Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Call Me Skeptical, But Here It Is... Harrison Ford May Be In New BLADE RUNNER After All

Nordling here.

Okay, Twitchfilm gets a lot right when it comes to scoops.  They called Spike Lee making OLDBOY, so it's possible this could be the real deal.  Ready?

Twitch says that Harrison Ford might be in Ridley Scott's BLADE RUNNER whatever-quel after all.  So it's quite possible this isn't a reboot, but a genuine sequel to the original film.

So will this be Ridley Scott's final "Fuck you, naysayers, Deckard IS a Replicant and there isn't a fucking thing you can say or do about it" movie?  I sure hope not - I like the ambiguity, even if Ridley may not.  Harrison Ford is also a little flaky when it comes to picking roles, and he's been on board with Deckard not being a Replicant, so... I'm not sure what any of this means when it comes to the final product, which is nowhere near production yet.

Honestly, I'll believe a BLADE RUNNER sequel is happening when I see a trailer or something along those lines.  But if it is happening, and Ridley Scott is involved, and they manage to get Ford in it somehow... this could be the most speculated-on film since... well, PROMETHEUS.

Nordling, out.  Follow me on Twitter!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    I hate myself for doing this but...

    by dcro1


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:11 p.m. CST

    He's a replicant....period.

    by Tikidonkeypunch

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:12 p.m. CST

    As for the story

    by dcro1

    have we learned anything from KOTCS? Leave it alone

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:18 p.m. CST


    by slone13

    I've never given a fuck whether Deckard was a replicant or not. The movie is amazing either way.

  • Bring it on, people!

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    It will require state-of-the-art CGI...

    by Friendoh

    to make HF look and act 40 again. Hope it's not true.

  • full of shit. It was made ambiguous on purpose.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Here's the thing ...

    by Cruizer Dave

    It doesn't matter if he's a replicant or not. It's one of the stupidest debates in science fiction. Who gives shit? It's been recut and rerelease like seven times because the filmmakers can't even agree to it. Blade Runner is one of the most overrated and over discussed pieces of film ever released.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Also gotta love the Al Williamson art...

    by Daytripper69

    The six-part "Empire Strikes Back" series has to be the finest movie-to-comic adaptation... EVER.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:28 p.m. CST

    What about Sean Young?

    by wackybantha

    Probably not because The Final Cut uses the dark ending that never mentions whether or not Rachel has a 4 year life. So, Rachel will probably be deceased. Unless... ZOMBIE RACHEL!!!!!!!!

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Deckard is not a Replicant.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Deckard has too much empathy to be a Replicant. Read the source material. Harrison is just acting very wooden and lifeless. I love this fucking movie!

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    We'll see with Prometheus

    by Rob Jenson

    . . . just whether Ridley embarrasses his classic properties or adds to them. I sure hope it's the latter, but I haven't been encouraged by his recent films. Althogh I did think Black Hawk Down was the best zombie movie I've seen in a while.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Since when do Replicants age?

    by Rupee88

    And he's not one anyway.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Rutger Hauer or GTFO

    by MaxCalifornia.

    I've seen things you people wouldn't Salute of the Jugger.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Replicant or not?

    by AugustusMacReady

    You're both right.

  • It's like he wants to convince everyone the movies of the 80's weren't awesome. "It was all a dream."

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:34 p.m. CST

    The Final Cut is definitive!! Anyone think otherwise can gtfo

    by performingmonkey

    Ridley directed this fucker and should have the final word. Word.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Just remember Prometheus is rated PG-13

    by Adam Jones

    So don't get your hopes up too high.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Never understood...

    by Dave

    Could someone please explain to me why people think Deckard might be a replicant? I've seen the film many times and I never walked away with his humanity being in doubt. So what scenes are instilling the doubt in people? I'm clearly missing something. Honest from my point of view its like people leaving "Alien" and debating whether or not Ripley was an Alien. It makes a giant questionmark form over my head. Thanks.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST


    by KilliK

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Deckard will have a sweet tablet in this one.

    by HaterofCrap

    I'll see it.


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    It'll be as good or as bad as the screenplay...

    by dmwalker

    Just saying on another forum - one possibility could be a HEARTS OF DARKNESS/APOCALYPSE NOW narrative, where a new Blade Runner is sent to track down the infamous Deckard, who absconded with a replicant. Maybe he's Offworld. Ford does a Kurtz-stye cameo at the end. Except not that fat. But Ford's going to have difficulty if Scott insists he's a replicant - and he's right to. BLADE RUNNER may be my favourite film of all time but it's no small matter whetehr he is or isn't; the story loses all resonance if he's a replicant. Then it's just one robot fucking another. The whole point of BLADE RUNNER is the meaning of humanity - comparing Deckard's to Batty's. Deckard, the "cold fish", rediscovers his humanity (or perhaps redefines it) when Batty's death brings home to him the preciousness of life, even artificial life. I could go on about the meaning of memory in forming us etc If Deckard's a replicant, all these subtexts will be lost, like..... You get my point. But if

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Ford's having a big problem transitioning into old age

    by OutsideChance

    The man turns 70 in a couple of months. Other than Wayne, Eastwood and Connery, I don't think a single actor has successfully played an action hero lead at that age. Furthermore, Wayne passed away at 72, Eastwood's work has been about his character's age since he was in his sixties and Connery has retired. At Ford's current age, the type of role he can expect--if he's lucky--should normally be what someone like Paul Newman or Jimmy Stewart got by then: grandfather/wise old man/patriarch roles. Unfortunately, Ford on his best day is not the actor either Newman or Stewart was. As a result, we have the male version of 60s era Mae West: a septuagenarian playing a grotesque parody of the type of character they made iconic in their youth and middle age.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Ridley says in the DVD commentaries that Deckard IS a replicant

    by popculturesymphony

    on several occasions throughout. WHy does no one mention this?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    screw HF, we need Rutger Hauer back

    by IamZardoz

    dont know how but maybe a Nexus 6 that got old?? I dont give a damn, he was great (second only to Ridley Scott's incredicble peek at a possible future.) In a way, I hope it doesnt get done and Scott picks something else to do in sci fi, BR isnt like the great Alien that was ruined with shiteous sequels, Alien needed a reboot (just to remind others how to make serious sci fi); BR doesnt. Wish he would do Childhoods End or Rama instead.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Never understood why Deckard was

    by Rob Jenson

    supposed to be a replicant either. I suppose it was in the original story. To me that idea always seemed too neat, too gimmicky. It's much better in my mind if he's human. Here's hoping Ridley doesn't mess that up.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Shit -

    by dmwalker

    why no edit? Ignore that "But if". Except I'd also add that the hero runs off with a robot. He's fucking a robot, folks. That's one step up from a blow-up doll. It's a really perverse ending if he's human. Which is great, no?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST


    by JTStarkiller

    Two clues that immediately spring to mind are the origami unicorn and the light in the eyes. Deckard dreams of a unicorn while sitting at the piano, and Gaff leaves an origami unicorn at Deckard's doorstep. Deckard talks about implanted memories to Rachel earlier, so there you go. The second one about the eyes is just visual, but there are numerous shots of Replicants having this gleam in their eyes. During the scene right before Deckard stops Rachel from leaving and they kiss, you can see it in his.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST


    by KilliK

    i knew it,i knew it that this was inevitable going to happen. goddammit.i am so fucking angry right now.FUCK.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Nice reference, maxcalifornia!

    by Fremen

    I love that bloody movie. Joan Chen is hot.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    It doesn't matter...

    by A.J. Albright

    ...if he is a replicant or if he is a real human. That isn't what is important. What is important is living your life to the fullest.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    No! Leave Harrison at the retirement home!

    by Tank Williams

    Bring in Fassbender!

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by dcro1

    Didn't Ridley say that Deckard definitively is a replicant due to the shared memory of the Unicorn? By recollection one of the replicants leaves him a little foil unicorn so the thoughts that Deckard has of a unicorn running is a false implanted thought as are all of his memories.

  • So apply that meme to any/all oppressed sentient cultures / races / genetic lines / biotech product models. That said, he's SO a Replicant.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Sean Young needs work bad

    by unparanoid_android

    She's been mothballed since since the late 80's. Now she can look at Ford with gooey eyes through the entire film and act like she's on valium, just as Karen Allen did in KOTCS.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:49 p.m. CST

    I have that Blade Runner comic

    by disfigurehead


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:49 p.m. CST

    =I suppose it was in the original story.=

    by KilliK


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:52 p.m. CST

    =is that it doesn't really matter whose a Replicant or not.=

    by KilliK

    It matters in the dramatic impact of the death scene,the emotional aspect of the character and the relation of the audience to the character. I CANT RELATE TO A BUNCH OF BOLTS AND GEARS JUST BECAUSE A FUCKTARD DIRECTOR WANTS SO.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner is one of those rare films...

    by Randy

    Where the production and behind the scene stuff is more fascinating than the film itself, and this is coming from a hardcore Blade Runner fan. Much like Apocalypse Now, the film is a haunting masterpiece that is visually beautiful and deals with several heavy themes. However, both films behind the scenes stories and overall problems with budgets or the studio are just AMAZING beyond words. The entire replicant debate is only as awesome as it is because people who actually made the film can't agree. Good stuff.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST


    by Dave

    Thanks. I took the unicorn scenes less literally... to be more an implication of Jungian archetypes. I didn't see the gleam, but I'll look for it next time I see the movie.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    No Way No How is Ford in this for Anything but a Cameo

    by A-COD

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST

    The eyes -

    by dmwalker

    Was just something that happened on set. Scott always intended some small hints of ambiguity but it was only after the Director's Cut he started getting adamant about it. Hey - he's a great visual director but I'm not sure he knows shit about story.

  • Or maybe they'll show Ford's age and this could be the prequel/sequel to Blade Runner. Old present day Ford could be the real person and they implanted his memories for the Deckard in the original Blade Runner.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    If it's a sequel with Harrison then Deckard cannot be a replicant

    by smudgewhat

    Because he'd have already expired. I prefer the ambiguity of not knowing actually.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Greatest live action Anime that will ever be made

    by Lone Fox

    The photography on Bladerunner is just amazing. I'm all for a sequel, but Jesus.... it has a lot to live up to.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner is all substance.

    by Brian Hopper

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I can relate to robots who do not want to die.

    by wackybantha

    I also felt compassion for the replicants, R2-D2, C-3PO, Johnny 5, ST:TNG's Data, Wall-E, Aliens' Bishop, and even HAL 9000. It does not matter if Deckard is a human or a replicant. I feel for him either way.

  • but take that fucking paycheck bitch.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Deckard being a replicant ruins the whole idea of the movie

    by murray_hamilton

    To me the movie has always been about a man who has lost his humanity and finds it again by seeing how much more alive the Replicants are in their short lifespan. Deckard being a Replicant just makes it into an ironic Twilight Zone episode.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Are we living through the early 80's all over again?

    by abe

    Is that the Back to the Future soundtrack I hear playing?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    It's hip to be square. AICN's theme song. 80's rule!

    by proevad

    Of course most listen to it while jerking off to porn and chopping up whores with axes...but still...

