UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (24) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: RJMason Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 63152  
Subject: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/17/2001 7:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
There is considerable evidence that Deckard is not a replicant.

Deckard is thrown about like a rag doll by every replicant he scuffles with (with the possible exception of Rachel, who doesn't try very hard.) His ass is kicked even by Pris who was described as a "basic pleasure model." If you were assigning a replicant to blade runner duty, you would probably pick one whose physical capacities were at least equal to those of a basic pleasure model.

Deckard believes that he has quit the police force. He doesn't like his bosses or coworkers, he has to be threatened into returning to work, and he is insubordinate to the point of allowing Rachel to escape. If you were programming a replicant for blade runner duty, you would probably make him more enthusiastic about his work.

The memory-implant technology is new, but Bryant refers to Deckard as the "old blade runner" and acts as if they have worked together for a long time. Granted, this could be an elaborate lie (although why concoct a rocky relationship, see above) but at least it shows that if Deckard is a replicant, then the police know about it and are lying about it. The same police are sufficiently paranoid about replicants that they want to whack even the inoffensive Rachel as soon as Tyrell reports her missing. This does not jibe too well with them letting a new and experimental replicant roam Los Angeles with a badge and a gun.

The coincidence of the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn is not exactly the same as Deckard showing off his knowledge of Rachel's childhood memories. A recent dream is not the same as a childhood memory, and a unicorn is a single ambiguous symbol, not a detailed story like the two that Deckard tells Rachel. In other words, it could just be a coincidence, or show that Deckard and Gaff have similar taste in symbols. Prior to the director's cut, no one thought that Gaff's unicorn must be referring to something that Deckard dreamed.

In short, it's amazing how easily people are taken in when a lying Ridley Scott replicant gives a few interviews. Come to think of it, have those interviewers passed a V-K test lately?
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: llisiraw Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9400 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/17/2001 8:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I know I posted a link to a letter from a guy who said Ridley said Deckard was a replicant, but it was kind of a joke.

Can anyone find a reliable link where Ridley says this?

If he really did, then maybe Harrison Ford was right. What other movies has Scott done?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gassendi Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9401 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/17/2001 9:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What other movies has Scott done?

Can't figure out how to use the IMDB, War?

Or just figuring that someone else will do it?

http://us.imdb.com/Name?Scott,+Ridley

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RJMason Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9403 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/17/2001 11:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
warisill: I know I posted a link to a letter from a guy who said Ridley said Deckard was a replicant, but it was kind of a joke. Can anyone find a reliable link where Ridley says this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_825000/825641.stm


Print the post Back To Top
Author: llisiraw Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9404 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/18/2001 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mike:Can't figure out how to use the IMDB, War?

Or just figuring that someone else will do it?


;-)


From RJ's link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_825000/825641.stm

As the replicants had no memories of their own, they had to be implanted, and fans interpreted the appearance of the model as a sign that Gaff knew what Deckard was thinking because it was an image shared by other non-humans.

I swear I've seen this exact sentence several times... I can't even parse it!

I still don't buy it. I think he's lost his mind.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TJLea Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9406 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/18/2001 7:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I swear I've seen this exact sentence several times... I can't even parse it!

The follow on novels are about Deckard's replicantness.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0553577751/reviews/102-3140602-5628931#05535777515000

TJ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Steve819 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9468 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 10:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
RJMason,

Good points.

A few things to think about (in addition to the unicorn/origami connection):

Remember when Deckard is telling Rachel about her childhood memories? The only proof she has to show Deckard that he is lying is her childhood photos. Afterwards, Deckard is sitting on the piano chair, depressed, surrounded by his photos of his childhood. He realizes too that he has very little proof that he is not a replicant. The final scene, with the close-up of Deckard face, in my mind, shows anger, sadness, and relief, because it confirms what he has suspected all along.

The other thing was this: The Nexus 6 replicants I believe, were the first to have emotions, because they were given the memories to cushion the emotional shock. Now Deckard, rarely if ever displays any emotion in the film. Some attribute this to Ford's acting, but also, it could just be because he has no emotions. He is an 'older' blade-runner, and could be an older model, that simply did not have emotions installed. This would allow Bryant and Deckard to have a longer relationship as presumably the 4 year life-span would not apply. The 4 yr. lifespan would only apply to replicants with emotions because of the emotional instability that comes with emotions.

