Having just watched Bladerunner again after several years, I was wondering what are people on the Escapists opinions?
Was Deckard (Harrison Ford) a replicant?
Was Deckard (Harrison Ford) a replicant?
Deckard
- Thread starter DANCEMASTERAFRO
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes.
The unicorn dream.
The Origami Man leaving a paper unicorn.
The whole 'programmed memories' thing.
The unicorn dream.
The Origami Man leaving a paper unicorn.
The whole 'programmed memories' thing.
Maybe.......
Maybe not....
And to be serious, probably.
Maybe not....
[image/]http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/annied1985/evillaugh.jpg[/IMG]
And to be serious, probably.
In the book, he's definitely Human. In the Movie, it depends on who you ask. Harrison Ford claims that he asked the director this very question, and he was told that Deckard was Human. However, the director recently said that he was an Android (despite saying that Deckard was human in even earlier interviews).
It's never directly addressed in the film, however, so there's no "right" answer. Nothing definitely proves that Deckard was a human or an android - it's left up to the viewer. I personally believe that Deckard is human, since he was in the book (which you should totally read by the way), and if the film doesn't address it, I'll go to the original source material for my answer.
It's never directly addressed in the film, however, so there's no "right" answer. Nothing definitely proves that Deckard was a human or an android - it's left up to the viewer. I personally believe that Deckard is human, since he was in the book (which you should totally read by the way), and if the film doesn't address it, I'll go to the original source material for my answer.
No, it was Ridely Scott adding nonsense that cheapens not only his character arc, but the film as a whole. Going to have to side with Ford on this one. That and it doesn't make sense.
Considering they establish that he has been active for many years, and that is born out by expreience. Also establish is the idea that humanistic android work is very new.
Take these two established ideas and it results in the fact that it is highly unlikely that he is a humanistic android (as the secretary he interviewed was the height of humanistic android technology).
I personally saw him as a human, and to me his character is given very human flaws and manerisms so I suspect that was the intention of the writer as well.
Take these two established ideas and it results in the fact that it is highly unlikely that he is a humanistic android (as the secretary he interviewed was the height of humanistic android technology).
I personally saw him as a human, and to me his character is given very human flaws and manerisms so I suspect that was the intention of the writer as well.
I find that this is set up as an uncertain possibility one of the points of the film. Comments on the nature of life and existence and all that. After all, it's not like Decker was living a great life - he seemed more robot-like than the replicants for much of it, so where does that leave humanity? (and all that other good stuff. need to re-watch that film sometime soon... been too long.)
This is why I love that film... even though it doesn't really follow the book, it creates the same atmosphere the book does.
I personally dont think he is, but the story is told in a way to make us question this...
And as with all the great films, I could be wrong.
I personally dont think he is, but the story is told in a way to make us question this...
And as with all the great films, I could be wrong.
I agree with this, it goes with the whole theme of the movie, when Roy allows him to live because he sees a little of himself in Deckard, the whole notion that he's a slave to the job and that some how a combat replicant has seen and done more than he has. I though the end speech "She'll never live but then who does" summed it up. That androids who aren't really living, live more than Deckard does so Roy gave him a second chance to really live with Rachell.Wicky_42 said:
