Whether he's a replicant matters more to the original film, as replicants are not allowed on earth, if he was a replicant he could not have been trusted to be bladerunner. I'm still unsure what to make of gosling being a "skinner".
What I've taken from the sequel is that Rachel was a very different replicant, she had no termination date, she believed she was human and as such I think tyrell gave her the ability to reproduce, and that secret went with tyrell. It's only the final cut that introduces the possibility that Deckard could be a replicant.
"More human than human is our goal here at the Tyrell Corporation" - and although you're right in saying that replicants on earth were declared illegal (at least in the theatrical cut), how many times have you heard the phrase 'do as I say, not do as I do'? As we saw the origami unicorn in the original theatrical release, and saw Deckard's eyes do the trademark replicant glow too, I think that it was always intended that the main character should be a replicant. Also, in the work print (which was the original version, pre-dating the theatrical version), the stuff about replicants being illegal on earth was absent.
I think that it's clear Scott always wanted Deckard to be regarded as a replicant, but the studio officials over-ruled this with the release of the theatrical release, with the happy ending from The Shining tacked on the end.
Later, after the poor reception of the sanctioned version, and when Scott was hot property, the studio bosses thought they could milk a bit more money from the movie by allowing the Director's Cut, and finally the Final Cut. In these 2 latter releases, Scott was finally allowed to express what he'd wanted all along, to assert that Deckard was a replicant.
But, in the end, with the central replicants at least, it doesn't matter, because they are basically one and the same as humans.
EDIT
Yes, before you say it, I know that Dick always insisted that the character was human and that the story (in Electric Sheep) is about the de-humanisation of people by their jobs and situations. However Blade Runner isn't Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it's at most, inspired by the book.
Deckard's eyes do the trademark replicant glow too, I think that it was always intended that the main character should be a replicant. Also, in the work print (which was the original version, pre-dating the theatrical version), the stuff about replicants being illegal on earth was absent.
It must have been a while since you saw the workprint, Commander...
And Deckard clearly did not possess 'paraphysical capabilities.'
The thing is though that, other than Rachel, replicants know they are replicants, and Deckard can quite quickly spot them. In his narrative he says he'd grown tired of killing, and he displays far more human emotions and weaknesses than the replicants do. The nuances and irony of the story go further in that Deckard falls in love with a replicant, and that replicants are becoming more human than humans. The paper unicorn is inexplicable, how can gaff possibly know Deckard dreamt of a unicorn? When I was a kid and saw bladerunner for the first time ( I was only 7 when it came out) I was watching Han solo, and Han solo could not be a replicant, maybe that childhood thought is hard for me to shift.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Not to pick on you, Chriscoop, but clarifications on your post are apt responses for some of the other posts, so here it goes...
The thing is though that, other than Rachel, replicants know they are replicants
On the flip-side, Rachel's ignorance is evidence that other replicants can also be programmed to be "ignorant." My theory is, as in Deckard's case if he is a replicant, the ignorance as designers theorize, help in his motivations in carrying out his special kind of work.
Actually, no, at least not in the case of smarter replicants like the combat model Roy Batty was, which was why Blade Runners need the Voigt-Kampff machine. Maybe models like Leon were easier to spot.
he displays far more human emotions and weaknesses than the replicants do. The nuances and irony of the story go further in that Deckard falls in love with a replicant, and that replicants are becoming more human than humans.
Perhaps the human emotions and weaknesses were programmed by the designers to better give special replicant models emotional stability, again, to better function in their special roles.
The paper unicorn is inexplicable, how can gaff possibly know Deckard dreamt of a unicorn?
Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.
When I was a kid and saw bladerunner for the first time ( I was only 7 when it came out) I was watching Han solo, and Han solo could not be a replicant, maybe that childhood thought is hard for me to shift.
I was in the same mind frame, it was almost a conceit or prejudice to think, "how could Deckard not be human," which could be likened to some people reacting today to someone who came out as gay. So, to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Deckard being a replicant?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The thing is though that, other than Rachel, replicants know they are replicants
On the flip-side, Rachel's ignorance is evidence that other replicants can also be programmed to be "ignorant." My theory is, as in Deckard's case if he is a replicant, the ignorance as designers theorize, help in his motivations in carrying out his special kind of work.
Actually, no, at least not in the case of smarter replicants like the combat model Roy Batty was, which was why Blade Runners need the Voigt-Kampff machine. Maybe models like Leon were easier to spot.
he displays far more human emotions and weaknesses than the replicants do. The nuances and irony of the story go further in that Deckard falls in love with a replicant, and that replicants are becoming more human than humans.
Perhaps the human emotions and weaknesses were programmed by the designers to better give special replicant models emotional stability, again, to better function in their special roles.
The paper unicorn is inexplicable, how can gaff possibly know Deckard dreamt of a unicorn?
Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.
When I was a kid and saw bladerunner for the first time ( I was only 7 when it came out) I was watching Han solo, and Han solo could not be a replicant, maybe that childhood thought is hard for me to shift.
I was in the same mind frame, it was almost a conceit or prejudice to think, "how could Deckard not be human," which could be likened to some people reacting today to someone who came out as gay. So, to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Deckard being a replicant?
