Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Nordling Talks With Edward James Olmos!

Nordling here.

I'll be covering a local Houston comic, film, anime, and gaming convention called Comicpalooza, which will take place at the George R. Brown Convention Center over Memorial Day Weekend.  This is actually a fairly big convention now, and it only started two years ago.  If you're in the Houston area and want to check it out, you can go to and see the various activities and guests they'll have.  I'll be around as well.

This interview fell in my lap.  When John Simons, the head of Comicpalooza, asked me if I wanted to interview Edward James Olmos, I jumped at the opportunity.  I'm still a lilttle fresh at this interviewing thing, but I was surprised by how Mr. Olmos expounded on his career, his thoughts on film, and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA in particular, and his personal opinion on a little matter from BLADE RUNNER.  I hope you enjoy it.

Nordling: With the events of the past 10 years, BATTLESTAR has become sort of a commentary on the political status of our country and the world status in general, and I think it’s wonderful that the show touches on these subjects as well as it does, and from everything you’ve done on the show, what would you like your audience to most take from it?

Edward James Olmos:   I gotta tell ya, it’s been extraordinary working on a piece of material that could actually hold a mirror up to society as a whole, and it did that in a way with a really interesting dynamic that we hadn’t had on the planet beforehand.  We’ve always had the ability to create work by writing, and we write something and then we put it into production, and then the production would go on and take the writing and elevate it into making it come alive, and explore the nuances of the written word.

And then after doing that, and finishing the actual production, and recording it, and putting it on film or video, we would then push it off to the post-production, and post-production would get it and elevate it to a much higher level.  And then the editing of the piece, and the sound, and the music, became a really interesting dynamic, from the written word to the production, to post production, to the addition of sound, the sound score, and the editing, and then we put out the product and that was it, and people would see it, and they would go wow and they would say nothing. 

But in this case, in 2003, something new happened.  When the show aired, a new kind of communication, a social communication was being introduced, and it was called blogging.   And people started to blog about the show, and they along with the writers who blogged with them, started to communicate.   From the moment the show aired, they would express themselves to the writers, and the writers would in turn give some information, and they’d say what it meant to them, and the writers would say, “That’s exactly what I meant,” meaning that there was something that was pulling in the direction that they hadn’t even thought about before, and made them feel that, they’re gonna take credit for it, and say wow, that’s really in depth, you know, that’s fantastic. 

But they did that, but they also turned around and took credit for it and said yeah, that’s what we intended.  And what happened was the writers were elevated, and the next time they touched it, the writing staff was the same, they were at that level, not at the level where they finished writing the first page, but at the level of the production, the post-production energy and then the blogging of people from all over the world, not just the United States, not just England, but from around the world.  Blogging became a worldwide communication, and with that, that pushed the show to a profound level of communication, where every single episode had all the energy of production, post-production, and blogging into the mix, and it elevated the show, until, man, I’ve never been in a show like this, and I don’t think I ever will again. 

I don’t think the people who ever put the show on at the time, and the writers, will be able to get this level of advancement again.  And that is just my own personal opinion, maybe everybody can do better work with everything that they do, but it gets pretty hard.  It gets pretty hard to find the vehicle.  And when you find the vehicle, and you take it to its higher level, then you’re doing something that you can’t do all the time because you don’t always have the vehicle.  You might be writing the best stuff in the world, better than what you were writing on BATTLESTAR, but if you don’t have the vehicle, then you can’t explore what you were able to explore in the combination of understandings and values that you had with BATTLESTAR.  The impact on the audience was total, the impact of the audience responses to the work was total, and it elevated the show, so it was not just us doing something and the audience just looking at it. It was the audience’s and the creator’s connection that advanced it to a much higher level, and I must say that I am grateful to everyone.

Nordling:  It’s interesting how the audience fed the show makers and the show makers fed from the energy from the fans and upped their game to meet their expectation, I really like that, that a show could have that give and take with the audience.  It’s not exactly art by democracy, but mutual inspiration.

Edward James Olmos:  Yes, that’s what it was, like what people get from constructive creative criticism.  When you get destructive criticism, that just puts you on the defensive.  But when you get constructive criticism, you use it.  When I’m directing, or producing, or writing, or acting, and someone comes up to me and says “Wow, you just inspired me to understand myself better with the situation you just presented me with,“ with your acting, producing, your directing, or acting, you say well thank you, and guess what, by you coming up here, and acknowledging that moment, and putting me in tune with that moment, the way you’re looking at it, my goodness, you have actually made me think about something else that I never would have thought about had that situation had not occurred.  And that to me is the essence of living.  And that is why we have communication, and that is why an actor all alone, like Morrison said, an actor all alone, it’s like there’s nothing, it’s over, what are you going to do as an actor all alone?

