling her what needs to be done, before they set off on their search for the kidnapped townsfolk. Great movie, btw. But, if you haven’t seen it yet, and watch it just for her, note that she only gets 3 or 4 minutes of screen time. Warning: it’s also the most horrific horror western (is that even a genre?) ever made and NOT for the faint hearted. But you will get to see her again, and looking good. She’s aged, but nicely, like fine wine. She haunted my teenage dreams in all the best ways. I never understood how she never became a mega star? She’s talented and breathtakingly beautiful 👍
@@Silvio67 : She hated filming that scene, apparently. Because she kept setting off the metronome as was in the script, but Ford kept stopping it again, until he told her off. He was being too cool for school and kept stopping it, to make it easier for the editors to cut the shots, without having to keep the metronome in perfect time between each cut. It wasn’t what he was doing, but the way he did it that bugged her. We’ve since learned that Ford struggles with a social anxiety disorder, which makes him come off as rude and sarcastic, when he’s just being totally defensive and scared. But, she said she was genuinely frightened by Ford and, during that rough sex scene, she wasn’t acting; she was genuinely crying with fear of what he might do to her. It’s all in the mountains extra material that come with the definitive box set. ✌️
it's worth noting that the replicants aren't "artificial" in the sense that they are made of mechanical inorganic parts. they're *synthetic*, synthesized from separate biological, genetically engineered parts. they're biologically human.
the point, i think, is that the differences don't really matter.
@D B What cut of the move was that?
@D B Whoa, risky click, but worth it. Wish they kept that scene in.
I always wanted a prequel for Bladerunner focusing on Roy Batty. I wanted to see the "attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion" and the "c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate". That would be a great movie..... if done well.
I think that might destroy Roy's character. We go into Blade Runner with the impression Roy and friends have gone rogue. At the end, we start to wonder if they were rogue, or just the product of their design and experience.
If we go back to see Roy develop from a blank page, through war, the horrors of death and then come to terms that his life is cut short by design. How much will that change our view of Deckard as the good guy in the movie, who learns what it is to be human as his story develops?
Knowing Roy and the other replicants are just trying in their own misguided ways, trying to hang on to life, just like humans do, make Deckard into the bad guy stopping them from reaching the answers they seek from Tyrell?
What we needed from 2049 was the inverse of Blade Runner, with K being resigned to being a replicant, but his growth towards humanity changing his world view. Much like the final moments that sees Deckard realise that he and Roy are not that different during the 'tears in the rain' moment. 2049 Starts out with potential, but gets distracted by how pretty the film is and at the end we have no emotional connection with K, Deckard or his daughter.
You wouldn’t believe it though...
My word what a brilliant aspect !!!!!!!!!!
After watching Blade Runner a million times, reading about it, watching the 2049 release, kudos to you for illuminating something I had not read before or realized, the unicorn at the end, proving that someone knew his dreams, meaning he must be a replicant. What a fantastic movie, in my list of top three movies of all time. (By the way, in the original release, I don't think the dream about the unicorn was in there, so would have been hard to realize this from the original).
He wasn't even dreaming, he was awake at the time. Plus Tyrell doesn't say anything about dreams just memories. The whole thing is fudged in the edit.
Either way it's poetic, and leads the audience through questions about the nature of humanity.
Yes. Great art asks philosophical questions of its viewer. It doesn’t have to, in order to qualify as great art, but it’s truly wonderful when it does. We reach different conclusions, and that’s OK. There isn’t one answer. Though I’m firmly in Scott’s camp. Ford is a great actor, so he naturally empathised with his character. So, naturally, he’s just as deceived as Dekard is. That makes it all the more moving, from a dramatic point of view. But what else can we possibly take from the origami unicorn? The guy had seen inside his head; his dreams. Suggesting it’s actually Rachel’s dreams that Dekard is reflecting on is just reaching, with absolutely no indication given in the movie, for us to see it that way. But, I’m not about to rob anyone of what they need from a great work of art either. They’re not wrong, they’re just getting what they need. 👍
There is a cut scene from the original from when Deckard and Rachel are flying away together, and Rachel says "I think we were made for each other." Then, Deckard gets a freaked out look on his face, like he knows what that must mean. I suspect that is where the whole scene with Jared Leto comes from in 2049.
the best film i ever saw in my whole life !
most of sci fi in 80-90' are great... now days arn't
Blade Runner year is upon us....only 7 more months til November...
That bloody unicorn
Did you guys know that there was a Blade Runner adventure game with multiple endings whre sometimes you are a replicator and somethimes you were human? I love that game. I had found it when I went through some old CD's. With some tweaks I actually got the game to run on win 7.
i played that one back in the day after its release and loved it :) really captured the atmosphere of the original.
That was a great game!
Wow I remember this game - I played it at my cousins house like 25 years ago
The thing everyone gets wrong about Blade Runner:
The question people ask is... 'Is he a replicant?'
The question people should be asking is...'Does it matter?'
It's the entire premise of the film (and book).
How do you answer that question when we have no clue what replicants really are? Scott himself talks about them in an early interview and uses words like android, robot, and cyrborg interchangeably. Are replicants entirely biological? We have no way to know and no basis on which to decide if they're human or just machines. Like Deckard himself said, "How can it not know what it is?"
