Deckard - Human or Replicant?

[bue519]

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.

Well, in the original cut it really makes no mention of him being a replicant. Also the limit of his physical abilities seem to make him even more human, as it is nearly impossible to keep up with Roy in the final scenes of the film. But, this is really all up to open debate.

Roy Batty was built for combat. Tanks are tougher than police cars.

Well even Kowalski, who was not a combat model, was easily able to disarm and nearly kill Deckard.

 

[Anachronism]

Well even Kowalski, who was not a combat model, was easily able to disarm and nearly kill Deckard.

And Pris, a "basic pleasure model", was also able to beat him up fairly easily. Deckard only won because he had a gun.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well, if Deckard were a Replicant built for police work, then why did they program him the way they did? Surely they'd want him to be as efficient as possible; and if that's the case, why did they give him a drinking problem, (arguably) depression, and a dislike for his job? If he was built to kill Replicants, why does he hate it so much?

I dunno. I got the impression that they based his character on a real blade runner like they based Rachael on a real person. Maybe the Deckard in the film is a replicant based on the real Deckard who is loosely based on the Deckard in do androids dream of electric sheep. And if you think my theories about the film are far fetched then you should see some of the stuff in the novel.

Anyway, read the bios of the escaped replicants. They all had Class A combat type bodies, implying that there are lower classes of body. I'm not making that up at least.

 

[Anachronism]

Maybe the Deckard in the film is a replicant based on the real Deckard who is loosely based on the Deckard in do androids dream of electric sheep.

My head hurts.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Maybe the Deckard in the film is a replicant based on the real Deckard who is loosely based on the Deckard in do androids dream of electric sheep.

My head hurts.

If it doesn't make your head hurt then it isn't proper Science Fiction.

 

[Tattaglia]

I think he is the wisest of all the Horadrim.

You are officially awesome.

 

[Anachronism]

If it doesn't make your head hurt then it isn't proper Science Fiction.

Good point.

You see, this is one of the reasons I love Blade Runner. It's the kind of film where you can actually have an intelligent (albeit confusing) discussion about its themes.

While I agree that the film itself, particularly the director's cut, supports the idea that Deckard is a Replicant, I still think it works better if he's not, simply because of the whole Deckard/ Rachel thing. If he's a Replicant, why does the fact that they fall in love have any significance?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

While I agree that the film itself, particularly the director's cut, supports the idea that Deckard is a Replicant, I still think it works better if he's not, simply because of the whole Deckard/ Rachel thing. If he's a Replicant, why does the fact that they fall in love have any significance?

It's significant because of the Tyrell slogan "more human than human." Roy Batty is an old, possibly outdated, replicant who is still more profound and alive than most humans. Rachael and Deckard are possibly the latest experimental replicants. You can accept that Rachael is a replicant because she is so outwardly cold but the real understanding of what a replicant is comes from Deckard.

 

[Anachronism]

It's significant because of the Tyrell slogan "more human than human." Roy Batty is an old, possibly outdated, replicant who is still more profound and alive than most humans. Rachael and Deckard are possibly the latest experimental replicants. You can accept that Rachael is a replicant because she is so outwardly cold but the real understanding of what a replicant is comes from Deckard.

I can see your point about Deckard, but surely the fact that even an outdated Replicant like Roy is clearly human is significant? It's been established by Roy and Pris that Replicants can fall in love, which, to me, is the sign that Replicants are just as human as humans. The significance of Deckard being human, to me, is that a human can fall in love with a Replicant.

 

[veloper]

And for me the significance of Deckard being a human, is that it neatly avoids all the logical inconsistancies of a replicant Deckard. It works better.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The significance of Deckard being human, to me, is that a human can fall in love with a Replicant.

Accepting that a replicant can love is more significant.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I can see your point about Deckard, but surely the fact that even an outdated Replicant like Roy is clearly human is significant? It's been established by Roy and Pris that Replicants can fall in love, which, to me, is the sign that Replicants are just as human as humans. The significance of Deckard being human, to me, is that a human can fall in love with a Replicant.