The police are paranoid, because they have a replicant outbreak, and it is reasonable to assume that Rachel could have joined the motley crew. Thus, when she disappears, it's no wonder the police are after her. Deckard is not a threat because is a bladerunner and presumably the best there is or they wouldn't have wanted him back so badly. Who would know a replicant best? A replicant himself. Who best to hunt down a replicant? A replicant.

The Nexus 6 models were made for offworld purposes, military purposes, so it makes sense they would be stronger than an average human. Deckard was made for onworld purposes and it would do no good to have him be stronger than a normal human, as it would raise all kinds of questions.

Gaff's origami always reflected what was going on in Deckard's mind. The lil' man reflected Deckard's desire for Rachel. The unicorn reflected his dream. The chicken reflected his inner doubt about returning to the force and goaded him on, naturally. The previous 2 origamis were both connected to Deckard. Why not the third? What else could have the unicorn meant if not a connection to Deckard?

What do you think?

Steve


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dakeyras Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9473 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The other thing was this: The Nexus 6 replicants I believe, were the first to have emotions, because they were given the memories to cushion the emotional shock. Now Deckard, rarely if ever displays any emotion in the film. Some attribute this to Ford's acting, but also, it could just be because he has no emotions. He is an 'older' blade-runner, and could be an older model, that simply did not have emotions installed. This would allow Bryant and Deckard to have a longer relationship as presumably the 4 year life-span would not apply. The 4 yr. lifespan would only apply to replicants with emotions because of the emotional instability that comes with emotions.

I believe that all replicants developed emotions, which was part of the problem with the early models. They did not have the memories, the history and experience, to enable them to deal with these emotions. This is given as one of the reasons for the short "shelf life". The replicants were very strong and resourceful, yet would have the emotional development and maturity of a 2 or 3 year old child at best. At worst, the replicant would be psychotic and extremely dangerous.

Deckard could be an early experimental model with implanted memories. But it was implied, if not expressly stated, that Rachel was the first replicant without a termination date. This would mean that he would be bumping up against his end date very shortly. It would also require that the various members of the police that he interacts with would have to know since they imply a history with him that could not exist if he were a replicant due to the short life span.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Steve819 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9482 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
But it was implied, if not expressly stated, that Rachel was the first replicant without a termination date.

Could you explain this in greater detail? I was under the impression that she did have an expiry date.

Steve

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RJMason Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9484 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Steve: The Nexus 6 replicants I believe, were the first to have emotions, because they were given the memories to cushion the emotional shock.

Here are the stages of replicant development as I understand them.

pre-Nexus robots: Presumably not very human-like.

Nexus 1-5: "the NEXUS phase - a being virtually identical to a human - known as a Replicant." [opening text] We are not told much directly about these earlier replicants, but we may infer from contrast with Nexus 6 that they did not have superhuman strength and agility, did not have the capacity to develop emotions, and did not have a built-in four-year lifespan.

Nexus 6: "The NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them." [opening text] "Nexus 6... They were designed to copy human beings in every way except their emotions. The designers reckoned that after a few years they might develop their own emotional responses. You know, hate, love, fear, anger, envy. So they built in a fail-safe device... Four year life span." [Bryant] The Nexus 6 replicants don't start with memories or emotions, but they might develop them, although they're supposed to die first or shortly thereafter.

memory implants/Rachael: "Rachael is an experiment, nothing more... After all they are emotionally inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we give them the past we create a cushion or pillow for their emotions and consequently we can control them better." [Tyrell]

I went through all that just because I wanted to make the distinction between the Nexus 6 technology and the memory implant technology.

Steve: [Deckard] is an 'older' blade-runner, and could be an older model, that simply did not have emotions installed. This would allow Bryant and Deckard to have a longer relationship as presumably the 4 year life-span would not apply.

You make an interesting point that Deckard could be a Nexus 5 replicant. That would explain why he is not as tough as the Nexus 6 replicants, and would also suggest he is not in danger of expiring. I kind of like that idea.