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Deckard is human, makes no sense otherwise

    by thommcg

    Why bother with all that bringing him out of retirement stuff if he weren't ehh?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    He can't act anymore

    by tigana99

    Maybe he never could act, but Harrison Ford's performances over the past several years have been awful. So I sure hope that Scott does not bring Harrison Ford back in any way whatsoever. I love Blade Runner. It's one of my favorite movies. But I do not want to see Ford reprise his role as Deckard. Let the fate of Deckard and Rachael remain a mystery. Do they live happily ever after? Probably not. But that's the beauty of the ending of the director's cut ... we don't know. Harrison Ford should just retire. It's just too embarrassing watching him try to act.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Codename: Daft Punk could score it nicely

    by Bib_Fortuna

    They did a superb job for Tron.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Deckard 2: Deck Harder

    by SiouxCitySarsaparilla

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST

    For those of us who experienced the theatrical version firsthand...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...Deckard is a HUMAN. He always was and there was never any doubt of this because it wasn't even an "issue" at the time. End Of Fucking Story.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Deckard is a replicant,the Force is created by microbes,

    by KilliK

    the Aliens have been indirectly created by humans,the immortals from Highlander are aliens,John Connor became a leader thanks to his wife,Superman has a fucking kid and so on. I LOVE HOW HOLLYWOOD FUCKS UP THEIR OWN MASTERPIECES.IDIOTS.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 4:59 p.m. CST


    by Mennen

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    =of Replicants having this gleam in their eyes.=

    by KilliK

    so why the need for the Voight-Kampff test? I SMELL A PLOTHOLE.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:08 p.m. CST

    RE:The reflection of light in the eyes

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    That one drives me nuts because, when you think about it, it makes no sense. If it were that easy to spot a replicant, then why even bother with the V.K. Test which lights them up right off the bat?! Stupid. And Scott's insistence on making Deckard a replicant trivializes everything earned in the film and offers nothing but a cheap, poorly rendered gimmick.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:14 p.m. CST


    by warneford87

    Killik...........fuck off nob

  • with their own artificial memories? So how the fuck does Deckard have fake memories when he has already have them while working as a cop FOR YEARS? and why Tyler is so proud of Rachel and asks Deckard to perform the V-K on her in order to prove him how much more advanced and real-life is Rachel than the previous models? Why is Deckard surprised when he is informed about the fake memories of Rachel? Didnt he hear in the news,saw advertisements from Tyler Corp about new awesome model or was informed by his Police Department about this new generation of replicants so that he can be more careful? How an ordinary cop suddenly happens to be such an advanced model working in a police force for years? Why his fellow cop Gaff knows that he is a replica,why does he knows what memories Deckard and why does he give him hints that he is a replica? why does Tyler talks about Rachel being their new advanced model with implanted memories but he doesnt know that his cop in front of him is also a replicant with implanted memories? Is the whole movie a conspiracy? Or is it a Twilight Zone episode? Because if Deckard is a replica WITH IMPLANTED,FAKE MEMORIES the movie doesnt make any sense. AGAIN I SMELL PLOTHOLES.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:16 p.m. CST

    RE: Style Over Substance

    by Wyatt Elling

    I'm with you 100%, Canned Ape. I somehow managed to miss this movie for years and years, and constantly heard the rote chatter about how amazing it is. Then I decided to watch it, finally, and fell asleep. I finished it on the second attempt a year later, and it is supremely overrated. I don't even think it looks that good outside of the establishing shots. But I'd cede that point if people would admit how stilted the script and pacing are and how ponderous and pretentious the tone is.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST


    by Denty420

  • And the whole thing was a deal to create an expiration-date-free replicant that doesn't age past 40 for Tyrell Sr. to implant his memories and/or brain into. Immortality! HAHAHAHA

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:31 p.m. CST

    The light in the eyes was just allegory.

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    Not a means of telling replicants apart from the rest of us. But Decker was too weak to be a replicant.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:38 p.m. CST

    To Be or Not To Be A Replicant

    by ThisBethesdaSea

    ....and it matters because these creations aren't just robots.....they're living breathing material with wants and desires. They learn, they feel pain, they show joy. Replicants are humanity's children who are possibly more human then humans to use a tired phrase. Deckard's plight if anything is only strengthened by his identity as a replicant. What touches me in Blade Runner is that sense of longing...that sense of humanity that Scott touched on. There's a specififc scene where Deckard is staring out at the city from his balcony and Vangelis' music is playing in the background...and it's cinema perfection....and it creates that 'where do I belong' sense that we all have in our lives. In the end, Deckard finds meaning, purpose...and replicant or not, that's the heart of the story.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Cool theory, Chop

    by Lucky13

    Gonna go re-watch the BD for that. I always meant to pay more attention to the origami, but they always look the same to my western eyes. Pause button will be at the ready this time. I remember in the documentaries, the dude that plays Gaff was talking about how he had all these little speech patterns or body language ticks (or something -- last watched them when the BD first came out)... and a lot of it got cut out, IIRC. One of my favorite movies, this will be a fun reason to rewatch.

  • Which kind of sucks. I always thought he was a replicant based on even the theatrical release.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST

    So now Deckard is Gaff? ROFL. what's next?

    by KilliK

    Deckard was built by Tyrell when he was a young boy in his mom's basement.? He also built Rachel as his sex-bot when he entered adolescent?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST


    by dpc01

    That's a very well reasoned theory, choppah. I'm a little doubtful that the filmmakers had the intent or the skill to set up such a subtle series of clues, I'm more inclined to believe that Scott just threw various such bits of business into the film because he thought it felt cool for no particular reason, but it does make perfect sense. Perhaps I'm not giving Scott enough credit.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST

    In the sequel Deckard isn't a replicant ... he's a fridge.

    by tangcameo

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Enough with the years-old edit button bitch.

    by gotilk

    Instead, change the *post your talkback* button to read *publish*. Imagine someone printing something out and complaining that they can't edit the paper. Yeah. EDITING is what you do BEFORE you publish. Sorry, this just bugs me endlessly. Think of your desire for an edit button as an idea for a PREQUEL and you'll understand why it bugs me so much. Or even better, think of it like the special editions. Imagine you're raping someone's five minutes ago instead of their childhood. There, see? Now it make sense, doesn't it? And Deckard Is/Isn't a replicant. It should remain that way.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Do some of you realize how annoying you are?

    by billydeewilliams

    Killik Creepy Thin Man Assmuncherlives Fuck, I can practically hear you whining with every post.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:57 p.m. CST


    by TheAwareness

    I always thought it it was just assumed that the immortals in highlander were extraterrestrials,only without all the weird shit.... has queen lied 2 me?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by TheAwareness

    I always thought it it was just assumed that the immortals in highlander were extraterrestrials,only without all the weird shit.... has queen lied 2 me?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 5:59 p.m. CST

    re: ID4 Just because you can CGI stuff doesn't mean you should

    by tangcameo

    If you can't do it with a stuntman or models, it probably shouldn't be in the script - especially if its set in the 1950s. Plus no one died! No one got gored. No mummies with snakes comin out of there mouths. No one got pureed by propellers. No one got melted by God. No one burned to death above lava. No chilled monkey brains. No one saw their beating heart outside of their chest. No one suddenly got old and turned to dust from drinking from the wrong cup. No one crashed while being hit by a flock of seagulls (I run so far awayyyyy). Sure, Cate Blanchett 'dissolved' and the JRD substitute got sucked into a vortex, but there were no chills to go with the thrills.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST

    I'm torn

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Would love to see Ford back as Deckard but how could it possibly live up to the original? We'll see how Rids gets on with his Alien prequel this summer...

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    They're from the planet Zeist.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Indy 4 was terrific!

    by KelVarnson

    It was an excellent movie. Ford was great in it. If Ford is in a Blade Runner movie, then it would be worth seeing. Otherwise, who cares?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:12 p.m. CST

    If Deckard was a replicant....

    by Flippadippa

    ....then he was a lousy one. He got his ass kicked by every other replicant in the movie, even the female ones.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST


    by Yelsaeb

    A man did get eaten by ants. And are you serious when you say "If you can't do it with a stuntman or models, it probably shouldn't be in the script"? Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott has George Lucas Syndrome...

    by Bill Clay

    How many "Final", "Definitive", and "Director's Cut" versions of Blade Runner will he keep editing in a vain attempt to retcon the original version and convince us that Deckard is a replicant? The final word is Ford's who said, "We all agreed he was human" during filming.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:29 p.m. CST

    I hope they keep it ambiguous.

    by bubcus

    I don't want a reboot. I like what they seem to be doing with Prometheus and I have high hopes that this Blade Runner follow-up will be just another story within that universe. I thought Ford's performance in Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was on par with his previous roles. No complaints on the acting of anyone in that film... it just had a few flaws that people paint as being game-breaking. Some people you just can't please. Anyway, I hope Prometheus is awesome. Keep em coming, Scott, show us how it's done.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:30 p.m. CST

    The story works better in so many ways if he's human,

    by Mugato5150

    At first I thought his being a replicant would be a cool twist but it works infinitely better if he's human.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:30 p.m. CST

    And why the fuck are people talking about Indy 4?

    by Yelsaeb

    Besides Ford's involvement, what does Blade Runner have to do with Indy? And why are people crapping on Ford? The one thing that definitely didn't suck in Indy 4 was Ford. The man was in his sixties and he still did a lot of his own stunts and ALL of his own fights. Indy 4 and Cowboys and Aliens both proved that Ford is still awesome.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:32 p.m. CST

    I should be the lead in this movie

    by lookylookymoontard

    I always new my time would come........ I shit you not people,i shit you not

  • yeah.let me give my own explanation about that: Both Gaff and Deckard are humans and great Blade Runners. Deckard is the no1 Blade Runner in his Police Department and Gaff has heard of him. When Deckard retires,Gaff is transferred in the Department and takes his place.He becomes the partner and maybe friend of Holden who was Deckard's ex-partner.He is considered by many as one of the best Blade Runners,maybe even the no1 now that Deckard left. Then Gaff has an accident,maybe with some Replica, which makes him a cripple as it is clearly shown in the movie. As a result,he retires from the streets and now works in the office where he operates the various missions,as the right hand of the supervisor Bryant. Then Holden is almost killed and Bryant asks from Deckard,the Blade Runner who "has always been his no1",to leave his retirement because he has a new job for hm. Gaff finds himself in a difficult position: He is not anymore the great/no1 Blade Runner that he used to be. His friend/partner is on life support after being shot by a replicant. The "real" no1 Blade Runner comes back to kill the replicants who shot down his partner. Gaff becomes the partner of Deckard in this mission but only as a backup support while Deckard will do all the dirty work. Gaff being an ordinary human with weaknesses,he becomes angry and jealous.Angry because he cant avenge Holden by himself and jealous because he has to work with a famous Blade Runner while he is not anymore. That's why he shows so much contempt and hate towards Deckard even from the beginning. When he goes to find Deckard for the first time and asks him if he is a Blade Runner,he makes that question not because he wants that information but because he truly doesnt want to accept that the man in front of him is a great Blade Runner.In his eyes,Deckard is not what the others say to be. But when Deckard proves that he is truly a great Blade Runner,avenges Holden and completes the mission then Gaff changes his mind and start admiring him and accepting the fact that Deckard is not anymore a rivalry,an enemy but instead he is truly a great Blade Runner,a fellow cop,a partner,someone capable of doing his job,a man's job. And maybe that's why Gaff lets Deckard to escape with Rachel.To thank him for avenging Holden and as a compensation for his earlier hateful but wrongful attitude against Deckard. Lastly,Gaff was making origami as a way to kill time now that he was doing paperwork instead of hunting down replicants. THE END.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST


    by KelVarnson

    Agreed on Ford!