The real question to ask is, "Is anyone enlightened yet?" (sadly, the answer is still 'no') (but, just to plug it, enlightenment is here - read the Philosophy of Broader Survival, which properly classifies life, and by doing so, answers your question) (and many others).
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in
I have been waiting for this debate for awhile, so tell me what you think.
DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT
1. No matter what version of the movie, it is clearly stated that the nexus 6 model is the latest version, no models after it. For Ridley Scott to say (as he did in the video) that Deckard is an even newer model contradicts the first mins of the movie.
2. In the scene with inspector Bryant, it is clearly implied that Deckard and Bryant had know each for a period of time before the events of the movie. If Deckard was a replicant he would have to be an OLDER model with a longer lifespan.
3. The scene with inspector Bryant clearly states that only Nexus 6 replicants can develop emotions. So older model Deckard could NEVER fall in love with Rachel in the first place(A RATHER MAJOR PLOT POINT)
4. The scene with inspector Bryant also clear states that the 4 yr lifespan is a failsafe for when the emotions manifest. It can be argued that Deckard should have started to die, if not be dead well before the roof top fight, and this would have started during the love scene.( I should call it a hate scene since Harrison Ford and Sean Young hated each other)
For Ridley Scott to stick a glowing eye scene, and few unicorn shots, and ignore the BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS ( that he himself put in) from the first half of the movie and state a different conclusion is incoherence at best, or maybe he was just on cocaine, like most of Hollywood in the early 80's.
Interested in other thoughts.
Of course he is not.
1. Ridley Scott didn't start talking about it until after fans had brought it up, he clearly didn't think about Deckard being a replicant during filming.
2. Let's suppose for a moment Deckard is a prototype. What that means is, Tyrell corp convinced the police to hire a morose, depressed, weaker, alcoholic replicant, pretend he had worked for them before, to hunt down top of the line escaped replicants of which at least two were highly combat trained and that were actually killing people and going after Tyrell of Tyrell Corp. Let's face it, even as a human Deckard is pretty crappy...and oddly billed as one of their best. I'd hate to see the others in action. Why test such incompetence with so much on the line? If Tyrell or Tyrell Corp just wanted to test a new prototype, there would be thousands of better ways to unleash such a test.
Now the movie doesn't entirely make sense anyway. The four year lifespan, being so close to finishing, why hunt them in the first place? Honestly I think Deckard should have saved himself a world of hurt and just hung out in his car for a few hours and then phoned in that Roy and Pris were dead. Why hunt them at all? You'll just catch them in the last 24 hours or so of their life span anyway and they've already killed pretty much everyone they planned to try to get more life from. They were directionless and at their end.
@@frequencydecline5250 excellent reply my friend. It never occurred to me that Ridley might have been trolling fans. My negative reaction to Ridley's troll comes from the transcript of an interview he did with author Paul Sammon, in the transcript Ridley states that if you didn't know Deckard was a replicant you were not paying attention. Classic troll that I missed.
In Paul Sammon's book, he mentions that toward the end of the writing process, Ridley heard the idea of Deckard being a replicant, and thought it was a twist ending similar to the stories in "Heavy Metal" magazine. What was unclear in that account was if any clues were inserted into the theatrical cut.
You are quite correct in that the movie doesn't make much sense. Anybody who studies business, or has worked in any job, knows the actions of Tyrell, and their customers do not make any sense for a "greedy capitalist society" and their "product" is not much use.
I often wondered why the Deckard replicant crowd never answered the question about why the police dept did not have Deckard "programmed"
with an almost Nazi zeal in hunting down the replicants?
Again nice reply
@@frequencydecline5250 For years after Bladerunner Ridley Scott denied Deckard was a replicant but people kept asking that same question every time for 20 years til finally Ridley Scott said fine, OK he's Replicant and some people were "I knew it all along".
IMHO Deckard being a Replicant destroys the original ending. At the end Roy Batty stands and watches Deckard strugglng to hang on, to live for even just a few minutes more. At that moment Roy Batty develops a new emotion he was not familiar with...compassion. Roy is a combat models trained to be ruthless and cold and at the end he feels compassion and displays mercy to his enemy and rescues him. In 2049 Deckard and Rachel were considered something of a miracle and their results were not reproducible.
@@Anlushac11 Yeah and that is pretty much what I pointed out.
Deckard is both human and replicant at the same time. The character was always intended to be ambiguous. People continuously debating is-he, isn'-he are really missing what both Blade Runner films are attempting to convey philosophically. All the other replicants are humans too.
The films are meditations on humanity, dehumanisation, slavery etc.
Can't really go into it now as I'm hungover. Sorry.
