Bladerunner: Was Deckard a replicant?

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,436
Location
UK
Here's the argument:
(from http://www.fast-rewind.com)

Deckard was a replicant:

1. 6 replicants are apparently referred to - the four who jumped ship and must be hunted (Rutger Hauer et al), plus Rachel. Who was the sixth? Did Deckard have false memory implants?

2. Deckard is obsessed with photographs, as are the replicants (tho' theirs was for personal history, not crime scene investigation :D ).

3. In the Director's Cut, there is apparently a scene of Deckard with eyes glowing like Rachel's and the owls.

4. How does Gaff know about the unicorn dream if it's not an implant?

5. Why hasn't Deckard taken the Voicom test?

6. Ridley Scott allegedly said he was!!


Deckard was not a replicant:

1. Replicants were illegal on earth - so why would the police use one?

2. Deckard was much weaker than Roy.

3. Why would Bryant trust a replicant if he hates them?

4. If Deckard has memory implants, why make him want to quit?

5. Harrison form allegedly said he wasn't!!
 
I haven't read the book (do androids dream of electric sheep) in awhile but it was pretty clear in it that he was not a replicant. However as the movie is loosely based on the book it could have been this was Scott's intention. I never thought so, just because he wasn't that strong.
 
I never considered it either - but apparently it's been something of a discussion. I'm going to have to dig out either the script or the DVD to see where the supposed reference to the six replicants comes in, and see how much that could infer Deckard as one.
 
Oh yeah, geez, this is the chicken-egg question of sci-fi. I am still in two minds about it, as there is supporting evidence for both.
 
I definitley feel that the film implied that he was a replicant - but left it loose enough in order that places like this could debate the subject.
Now that's what I call forward thinking :D
 
I said:
I never considered it either - but apparently it's been something of a discussion. I'm going to have to dig out either the script or the DVD to see where the supposed reference to the six replicants comes in, and see how much that could infer Deckard as one.

Yes, it's official. Deckard is a replicant. When the film was rereleased in theaters in the early 1990s with the Directors Cut version, director Ridley Scott had the "happy ending" cut, the Deckard narration removed, and a scene added containing a unicorn running through the forest, the latter comfirming that Deckard is a replicant. Check out the link right here:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm


Whitestar
 
That's the film version I have as well. The paper unicorn for me was always the strongest piece of evidence.

EDIT: One question though, does this mean that he himself is on borrowed time? I mean, was his lifespan the same as the others?
 
Last edited:
I was bugged by this, so I watched it last night:D
Six replicants escaped, five made it to earth
One died trying to break into the company
Decker killed the other three
Roy died on his own
Rachael never was in space, ever!
Decker was obsessed with LEON's photos, not his own.
and at no point did i see an implication that he was a replicant.
However, the paper unicorn, and attitude of Gaff, indicated to me that Gaff may have been a replicant!
 
I also felt that Gaff may have been a replicant. However Ridley himself has now stated that Deckard is a replicant...unless he just threw that into the mix for a laugh.

So now I have to wonder (unless I missed something) was Deckard really a great Bladerunner? I mean, if he is retired and is known for his skill, then surely he must have lived longer than 4 years? Or was that all a lot of malarkey? Geez...my head hurts...ALSO, why was Deckard not as strong as the others? Was he created to be less strong and more human (thus having been granted the longer lifespan, as he was less of a threat.)

If somebody has any insight into this, I would really appreciate it.
 
the implication i think may have just been that he had memory implants, but i just don't see it. I quite agree with you, in order to have the sort of police ranking, first an officer, then a bladerunner, then retired, he would have had to have been older than four. I think more thown out to keep discussions like this one going, than any real truth to it.
 
I mean...it just doesnt make sense, unless I am expected to believe that they created Deckard, specifically and recently to hunt down the escaped replicants and dropped him off in a crummy apartment...

Then I would also have to believe that his boss (forget his rank, captain or chief or something) was in on it?
 
as well as the company boss as well, yet he appparently doesn't know decard personaly, and is meeting him for the first time when he studies rachael.
 
Or so he claims, unless we are expected to believe he was also just pretending?
 
Morning Star said:
I also felt that Gaff may have been a replicant. However Ridley himself has now stated that Deckard is a replicant...unless he just threw that into the mix for a laugh.

So now I have to wonder (unless I missed something) was Deckard really a great Bladerunner? I mean, if he is retired and is known for his skill, then surely he must have lived longer than 4 years? Or was that all a lot of malarkey? Geez...my head hurts...ALSO, why was Deckard not as strong as the others? Was he created to be less strong and more human (thus having been granted the longer lifespan, as he was less of a threat.)

If somebody has any insight into this, I would really appreciate it.
Your speculation in regards to Gaff being a possible replicant is intriguing. I must admit that I have often suspected that myself. Also, your suspicions on Deckard not being as strong as the other replicants is right on the money. Roy Batty, Leon and their friends were super strong because their physical level is A. Deckard (as well as Rachel) is most probably a B or C level. The fact that Deckard was able to take a severe beating from Leon reaffirms that he is indeed a replicant. I doubt that a normal human being could tolerate such pain, let alone surivive an encounter with a replicant. Which may also explain why he has a much longer lifespan too. In addition, his actions signify that he is a traitor to his own kind. Since I have yet to read the book, I'm only second guessing. Does anyone know if this is revealed in the book?


Whitestar
 
I said:
The trouble with the beatings argument is that near-indestructible protoganists are a staple of film. :)

True, heroes in Hollywood flicks have the required ingredient for being indestrucible. :) However, this film is an unconventional one, a non-Hollywood movie despite being produced by Warner Brothers. That would explain why the film flopped at the box office because it was poorly received during it's initial release in 1982.


Whitestar
 
"More Human Than Human"

Like a few have already pointed out, Ridley Scott more than hints in the film adaption that Deckard is a replica. In fact, Mr. Scott came right out and said in an interview that took place during a promotional re-release of the film that he had intended that viewpoint. Personally, I believe that was a big mistake. The film loses a dimension when the android issue is confirmed one way or another. To me, it feels like it underscores both the ethical questions and the challenge of our preconceived notions of what makes a human, well, human.

Philip K. Dick, the author of the novel of which the film is based, chose the wiser and more artistic road by leaving the question of whether Deckard is human or a replica unanswered. Doing so, generations of readers could debate if it really matters if Deckard "isn't one of us" or what makes us all human in the first place. If he isn't human to us, then what the heck does it take to be human? What is our defination of "human"? If he is human, then why do some of the replicas display more emotion (such as anger, love, and fear for their existence) than by the very character we are all supposed to connect with?

I feel that Scott's decision to answer some of those questions makes me question if he really grasped how potent the issues raised in the novel were or if he had any real faith in the storytelling.

As far as the unicorn ending, I dug up an old post I did a while back about the topic. Below is a reposting of what I said at the time:

McMurphy said:
In the Blade Runner Director's Cut a dream and a miniature of a unicorn are present. These are interesting images considering the tone of the movie is dark and violent. The contrast between the tone of the movie and the imagery of the unicorn is important because it's the director's attempt at clueing us in.

The fact that the two proceeding miniatures (the chicken and the matchstick man) before the one of the unicorn have meanings that are easy to guess move viewers to speculate if the unicorn is an artifact of symbolism. What the unicorn is representing may not be so easy. The chicken, the first miniature of the movie, is made in the office of Deckard's boss. When Deckard tries to refuse the job of hunting down a new batch of replicants, the chicken is used to poke fun at Deckard's reluctance. The matchstick figure of a man is crafted when Deckard's relationship with Rachel and the violence heats up. Like I mentioned before, the meaning of these miniatures are straight forward, but they are important because the director probably did this purposely to draw viewers' attention to what the unicorn may or may not mean.


What does the unicorn symbolize? The first clue is the dream Deckard has while sleeping at the piano. His dream is of a vital, white unicorn running through a green, lush landscape. Deckard is probably dreaming of what he wants his life to be like. Deckard wants freedom from his job, his dark, oppressive surrounding, and, most importantly, from his impure, meaningless life. This is why the unicorn is white (purity) and why the landscape is lush (lively and rich of meaning). At the time Deckard dreams of his freedom, he doesn't know how it can be achieved. That is where Rachel comes in literally and figuratively. She, through Deckard's compassion and sexual interest towards her, starts to help Deckard see the way.

The next time the viewers see the unicorn is at the end of the movie when Deckard and Rachel is fleeing from his apartment. In the hallway, on the ground, is a miniature unicorn constructed from an empty bubblegum wrapper. It's very important that it is made of a gum wrapper---one side paper, the other side tinfoil---because it introduces three possible interpretations. First, the unicorn is simply referring back to his dream. It is a sign to both Deckard and the viewer that his desire of freedom and happiness is actually going to happen. He and Rachel are going to travel together in freedom with whatever time Rachel still has to live. It is a very "happily ever after" ending for a movie so grim, but it is possible due to the graceful images in his dream. Second, the unicorn made from a gum wrapper may also be reminding viewers who holds Deckard's "unicorn". The wrapper is paper on one side to represent the humanity of Rachel, and the tinfoil on the other side to represent the fact that she was created as a replica. Third, and probably the most controversial, the unicorn may be hinting to the viewers that Deckard is a replica. In this case, the tinfoil is representing the fake, replica side of Deckard, the man who has his dream of the "unicorn". In the movie, there is evidence that the director is using imagery a couple times throughout the movie to convey who someone really is. The first miniature was of a chicken to show that Deckard was acting cowardly in some people's eyes. The snake in the dressing room hinted that Zhora was a replica (remember the tattoo?). The third would then be the unicorn symbolizing Deckard as a replica.

It is quite possible that all the interpretations suggested in this post is right (or, to be cynical, wrong). Why would Ridley Scott stop at only one possible meaning of the unicorn? He wouldn't. All well respected and important works of fiction have multiple meanings, and Blade Runner has endured the test of time far better than a lot of science fiction movies in the past. Heck, how many people even bothered watching Mission to Mars that came out less than a decade ago? Enough said.


When looking at the last paragraph of the quoted post, I am starting to think that I had given Ridley Scott too much credit.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top