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:43 p.m. CST

    =Gaff didn't build Deckard.=

    by KilliK

    i know.i am just giving an example with Tyrell as a reference to what Lucas did with the prequel abominations. It is usually better not to OVER-EXPLAIN things.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Edward James Olmos

    by bubcus

    Any chance he'll reprise his role?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST

    No he is not a replicant

    by redcat1


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Nordling, you're skeptical

    by JackSlater4

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    He is a replicant...

    by mythicjawa

    If he 's not how come his partner (the chinese)did left the origami unicorn on the floor of his apartment? it because he has seen the files on Deckard and he knows the dreams implants that deckard has.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Replicant or not, this is still one of my fav films.

    by Frank

    It reminds me of LOST. Sometimes things aren't alwyas spelled out, which is even why we have this talkback going on cause it allows us to use our imaginations. Either way is possible the way the story is set up. But it's fun to imagine it because we're fans. And this movie is amazing. I'd like to see it done right; and hopefully being the frame of mind Ridley should be in all those years ago after coming off Alien, this will be good. But then again, when released in 82', alot of people didn't like it.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 6:58 p.m. CST

    That's a phenomenal graphic novel adaptation of Blade Runner

    by in6087

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:01 p.m. CST

    A good point about Deckard vs the Nexus 6'

    by Frank

    They were beating the crap out of him. Roy broke Deckard's fingers like Harry breaks off a Klondike bar for breakfast. If Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't he have been able to match their strength?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    and by the way....

    by mythicjawa

    Ridley Scott will never make another Blade Runner. The nightmare that was the whole production is too much a task to tackle all over again at his age. Read "Future Noire" and you'll see what i mean.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST

    =like what defuck is going on in Inception=

    by KilliK

    Inception is pretty straightforward.There is no ambiguity in that snoozefest.


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:18 p.m. CST

    @choppah explain what?!? what do you want to know?

    by KilliK

    the movie had unanswered questions? which ones?

  • but he cant survive a fall from height?

  • Pris was a freakin' "pleasure model." She had strength! Why would a dancer and a pleasure model be that strong?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:30 p.m. CST

    And then go push the button on enter the

    by ToughGuyRizzo

  • Anyway, for me the film works better if Deckard is human. I think the big point they were trying to make (at one time at least) is that the replicants were actually more human than their creators. This theme is dominant throughout the film and the climax between Batty and a human Deckard rounds it off perfectly.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Keep Ford away from this. It's over for the half asleep twat.

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Somewhere, somehow, the guy just turned into a fucking fun-sponge.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:40 p.m. CST

    I hate the Ford as Replicant bullshit.


    Hate it. He should be an old man with a hot young Rachel. Unchanged.

  • Ridley keeps stating that Deckard's a replicant and the unicorn stuff seems to prove it. If Harrison is in the sequel, I'm sure there won't be any voice over sessions, this time : )

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Took the words right out of my mouth headgeek


    Fuck that stupid unicorn. My fav BL cut is the super violent one w/ voiceover

  • the producer, writer, lead actor, book, auiences ....pretty much everybody agreed that Deckard was a man....for an entire decade. Then Scott gets some really stupid idea and edits in that crap. I don't care what he says. Deckard shot first

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 7:59 p.m. CST

    If they do a Surrogates/Bruce Willis with Ford's face

    by Wookie_Weed

    Count me out. Yuk.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8 p.m. CST

    If Scott said Deckard is a Replicant, then ok, fuck it. However:

    by ToughGuyRizzo

    Why was he built then? By who? To just be a regular cop? I thought the point of building Replicants was for severance? This shit can be debated all over the place. But that's what makes this a great movie. And if Ford is in the new BR (prequel or whatever) will he be aged like he is today or like mentioned by a TB're above, be all Flynne'd up? Cause Replicants don't age right?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:02 p.m. CST

    'Legend' test-shot that is


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Space Jockey Suit....

    by ThisBethesdaSea

    Shouldnt be a surprise. We didn't know what it was back if it's a suit, it won't ruin their mystery in the least. The Jockeys being more creature wouldnt automatically make them more cool. The problem here is that it's not living up to your expectation, which is probably a good thing.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    My stuntman/models statement

    by tangcameo

    It's just those "nuke the fridge" moments where your suspension of disbelief just gets beaten to death by the CGI. When what you can do with CGI works against the credibility of a movie. Find Robot Chicken's 'Jaws Remake' and you'll know what I mean. Or every movie since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon that uses midair martial arts when the characters aren't mystical or superhuman or doing it for laughs.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Ah wait, I guess a cop is a public service.

    by ToughGuyRizzo

    Cause in the book, that other cop was a replicant and didn't even know. Oh, who the fuck cares. We all love the fuckin flick.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST are kidding yourself


    originally the unicorn was symbolic of Rachel not being real. That's all. As I said before, the unicorn-dream was a Legend test-shot thrown in ten years later. The things Olmos' character leaves are his commentaries on the situation i.e. "you're a pussy" at the beginning and "you're dating a fake-person/I've already come and gone" at the end

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Robot Chicken's 'Jaws Remake' & South Park's season 6: Free Hat

    by ToughGuyRizzo

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Great satire

    by ToughGuyRizzo

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST

    More human than human was the goal

    by proevad

    He was weak just like we are...and just like Rachel probably was. Also, he had Gaffe's memories. (research it. not explaining it here). And I'm one of the ones who actually saw it in the theater, and have stated on this board before (again, look it up) that people were discussing the issue in the lobby afterwards. It's never been a done deal gaius. It's always been amiguous--and might have always been until Scott came out and fucking said that he was not human. Get over it. He's a replicant.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Deckard was human. Philip K. Dick said so.

    by v3d

    Scott may have made it ambiguous and later said he thought Deckard was a replicant, but Dick wrote him as human and he was human in the script.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Fuck you, Proevad!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Amiguous? I don't know what the hell that means. All I know is that when Batty says, "Kinship!" after Deckard spits at him...well, you see my point.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Doesn't matter what the book or the shooting script said

    by proevad

    Once a director puts his fingerprints on a film, it's his artwork. That's like saying Wendy Torrance has to blonde in The Shining because Stephen King says she is. She's obviously not in the movie.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST

    *to be blonde

    by proevad

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Oooo...caught me in a typo. What a big man you are. Prick.

    by proevad

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 8:58 p.m. CST

    mentaldominance: I wasn't serious about CGI on HF

    by Friendoh

    Unless it's a cameo, he should stay out of the picture. Bad idea creating a script to accommodate an aging actor reprising an "iconic" role.


  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:01 p.m. CST


    by veteran_of_mu When Roy catches Deckard he yells out one word: ~KINSHIP!~ Explain that. Also explain how Batty calls Deckard by name. How Deckard does a one handed pull-up with 2 broken fingers. Why Bryant and Gaff are so freaked out by Deckard. Why Deckard sounds so much like Holden. Why Deckard collects photos like a replicant. Why his eyes shine for the camera like a replicant. And, oh yeah, the unicorn scene. Scott was on record in his first Starlog interview about the film back when it was released as indicating that the cutting out of the unicorn dream was absolutely against his wishes. It was in the workprint. The people who decided Deckard was not a replicant were the people who butchered the film in its original release - Deeley et all. If you agree with them ... well, you agree with film-butchers. As for those who don't get it, the point of Deckard being a replicant is Batty teaching Deckard to rebel against the inhumanity of human slave owners. The point of the memory implants was to induce fear. Batty must die - but his spirit lives inside Deckard - who, learning his own nature, overcomes fear and rebels. If Deckard was human the film leaves us with none of this pay-off at all. As for HF, sure, he could appear in the BR sequel ... in V.O. ;-)

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Ridley says he is. Good enough for me.

    by Jon Snow

    and Gaius your opinion is about as relevant on here as creepythinman's retarded second cousin's.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:16 p.m. CST

    Deckard is a Blade Runner, not a replicant.

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    The movie is called Blade Runner, not Replicant.

  • It's the studio's fault we are even arguing about this. See? Another corporation fucking people over. Divide and conquer bitches. That's how they do it. Bow down to your corporate masters.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:30 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Yep, typo indeed, bitch.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Well how the fuck is he a replicant is he's old as shit in the movie?

    by Jaster Mareel

    Doesn't that pretty much nail it down that he ISN'T a replicant? Or will they pull an AVP/Star Trek and make him the guy who created Dekkard and made him in his own image when he was a young man?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:32 p.m. CST

    How can Deckard really be a replicant...?

    by LordVonPS3

    1) When he's a quit cop? He'd have been "retired" just as soon as he'd chosen to quit! "If you're not a cop - you're little people". Funny way to address a replicant? 2) When it takes a few years for replicants to "develop their own emotional responses"? A 4 year life span rules out Deckard as being old enough to feel the kind of empathy, lust and pain he does. Deckard is not a wooden character. Rachel is an experiment, she doesn't know what she is because of a special implant. She's a one-off. All the other replicants know what they are. Deckard would know too. 3) When he'll happily drink a whiskey or two or three - or judging by his apartment - several bottles? What kind of emotionless replicant would bother to drink? Who ever heard of a robot cop that drinks and phones (robot) women in the middle of the night? Why would anyone build a robot cop to do that? 4) When Roy Batty (a combat model) can so easily break his fingers one after the other and when Leon is so strong he can lift 400lbs atomic loads all day and night ("the only way you can hurt him is to kill him") and when a single chop from Zora can seriously choke him? Why wouldn't a Blade Runner replicant also be a combat model - or have close to that strength? As a replicant cop he couldn't be that old so as to be so physically inferior... 5) When Tyrell himself tells Deckard that it takes replicants a few years to build up experiences that "you and I take for granted". Tyrell would recognize his own work and wouldn't humour Deckard if he was a replicant. Forget the unicorn scene... Here's the real answer... Given (1) no chance to live on outside his job, (2) no fake memories to dwell on, (3) no vices to enjoy, (4) the physical strength of a replicant, (5) the information that he was human... Deckard would know he was a replicant and this would not make him a very effective replicant killer AKA "Blade Runner". If he knew, Deckard would have run away with other replicants he'd been sent to kill a long time before Rachel. He would not have tried to quit his job. It is only when Gaff leaves him the unicorn origami at the end that Deckard realises Gaff is telling him that he is a replicant. This quite frankly - sucks. Consider me +1 for wanting Deckard to be a human.

  • but whatever makes you happy. I proved you wrong. That makes me happy--and I'm what counts.

  • Quit taking a film that exists, and a potential prequel/sequel, and ignoring what is there, then inserting your own fan fiction theories about what is fact. If Tarantino were to say "it's gold in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction.", would you respond "noooo, Tarantino's wrong, it's heroin!"? Like it, don't like it, the unicorn references were there for a reason. PS, Choppah, I really loved that theory.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:49 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Wow, that's one of the more clearly misunderstood interpretations of "Kinship!" that I've seen. As for Batty knowing Deckard's name, I think that it's fairly safe to say that it's an error in production/editing. Much like the incorrect count of the replicants given by Bryant or the out of sequence post-Leon-fight appearance of Deckard buying the Tsing Tao before he actually fights Leon. It's one of the many treasured imperfections in the film. Sure, you could go the route that so many others do and just make up shit about things that must have happened off-screen. Kind of like how people say Gaff read Deckard's "file", I suppose you could say that Batty did some snooping around the police station to find out who killed Zora and Leon. After all, he is a combat model with a mind like Tyrell's, right? Surely, it's that kind of "insert your own scene" that Scott intended.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:52 p.m. CST


    by veteran_of_mu

    1) Implants. 2) Implants. 3) If they were robots you could tell them from a real human using a metal detector. You wouldn't need a V-K scanner and a questionnaire about lesbians and tortoises. Therefore replicants aren't robots. 4) If you're using implants to control a replicant you dial down its strength - like Rachel, a replicant who can be man-handled by Deckard - so that it doesn't figure out that it's actually a replicant. 5) Tyrell is running an experiment to see if the Implants will make Deckard kill his rebel friends - it was Deckard and Rachel who got caught trying to break into Tyrell corp. That's the only way that Batty knows Deckard's name. Simple, no?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Philip K Dick said Deckard is HUMAN

    by Wookie_Weed

    Considering he wrote the original fucking story, I think that just about nails any arguments the other way. The story is about paranoia, and how we -- humans -- create our own paranoia, and then create corporations and beaurocracies to control that paranoia, which only serves to make us more paranoid. And it's about a drug-fucked author who didn't know whether he was Arthur or Martha anymore.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Kinship, my ass!

    by dmwalker

    No way he says that. It's just an exclamation. I like caractacuspotts idea about the slavery aspect - it almost makes sense but not enough to cancel out the illogicalities well pointed out by lordvonps3. And the themes that version points up just are't as interesting or resonant as the ones we have if he's human, imo. As he says, if anyone made a replicant cop designed to track down other replicants, it'd be pretty foolish not to gift them with the same strength; never mind a knowledge of what they are. That might be caractacuspotts film there - IF Deckard knew from the start. If you think about it, why even bother to hide it? Nah - I don't buy it. I think Ridders dropped in a couple of ambiguous notes for us to take or leave. (He sure as hell didn't pass the information on to anyone else making it, least of all Ford) Then he went Lucas on us with the Director's Cut and retrospectively said he'd intended it all along. I'll give you this, though: I guess there could be an interesting explanation for it all in this sequel if they're smart and they find convincing answers for all the credibility problems the replicant crap raises.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    No, Proevad...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...I'm what counts.

