Deckard - Human or Replicant?

[Anachronism]

The debate has raged pretty much since Blade Runner was first released: is Deckard a human or a Replicant?

A lot of people argue that it's a closed debate, since Ridley Scott himself has said that, yes, Deckard is a Replicant. However, Harrison Ford has argued that he's human, and in Do Androids Dream he's human as well.

I'd argue that he isn't, or, if he is, he shouldn't be. I think you can read into it what you will, and find evidence that supports both cases, which is, in my opinion, one of the great things about the film. My argument, though, is that, if he is a Replicant, what is the significance of him falling in love with Rachel? If he is a Replicant, why does Roy save his life to teach him the value of having a long life-span? If he is a Replicant, why does Roy say to him: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe"?

So, what do you think?

 

[bodyklok]

Half Human, one fifth Deckard, and four fifths Irish.

 

[Fangface74]

Depends which cut you watch I guess, doesn't he (Deckard) dream of a unicorn which the other cop (with a penchant for origami) make one?

Sigh, Blade Runner...one of the only times (apart from The Abyss) when the Director's Cut was WORSE!

 

[Skeleon]

I think he is the wisest of all the Horadrim.

No, to be honest, it's been too long for me, I haven't seen the movie in a while.
There were some aspects that made me think he is one himself, too, but...
I'm not sure what to think.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Book human, film replicant. They made him a replicant in the film as a twist for the fans. The point of both is really that there isn't that much difference between human and replicant as the film is an extrapolation of the life of a Nazi guard in an extermination camp where Jews were dehumanised.

 

[dukethepcdr]

Well, if he's truly human in the book Phillip K. Dick wrote (though I've heard arguements that even in the book, he's fooled into believing he's human when he's not and we the reader are meant to be fooled too), then I'd say he's human as I always say the book trumps the movie that is supposed to be based on it.

I hate it when film makers take a book and change stuff in their movie version. Spider-man's webs being changed from a cool invention by Peter Parker in the comics to just mutant glands in the movies is a perfect example.

 

[Anachronism]

Depends which cut you watch I guess, doesn't he (Deckard) dream of a unicorn which the other cop (with a penchant for origami) make one?

In the Director's Cut, yes, and that's the basis for a lot of the arguments that he is a Replicant, and I can see the logic; after all, Rachel has implanted memories, it makes sense that he would if he were a Replicant. Despite this, for the reasons given in the OP, I still think that he isn't, or at least shouldn't be a Replicant.

I actually preferred the Director's Cut. It got rid of the happy ending in the original one, and left what happens to Deckard and Rachel much more open.

 

[Lord RPGs]

A lot of people argue that it's a closed debate, since Ridley Scott himself has said that, yes, Deckard is a Replicant.

And that's where all that fell to pieces. You see, Ridley did not come up with this. You're looking at a man called Phillip K. Dick. He wrote Blade Runner. And lots more things, for that matter*. So, that is Ridley's thoughts, not what Phillip was actually thinking he was. Sadly, Phillip is dead now, having died slightly before Blade Runner actually came out in cinemas. Henceforth, we will never have conclusive proof of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant.

Resting my case.

* Confessions of a Crap Artist - Now that's a novel.

 

[JC175]

Gaff leaves the origami unicorn outside the elevator at the conclusion of the film, revealing that he knows of Deckard's thoughts. Therefore his memories are not real.

You see, Ridley did not come up with this. You're looking at a man called Phillip K. Dick. He wrote Blade Runner.

Nope, Phillip K. Dick wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Sure, the film was based on the novel, but it took several liberties with the original story, I consider them as two different works.

 

[Kevvers]

He's a replicant in the directors cut. Seriously, if you don't watch those cut scenes the movie is just about a 'special' policeman gunning down escaped convicts in the street.

Yeah I read the book and they are both good but like many adaptations of Phillip K Dick novels they changed to make something filmable, I don't think Ridley Scott was hung up about being 'faithful' to some trippy scifi novel.

Q. My argument, though, is that, if he is a Replicant, what is the significance of him falling in love with Rachel?
The significance is replicants can fall in love. He is capable of all the human emotions, just as she is.

