Blade Runner Message Board
James Norby posts on 9/22/2009 10:36:13 PM
Blade Runner shows what will happen if corporations are allowed to continue their reckless assault on the environment. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world where the natural environment has been destroyed. The opening scene shows an expanse of industrial wasteland as far as the eye can see. Plants and animals are extremely rare and expensive to own. If we continue on the road we are going our world will end up like the one portrayed in the movie.
Wayne S UMD posts on 9/22/2009 12:40:39 PM
I am going to make my assertion and say that Deckard was a Replicant. It just makes sense on how the movie progresses and it makes the plot line just that much more interesting. The most obvious evidence of this is the emotions he develops especially towards Replicants. It says in the opening lines of the movie that the Replicants are void of any emotions when created but develop them through experience. Another piece of evidence is the fact that they can install full memories into the Replicants. Deckard may have never even existed until the very beginning of the movie. Deckard even says how can a Replicant not know they are a Replicant? Another supporting piece is that during the movie Deckard says he would rather be a killer then a victim, which is the same mind frame of the Replicants. There is an argument if Deckard was a Replicant, why wouldn’t they make him stronger? If Deckard knew he was a Replicant and he had the ability to develop emotions and free will, do you think he would continue killing Replicants? Seeing how Deckard responds, changes, and falls in love throughout the movie, it would only make sense that Deckard is a Replicant.
Daniel W. - UMD posts on 9/19/2009 9:53:40 PM
Employ a thief to catch a thief.
The topic of the day appears to be whether Deckard is a replicant or an actual human, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments. On one side is the unicorn dream, the lack of testing on Deckard himself, and his apparent lack of empathy in certain situations. At the same time however one could consider the former things coincidental, shaky evidence at best, and the aftereffects on a job that surely strips away humanity. A point this movie manages to execute well is that threshold of uncertainty that leaves the viewer guessing again and again.
However, after watching Blade Runner, I was most impressed with the impact the film apparently had on the industry, reshaping a genre in both appearance and function. While Blade Runner was most likely not the pioneer in the cyberpunk genre (after all, its an adaptation of a book) the stylistic combination of noir effects and dystopian science fiction has been repeated time after time. The falling rain, the monochrome atmosphere, the character archetypes used, these show up again and again and are even utilized in modern movies like Sin City and the finale in the Matrix: Revolutions. And that's nothing to say about the moral interpretations, done as well in films like I-Robot.
While the content and questionable narrative and identity of the main character is well done, I found the best point of the movie being how it renovated and cast the mold for films to come. From presentation and context to the skewed moral compass and artistic flair, Blade Runner still lives today in how we not only view cyberpunk, but what we expect.
Brooke Naland-Cst 3030-UMD posts on 9/17/2009 7:25:25 PM
A common thing in literature and other forms of entertainment is to use ambiguity, and I feel that Scott definitely did that in this film. As others have said, the leaving of origami unicorns and Deckard's unicorn dream are confusing as to their purpose, and even the very ending, when Deckard asks Rachael if she trusts him, is confusing, because we have no idea where he's taking her or what he plans to do, or for that matter, what Gaff is doing. The movie itself is pretty intense and has a very chilling premise, and ambiguity only adds to the intensity. As to whether Deckard is human or replicant, I think the film purposely pulls us in both directions to keep us guessing.
Dustin P - UMD posts on 9/11/2009 12:16:50 AM
As to the question of whether of not Decker (played by Ford) was a human or a replicant, I offer my following two cents - The purpose of the movie was that the question has no answer. As simple as that sounds, it was meant to leave an open ended (and discussion appropriate) main character which could identify with either side in the story. Although many people will argue adamantly either direction, I have trouble with either. Decker obviously feels for the victims he must "retire" which may lead you to either believe he has human emotions (and always has) or was devoid of emotions previously, and is only developing them now (which would suggest replicant). What I think would be the most telling part of the whole movie included the unicorn daydream scene (depending on the version you watch). The thought of being hunted down like a unicorn must cross Decker's mind. Perhaps this is a glimpse at his replicant side trying to warn Decker? I don't know if that even makes much sense, but that is the feeling I get when seeing it. Ultimately if I were to pick whether I believed Decker were human or replicant, I would argue that he is human. He lacks the strength of many replicants in the film and if you argue that Blade Runners were replicants that were made to hunt other replicants why wouldn't provide them with equal strenght and capabilities of the replicants they fight? I feel like Decker displays genuine human emotions and capabilities. Although he never administers the test on himself (in the movie or otherwise) speaks only volumes on the fear we all have in our heart that we aren't who we think we are. That somehow, we are lesser than human. I want to believe Decker is human, but in the end - I don't think there is an answer or was ever meant to be one.
Outsider posts on 8/22/2009 6:20:45 AM
Deckard's character does indeed draw the question of "what" he really is. However, the intentions of the movie are to for him to remain as a human. I believe that the human in the movie treated the replicants in a condescending nature, and therefore I believe that if Deckard was a replicant it would have been more obvious.
However, I agree with the last post and that a good director will play with his audience’s imagination. This is what is great about the movie and science fiction in general. It creates a foundation for possibility in our minds. In the movie not only robots take a whole new “life. They are deemed to serve humans; however, we come to realize that they too can create a “human” like personality.
One thing that I found contrary to popular opinion was the relationship to religion in the message of the movie. I don’t believe the intentions of the movie were to represent the “imagination” used in religion. Or the control of the “higher power”.
Eric posts on 8/4/2009 5:16:29 PM
Another argument for Deckard not being a replicant is he is an ex-cop and after that is only job was to retire replicants. You would think that in order to get that job he must be put through some kind of test to see whether he is in fact a human. With that said, the movie does hint a lot at Deckard being a replicant. I think the viewer should believe how they see fit. I think the little twist of Deckard actually being a replicant is quite fascinating. In 1982, Ridley Scott actually came out and claimed, "the central character could in fact be what he is chasing." With that said, it is easy to see that the director might have been planning that all along. I think he did an awesome job masking it enough where people to this day hotly debate it. The topic plays with your mind. That is what exceptional directing does.
Ian Floyd-UMD posts on 7/21/2009 5:18:01 PM
The one character who really stood out to me was Deckard because of the question that looms over him the entire film. Is Deckard a replicant? Originally it seems as though this being true is foreshadowed with the revelation of Rachael, a replicant with implanted memories and when Rachael asks Deckard if he had ever taken the test to identify replicants. It makes sense for this to be true because after seeing the physical prowess of Leon and Roy it becomes obvious that no human could match them thus making the idea that Bladerunners are in fact replicants with implanted memories likely. Gaff leaving the origami figure at Deckard's apartment seemed to me like he was giving a message saying that he was coming for Deckard and Rachael but was giving them a head start. Though one could make a counter argument against Deckard being a replicant because of how physically inferior he was to both Leon and Roy and because he has a greater emotional range.
Will Schmidley posts on 6/30/2009 11:49:13 PM
Wouldn't it be very immoral of Deckard to be intimate with Rachel if he wasn’t a replicate? But if he was a replicate, then it would be perfectly normal given the relationship between Roy and Pris. I believe this provides further evidence that Deckard must be a replicate himself. Throughout the movie, I believe that Deckard does not know that he is a replicate until the end when Gaff leaves the origami unicorn.
Derek SaintOnge posts on 6/25/2009 3:00:15 PM
I had to watch the movie a few times to completely understand everything that was going on. One character that still confused me was Gaff. I didn't understand why he left origami figurines at the replicant's residences. After doing some research, I think his purpose for those were to show his presence. Almost like leaving a calling card. His last line in the movie also left me a bit confused, "It's too bad that she won't live much longer, but then again who does?" At first I thought he was going to hunt her down but after seeing that he left a unicorn origami at Deckard's place where Rachel was sleep I think he realized that Rachel wasn't a thread to humans like the other replicants were. After reading other people's posts, the thought of Deckard being a replicant really never occurred to me. He didn't seem like he could hold his own against the other replicants and basically let his gun do the job for him. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It consisted of not only a great cast but also a decent plot.
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.