Nordling:  I also wanted to ask, you’ve directed several episodes of the show, and AMERICAN ME, and did you want to get back into the director’s chair and direct another feature film, have you got any plans to do that?

Edward James Olmos:  The last feature I directed was a feature called WALKOUT for HBO, and it was an extraordinary experience and I was very grateful for it, and honestly right now I’m directing and producing a couple of pieces, and I’m writing too.  It’s an ongoing process, I wish it was possible to do one a year, that would be incredible, but that isn’t my destiny, and I’ll take one every five years or ten years.   It’s fine with me as long as I continue to work towards doing things I really love doing.  I love WALKOUT, I loved BATTLESTAR, STAND AND DELIVER, AMERICAN ME, SELENA, ZOOT SUIT, THE BALLAD OF GREGORIO CORTEZ, I mean, they’ve been wonderful pieces of work and I’ve been privileged to be a part of them.

Nordling:  I had a question about BLADE RUNNER, and you’ve probably gotten this question a lot, so I wanted to get your take on it, so what is Deckard, is he a replicant or not?

Edward James Olmos:  Yep.  Yes he was.  He sure was.  Yep, he was a replicant, and he found out right at the elevator when his girlfriend was in the elevator, and he finds the unicorn on the ground.

Nordling:  That’s one of the great movie moments.  How  long did it take you to learn to play the piano and how long it took?

Edward James Olmos:  I learned how to play on my own.  Self-taught, and I write on the piano, and I create on the piano, I play a little bit of guitar, but just chords.  Also with piano, I play chords; write lyrics and melodies, by singing.

Nordling:  It’s curious, a lot of things that seem to be missing today are those great character pieces that we don’t seem to get anymore, and which you’ve seem to be in a lot of, and how hard is it nowadays in the kind of climate that the films that we have today in just getting a really great drama made?   Do you find it difficult these days in this Hollywood climate to get a project off the ground, or to make a film along the lines of STAND AND DELIVER again, which I don’t know if the way it is in Hollywood now if that movie could be made again?

Edward James Olmos:  Well, it’s hard.  It’s hard to make a STAND AND DELIVER no matter what time or what position the industry is in.  I’ll tell you a story, when we went to try to get the funding for STAND AND DELIVER, I remember walking into the studio and saying I’d like to do this film about this teacher who helps these schoolkids take this test, and this teacher – it’s a true story, and I was pitching it.  And at the end, the producer, they said, “Eddie, that’s the kind of movie I’d like to make, but it’s the kind of movie, you put it out there, and on that day you put it out there a RAMBO comes out and what are they going to go see?”

And I said, “Well, I think they’re going to want to see a STAND AND DELIVER as much as they want to see a RAMBO,“ and he says, “I wish you were right, but that’s not how the world works, so thank you but no thank you.”  And I walked out without him ever thinking twice about his comment.  Cut to, you’re on the phone with me 23 years later, I did that film in 1988, and I can honestly tell you, more people have seen in the United States, STAND AND DELIVER than have seen RAMBO.   More people have seen STAND AND DELIVER than have seen GONE WITH THE WIND, or JAWS, or STAR WARS, or STAR TREK, or AVATAR, or any film that has ever been made in the United States.  Why?  Because millions of kids see it every year, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of teachers use it to motivate and stimulate their students.  And most people will have seen it once if not twice before they graduated high school. 

And it’s not that the great films rise, it’s that we hit a nerve, and like AMERICAN ME, it’s used almost every day.  And STAND AND DELIVER is used every day, and they are films that are used not to entertain you, but to really provoke you, and be provocative in your thought process, what your situation is about.  That’s what’s great about BATTLESTAR GALACTICA – if you see it more than once, you’re going to find that the depth of the piece, to be much more striking than you can remember.  It’s just too much to remember.  If you look at a Picasso more than once or a Rembrandt, or da Vinci’s work or Michelangelo’s work, or you look at any one of a multitude of great artists, or listen to great music like Bach, or Beethoven or anybody, listen to Robert Johnson, you listen to them more than once, you’re going to find that it’s a lot deeper than you anticipated and the more you listen to it the more you discover, and that’s the gift of art, and the more it keeps on giving. 

If the intention is pure and it’s correct, and what I mean by that is that the intention is not to manipulate you, or to exploit material, or to gratuitize the material.  It’s better to really allow the objective viewing to come from the viewer.  And that goes for music, painting, dancing, writing, and if you don’t exploit, manipulate, or gratuitize or romanticize the material, it’s going to stand the test of time.  People will get motivated a hundred years from now.   Look at DON QUIXOTE, by Cervantes, if you read it today, you’d get more out of it than if you read it 300 years ago.

Nordling:  Thank you, Mr. Olmos!

Edward James Olmos:  Thank you so much man!  Thanks for the opportunity.

