Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:32:33 PM
713356 Posts in 53058 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Question concerning Blade Runner « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Question concerning Blade Runner  (Read 6492 times)
Derf
Guest
« on: April 28, 2005, 01:17:27 PM »

I recently got the Blade Runner DVD. The cover brings up a question of whether Deckard might be a replicant himself. I understand that the novel the movie is based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, raises this question, but I see nothing in the movie that even hints at the possibility, other than maybe the fact that Deckard isn't a mutant like just about everyone else in sight.

Does anyone have any further insight on this?

Also, on a side note, did anyone else notice the similarities between the cityscapes in Blade Runner and The Fifth Element? In both movies, there are scenes looking down from a great height at flying cars (which also look somewhat similar). Both movies feature the hero being served by an ancient Chinese cook (Deckard goes to the booth in BR, while the booth comes to Dallas in TFE) who offers some advice. And in my most convincing observation, both movies even feature Brion James! Spooky, no?

Logged
Mr_Vindictive
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 129
Posts: 3702


By Sword. By Pick. By Axe. Bye Bye.


« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2005, 01:41:15 PM »

The thing about Dekkard being a replicant doesn't come up at all in the theatrical cut of Blade Runner.  But then, if you watch the directors cut you kind of get the idea that he is a replicant.

He's pretty much emotionless throughout the entire film and the big thing for me is the Unicorn scene.  One can take it as Dekkard dreaming or having a memory.  If it's a memory then he is obviously a replicant due to the fact that unicorns are obviously mythical creatures.  

Ridley Scott has said in the past though that he wanted Dekkard to be a replicant and that in his opinion, Dekkard is.

Take from that what you will.

Logged

__________________________________________________________
"The greatest medicine in the world is human laughter. And the worst medicine is zombie laughter." -- Jack Handey

A bald man named Savalas visited me last night in a dream.  I think it was a Telly vision.
Master Blaster
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2005, 01:48:44 PM »

The only reference I recall is when Deckard is asked "Have you ever taken the test yourself?" by his replicant love interest. (I forget the name). Ridley Scott said Deckard was a replicant in 2000, but Harrison Ford turned around and started b***hing saying they agreed Deckard deffinately wasnt a replicant, so people still wonder.
Logged
Master Blaster
Guest
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2005, 01:50:45 PM »

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/trivia

Oh, trivia page on IMDB has some insight.
Logged
raj
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 110
Posts: 2549



« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2005, 02:00:04 PM »

I think it was designed to be ambiguous, which really comes out in the director's cut.  Another advantage of that version is that it doesn't have the annoying voice over.
I suspect Deckard is a replicant.
Logged
LH-C
Guest
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2005, 02:48:13 PM »

I have never suspected that Deckard might be a replicant, even after watching the director's cut for many years. It think it's all in how one analyzes it, I guess.
Logged
Derf
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2005, 03:17:03 PM »

The DVD I got is the director's cut. The unicorn scene looks more like a dream to me; Deckard isn't in it--it's just a one-second scene of a unicorn running. If it's a memory, then yes, Deckard would be a replicant. However, it isn't really presented that way. While I can't claim to be a world-renowned expert at literary analysis, I do have my master's degree in the subject, so I do have some skills; more than most when it comes right down to it. I watched the movie specifically looking for ambiguities and didn't really see any, not in the way the police treated him (okay, stretching things a bit, we never see Deckard in his former glory days; he is simply told that he was the best), not in the way he is portrayed with normal human strength (the replicants regularly kick his bootay; his only "strength" is in surviving it all), not even, as mentioned, in his lack of emotions (replicants have emotions; they are simply unprepared to handle them like normal humans).

I read the trivia on IMDB. I can superimpose some of the behind-the-scenes stuff to create ambiguities, but I don't think that is a good way to approach any work of fiction. If the ambiguities don't exist in the work itself, then they don't exist for the purposes of analysis. I don't mean to slough off all your comments; I appreciate your taking the time to answer. I guess I'm just looking for something more accessible within the finished film since the cover made such a big deal out of it.

Logged
Ed
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2005, 03:41:24 PM »

I agree, all my times watching it and I never got that he was a replicant.  The dream sequence seems to me to me a nod to the original book.  Deckard tended to drift off into animal dreams, I recall.
-Ed
Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2005, 07:51:51 PM »

If he was a replicant, then he was the biggest wuss replicant I ever saw.  Any time a replicant got their hands on him, they caused serious bodily harm that he was more or less powerless to prevent.  I think it's just one of those things fans of the movie like to argue about and people involved in the movie like to fuel to perpetuate rentals and DVD purchases.  I don't think that was the film maker's intent when making the movie.
Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2005, 08:17:48 PM »

I watched the movie many, many times and NEVER got the idea he was  replicant.  When I heard it mentioned somewhere, I watched it again looking for those clues.  It's an interesting debate, but one I don't think holds up to scrutiny.  At least not in the theatrical release.

(I've never seen the director's cut).

Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
dean
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 267
Posts: 3635



« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2005, 08:29:16 PM »


Anyone read the book?

I can't really remember, but was it more obvious in it's hints that Deckard might be a replicant?

Not that it really has any baring on the film itself, but it would be interesting to see what Dick thought about it.

Eg. In Fight Club the novel, it was more obvious what the deal was with Tyler Durden.

Damn.  I wish I payed more attention in class...

Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
BeyondTheGrave
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 70
Posts: 1386


Punks not Ded sez Rich


« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2005, 09:22:36 PM »

I never believe Deckard was a replicant. Like someone stated he did get his ass served a number of times in the movie. He was emotionless but that could be explained that he was a cop and might have seen alot of things that made him detached and cold.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t give it, you can't buy it, and you just don't get it!-Aeon Flux
Logged

Most of all I hate dancing then work,exercise,people,stupidpeople

blkrider
Guest
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2005, 11:56:45 PM »

There's also a part where his eyes glow in a similar fashion to the replicant characters.  I believe Ridley Scott has put it on record that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, an experimental variety like Rachel.  

In the book, if I remember right, Deckard is not a replicant but at one point he is taken in by a replicant Blade Runner who takes him to a police station that is staffed by replicants.  Need to read it again--I believe the movie only took the basic premise from the book--otherwise they're quite different from each other.
Logged
dean
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 267
Posts: 3635



« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2005, 03:18:05 AM »


Yeah, the book is alot more political based then the movie from what I remember.  Though, that's about all I really remember to tell you the truth.

Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Derf
Guest
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2005, 08:29:23 AM »

Thanks everyone; at least I now know that I'm not the only one who can't see any real "ambiguity" in the movie. I understand the book may add that dimension, and that's fine, but this is the movie version, not the book version. They are two very different stories. One day I may read the book to see just how different. . .

Logged
Pages: [1] 2
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Question concerning Blade Runner « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.