Slashdot Mirror
Blade Runner 2 Script Done, Harrison Ford Says "the Best Ever"
BarbaraHudson (3785311) writes "It's been more than 30 years, but finally the script for Blade Runner 2 is done. Original interview with Ridley Scott on MTV. Links for those who don't want to watch the interview. If you're worried that the upcoming Blade Runner sequel won't measure up to the 1982 sci-fi cult classic, rest assured. Harrison Ford apparently thinks the script is "the best thing (he's) ever read." Although Scott is debating whether or not he'll direct the sequel, it looks like Ford will most certainly be reprising his role as Rick Deckard."
Deckard was not a replicant, according to both PKD and the screenwriter.
The origami unicorn is symbolism for Rachel (both in the dream, and in Gaff's origami message).
Additionally, if Deckard were a replicant, it ruins several layers of meaning in the story, causes other parts of the story to become nonsense, and overall leaves other bits of symbolism falling flat as they only work well if Deckard is human.
The unicorn. It's a fantasy in more ways than one.
"You've done a mans work." makes more sense if he's not a man.
"She won't live, but then again who does?" makes sense if Gaaf's job is to oversee replicant officers with short life spans.
The only humans left on Earth are either poor, criminals, crippled or old. Deckard is not.
Rachel could be Priss's sister. Deckard could be Holden's brother.
Deckard has the same kind of old picture collection as Leon.
Deckard plays the piano like Rachel does. Strange for a hard nosed police detective.
Deckard seems to be one step ahead of everyone. I think he has suspected he's a replicant for some time.
Deckard is not a combat unit like Batty but he has the same outlook on life. No sense of humor.
Are any of these observations proof? No. But add them together and it's obvious to a blind man: He's a skin-job.
.
Considering Harrison Ford is 30 years older, and will look so as Deckard, it becomes pretty obvious he's not a replicant.Unless you choose to believe the theatrical cut voice over that stated Rachel didn't have the pre-programmed 4 year lifespan. Which would imply Deckard may not have either. But that was removed, and is ambiguous in the Directors Cut and Final Cut. And it was the studio that chose to add the "happy ending" voice over against the wishes of damn near everyone else involved in the project.
From Wikipedia:
Tyrell later tells Roy, a replicant, that the preset life-span is inherently dependent on Nexus-6 biology. Noting that "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long", Tyrell explains that the reason Nexus-6 replicants do not live longer is not due to some sort of kill switch, but because they physically cannot -the result of the superhuman capabilities engineered into them. Roy suggests several means of extending his lifespan (demonstrating that he possesses at least equal knowledge to that of his creator about his physical construction), but Tyrell reveals that he already tried each of these suggestions, failing in every attempt.
He could very well still be a replicant despite being beaten by other replicants. There could be a trade off between strength and intelligence or strength and longevity or any number of other trade offs for strength. We know that different replicants are given different traits and characteristics to optimize them for their intended "application". Every replicant Deckard goes up against in Blade Runner is optimized for some physical characteristic (battle, manual labor, sexual gratification, etc.) whereas Deckard is a hunter. He would be designed to stalk his prey, not take them on head-to-head. Just before Roy kills Tyrell, he asks Tyrell to extend his life/fix him to which Tyrell responds that Roy was made a well as they could make him, adding, "The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy."
I happen to think it enhanced the whole point of the movie if he's a replicant. If he's a replicant, that means he's basically required to hunt and kill his own kind because non-replicant humans refuse to perform such a morally repugnant act. So, to mask the moral repulsion of killing a sentient being created to be a slave, humans create yet more slaves to "retire" the ones that become a problem. I find that utterly heartbreaking.
Besides, his eyes are shown to display the same refractive property (the red glow) as all the other replicants including the owl in Tyrell's office.
This is the problem with the Sci-Fi genre in general. The 70's/early 80's were golden years because the audience was discovering technology for the first time, and movies simply explored those concepts and presented them to a passionate audience.
It can never work the same because large numbers of the audience now understand very complex technical subjects. To make an equivalent SF film today that gives a technical audience the same sense of wonder would require extreme complexity that simply wouldn't sell outside the niche Slashdot-type crowd. So we're stuck with Jar Jar Binks for the foreseeable future. Get used to disappointment.