Edward James Olmos will be appearing at Comicpalooza on Saturday, May 28th.  If you want to attend this new Houston convention, go to and check it out.  Hope to see some of you there.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 10, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Post 0!

    by JAG_off

  • May 10, 2011, 10:08 p.m. CST

    "Hey its the finger man..."

    by Mr Soze

    9 x 3......27

  • May 10, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Much love for EJO

    by Fah-Cue

    BSG rocked hard! EJO needs more quality work!

  • May 10, 2011, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Classy. At first I'm like no way have more people seen

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    Stand and Deliver. Then he explains it's shown in schools to motivate, and then it's like oh I get it now.

  • May 10, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Great in everything.

    by kdoc13

    I have yet to see a really bad performance from the guy. Stand and Deliver is truly an underrated movie, Castillo is still who I think about first when I think police chief, and between Battlestar and Blade Runner, he's a geek God! Very cool guy. Thanks for the interview Nordling!

  • May 10, 2011, 10:21 p.m. CST


    by alex138

    I saw Stand and Deliver in my calc AP class haha.

  • May 10, 2011, 10:36 p.m. CST

    No Miami Vice questions??

    by odo19


  • They showed us To Kill A Mockingbird in Middle school (England); ill always really appreciate that

  • May 10, 2011, 10:41 p.m. CST

    The "vehicle" of BSG

    by NoHubris

    I agree with EJO when he says BSG was uniquely equipped as a vehicle for dealing with key issues in a way that other shows cannot. It would have been great to see the BSG team do arcs which echo events like Japan's nuke disaster, search and rescue efforts to save survivors after some horrific disaster, killing Bin Laden or the current rebellions against the dictators in the North Africa and the Middle East.

  • May 10, 2011, 10:43 p.m. CST

    met him in a bar in studio city

    by wierdo27

    while he was filming the final episodes of galactica. had the same glasses on as adama. it's like, all he changed was his jacket.

  • May 10, 2011, 10:45 p.m. CST

    SShhh on the replicant Olmos!

    by alexander

  • just felt the random need to point that out... oh, and Planet of The Apes, be it novel or film

  • May 10, 2011, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Love this man and anything he gets involved in is automatically elevated.

    by RobertoInfinite

  • May 10, 2011, 11:09 p.m. CST

    Remember when he was in the Joaquin Phoenix doc?

    by oogles

    Of course you don't, no one saw it.

  • May 10, 2011, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Great interview - Great guy!

    by VanGoghX

    Ed's a truly intelligent and interesting fellow. Thx for the interview, Nordling!

  • May 10, 2011, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Nice job, Nordling

    by m00kiedood

  • May 10, 2011, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Very nice man...

    by GeneralKael

    I met him once at a Con to get his autograph. We actually had a good conversation - the man will talk your ear off if he gets a chance, and I mean that in the nicest way possible - he really appreciates fans and will take time for them if possible. I had a hard time at first with the new Galactica - I was a kid when the original came out, and even though yes it was cheesy at times, I loved that show and I was very uncomfortable with a reboot. His performance sold it to me. I told him that when I hear the name Adama I think of him now and not Lorne Greene.

  • May 10, 2011, 11:26 p.m. CST

    I would have asked a ZOOT SUIT question

    by MooseMalloy

  • May 11, 2011, 12:03 a.m. CST


    by Kammich

  • May 11, 2011, 12:06 a.m. CST


    by Mullah Omar

    That's the question to ask.

  • May 11, 2011, 12:07 a.m. CST

    just saw the Blade Runner 'final cut' last week

    by Kammich

    ...and I hadn't seen ANY cut of the film since my dad showed it to me on VHS when I was like 11. they definitely make it pretty obvious that Deckard is a Replicant. the unicorn "dream" coming to him in a state of consciousness, the glare in his eyes during the one apartment scene with Sean Young, etc. I still think its a better movie when under the impression that Deckard is NOT a replicant. I dunno, one of the things that strikes me about the 'neo-noir' future that Scott presents is that the replicants display much, much more humanity and kinship than the human beings around them. that notion kind of gets lost when viewing it as Deckard being a bounty hunter chasing his own kind. *shrug* i'm just ashamed that it took me 11 years between viewings. what kind of geek am I?

  • May 11, 2011, 12:12 a.m. CST

    I carry a photo of Edward James Olmos in my wallet

    by smackfu

    is that weird?

  • May 11, 2011, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Edward James Olmos is great

    by lv_426

    So say we all!

  • One of the best in the game.

  • May 11, 2011, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Met him a number of times..

    by ShogunMaster

    He used to come to my theatre up in Whistler when BSG was being made in Vancouver. We'd talk for a bit about the show and as others have said above, he loved to talk. He has real passion for what he does and you could feel the importance he felt for BSG specfically. Wish I had more time to talk with him frankly. Of all the stars that have walked into that theatre over the years, him and George Lucas (met him before Indy 4 came out so I didn't judge him harshly..) were my biggest starstruck moments. Wish nothing but the best for him and his ongoing career...