But, that still doesn't explain why Deckard would think, "I'd quit because I'd had a belly full of killing." Thing is, it makes a lot of sense to turn a replicant into a blade-runner, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to turn a replicant into a bitter, burned-out ex-blade-runner. And he hasn't had time to start out enthusiastic and then get bitter naturally, because the memory implant technology is new.

I suppose it's possible that they gave a replicant the memories of a real, human blade runner, and they couldn't give him the memories which would make him a good blade runner without also making him sick of killing.

By the way, it just occurred to me that if Rachael has no built-in expiration date, as stated in the original cut, that's consistent with her apparent lack of superhuman strength. After all, the light which burns half as bright burns twice as long.

Steve: Gaff's origami always reflected what was going on in Deckard's mind.

Sure, but they don't necessarily imply unnatural insight by Gaff. The chicken meant, "You're acting like a chicken," not, "You dreamed about a chicken last night." The unicorn could mean something like, "You're chasing an impossible goal," not, "You dreamed about a unicorn and I know about it."

Final thought: The movie is much better if it is left ambiguous whether there is any difference between Deckard and the replicants. Scott's later attempts to "give the answer" are a bad idea.

Also, I usually subscribe to the theory that movies go bad because they are designed by committee, but in this case, I think the producers and Harrison Ford acted as a valuable restraint on Ridley Scott. It seems if Ridley Scott had his way the movie would be slowed down by artsy dream sequences and maybe we'd be told flat out that Deckard was a replicant at the end. By fighting him to make the movie more commercial, the producers ended up making the movie more interesting too.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RJMason Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9488 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 2:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
dakeyras: But it was implied, if not expressly stated, that Rachel was the first replicant without a termination date.

Steve: Could you explain this in greater detail? I was under the impression that she did have an expiry date.

In the original cut it is expressly stated that Rachael did not have a termination date. In the director's cut nothing is said either way (except that Gaff says in both cuts, "It's too bad she won't live.")

As I said in my last post, the fact that Rachael doesn't display super-strength and super-speed is consistent with her having a long lifespan, since Tyrell suggests there is an inverse correlation.

We could infer that replicants prior to Nexus 6 did not have a termination date because (a) Bryant tells Deckard about the four-year lifespan as if it is something new; and (b) Leon asks Deckard how long Nexus 6 replicants live, but if all replicants died after four years this would probably be common knowledge.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Scorn6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9489 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 2:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You make an interesting point that Deckard could be a Nexus 5 replicant. That would explain why he is not as tough as the Nexus 6 replicants, and would also suggest he is not in danger of expiring. I kind of like that idea.

It is interesting, but I just don't buy it in the movie. I think the scene where Decker is looking over his pictures is just to show that is the crossover point where he starts to really empathize with the replicants, as opposed to just not liking to kill anymore. I think it's to show his motivation for later.

6

Print the post Back To Top
Author: llisiraw Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9511 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/19/2001 9:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the original cut it is expressly stated that Rachael did not have a termination date. In the director's cut nothing is said either way (except that Gaff says in both cuts, "It's too bad she won't live.")

I would bet that Ridley knew nothing of the Deckard as replicant theory until it had a life of it's own.

This sucker is full of mistakes.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ascalon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9512 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 8:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
So this all means...

...the dream sequence and origami model were pure coincidence...
...Deckard's pre-occupation with photographs was just that of a normal human...
...Ridley Scott didn't understand his own film...
...vulcanized rubber is the best material from which to mould wrenches.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: TJLea Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9513 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 8:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"Shane" Spoiler at end.......

So this all means...

...the dream sequence and origami model were pure coincidence...
...Deckard's pre-occupation with photographs was just that of a normal human...
...Ridley Scott didn't understand his own film...


Let me ask you this...

If a director has a surprise ending why would he couch it in such a way that the local mensa club would need a secret decoder ring and a grassy knoll mentality to figure it out?

The only thing I can think of is he thought his project strong enough to automatically earn a fully funded sequel. The he could reveal how clever he was leaving all of those clues.

