IGN: At what point while making the original film did you decide that Deckard would be a Replicant?

>IGN: At what point while making the original film did you decide that Deckard would be a Replicant?

>RS: Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, “Well, isn't it corny?” I said, “Listen, I'll be the best f#@king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?” So, and that, you learn -- you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f#@king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, “You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.” Harrison, he was never -- I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, “Uh, I don't know about that.” I said, “But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, ‘I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a f#@king unicorn!’” Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is “Duh.” So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other.

>it's a Ridley Scott doesn't understand his own work episode

Other urls found in this thread:

ign.com/articles/2017/06/22/blade-runner-turns-35-ridley-scott-discusses-the-films-legacy-deckards-true-nature-and-the-future-of-the-series
twitter.com/AnonBabble

but he's right. that's exactly what happens.

>So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other.
NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Goddamn it, one of the best parts of Blade Runner is the ambiguity surrounding Deckard. Revealing he's a replicant destroys all of that. I pray that Denis Villeneuve and Hampton Fancher told Ridley to fuck off.

>it's a Ridley goes full George Lucas episode
Well, looks like all of the "RIDLEY SHOULD DIRECT THE NEW BLADE RUNNER! FUCK VILLENUEVE!" idiots have been BTFO. Although there weren't a lot of them.

IT'S REAL

ign.com/articles/2017/06/22/blade-runner-turns-35-ridley-scott-discusses-the-films-legacy-deckards-true-nature-and-the-future-of-the-series

How are people only now realizing that he's a hack fraud?

Scott has been saying Deckard is a Replicant for years now.

>it's a now senile artist is left in charge of his old works episode

why is this legal

have you ever watched prometheus or covenant? do you know what ridley did with the space jockey? do you still think scott values ambiguity? Do you think modern audiences do?

Yes but beforehand he couldn't make it canon. People have been debating about Deckard for years despite his opinion. The problem is he's gonna try to force his bullshit into Blade Runner 2049 and that will completely ruin the mystery of the original film.

>I'm a very experienced director from commercials

Making Deckard a replicant is just a dumb twist. By him being a human with no empathy for the replicant's struggle for more life, while a fucking robot like Batty saves his life in the end makes things more poignant.

And if Deckard is a replicant how is he gonna explain Deckard being alive after all these years? All replicants have a 4 year lifespan. It's a flaw that can't be fixed. Tyrell says so himself.
But, turns out Deckard is some special snowflake version. The whole plot of these movies works on a really flimsy basis that some dumb company makes machines used for digging ore on asteroids, but gives them fucking feelings for some reason, and those things constantly escape and kill people in rage, yet somehow law suits don't fucking rape them into oblivion. And then they create a physically weaker version give him the same dreams they give the rest of them, and let him loose around LA as an ex-cop, that gets called back to catch some super-strength motherfuckers from outerspace. Why?

I don't get what your point is, user.

>So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is “Duh.”
Am I the only one who's deeply confused by this sentence? Why the hell is he talking about Beavis and Butthead? Is he legitimately senile?

way to butcher pkd's book you hack fraud

Reminder that replicants are literally just genetically engineered humans, and not robots.

jesus this reads like a trump quote, is ridley going senile?

then why is there a guy that makes their eyes seperately?
checkmate genetics fag

Yeah, the only time this has ever worked was George Miller's return to Mad Max. George Lucas' return to Star Wars was a disaster, Steven Spielberg's return to Indiana Jones was a disappointment, and Ridley Scott's return to Alien has so far been disappointing.

The Nexus 6 had a 4 year lifespan. Deckard was an expert on replicants, and he is surprised when he learns that. So other models (including him) could be immortal for all we know.

What point is there to make Deckard a replicant? Blade Runner is all about how Deckard comes to realize that there is little difference between replicants and "true" humans.

>Deckard was an expert on replicants, and he is surprised when he learns that.
This is a very good point. I'm aware of the theory obviously, but this is far stronger proof for it being true than what is usually presented.

Also why was he so weak? He couldn't win a hand to hand fight with a replicant. His strength seemed more human.

Also the movie is a gnostic parable so don't get caught up on the silly plot points.

>So other models (including him) could be immortal for all we know.

That's a rather a shitty business model. Why buy new replicants if the old ones last forever?

They were both military models. That Deckard was able to climb to the top of a multi-storey building with several fingers broken, suggests that he's stronger than the average human.

the space jockey thing was pretty cool.
Covenant shat the bed on both Alien and Prometheus

Trump is bigly smart.

Tuck Frump xD

Scott is a blabbering old idiot at this point.

Listening to him talk about Covenant and how profound and incredible he believed it to be and then actually watching that incoherent piece of shit shows just how out of touch he is.

Same with most of his recent offerings.

The man can direct wonderfully but he can't tell a story to save his fucking life. I'd be surprised if he even knows the story to Blade Runner at this point let alone whether Deckard is a replicant or not.

>I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien
>from commercials
kek

Ridley said it so it's true

>there are people who think it matter whether Deckard is a Replicant or no
Asking the question is enough, the answer is inconsequential.
Add one more reason to not see 2049.

Even more real feeling pussies and boypussies.

>white knight for president of the america (POTUS for newfags) DONALD J. TRUMP because he will save white hegemony and avenge my masculinity after a black gentlemen defiled my wifes sacred flower (her virginity)! HEIL TRU-- I mean, praise le centipede maga

what did he mean by this

He is an old, senile, demented alzheimer shitbreather. He needs to eat shit and die asap.
Every time he publicly spews shit out of his retarded brainrotten mouth he sounds more retarded than Trump could ever imagine.

big league*

it was done better in the novel, due to the inclusion of another bounty hunter who shoots the book version of pris, but it's not too complicated

theme of the film - exploration of personhood that equates replicants and humans
noir protagonist - reluctant hero who achieves the best moral victory they can in a corrupt world
Film poses questions - replicants - human, replicants = bad?
in answer to that question
Film makes statement - hero = replicant

They never directly confirm it in the new film but it's implied

if you develop it for yourself, it's a pretty good investment
you could also sell it for an exorbitant sum or code in a planned obsolescence

In the new film it's stated that the nexus 7 models (Rachel and maybe Deckard) have 60 year life spans.

Yep, new film says rachel and probably Deckard where nexus 7 and had 60 year life spans

>pkd's book

The book sucked ass.

PKD was a junky hack.

That theme is brought up in the new movie, especial when it's discovered that a replicant was able to procreate

>What point is there to make Deckard a replicant?

I think the point is to shit all over the production team that didn't like Scott's original directors cut and made him change it.

The original release was perfect, as it challenged the true meaning of what it is to be "human". If Deckard is a replicant, it tosses that right out the window and simply makes it a machine vs. machine story, which is far less compelling.

The production team was right, and Scott was wrong as fuck.

2AMBIGUOS4U

>with several fingers broken

First, we're talking about human hands with 5 fingers, not whatever the fuck alien 7-fingered hand you're thinking about.

Second, Roy only broke TWO fingers.
>"This is for Zhora....[CRACK].....and this is for Pris.....[CRACK]"

>The original release was perfect, as it challenged the true meaning of what it is to be "human". If Deckard is a replicant, it tosses that right out the window and simply makes it a machine vs. machine story, which is far less compelling.
Erm...but if Deckard IS a machine, then it puts the whole 'humanity' question on an entirely new level - Deckard, in the end, does something GOOD, HUMAN, UNPROGRAMMED.
Far MORE compelling, no?

>Deckard, in the end, does something GOOD, HUMAN, UNPROGRAMMED.
>Far MORE compelling, no?

If you're talking about wanting to "save" Rachael, no, not at all. He was obviously programmed to smash pussy as he had said that he was once married, and that his ex-wife called him "cold fish", and then he tried to get that replicant pussy from Rachael the first time he had her alone.

So no, he didn't do anything compelling, especially if he became self aware at the end.

>simply makes it a machine vs. machine story
the film has a larger thesis about personhood
when you integrate that thesis, it's man vs self and man vs man.
This is more or less how it does challenge the meaning of what it is to be human. Contrast the deckhard with the replicants; replicants have two properties that make them the antagonists in the logic of the narrative; they're replicants and they kill people.
The protag is the protag because his job is to stop the antagonists.
Deckhard gunning down the fleeing replicant and the general references to how he's a ruthless and effective killer are one of a bunch of ways, culminating in the final confrontation between Deckhard and Roy, are some of the various ways the film invokes a kind of similarity between the protagonists and antagonists.
Since they all seem to be rather ruthless killers, mucking around with who is or is not a replicant introduces some interesting questions. If the only property remaining that defines the antagonists in their nonhumanity, what happens when you take that property away. If you define nonhumanity by reference to replicant status, what happens when you give that to the protagonist?
There's nothing wrong with a straight 'they're just like us' narrative (unless we're talking about Diary of the Dead) but it's a more pedestrian option.

