Hey guys. I am doing a news story on Blade Runner for my reporting class and I need your help. The story is about whether or not Deckard is a replicant. I need people to put what they think about it so I can have poll data for the story. The more people post, the better. I have until Monday night to write the story, so please post before then. Thanks a lot!

Yes. It heavily implies it in the book. (Or so I've been told by those who have read it.)

Although I've never really understood why it would be that big of a deal if he was.

ok, i was deeply shocked when i first realised that was the suggested/ambigious plot. My theory is that it doesnt really matter. In my eyes/mind the crux of the story is that whatever, whoever you are - man, woman, child, animal, replicant you will have emotions and feelings and no amount of programming - electrical or cognitive! - can change that because what happens when beings interact is emotions and feeling -love, hate, happiness, sadness, protection, worry, lust, annoyance...whatever happens happens and the line of the story to me was that you cannot avoid emotions and feeling - its inherent no matter what/who you are.

As for deckard, in my mind the fact that we don't know makes him even more interesting. For the sake of the story we should never know. Whatever he was he had emotions and thats what the conslusion of the story was all about.

Hope this helps

xx

I'm not so sure at all the book implies Deckard is a replicant, I'd argue his humanity is more certain in the book and necessary to the story in both. The reason, Nicki, that it's such a big deal is because "what is humanity? (and what isn't?)" is what the book (and film, of course) is all about. Deckard is the (anti)hero of the story and by questioning his humanity we are forced to once again reconsider where we might draw that line--not that we could really draw one in the first place but that's rather the point.

Now then, if your question, Kasey, is specific only to the film then I guess whatever validation is given by the book's perspective must be ignored. The film does differ from the book in making Deckard's humanity less certain. what confounds the issue further is the fact that there are so many versions and which is held to be the definitive one affects the answer. I think almost everyone I've ever talked to prefers the later versions; dispensing with the annoying nasal narrations and studio-imposed "happy ending". The Director's Cut is what really added fuel to the fire of the debate given the (re)insertion of the omitted unicorn scene, which strongly suggests (as Scott openly opined) that Deckard was a replicant.

For me, I'm going to vote for Deckard as a human. In contrast to Genevieve I'd argue that it DOES matter. We need some sense of certainty in Deckard or the essence of what the story's asking you to examine, becomes too fogged in it's own mist. Deckard's role, surely, is to provide the Je ne sais quoi, the undefinable essence that sets him aside as human. the real power in his character is that he is NOT some glorious hero, he's physically and often mentally inferior to his fabricated conterparts. It's his frailty and failings (so well portrayed by Ford) as much as anything else that sets him aside as "one of us".

There are just too many aspects that are far less significant to the underlying theme, or even rendered moot, if it then tranpsires Deckard is not human. Consider Roy's act (of humanity) in saving Deckard's life. Think also on the poignance of (a human) Deckard falling in love with Rachael (a non-human). These, and others aspects I could cite if this wasn't already somewhat lengthy, seem so less meaningful to me in making the all-important point if Deckard himself is not a human.

Deckard is a replicant, When Batty dies there's Gaff at the end telling him that he has done a man's job. Rachel asking Deckard if he has seen the personal files where he say they are classified and she says "but your a cop" And of course the vision of the unicorn.

I read somewhere that Ridley Scott intended for him to be a replicant, hence the allusions in the last post, as well as the fact that he was able to stay alive and fight the 'other' replicants so well, and why Roy Batty perhaps let him live in the end.

However I also read that Philip K Dick never intended for Deckard's character to be a replicant and in the story, his character did a test and was proved not to be.

It's an interesting enigma and I think it was concocted on purpose so that people would debate it; the whole idea of not knowing who is real and who is AI is one of the underlying themes of the movie.

If yes... then this may be the reason why:

Fight fire with fire.

Terminator vs. T-X

Predator vs. Aliens

Some movies are not man vs. machine but "other" vs. "other". The unpredictability of their actions and the "lesser of two evils", in some cases, are good reasons for it.

If no... then some reasons:

Lone human hero, who would otherwise be fit enough to live on an Outer World, gets to save the day... and still get the girl.

Humanity: Deckard didn't torture. He only killed those who were "in the wrong'.

He is and he isn't. And Tyrell is also a replicant.

Ridley has stated in public, that yes, the unicorn means Deckard is a replicant. And the line "you've done a man's job sir" - in the extra material for Final Cut, you see a take that continues with the rest of the line, which isn't in the movie: "...but are you sure you are a man?" Spelling it out there.

But the original screenwriter also says in the same extra material: "It's the QUESTION that's interesting. The moment you say he's a replicant, you're alerady wrong" The movie's purpose is to make you question what makes you human.

Personally, I think he's all human, because the movie makes NO SENSE AT ALL if he's replicant. The reason is simple:
EVERY SINGLE TIME he's up against a replicant, they beat the crap out of him. Sending a robot to do the dirty work that got Holden shot would make sense, but why send an out-dated, old, tired, has-been replicant when they can send a "combat model"???

The snake woman almost kills him, but runs because someone enters the room. She escapes, and Deckard barely manages to shoot her in the back. Close call.
Then Leon almost kills him, but luckily Rachel is there. Close call. Then Pris kicks his arse, and he barely manages to shoot her. Close call. Then Roy beats him up, breaks his fingers and toys with him, and CHOOSES TO LET HIM LIVE.

There's just no way in hell Deckard can be a replicant, and I don't care what Ridley says. :)

- Jonas

Oh yea, and Tyrell: It's revealed in the extra material, that when Roy Batty crushes Tyrell's skull, they wanted nuts and bolts to come out - he's also replicant. Then Roy takes the elevator to the next level, and there's a mausoleum with Tyrell's body - dead for ten years. But they never filmed that, so I guess that's also "open".

Another point for Deckard being human: The rooftop scene.

The movie is about human vs. non-human. Humans have decided their non-human invention wasn't such a good thing, and, as the makers they are in their right to destroy the non-humans.

So at the end of the movie you have Batty vs. Deckard.

Who is human of the two?

Deckard came to KILL. But Roy Batty is the one who lets live.

And that sinks in right there, when Betty dies and the dove flies: even though Deckard is the human and Batty is the non-human, it's Batty that was the most HUMANE of the two. That's what Deckard learns when he watched Batty die.

And that statement is only powerful if Deckard is NOT a replicant.

(quoting T2: "If a machine can learn to value life... maybe we can, too")

So, to the original poster: If you want FACT in your assignment, then write that Deckard is a replicant, because Ridley Scott himself said so, so there it is, straight from the horse's mouth.

But if you want to write a good assignment, write that it's open to lots of interpretations. Like in religion, BELIEF is thousands of times stronger than FACT.

My bottomline: It's not what we're born as that makes us human, it's what we do in our lifetime. That's the point of Blade Runner. -Some humans behave so non-humane that you can easily make a machine that's more human.

"More human THAN human", is Tyrell's motto.

- Jonas

Scott says hes a replicant and if you dont get it youre a fucking moron. His words, not mine.

And I strongly disagree with whoever said it doesnt matter if hes a replicant or not, I think its very important thematically. Say you saw the entire movie, and you had no idea Deckard was a replicant, but then the director comes out and tells you, 'no, youre wrong, hes not human'. This brings up a main question in the movie, what is it to be human? If I can be either a replicant or a human, and not know and depend on someone else to tell me, whats it matter?

He is a replicant,thats why they put the Unicorn dream sequence in the final cut.
Gaff left the origami Unicorn outside Deckards flat to show him he knows what he dreams about therefore Deckards a replicant

wow Jonas! Very good point and well argued.

in the book he is a replicant.

it never states anywhere in the book that he is a replicant, no where did i find that, what the book does is like alll of philip k dicks books do push the boundaries of our imagination on the human mind,

the film may bring up the question wether decard is a replicant but the book
gives no such question!

He's definitely a replicant i.e. physically not human but of course the whole point is the question :- what does it mean to be human? Having a physical human body is just one way.

It's the Turing test writ large.

That's great arguments due that theory, Marriane))
In addition to that opinion I would say that the Nexus 6 replicants were a most perfect technology over the world at that moment, a masterpiece of techs progress. They far exceeded humans in physical strength and intelligence, let's remember how easy Roy had beaten Tyrell up by the chess, and Eldon Tyrell was a genius himself!!!
So, in order to retire replicants effectively, the device at least comparable to reps is needed, and considering glorious Deckard's career as Blade Runner, he was not yelding reps a lot. Probably he just was a previous generation of Nexus))
And vice versa, I would prefer the idea that just because Deckard is ordinary human specie, he was able to outwit reps for a his long career. And that's one of the charming moments of the movie)))

"It's an interesting enigma and I think it was concocted on purpose so that people would debate it; the whole idea of not knowing who is real and who is AI is one of the underlying themes of the movie." - Definitely. What is really human to divide it from "non human" especially that "non humans" in the film are so human-like - in their behavior I mean, all this struggle to survive!. where is the boarder line - and actually, what is it - origin of unit or acts of the unit- meaning all the characters? i think that the little crane (bird) carton figure left in Deckakrts apartment before he confronts the replicants is kind of "under surveillance" and "accusing" element. Basically; who would be a better hunter but the one who been designed for it?

I wholeheartedly agree with Jonas on this one. I believe Deckard is human. So what is it to be human? Or rather, the question should be "what is humanity?"

To me the movie clearly showcased an important underlying message: contrast between ideas.

Deckard is portrayed as a person that is fed up with the world he's living in, and he does not enjoy his work and life much. On the other hand, the replicants totally desire more life. Message here is that we cannot take things for granted, because that's what humans always do. This underlying message deals with morality.

