Slashdot Mirror
It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant
ozric99 sent in a great bit over at BBC news where Ridley Scott reveals that Deckard was a replicant. This is of course the question on the mind of any fan of the classic Blade Runner film. I used to have this discussion with friends years ago. Great film: if you haven't seen it, spank yourself and go rent the directors cut (or get the DVD, it's beautiful).
What is really surprising is that the two sequels written by [checking book case] K. W. Jeeter are also really good! They're named "Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Humanity" and "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (presumably in order to leverage the Movie title in marketing), but they really are "DADoES?" 2 and 3 (As opposed to a cheap ripoff-merchendaise scam following the "director's cut" re-release).
Jeeter has done an incredible job writing the books, and manages to build on the original in a way that strengthens both it and the sequels.
I really had my doubts about those two books, but I after reading them, I have no reservations recommending them to anyone that liked the original! Oh, and don't bother visiting my homepage, it's one of those places that never really gets started. At least for now.
That's just one point of view. And like I said before, people who believe that are fools.
Art means no more - and no less - than the artist intends. The measure of an artist's worth is how well he can communicate his intention.
Am I the only one who liked the original cut of Blade Runner better? I found the Directors Cut hard to follow and I really appreciated the expository voice overs in the original theatrical release. You don't find good voice over like that anymore. Granted the studio's happy ending was a lot weaker than the directors cut, but I still prefer the original version of the movie in the end. It sucks because all you can buy is the directors cut these days.
Dunno, I have been slowly losing respect for Ridley Scott. Gladiator's ending was just sooo contrived. I guess everyone's entitled to some mistakes.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Ridley Scott's talent is demonstrable. Only a self-important ignoramus would deny a man's artistic achievements just because he once saw him drunk. And only a boor would behave as you behaved at that screening.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
...than someone who raises an objection that's worth answering, but then calls me an idiot. You remind me of my English teacher, who I always had to fight with because he thought that every story had One True Interpretation (with which everyone must agree) and I consider all the possible interpretations to be part of the final work.
the things which aren't in the work are sometimes more important than the things that are in it.
This depends on your definition of "in the work". By my definition, anything which might be perceived by a reasonable person is in the work, not just the things which are blatantly shown, but the nuances and suggestions. The suggestions and possibilities are a real part of the work, the intentions of someone who worked on the project are only real to the extent they are expressed in the final product.
The point I was trying to make is that an unequivocal decision by the director that Deckard was a replicant is unimportant compared to the clearly expressed (but not unquestionably verified) possibility that Deckard was a replicant. I believe he wished to express uncertainty, keep the audience guessing, and he succeeded. I do not believe that he wished to express that Deckard was definitely a replicant; his decision that Deckard was, is something he chose to keep out of the film, making the uncertainty more real than his decision.
ambiguity is very often the essence of good literature
Indeed, and if ambiguity is part of the work, then private decisions about the ambiguous topic are not part of the work (though a bias toward this choice can spring from this decision and become part of the work). If they have to tell you about it afterward, they didn't do their job of telling the story the way they intended.
astute viewers figured it out.
There is no real world that the creators are describing. There's no way to have "figured it out" because there's no reality underlying the expression (aside from the whole thing being a show put on with actors). Plots have holes, and either errors in production or deliberate ambiguity can create a work in which different possibilities are valid. This uncertainty is a real part of the work, regardless of what its makers intended.
Truly astute viewers merely noted the possibility, and did not get stuck in the mental mire of acting as if there's a real world behind the story.
A version of "Wizard of Oz" with a bit of minor editing would remove the final revelation that the whole thing was a dream. What if that had been the release cut? It would certainly match the book more closely (in which Oz is real). Fans of the movie might argue over whether it was a dream (earlier scenes in the movie certainly suggest it, though they don't make it 100% clear).
It wouldn't matter one bit if the director came out years later and insisted that the whole thing was supposed to be a dream, or even if the director's cut included the final revelation. The author clearly intended that it not be a dream. Whose vision is more valid? The director is only one player, and he doesn't even have final control over the editing. Many a director's decision is reversed in the cutting room.
Ultimately, the reality of the film's content is more important than the vision of the director. Whatever he thought, he may not have achieved his vision. Whether it was through interference or incompetence is irrelevant.
Note that the director's cut of Blade Runner is significantly different from the release version, and suggests much more strongly that Deckard was a replicant. Perhaps in the final editing for release, it was decided that people would like the movie better if Deckard wasn't a replicant. What, then, is the "reality" behind the expression?
When you sift out all the fiat decisions, only the uncertainty remains.