In the book, the significance of Deckard being human is that his actions are less human than that of the replicants. The primary judgement they use for detecting a replicant is the ability to empathise, but the replicants can empathise and Deckard can't, which is why, even knowing what he does at the end of the book, he just kills them and goes home, he's so empathically dead that they're just a job.

All the language used to dehumanise the replicants, like "retiring" instead of "killing", suddenly makes more sense.

 

[devildog1170]

both

 

[Anachronism]

Accepting that a replicant can love is more significant.

True, because that makes them human, but Rachel is a Replicant and she can love; Roy and Pris are Replicants and they fall in love; Deckard does not have to be a Replicant for us to accept that they can fall in love.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Accepting that a replicant can love is more significant.

True, because that makes them human, but Rachel is a Replicant and she can love; Roy and Pris are Replicants and they fall in love; Deckard does not have to be a Replicant for us to accept that they can fall in love.

It builds up. Leon was sort of sub-human but had feelings for Zhora. Roy was super human in some way but in other ways was an inhuman psychopath. His relationship with Pris might have been love or lust or something else. Deckard was better than human.

 

[Anachronism]

It builds up. Leon was sort of sub-human but had feelings for Zhora. Roy was super human in some way but in other ways was an inhuman psychopath. His relationship with Pris might have been love or lust or something else. Deckard was better than human.

But surely, by this way of thinking, Deckard must have been a new model of Replicant? Doesn't he have a fairly extensive career as a Blade Runner at the start of the movie? Or is that all explained away by the "implanted memories" thing?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It builds up. Leon was sort of sub-human but had feelings for Zhora. Roy was super human in some way but in other ways was an inhuman psychopath. His relationship with Pris might have been love or lust or something else. Deckard was better than human.

But surely, by this way of thinking, Deckard must have been a new model of Replicant? Doesn't he have a fairly extensive career as a Blade Runner at the start of the movie? Or is that all explained away by the "implanted memories" thing?

If he was older than Roy he would have been dead as they have timed lifespan. If Deckard is a replicant then it is reasonable to think that he was created just to catch the Nexus6 replicants and if follows that they would use something more sophisticated than Roy. It is hard to explain why Gaff never seems to be that far away from him and acts like his handler otherwise.

 

[Anachronism]

If he was older than Roy he would have been dead as they have timed lifespan. If Deckard is a replicant then it is reasonable to think that he was created just to catch the Nexus6 replicants and if follows that they would use something more sophisticated than Roy. It is hard to explain why Gaff never seems to be that far away from him and acts like his handler otherwise.

But he clearly has a history as a Blade Runner, and he seems to have known the other police for a long time. There's only so much you can explain with the implanted memories.

Even if he's not a Replicant, I don't think it's beyond credibility for a depressed, alcoholic, unpredictable, burnt-out cop to have a handler. To me, that makes sense, just to make sure he doesn't overstep his boundaries.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

But he clearly has a history as a Blade Runner, and he seems to have known the other police for a long time. There's only so much you can explain with the implanted memories.

Even if he's not a Replicant, I don't think it's beyond credibility for a depressed, alcoholic, unpredictable, burnt-out cop to have a handler. To me, that makes sense, just to make sure he doesn't overstep his boundaries.

You have to understand the paranoid dream logic of Dick novels. In the novel Deckard meets another android bounty hunter who accuses him of being an android. Deckard doesn't know this hunter and it turns out he works for another police department that run in parallel to the department he works for. It turns out that the whole parallel department is run by androids to protect androids from bounty hunters. The bounty hunter who arrests Deckard doesn't realise he is an android but is.

 

[Vroboros00]

The whole Origami Unicorn thing, and his dream about the Unicorn. I bet he was a replicant, and the origami detective knew it.