Otherwise you have to make sure all of the audience understands the end (that doesn't count the befuddled lady eating milk duds two rows up, who confuses the main characters and asks her husband "How did the guy beheaded in the previous scene magically come back to life?"). That's just good filmmaking or at least polite filmmaking. 2001 A Space Odyssee excluded. A few brain cells were required to piece that one together. However Shane ended with confusion. He was dead and we should have all known that.

TJ


Print the post Back To Top
Author: llisiraw Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9524 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 1:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<Shane Spoiler>





However Shane ended with confusion. He was dead and we should have all known that.

No, he doesn't even get shot. He leaves so he doesn't steal the little boy's mom.



</Shane Spoiler>




As for Ascalon's objections to the current trend,


...the dream sequence and origami model were pure coincidence...

The origami model is an indication that the detective was at Deckard's apartment and saw Rachel, yet he didn't think she was necessarily threatening. They had mentioned to Deckard she'd escaped and that he'd have to take care of her, they changed their mind because she was due to expire (in the first cut, at least: "too bad she won't last").


...Deckard's pre-occupation with photographs was just that of a normal human...

Yes, and that of a Blade Runner who's only real clue is a bunch of photos.


...Ridley Scott didn't understand his own film...

I think RJ's rather studious objections pretty much prove that. I didn't think it was necessary to go into detail because such a plot twist destroys the credibility of the film. I don't even like this film if Deckard is a replicant.

Director's have to answer to producers. It's not unusual for a director to be left behind in editing. Whether or not Deckard was ever a replicant in the script is the interesting issue. There has to be a copy of it around somewhere.

Ridley seems to be exploiting some interest in his film, that's fine.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ascalon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9526 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If a director has a surprise ending why would he couch it in such a way that the local mensa club would need a secret decoder ring and a grassy knoll mentality to figure it out?

I think it's so blatant that it hurts your eyes. Everyone is sitting there scratching their heads about "What does the seemingly random inclusion of this bizarre dream sequence mean?" and then the director resolves the issue for them. What else could he have done short of having the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black or tattooing the word 'Replicant' on Deckard's forehead?

Ascalon



Print the post Back To Top
Author: llisiraw Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9528 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What else could he have done short of having the good guys wear white hats and the bad guys wear black or tattooing the word 'Replicant' on Deckard's forehead?

He could give us a reason to care whether he's a replicant or not.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ascalon Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9529 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 4:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
He could give us a reason to care whether he's a replicant or not.

For heaven's sake, it's a Ridley Scott film. We're not supposed to care about the characters. We're there to admire and be stunned by the imagery.

Thelma and Louise is an exception.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: RJMason Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9532 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
warisill: I would bet that Ridley knew nothing of the Deckard as replicant theory until it had a life of it's own.

Well, you'd probably lose that bet---"knew nothing" is pretty strong wording.

The notion that Deckard might be a replicant arises even in the source novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" In the novel there is a whole fake police station filled with replicant police... but testing reveals that Deckard is not a replicant.

Early drafts of the script have such heavy hint-dropping as Gaff saying, "You've done a man's job, sir! But are you sure you're a man?"

I think it's a safe bet that Scott at least considered Deckard's humanity possibly open to question.

You might be right that he became more enamored with the idea of Deckard-as-replicant as the years went on, after the original movie was made.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: llisiraw Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9535 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/20/2001 11:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The notion that Deckard might be a replicant arises even in the source novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" In the novel there is a whole fake police station filled with replicant police... but testing reveals that Deckard is not a replicant.


But it's never in doubt in the book. Of course, Rachel kills his electric sheep in the book. I guess Scott couldn't write that one in...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Steve819 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9611 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/23/2001 4:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3

But, that still doesn't explain why Deckard would think, "I'd quit because I'd had a belly full of killing." Thing is, it makes a lot of sense to turn a replicant into a blade-runner, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to turn a replicant into a bitter, burned-out ex-blade-runner. And he hasn't had time to start out enthusiastic and then get bitter naturally, because the memory implant technology is new.


Good points.

Is it possible that Tyrell cannot control have ultimate control over the replicant's personaility? Some things must have been out of Tyrell's reach, because they would have been no need for blade-runners if he could completely control them. The memory implants were an effort to better control the replicants.