Scott is right. In his versions of the story, “it can’t be any clearer.” But the beauty of Ford’s disagreement with Scott is, as a replicant, he would be in denial, right? Just as the character of Rachel was in denial, Ford’s performance is enhanced by his own, misguided belief. Replicants that believe they’re human are, “more human than human,” Tyrell’s stated goal. It’s what makes the drama so compelling, moving and both tragic, yet optimistic . . . A bitter sweet ending. Models with an unknown termination date built in, is the ultimate gift to them, when they flee. Like the rest of us, they cannot know how long they’ve got, so their last act is a completion of their journey toward humanity. But, there’s really no need for anyone to be upset about either point of view, as that is what art is for . . . taking what YOU need from it. I might argue the point with a friend, but I wouldn’t want to rob them of their interpretation. One of the best movies ever made.
2:20 I never thought about Deckard Spitting? Is that what that was ?
Deckard is an enhanced human. Replicants are not allowed on Earth under pain of death. Therefore he must be something else that can be allowed on Earth but still be capable of hunting and killing Replicants. He could be the Jason Borne of engineered Blade Runners complete with artificial memories. Great movie, great review.
Rules for thee but not for me. The government could have found it expedient to use replicants to control replicants. I am sure a man like Tyrell would have promised the Moon and played ball too.
@@1pcfred A replicant designed to hunt replicants would have more in common with the Terminators than Rick Deckard--who, as a cop, seems barely able to get out of his own way.
@@Cryptonymicus all part of the programming. Can't have anyone catching on. Including the subject himself.
I believe Deckard has replicant eyes, as well as perhaps other manufactured parts, maybe even parts of his brain, but is fundamentally human.
When I saw Rachel in 2049 I was blown away... that effect looks so good man, I remember there being like a second of uncanny valley but I could be wrong because looking at it there she looks spot on and if you didn’t know that she couldn’t possibly still be that young, to an uninformed viewer I doubt they would be able to tell
Totally. Plus, that uncanny valley feeling actually adds to your reaction of the scene. HE also feels like something isn't auite right.
The unicorn part that was forced into the movie was taken from another Ridley's movie legend that was filmed years after BR. Don't be fooled into thinking it was deleted from BR.
The ending of the original BR was seamless even if it was so called forced in but the unicorn was not seamlessly placed in at all and feels completely out of place in the movie. Thing is Ridley is a good director but he is terrible in writing and even worst for taking credit for ideas that was not his, Blade runner and Alien for example two great movies that Rileys claims are his but clearly are not as you can see in the credits.
@@UberNoodleThe ending of the theatrical cut was the ending of the script, sans that Gaf isn't chasing them, which is how the script ends, so, while they may have used the Shining's footage, it was not forced in. The unicorn dream is not in the script. It was inserted by Scott because he wanted Deckard to be a replicant, even though a unbiased reading of the script would clearly suggest otherwise. Scott left out the scenes with Deckard's old friend Holden, because it would have made that fact even more clear. Also, how did Gaf get Deckard's files? If he knew he was a Replicant, than did Bryant? Both of them hated skin-jobs, so why would they have permitted Deckard to work among them for so long? How would Tyrell have planted Deckard into the department when replicants were illegal on earth, and it was a department whose specialized in hunting and killing replicants? None of it makes sense.
Too many people fall for Ridley's nonsense reasons in his different cuts of BR and tries to make it seam like the whole movie is his brain child which it clearly wasn't when you read the credits. Here something else they say Harrrison hated doing the voice over work and sounds like he is calling it in but never once has Ford said anything about the voice over and in truth he never sounded bored or like he was calling it in, it sound just right for the character, Tired of the job, wish he never took it and just wants to rest. Too many sheep watch video's like this and just except what they watched is fact without going back and rewatching all the versions of the movie and confirming what was said fits and the worst part is video's like this just repeats what other video have already said with the same results. People please go watch every version of BR and all the documentary on BR first.
@@sailorrenek7823 I'm a big fan of the theatrical cut. The only reason people enjoy the director's cut is A) they are told it is superior and B) they are already familiar with the story. If BR had been put out originally, without the noir voice-over, it would be as forgotten Damnation Alley. As you said, Harrison Ford's demeanor in the voice over is exactly right for the character's state of being.
I say Deckard is a replicant: My reasoning is this...He's supposed to be a retired Blade Runner, but Bryant has to explain to Deckard why Replicants are coming back to earth? Wouldn't this be something Deckard knows? To me, Deckard, just before the events of the movie, maybe months, maybe a year, is put into service and is one of the newer models, like Rachel, that doesn't have a 4 year life span. Deckard is simply tasked with living until called upon to retire the escaped Batty and crew. I believe that at one point humans were used as Blade Runners, but the constant murdering of the Replicants forced the government to use other Replicants to do the job. Deckard is then 'called' back out of retirement, explained what is happening, and sent off to retire Batty and the others. Also, Bryant tells Gaff that Deckard is the best and that he needs his old magic, but Deckard seems woefully under prepared for Batty and really only retires Zhora and Pris, and gets beaten pretty badly by Leon then Roy. Regarding the eyes...with so much attention to detail that Scott put into this movie, I think its highly unlikely he let something like Ford's eyes glow in a movie that specifically shows Replicant eyes glowing, if Deckard isn't a replicant. Finally, Deckard being old in 2049 doesn't prove he is human...We all know that Rachel was a replicant, yet she had a baby. Tyrell's whole goal was more Human than Human...and making a Replicant that can reproduce and or age would be his ultimate goal.
