So was Deckard a replicant ? I keep reading that he was. But somehow I must have missed the scene that showed this...

So was Deckard a replicant ? I keep reading that he was. But somehow I must have missed the scene that showed this. I was watching it at work so I did miss a few things. Anyway, I fucking love this movie. I love Batty's monologue. Maybe I should have read the book first, I have it sitting in my work station. I am at the end of another book so amd it takes me forever to settle down and read.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you're not supposed to know

This scene really made me think. Seriously though.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU

The unicorn gives away that he was. There is literally no other way to interpret it.

depends on which version you watch desu be honest with you famfam

The book won't answer this. Villinueve said he won't address it either in 2049. It's supposed to be unclear.

other user made the point in the other thread that it literally doesn't matter if he is or isn't, the point of the story is that it doesn't matter

Wat I read that there were different versions. I assumed it meant deleted scenes and alt endings. Care to elaborate briefly? I could just google it but I like conversation.

Ooo I guessed that that scene was him starting to realize that replicants were more human than he believed.

It may not matter from a philosophical or moral standpoint, but it is a genuine point of curiosity.

Yes.

>In the Director's Cut, police officer Gaff (played by Edward James Olmos) leaves Deckard an origami Unicorn a day after Deckard dreamed of one. Just before Deckard finds the unicorn, Gaff says to him in passing, "It's too bad she [Rachael] won't live...then again, who does?". A unicorn can also be seen briefly in a scene in J. F. Sebastian's home, amongst scattered toys (to the right of a sleeping Sebastian, while Pris snoops around his equipment). A unicorn also appears in a dream of Deckard's in the Director's Cut and as explained in the film, Rachael's memories are known by her creators, such as the memory Rachael has of spiders hatching. That Gaff is leaving an origami unicorn at Deckard's house may imply that Gaff knows about Deckard's unicorn dream.

It's not really that it doesn't matter but more like the answer -either way- will change the film(s). The story was written so that it's left up to you to decide. It's part of the appeal. Everything deckard does is interpreted differently depending on his being human or not.

He isn't a replicant (or it's left ambiguous) and theatrical cuts.
He is umabigously a replicant in the director's and final cuts

Ok i will need to rewatch it to see which one i downloaded. It doesnt specify in the torrent. Thanks. This is one of those movies i could watch many times if i space it out. Last thing i want to do is get burnt out on a good movie.

There are small hints about Deckard being a replicant. In several scenes replicants have that orange glow in their eyes, same with the fake owl. Then in a scene you see Deckard with that same glow.

Also, I dunno if anyone has had this theory, but what if Deckard has the memories of Gaff implanted in him?

Oh shit see. This is why you need your full attention when watching stuff. I never saw the orange glow, i will need to consider this.

If you like the US theatrical release with the goofy noir voice over by Ford, then you're probably familiar with Deckard being human.

If you're a fan of the Final Cut or other edits, then you're probably familiar with Deckard being a replicant. Scott even admits Deckard is intended to be a replicant in numerous interviews.

In the US Theatrical the ending presents us with a human Deckard who runs off with his robot girlfriend. No unicorn symbolism. No Gaff hinting that he knows Deckard's origin. Deckard also says "nigger" during a VO in this version, which is hilarious.

In the Final Cut the ending presents us with a man unsure about his own existence and memories after Gaff reveals to Deckard through a piece of origami that he knows what Deckard dreams about. Essentially telling Deckard he is artificial like Rachel, who Deckard was able to convince was a replicant earlier in the film by asking about her dreams.

So Deckard may not be a full blown replicant but a human with a replicants brain (and implanted memories).

Let's be honest, the entire replicant twist is just moronic when confirmed.
Dude you're a replicant except you're weak and you can live for a long time subverting the established rules of replicants. Gotcha!

What are the established rules of replicants again?

But him living for a long time could be completely fabricated, just like Rachel's life.

Remember Rachel thought she was a human with years worth of memories, until Deckard convinces her otherwise.

Is it such a stretch to think Deckard could be another Replicant designed with a backstory so that he goes on willingly, and methodically hunting his own kind?

Ok, be easy on my virgin asshole. Are you saying if he runs away with gf, then it was the us theatrical release? That's the one I saw, I still thought it was a great movie. So I should look up "final cut" and I get a very different movie.

>But somehow I must have missed the scene that showed this.

It's towards the end, when he's planning to run away with Sean Young and he sees the origami of the unicorn from his dream (implying that Edward James Olmos knew what his dreams were -- just like he knew Sean Young's memories).

Of course the real question is not whether or not Deckard was a replicant, but rather whether that matters.

If the movie cuts off when they step into an elevator, then you watched the Director's Cut or Final Cut.

If you saw Deckard and Rachel drive off into the countryside at the end then you saw the US theatrical release. AKA, pure trash.

It doesn't matter. The point of the movie is that the distinction no longer fucking matters.

Deckard is Schrodinger's person. He is both man and machine and neither all at once.

>not owning the five different cuts on blu-ray
workprint version is the best

overrated pile of shit movie with nice visuals

wrong thread buddy

I think you're looking for one of the Rogue one threads

The book says he is not

No, the book says he passed a test replicants had yet to pass.

Also we're discussing the film not the book.

Yeah it ended there. But either way it is implid they ran off together. What is the real difference?

You

Their escape is left ambiguous in one, and confirmed in the other. Given that he sees the origami unicorn while leaving it's entirely possible that they get captured by police at the bottom of the elevator.

Just think about things, user.

Why was it ambiguous in the first one? I just assumed they escaped. He seemed smart enough and knowledgle in law enforcement tactics.

Ridley Scott is a fucking hack

The US cut also ignores the unicorn symbolism, which heavily implies Deckard is artificial. A key difference in the many versions of the film.

It'd be like No Country For Old Men ending with a blazing gunfight and a walk off into the sunset instead of the harsh reality the film actually portrayed in it's ending.

It's our generation's Casablanca. gtfo.

So what does it imply then if Deckard is an old man in this upcoming Blade Runner?

if he was super strong and super intelligent it would be a dead giveaway that he is a replicant. hes not supposed to know just like rachel did not know

could be that gosling is sent to "retire" deckard after having finally found him

He isn't a replicant because he keeps getting his ass kicked by replicants.

Also this movie had one of the most contrived romances I've ever seen.

Not the guy you quoted but yeah, the book flat out says he is not an "andy".

To me, it implies that the studio wouldn't let another Blade Runner film be made without Ford.
There is no reason for Deckard to still be alive. It ended with him taking Rachel off into the sunset.
I'll be watching this as a piece of non-canon fan fiction.

She had a four year lifespan as well presumably. When she stopped working he would go back to blade running.

>So was Deckard a replicant ?
In the movie yes
In the book no
I prefer him not being

Except he was never a Blade Runner, aside from what we see in the movie. Those were just implanted memories.

Except he's an old man in the new movie, set 40 years after Blade Runner.

So is the book still worth reading

Yeah. Absolutely, it's fantastic and pretty short. I did it in a day.

Oh yeah, definitely. Very different and as much as I like the movie, I like the book more.

Ok. I habe the final bits of brothers karamazov to read. Im at the court part. Then onto this. I am trying my damndest to get through good books and movies before it ends.

Jesus Christ
These threads drive me nearly insane
Deckard is a Replicant, always was
The use a Replicant to hunt other Replicant's
A Replicant is not a fucking robot
They are genetically engineered humans
Made to be better in all ways to normal humans
That is why they are not allowed on Earth
They are literally Supermen, the SS ideal
To allow them to live longer than 4 years is to risk them taking over and controlling/destroying mankind
They are just as human as anyone else
They are "born" as adults, then used as slaves
The memories are implanted in them as a way of controlling/managing them, giving them a past helps to keep them from becoming psychotic
Rachel is as Eldon Tyrrell tells Deckard "an experiment and nothing more", she has no set end date, her longevity is as long as any other human, she will age and die like other humans, just as Deckard
No g_d dammed fucking robots
Genetically Engineered Humans
"More Human than Human"
People get confused with the Phillip K Dick book, in the source material they are Robot's/Android's, Deckard is a bounty hunter in San Francisco who owns an Android Sheep, but is desperate for a real one, because of the status that given a person who owns a living animal, there are many similarities to the movie but they are very different, he finds a lot of androids, including police, he uses his bounty money to buy a real goat, Rachel goes to his home and kills the goat, Deckard gives himself the test to find if he is human, he is, the finds a robotic toad
In the book it's not the Tyrrell Corporation it is the Rosen Association
No fucking Robots
Jesus Christ

Dont be so mad, not everyone is a genius like you

It doesn't matter.

Rachel seemed human enough to him, meanwhile he was able to play that Mercerism VR game.

this, desu

the film is seriously rather nifty and swank-looking, but storyline is boring

...

Gosling is a crap actor and he looks like a wimp. They should have cast an unknown.

I thought they used the replicant's to repair the outside of ships in space, wouldn't they need to be a robot for that?

Deckard could possibly be human and living alone after Rachel expired.

Deckard could also possibly have Rachel in some sort of stasis (to avoid having to cast Sean Young again) while he searches for a way to extend her life as Roy Batty attempted to extend his own

There is the possibility that he is a new kind of replicant that can actually age, but still requires "retirement" by the police/bladerunners for being rogue.

There could also be numerous Deckards, and the one from the first film is just a replicant copy with the real Deckard's past. Just as Rachel's past came from Tyrell's niece, Deckard's had to come from somebody's as well. Maybe Gosling's character has to come to the original Deckard to find out how to track down the replicant Deckard, maybe use his memories as a clue to find out where he would hide.

Whatever it turns out to be, I hope they don't ape the first film too much. I want the sequel to stand on it's own legs. I'm cool with the neon lights and the steamy streets. I would be a liar if I said I didn't want to take another trip to the dystopian cityscape. I just don't want the film to be a series of "Hey remember this?" moments like The Force Awakens.

Maybe our generation user but I get the feeling the guy you replied to is from a younger generation.

Implying Deckard is even a blade runner at all. Implying based Edward James wasn't the real blade runner. And Deckard was an expendable replicant (not nexus 6) whom went awol with Rachel.

Waiting for a glirious Sean Young CGI appearance

>So was Deckard a replicant
Irrelevant to the movie.
But him being a replicant is counter-productive to the underlying message of the film, but Scott's a retard and what else is new.

I've seen a version where he drives into the countryside, but also has the unicorn and Gaff comment.

Not always was. The original theatrical release suggested he wasn't. I'm fairly sure Ford is on record saying he and Scott discussed it during filming and he and Scott said he was human.

Scott has added more references to Deckard being a replicant with each new cut.

He was an expendable bait replicant they deploy whenever there's a breakout. He flushes out the skinjobs while a real Blade Runner handles him.

*tips*

If Decard is a replicant I don't think he has to follow the "established rules" at all, we don't know to what advanced extent the replicants have been made to be.

Also, weren't Roy etc deliberately created with a limited lifespan, to make them easier to control and because they start becoming to self aware beyound that timeframe?

Also the fact that they're more robust could be because they're worker drones and not designed to break down as easily or were earlier models that don't have cells that are as advanced as Deckards and made to be more similar to our own.

This. The final cut is all that matters and the only interpretation of the unicorn scene that isn't built on an insane amount of reaching is that Deckard is a replicant. The film is also littered with other, subtler nods to the idea.

This is not as clearly spelled out, but it seems likely that Gaff's memories were used as the template for Deckard's the same way Tyrell's niece's memories were used for Rachel.

Seems like a bit of an unnecessary reach to add an element like that that was never referenced in the film.

The original film should be considered in isolation, as BR2049 clearly hadn't even been conceived yet when it was produced. Its a discrete work.

Are you dying? :(

Yes.
Obviously.