  • May 11, 2011, 2:25 a.m. CST

    kammich - I agree about Blade Runner

    by Sprout

    I like the work done for the Director's Cut and Final Cut but I preferred the film when it was about Decker finding his humanity, rather than him discovering he's a replicant.

  • May 11, 2011, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Edward James Olmos! Alright!

    by AsimovLives

    I recently watched (for the first time) WOLFEN, and his acting in that movie is pretty fearless. for those who saw the movie, you know what scene i mean. Damn good actor. Pretty good director too. I need to see AMERICAN ME.

  • May 11, 2011, 3:24 a.m. CST

    He is one of the last Men

    by CuervoJones

    Gotta love his face.

  • May 11, 2011, 4:03 a.m. CST

    With all due respect...

    by tensticks

    ...because I love Olmos and Battlestar Reimagined, but JMS was ahead of EVERYONE in the "blogging and interacting with the audience during the creation of the show" from 92-98 with Babylon 5. Love it/him or hate it/him, but he was the first showrunner to actively and regularly and personally engage with the fans on a mass scale. Others followed, some more, some less, but--he laid that groundwork, and the body of posts (some 18,000 of them) can be found at to prove it.

  • May 11, 2011, 5:20 a.m. CST

    smackfu Is it of his ass?

    by UGG

    Hey me too!

  • May 11, 2011, 5:26 a.m. CST

    no dark tower news?

    by alex138

    about the studio backing out of the movie/series plan?

  • May 11, 2011, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Nordling... single-handedly saving AICN's bacon...

    by workshed

    Two great features in a week. Well done man. You have a nicely-personal style of writing, not too self-assured and up it's own ass or grovelling. You seem to know when to let the interviewee speakLet that confidence keep growing and I'm sure you're gonna win over the AICNers.

  • May 11, 2011, 7:11 a.m. CST

    More Olmos love

    by JediWuddayaknow

    That man kicks so much ass. I had the occasion to party with the man at Dragoncon, and seriously, one of the nicest, most eloquent, down to earth men I've ever met. And dude can hold his fucking alcohol.

  • May 11, 2011, 7:49 a.m. CST


    by klytusnotdead

    Deckard is not a Replicant and he never will be, never ever, if thats the case then Blade Runner drops from top 2 all time to fuken ScyFy levels of ignorance. A fucken dream, fuck you Unicorn, no one gives a fuck about Directors cut or whatever cut is released this year. The only cut worths its salt is the original voice over movie. That is the only film America has seen, only few fanboys have the whatever fuck cut of the movie they masterbate to. Shit I'll say it again Deckard is and will forever be Human. So say we all. We love you Edward.end of line.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    They showed Class of 1984 at my school.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:18 a.m. CST


    by SonOfChiba

    No mention of Miami Vice and EJO thinking Deckard is a replicant = FAIL

  • May 11, 2011, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Re: klytusnotdead

    by ArmageddonProductions

    I hope you're joking about the whole BLADE RUNNER business -- the Director's Cut did decent box office when it was released in '92 and, if I'm not mistaken, was the only version ever released on DVD prior to the "Final Cut" released back in 2007. The ultra-expensive box set released at the same time had every cut of the movie in it, including the crap-o original theatrical cut that you seem to dig so much. More people are now familiar with the "Director's Cut" or the "Final Cut" than were ever familiar with the original version.</p><p> That being said, I disagree with Olmos and everybody else who claims that Deckard was obviously a replicant at the end. I'm pretty sure Ridley Scott himself continues to claim that it was deliberately left ambiguous and for the audience to decide. The original Phillip K. Dick novel indicates that he was a human, but had less humanity than the replicants he was hunting. That's pretty much what I take away from any version of the movie, too.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:34 a.m. CST

    Great interview Nordling!

    by ltgalloway

    You did a fine job sir. It's a shame it's so short, but I guess that's the way it goes with these interviews. I would have liked to ask him about his performance in TRIUMPH OF THE SPIRIT. Next time though!