I don’t think he actually explains why. He says they might be trying to infiltrate the Tyrell Corp, but either way a lot of times dialogue is for the sake of the audience.
Deckard being a replicant also would mean the Tyrell Corp made a morose melancholy alcoholic replicant which they then rely on to protect them and Tyrell himself, from their top of the line combat models. Deckard isn’t all that good of a shot, and also is physically weaker. Not exactly who you’d want on the case.
Bryant never shows any disdain for Deckard either and has clearly worked with him for a long time. And Deckard knows and worked with Holden for a long time. Bryant treats him like an old buddy, not like a “skin job.”
If the eyes “glowing” were enough you wouldn’t need the voight kampff test.
My argument against him being one is that prejudice against replicants was blatant, and I'd think he would have gotten some from fellow officers, like "Joe" did in the sequel.
Deckard is one of the newer models? You mean a replicant so real that it's weaker and slower and not all that smart either? Wow, that's some wild technology. Like how about we make some shovels with big holes in the scoop?
I love the idea of making the answer work either way. This is one of my favorite parts of Total Recall as well.
Even people who created the first Blade Runner said that it is up to the viewer to decide if Decker is a replicant, as they simply don't know.
I disagree with the question of Deckard's nature to be the ultimate question. The question implies that there is an important hierarchical difference between replicant and human. The question is why should we care?
Bro i tottaly agree with you , its not important if he is a human or a replicant , its important in how much humanity he has inside him
I have the final cut on Blu-ray. It's such a beautiful movie.
Is Deckard replicant? To me, he's not but ultimately it boils down to one simple thing, does it really matter? The same idea of Deckard finally understanding Roy at the end of Blade Runner, replicant or not, Roy is a living being.
Well, it's good to have a sci-fi movie with an obscure story, and a Intriguing vague ending.... I myself, saw the first release many years ago...so I"m biased for it.... I always considered it a 'film noir' style.... and the 'annoying sounding' narration fits with the style... just saying... now, when you watch it without the 'narration'...some parts become vague.... did Racheal have a 4 year lifespan?? We find out that in his narration, don't we... well.... and the original DIDN'T have the unicorn 'dream' at all....I say, the original release is a entirely 'different' story...
I would have written the exact same comment. I think the voiceover is perfect and captures the film-noir feel perfectly.
The script doesn't have the unicorn dream either, but it does have the unicorn origami. Deckard wasn't meant to be a replicant, but Scott, who was a director for hire when the first director quit, decided he wanted to change it.
That's right, it's called an open ending, it's up to the viewer and to determine what Deckard is or is not. To debate this is simply an exercise in futility which makes the film much less than it actually is.
This is all the result of studios giving directors a do-over. Probably a bad idea. Especially in the case of Ridley Scott.
Rick Deckard wasn't meant to be a Replicant. Ridley Scott, who was a director for hire, came in and altered the story for his own artsy agenda. The origami unicorn at the end is in the script, whereas the unicorn dream is not. Additionally, there were deleted scenes where Deckard visits his partner Holden in the hospital and they have an argument where Holden accuses him of having sex with Zhora "You fucked a washing machine, and you shut it off. So what?" Leaving in the Holden scenes would show, as it if it wasn't already clear with Bryant's conversations, that Deckard has been at this a long time and that he is well known. The idea that he is a replicant is patently silly. It was Ridley Scott being allowed to muck with the script for his own narcissism. I firmly believe that Scott purposefully did the lighting trick with the eyes, just like he added the unicorn dream, to push his twisted narrative. Obviously it is a lighting gimmick for the audience, or it wouldn't take more than a hundred questions on the Voight-Kompf test to discover a Replicant. Tyrell wouldn't just have to imbed memories in his Deckard replicant, he'd have to plant Deckard in the police department long ago, AND, would that would have to be known to others, like Gaff, in order for him to read the files. Given Bryant and Gaff's hatred of skin-jobs, this seems more than unlikely. And, as I said before, he'd have to have fooled his old friend Holden as well, who also hated replicants. Deckard knew about Rachel because after discovering that she was a replicant, he no doubt force Tyrell to give him data on her. Her even leaving the Tyrell building makes her a target, since Replicants are illegal. I could go on. Tyrell made a replicant hunting replicant that was inferior to other replicants in physicality? None of it makes sense.
You nailed it.
Agreed. Plus, the very idea that it takes 100 questions to figure out who's a replicant is insane. Any real corporation would have them stamped all over with serial numbers. Scan their fingerprints and Bingo! Hit a key on a fob and shut them down.
@@Cryptonymicus Good point. I audibly groaned when I was playing Detroit: Become Human and it was revealed they could suddenly take off their HD light on their temple. If you are going to make near human android, you'd always want something to easily identify them.
Both theories are awesome. It doesn't matter how you look at it, life is life, we can't judge its origin, only its true nature.
Harrison Fords, explanation on why Dekard couldn't be a replicant. Actually confirms that Dekard is indeed a replicant.
Its an open ended movie, similar to Pulp Fiction never ending debate on whats in the briefcase, the directors will never tell you because if up to you...Great video.
You're confusing McGuffins with bad storytelling and directors trying to rewrite history.
i just think its better that he had replicant parts to save his life after he had a realy bad accident to explain the eyes and how he became a top bladerunner cos of his replicant parts giving him more strength and durabilaty.
Ima go more with plot holed filled ending than a proper ambiguous ending
The ending was sublime.
Gaff is demonstrating his empathy toward the pair by way of the origami unicorn figurine. He knows. He understands that Decker does as well, though on a subconcious level. Perhaps Gaff is a replicant as well?
RIdley Scott is a replicant. The rest of the cast? Dunno.
The rare video that actually gets Blade Runner ultimately isn't just another vision of a dystopian future. It's about how life - fragile, fallible, and fleeting - is precious to, and for, everyone. This is an anti-war, anti-violence, anti-hatred masterpiece.
Or, perhaps Gaff left the origami figure as a message but it being a unicorn was simply a coincidence. IMO, the best way to present Deckard is to make his humanity ambiguous with evidence either way but never enough to actually draw a proper conclusion.
Deckard got the girl. She's so special she's a "unicorn." The meme is so common it's trite.
*It's funny...I feel the same way about my life from 19 - 35 as Batty does at the end.* From the beginning of the online age, to raves, to industrial goth clubs to playing pool and drinking my life away to karaoke nights,...I've done and seen things most people wouldn't believe and they will all be lost in time.
same
RIdley Scott had 20 years to decide what the film was about and this from the guy who couldn't seem to decide if replicants are cyborgs, robots, or androids, since in an early interview he uses the words interchangeably. He does a great job of world building and a lousy job of storytelling.
1) If Deckard is a replicant he's the weakest, slowest, stupidest replicant in the film. And apparently Harrison Ford didn't get the memo since all the rogue replicants are played like robots and Deckard is played like a human. 2) Deckard is a lousy detective. He tracks down exactly ONE replicant: Zora. Leon finds Deckard. Bryant sends Deckard to JF's apartment and again Priss and Roy find Deckard. And, ok, Deckard retires Zora and Priss but would have been killed by Roy and Leon and Priss except for luck. 3) Scott knows so little about police work and mysteries that during the production Harrison Ford had to tell him, "I'm playing a detective who does no detecting." In the earliest scenes filmed Deckard spent most of his time narrating because Scott didn't know how to tell the story. 4) The idea that the LAPD (or whoever) is going to assign one detective to track down and retire an entire squad of replicants is just idiotic. Put it in the modern world and substitute "terrorists" for "repllicants" and guess how many hundreds of real life cops would take part in the hunt.
In short, Scott did such an awful job with this film that his attempt at revisionist history is just laughable. Sure, it's a great visual feast. But that's all it is. And nothing is more hilarious than in BR 2049 when Deckard says what a great blade runner he is. Yeah, with blade runners like him the Earth would be overrun by rogue replicants.
I've always felt the exact same way. If Deckard's a replicant, why is he so much weaker than the rest? He could be an older, more obsolete model, but why would the police send a weaker model? It's not like Terminator 2 where the resistance sends a T-800 model with the same appearance as the first Terminator to fight a more advanced T-1000 prototype because they have no other choice. The police could easily commission a more advanced model to be made to get the job done. Also, why would they send a replicant anyway? The whole point is to hunt down rogue replicants that wish to be human. No one's perfect, but isn't an actual human potentially less likely to sympathize with the other replicants? If I were going to send something weaker after them, it might as well be a flesh-and-blood human.
@@TheLukeMonster You're spot on about Terminator and you're hitting on the biggest flaw in BR: the "police department." Total fail. No police department in a major city is going to assign one detective to hunt down what amounts to a terrorist cell coming to town. Remember, these guys already slaughtered a couple dozen people before they even reached Earth. The cops would have a task force ready and waiting. They would have an army of cops working the job and that would include FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, and agencies most people never even heard of. Hell, they'd call out everybody including the postal inspectors and the IRS. So, I mean, it's a great looking film and the soundtrack is great but the basic premise is total fantasy.
Thank you for playing the monologue. You got a sub just for that.
I agree that Wallace was probably messing with Deckard. However I don’t have a set verdict on whether Deckard was a replicant or human, but I think I’d side with him being human. But it doesn’t have to be set and stone which is why we still talk about the film over 35 years later
Read the book....
The book is very different from the film.
Gaff's original line at the end is "You've done a man's job sir....but can you be sure you are a man?"
In the original film the unicorn represents Rachel - the replicant with no fixed life span. When Gaff says "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" he is saying to Deckard that they might not have long together but that Deckard wasn't living life before he met her. When Deckard nods to show he understands this.
Gaff may not have been made privy to certain confidential information.
Yes, the Unicorn could symbolize Rick Deckard, Rachel, or maybe both of them? It's ambiguous in the context of the different film versions.
I don't even mind which theory is correct, both work in context to the story.
RIP Mr. Hauer
That's... like... deep... man.
(Deckard's not a replicant, though... )
So why dont they just make the Replacements a wacky color or something like that so you can always tell them apart from actual humans?