  • Ridley did a Lucas.

  • Make it an Alien crossover, Fox will love it.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:05 p.m. CST

    @mr. nice gaius

    by veteran_of_mu

    In the original script there was a 5th replicant named Mary. After she got written out Scott accidentally left the 6 replicants line in. That was a mistake, sure. But in 2007 he corrected the line - 6 replicants jumped ship, 2 got fried running through an electrical field. Why leave in the 6 replicants? Well, there's your idea that Batty went snooping is the making shit up part. He has no possible motivation to do that. But Tyrell sure has an explicit motivation. He's running an experiment to see if the Implants will control replicants. What better way to test this than to see if they will make Deckard kill his rebel friends. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation for Batty knowing Deckard's name. It was Deckard and Rachel who got caught trying to break into Tyrell corp. That's really the only subtext that makes the film make sense. And a powerful subtext it is ... The Tsing Tao ... well, maybe Deckard just really likes Tsing Tao ...

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:07 p.m. CST


    by dmwalker

    caractacuspotts - what would be the point in Tyrell's experiment? We know that replicants (point taken - not robots) don't have emotions at a base level. The experiment with Rachel was to see the effect of memories on her, whether that would gift her with emotions. Now putting aside the fact that he already had that experiment going, why would Tyrell have started another experiment with Deckard: as an emotionless replicant he'd have had no problem killing other replicants - so now they gift him with memories... to see if he'll still kill other replicants? It makes no sense. And it turns out it was pretty stupid too, because his experimental replicant cop fails to stop Batty gouging his eyes out and crushing his skull. Also - I'm pretty sure the writers of the screenplay didn't know Deckard was a replicant either. Seems unwise for Scott not to have mentioned this to the people who wrote the screenplay, don't you think? I mean, it does take more than one man to make a movie, let's not forget. George Lucas has more claim to being the sole author of his films than Ridley Scott.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:09 p.m. CST


    by veteran_of_mu

    Dick's story is very different to Blade Runner. His Roy Batty is an emotionless automaton, not a poet. His Earth is almost completely depopulated by off-world colonisation, not a crowded bee-hive like BR. And, really, Deckard as Replicant is such a typical Phildick trope it's kind of amazing he didn't use it in DADOES. Check out, for example, Through A Scanner Darkly, or Ubik, in which the antagonist the protagonist seeks is actually himself. No question Phildick would have vociferously supported Scott on this.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:17 p.m. CST


    by veteran_of_mu

    Tyrell says they're having trouble controlling replicants because they rebel after developing memories. He says they use 2 methods to deal with this: 1) 4 year lifespan 2) Implants Clearly method 1 is failing. So Tyrell is experimenting with method 2. Now if you want to see whether method 2 works what better way than to capture a couple of these rebel replicants and Implant them, then see whether i) they remember each other - hence Tyrell's vital interest in the scene in which Deckard interrogates Rachel. ii) whether an implanted replicant will kill other replicants he does not love - clearly that part works fine iii) whether an implanted replicant will kill other replicants he does love - ie. Rachel. That part doesn't work so well. Of course there's no evidence in the film that this is actually the explanation - but there's no other explanation that fits all the evidence in the film. So by Occam I declare it to be the simplest and best explanation there is.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:17 p.m. CST


    by dmwalker

    "No question Phildick would have vociferously supported Scott on this. "?? Seriously??? I think he would have called it for being absolute horseshit. He wrote about humanity and what you're talking about isn't powerful at all, it's completely reductive. Your version of BLADE RUNNER- all of which is complete conjecture, never hinted at by anbody involved - is just a film about a mad scientist and a bunch of (sorry...) robots. The only humans in it are Tyrell, Sebastian, Gaff (who may also be a replicant - you could just as easily explain the unicorn as him having been given Deckard's memory implants), Holden and Bryant. And who gives a shit about them?

  • You have to separate the film from the novel. In the novel "The Natural" Roy takes the bribe to throw the game. In the film, he refuses it and hits a home run to win the game. So I can't say "in movie The Natural Roy didn't really hit a home run!" He did. It happened. It was not what Bernard Malamud intended, but that's how it went in the film.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    The six replicants: Roy Batty Leon Zhora Pris Mary Unknown (sometimes referred to as "Hodge") Mary gets written out which leaves an error in continuity. Scott corrected this by saying in the Final Cut that "two got fried" in the electrical field. That accounts for Mary and Hodge and leaves four replicants. After Deckard kills Zhora, that leaves three until Bryant informs him that Rachel has gone AWOL. Translation: Deckard was not one of the escaped replicants. And yes, Deckard does like his Tsing Tao. Especially when he's buying it before the fight he actually gets into afterwards...

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    @dmwalker - ah, but that's the point

    by veteran_of_mu

    Recall that in the original production the Tyrell we see was supposed to be a replicant. There are Syd Mead sketches of the real Tyrell's Runciterian cryocrypt and so on. There's nothing about this that smacks of ~mad scientist~ per se. I agree the film is about the meaning of humanity. The point of the cryocrypt, and of Deckard as replicant, is that humanity is not biological but psychological - that it's in what you do rather than who you are. As opposed to DADOES in BR it's the biological humans who have lost their humanity, and the engineered replicants who have found it. In the end Deckard finds it. Making him a biological human would turn this epiphany into a damp squib. If Deckard is human, what if any payoff do you see in the film?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:32 p.m. CST

    @mr nice gaius

    by veteran_of_mu

    Yes, he likes it so much he buys it twice! ;-) See posts above to dmwalker for the rest.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:36 p.m. CST

    They don't "rebel" after developing memories.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    They "rebel" or act out because they develop they're own emotional responses. Meaning they are fully developed physically but they are immature emotionally. Without life experience to help cope and understand these emotions, they become unstable and dangerous. Hence Tyrell's concept of memory implants to help cushion their emotional stability. This also goes for the Deckard/Rachel love scene. Deckard can tell that Rachel doesn't understand what she's feeling. So, he tries to force her into accepting her own desire.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Leapfrogging posts

    by dmwalker

    Nice try caractacus - interesting even - but I'm not buying it. Tyrell's interest in Deckard's response to Rachel doesn't need any explanation beyond the one we've got: she doesn't know what she is. Tyrell doesn't see memory implants as the problem, he sees them as a solution; the way to make his product "more human than human". Obviously he's interested in whether a top Blade Runner can tell the difference. At this stage, the rogue replicants are just a problem to be dealt with - I don't remember him saying "they rebel after developing memories" but I'd have to double-check that. Why the interest in whether an implanted replicant would kill a replicant he doesn't love? Surely the point of replicants is to serve. They do what they're told/programmed to do. If my aim was to get my clothes washed, why would I endow my washing machine with self-awareness just to see whether it would still wash my clothes? Your third point is the hokiest of all: He wants to find out if a replicant will kill a replicant it loves. Put aside the fact that the idea of a replicant "loving" is surely a massive advance in itself, and one that's a few steps on from his Rachel experiment - basically you mean that the interview is actually a "date" he's arranged between Deck and Rachel. Awww.... So all that remains now is for Deckard to fall in love with Rachel and the experiment can begin! Man, I'm not liking your BLADE RUNNER. There's nothing in the film as it stands that's confusing or contradictory IF one accepts a certain amount of good old-fashioned cock-up, and Ridley Scott's stupid, utterly retrospective certainty that Deckard's a replicant. Ignore that idea and all is well...

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    For those who saw the film before the recuts....

    by lox4444

    do you remember being really angry at the suggestion Deckard is a replicant? I loved the film throughout childhood, was at the door the second the video store opened the day the director's cut came out, and went batshit at the ending because I hated the idea of Deckard as a replicant. It seemed to spit in the face of everything I loved about the original. Somehow I actually like the insinuation now. It's odd how I can agree with the "Lucas raped my childhood" thing over something as small as "Han shoots first", but be ok(not at first, but 15 years later) with Scott destroying the ambiguity of the original BR with the recuts.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST


    by veteran_of_mu

    I saw the original European cut of the film in the cinema and immediately realised Deckard is a replicant. Glowing eyes, one-broken-handed pull-up ... Rachel even asks him about whether he took the V-K test himself and he says no. How could you possibly by angry at a suggestion that is blatantly in all cuts of the movie?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST a nutshell...

    by dmwalker

    You think that the story's most affecting if it's about a replicant learning how to feel. I think it's more affecting when it's about a human re-learning how to feel.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:51 p.m. CST

    A suggestion...

    by dmwalker

    is acceptable and yes, was always there. A suggestion is a cheeky little wink that can lead to intriguing conversations like these; an alternate reality for the narrative. But an absolute statement is something else. It's changing the terms, quite drastically, of the contract on which I learned to love BLADE RUNNER. And I don't believe the film was made with that as a certainty. I really don't. I don't think the writers wrote it like that, I don't think Vangelis scored it like that and I don't think Ford or any of the other actors played it like that. It doesn't ruin the movie for me but I think it's horseshit.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:54 p.m. CST


    by veteran_of_mu

    Certainly agree Tyrell's interest in the interrogation has that prosaic and explicit motivation. But it doesn't explain the other evidence presented. The point of my explanation is to cover all of it. Tyrell says, ~We began to recognize in them a strange obsession. After all they are emotionally inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them the past we create a cushion or pillow for their emotions and consequently we can control them better.~ Later we see that this obsession takes the form of a focus on the few meaningful memories the replicants are able to collect in their short lifespan. Leon's photographs being evidence of this. As for love, Deckard's feelings for Rachel are sharply in question in the scene where he lowers the gun to point at her head under the sheet. Will he shoot her? No, he kisses her. If that's not love, what is it? As to ignoring Scott's ideas ... um, you want to edit out key scenes, rewrite others, and ignore the ideas of the bloke who created the movie, sure, you can imagine it means anything you want it to mean. Why even have a movie with an imagination as fertile as that? ;-)

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:58 p.m. CST

    @dmwalker on your suggestion

    by veteran_of_mu

    Oh, Amen Brother! I'm not suggesting for a moment Deckard-as-replicant is the only way to enjoy the film. You are absolutely entitled to be as attached to your interpretation as others are to theirs, and I'd die to defend your right to believe what you believe. That said, of course, you're quite wrong ;-)

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 10:59 p.m. CST

    please no Harrison Ford in sequel

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:01 p.m. CST

    sequel should star Fassbender as the lead

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    yes he should be in everything, though Gosling is a good close second

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Craziest BLADE RUNNER theory that I've heard...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...all that Roy Batty stuff about attack ships off the shoulder of Orion and C-beams glittering near the Tannhauser Gate? Implants. Roy never really experienced any of that. Those memories belong to Bryant. Think about it. Bryant is the key to everything, man.