This was SUCH a spoiler. CmdrTaco should have put the secret in the "Read More" portion of the post. Now I can't see Blade Runner fresh. BE more considerate next time, please.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Deckard: "Deck of Cards", something a magician would use to perform a trick.
The actor who played Gaff (wasn't it Edward James Olmos?) looked somewhat magician-like -- slender, dark hair, mustache -- and his origami was reminiscent of a magician's card tricks. The secondary meaning of Gaff also supports the notion that he is manipulating a less-than-animate object through his use of Deckard.
Now hit me with some karma!
PS: I only just thought of this now, though earlier today I was reflecting on the fact that the protagonist in "A Catcher in the Rye" -- "Holden Caufield" -- also had a very overdetermined name ("hold in the field", that is, to be the catcher in the rye).
Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant.. but it was never concretely decided by the writers. It's still unknown to this day whether Hampton Fancher & David Peoples intended Deckard to be a replicant.
At one spot in the book Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (pg. 361), Peoples states: ".. what I had intended as kind of a metaphysical speculation, Ridley had read differently, but I now realize there was nothing wrong with his reading. That confusion was my own fault." Meaning: Peoples wrote an ambiguous ending suggesting there was no difference between replicant & their creator vs. Deckard (humans) and their creator.. but Ridley interpreted it as Deckard == replicant.
This is regardless to what Phil Dick may have intented in his book; Future Noir also informs us that Fancher read Dick's book, but Peoples did not. Peoples only stared with the script Hampton had at that stage and concentrated on the story/screenplay from that focus.
I would highly suggest any interested Blade Runner fans pick up this book (ISBN: 0-06-105314-7). It may not clear up all thing Blade Runner related, but it provides a damn greater amount of insight than even Ridley himself can provide on the topic. It is also one kick-ass read on the entire Blade Runner mystique.
-'fester
mm'kay, almost no MPAA. I'm not a rabid zealot. I try to watch good stuff. It's just the good stuff looks less and less like L.A. of 2000's to me, and more like, say, Prague of 1960's. So may just as well stop watching Hollywood crap completely.
For anyone wanting a good read, pick up this book. You will find more detail on BR than you ever wanted to know.
One thing the book details is that there are 5 (five!) versions of the same film, each slightly different from the others. These are (from Appendix B of Future Noir):
1) The Workprint
2) The San Diego Sneak Preview
3) The Domestic Cut
4) The International Cut
5) The Director's Cut
6) The Broadcast Version
From what I can remember from the book (and a quick re-perusal), the Embassy CLV LD or VHS tape is the probably the closest you will get to the original American screening, though you may pay a premium for it. There is also a Criterion LD version (said to be better image quality).
One version I haven't seen is a release on VCD - anybody know of one?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Just a few quick P.K.D. points. Imposter coming out sometime this year is based on a PKD story as is Minority Report (directed by Spielberg) coming out in 2001.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
...a computer simulation, or a brain in a vat hooked up to a simulated environment. I wouldn't be too worried about a brain in a vat oozing out and scooping my brain out so it could sit in there.
Besides, I think the profit could be quite substantial. My earning potential is a long ways from the mere survival level.
<hidden from="TheDullBlade">
Yep, he's got it basically right. I keep him and my other copies (not all of myself) in a row of vats. He wonders why he has such a boring life; I made sure he wouldn't have anything more interesting to do than program computers. I'm thinking of cutting his link to slashdot, he wastes way too much time on it, and he's as expensive as you'd think.
-ButterKnife
</hidden>
I remember having many conversations on this topic with my friends a few years ago. In the end, we concluded that the question of, "Is he a replicant?" was more important than the answer of "Yes" or "No". Rather, the possibility that he's a replicant is what we savour.
We also noticed a few other well thought out sections of the movie. For example, remember J.F. Sebastian, the man with accelerated aging? He represents a human with the same problem as a replicant. His duality is Rachel, who is a replicant with the same problem as humans-- emotions. If I remember, most major characters in the film fit into some kind of pair opposite duality, centered around Decker.
-Ted
*** POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT ***
The whole nexus of the story is what does it mean to be human - throughout the movie (DC), we are led to believe that Deckard is a human (or at least, he thinks of himself that way). He acts and thinks like any of man on the street, so to speak. He laughs, loves, and crys - to himself, he is human.
His job is to hunt down, and "retire", offworld rogue replicants. He sees no real problems with this at first, after all, they are only machines, right. But then he meets Rachel - and his world is turned upside down, by realizing she is a replicant (and she doesn't know it!). Still, he is in love with her (she is the most advanced rep ever created, supposedly - and has what humans would call "emotions" - a blush response). He is divided on what to do - and in turn questions what it means to be human.