  • May 11, 2011, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Thanks Armageddon, I think..

    by klytusnotdead

    I'll say it again, NO ONE outside a few fanboys knows anything about the extra editions. I think you are right even the VHS version has the voiceover cut out. This debate can go on for decades, and it has, but I will say it again, Deckard is not a Replicant, and fuck to all the nerd, geek fanboys that while still living at home state, " well that Unicorn Deckard saw in a dream", Fuck them and keep them away from this classic. Please keep them with the Inception loving fanboys and kindly Derezz them. end of line.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:54 a.m. CST


    by Keith

    It is certainly not definitive that Deckard is a replicant. I would say the balance of evidence is against it. Olmos and Scott can have their own opinions, but that's what they are - opinions.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:55 a.m. CST

    "Remember when he was in the Joaquin Phoenix doc?"

    by spacehog

    I sure do, oogles. I sure do. That was the moment I very nearly turned it off, because to me at least, it seemed clear he was not in on the joke, and was openly concerned about what he thought was happening to Phoenix, and you can go around playing a tired prank on the rest of Hollywood but DO NOT PLAY WITH EJO'S EMOTIONS.

  • May 11, 2011, 9:08 a.m. CST

    I hope Darabont doesnt read that

    by twogunjames

    Because he is a ardent supporter of Deckard being a human. Like, he's insane about the subject. Personally, I think the film works either way just fine, and I don't really give a shit if he's human or replicant. The visuals of that movie are the real star anyway.

  • May 11, 2011, 9:12 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    Unless he has documentation to prove otherwise. Why didn't you ask him for documentation?

  • May 11, 2011, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Deckard as a Replicant used to piss me off

    by Jake Pantlin

    But now it doesn't. Maybe I have BSG to blame for that one... lol... Deckard is so human in the film that you don't want to see him be a replicant. You just don't want to believe it. But the clues are all there.

  • Right. The whole point of the movie is that Deckard is a replicant - everyone around him knows, except for him - and for some reason he NEEDS to know, and the actual REAL purpose behind the mission he's given is to get him to actually realise it. When Rachael realised that dreams and memories she has are those of Tyrell's neice. Straight away we know that replicant are being given pre-designed memories. When Deckard has the dream of the unicorn - it's IMPLANTED. And by leaving the origami unicorn in Deckard's appartment at the end, GAFF IS TRYING TO TELL HIM. That's why there is such a look of horror on Deckard's face when he finds the unicorn in his apartment, and he replays over in his head Gaff saying "It's too bad she won't live!" cause at that precise moment he realises HE is severely on borrowed time too. Not only that, at least once in the movie - light is reflected in his eyes in the same off kilter manner that it does in a replicants. Come on guys... it's obvious!

  • May 11, 2011, 9:25 a.m. CST


    by Marlboroliteman

    I don't think an interview with Edward James Olmos warrants an exclamation point, he's a fine actor and all but come on keep it together man. If that gets you excited then when and if you book that Richard Moll interview you'll probably cream yourself.

  • May 11, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST



    So you live in Houston, eh? Me too. Shit I didn't even hear about this Comicpalooza. Last year's was excellent, though a little expensive. At least it's not the Stafford Centre with Rob Liefeld.

  • May 11, 2011, 9:35 a.m. CST

    The Choppah still cries at the end of STAND AND DELIVER


  • May 11, 2011, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Deckard is clearly a replicant

    by MrEkoLetMeLive

    And I love what that says about his humanity vs. the humanity of the "real" people in Blade Runner. Rutger Hauer and his crew may have been going about it the wrong way, but in the end all they wanted was the chance to live a full life. Is that really so wrong?

  • May 11, 2011, 9:50 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    The OTHER movie about teachers.

  • May 11, 2011, 10:26 a.m. CST

    If they do a sequel to Blade Runner...

    by Jake Pantlin

    They should have it be a prequel, with another actor playing a human Blade Runner. They could have it be that are doing testing with him for the replicant program, using his memories and dreams. Something happens, and Deckard (or whatever name he goes by) dies. In the final scene of the film, we could see the "replicant" Deckard (Ford) using cleaned up footage of young Harrison Ford. Ford's dreams and memories would therefore be those of the human Blade Runner.

  • May 11, 2011, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Deckard's nature is clearly ambiguous.

    by kabong

    The story is about not being able to know. Differences are nuanced. Replicants believe they're human and humans are fearful about losing humanity to reasonable facsimiles. In the end, difference makes no difference.

  • May 11, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST

    "Or we can all get down and fuck this place up"

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • May 11, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    "it's too bad she won't live, then again who does"?

    by Stalkeye

    One of the more memorable lines from BR. Great performance from Olmos. And a extra shout out for his enigmatic role as Castillo fom MV. never really watch enough eps of Battlestar galactica..methinks i should reinvest in my netflix queue.

  • May 11, 2011, 10:54 a.m. CST

    asimovlives RE: American Me

    by Stalkeye

    Good film, but damn if the shit didn't portray a brutal outlook on the Mexican Gang culture. Entertaing and brutal film which somewhat focuses on redemption especially in regards to Olmos' character. Un-fucking-forgetable!

  • May 11, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Choppah's in Houston?

    by Nordling

    That'll be me, diving behind a furry, trying to escape the gunfire. :P

  • May 11, 2011, 11:06 a.m. CST


    by BSB

  • May 11, 2011, 11:10 a.m. CST


    by BSB

    If you end up going to comic-cons together I'm gonna puke.