What about if providing photographs for all NEXUS replicants was standard operation procedure? Just not the memory implants to go along with them (which were post NEXUS-6). Maybe the doctors would tell a little story to the replicants when they were first activated to go along with the photos? It wouldn't be implanted, just the photographs would trigger the story? This would explain the photographs unusual importance in the film.

It's possible Deckard realized the situation he was in - that he wasn't quite human, and he wasn't quite a NEXUS 6 either. He would be envious of both groups. This would certainly made him bitter, as he would most likely be one of the very few 'old' replicants left - as the rest were killed by bladerunners or by himself. I think Deckard was a police experiment that ultimately failed, because Deckard became envious of the very things he was killing. The unlimited lifespan would be no use if he did not have the emotions to make it worthwhile. He never developed the emotions because not all of pre-NEXUS 6 replicants developed them due to the technology not being perfected.

They could have made a good bladerunner from a replicant (and Deckard obviously was the best) but, once he suspects that he is a replicant, he becomes bitter. I'm trying to say that the job alone wouldn't have turned Deckard as bitter as he was, but him being a replicant was the thing that pushed him over the edge.

With regards to Rachel - if Gaff says in both cuts 'Too bad she won't live', how can you argue that she does not have a 4 year lifespan?
We already know that she is a replicant, and she is at least a NEXUS 6 or NEXUS 7 model, and she would have the limited lifespan. She never showed super-strength or super-fast movement because it was never asked of her. She could have very well had it. The fight with Deckard in the apartment...she wanted to lose it.

If Gaff knows that Rachel is a replicant, surely he would know if Deckard was one too. They'd both be listed in the same police replicant database. The unicorn is Gaff laughing in Deckard's face.

Final thought: In the original cut, Deckard was not a replicant due to all the points already stated. Over time however, Scott came to like the idea of Deckard being a replicant, and being denied a sequel, released the director's cut that clearly showed Deckard being a replicant.

Cool discussion guys.

Steve

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RJMason Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9614 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/23/2001 6:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Steve: With regards to Rachel - if Gaff says in both cuts 'Too bad she won't live', how can you argue that she does not have a 4 year lifespan?

Gaff could be wrong. In the original cut that's how the movie ends: "Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong." [Deckard]

The director's cut doesn't have that line, but Gaff could still be making a mistake. Rachael is experimental. The police just found out about her a day or so earlier, and could be fuzzy on the details. "Didn't even know she was a replicant. Something to do with a brain implant." [Bryant]

Steve: She is at least a NEXUS 6 or NEXUS 7 model, and she would have the limited lifespan. She never showed super-strength or super-fast movement because it was never asked of her. She could have very well had it.

Yes, she could have. In the director's cut it is defensible to believe that Rachael has super-strength and limited lifespan. I'm just saying that the opposite view, no super-strength and no termination date, is also consistent with what we are shown in the director's cut (and of course, even more consistent with what we're told in the original cut.)

One more thought: As well as being a necessary trade-off with superhuman abilities, the built-in four-year lifespan also had a deliberate purpose: so the replicants would die before developing their own emotional responses. But the point of building Rachael was to give her emotional responses, in a controlled manner. So it could be argued that there was no reason to give Rachael a specific termination date four years after construction.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheNajdorfDefens Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 9755 of 63152
Subject: Re: Ridley Scott is a Replicant Date: 7/26/2001 8:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In the book, he's clearly not a replicant. To understand this further, you must read more than ONE Phil Dick novel.

Because KW Jeter wrote a book where Deckard IS a replicant has nothing to do with anything. He wrote it YEARS after Dick's death.

One of the main tenets of Dick's worlds is that the narrators are EXTREMELY paranoid and unsure of their humanity, and the 'truth' of their memories. (cf. We can remember it for you wholesale (Total REcall), The three stigmata of... The transfiguration of... Ubik... etc, etc.)

Replicants can't think of questions like 'so and so gives you a wallet made out of 100% genuine babyskin.' to shock people in the Q&A. It would never occur to a replicant that that would be MORE shocking than a real animal, extinct or otherwise.

Naj

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (24) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement