If he was a replicant, why the fuck was he so weak?

If he was a replicant, why the fuck was he so weak?

He even got his shit pushed in by the women.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xWbDNGu0zA0
youtube.com/watch?v=n9YHBUq6RHE
google.co.uk/amp/io9.com/5181048/blade-runners-original-ending-yes-deckards-a-replicant/amp
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because he thought he was human. Really zooms and enhances the old neurons.

Did he know he was a replicant?

If not it's probably so he wasn't able to deduce why he had superhuman strength.

he's not a replicant

This; it's just a shitty stupid idea that has been pushed by a senile Ridley Scott, the same retard who thinks "durr the space jockeys made people and one of them is Jesus" is a good idea.

The point was to make him think he was human. So they made him as a human.

Even without Ridley's comments, I don't know you could possibly watch the Final Cut and NOT think he was a replicant.

He was never a replicant.
It was some dumb idea that Scott made up to keep the film relevant and stir up discussion for years to come.
Also he's old in the upcoming sequel.

Btw Deckard was intended to be a replicant as early as 1982 and the unicorn scene was filmed back then as well.

He was always a replicant, but Ridley was pressured into making it more ambiguous for the theatrical cut

Final Cut was made by a senile Ridley Scott to push his idiot interpretation. Deckard being a Replicant sounds neat until you think about it for 5 minutes and realize how extremely stupid it makes the entire movie.

Earlier generation model - not the "light that burns twice as bright" type, but an ordinary replicant with human strengths and weaknesses

i can't wait for this meme film's "legacy" to be ruined by Memeneuve

Everybody was a replicant.

Proof, there are no children anywhere in the movie

>Final Cut was made by a senile Ridley Scott to push his idiot interpretation.

Well the entire fucking film constitutes his interpretation so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

It won't be ruined.
All the movies, videogames and other media the book and movie inspired won't disappear just because the sequel is bad,.

>and realize how extremely stupid it makes the entire movie.

Why do you think it makes the movie 'stupid?'

>plz be my ai gf

fuck off nerds

Rachael was unambiguously a replicant and got her shit pushed in by Deckard literally

I thought the point was that the newest model of replicant was completely indistinguishable from a human - to the point that even the replicants themselves didn't realize it. This would have to involve scaling down any abilities that went beyond what a normal human could do - otherwise, the replicant would eventually start to question why they were so dramatically stronger and faster than their peers.

I can't believe I never noticed this

>Mr. Scott confirmed this: 'Yes, he's a replicant. He was always a replicant.'

end of the fucking story you autists

Everyone who gets butthurt about this is missing the central point of the movie anyway.

A few major reasons:

1) it makes Rachel's character pointless. Rachel's whole story arc is her discovering that she is a Replicant and that her memories are implanted, causing an existential crisis. What benefit does it have to have the same type of "crisis" for Deckard? There is no reason other than making Rachel redundant. It further makes the ending pointless: what emotional weight is there to Rachel deciding to run away with Deckard if they were going to do that anyway because of glitchy robot programming?

2) It removes the central theme (or interesting idea) of the movie, which is contrasting the miserable, pointless life that an emotionally-dead Deckard leads as a human, with the hyper-emotional and destructive urges and desires of the Replicants, who know they are fake but desperately want to be real. What benefit does the story gain by what amounts to a 14-year-old's twist ending "but they were all robots! Isn't that deep!?"

The point of the movie was to ask about the nature of humanity and who is "really alive" - having Deckard be a Replicant - when it doesn't serve any story purpose or have any thematic payoff - is just Ridley Scott masturbating to his "deep" ideas.

Not to mention how fucking stupid, again, it makes the rest of the movie. Does that mean everyone Deckard works with was implanted with memories of Deckard being there for years? What would the point of making Deckard in the model of a Blade Runner - who conveniently cannot do his job for shit because the other Replicants kick the shit out of him?