  • May 11, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Deckard as Replicant only makes sense to MORONS

    by FloatingHolmes

    Everyone knows Deckard is a replicant except himself? Who the fuck made him? His boss, who hates replicants, knows that Deckard is a replicant-- but likes him? Deckard has a memory of a unicorn? What's the memory from, his days at Unicorn Camp where he used to run through the forest with unicorns? Was that the camp next to "That's The Stupidest Thing I've Ever Heard"? The fact that Deckard is a replicant, and that the replicant hunters know he's a replicant, and know where he's going and what he's doing naturally means they catch and kill him? No... instead they let him go because of...? To tell Deckard that "Hey man, we're ON to you" the other replicant hunters leave an origami unicorn in his apartment-- the unmistakable sign that they know his memories. Unless that same guy had been making random origami shit all through the movie, in which case it becomes totally meaningless and random. Why doesn't ONE SINGLE SOLITARY other thing in the movie besides the stupid unicorn support the idea that Deckard is a replicant? And if he is a replicant... SO WHAT? What's the additional meaning? "OMG!! There are TWO replicants that don't realize they are replicants! Amazing! When it was just Rachel, that was boring, but I never dreamed it could happen to another replicant! That's MIND BLOWING! It means... why, it means... EXACTLY THE SAME THING, FUCKTARDS!" I HATE this "Deckard is a replicant" shit. It is lame beyond words.

  • May 11, 2011, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Regarding Blade Runner

    by Saracen1

    Let's not forget that they mention FIVE replicants escaped to earth. Deckard only hunts down four.

  • May 11, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Floatingholmes, I'm with you 100%.

    by Harlock999

    Seriously, it makes ZERO sense in the context of the film that Deckard is a replicant. I always took the unicorn dream sequence to be his longing for purity in a world that's just shit. When Rachel comes along? Well, sure she's not human. But she's pure. And when Gaf leaves the unicorn origami, it's like he's telling a fellow Blade Runner, "just go, man, 'cause I feel you. You found what you're looking for ... and yeah, this job (and this life) really gets to you. Who really cares about hunting down androids who believe they're human?" Then in the original tale (which I prefer), Deckard is last seen with his beautiful partner soaring over a lush sea of greenery. VERY different from the harsh industrial scenes in LA. It's all very postmodern. And EXTREMELY cool. Yet, now, we have this whole "unicorn means he's a replicant"-thing. *sigh* SOOO stupid... I mean, honestly... wtf?

  • May 11, 2011, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Well done, Nordling! Great interview.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Olmos is the man. For years I used to think Castillo was his best and most iconic role. That all changed with BSG and his portrayal of William Adama - truly one of the greatest TV characters of all time.

  • May 11, 2011, 12:38 p.m. CST

    As for the whole BLADE RUNNER Deckard-Replicant thing...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...may the unicorn dream sequence burn in Hell! Seriously. You can tell Ridley didn't even understand his own movie with that piece of half-assedness.

  • May 11, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST


    by BSB

  • May 11, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    ....maybe he could report on TDKR. Prometheus or something actually 'cool'

    by Arkhaminmate001

  • May 11, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    E.J Olmos Rocks. End of Story.

    by Vince Collaso

    This man is a legend, and a true credit to the Hispanic arts community. I admire and praise his work, all the way from 'Zoot Suit' and 'Miami Vice' to 'Stand and Deliver', 'American Me' and BSG. The main reason I tuned in to see BSG was EJO. The show captured me soon after. The only thing wrong with EJO is that I don't see him more often. I hope some show creator has a big juicy part and entices EJO to "break a leg" again. Much respect, EJO! You're one of the best!

  • May 11, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    The original cut of blade runner is inferior.

    by Saracen1

    With those horrible HORRIBLE voiceovers. Harrison Ford sounded like he read that dialogue with the disgust that it deserved. And as for the endings...the original ending is simply awful. The Final Cut ending is superior. Period.

  • May 11, 2011, 1:52 p.m. CST

    The original cut of Blade Runner is superior because...

    by Harlock999 pays homage to the noir private dick films (most taking place in LA) with the voiceovers. ...its imaginative ending brings a real Baudrillard postmodern feel to the film (i.e., "I'm creating my own reality.") doesn't muck about with a tacked-on (Legend footage?) unicorn dream sequence. Ridley Scott's other cuts are certainly interesing, but unfortunately don't hold the weight of the original, depending entirely too much on interpretaton and guesswork. And what's worse? Scott doesn't even provide us with enough material to truly make sense of anything. (The Blade Runner PC game, on the other hand, delivered an excellent means of posing the question, "Am I really who I think I am?") Instead, everything is based around the unicorn symbol, which has always stood for purity ... not falsehood or "Hey, I'm not really human." And saying the dream sequence is a memory implant just reeks of 'comicbook science' and still doesn't mean ANYthing...