Lol I kind of wondered that too. At least for certain tasks/jobs/assignments it would seem to make sense. That would though likely change the nature of the piece and bring race into it which was never the point Dick was exploring.
@@frequencydecline5250 Make them Zebra colored as to piss off both white and black people lol
Only a replicant could speak for so long without taking a breath.
Great video ✌️
People think that emotions are what make humans human, which an artificially intelligent entity would laugh at, understanding what emotions really are:
Tools to affect outcomes, which is easily programmed into an A.I. entity, and easily learned by self-learning A.I.. The key question is whether a consciousness (no matter what its physical platform) is enlightened or not (see the Philosophy of Broader Survival for that).
I grew up with Blade Runner and the multiple incarnations of each cut released. After all is said and done, to me, it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. During the film, he learnt what humanity was.
Blade Runner 2049 missed this point completely. It was a pretty film, but it it's far to ham fisted to be worthy of the title Blade Runner. It's just a pretty collection of exposition and clunky story elements in an overlong film.
Somehow they, and I blame the studio more than Villeneuve, managed to waste the characters. K was just a walking placeholder, he has almost no agency. Leto's Wallace was criminally underused and Luv overused as a plot Macgyver able to 'happen' to be in the right place at the right time with the right fix, that almost works.
Deckard went from a self aware and empowered character with autonomous agency, to a token callback to the original.
The Las Vegas scene is jarring and in it's over-exuberance completely manages to miss the decadence of the old city and instead replies on the whitewash of nostalgia with a popular period music track.
At the end of the original, I felt a connection with Deckard. Was he a replicant? Was he a human? It didn't matter.
At the end of BR 2049 I lost that connection with Deckard, Didn't care about K. I just wondered where the nearest bathroom was.
The three short films released before BR 2049 promised so much. They seemed to capture the feelings and emotions the original drew out of me. 2049 failed in so many ways.
What does the writer have to say about it?
Great video
Screw the rest of the film Staff..... Those eyes man. It works. Years later ....just yes.
1992 Directors Cut is till my fav
This debate is moot. Ridley Scott is the director. He says Deckard is a replicant. Case closed. It doesn’t matter what Harrison Ford thinks, or Hampton Fancher thinks. Scott is the director. His explanation is the ONLY explanation. He is the “author” of the film. Plus....it’s much more interesting that way.
This is going to fall into the files of if kurt Russell was the thing or not
Another clue for me is at the moment Deckard drops a spits in Batty's face, he says 'kinship'.
Fantastic essay
Since the film's Writer and Director disagree on the true nature of Dekard's humanity. The answer belong to us, the Audience.
Sean Young in interviews was off her face on something most of the time, unless she was being ironic or something.
Definitely if you've seen her live.
A ridiculous debate . Ridley Scott directed the pic and what he says goes simple as that .
But Scott actually only directed the pic, as you said. He didnt wrote the book. And in the original book Deckard is human 100%.
Great video!
I say no because when he first fights with the Replicants he isn’t as strong as they are
One thing's for sure: Deckard being a replicant or an ordinary human is totally over-analyzed. It's a pretty meaningless aspect to the whole great movie in its entirety. I don't understand why some people are so hung up on it either way, it's a minor plot aspect when you look at the movie overall. Except as a Hollywood marketing technique to keep things 'controversial' - which the movie doesn't need. It's fantastic on its own without this grade-school movie student debate anyway. Like looking for meaning in a Tarantino hyper-commercialized movie - it just isn't there.
Is it a vase or two faces, it’s a question of reality vs perception. We want Decker to be human but in the end if we real see the truth then the clues are that he’s the more human than human replicant model that Tyrell spoke of.
Deckard is a replicant, period. Doesn't matter what Harrison Ford wants, he an actor who reads lines he's given. He has no expiration date, like Rachel.
i always thought the unicorn represented Rachel.
Can you di wtf happened to the movie "solaris"
The girl was special because her creater built her without the artificial lifespan
FUCK .... I ALWAYS THOUGHT DECKARD WAS A HUMAN TILL I SAW THIS CLIP ... NOW I AM MORE CONFUSED THAN EVER !!!
why are you guys re uploading old videos, cause i do remember this video before on the channel
but then again who does?
I find it interesting that this video ignores the source material. There are differences with the movie that I find striking. Philip K Dick's story is set in San Francisco in a world that reels from Nuclear disaster. That's why life on the planet is compromised with shit like replicas and the scarcity of animals. Having real animals is a motivating factor for Deckard to take the job. The scenes with the rain has a different impact---its fallout. Also Deckard is married.
I know the movie is a different creature (a replica of the original?) but I often think the question the movie raises is a puzzle with no solution----which is the way advertising places products into people's heads
why do they make these FUTURISTIC movies not so far from now?? They should have them take place in 2100 or something....not 2019 because in 2100 most of us wont be alive to see what the future may actually hold. But when you make it a year like 2019....as soon as 2010 comes, the movie could potentially lose interest because people are gonna be like....UHH YEAH, pretty sure in 9 years were not gonna be driving space ships to work....im just saying. THATS BEING SAID...this is one of my favorite movies LOL AND NO NO NO AND NO!!!! Deckard is NOT a replicant, he is 100 percent human. Thats what makes the films climatic moments so INTICING....because a man square off with a cyborg and somehow succeeds. If i found out Deckard was a replicant the film would go from a 10/10 to an 8/10
Note there was one made the day of the Blackout one youtube
He isnt, and thats my take.The end
Deckerard is not a replicant. His strength is not on par with a replicant.