Still, he has a job to do - and pursues the reps. When it is finally down to the last rogue replicant (Roy Batty), this replicant is also questioning what it means to be human, as well. He admires Deckard's constant drive, and his compassion. In the end, before Batty dies - he saves Deckard from falling - in effect, showing a form of human compassion as well...
This has the effect on Deckard of being a soul-twisting end - he calls into question whether it is really right for him to hunt down replicants - are they closer to human than what we want to believe?
The final thing about the unicorn may have sent Deckard into an overdrive mode - Gaffe knew something about Deckard before Deckard knew it - which means Deckard had to be a replicant (similar to the spider thing and Rachel). With Deckard being a replicant, all it says finally is that humans are machines with feelings, replicants are machines with the capabilty of feelings - and that both are precious forms of life that shouldn't be eliminated, because one thinks itself more superior than the other.
Of course, this is all in context of the DC version - read Future Noir for more detail if you are interested...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It's been known for a long time that Scott wanted to end the movie with the replicant ending. As someone else pointed out, Harrison Ford has gone on record long ago that he hated the idea.
For those of you who've never played Westwood's BladeRunner, I recommend you do so. The game has been out for several years, but it's recently become available again as part of an "Ultimate Sci-Fi Series" game collection that you can get pretty cheap.
Not only does the game faithfully reproduce important portions of the scenes, sounds, and moods of the movie, but you get some of the ambiguity as well. Each time you play the game as the BladeRunner Ray McCoy, it changes who is or is not a replicant. Your targets, your partner, even you yourself.
As the game progresses, you may think you've discovered what you really are, but often it's more complicated. For instance, the hard evidence that says you're not human might have been faked by a replicant you're hunting, or perhaps planted by a human who needs you out of the way.
Of the numerous possible endings available, some reveal your true identity, but my favorite has to be the ambiguous... [Continued in reply due to minor spoiler]
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
A few mom and pop video stores might have an old copy in their inventory. I rented Bladerunner sometime last year, expecting the directors cut---instead I got the theatrical cut with the happy ending. (Bleh. Studio suits.)
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Yes, Dick did work the screenwriters, giving his stamp of approval, but I've always seen it as a big failure and attempt at commercializing a great story.
I'm glad to see someone else here has read this book -- & that it is available on this side of the Atlantic! (I bought my copy in Duesseldorf back in 1997.) It explains how the movie was created, much of the work that went into the creating the world of _Blade_Runner_, & the various releases of the film.
If you are interested in the movie, it is a *must* read.
As for the question whether Deckard is a replicant, I think it has to be answered by each viewer. An ambiguity similar to the one in the television series, ``The Prisoner": who was responsible for The Village? The protagonist's employers or the other side?
Be seeing you,
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I must say, this game has incredible graphics, and it recreates the environment and locations from the movie 100% faithfully. Plus, the game requires thought - definitely a plus.
I picked up this game for about $15 at a Wal-Mart, and was absolutely amazed at the graphics, as well as gameplay. And comparing everything from tiny details like the lens flares, down to the audio and the score side by side with the movie.....let me just say you will be quite pleased.
Spend the $15 or $20 and pick up this game if you're a fan of the movie. It's definitely well worth it.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
PKD was obsessed with two themes throughout his work.
1. what the hell is reality, and how do we go about defining it?
2. what does it mean to be human?
This later question is all that PKD was concerned with in writing DADOES. Deckard is very much human.. and his trial throughout the novel, is his inability to describe those traits that make us human. Deckard loves his synthetic sheep, and although somewhat ashamed of it, treats it every bit like a genuine sheep. Deckard has great difficulty differentiating between humans and replicants, even doubting himself. The novel ends with the poignant discovery that what he asumes is a living frog, is synthetic.
What Dick might be suggesting, is that there is very little to differentiate us from machines. Rather than concerning ourselves with the uninteresting question of 'Is Deckard a replicant', perhaps we should be asking 'Is he really any different from a replicant?'. Are the concepts of self and individuality an illusion, and can we really ever know ourselves?
Eyes were a recurring symbol throughout the movie: the VK test focused on the eyes, Choo's Eye Shop, etc. In at least one shot of every "known" replicant of the movie, that character's eyes appear to "glow". (It's kinda like a photograph with red-eye.) This is not a fluke...Ridley Scott had to light the scene very specifically to achieve that effect. In addition to each known replicant, Deckard's eyes glow in one scene as well. It's the scene where he tells Rachel that he would not come after her since she saved his life, but that somebody would. He is in the background and sort of out of focus, but the glowing eyes are all too evident.
Origami was Gaff's way of communicating with Deckard...he made a chicken to call him a coward when he first goes to see Capt. Bryant, and he makes a little guy with a boner when they go to Leon's apartment to say he knows Deckard is attracted to Rachel. But without the unicorn dream scene, the origami unicorn at the end means nothing. I think it's a shame Ridley Scott revealed the secret to this scene, but I think that maybe he was just saying that the unicorn dream scene simply alluded to the fact that Deckard was a replicant.
There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
I was always of the opinion that he was a replicant, because 'Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep' makes it much clearer, But I never wanted to *know*
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
... are usually a sign that your TV isn't calibrated properly. Many people (including, probably 'Buffy') are running their sharpness and/or brightness controls too high for optimum DVD viewing quality.
Excessive brightness settings in particular are a great way to bring out those blotchy areas of semi-darkness that appear on many DVDs. If you're not into springing for a full ISF calibration of your setup, the next best thing would be renting or buying a copy of Video Essentials and following the directions that come with it.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
They are assumed to meet for the first time, yet he knows who hunts him.
This always bothered me most. Being so well done a movie, this could not be just a glitch, could it?
If he came with the others to the mother planet, then got caught and reprogrammed, it could be possible. But why would they reprogram him yet keep his old name? Because this is a movie, and saying the name is a message, not RL.
Funny how Blade Runner still fascinates. I think it and Alien easily beat Gladiator, although it wasn't bad either. It just didn't have such a warning as its message.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
I'm probably the only one here, but I would have rather not known this, since I haven't seen the movie yet.
He ruined a great argument topic! Blegh.
Not the same caliber movie, but, along the same lines would be revealing whether the Total Recall thing was real or imagined. it's just not fun if you can't argue with your friends afterwards.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Of course, the unicorn and the number of replicants were big hints, but there are two larger ones.
Most obvious is the other blade runner's last line "You've done a man's job, sir." I think that one speaks for itself.
Also, a strong point is made of always showing replicants (even animals) at some point or another with red-eye (a lens-generated optical illusion where the color of the retina is brought out by a combination of angle and lighting, common in flash-photography). Deckard is the only "human" that we see this effect on....
I was so pissed about this film. The studio decided that it was a bomb because the test audience didn't get it. Instead of requiring that it be butchered, they could have clued into the fact that it was perfect for the college audience (probably the only people in the audience who walked away saying "wow") and marketed it heavily. It came out the same week as E.T., which could have been perfect. Instead of letting it get drowned in E.T.'s wake, it could have been played up as the dark underdog, which would have had the mid-80s fuck-authority types flocking to this film. As it stands everyone that I know who was a punk in the mid-80s loved this film, but many did not "discover" it until later.
On an almost unrelated point, if you like P.K.Dick, you should check out Screamers. They butchered the ending into a standard Hollywood thing, but the rest of the movie is remarkably P.K.D. The original took place on earth in a USSR vs US war. The movie moves to outer-space and takes place on a mining colony, but it's the same story right down to the dolls....
My roommate has a book on Bladerunner that talks about this whole thing. The original screenwriter wrote Deckard's part as a human who came to understand the replicant perspective. It was Scott as director who changed the script to make him a replicant. Apparently, they had some pretty heated debates about it, but that probably contributed to the ambiguity in the final version which is so perfect.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
I, for one, will never rent a DVD, or buy a DVD player, or otherwise put my hard-earned $.$ into those bastards' pockets. Not until they get their ways straight.
Just my ${LOCAL_CURRENCY}0.02.
Here's something I wrote in 96, for a Sci-Fi lit class I took:
I have seen Blade Runner a number of times. I have read the Philip K. Dick book on which the movie is based. I have seen the film several more times since then, in such gory detail that I feel I know more about the movie then most people. I've read several interviews with cast and crew, and I know about the differences between the several versions of the movie in existence.
I can appreciate the movie on it's own merits, and I can see it as a skillful adaptation of the philosophy of P. K. Dick's book. I've become so familiar with the work, that the last few times I've watched it, I've decided to change my point of view. I approached the movie with a preconceived notion, and found a surprising number of substantiating facts and impressions to support my hypothesis. In this paper I will try to show that my alternative view of BladeRunner, though not the most straight forward, is valid and possibly correct.
I propose that Rick Deckard is in fact himself a replicant. I further propose that Gaff, a character not found in the original work by P. K. Dick, is the real Blade Runner and furthermore that he, Gaff, uses Deckard to do his dirty-work.