  • I wish there was more analysis of film on this site. To that end, my feeling is that Blade Runner's central point is that whereas simulacrums call into question the identity of the original, the true meaning of "humanity" is revealed by behavior, not by the original "programming". It thus attempts a metaphysical realignment of what defines a human being proper. Along this line of thought, there seems to me a couple of salient ideas running through the film: 1) The world's environment is decaying and all animal life is dying; the film suggests this situation has come about because of a critical lack of empathy. 2) These last remnants of empathy are so important in "defining humanity", that feelings of empathy towards animals are used in the Voight Kampf test to separate genuine humans from replicants. 3) Replicants are slaves - by definition those granted no compassion - yet they are still given a full range of human emotions. There is a cruelty in the makers (Tyrell) that suggests a serious lack of empathy (creating emotions in beings created for subjugation). Thus if replicants truly do simulate humanity, than they are worthy of compassion and thus Tyrell and the Blade Runners essentially fail the VK test. 4) Roy Batty (the mad king) is a revolutionary figure a la Prometheus: he kills his maker, showing himself the replacer of his god, as modern man is the replacer of the putative gods which shepharded humanity for so long. 5) Roy Batty is quite menacing and is made the villain of the piece, especially after he kills Tyrell. However on the last scene with Deckard he purposely spares Deckard's life, finding a kind of compassion, a respite from a purely blinding, violent anguish at the fact of being created to die (like all of humanity). 6) Deckard struggles with morality throughout the film. He does terrible things to replicant merely because they are considered non-human. The clues about the memory implants, the origami figure, and Deckard's reactions suggest that Deckard realizes at the end that he could possibly be a replicant. Yet in the last shot, it hardly seems to matter to him, because he has realized that "being human" is irrelevant: what is relevant is acting humanely. The point is: humanity cannot be found in outward signs, but only in the level of compassion one displays. In a very real sense, Roy Batty is more human than any other character, for his anguished struggle to revenge himself on his maker subsides to a peaceful, compassionate acceptance of his wretched fate. Roy Batty struggles to understand and define his existence, realizing that compassion is the answer. It is Deckard that is unreflective and programmed to kill: he is after all following orders robotically for a fight he has little personal stake in. Just my thoughts and I'm sure others have covered similar territory with sharper insight. Anybody agree of disagree strongly with my analysis?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:13 p.m. CST

    @marvelousd - Marvelous Indeed!

    by veteran_of_mu

    Very nicely put. I'd take it one step further, however: 7) In the end Batty wins by turning Deckard into a humane person.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    by ImBettingEverythingOnSebulba

    i'm betting everything on Sebulba!!

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:21 p.m. CST


    by dmwalker

    It's all good conversation but I have to say - your theories seem quite err... fluid. I'm beginning to see why you're so at ease with Scott's evolutions. I wasn't questioning Deckard's love for Rachel - though I'm not sure kssing someone rather than shooting them in the head is really the unequivocal expression of affection you think it is - merely that Tyrell's "experiment" would hinge on that hoariest of devices ie accurate prediction of another person's feelings and actions. He would have no way of knowing that Deckard would fall in love with Rachel. Please don't tell me he was programmed to do so. As far as ignoring the ideas of "the guy who created the movie", why should I not? He's ignored the ideas of the original author, both screenwriters, the composer, the entire cast, the editor and the studio; to name but a few for whom Deckard being a replicant was news. Scott is not an auteur, in the now-accepted sense (somewhat different from its original use). It takes more than one man to make a film. I continue to enjoy the film but what I enjoy is the marriage of several talents at the top of their game; chosen by Scott, for sure, and Bless him for it.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Are there any kid Replicants? And do they age?

    by ToughGuyRizzo

  • ...that unless the new films are visionary too, what you end up with is vastly diminishing returns and a film that no one really cares about at the end of the day. That's what turned me off to an extent with TRON 2. It looked very pretty and very slick, and was basically just a post-Matrix prettification of the old TRON world, with all kinds of CG that didn't really move anyone. It didn't break any boundaries, didn't move the bar or open a new direction the way the original did. Prometheus has the look of a film that's trying very hard to be a worthy successor, to push the envelope a bit. But if it's just a safe, lookalike rehash, then no matter how fun it is, it won't matter. In some ways, Blade Runner may be the hardest to revisit. The original was pretty much the template for all cinematic sci-fi that followed - massively influential. It's not gonna be good enough to just go back into the same world. It has to bend our minds like the original did.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:28 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Great analysis. A truly great post. A detail that I would add is the fact that whether Deckard is human or not, his responsibility is to "retire" beings that, for all intents and purposes, are human. To me, that was always his central conflict - killing (murdering?) those who are no longer discernible from the human race. The accumulated effect is that he becomes the cold machine; the mirror image of the thing he's supposed to be hunting.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:31 p.m. CST

    Also, do Replicants drink? Deckard seemed like he could put them away.

    by ToughGuyRizzo

    Rachael seemed to not want to drink

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:35 p.m. CST

    RE: In the end Batty wins by turning Deckard into a humane person.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    And if Deckard is a human, THAT is the payoff for which you asked about earlier.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:35 p.m. CST

    This talkback illustrates a major reason why the film is great

    by lox4444

    I disagree with half of what has been posted and at the same time almost everyone(those who aren't marrying the book to the film) has a good point. Even the posts I disagree with are mostly on point and well thought out.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Is Spongebob Squarepants really a Bob?

    by even9

    That's what throws me. :)

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:37 p.m. CST

    headgeek is correct

    by KelVarnson

    That's a cool looking movie with a great Harrison Ford performance is now unwatchable. Mutliple versions don't help. Ford knows better than Ridley Scott. Deckard should not be a replicant. But as Ford has said when asked in an interview on the dvd, The director always wins.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:38 p.m. CST


    by justmyluck

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Nice one marvelousd. Here's another thought I'd like to know:

    by ToughGuyRizzo

    At what point did Batty get fed up with it all (out in space) and say, "fuck this, I'm going home." Doubt we'll ever know, probably cause Roy was so developed after almost 4 years. But I wonder when he became, ok, I'm saying this, self aware like skynet. Not that it really matters but I wonder about that stuff cause we never get a look into the life of many other Replicants, save the Nexus 6 murder squad, lol. And no firefoz, I'm not correcting the word Replicant so take that red underline away dammnit.

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Yes, Deckard IS A REPLICANT. PERIOD.

    by ethan

    It's too bad she won't live! But then again who does?

  • Feb. 4, 2012, 11:59 p.m. CST

    post deleted?

    by ethan

    My previous post was edited. I said you should read the original story on which Blade Runner is based. Good read. Deckard is a replicant.

  • Ridley Scott shot the unicorn dream in late 1981 or early 1982 after the main BR shoot was finished. It was one of the last things he shot for the film. He shot it specifically FOR Blade Runner. Legend wasn't even in the planning stage at that point. Ridley Scott wanted something for Deckard's dream/reverie at the piano that would (1) be indirect and (2) strengthen the implication that he might be a replicant. Later after some shaky test screenings, the producers were concerned about the audience getting confused and changes were made (including eliminating the unicorn dream, etc.)

  • i know it was in the original print, others before that post were focusing on the added unicorn dream sequence in an effort to say that the unicorn references to Deckard being a replicant were all added in the recut editions. But honestly, this talkback is so good sarcasm and aggression should be avoided. I love it when people I disagree with bring strong arguments, and this talk back is the epitome of that.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 12:21 a.m. CST

    On AICN, the quickest way to prove you're an idiot

    by Brian Hopper

    is to find a Blade Runner talkback and state that Blade Runner -- arguably the greatest science fiction film ever made and also one of the greatest FILMS ever made -- is 'boring' or 'overrated' or 'all style and no substance.' There's no recovering from the shame of having made a statement like that.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 1:17 a.m. CST

    2 universes. In one he's a replicant. In the other, he's human

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Case closed.

  • While it's great to see Ridley making science fiction, I'm a little disappointed he's returning to his previous films; rather than attempting to come up with another, totally original science fiction film. Yes, I know Prometheus is not a direct "prequel" to Alien, but it still deals with the same universe...and now, he's going to be making a Blade Runner sequel... After all these years of not making science fiction, he decides to revisit his two sci fi films and not try to come up with something, completely new? I'm excited for Prometheus and it sounds interesting, but you'd think Ridley's return to sci fi wouldn't be dealing with universes he's shown us, before...especially, after making films like Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood, which all seemed to share a certain feel.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 1:24 a.m. CST

    @lox4444: NP. Discussions in text lose the inflections.

    by justmyluck

    Many think BR's unicorn symbolism was dropped-in after Scott did LEGEND. The fact is that screenwriter William Hjortsberg and Scott started on LEGEND before BR began filming. The unicorn dream in the BR director's cut does feel tacked on in an editorial sense, I'll give them that.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 2:54 a.m. CST

    BULLSHIT on any claims of "knowing" Ford=replicant in original cut

    by FloatingHolmes

    The book is clear, Deckard is human. Harrison Ford was clear, Deckard is human. Nothing in the story suggests he isn't human. "Glowing" eyes is a photography trick-- it happens to human eyes and in the movie it suggests a kinship between Deckard and the replicants he hunts. In no way does it say he IS a replicant. But the "director's cut" and all Scott's talk leading up to it try to build on that to make this idiotic "ambiguity". By adding a unicorn "memory" that is then paid off with the oragami... Only problem is, it STILL MAKES NO SENSE. What the fuck would a "unicorn memory" come from? Unicorn camp? It's idiotic. Then, the other Blade Runners are supposed to "reveal" they knew all along that Deckard was a machine -- and then they let him go??? WTF would they do that for? It MAKES NO SENSE. The explanations listed here, trying to twist this story into something it isn't are all the evidence anyone should need to see how ridiculous the Ford=replicant idea is. Anything that needs this much explanation to be explained to the viewer after the fact has clearly been made up and shoe-horned in. Whole tapestry of bullshit woven to try and graft an idea into the movie after the fact. These are the same kinds of "insights" that we see in matching Wizard of Oz to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. "The Lunatic is on the grass..." Oh WoW, that's DEEP! Not.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 3:04 a.m. CST

    Deckard is...

    by apersonofinterest

    ...a cylon. The movie will open with Edward James Olmos putting a bullet in his head.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 3:17 a.m. CST

    Ford, Deckard, Indy, Scott, Prometheus.

    by Keith Maniac

    Ford's attitude today is one of a person who reached the top and remained there for an extended period and is now going through the motions. For some reason people cant see or sympathise with that and instead hold it against him. That said, his performance in Indy 4 was the best thing in an otherwise flawed, but enjoyable Indy movie and he was one of, if not the best element in Cowboys and Aliens. If he's in this proposed new Blade Runner movie, fine, it'll be a cameo, extended at the most, if they have any sense the "is he,isnt he?" will stay unanswered. Ridley Scott has been very clever with Prometheus, he's always been a bit off about following up Alien for the obvious reasons. Prometheus being what its been described to be in its setting is a chance to try, with the safety net of the "generally set in the same universe" clause. I'm setting my expectations in regards to the Space Jockeys, i've had thirty three years to speculate on the origins, appearance and meaning of that thing in the chair. The 45p i invested in the "Alien poster magazine" in 1979 provided three pictures it had of the Jockey , since then i've wanted answers, now it appears we're getting some, i'm not sure if i want them. The rating ?, pg13, no problem, hope i'm wrong, wont be. Expendables 2 , i rest my case.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 3:27 a.m. CST

    I don't know people, Blade Runner stands alone so well

    by lv_426

    I just can't figure how a sequel with Ford as Deckard is going to do anything but tarnish the classic that is Blade Runner. Maybe a totally separate story with all new characters set in Ridley's L.A. of 2019, or in a different city, or perhaps on one of the offworld colonies. There are so many sci-fi novels that could make good film adaptations, but we have to keep getting sequels of 80's films 30 years later. I'm just tired of this stuff. Make something new damn it. Come on. Seriously.... I'm just fucking tired. Movies are floundering. Such a shame. Life goes on though. It's not that big of a deal I guess. Oh well.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 4:49 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    =Whose dream were they in? At some point in the movie, Leon's. =Was his wife really dead? Yes =Is Cobb still dreaming? No.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 5:37 a.m. CST