This seems to be the only movie along with Gladiator as the best Ridley Scott films everything else is just funky and weird.
It's too bad they cast two of the driest actors of their respective generations to play the leads in both films. Ford at least showed some life in his acting. Peanut Head Gosling looked like he was permanently sleep-walking.
Wasnt a big deal back then cause he wasnt a big actor then. Detective Gaff was played by Edward James Olmos
Olmos is great.
Hat ein Mensch und eine künstlich erschaffener Mensch ein Kind oder zwei künstlich erschaffene Menschen ein Kind?
Wie geht die Menschheit um mit diesem Kind?
Ist so eine Zukunft denkbar?
Rick hatte Respekt vor den künstlichen Menschen, genau wie vor den natürlichen.
Replicants or real......maybe all of these moments will be lost in time....
Deckard is definitely a replicant
Just my opinion, but we didn't need to know what happened to Deckard and Rachel after they get in that elevator. That's how legends are built.
I agree. I would've been happier if BR2049 hadn't been made.
No I do not see him as a replicant to me he is human
Great movie
The meaning of any film is unique to the watcher , same as music ........... why do people need 'answers' when most have different answers .............. whats wrong with just being happy with your own meaning .........The Individual forms their own opinion ......... sheep ask others for their opinion
I just have to say: when a piece of art is left with ambiguous ending (open or not fully resolved) is it perhaps on purpose? I get the point of this video and i get the people in need of this. But fuck if I don't hate it. In High school I got an assignment to analyse a piece of poetry. Even then I thought it was unnatural. There's obviously a market for analyzing stuff like this. But then again for who is it for? If you don't get it or can't live whit uncertainty, then as Brie Larson put it elocuently "It's not made for you". I absolutely love your videos about troubled history of some productions but have to categorically dislike all this "excplained for you"-shit. Are you doing videos for idiots or for people with some knowledge with films; as they say in Tokyo Fist: "Why don't you make your mind?" (apologies for horrible translation, lol)
Blade Runner was the Shit Mane! 💯🤌🏻
Not one of, for me, it is THE most
Don't trust Ridley Scott ! Never !
It is the acme of stupidity to say both theories of Deckard as human and as android are valid. Ridley Scott was the fucking director! This, ultimately, was his decision, and he admitted as such. Harrison Ford was an actor; one who did not have any substantial creative control, so you go with the director's vision; not the hired actor! Deckard as android made for a more intriguing plot and the biggest divergence from the novel. True fans are not debating this shit anymore. Even the sequel assumed the protagonist was a replicant. You also got it wrong about Deckard retiring all the replicants. Deckard was ORDERED to kill Rachel. He obviously refused. Rachel was a special model, and her lifespan was never specified. Deckard, left on a dystopic Earth, was a fucking android. This was 'The Final Cut' meaning the final director's cut as you mentioned; Ridley's movie, Ridley's vision, Ridley's idea that Dekkard be an android.
Yusef,
Except Ridley didn't come up with Deckard being a replicant until quite awhile after the movie came out.
Deckard potentially being an android is explored in the book. And if he is or not, is hardly the biggest divergence from the book. Hell the movie plot is driven by termination dates, which don't appear in the book. Animals and empathy, aren't in the movie, the stripper is an opera singer, there is an entire fake police bureau of replicants in the books. Mercerism is absent in the movie, which the entire end of Electric Sheep focuses on. Deckard is married in the book, single in the movie. Deckard is fairly competent in the book, but in the movie not so much. The book he sets a 24 hour retirement record. ....really the movie has very little in common with the book.
And as I have said before: Let's suppose for a moment Deckard is a replicant. This means, Tyrell Corp and/or the police opted to send a weaker depressed alcoholic replicant after some state of the art ones. And not just under any circumstances, but under the circumstances where they were trying to infiltrate and were killing Tyrell's genius employees and presumably coming after him as well.
So, let's say you have six world class assassins coming after you. Would you go to the police and say, hey, I want to test out hobo bill here, so just deputize him real quick and put him on my case.
So the larger picture then is: Tyrell makes a few "special" models. Rachael being one of them, Deckard another. And for whatever reason opt to make him retired, aging, weaker than any previous models, alcoholic, divorced, messy, a bad shot, etc. And then convince the police, since replicants are illegal on the movie earth presumably with bribing them, to take that replicant on, pretend he has always been around, and put him on the escaped replicants led by an advanced combat model.
And no, 2049 did not assume he was a replicant. They left it pretty unanswered.