To show that Gaff is Deckard's handler requires that I first show that Deckard needs handling, that he is a replicant. There are many instances in the film why this could be true.
Throughout the movie, replicants are shown as having a glow in their eyes. There is a slight glow in Leon's eyes as Dave Holden tests him for empathy. The artificial owl in the Tyrell building has eyes that glow. As Pris makes herself at home at J.F.Sebastian's apartment, her eyes have that same glow. So do the eyes of Roy as he speaks to Tyrell and at times while he hunts Deckard.
When Rachel and Deckard begin to fall in love her eyes have this very same glow. At this time Deckard's eyes also glow. This might only be a lighting technique, designed to show that Deckard is somehow connected to Rachel. But since the other replicants also have this glow in their eyes, Deckard is like all of the replicants. He is made to look like a replicant. Though this is the only visual hint that Deckard may be a replicant, it is reinforced with many insinuations of the same in the plot.
It is very striking that Deckard can climb the exterior of the rain drenched Bradbury building after Roy has dislocated two of his fingers. How could he do this? Very easily, if he is a physically superior replicant. He appears to be in pain and struggling, but this is because he believes that he is human, not because he necessarily is human.
Why would Deckard believe that he is human? For the same reason that Rachel initially believes that she is human, implanted memories. Deckard truly believes that he is Rick Deckard - a Blade Runner. He believes that he has always lived his current lifestyle; even that he was once married to a woman who called him 'sushi' due to his 'cold fish' personality. But he calls Rachel, a known replicant, at home and asks her to join him at Taffy Lewis's night club. By doing this Deckard acknowledges that a replicant can have a normal private live. If Rachel can, so can Deckard.
During the course of the movie, we learn that replicants treasure their memories, whether these are real or implanted makes no difference. We can infer that it is not enough for replicants to have memories, they need something tangible to make their memories seem real. Replicants keep photographs. Roy refers to Leon's lost photographs of Zhora as 'precious'; the taunt in his voice serves to show that Leon is extremely attached to them. Rachel offers a picture of herself as a little girl to Deckard, as proof of her humanity. She loses hope only after Deckard points out in gory detail that it is a false memory. Before then, it doesn't matter that the memory is implanted, she has a picture she can hold, proof that it really happened.
Deckard himself hoards photographs, his apartment is literally cluttered with them. This suggests that Deckard has memories that go back for generations. But didn't Tyrell himself tell Deckard that replicants can be better controlled through implantation of memories? If Deckard is a replicant he has the potential for causing a great deal of suffering to the humans that surround him daily. He must be kept under strong and constant control. This would require that he have a great deal of memories. He has pictures to prove that he does.
The most blatant suggestion that Deckard is a replicant comes from Rachel. At one point she asks him if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself. Rather then answer, Deckard conveniently and instantaneously falls asleep, 'like a switched off light', or a shut off machine.
All this certainly suggests that Deckard is a replicant, and if he is one, then he must somehow be manipulated in order to have him act as a Blade Runner. A replicant would not willingly hunt down other replicants. I propose that Gaff is the true Blade Runner, that he uses Deckard as his work-horse, and that his lieutenant - Bryant - is fully aware of this arrangement.
The opening scroll of the film clearly states that replicants are used where the work to be done is too hazardous for humans. The hunting of replicants is certainly hazardous work. After all, Dave Holden has been placed on life-support after being shot by Leon. Gaff certainly makes his job much less hazardous by having Deckard do the dirty-work for him. Gaff does his job as Blade Runner, but manages to keep himself out of danger. He monitors Deckard's performance without putting himself in Deckard's view. He chauffeurs Deckard to the precinct to meet Bryant, and takes him to the Tyrell building. Gaff also gets Deckard started on the hunt for Leon by joining him in his search of Leon's apartment. Other then these direct interactions, Gaff keeps to the shadows, emerging only to verify that replicants have been retired, or to make sure Deckard is doing his (Gaff's) job.
While Deckard is researching the snake-scale found in Leon's bath-tub, there is a police officer in the background. Though he might be going about routine police business, he could also be monitoring Deckard for Gaff. In fact it might even be Gaff himself in uniform. While Deckard is pursuing Zhora through the streets, an instant after he passes a Hari-Krishna procession, the careful viewer can make out a man in the crowd. This man is carefully watching Deckard run after Zhora. This man is Gaff. After Deckard retires Zhora, the police are on the scene as soon as her body hits the ground. How did they know to be there? Easily, Gaff was watching and notified them to stand by. Gaff also arrives shortly after Roy's death, again only to verify that the replicant is no longer on his list.