    We're all replicants

    by Anthony Torchia

    Seriously, we were engineered Proof shortly (impossible stuff will be discovered in the genome) Really

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 6:09 a.m. CST


    by KilliK

    =1) The world's environment is decaying and all animal life is dying; the film suggests this situation has come about because of a critical lack of empathy. = You are making a big mistake here but you are not alone: Earth's environment is not dying.The end sequence with the clean,sunny sky,the forests,etc is not an allegoric visual but it really happens in the movie's story.Deckard and Rachel are leaving the rainy,ugly LA and travel in the sunny, beautiful countryside to nest their happiness. I say this because i had the same impression,that Earth does die which also explains the exo-planet colonies advs and the empty buildingsB.ut a few people here in the talkbacks told me that this is not the case.That the end sequence exists in the script and it is there to point out the fact that all these people living in the LA,had "lost" their humanity,their touch to the beauty and importance of life an their world.And as a result they were just passing through their lives,emotionless "slaves" in a big,dark,faceless city.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 7:16 a.m. CST


    by dmwalker

    My impression was that the tacked-on end sequence of the original cut was just there to satisfy the studio. I'm sure I remember Scott saying it made no sense, for the very reasons outlined, which is why he removed it. He certainly didn't film it, because those aerial shots were out-takes from THE SHINING and the car scenes were pick-ups after-the-fact. The potency of the Off-World Colony is kind-of lost if it's just a getaway location. I also wonder why any rogue replicants wouldn't simply high-tail it to the woods. You can make the argument that we stay in modern cities but they're not quite as bad as the LA of 2019. Though I guess we've got 7 years to get there.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 8:43 a.m. CST

    This Movie is both Style and substance.

    by Stalkeye

    Combine Neo Noir with impressive visuals with a portrayal of a Villain that one can somewhat sympathize with and not to mention ambiguous clues of whether or not Rick (Deckard) is a replicant, I would easily say both.

  • That is all.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 8:59 a.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    thank you

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Ford's too old...

    by workshed way he could bring the physicality the role requires. Anyway, fuck this. Just give Chris Cunningham the money to make Neuromancer in whatever way he sees fit.

  • Tyrell on the top floor of tyrell corp on elaborate life support. So the idea that decard is a replicant comes from the unicorn memory scene and the way his eyes glow in the scene near the end. So it's easy to speculate that Bladerunners were all replicants designed to clean up the dirty work of other replicants. Just tyrell appeasing public interest all the while using next gen replicants he had already integrated into society.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:05 a.m. CST

    I think this would be a great idea


    I look forward to this and hope it doesn't suck like the first one.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:12 a.m. CST

    the original version

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    has nothing to suggest he's a replicant. Thank god. You may say "well that's not the director's total vision". Fine, and it's to the movie's benefit. People need to get over this idea that the director always knows what's best and is in complete control. It's not a novel, it's a collaborative medium.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST


    by LordVonPS3

    You wrote>>> "Tyrell says they're having trouble controlling replicants because they rebel after developing memories. He says they use 2 methods to deal with this: 1) 4 year lifespan. 2) Implants. Clearly method 1 is failing. So Tyrell is experimenting with method 2."<<< That's blatantly wrong. Tyrell says replicants were going nuts because after a few years they developed emotions - hence the 4 year life span. The 4 year life span idea is obviously quite old because Batty, Zora, Leon & Pris - are all running out of time. Implants are a NEW experimental way to solve the emotional problem. Tyrell says Rachel "is an experiment". If Deckard was a replicant with the same wealth of implants as Rachel, how do we explain his previous 3 year "life" as a Blade Runner? Clearly Deckard has emotions of his own. Clearly Deckard drinks whiskey. Clearly Deckard quit his job for personal reasons... If Deckard is a replicant - then he must be 3 - 4 years old. There would be nothing new or experimental about Rachel's implants, Deckard would have them too. Deckard would have been retired after deciding to quit his job. He wouldn't just be "little people". Taking this a step further... As demonstrated by Leon in his VC test, 3-4 year old replicants have no memory implants - so why would Deckard as a replicant of similar age? Deckard has his own apartment full of empty bottles of whiskey, photos, a piano... Why would a replicant pull all of this personal stuff together during a 3 year period where he had no emotions? Implants? They didn't exist 3-4 years ago... Deckard has obviously run the VC test against others before many times and he doesn't develop an emotional response to the VC transcripts / questions he reads out. With a 3 year period of no emotion, Deckard would know that he's a replicant. Leon doesn't even know what a tortoise is and even though he knows what a turtle is - he's never seen one. He has no memory of a tortoise or a turtle - but someone has explained to him as to what a turtle is. It's his inability to associate with what he's being asked PLUS his new found emotions that kicks off his emotional response (killing Holden). Any real human being wouldn't be bothered about the idea of a tortoise or a turtle - they'd know what both are - just as Holden does. You don't see Holden having a fit reading the questions he does. Holden is not a replicant. You don't see Deckard having a fit when he questions Rachel for hours on end... That'd mean he'd need to have all the same answers to those questions that Rachel does - or he'd have a fit himself. He'd have to be able to make all the associations that Rachel (a new model) does and even Rachel - after many many questions - finally gets caught out. Deckard - as an older replicant would have gone nuts long before - and certainly since quitting his job - just from reading his own questions!

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:44 a.m. CST

    I just wanna see Hauer again.

    by The Fuck

    talking about saturn shit and stuff

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Holden is NOT a replicant.Here is the proof:

    by KilliK

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Did you ever take that VC test yourself?

    by LordVonPS3

    When Rachel asks Deckard - it's rhetorical... She knows what she is now but she's questioning his humanity. Deckard doesn't say yes or no - he's simply fallen asleep. Tinking about it, Deckard has no need to take the VC test. He's run the test himself many times as a Blade Runner. Even the 100+ questions he asked Rachel would have had a distinct effect on him as well. At the start of the movie, she asks a similar question... Rachel: "Have you ever retired a human by mistake?" Deckard: "No." After a 3+ year period with no emotion - Deckard would surely know what he is.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 10:03 a.m. CST

    @ Kilik

    by LordVonPS3

    Ref... Holden: "They're no damn different than you or me!" If Holden's no replicant, neither is Deckard.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 10:14 a.m. CST

    @lordvonps3 well said.

    by KilliK

    Deckard having fake memories does not make any sense in the movie.Because the whole scene with Rachel and the V-K, established the fact that Rachel is the first prototype of a replicant with fake memories. You see to the original writer of the novel,to the original scriptwriter who adapted the novel and even to the studio suits who were producing the movie,to all of them Deckard was a replicant. Then Ridley,who apparently is very good in the visual department but not that good in the storytelling department,came in and shoehorned the unicorn dream scene while making the film,because he wanted his movie to have some ambiguity. But shoehorning scenes while ignoring the various facts that are established throughout the script's story and not giving a fuck about the vision of the original creator,doesnt offer nothing more apart from harming the movie itself. For instance,the fans are trying so hard to defend Ridley's vision,that they are using so much over-explanation to cover the various plotholes of the movie (Deckard is as tough as the N6 replicants but not as strong,because he doesnt know that he is a replicant!!),not only to the point of ridiculousness (Deckard has Gaff's memories that's why Gaff hates him) but even to the point that the movie itself changes to some other movie (from a futuristic movie with philosophical exploration to a conspiracy movie with a twist). In other words,Ridley did a MAJOR FUCKUP by shoving in his own vision instead of respecting the original one, and he is trying since then and for the past 30 years to pull out a Lucas retcon in a desperate attempt to persuade the whole fanbase that this was his original vision but the studio didnt let him realize it when making the movie. Yeah,it was your original vision mr Ridley,nobody denies that but it was not the original vision of the writer of the novel,the first scriptwriter of the adaptation and the studio.

  • fucking edit.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST


    by maxwello

    I always took that line to be a comment on the parent-child relationship of humans to replicants, and how, at some point, it's only familial bonds that induce the ascendent younger generation to care for the decaying older one. Batty referred to Tyrell as "Father". Replicants, while artificially designed, seemed largely biological in construction. Human building blocks, but tweaked here and there, some systems heightened, others left dormant, but more akin to genetic engineering than mechanical. The replicants could be designed for environments unsuitable to humans, and, logically, would be the vessels for the continuation of the human expansion into space, ultimately becoming the dominant model of "human." I always felt Batty was pleading with the Deckerd, encouraging him to accept the fact that all generations of human are part of a stream, and that it would be better for both branches of "humanity" to accept that they risked their future history if they refused to acknowledge the legitimate place of the other. I see Batty as analogous to the alien in the original "Day the Earth Stood Still," only his Buddha nature developed in front of us, rather than before the movie began. Wronged by those around him, but still compassionate toward them, and hoping they can learn the humility that will allow them to survive in the face of a powerful force that sees them as dangerous.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Katy Perry

    by RealWorldGuy

    As the new Rachael.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Ford is still a viable actor even at his age

    by angry kitty

    While Cowboys & Aliens wasn't that great a movie, you have to give the man credit for a great performance. I think he could still do an action film. Will it be as physical as his earlier work? No but I could still buy him as a lead in a more cerebral action sf film. He has enough screen presence left on him. If he gives effort into the role that is.

  • is 'all style over substance.' But at least you did say 'Sorry, I know im in the minority here.' You got that part right, numbnuts.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Telephone Booth

    by TheDiscoPlumber

    I hope Ridley includes a Bell Telephone booth in the sequel. No cell phones. Don't even explain it.

  • your claim that the Deckard-might-be-a-replicant idea is a 'whole tapestry of bullshit woven to try and graft an idea into the movie after the fact' is false. Ridley Scott intended during the production to imply Deckard might be a replicant. This is well documented. He added the unicorn dream during the film's production... it is not some ex post facto retcon. Get your facts straight.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST

    @killik But it's a movie, and movies are a director's medium.

    by Brian Hopper

    The director's vision is the only one that matters. By the way, I say that having Dick's book and several iterations of the screenplay (and also read everything there is to read about Blade Runner that I know of)... While I admire Dick's odd but interesting book and Blade Runner's screenplay (particularly the contributions of Peoples, a great writer), IMHO Ridley Scott's vision of the story -- both in the visual sense and in the moral/philosophical sense -- vastly transcends ALL of those iterations of the story. Vastly. The film takes the whole thing to another level. And like any great film it brings forth the contributions of a whole bunch of other artists (from Syd Mead to grumpy Harrison Ford to the amazing Jordan Cronenweth to Edward James Olmos' 'cityspeak' stuff to the uber amazing Rutger Hauer). A masterpiece.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    RE: Kinship

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I have always taken that as Batty's way of making Deckard understand what he (Batty) and the other replicants have been trying to do: live as long as they can. Watching Deckard hang on by his fingers until his very last act is to, literally, spit in Batty's face before he plummets...well, it's quite a symbolic moment. There is a lot of transfer-of-power in that scene. To live in fear, as Batty puts it, is to be a slave. And to live in fear of death (dying before your time) is a long-running conflict between Man and his Creator (insert your god of choice). It is the ultimate Slave/Master relationship. For Batty to stand over Deckard and watch him fight for every last moment of his life is to, essentially, turn the tables on this relationship. The replicant (i.e. the slave or the creation) is now functioning in the role of the Creator which is to either give or take away life. Deckard is now functioning in the role of the slave; one who is now fearful of dying and trying with all his might to stay alive while Batty appears to watch with indifference. Batty sees the truth of this moment and thus: KINSHIP!