Again, it is a dumb idea that Ridley has cultivated for far too long. Just because he says it outside of the movie - and re-edits his films to push the idea - doesn't mean you have to buy it, or just accept it as a "good" idea. I'll stick with the Director's Cut, which rightly makes things ambiguous.

This.

If Deckard could bench 1300 lbs or run a three minute mile with zero prior training, everyone (himself included) would immediately realize that he's not a human bean.

a central point that is made worse off by a stupid old man's head-canon. There is still the "what does it mean to be alive" question, but it becomes a pointless question if Deckard is a robot, because he (and we the audience) don't really learn anything from the story.

I can't wait for the new Blade Runner movie to completely shit on its predecessor, much how Prometheus shat so much on the "lore" of Alien.

First of all, thanks for actually putting effort into this.

HOWEVER:

>What benefit does it have to have the same type of "crisis" for Deckard?
Even if he had been human, he's very obviously struggling with his job/repressed humanity through the film. This has nothing to do with him being a replicant.

>It further makes the ending pointless: what emotional weight is there to Rachel deciding to run away with Deckard if they were going to do that anyway because of glitchy robot programming?
What the fuck are you talking about? The whole point of the movie was to gradually break down the differences between the humans and the replicants to the point where ya extremely difficult to tell them apart, why would them running away with each other be down to some mechanical malfunction? Seriously nigger, what the fuck?

>2) It removes the central theme (or interesting idea) of the movie, which is contrasting the miserable, pointless life that an emotionally-dead Deckard leads as a human, with the hyper-emotional and destructive urges and desires of the Replicants, who know they are fake but desperately want to be real.
Again, no it doesn't. Or changes almost nothing about this. Replicant or not, Deckard is (probably) fully convinced that he's human, so he goes through the exact same character arc. The point of the new replicants (i.e. Rachel) is that they were virtually indistinguishable from humans, so saying that Deckard's arc is ruined because he was a 'replicant' is missing the entire motherfucking point.

>Does that mean everyone Deckard works with was implanted with memories of Deckard being there for years? What would the point of making Deckard in the model of a Blade Runner - who conveniently cannot do his job for shit because the other Replicants kick the shit out of him?
You mean the two people he speaks to from the police force, both of which act shady as fuck around him and one of which only features prominently in a single scene?

(cont.)

Assuming that he really was a replicant, I'd say it's probably so that he would not stand out since his job is to hunt other replicants. So he recognizes them easier but doesn't have their abilities so there's no way he'd suspect himself of being one.

Deckard was a pleasure model

The second of which, if you've been paying attention throughout the film, would have a very good reason to act shady around him?

Tl;dr Deckard being a replicant doesn't 'ruin' the narrative at all. In fact, it changes very little. That's the point; everyone who spergs out about this has been successfully rused by Ridley.

Oh and Deckard was used because the alternative is sending a 'real' human, which from the perspective of the LA cops, is clearly too great a risk, so instead they send in the Nexus 7, which for all intents and purposes is identical to a human, but in the eyes of these bigoted fucks is just a robot.

>Ridley Scott thinks the extended cut of Gladiator is inferior
Take what he says with a grain of salt

I think he is referring to the original authors intent , ala Phillip K. Dick.

The fuck? The unicorn scene was leftover footage from Legend.

No, it wasn't.

A ten second Google search will prove this to you.

The idea he’s a replicant was honestly just retrospectively applied in the later cuts. It’s not really in the text. The excuse Ridley gives is Deckard is like a new prototype of replicant that’s more human-like.

>current year + 1
>still arguing about whether or not deckard was a replicant.
The point was it doesn't fucking matter because the difference is so minute.

No, the point was to trigger spergs who DO think it matters. Genius move on Ridley's part.

I'm glad someone can actually use their brain here

this whole thread has really got my synapses sizzling

>Deckard was intended to be a replicant as early as 1982

No, as 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' makes clear, Deckard was not intended to be a replicant

glad we could clear this up

it matters enough for Rachel to realize her memories were implanted, suggesting that teh process isn't coherent or lucid enough to hold up to speculation. Meanwhile Deckard doesn't face the same dilemmas.

Dick didn't direct blade runner, Scott did.

>realize

She was told by Deckard after Tyrell starting acting odd around her following the VK test.

Ridley should stick to making pretty pictures and leave storyline to people who know what the fuck they're doing.

I forgot that that's the title for the movie, Dick.

> Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me - cold fish.

Was it an implant memory?

>taking those garbage narrations seriously

Final cut is the only real edition of BR.

he is a replicant and scott even said he is one, that was the whole idea of the film ffs

Go away George.

Have any of you fucking retards read the book this was based on?

m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=xWbDNGu0zA0

Here's a deleted scene of the cops surreptitiously watching Decker confer with an old colleague.

"Two old bladerunners trying to grapple with metaphysics" comments the chief.

Obvioulsy not a replicant.

>deleted scene

Ebin

but what is the point

did you read the book? The main character agonizes about the possibility of being an android, at some point he gets arrested by android hunters and brought to a police station (he discovers they were android and the police station was fake), then in the end he realizes that androids are complete robots who convincingly pass as human but are in reality completely devoid of empathy, even towards other droids, while he empathized with them until it was clear how inhuman they were

what is the point of him being an android in the movie? And why are the androids more humans than humans in this stupid fucking movie

A user post an interview where Riddley said than it wasn't a leftover

Stop bringing up the book, faggot. It literally doesn't matter what the book does.

A better question is, why is this movie regarded as good?

Him being a replicant is just shitty Star Wars-tier fanfiction. I don't care if the creator thinks he is, if it's not shown in film then it's not true.

>If he was a replicant, why the fuck was he so weak?
>He even got his shit pushed in by the women

Let's examine that in more detail, shall we?

>Survives an encounter with Zhora, stronger than a normal human and designed for assassination, with no visible injuries - in fact gets punched in the throat and it barely slows him down
>Takes a beating from Leon, who's basically a man-shaped bulldozer far stronger than any human and walks it off with bourbon and an aspirin
>Survives being beaten and choked by Pris with no ill effects
>Is somehow able to climb to the roof of a building, jump to the next building, and cling to a rain-slick girder following a vicious beating and two broken fingers at the hands of elite combat model Roy Batty, then just walks it off

Deckard is practically invincible.

But it is shown in the film you dumb fuck.

>Final cut

Yeah nice try Ridley. I don't care if you retroactively changed your head-canon, it's too late now.

No he wasn't, what happened was that there were two writers on the film who didn't understand what the other was aiming resulting in hints suggesting that he was and wasn't a replicant

youtube.com/watch?v=n9YHBUq6RHE

He's a newer model. The older models were designed to be too durable, too strong, and too dangerous. It's a failsafe.


btw he's really a replicant. the director even said so, on multiple occasions

>btw he's really a replicant. the director even said so, on multiple occasions

And what is that supposed to mean ?

If your mom said you were straight, would that make you not a faggot ?

Then all three of them decided he was a replicant

Oh and:

google.co.uk/amp/io9.com/5181048/blade-runners-original-ending-yes-deckards-a-replicant/amp

Yes, he was.

that makes sense at least

what kind of retard are you? Did you actually read the book or just the cliffnotes version?

The film has almost nothing to do with the book apart from the overall setting.

>Watch BR on vhs
>shit what a great movie
>try to dl it again after years
>no voiceover, something feels different
what the hell?

That's the whole point of the film you retard. There is no such thing as replicants. They are all human in a way. Just propaganda used by Tyrell to demonise slaves. Call them something else to dehumanise them so when slaves get out of control the people hunting and killing them wouldn't feel to guilty about killing them.

yeah.

the shitty thing is once you have seen the director's cut if you watch the theatrical release again it seems lame

this.
the movie needs to sustain itself. in any adaptation the books don't matter. pretend they don't exist.