  • May 11, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Hey smackfu, do you also carry a get out of jail free card --

    by MooseMalloy

    -- you know, cause you're a psychotic child molester and such?

  • May 11, 2011, 5:11 p.m. CST




  • May 11, 2011, 5:26 p.m. CST

    EJO IS THE MAN even as...

    by NoHubris

    ...a "drunken, drooling" (to quote Chromedome from a past TB), falling out all over the floor ADAMA!

  • May 11, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST


    by Kammich

    Yeah, the original cut DOES refer to 5 replicants on the loose, but that was a continuity error. The original shooting script had another member in Hauer's gang that was shown being tracked down and killed. It got cut for budgetary reasons(I believe) but that was after they had filmed the dialog between Ford and his boss about how many there were. In the 'Final Cut' the line of dialog is re-recorded and states that there are only 4. And no, I'm not some massive "Blade Runner" nerd with an encyclopedic knowledge of the film, or something... just saw it for the first time in 10 years last weekend, and decided to read the wiki about it. It has a ton of information about all the different versions and the Deckard replicant/not-a-replicant mojo.

  • May 11, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Battles machines and lives. HE'S A ROBOT.

    by Pixelsmack

    Even if you toss out the unicorn business, the eyes, the other nods here and there...HE GOES TOE-TO-TOE with these machines that can crush rocks, drive nails through their hands and punch holes through concrete and steel with their heads and hands and HE LIVES! At NO TIME does the movie sell us on the idea that he's some super bad ass. He's just a normal looking guy. Middle-aged and soft. Yet he battles super-machines and lives. BECAUSE HE'S A DAMN ROBOT. GET OVER IT! Scott's Final Cut is the FINAL word. He underestimated how stupid the movie going masses really are in putting a story together so he spelled it out as clear-as-he-could with those additional edits. Besides, for my prequel script to work Deckard has to be an android...eventually.

  • May 11, 2011, 5:58 p.m. CST

    I'm in the Houston area too!

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    We need more Houston AICN Events. Or Any?

  • May 11, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    goddamn I hate Deckard being a replicant

    by MurderMostFowl

    Fuck Ridley Scott for that little bit of stupidity. To me the unicorn scene is such a weak link... even in the directors cut I never thought it meant that Deckard was a replicant, it just meant that EJO had found them and was going to kill Rachel. The most important scene in the movie is utterly ruined if Deckard is a replicant. That Roy spares his life showing that a oppressed being who is not allowed basic dignity in life has truly learned what it means to be human.... having compassion and understanding of mortality, to end up being more "human" than the human. The original cut, other than the tacked on epilogue is far superior. But it fits the gumshoe film noir world so much better. Ridley Scott, just Like Lucas and Spielberg are absolutely terrible at going back and revising their works. Maybe they should have just left it alone in the first place.

  • May 11, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    I saw in a documentary about a very notorious mexican gang

    by KilliK

    in USA,i think Santa Maria or something like that and at some point they talked about Olmos and a movie he directed and lead as the real-life boss of the mexican gang. And at some point the real-life gang got infuriated with the movie because it depicted a member of the gang as gay or something like that,and the gang went and chopped off the heads of the movie's two counselors who used to be members of the gang. i think Olmos was very luck there and didnt find his head chopped off too,othewise we wouldnt have him as Cap Amanda.heh.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Bill Adama > (Picard + Kirk)

    by PotSmokinAlien

    I love me some TNG, but Battlestar is in a totally different class. Probably felt close to what original Trek felt like when it first aired... but Roslyn wouldn't have touched Kirk with a ten-foot cylon cock.

  • May 11, 2011, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Deckard's status needs to stay ambiguous

    by GeorgieBoy

    That's one of the great things about the movie is the discussions we've had over the years of is he or isn't he. It's unfortunate that those involved with the film want to take that away. Truly great films leave you with something to think about. Otherwise you might as well be nothing but a mind-numbed robot like people who go to see Michael Bay films...

  • May 11, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Is there some AI somewhere...

    by PotSmokinAlien

    ...that's programmed to cough up the same inane chain of comments about fuckin' Deckard and whether or not he was a replicant every time it's brought up in an interview?

  • May 11, 2011, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Great Interview

    by jazzylg

    EJO is an excellent actor. Should have gotten an emmy nod on BSG.