All conversations between Deckard, Gaff and Bryant seem to have a double meaning alluding to Deckard's replicant identity. After Deckard is escorted to the police precinct (by Gaff), Bryant informs him that "if you're not cop, you're little people" meaning both that if Deckard doesn't do as he is told he will be disposed of, and that Deckard is not much of a person, since he's not human. After Deckard retires Zhora, Bryant tells him "You look as bad as that skin job..." - meaning Zhora, and then comments to Gaff "You could learn a lot from this man, Gaff...". The former implies that Deckard looks to him like a replicant, and the latter that Deckard the replicant is doing a better job then his puppet master, Gaff, would do in person.
Following Deckard's retirement of both Roy and Pris, Gaff tells him: "You've done a man's job, Sir" referring to himself, as in 'you have done this man's job', or saying that 'you have done this job as well as a man.' Gaff's next comment: "I guess you're through." and Deckard's reply: "Finished!", could quite possibly signify that now that Gaff has no more use for him, Deckard expects Gaff to retire him. Gaff also tells Deckard "Too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"... This last statement is particularly interesting since it shows that Gaff knows Deckard so well as to know of his plans to run away with Rachel. Gaff knows what Deckard is thinking. He knows Deckard's motivations, thoughts and dreams, as well as Deckard knows Rachel's memories. Deckard has seen Rachel's memory implants. Gaff must have seen Deckard's.
Gaff's deep understanding of Deckard's mind comes out through his origami. While in Bryant's office, Deckard is unwilling, and quite possibly afraid, to engage the missing replicants. Gaff folds an origami chicken out of a discarded napkin. "I know you" says Gaff through this action, "You're scared". Once Deckard gets involved in the detective work of hunting down the replicants, once he becomes excited to be searching Leon's apartment, Gaff makes a match-stick figure of a man with an erection. By doing so he is saying "I know you, this turns you on, you're getting off doing this job".
The most significant piece of origami, one that most definitelly shows that Gaff is inside of Deckard's head, is the tin-foil unicorn. After Gaff seemingly turns his back and allows Deckard to escape with Rachel, he leaves the unicorn on Deckard's door-step as if to say "I am always watching you, I know you're with her and neither of you is real. You are both myths, not really alive". An even deeper significance of the origami unicorn is available to the viewer of the Director's Cut version of Blade Runner. This version of the film includes Deckard's dream sequence about a real, living unicorn. The appearance of the origami unicorn at the end of the movie shows that Gaff knows Deckard's mind so well that he can even see into his dreams. For Gaff to be so familiar with what makes Deckard tick, he must certainly have seen Deckard's memory implants.
There is another, additional message contained in the tin-foil unicorn. As Gaff's last words to Deckard echo from the past: "Too bad she won't live", Gaff seems to say "Here, I'm leaving her for you". Deckard nods, as if in the realization that he will now have to live in fear (of losing Rachel), just as all other replicants before him have lived in fear of being retired.
Gaff's origami could also be seen as a form of subliminal mind-control over Deckard. The chicken, a symbol of fear, to instill anxiety and tension that would make him appear and behave like a real Blade Runner on the trail of rogue replicants. The aroused male figure to program Deckard with an excitement, an urgency and the desire to complete his job and achieve his goal. The unicorn, as a reinforcement of his psychological grasp on Deckard, to make Deckard feel like a prisoner in the Panopticon, always under scrutiny, and trying to hold on to a dream.
Through the origami unicorn and his other origami figures, his words to Deckard, and his constant presence in Deckard's shadow, Gaff is shown as being intimately familiar with, and in complete control of, Deckard. Deckard's show of unusual physical prowess, his sentiment for photographs and the replicant glow in his eyes all suggest that Deckard is a replicant.
This may be a far-fetched interpretation of the film, but considering the wealth of circumstantial evidence from the film, and the fact that the same implication is made in Dick's original book, it certainly is a valid one.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Is that I keep hearing the explanations that don't belong there while I'm watching the rough version. It's fading away, but will take another ten years or so before I can watch the real thing without the dummified version getting in the way with its safe explanations.
Then again, that I saw the "dummy" version so many times that I keep hearing the voice-overs, tells that I didn't consider it bad at that time
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
I, along with many others, disagree. You made on big flaw in making such a bold statement. Art can easily mean less than what the artist intends. Artists are just as flawed as the rest of us, and are seldom perfect . You cannot deem someone's work as art just if the artist said it was. If I drew a dog peeing on a bicycle and said that it represented the downfall of common culture due to the plague of injustice within our state court systems, people would say I'm nuts. You, however, think that not only does a canine relieving himself on a two-wheeler symbolize the mudslide of modern society, but people that argue otherwise 'are fools'. Now I realize I haven't mentioned Blade Runner (and by the way, I too think he's a replicant), but I wanted to teach you that generalization is the easiest of logical fallacies to get into.