Q. If he is a Replicant, why does Roy save his life to teach him the value of having a long life-span?
That's your take on it -- I always thought he did because he was dieing so it didn't matter anyway. His last words (ad libbed) convey a huge sense of loss. Previous to this he has had to face the futility of trying to fight this loss, anger followed by despair followed by its final acceptance. His world, everything is fading away... Perhaps he wanted him to live just so that there would be some trace of himself left in the world... as a memory. So he wouldn't be completely gone, but would still exist.

Q. If he is a Replicant, why does Roy say to him: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe"?
I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die.
See above

You see replicants are basically humans just manufactured to die earlier. So there isn't any reason why the film should make less sense if he is a replicant. In fact it makes more sense -- send a thief to catch a thief as the old saying goes.

I actually preferred the Director's Cut. It got rid of the happy ending in the original one, and left what happens to Deckard and Rachel much more open.

Yup IMHO nothing ruins a film more than a 'happy ending' -- especially this one.

 

[Anachronism]

Henceforth, we will never have conclusive proof of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant.

Which is why I started this thread, so people could discuss the subject. Like you say, there's scope for it to be argued either way, which is the purpose of this thread.

 

[veloper]

He's human or the film becomes self-contradicting.

Replicants are illegal on earth and he's employed a bladerunner, surrounded by bladerunners. There's no way he could've joined the force as a replicant.
Bladerunners can detect replicants afteral, as without that skill, there wouldn't be any work for them in the first place.

 

[Fangface74]

Depends which cut you watch I guess, doesn't he (Deckard) dream of a unicorn which the other cop (with a penchant for origami) make one?

In the Director's Cut, yes, and that's the basis for a lot of the arguments that he is a Replicant, and I can see the logic; after all, Rachel has implanted memories, it makes sense that he would if he were a Replicant. Despite this, for the reasons given in the OP, I still think that he isn't, or at least shouldn't be a Replicant.

I actually preferred the Director's Cut. It got rid of the happy ending in the original one, and left what happens to Deckard and Rachel much more open.

I agree that Deckard is better as a burn out human, but it's for this reason I hate the Directors Cut..cutting out the film noir style voice-overs is a cardinal sin, and thus unforgivable!

 

[More Fun To Compute]

However, Harrison Ford has argued that he's human, and in Do Androids Dream he's human as well.

Harrison Ford wanted to make Deckard a strong unambiguous action hero type character which undermines the message of the book. Deckard should be a weak character who is deeply unsure about his status. Mr Ford's career as a highly paid action hero was more important though.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

He's human or the film becomes self-contradicting.

Replicants are illegal on earth and he's employed a bladerunner, surrounded by bladerunners. There's no way he could've joined the force as a replicant.
Bladerunners can detect replicants afteral, as without that skill, there wouldn't be any work for them in the first place.

Replicants are illegal but what about Rachael? They can live on Earth if given status as human as long as their use is controlled and kept secret. Gaff was the real blade runner who was managing Deckard.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

the better question might be what make a human human ?
in most every regard a replicant is as human as possible, they're just born in adult bodies and never given the chance to develope beyond the four year life span.

 

[000Ronald]

Why does he have to be one or the other?

Why can't he be both?

I thought that was the point.

Apologies if I'm mistaken.

 

[ace_of_something]

Is still think they should've named the movie the exact title of the book "do androids dream of electric sheep?" if they did I'm pretty sure I'd walk around a much cheerier guy.

Oh Human Obviously. Even if he was a replicant he'd still be human. Isn't that the point?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Why does he have to be one or the other?

Why can't he be both?

I thought that was the point.

Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Good question. The story is a man who is disgusted by his job of killing replicants but can live with himself as they are dangerous and sub human. He then finds out that they are not all dangerous or sub human and that, critically, he might as well be one himself as he shows some of the same flaws. The story is only resolved when he works out what he is and how he has to live his life.

 

[veloper]

Replicants are illegal but what about Rachael? They can live on Earth if given status as human as long as their use is controlled and kept secret. Gaff was the real blade runner who was managing Deckard.

The girl is the most advanced nexus model, living with the lead designer at the heart of the corporation. That's not too far fetched for me.

Hiding a replicant among bladerunners is something else. That's the equivalent of an illegal immigrant becoming a police officer.
Replicants have no past, no school, no records, so they wouldn't even need to perform the test to figure out something was seriously wrong with a replicant Deckard.