Rachael is the epitome of a Utopia. She is so different, so pure and innocent. She shows Deckard a world that does not exist because he is living in a so-called "dystopia". Rachael changes Deckard's perception that there are always beautiful and rare things in this world, something always worth fighting for. And the unicorn is merely a symbol to what Rachael really represents. Deckard interprets Rachael as special, but so did Gaff, thus leaving the unicorn behind (once again, the unicorn symbolizes a peaceful and a perfect world, which is the exact opposite of the portrayed of Los Angeles in the film, and it's only something one can dream of). Gaff leaves her alive because he also sees such a rarity in Rachael, thus he treasures it at the end.

Even with the original ending, it shows Deckard going away with Rachael, and the setting is for once changed to the outside greener world where there's sunshine. Ther's strong underlying social and environmental issues in the movie as well.

The movie is so great because it relates its many underlying messages to the world we actually live in today. It constantly questions our humanity, morality and society, so we would not end up in such a "dystopia". And, i can honestly say that i understand now why scientists really love this movie.

To conclude my view, i have to say that if Deckard were a replicant, the contrast and messages would be lost. To me, the main thesis is clearly how humans can see to improve their humanity through the eyes of the non-humans.

El \"problema\" aquí fue que Scott rodara su innecesario Director\'s Cut. En mi opinión en la película de 1982 Deckard no es un replicante, si bien hay algunos elementos que puedan inducirnos a pensar en ello pero no gozan de importancia definitiva. En cambio en la película de 1992 Deckard sí es un replicante y el unicornio de Origami nos lo desvela así.

Aunque las diferencias son mínimas yo prefiero la de 1982. Que acabe con el final feliz o no me trae sin cuidado, no valoraré una película tan inmensa por la escena final y prescindir del Happy Ending me parece una decisión tan acertada como incluirlo, no valoro mejor que la película termine algo más \"triste.\"
www.muzikalia.com/foros

Reading the book, I thought it was pretty clear that he isn't an andy (replicant). On the other hand, the film has some major differences to the book. Anyway, like Dawei David He (posted above) one of the main philosophical questions (what makes you human?) would be weakened a lot with Deckard being an android.

I was quite surprised by the fact that Ridley Scott states, pretty unequivocally, that Deckard is a replicant in the extras within Final Cut; the beauty of the whole question remains, though, as there is so much conflicting evidence within the film. As others have pointed out, if he is a replicant built with the express purpose of interdicting the rogue Nexus 6 group, why is he almost physically incapable of doing so? Yet, why does Gaff leave the foil unicorn at his apartment, clearly indicating that he knows the content of Deckard's memories?

In fact, I think a far more interesting question falls out from that very event; if Gaff leaves the foil unicorn in order to send an unequivocal message to Deckard, what is he saying with the matchstick man in Leon's apartment - or the paper chicken on Bryant's desk?

The question about Deckard being a replicant is evoked in the ultimate bible about the movie: futur noir (http://www.amazon.com/Future-Noir-Making-Blade-Runner/dp/0061053147).

The comments and documentary on the DVD of the Final Cut are extensively based on this book.

According to Ridley Scott, Dekard IS a replicant, but he did not want to have "dancing bears" around Harrison Ford to point out that clearly . Therefore he gave only one tiny indication: the amber reflection in his eyes, the same as Leon's, Rachael's and Tyrell's replicant owl's. We only see it in one shot (during the love scene with Rachael), and you have to pay attention to it because Ford is blurred in the background. The shot is not very remarkable in the previous cuts, hence the doubt. The change of pace of the final cut puts it in front.

Also the line "you've done a man's job" implies that he actually is not a man.

Tyrell was supposed to be a replicant. It was screenplayed and storyboarded. After his death, one discovers a room with the real Tyrell, actually his dead body preserved in a sarcophagus. Due to budget overspending and great loss of time during the rollercoaster shoot, the scene was finally not shot.

Thats the not the only indication. the detective k new deckhard dreamt about unicorns. Thats why he left an origami one in his flat.

Also the fact that you would have to be a hell of a super human cop to take out the replicants, he gets well thrashed on the roof. There was also clues in the story that some of them didn't know they were replicants. He might have been a special case like rachel. Also the film said they were special meaning that they probably didn't have the genetic time bomb that the others had.

He's a replicant, but a lesser model than Batty and the others, which is why he can't match them physically or mentally. It's also why he is unable to become "humane" like Batty eventually does. Batty is so advanced that he actually can become humane, while Deckard can't.

for sure

Definitiva y rotundamente SI. Definitely YES!

What about the whole idea that he starts from a set point in time with no real discription of a past accept for vague references? is it a sign that maybee he had no past? that he too had implants?

I'm not sure if this was intentional or not but that is how it came off to me.