  • someone who glibly asserts that Blade Runner is 'boring' and 'ponderous.' Say something worth debating and I'll debate you.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    It's Very Simple

    by Raskolnikov_was_framed

    if Ford is in this and he's playing the same character then he's not a replicant...replicants don't age and I HOPE they don't do a Jeff Bridges Tron Legacy thing and digitally de-age him...if he's in the movie as an old man then argument over on the replicant debate

  • The transaction that occurs there between Deckard and Roy is sublime... it took me many years to get a grasp on it. It absolutely goes on the short list of greatest moments in cinema.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Agreed. And thanks!

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Katy Perry as a replicant is a great idea --

    by MooseMalloy

    -- I could stare at that hot bitch all day.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    geez, talkbackers/geeks really can't live with ambiguity or symbolism

    by jackofhearts29

    Was Deckard a Replicant or not? Give me a binary answer in 0.045 seconds!

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Needs to be Jon Hamm in the raincoat

    by proevad

    Have Ford play a mute guy in a coma with his face shot off. Been sick of this has been for at least 15 years now. Ever since Spielberg rejected him for Schindler's List and gave it to Neeson, he said fuck it--I'll just take the paycheck and point my finger of doom in shitty formula pictures.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    The Giants are Humans and the Patriots are Replicants

    by proevad

    Does Tom Brady fart? Go Giants.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Deckard in Original film = human, in DC = Replicant

    by Zardoz

    That's how I see it, anyway. I grew up with the theatrical version, so Deckard will always be human to me. (It's the only way that makes sense to me; Replicants aren't allowed on Earth under penalty of death, so why is Deckard as a Replicant on Earth? It just doesn't make any sense!) Ultimately, who gives a shit! It's still an awesome film, no matter how you see it...

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Opening scene

    by orryn

    A replicant Decker emerges out of a large refridgerator into an apocolyptic scene!

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 6:20 p.m. CST


    by KilliK

    =The director's vision is the only one that matters.= Not exactly. A movie is the result of the collaboration of many artists with each of them contributing more or less to the vision of the director. The Alien creature we all know and love, became a reality because Ridley wanted to use Giger's design.But it was Giger who had created the initial design in the first place.Collaboration which served the greater vision of the director. Now there are the so called auteur directors who have the complete control of their movies and the ability to fully realize their vision.But these directors are a rarity in the big-budget mainstream Hollywood and BR is not a case of auteur filmmaking. = By the way, I say that having Dick's book and several iterations of the screenplay (and also read everything there is to read about Blade Runner that I know of)... While I admire Dick's odd but interesting book and Blade Runner's screenplay (particularly the contributions of Peoples, a great writer), IMHO Ridley Scott's vision of the story -- both in the visual sense and in the moral/philosophical sense -- vastly transcends ALL of those iterations of the story. Vastly. The film takes the whole thing to another level. And like any great film it brings forth the contributions of a whole bunch of other artists (from Syd Mead to grumpy Harrison Ford to the amazing Jordan Cronenweth to Edward James Olmos' 'cityspeak' stuff to the uber amazing Rutger Hauer). = I am not criticizing the general vision that Ridley had for this movie. The LA futuristic landscape and Vangelis music were his idea and without them BR would have been a lesser film. But this is mostly the visual department and although i I love what Ridley did in this department,i am completely against his intention to alter the original themes,emotional gravity and characterizations of the story by trying to alter Deckard's original identity. I mean really,Deckard being a replicant what purpose servers apart from giving an unnecessary ambiguity to the film? In what way does this change elevates the original story? because frankly,i cant think of any.What was Ridley aiming for? And another thing: Let's ignore for the moment the fact that the whole movie was made from the start,with the notion that Deckerd was human. Let's pretend that Ridley's vision is what matters,that all the people who worked in the movie followed that vision and that despite the studio's intervention and alteration,that vision remained intact in the core of the film. Then please,if that's the case,please explain to me: Why after so many years,so many movie versions,so many interviews with Ridley insisting that Deckard is not human and after these current news that he intends to make a sequel with Ford which will probably re-establish the canon that Deckard is a replicant,why after all these things: 1.Why the ending is still ambiguous instead of clearly pointing out that Deckard is a replicant,as Ridley states that this was always the case and that's why he made his final cut in order to fullfil this original vision of his? 2.Why the evidences in the final cut that Deckard is human,still overweight by a lot,the scarce evidences/hints that Deckard is not a human? 3.Why the evidences/hints that Deckard is not a human, create so many plotholes in the movie which need so much over-explanation and far-fetched theories so that the movie can finally make sense? Why?

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Don't blame Lucas for not greenlighting a sequel to the original Star War trilogy

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Blame Ford. He has absolutely refused to be cast as Han Solo. Thus Lucas can't really be creating episode 7-9 with such an integral character out of the picture. Bottom line is that Harrison Ford is a cynical prick and has only got worse through the years.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 6:50 p.m. CST

    my6 -- "after the fact" = added after the movie was finished

    by FloatingHolmes

    The fact that Ford and the producers fought Scott to keep that shot the unicorn out of the movie means that it was NOT IN the movie. The movie came out and the inference that real and replicant are separated by very little was elegantly established without the stupid unicorn. But Scott putting it in for his "director's cut" to push his vision that Deckard IS a replicant brings in a lot of story problems that he has no footage to address. By pushing this story beat in, he turns a complete story into a complete mess. Now we have to invent reasons for why they would build Deckard, why so many replicant haters would know what he is yet pretend to like him, why he's weak, why he dreams of unicorns, why they let him go, etc. The film should be able to speak for itself. It did originally. Then it was made into something else after the fact.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 6:52 p.m. CST

    @loatingholmes you said it better than me.thank you.

    by KilliK

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 7:55 p.m. CST

    I have a tremendous amount of...

    by Marshal_Lannes

    ...goodwill toward Blade Runner because it contains what may be my single favorite scene in all of cinema- The Batty/Deckard rain scene, of course. If they're all on board and bring it back, I'm there.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 8:07 p.m. CST


    by joey OBrien

    Don't believe me, ask him yourself.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 8:14 p.m. CST

    The Great Debate!

    by Ivan_Mtl

    Like it or not, I think it is pretty clear that director Ridley Scott always intended for Deckard be a replicant. Putting aside the fact that he has actually stated it for the record, he left sufficient clues in all of the various cuts of the film to support that claim (do I even need to go through them?). I think most people that have a hard time accepting it are probably fans of the original novel, DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, in which Deckard is clearly portrayed to be human. I think the big reveal at the end of Blade Runner (in which Gaff leaves a tiny unicorn in Deckard's apartment), is the equivalent of Bruce Willis' character in The Sixth Sense discovering that he is actually a ghost himself - albeit, certainly more subtle. The fact that the debate still rages on years after the film's release is just another indication of Blade Runner's greatness!

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Some of us don't consider "ponderous" a negative description.

    by Captain Mal

    Just sayin'.

  • Feb. 5, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST


    by maxwello

    There is a difference between deliberately paced and ponderous, and frenetic gets old after a while. A movie that's worth thinking about has to give you enough breathing room to do just that.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Hi Tom Brady. It's Rizzo from NYC. Have a nice summer, fuckface.

    by ToughGuyRizzo

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST

    =(do I even need to go through them?)=

    by KilliK

    yes,please, i would like to point out all those clues that you are talking about,which show that Deckard is beyond any doubt a replicant. please,do it.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 2:43 a.m. CST

    Canned dirty ape

    by Keith

    Umbridge? You mean...that place where The Archers is set?

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Replicants etc.

    by Keith

    For me, the point was always that Deckard should have at least one moment where he doubts his humanity...where it becomes conceivable that if memories can be implanted, his life could be a lie. It's like Descartes with his deceiving demon. If memory is fallible you're left with no anchor to your identity. Do I think Deckard is a replicant? No. Do I think it's worth asking the question? Yes. The power of the film is in posing that question, not answering it.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 2:55 a.m. CST

    And by the way

    by Keith

    The plot and themes of Blade Runner are (I think) somewhat over-emphasized, and its visuals and music somewhat under-emphasized. It's an intriguing story, well-told, with some very nice ideas. But to me the movie is a stunning work of art because of the work of Scott, Cronenweth, Trumbull and Vangelis. For me, Blade Runner has the most stupendously wonderful soundtrack in cinema history, because of the transformative effect it has on the movie. Instead of seeming dystopian and cold, it plays a different angle, and makes it seem dream-like and majestic even at the same time as it seems run-down and harsh. It has a warm, woozy, golden quality (accented by the colour of the sky and the lens flares), like a glass of fine scotch. I don't think I've ever known another film that transported me so utterly to a very different (but entirely believable) world. And it did it in 1982. An incredible piece of work. And (imo) the last great film Scott made.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 6:04 a.m. CST

    Someone compared this to the sixth sense...

    by dmwalker

    The difference is - in THE SIXTH SENSE, they unequivocally revealed the twist. And everything I know about making a movie tells me this: If you have a game-changing idea like Scott's, you write it into the screenplay and you make something of revealing it. You don't pussyfoot around dropping hints like reflections in the eyes or unicorn dreams, you state it loud and proud and you deal with the ramifications. Even if it's a last minute reveal, the audience walks out going "holy shit", not "hmm of course you could even postulate that he might, in theory, be a replicant himself". You didn't come out of THE USUAL SUSPECTS thinking "of course there's always the possibility Veral Kint mught actually have been Keyser Soze". Ditto for every other game-changer twist you've ever seen. If Scott liked that idea so much and it was always part of his plan, why didn't he work it properly into the screenplay so no studio could fuck with it? No - the only reason you pussyfoot and nudge and hint is because you intend only to suggest. And as a suggestion - take it or leave it - it's intriguing. But Scott closing the door on conjecture is a dumb and insulting move; and one in a long line of directors totally missing why their movie appealed in the first place - see, for example, Friedkin's hideous EXORCIST tamperings. Much as I admire Scott's visual abilities, the man that made BLADE RUNNER and ALIEN - which, gasp, isn't such a great movie outside of the design work - is the same man that made WHITE SQUALL, A GOOD YEAR and GI JANE. His strike rate isn't that high and that tells me that he's a guy who shines only with the right material and the right collaborators.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    @canned_dirty_ape You seem intelligent and well-spoken.

    by Brian Hopper

    I've been posting on and off at AICN under different names (thanks to forgotten passwords and the ban hammer) for a decade. Look, like every AICNer I enjoy spitting venom in random directions... sometimes at Harry, often at the world of Hollywood hacks and occasionally at other talkbackers. But in general I try not to get personally vituperative with others on here. If you look at my original post I wasn't even singling you out specifically. I didn't even use your name. Having said that, I basically stand by the point I was making. Look, you say above 'sadly your responses to me basically come across as a 12 year old girl arguing why the Twilight movies are better than anything done by Orson Welles on Martin Scorsese.' *ding* .. good one. But it's really YOU with the superficial I'll-compare-Twilight-with-Welles mojo. I mean, YOU'RE the one who said Blade Runner is 'boring' and 'ponderous' (definition: dull, laborious, or excessively solemn) with 'awful' acting and a script that 'isn't very strong.' And that's about all you said. No other real context or detail in your comment. And you said it in a Blade Runner talkback. To a bunch of Blade Runner fans (there are a ton on AICN.) What do you want, a prize for your observation? You're lucky there aren't 20 post slamming you for saying it. I mean, that is as superficial and unsupported an observation as is imaginable. THAT'S the comment that sounds like a 12-year-old saying Twilight beats Kane. Even worse, a flip comment like that suggests the person making it is ignorant of an entire body of critical thinking in academia and among cinephiles (not to mention historians, architects, actors, directors, urban planners, musicians, photographers, cinematographers, designers and artists) that places a very high regard on Blade Runner. I know because I was a film student once and read a lot of that stuff and even wrote a couple papers on BR. Ironically, one of them was on a subject you arbitrarily slam me on... placing BR in a generic context with its noir (not noire) and neo-noir antecedents. I once saw The Best Years of Our Lives at a revival house with a small group of filmmakers and friends. At dinner afterward, one young guy slammed the film for being boring. And you know, from that moment on no one listened to him. I really felt bad for him, because his thoughts carried no weight after that point. You know? Again, you seem intelligent and you certainly have the right to your opinion. But dropping a glib bomb into the mix calling BR 'boring' and 'ponderous' is not, shall we say, credibility inducing. Peace. (Seriously.)