@@frequencydecline5250 I read the book. Deckard, in the book, was, upon closer inspection, human. There was little ambiguity about that in the book. Yes, there were plenty of other differences, however, the point of this video was to explain the ending of the film which strongly suggested Deckard was an android. The plot of the book was severely altered to the point that it is almost irrelevant. What does matter is was Deckard human or machine? In the original film, why were there origami left for Deckard to find especially one of a unicorn? If he were human, and since we did not see Deckard talking to anyone about his dreams, how could someone know that kind of detail about Deckard and why would they let him know that they were aware? The 2049 version made it clear that the protagonist, NOT Deckard, was an android, and that was what I said. That is the main reason why I hated the latest version of Blade Runner. It implied Deckard was human.
Combat model
xcellent toe bee! so? nexus design models do not knowingly kill (in the sense of make dead as word typically known as, not necessarily sense of "change" or "by effecting & interacting with, making something different in one or several significant ways", definition)
nexus design model do not knowingly kill/make-dead other nexus models, even other versions! one of the key design features, that made them Superior to humans for settling the new world's, planets & moons and such! they simply don't, unless, toe bee, there is some grander intrigue going on, the purposes of Tyrell Corporation in 'first' movie that include means of nexus models being slain, are the breeding of Rachel, supposedly we are told nexus6 model, possible a nexus6 variant, yes? in any case breeding her with Deckard, leading a situation that achieves a mating, with why Deckard particularly chosen, in fact a slayer of nexus models, and the best at it? perhaps unknown, the question apparently open as whether he nexus model replicant, or human, very intriguing question.. Deckard was set-up in first movie, the question is? what is the set-up to who or whom? In the second movie, and what are the purposes of the revised Corporation under new ownership, the particular intrigue or even several as to why nexus models would be slain? in the second movie Joe is clearly aware of he is slaying other nexus models? what purposes of the Corporation, as well the nexus model replicants? would be so severe they would go so far with even awareness to a nexus model is slaying another of it's kind?? as we know, Tyrell himself is slain in the first movie, by Roy, who is not given, there clearly seems evasion on Dr Tyrell's part about how to keep a nexus6 model alive longer, and strangely, a moment of unease, not at all typical of the always confident doctor and corporate master, Roy gets frustrated with his human creator, then we see clearly Tyrell being suffocated, his head & eyes squeezed, as always he looks quite sharp and tidy, well dressed even in readying for sleepy retire, but he is undone, made dead, Tyrell Security with some type of apparent lapse we are not told about, how exactly Roy too, would be able to get in.... so not only in the first movie are we left wondering about Deckard's identity, but also of Tyrell, at least the slain creature of Tyrell's figure, was that a replicant in Tyrell's form? or? did Tyrell allow his own death? and if so were or was there a replicant of Tyrell, still then? in form, & implanted with his memories some or many & which? we also simply aren't clear if Roy did in fact die, we are told nexus6 models have a 4yr lifespan, the only verification of that is Roy's apparent death, when he lets Deckard live and even saves him.... did he die? if so and the 4yr lifespan notation given to LAPD by Tyrell Corporation true? that also replicants found out about? did he die but as he exceeded his capacities in the fight with Deckard, even going so far as to heft Deckard up to safe purchase amongst the heights, when both had run out energy basically too tired for anything more, for different bodily & mental reasons or the same? if so? knowingly exceeded or unknowingly? we are left with numerous important questions.... non-explanations & non-answers, with the second 'following' film even more, but clearly, the nexus model replicants were an extremely sensitive issue, many or even most of the humans were uneasy about the whole project, how Tyrell Corporation even was able to proceed with the project in the first place? ..is unclear, what is clear, is LAPD was contracted to slay any nexus models on Earth before their 4yr lifespan ended..... (strangely enough, Roy and several other replicants, well it was a surprise the 4yr lifespan, they did not see or even hear about any nexus6 models die in such way, when they were in the offplanet colonies, if nexus6 models were dying after 4yrs, it would quickly have become common knowledge among them all, so at least we are left with one answer, nexus6 models do not die after 4yrs, likely something some random number of lifespan best to appease those against the project, get them to accept it, partly faulty 'machines', in several ways, inferior to humans in what were considered the most important things making a creature alive, and with just a very short lifespan there was no way to get them beyond 4yrs, technically impossible, but they would be able to do unwanted jobs in tough horrible conditions offplanet)
I know Blade Runner is filled to the brim with nuances but I just don’t understand the meaning of the origami unicorn and Deckard’s dream of the unicorn. WHATS IT ALL MEAN?!
Seriously? You're joking, right? LOL
VFX Todd joking about what
It means Ridley Scott is trying to repair his "legacy" and portray Blade Runner like a great masterpiece on the order of 1984 and Brave New World.
Nice.
imo he is ...
Great channel and ground breaking film, but I have to greatly disagree that Deckard and Rachel "fell in love". He trapped her, then angrily and obviously forced himself on her with frightening disregard to any possible feelings she may have had. She later escaped with him probably so that she could also escape the tyranny she'd known all her life, and I had always assumed she would have split off from Deckard as soon as he fell asleep. Or killed him for his cold brutality towards her. I believe the sequel retconned this aspect solely to continue the debate about life.
Lol and the unicorn scene was also not included in the movie and was part of another film. So it’s also pieced together like the outtakes or the shining.
Your point?
So they are androids or clones?
They are genetically engineered synthetic lifeforms.