Blade Runner Message Board
sadie posts on 11/17/2007 7:09:54 AM
Ridley Scott says in an interview that he is a replicant!
Mill3322 posts on 10/23/2007 10:50:35 PM
I believe Deckard is a Replicant!! How can he not be?? Deckard just doesn't know he is a Replicant just like Rachel didn't know. Why would he have glowing eyes in the movie like the rest? Why would Rachel ask Deckard, "Have you ever taken the test yourself?" Remember that quote?? Also why would Gaff leave an origami of a unicorn? Because Gaff knows Deckards memories and can see them. Just like Deckard knew Rachels.
Porthos the White Knight. posts on 9/23/2007 4:44:31 PM
Decker is NOT a replicant. Would a black person help the KKK persecute OTHER black people? No, of course not. He'd be a traitor to his own people. It's silly to think other wise and takes away the whole dichotomy between Roy and Decker if you make them both exactly the same. And Roy was mopping the floor with him. If the laughable notion that Decker was a replicant was even remotely true there's absoluely no possible way they wouldn't make him so decidedly inferior physically than what he was going up against. Would you send Stephen Hawking to go takle a triathalon athlete? If Decker was a replicant he's be able to go toe to toe with Roy and his gang without breaking a sweat. Thus Decker is irrefutably a human being. It would make absolutely no sense otherwise.
schwe190 posts on 9/23/2007 3:07:28 PM
I do believe that Deckhard was a replicant simply from the fact that Gaff knew his memories. I realize that Deckhard's actions were different from the other replicants. The explanation for this is that Deckhard was created before the Nexus 6 model replicants. He was made for a different purpose so he was programmed to think and act unlike the hostile replicants. I didn't understand Scott's reasoning behind making Deckhard a replicant at first, but after watching the movie a couple of times I realized that it gave the otherwise dull storyline an edge that made me appreciate the movie even more.
Porthos the White Knight. posts on 9/14/2007 2:23:46 PM
I don't buy Decker being a Replicant because him if he WAS why would he hunt his own kind. That's like a Jew working for the Nazi's in WWII. Again I must point out the paradox of Roy Batty about to die and fighting furiously to survive while Decker had fallen out of love with being alive Decker has what Roy wants but is taking it for granted. If Decker WAS a Replicant they'd be taking a huge chunk of the movie's meaning out.
Mark Nelson posts on 9/14/2007 10:14:16 AM
The main thing I do not buy about this movie is the claim that Deckard is a Replicant. To my mind, there are simpler explanations for the reasons people claim he is a Replicant.
One of the most talked about is Gaff leaving an origami unicorn for Deckard in the final scene, “showing” that he knows Deckard's memories. Gaff was making origami all throughout the movie. He made a bird when in Bryant's office, and something else in Leon's apartment (I couldn't quite make out what it was). I think that Gaff was placing the origami as graffiti, or just doing it to pass the time. If Deckard was a Replicant, why let him leave with Rachel? Why wouldn't the police attempt to kill him and Rachel?
Another claim was that Deckard was a Replicant because he could take a beating from other Replicants, and they are stronger than humans. It is never established how much stronger than humans the average Replicant is. Are they at superhuman levels of strength? Or are they more like peak human strength? If they had superhuman strength, than I might be bothered that Deckard could stand up to them for a while. However, if they are more like really strong humans, like Olympic level weight lifters, than there is no need for concern. A body builder is stronger than me, but that doesn't mean I can't take a few punches from him. There is also Deckard's physical performance in the final scenes to consider. His difficulty climbing around the building and jumping to the next rooftop make sense if he is a human, but not if he is a Replicant. Roy was able to make that jump effortlessly, yet Deckard couldn't even climb up that bar after jumping, despite having almost half his body already on it. I can't believe Deckard is a Replicant when he is so outclassed compared to Roy.
PEDE0360 posts on 9/13/2007 6:14:36 PM
"Though I thoroughly enjoyed the mystery of Deckard's status (human or Replicant?)"
I did not pick up that controvercy at all. There was one line of dialogue in the film between Deckard and Rachel where she vaguely asks him if he WOULD know if he is a replicant or not.
I'm not trying to be a technical freak about this post, but Deckard being a replicant never crossed my mind, the dialogue was more of a defensive statement on Rachel's part, rhetorical mabye.
-thats all
Brittany Schubitzke posts on 9/10/2007 9:33:44 AM
Though I thoroughly enjoyed the mystery of Deckard's status (human or Replicant?) and the plight of whether to cheer for or against the Replicants, I found myself paying closest attention to Scott's vision of the now not-so-distant future. He portrays it as dirty, always dark, full of "consumerism" with floating ads, huge commercials, etc. Real animals become a scarcity and luxury that only the rich can afford. Is his vision really so far off? In a world where we are judged by the style of clothing we can afford, I can't image Scott's version of 2019 being so different from reality. It's not unforseeable to me that someday, we create something to do our "dirty" work for us. It is cruel to me, though, that they were able to think and feel like the rest of us. For their sake alone, they should have been created as machines - without the ability to feel anything human-related.
Meagan Dinsmore posts on 8/30/2007 10:44:35 AM
I find it an interesting concept to try and determine who is the corrupter v. the corrupted. As in all typical "good v. bad guy" movies, we're immediately drawn to cheer on Harrison Ford. However, Scott has made good use of the Replicant characters, because I found myself wondering if they, themselves, were not the corrupted. I began to pity the characters when considering their situation. Created by man, banned from Earth by man, enslaved by man... it seems they were the victims here. Similar to slavery to African Americans in the US.. it was expected that a rebellion was to unfold. Putting yourself in the Replicant's shoes, so to speak, makes you wonder if humans are corrupting these beings, and if, in fact, Replicants are the victims.
Porthos the Ronin posts on 5/22/2007 10:55:15 PM
Are these pop up ads starting to get on anyone elses nerves?
Click Here for Messages:
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 110
111 - 120
121 - 130
131 - 140
141 - 150
151 - 160
161 - 170
171 - 180
Note: the views expressed here are only those of the posters.
