|
As the title says, plus other chat about the blade runner movies and anime. I lean toward no he is not, even just looking at the first movie, because it makes all the themes make no sense for him to be one. Deckard being a replicant is just a dumb twist without real thematic weight imo.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
"Is Deckard a Replicant," is a stub left over from the book the movie adapts. The best scene in the book that doesn't make it into the movie is one where Deckard gets held up by somebody who claims to work as a Replicant Hunter. They are basically holding each other at gunpoint and pointing out how they themselves could be replicants. The other hunter turns out to have been working for replicants all along, as they had set up a fake agency to take out their foes. Or something like that its been a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
It's unclear and its unclarity is interesting because it demonstrates that being a replicant or not being a replicant is not really crucial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
Deck-a-rep...Deck-a-rep never changes...TychoCelchuuu posted:It's unclear and its unclarity is interesting because it demonstrates that being a replicant or not being a replicant is not really crucial. Yeah, I lean towards him being human but I appreciate that it's unresolvable in the films. I was sure they were going to be cowards and say for sure one way or the other in 2049 and was impressed they didn't. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Dec 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 07:17
|
|
|
I got the Blade Runner PC game the day it came out I was super hype for it and it absolutely met 17 year old me's expectations. It's interesting to look at now as an adult because there's big noticeable break between the screens taken from the movie/based on art for the movie vs. the screens designed solely by Westwood in 1997 lol. But it still holds up in some ways to me, good Klepacki soundtrack. I was blown away at the time that they actually got James Hong, Joe Turkel, Brion James, and Sean Young back to reprise their characters with voice work and some capture stuff. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
There was an earlier Blade Runner game for the Commodore 64/etc. Due to a kerfluffle with how the rights were secured, the official name of the video game is: Bade Runner...A Video Game Interpretation of the Soundtrack by Vangelis They also had to call them "replidroids" instead of replicants.  The game is pretty simple and repetitive, you move around on an overhead map of downtown LA following alerts of replicant activity. After that you go to a side view where you run forward shoot at replicants while trying to not shoot bystanders. IIRC you can just run along the very bottom of the screen to avoid everything until you get close the actual replicant target. Here's some concept art for it I found in an old magazine preview awhile ago:  "A Video Game Interpretation"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NRxGKFy6y8 Baller map though 
Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Dec 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 08:00
|
|
|
"Who gives a poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
Yes, and so is everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 09:26
|
|
|
As TychoCelchuuu said, the ambiguity underlines how meaningless the distinction is. Any certain answer would dilute that. Both movies present thinking, feeling characters and then challenge your ability to empathize by calling them constructed. The first with the replicants, the second with JOI. They're narrative experiments in how far the audience will extend their definition of humanity. Neo Rasa posted:I got the Blade Runner PC game the day it came out I was super hype for it and it absolutely met 17 year old me's expectations. It's interesting to look at now as an adult because there's big noticeable break between the screens taken from the movie/based on art for the movie vs. the screens designed solely by Westwood in 1997 lol. But it still holds up in some ways to me, good Klepacki soundtrack. There's a lot of incredible stuff in that game that still hasn't been matched. The randomization and the player agency in that is far better than the more prominent CYOA games that have come out in subsequent years. But man the difference in tone between the new characters/places and the recreations of elements from the film is massive. Everything newly made for the game is so painfully 90s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
habituallyred posted:"Is Deckard a Replicant," is a stub left over from the book the movie adapts. The best scene in the book that doesn't make it into the movie is one where Deckard gets held up by somebody who claims to work as a Replicant Hunter. They are basically holding each other at gunpoint and pointing out how they themselves could be replicants. The other hunter turns out to have been working for replicants all along, as they had set up a fake agency to take out their foes. Or something like that its been a while. They also give each other the Voight-Kampff test and both start getting super nervous
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 12:29
|
|
|
Deckard isn't a replicant but he, like everyone in the film, is living a dehumanised life: crowding, pollution, poverty, etc. People dream of unicorns because there's no wonder in their lives. "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" When Deckard decides to escape at the end, he decides to live a dangerous life outside the system- he embraces living like a replicant- and that's when he begins to live
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:As TychoCelchuuu said, the ambiguity underlines how meaningless the distinction is. Any certain answer would dilute that. Hell yeah I played through it so many times. It really is impressive stuff to me, is Way of the Samurai the only other game(s) where you can just murder someone while they're still saying their dialogue and the entire game just rolls with it? I know Mass Effect 2 and 3 have some specific moments like that but I mean as like a regular thing you can do whenever. 2house2fly posted:Deckard isn't a replicant but he, like everyone in the film, is living a dehumanised life: crowding, pollution, poverty, etc. People dream of unicorns because there's no wonder in their lives. "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" When Deckard decides to escape at the end, he decides to live a dangerous life outside the system- he embraces living like a replicant- and that's when he begins to live I like that the ending kind of relates to how early on Deckard's told he's either a cop or little people and the shorter version of the ending Scott had in mind works really well with that. There's no half measure, they need to just disappear. I liked how the sequel handled this too after the replicant group/etc. gets revealed and him saying how disappearing was his job. Like you in his case being "replicant" or "human" is more a state of mind and his outlook on society. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Dec 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
I once heard someone give the pithy description that the book is concerned with humans losing humanity and becoming more like robots, whereas the movie is more about non-humans/robots achieving humanity, whatever that is. I think the movie is much stronger reading Deckard as a human since it provides that comparison point, even if the line is blurry and we're allowed to question what sort of humanity is left to him. Making it a 'who cares' situation means you're skipping that theme entirely, which, while a possibly valid approach to the question of artificial intelligence, also seems like it's avoiding any discussion about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Sequel makes him clearly not. I never got the feeling he was in the original movie, either. Point was that it didn't matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Kangra posted:I once heard someone give the pithy description that the book is concerned with humans losing humanity and becoming more like robots, whereas the movie is more about non-humans/robots achieving humanity, whatever that is. I do think there's a difference between "who cares" and "it's unresolvable," I'm definitely in the latter mindset, like I definitely care otherwise me and everyone in this thread wouldn't be posting. The way people pick apart each cut of the movie so much to come to a conclusion one way or the other is fun stuff to mull over even if there isn't really a clear answer presented in the films. It's made stronger by having things that could lead either way. But part of that is I think Deckard regaining (or just gaining  ) his humanity compared to the replicants works no matter what he is. Just less in the literal way and more in whether he's following his programming/what society expects of someone in his position or not. He rejects it at the end just like how the four replicants each reject their programming in a way once they're on the run. Even Deckard himself is already done at the movie's start and clearly doesn't particularly like the job he's given.But a lot of the "maybe he's a replicant too" talk if one wants to read him as human, it's pretty easy to dismiss just on the simplicity of how he works. Like if you captured a replicant and hosed with them to get them to hunt down replicants...why would you make them think they're a retired person who doesn't want to do that? This thread just reminded me of this classic hehe: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladerunner-faq/ Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Dec 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Darko posted:Sequel makes him clearly not. I never got the feeling he was in the original movie, either. Point was that it didn't matter I thought 2049 made him a replicant since that's the only way he could survive in, iirc, irradiated Las Vegas?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
There's nothing that I'm aware of in 2049 that definitively answers the question. Whether he's human or not, Rachel getting pregnant and having a baby was a huge game changing event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 20:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There's nothing that I'm aware of in 2049 that definitively answers the question. Whether he's human or not, Rachel getting pregnant and having a baby was a huge game changing event. The plot of 2049 is predicated on the question and questions as to how you define humanity are wholly irrelevant. When Deckard enters the film he's to be beyond caring as whether he is or not. He is show living on his own with only a dog for company, when K/Joe (I think it best to use the names interchangeably when discussing Gosling's character in the film) ask him if it's real to which Deckard replies sarcastically with "why don't you ask him?" This turns out to be foreshadowing as later in the movie when Niandir Wallace (Jared Leto, I had to look up his character's name lol) offers to answer the question Deckard replies with "I know what's real."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
"Is Deckard a replicant?" is a bad question when it's completely divorced from the narrative of the movie. The first questions to ask are "what is a replicant?" and "why are they built?" Specifically, we should focus on why Rachel was built and why Tyrell evidently allows her to 'escape' and meet Deckard. In the context of the film, the previous Nexus 6 design has effectively failed and is now banned on Earth. Tyrell is hoping to reenter the Earth market by creating a "more human" replicant without Batty's superhuman qualities - replicants that are "all too human" and consequently lack the drive to meaningfully fight back. It's the docility that Tyrell prizes, not the super-strength or whatever. Tyrell has blatantly engineered the meeting between Rachel and Deckard as an experiment, with the whole endeavor making fairly overt allusions to Paradise Lost . So, yeah: Deckard is 100% thematically a replicant in the basic sense that he's Adam, created by Tyrell and given a wife.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There's nothing that I'm aware of in 2049 that definitively answers the question. Whether he's human or not, Rachel getting pregnant and having a baby was a huge game changing event. Yeah, Villeneuve made a point to leave it ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
stratdax posted:"Who gives a poo poo." "Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 09:18
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I thought 2049 made him a replicant since that's the only way he could survive in, iirc, irradiated Las Vegas? That and the fact he knocked up Rachel, proving replicants can be “born” instead of made in a lab by humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 11:36
|
|
|
"Is Deckard a Replicant?" No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 12:04
|
|
|
The ambiguity is the point. The presence of the question is more satisfying than the certainty of an answer. Unlike The Thing (1982) where it only works thematically if both Macready and Childs are still human.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Ridley Scott wanted him to be, Harrison Ford fought him on it, is my understanding. Gaff's unicorn origami (and the deleted unicorn scene) was supposed to suggest that he was.exquisite tea posted:Unlike The Thing (1982) where it only works thematically if both Macready and Childs are still human. In my mind, Childs is definitely the thing at the end. It has no reason to attack Macready. Macready will freeze, thing Childs will survive, and will attack more people when his thing body is recovered. Thing Childs is the thing's backup plan if everything fails, which it did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
He's never taken the voight-kampf test, so he can claim to be human - but since everyone who takes that test fails, we must acknowledge his replicant potential
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This thread just reminded me of this classic hehe: Huh. quote:The title comes from Alan E. Nourse, who wrote a story called "The I don't think I've ever seen this tidbit before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:Huh. I remember being so confused by this when a much younger me read that book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
editing cause this isn't gbs. oops!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"Is Deckard a replicant?" is a bad question when it's completely divorced from the narrative of the movie. The first questions to ask are "what is a replicant?" and "why are they built?" Huh I’d never even considered the biblical allegory. I guess this makes Nexus 6 models angels?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Dinosaurs! posted:Huh I’d never even considered the biblical allegory. I guess this makes Nexus 6 models angels? Not really sure it can get more explicit than "fiery the angels fell" in BR and "we make angels" in 2049.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Not really sure it can get more explicit than "fiery the angels fell" in BR and "we make angels" in 2049. Yeah but missing that is nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for. Also Tyrell's bed is modelled after the Pope's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Not really sure it can get more explicit than "fiery the angels fell" in BR and "we make angels" in 2049. Oof yeah. It’s been over a decade since I saw the original and I was high out of my mind in theaters for 2049 - I’ve been meaning to do a rewatch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Bula Vinaka posted:In my mind, Childs is definitely the thing at the end. It has no reason to attack Macready. Macready will freeze, thing Childs will survive, and will attack more people when his thing body is recovered. Thing Childs is the thing's backup plan if everything fails, which it did. That's basically taking the Thing's side, which the film doesn't. The blood test scene isn't just a practical turning point, but a thematic one. For most of the film, it seems like the fight is between the perfect unity of the Thing and the fragile, bickering humans, who can't stand together even when their lives depend on it. But when the test comes in, it only works because, this whole time, the situation has been the reverse. Mac and Garry hate each other's guts, but they're willing to die together for a greater good. Meanwhile, for all the surface unity, every cell of The Thing is a backstabbing rat-gently caress who'll sell out its whole species to buy 30 seconds. Childs and Mac drinking together works better if they're both human, but neither knows it. It's not some grim portent of a doomed future, or a reset to scene 1. It's two guys who know they're doomed no matter what they do finally getting to let their guards down and enjoy a victory drink. As for Deckard, I think I agree with the argument that, thematically, it works better if he's human. The last scene with Batty is, for a human Deckard, a 'machine' showing all the best human qualities, forcing the human to confront his own inhumanity in comparison. If Deckard is a replicant too, then there's no irony. It's just Batty being further along than Deckard. It's a less layered scene that way, and thus less interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Is Deckard a Republican?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
I feel like Blade Runner is one of those films where its more enjoyable to not have the answer to the driving mystery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:I feel like Blade Runner is one of those films where its more enjoyable to not have the answer to the driving mystery. Deckard is a replicant, but I like how it’s not explicitly stated for the audience, even though the central plot of BR2049 involves two replicants having a child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Is Reckard a Deplicant?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:Is Deckard a Republican? He's an alcoholic rapist cop that shoots an unarmed suspect in the back multiple times. So... yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:Is Deckard a Republican? absolutely
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2022 20:12
|
|