--------- Taylor R. Flagg Big Cheese Radioactive Reverie www.RadioactiveReverie.com
Deckard is well established (and, I think semi-retired) as a replicant hunter
:)
In his mind and on the stage with the other officers, yes.
At any given moment, you cannot be sure whether your memories are real. At any time, you might have been put on your place and booted up with a fresh set of memories. At least in the film's Dickish mindset
He has no family. He has immense amounts of whisky-blurred momental memories, backed up by a huge bunch of fotoes, almost as a double-proof.
I hope I do not sound insisting, I count as one of those for whom the question is more important.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
....
....
--Hey Doctor Jones! No time for love!
This wasn't a skillful adaptation of PKD's DADOES, it was just a big budget action movie trying not to be a big budget action movie sharing as little as possible with the book. The book explores the meaning of being human, reality, religion, and one's place in the world as a lot of PKD's books do. The movie provides some eye candy and "thoughtful" close-ups of Harrison's face between kills.
This isn't your typical book vs. movie argument, as the movie has little to do with the book other than sharing the setting and a couple scenes.
If it wasn't completely resolved in the film, it doesn't matter. The uncertainty was made part of the film (a very interesting and important part), the conclusion was not.
;) ).
It's about as relevant as if George Lucas came out one day and said "Star Wars is actually about a dream Luke had, like Wizard of Oz, except I didn't bother to include the part about him waking up." For that matter, Doug Adams telling us the question to life, the universe, and everything, would add nothing to his stories (though it might add quite a bit to life outside of his stories if he got it right
Mr. Scott could just as easily say "Deckard was a highschool kid, playing a game in a virtual reality world. Nobody was a replicant, none of it was supposed to be real."
If it's not in the film, it doesn't matter.
It seems that it was released a long time ago:
Release Date: Dec 31, 1900
;-)
I personally believe the voice-over makes the movie worse. I've got the Director's Cut laserdisk, and it's a very fine movie that way.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The initial theme of the movie was What is it to be human. Unlike the books What is human. A subtle twist that added texture instead of simply filming the book.
Deckard broods and drinks and mostly wastes away. He doesn't want to hunt the replicants, he doesn't want to do much of anything.
The Replicants try to live life to the fullest (pay particular attention to Rutger's speech at the end).
I felt the original movie theme was a lot stronger.
And there were no computer graphics, just models.
Everyone knew Deckard wasn't human. The real question is whether Titanic's Jack Dawson was a replicant.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
http://goatee.net/2000/07#_10mo
00.07.10.mo | deckard is a replicant/h2>BBC news is reporting that in an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, Ridley Scott acknowledges that Deckard is a replicant. Anyone familiar with the film knows this to be the case, but Scott's refusal to address the question fueled the most salient ambiguity of the film -- it's the door way to other fun speculation and analysis. In Parting of the Mist: Analysis of Blade-Runner [Italian translation], I not only presented much of the evidence that Deckard is a replicant, but argued that the film portrays the interaction of Deckard (who does not realize he is a replicant) and the other replicants (who do). While their interactions are apparently violent, it is ultimately a form of marriage, transference, and an exhortation by the dying for Deckard to carry on.
I'm not sure what the documentary will offer over Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, but I look forward to seeing it.
Some jerk ruined Fight Club for me by doing this same sort of thing last month.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"We Can Remember for you Wholesale" was really only used as the first 20 minutes or so of Total Recall. (I highly recommend that short story by the way).
Blade Runner had elements of a number of PKD books. Most of what I've read couldn't possibly be translated to a film.
um, AFAIK, the ending in the original release (happy music over green hills, etc.) WAS taken from another movie - scenery outtakes of "The Shining". This was added to give the movie a happy ending.
The director's version is a bit different.
I think you are understimating the "eye candy". You seem to dismiss this as if it were nothing of consequence. Blade Runner is one of the few movies I have ever seen that makes me beleive the futuristic landscape is real. Sure, a lot of the look and feel was lifted from Metropolis, etc. but how can you make a movie that doesn't (intentionally or otherwise) lift ideas from other movies.
It's really a pointless effort to try to link a movie and a book together. They are two different ways of telling a story and it's unreasonable to expect a movie to faithfully recreate a book (unless for some reason the author decides to write the screenplay, direct the movie, film the movie, etc - then you will probably get a bad movie!)
Just watch the movie on its own. You may not like Blade Runner or Dune, but try to view them as if you have never read the books - you will enjoy them more. I'm not saying it's not worth discussing the faults of a book-movie transition; just don't let that nitpicking detract from your enjoyment of the movie.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Bladerunner had special meaning for me. I'm afraid that I'm a simulation the real me built of himself so he could get more work done.
<hidden from="TheDullBlade">
heh heh, TheDullBlade is a replicant
-ButterKnife
</hidden>
Who cares what Ridley Scott thinks? "Blade Runner" is just the movie interpretation of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Do Androids, in fact, achieves its high level of poignancy by merely SUGGESTING that, under the right circumstances, humanity itself is subjective. Dick didn't need to say whether Deckard was an android... I believe the story is much more interesting by leaving it as a mere possibility. God forbid we should actually ponder something anymore, instead of waiting for the de-facto answers.
I believe Phil K. Dick would not be happy, were he alive today, to learn that other people were deciding to simply change his characters like this.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Films from PKD's stuff?
. htm
From http://www.kruse.demon.co.uk/philip.htm
* Confessions of a Crap Artist (basis for the film "Barjo")
* Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (basis for the film "Blade Runner")
* Second Variety (basis for the film "Screamers)
* We Can Remember It For You Wholesale (basis for the film "Total Recall")
There also seems to have been a French language animated thing based on UBIK
http://www.cdrom-depot.qc.ca/Rlelievre/chron106
-- I browse at +5 with stripped sigs
It's just like the woman he fell in love with...a replicant designed not to know he's a replicant.
My plan is to pimp before they realize I'm a jackass. Hit 'em hard and fast.
Providing a resolution (and I don't think it is Scott's place to provide one for Dick's story) leaves the us, the audience, with nothing to figure out, and little to learn about ourselves.
While Ridley Scott has made one great movie (Alien) and a couple of good movies (Bladerunner, The Duellists, some would say Thelma and Louise), he's also made a steaming pile of crap: GI Jane, 1492,Legend,Gladiator. I'll take Paul Verhoeven's lousy movies over Scott's lousy movies any day. And yes, that includes Showgirls.
From what I read in the Bladerunner faq Harrison Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
It sounds to me like all of the holywood types (basically everyone involved in the film but Ridley Scott) didn't want Deckard to be a replicant so that the movie woule be more palatable to Hollywood audiences (and profitable). Scott wanted him to be a replicant cause that is what makes it a truly good story. It's the old battle of art vs. commerce. unfortunately, in the original version, commerce won out, but art finally got its say in the director's cut!
I don't give a fsck what Scott says, its the film of the book. The only person who can rightfully come out and make a statement like that is Philip K Dick, and as he is sadly dead, that doesn't seem likely. Ridley Scott should say something more useful, like publicly raise the issue that the DVD version is a disgrace, or bringing to the public attention that the so-called Directors Cut of his film is not his choice of cut at all, but that of the film editor...and sucks. No, I haven't read the linked article BTW.
That's stupid. Scott decided what went into the film and how Deckard was portrayed; he decided that Deckard was a replicant and he directed the film accordingly. If the writers didn't want Deckard to be a replicant, then the movie isn't very faithful to the writing. But in the movie, Deckard was a replicant.
Who gives Scott the right to tell us what was happening in the film? The book Future Noir reveals that there was disagreement among the actors and writers about whether Deckard was a replicant. It has been suggested that Scott came up with the idea by misreading the screenplay, and that others were not aware of it. A film is a collaboration of many people's ideas. To give Scott the right to tell us what the film means would be accepting the most extreme extension of the auteur theory of filmmaking: the notion that the director of a film is the sole creative force behind it, and has a stranglehold on its meaning. And that flies in the face of how films are made and enjoyed.
BTW: Deckard isn't NECESSARILY a Replicant. The whole "missing replicant" line is actually turns out to be a continuity gaffe on Ridley's part (OOPS! Forgot to overdub that one!) and the bit about the Unicorn only occurs in the "Director's Cut", which isn't the movie most people have seen when they're thinking "Blade Runner".
I think Ridley's attraction to the idea rather defeats the whole movie. What's the point, if Deckard IS a Rep? What in fact, IS, the story? There's no character growth then, no realization that "retiring" a replicant is nothing more than killing... there's no VALUE to the story if you choose to believe that. I think Ripley just has a childish fixation on the idea, in the same way that a 9-year-old kid thinks, "Wouldn't it be cool if Superman fought Batman?"
Bleh. Deckard's always gonna be a human to me.
I'll take you all on. :)
Buy the book, anyway.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.