>larger thesis about personhood

Not when Deckard is a replicant. It makes his actions meaningless, as we know he's simply been programmed to do what he did.

With Deckard as a replicant, then it becomes a sympathy story for the Nexus-6 replicants, and Roy Batty becomes the protaganist....which is pretty much how Rutger Hauer saw the movie anyway.

>as we know he's simply been programmed to do what he did
why do you think this, since the Nexus 6 models stop doing what they were programmed to do, and Deckhard is presumably not programmed to leave with Rachel
If the issue of programming is any concern at all, anyway, why not the analogous issue of memory and biological determinism?

>why do you think this

Read this again:
>He was obviously programmed to smash pussy as he had said that he was once married, and that his ex-wife called him "cold fish", and then he tried to get that replicant pussy from Rachael the first time he had her alone.

If Deckard was a replicant, then he was not self aware, and did nothing outside of his programming.

let me read that again and try to make suss it out

>He was obviously programmed to smash pussy as he had said that he was once married
why does this necessitate that he was programmed to do so? If we expect human-like behaviour, we expect basic things like pursing relationships.
Even if there is a sufficient answer to that question, it's pretty clear that he and rachel have implanted memories. So whether or not he had a wife, his personality is the kind of person that pursues relationships. His 'programming' in this case isn't really predictable, it's just a personality formed from experience up against new experiences.

>his ex-wife called him "cold fish"
does this imply he is, or is not programmed to be a pussmeister?

>and then he tried to get that replicant pussy from Rachael the first time he had her alone
but not the replicant stripper he had alone
don't forget how long he spends asking her questions, and is there when she reacts badly to discovering she's a replicant

also I suppose it's pertinent to ask

>If Deckard was a replicant, then he was not self aware
based on what?

>and did nothing outside of his programming
what's the nature of this programming? Memories? All humans have those.

the best cut of the film was never really ambiguous about it

My guess plot-wise is that the Goose is an instantiation of the deckhard replicant, starts to question his identity, and seeks out the old deckhard replicant to confirm the theory that his memories are false.

but replicants don't age this long

I've only watched the directors cut, but in that one, any ambiguity is due to you not following what's going on... The origami confirms that Edward James Olmos knows his dreams, the way Ford new whatsherfaces, therefore confirming they are replicants.

This is not ambiguous, maybe subtle, maybe obscure because of the movie's tone and such, but not ambiguous. You repeat it to yourself and you see, he is a replicant.

Now, that's not to say it can't be written out someway, maybe it was never there, maybe he imagined it, maybe he was dead long ago, I don't know some stupid bullshit.

But ultimately, evidence says Deckard is a replicant.

With that said,

Why the fuck would he still be alive if he is?

he's ironically more replicant than Batty, which is also a plot in the book.

I read DADOES a couple years ago, well after watching the movie, thought they were so different, then I rewatched Blade Runner and realized how similar they are. The major differences are Harrison's portrayal, and the environment. The book sounds more like retrofuturism, despite the hallmarks of dystopia (abandoned apartment buildings, dust clouds, etc), where as Ridley interpreted it as cyberpunk neotokyo dystopia. Prob a product of the times, but truly that's where his authorship shines.

he's a hollywood director, his shtick is to sell shit. he made reference to something very low brow so every could understand what he meant. "duh"/

TFW you realize

>deckard wasn't alive or active before the movie began
>deckard's history was programmed by his maker
>deckard is only minutes old as the movie began
>deckard was made exclusively to destroy these martian robo interlopers
>deckard is 4 years older than Nexus 4's (they're on their death bed

tfw Blade Runner keeps giving all these years later

Not kidding, is he senile or on drugs?
I cant even make out a single thing he's trying to say.
Reading his answer is like having a mini stroke. Whats even his point?

Based on your questions, you obviously failed to understand what was depicted on screen, and are therefore not worthy of any further discussion.

>"Harrison, he was never -- I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, 'Uh, I don't know about that.'"
>this is Ridley's defense

take away his fucking car keys before its too late

>The origami confirms...

Only that Gaff was there.

Before we see the unicorn at the end, we see him make a stick figure, and a chicken, neither of which have anything to do with jack or shit.

To say that Gaff knew his dream of a unicorn is far fetched as shit, as it could have been just another random animal he made, much like the two pieces we saw him make before.

your propositions are contradicted very simply by the film itself, and rest on the assumption that others intend for him to give up the job they made him for

you think the hung stick figure and chicken were just random?