  • May 11, 2011, 10:40 p.m. CST

    THIS IS REVIEW!!!!!!

    by Arcadian Del Sol


  • May 12, 2011, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Deckard as Replicant

    by lv_426

    I always sort of took it to heart that Roy Batty was trying to teach Deckard a lesson on being human. Batty could have killed Deckard, but instead of doing that, he made Deckard respect him as an opponent, and in a way understand him. Whether Deckard is a replicant or not is not the point. The whole point is that anyone walking around in the background, all the extras in Blade Runner, anyone of them could have been a replicant as well.

  • May 12, 2011, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell

    by lv_426

    After not having seen it in quite a while, I watched Ghost in the Shell the other night, and one of the things that struck me as to why it is so brilliant, is that it never tells the audience how much of Motoko Kusanagi and Batou are artificial and how much of them are actually still human, or if they ever were completely natural humans at one point in time. Modern day sci-fi movies are sometimes a bit too keen on explaining things or differentiating who is a robot, or an alien, or some sort of non-human entity. I really like how films like Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell sort of mess with our heads a bit and make us work to figure out the exact nature of these types of characters. Even something like The Terminator, when you first see it, you don't know the true nature of what Arnold is until he looses his skin. Both of these types of methods, using ambiguity or the slow drip method of revealing things is much more engaging than having some techno-nerd character spurt out exposition.

  • May 12, 2011, 1:33 a.m. CST

    In his next movie, Eddie Olmos

    by BooBoosDaddy

    plays a guy who slouches, talks in low, serious, ominous tones versus his other character in which he plays a...wait...never mind.

  • May 12, 2011, 5:01 a.m. CST

    amen lv_426

    by alexander

  • May 12, 2011, 6:11 a.m. CST

    low, serious, ominous tones versus his other character

    by NoHubris

    You must be referring to the father in SELENA and/or the teacher in STAND AND DELIVER.

  • May 12, 2011, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Youtube-Ridley Scott interview explaining Deck is a replicant

    by BikoQue "Deckard finds out he is a replicant"

  • May 12, 2011, 11:23 a.m. CST

    I think that braindrain is a replicant


    Some internet construct generated to promote Twitter. No one can be that clueless and humorless.

  • May 12, 2011, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Idiot: Gee Mr. Olmos, is Rick Deckard a Replicant?

    by Genius

    Could you have possibly embarrassed yourself more?

  • May 12, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    by Marlboroliteman

    Blade Runner had a lot of problems (particularly Harrison Ford's horrible performance) but the good out weighs the bad. But if Deckard was a replicant then: A) why didn't he posses the same superhuman strength that Roy and the others did? B) why didn't he posses the same acting skills that Roy and the others did? C) why didn't he finger Pris like Roy did after he shot her. D) why didn't he kill himself after he realized he was a replicant he was a blade runner after all E) why couldn't he fly and shoot lasers out of his eyes like General Zod?

  • May 12, 2011, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Deckard was not a replicant. Case closed.

    by v3d

    Why? Cause Philip K. Dick said so. Scott, Ford and Olmos are wrong.

  • May 12, 2011, 3:22 p.m. CST

    the_choppah, you are texan?

    by AsimovLives

    Somehow, i should had suspected that about you.

  • May 12, 2011, 3:27 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    One of the replicants, the fifth unnamed, died fried by the Tyrell's electrical defense system when they tried to break in first. Leon is detected latter when they tried to influltrate Tyrrel as employees. Captain Bryan himself tells that to Deckard during the briefing scene.

  • May 12, 2011, 3:32 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The original cut of BR mentions 6 replicants. Becasue that scene was shot before they realised that due to budgetary problems, they had to remove one actor from the movie, and they decided on the actress who was to play the fifth replicant becasue she would be in only one scene and she would be the reductant character. Basically, her single scene was a replicant dying from old age, fading away. They didn't even shot anything with that actress. Back then they tried to voice-over a 5 over the six replicants speech, but it sounded so phooney and worked so bad they decided to keep the six in and the hell with it. It was only with the mega extras DVD special edition they finally had the technology to change the dialogue convincingly.

  • May 12, 2011, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Deckard is human.

    by AsimovLives

    There's some people, like GuilhermoDel toro, who embrace the ambiguity of a Deck-a-Rep-or-not issue. They never want the answer to that, they want and love the ambiguity. But i'm more in the position of Frank Darabount, that Deckard is a human. The movie, for me, makes little sense otherwise.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:14 a.m. CST


    by JamesT

    Good call. JMS was on Genie and Compuserve in the early 90s. As far as Decker being a replicant, Harrison says no and that's good enough for me.

  • May 13, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST

    unicorn scene

    by JamesT

    I thought the unicorn scene was meant to signify that Rachael had no incept date and therefore could be with Deckard.

  • May 16, 2011, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Olmos 3 days

    by Greek George

    Nordling, We now have Mr. Olmos extended to all 3 days... worth a full Con pass! Also, we're the largest Gaming convention of the Southwest, too... :)