Is Deckard a replicant?

Tools    





I am sorry if this has been posted before, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

It took me 4 times watching Blade Runner to realize Deckard might be a replicant, yet I am still not so sure.

Can anyone please elaborate?
__________________
You talkin' to me?



WARNING: " Blade Runner" spoilers below
According to the man who made the movie Bladerunner, then I think yes Deckard is a replicant. But Harrison Ford has previously said he saw his character with having a human element.

However, I believe Philip K Dick's version of the story had the main character as a human.


WARNING: "Blade Runner 2049" spoilers below

Denis Villeneuve has also alluded to the fact that he also sees Deckard as human, even though Scott also worked on BR49. Scott has said that if Deckard is not a replicant then aspects of the first film don't really tie up together.


In short, there is nothing definitive anywhere BUT the film-maker's vision, and many pointers (in the first film especially) lead us into thinking that Deckard, is a replicant.


.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
I like that you don't know, not really. Isn't that kind of the point? What makes someone human? Is it really something you can test for? I'm slightly anxious about getting a definitive answer from 2049, I'd prefer it to stay ambiguous.



Deckard is a human, at least in the original Theatrical Release and that's what counts. All the other 'cuts' by Ridley are money grabs to sell more DVD/Blu Rays, they might look good but there not the original.

Just because the director decides to re-edit his film years later and make millions off the new versions, doesn't erase what the original film was and what it says.

If George Lucas makes another Star Wars film and says that the Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia were evil and the Empire and Darth Vader were actually the good guys, it won't change what was done in the original 1977 Star Wars film. Why? because it's after the fact.

The fact is in the original Blade Runner, Deckard is shown to be human, both in the narrative of the story, and the behind the scenes stuff (production).

Ridley Scott might have conceived of the idea of Deckard as a replicate, but he did not have controlling interesting in the original film, he was a hired director and even fired at on time. During meetings it was decided Deckard was to be a human.

Here's an early interview with Ridley saying the he wanted Deckard as a Replicant but they (the producers) didn't. Ridley admits the original film leaves the question open.
'Wired' interview: You shot the unicorn dream sequence as part of the original production. Why didn't you include it in either the work print or the initial release?
Scott: As I said, there was too much discussion in the room. I wanted it. They didn't want it. I said, "Well, it's a fundamental part of the story." And they said, "Well, isn't it obvious that he's a replicant?" And I said, "No more obvious than that he's not a replicant at the end." So, it's a matter of choice, isn't it?
Later Ridley Scott reversed himself on that, but those are his original words.

And this is an older Harrison Ford quote:
On the persistent debate about whether Ford’s character, Rick Deckard, is actually a Replicant himself: ”I was moved to asked Ridley whether or not he thought that the character I was playing was a Replicant. Well, I never got a straight answer. Which is okay, I guess. But I thought it was important that the audience be able to have a human representative on screen, somebody that they could have an emotional understanding of. Ridley didn’t think that was all that important.”
So you have the actor playing Deckard as a human (that's important), the writer has written him as a human, the producers who own the movie want Deckard to be a human...and Ridley Scott is on the fence about it.

This quote from the internet sums it up perfectly:

Deckard became a replicant well after the original movie about the same time Ridley Scott wanted to sell a Directors Cut version. Deckard was human. The addition of the unicorn sequence was a money driven attempt to substantiate the myth and drum up publicity. Ridley may have wanted it all along, but that’s not what he showed us in the original movie.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Just because the director decides to re-edit his film years later and make millions off the new versions, doesn't erase what the original film was and what it says.

If George Lucas makes another Star Wars film and says that the Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia were evil and the Empire and Darth Vader were actually the good guys, it won't change what was done in the original 1977 Star Wars film. Why? because it's after the fact.

Or he might decide to change the film so Han doesn't shoot first...



He was in command of the Enterprise until "Admiral" Kirk snatched the command from his hands and demoted him to first officer before heading out to confront the V-ger anomaly! He was reduced to energy and "merged" with a gigantic machine - as far as if he was replicated or not (like the "Ilia probe") remains to be seen!



He was in command of the Enterprise until "Admiral" Kirk snatched the command from his hands and demoted him to first officer before heading out to confront the V-ger anomaly! He was reduced to energy and "merged" with a gigantic machine - as far as if he was replicated or not (like the "Ilia probe") remains to be seen!
Ha, I get it



You knew that one was for you - since we're the only two here who like that movie!
I do like Star Trek The Motion Picture!

I keep seeing this thread bumped and hope someone is going to offer some solid evidence that Deckard is a replicant in the original movie. You've seen it right, do you have an opinion?



I do like Star Trek The Motion Picture!

I keep seeing this thread bumped and hope someone is going to offer some solid evidence that Deckard is a replicant in the original movie. You've seen it right, do you have an opinion?
Yes. Even did a rewatch a few years back, but it was on cable, so I have no idea which version it was, and I'm a bit sketchy on the details.

I don't recall ever coming away thinking Deckard was a replicant. (Doesn't he get beat up in a few scenes and express a lot of pain? Did the other replicants express pain or physical fatigue?)

What exactly is leading people to conclude he was a replicant? (I mean, aside from what anyone said, but what in the film leads anyone to believe that? Are there clues?)



Deckard is whatever you want him to be. Expecting a definitive answer is a waste of time. Enjoy the ambiguity.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.



Im sure i never watch the "original" theatrical released hence stand my reality was the final cut one only which was never to be definitive but sort of implying, and i love that.