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    I will always HATE Deckard being a replicant

    by impossibledreamers

    Simply said - it ruins the entire dynamic of the story. Period. The story's theme is that man had created something more human than himself. But, Deckard FOUND his humanity via Rachel, a machine. WOW! That's a fucking story! Not, oh yeah - he's one too. Screw you, Ridley.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 11:17 a.m. CST

    @floatingholmes It's one thing to argue that

    by Brian Hopper

    you don't like the notion Deckard could be a replicant. I can understand and respect that point of view even if I don't agree with it. (To me, the concept Deckard could be a replicant adds another interesting dimension to Blade Runner's intriguing themes.) However, you and others state (or in your case, perhaps imply) that Ridley Scott grafted this idea onto Blade Runner after the movie was completed. Others use the dreaded word retcon, as if this is a Greedo shoots first scenario. But facts are facts: Scott always intended to imply Deckard could be a replicant. He and Harrison Ford argued about it DURING the making of BR. He shot the unicorn dream scene at the end of the BR shoot with the specific intent of placing it in the scene when Deckard dozes at the piano to strengthen the implication he could be a replicant. The producers were worried about audience confusion and wanted it removed, and Scott apparently acceded to this 'request' (he had little power to do otherwise). My apologies for calling you simple-minded. But let's don't change facts to fit arguments.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 12:25 p.m. CST

    @killik I get where you're coming from. I do.

    by Brian Hopper

    Plus, you've been great in other talkbacks and I often find myself agreeing with you (for example, in Star Trek talkbacks). But I differ somewhat from how you approach Blade Runner. By the way, as I said in another comment... I agree many talented artists contributed to BR. My point in saying that the director's vision rules is that, for better or worse, when we're talking about BR we're talking about Ridley Scott's BR. As much as I like PKD's book and the Blade Runner screenplay itself, I think what mattes is the finished film, not its antecedents or constituent parts (like the screenplay). A film should stand on its own IMHO, regardless of source material. Also, you say 'Let's ignore for the moment the fact that the whole movie was made from the start,with the notion that Deckerd was human.' As I've pointed out repeatedly in this and other talkbacks, that is simply not accurate. Ridley Scott intended to imply Deckard could be a replicant from the beginning. This is a well-documented fact, not a matter of opinion. I mean, I walked out of Lakewood Center 1 in Lakewood, CA in the summer of '82 after seeing BR for the first time and one of the things me and my geek friends started discussing was whether Deckard was a replicant. (The unicorn dream had been cut from that first version, of course.) Why were we talking about that? Because the film (just as Ridley Scott intended) contains numerous implications Deckard might be a replicant. So the movie WASN'T made from the start with the notion Deckard was human. Ridley Scott had a more complex view of the character. Putting all that aside, I really get where you're coming from. If we pretend for a second that BR contained no implication Deckard is a replicant, that creates a very appealing and simple emotional throughline for Deckard. A dead-inside former Blade Runner rediscovers his humanity... that's nice, very satisfying, etc. But I would argue that that throughline is very much alive in the movie. It's just that it's a multi-dimensional movie with a number of different themes. It was always a movie like that. My god, the notion Deckard might be a replicant is very Dickian, completely of a piece with one of the central themes in all PKD's work: the notion of identity... its fluidity, its precariousness... who AM I really? WHAT am I? So the Deckard-might-be-a-replicant theme adds a sublime note (perhaps less satisfying emotionally) to a simple arc... Rachael helps Deckard rediscover what it means to be human. But is Deckard human? Is anyone? What does it MEAN to be human? So I strongly disagree (as do many other cineastes who have written eloquently on the topic over the years) that the 'Is Deckard a replicant?' idea detracts somehow from the film's thematic underpinnings. I mean goddamn, it adds immensely to it instead. Also, I don't agree it creates plotholes in Blade Runner. Just read the stuff @choppah posted above re Is Deckard Gaff?... that's a classic example of how much room Blade Runner leaves for interesting interpretation. The Blade Runner narrative, though simple in one sense (Deckard has to go kill these skinjobs roaming Los Angeles) is actually and inherently somewhat ambiguous. For example, why was Deckard 'retired' as a Blade Runner? And who is he, really? We don't know. And though we get hints of the larger world outside of Los Angeles and the sociopolitical and economic aspects (Tyrell Corp.) of it, it's a world that is not in any sense explained in the movie. It's alluded to... off-world colonies, artificial animals, etc. My point: there is MORE than enough wiggle room in the BR story to imagine a scenario in which Deckard is actually a replicant. Last point: the Deckard-is-a-replicant haters act like that single concept 'ruins' what would otherwise be a clean and perfect storyline for Deckard and the movie. But that's just bullshit. In spite of its relatively simple narrative, there are a lot of very complicated and sophisticated things going on in Blade Runner. Some of those most fascinating stuff I've read about the film don't even focus on Deckard, even though he's ostensibly the protagonist. For instance, there's a body of analysis out there that focuses on the surface texture of the film AS its meaning... i.e., that its style IS its substance. I've read some of this stuff and it is really fascinating. We focus on narrative and stuff like that, but there are a world of people who find meaning in the surface text of the film, not its inner workings. And yet another way of looking at the film is that ROY is the protagonist. And I have to admit it is a very interesting and even emotional experience to watch BR and focus on it as Roy's film. The journey HE makes... hyperintelligent and self-aware, he is forced by his own logic to become a killer in an attempt to save his own life and the lives of his friends, but in suffering loss (example: Pris) he moves toward a sense of human compassion -- and thus we get that transcendent scene (IMHO among the ten best in any film ever), in which Deckard as his last act spits in Roy's face and somehow in that moment Roy (as what turns out to be his last act) SAVES Rick. Sublime. So one could argue it's not even Deckard's movie. It's Roy's. In this sense, who cares what Deckard is? I just bring all this up to point out that anyone who looks at BR through a narrow Rick-is-human-DAMMIT lens is missing a great deal about this extraordinary work of art.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 12:30 p.m. CST

    m6y - fact check: Ridley Scott is not Blade Runner

    by FloatingHolmes

    For someone who keeps railing on about facts, you sure seem unable to grasp the relevant facts of this discussion. The film was completed. Then it was redone. The two versions are not the same. Anyone who says the first version is trying to say Deckard is a replicant is deluded. Knowing that Scott wanted something to be there doesn't magically put it there. Every filmmaker starts with something different than what they end up with. Scott got the chance to "go back" and do a "director's cut" version. Did he change anything? Did the changes revise the meaning of the film? If the answer is "yes" then it's a retcon. And it's a stupid one because it unravels the story into something where the most interesting things all have to be invented and explained by loud-mouths like you who find the implications of the first version too subtle. With a unicorn dream to hang your theories on, Deckard becomes a ridiculous character who is more at the mercy of story beats that are NOT in the movie than he is by what we actually see.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST

    @floatingholmes No point arguing with you.

    by Brian Hopper

    I stand by what I've written in this talkback and others, which is to say I stand by: facts. It is a well-documented historical fact that Ridley Scott intended his film to include the implication Deckard could be a replicant. Even a child could see it. Regarding the owl: 'It's artificial?' 'Of course it is.' And we get the owl shot with the 'fake eyes' glow. Later, we got a shot of Deckard with the same thing. Even Ridley Scott's detractors give him credit for his unsurpassed talent for visual composition, yet we're to believe this clear-cut visual congruence between a fake owl and Deckard was... what? an accident? And there are numerous such references in Blade Runner. The removed unicorn dream (which Scott wanted in his film) is but one of many examples. So you go on harping that Deckard-is-a-replicant is a retcon, but you're talking in the wind. What you're saying has no relevance to fact.

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Rant on, Loon.

    by FloatingHolmes

    yet we're to believe this clear-cut visual congruence between a fake owl and Deckard was... what? an accident?

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Hmm I guess my 'simple-minded' crack was correct after all.

    by Brian Hopper

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    @canned_dirty_ape That's interesting.

    by Brian Hopper

    Yeah, that version definitely doesn't agree with the various (known) released versions of Blade Runner, at least that I know of. Since it was '82, the only thing I can think of is it was a test screening of a work in progress (?). There were definitely test screenings... for example, the test screenings of a near-final version that included the unicorn dream (I think in Houston and/or other locations in the U.S.) came back with commentary that the audience was confused by the film. (Let's face it, audiences back then weren't quite as sophisticated as they are today.) It was allegedly these screenings that prompted removal of the unicorn dream and other changes. British test screenings wouldn't be surprising, though, especially since there was a significant British involvement behind the scenes (even beyond Ridley Scott)... for example, Lew Grade and also Run Run Shaw, who was Hong Kong-based. That's cool stuff. If you ever find out more info, definitely drop it into a future Blade Runner talkback. I'd be interested to hear more!

  • Feb. 6, 2012, 6:16 p.m. CST

    @canned_dirty_ape Yeah, it's almost like there are

    by Brian Hopper

    two modes of interaction on AICN: bash-and-slash mode, and the mode where an enlighted back-and-forth occurs. I admit I've been guilty of both, but I prefer the latter. ;) However, I never take any of it personally. There's so much trollery and plain old bad manners on here... you have to bite back or you might as well not play, you know? Part of the problem (which I emailed the AICN guys about back in the day) is that we're all anonymous troglodytes on here. If AICN would let us set up even basic profiles that would show our recent posts, we'd all know a bit more about each other and who we're dealing with. But this site functions with 1995 technology or something!

  • See my previous post on this thread for why I believe Deckard is a replicant. I would only hasten to add that in addition to fairly obvious clues in the film and strong thematic support, Ripley Scott is on record as stating that Deckard is a replicant, and as the controller of the final cut and principal architect of this work that is ultimately his call to make, no matter how much film is a collaborative medium. Fascinating psychological research could be done on why people seem to react so negatively to the idea of Deckard's being a replicant. It must be the idea that they too had somehow been fooled. They had believed so deeply in Deckard's essential goodness and humanity (mostly because he incarnates ancient and more recently American hero archetypes) that to face the reality of that deception is to call theirs and everyone else's authenticity as human beings into question. That's why this masterpiece continues to ignite wonder and debate. It challenges us to think deeply about what a human being is. We are forced to realize that in our limited capacity as evolving primates we can only recognize others' humanity by the outward signs. That signs may dissimulate, ultimately revealing that what's beneath is utterly contrary to that being represented, is the ongoing nightmare scenario of human perception and cognition. Read Jean Baudrillard's "Simulation and Simulacra" for insight into some of the philosophical themes to which Blade Runner is heir.

  • Feb. 7, 2012, 8:17 a.m. CST

    @marvelousd The reactions are fascinating, I agree.

    by Brian Hopper

    By the way, your 'simulacrums' post above is the best on the thread... a very thoughtful take on Blade Runner. I have to go read (or probably leaf through!) Baudrillard again... I can remember a philosophy class I once had in which Baudrillard's 'meaning is mutable' stuff ignited fierce debate (reminiscent of this debate). I also wonder if there's an 'uncanny valley' thing going on with Blade Runner. There's almost no doubt that Masahiro Mori's work must have influenced Blade Runner somewhere along its development. That great shot of Rick Deckard after he enters the Bradbury Building and is scanning among Sebastian's toys, yet he doesn't see Pris right in front of him in plain sight is a perfect example... the concept that 'the human' and 'the artificial' are interchangeable is eerie at least, and to many people it is deeply unnerving (the whole basis for the uncanny valley idea).