And in br49 they surpised me for that one thing
WARNING: spoilers below
technically they just ignore the question
which is great

And yeah replicant was genetically enginer there could be type so ordinary weak like human but again it should just us theorizing, ridley scott should shut his mouth since long ago



In the Beginning...
I'm with Citizen Rules.

I think Denis Villeneuve tried to keep things vague enough to honor the decades-long question (and, frankly, to appease Ridley Scott, who produced the film). But I also think Blade Runner 2049 makes it pretty clear that Deckard is not a replicant. On the surface, Deckard doesn't have the heightened physical capabilities of a replicant, and he has visibly aged. But looking deeper, there is one scene near the end of the film that, for me, is particularly telling:

WARNING: "BR2049" spoilers below
When Deckard and Wallace finally meet, Wallace seems to allude to Deckard's "maker" when he suggests that Deckard was simply following a pre-designed destiny to procreate with Rachel. But then Wallace immediately concedes that Deckard's "destiny" could have been driven by "love" or "mathematics." What he means is this: human or replicant, Deckard was nevertheless designed by something for some purpose, whether it was to fall in love (if he's human) or to initiate artificial procreation (if he's a replicant).

In a way, this might also explain Deckard's dream of the unicorn: even among humans, there is no such thing as serendipity. Everything is predictable. All life follows pattern and design. So when Gaff (Edward James Olmos) leaves behind the origami unicorn, it's not necessarily proof that Deckard's dream was implanted. (And, as Citizen Rules pointed out, the unicorn thing was always Ridley Scott's idea anyway.)

Regardless, we know Wallace believes Deckard could be human and, judging from Jared Leto's performance, seems to accept that he probably is. But more importantly, Wallace believes that the origin of life doesn't matter, only the ability to perpetuate it. I think that's the prevailing theme of the Blade Runner films: that to be human is less about being born human and more about one's capacity to embrace humanity.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
SPOILERS FOR BOTH BLADE RUNNER AND BLADE RUNNER 2049

The answer to OP's question is irrevelant to the main message of the movie, just like it does not matter whether the accused was guilty in 12 Anry Men. However, a potential answer, or lack thereof (meaning both are equally feasible) could enhance the movie. As in, if Deckard were a replicant, with Rachael being one, too, it would mean, that two replicants gave life. Replicants created by man created a man, as well, which makes them even to men in the biological sense. But to give life is nothing exceptional. So do thousands and thousands of species all around the world. However, it may be more special in the world of Blade Runner, especially for replicants that call it a miracle.

The main question the two films pose is "What makes a human?". What are some characteristics that are exclusive to humans? Is it free will? No. K had it all the time, but he did not realize it until he found out that he may be a human. That was the turning point for him. Most replicants were docile slaves, because they had been brainwashed and made believe they are not humans (meaning: worse).

Is it the act of sacrifice for another person? That's what 2049 is hinting at with K saving Deckard's life at the end. Then K lays down on the stairs, in the snow and dies. Blood seeping from his belly. Rain washes away blood, but blood stains snow. Memories washed away versus memories kept. If not by K, then by Deckard's daughter.

What made Roy Batty human? Was it his act of mercy towards Deckard? Or was it his mortality salience? The final realization of his own life's fragility. The moment when he realizes that his own life is but a tiny particle in the infinitiness of space and time. The fear of death and what happens after. The fear of being forgotten. The desire to be remembered, at least by one person. That's very human.

I think the introduction of AI in 2049, namely Joi, was meant to show how human replicants are. Joi may at first look like a human and behave like one, but in the end we quickly realize that she isn't one. Her awkwardly trying to synchronize with the prostitute's body movement, or calling K "Joe" were all (pre)programmed things. She was built of booleans, instead of DNA. She was pretty good at mimicking human behaviour at times (probably would've passed the Turing test), but her artificiality was apparent. Her biggest desire was to leave the confined space of K's room, to become free like a human, but the very moment she and Gosling's character are outside in the rain, we see rain pouring down Gosling's hands and pouring right through her hands. Then, she quickly notices it and makes it look like the rain is pouring down her hands as well. But it isn't. The more you think about it, the sadder this scene is, and even though the whole Heresque (Herian sounds more badass, though) AI subplot ostensibly ends the moment Luv stomps on Joi's gift, it really ends some time later, when Gosling is haunted by a giant 3D model of Joi - now more than ever remiding a sex doll. Just a programme. She is not human. She was programmed to be Gosling's girlfriend, so she is one. She is programmed to be the face of a filthy sex ad - so she is one.

But replicants have a choice. K made this choice. Even Luv, albeit a Schwarzcharakter to the very end, shows human emotions. She cries when she sees what Leto did to the new-born replicant woman. She cries when she kills Joshi. She cries, but she is not supposed to. Yet she does. Joi would have never cried, if she was not programmed to. Luv still does her job, possibly because she fears Wallace, or because, as she says during the final fight, she wants to be the best.

All in all, if it looks like human, feels like human, behaves like human, thinks like human and shows every characteristic of a human, then it is a human. If you were to spend the rest of your life with a replicant, I bet you would never ever realize he or she is not a human (unless he/she, or somebody else told you). Deckard does not care if the dog is real (that is, if it's "doggian"), just like you are not supposed to care if the owl in the first movie is "owlian", or Deckard himself is "human". He elevated above this. He is not trying to divide into humans and not (or sub)humans. And I believe audience should not either.

By the way, at the beginning of Villeneuve's sequel there are people throwing slurs at K just because he is a replicant. It was no different from real-life people throwing slurs at people of different race, skin colours religion, or sexual orientation.

Sorry for this long, incoherent mess. I hope that even though I may not have answered the question, you got something out of my post.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.