There would be less to complain about in 2049 with Deckard being a replicant, but the problem with the original is that Harrison Ford played Deckard as a human, he is notably different in many ways from all the replicants, even Rachel who come accross almost childlike and naive even Roy does although he has a sinister undertone, and maybe it's these differing (well played) performances that mark the true difference.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
There would be less to complain about in 2049 with Deckard being a replicant, but the problem with the original is that Harrison Ford played Deckard as a human, he is notably different in many ways from all the replicants, even Rachel who come accross almost childlike and naive even Roy does although he has a sinister undertone, and maybe it's these differing (well played) performances that mark the true difference.
I think that was the novelty of the new movie, which pretty much mirrors development and innovation in the real world in which sometimes convention is bucked by a radical approach...in this case, use self-aware replicants for Blade Runners. The interesting thing is, that the new batch of replicants that include K have a new innovation, which is they're (more) obedient, yet K exercises free will through his against-orders investigation because he has a vested interest. So, it's a slightly different take on the first movie's original theme of inequality.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
BTW, here's my personal homage to Blade Runner in 1/6th scale:
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
That's brilliant superado -{
One thing that always sticks in my mind which goes against Deckard as a replicant is his narrative at the beginning of the film, particularly how he'd had enough of killing. I don't think a replicant would feel this empathy, empathy is what most psychopaths lack and separates humans from most animals.
In the original, at the end of the final cut, Deckard sees the unicorn, hears the "too bad she won't live but then again who does" voice, and then Deckard himself kinda nods - so I always saw this as evidence that Deckard KNOWS he is a replicant (if he even is one)
In the original, at the end of the final cut, Deckard sees the unicorn, hears the "too bad she won't live but then again who does" voice, and then Deckard himself kinda nods - so I always saw this as evidence that Deckard KNOWS he is a replicant (if he even is one)
That nod was indeed very telling, and it seems it was not a simple throwaway action that Ridley Scott made sure was included in that scene with that important implication.
That's brilliant superado -{
One thing that always sticks in my mind which goes against Deckard as a replicant is his narrative at the beginning of the film, particularly how he'd had enough of killing. I don't think a replicant would feel this empathy, empathy is what most psychopaths lack and separates humans from most animals.
I think that further adds to the irony, if he is a replicant, that his programming includes empathy to theoretically make him optimally effective in his highly specialized function, to hunt those hardest to hunt. The crux of replicant technology at that particular point of their development (2019) was emotional stability. Rachel was revealed to be Tyrell Corporations most developmentally advanced model (unbeknownst to the observer, Deckard, also an advanced replicant) and she displayed utter empathy and vulnerability. A further irony is how Batty, the cognitively obsolete replicant ultimately discovers empathy in his final moment of life, exceeding that of Deckard’s and the “superior” humans.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
It makes thematic sense to me for Deckard to be human. Since one of the primary themes in the novel and film is "what it means to be human?". It's hard to make that definition if you don't have a control case of someone who is at least human in the biological sense. As I said before the whole ending makes more sense with Deckard as a human. There's also the matter of lifespan. We're told in the original Blade Runner that as of 2019 the latest most advanced Nexus 6's only have a 4 year lifespan. And Deckard is established as a veteran Blade Runner. If he was a experimental nexus 7 like Rachael presumably was then why did he barely survive against the nexus 6? Even in BR2049 his actions are decidedly human. Of course the suspected response is "unicorn" but even then, how the character is portrayed by Harrison Ford in both films I never viewed him as a replicant at all.
It makes thematic sense to me for Deckard to be human. Since one of the primary themes in the novel and film is "what it means to be human?". It's hard to make that definition if you don't have a control case of someone who is at least human in the biological sense. As I said before the whole ending makes more sense with Deckard as a human. There's also the matter of lifespan. We're told in the original Blade Runner that as of 2019 the latest most advanced Nexus 6's only have a 4 year lifespan. And Deckard is established as a veteran Blade Runner. If he was a experimental nexus 7 like Rachael presumably was then why did he barely survive against the nexus 6? Even in BR2049 his actions are decidedly human. Of course the suspected response is "unicorn" but even then, how the character is portrayed by Harrison Ford in both films I never viewed him as a replicant at all.
That's because Harrison was adamant Deckard was a human and played him that way, all the other actors playing replicants in the original are markedly different in all their attributes.
Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.
The unicorn footage never appeared in the workprint. So my take that Gaff's paper unicorn was merely a comment that Deckard's life with Rachael was a fantasy has some weight, I think. The glowing eye bit was to make us wonder if Deck was a replicant, not absolutely state that he was. This ambiguity was brilliant, and Scott himself ruined it by retconning with that unicorn test footage from Legend that he rather clumsily inserted during the piano scene. The Final Cut is, in my mind, the Final Straw cut.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
To avoid multiple quotes... )
[list=*]
[*]The 4-year life span was not a given production limitation, but rather a control mechanism engineered in.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]The novel (which audio version I'm in the middle of listening to) intentionally characterized the replicants as inhuman in attitude, per the ultimate tome of the original movie's development and production, "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon. However, the movie was never meant to be a point-for-point adaptation of the novel particularly in terms of characterization, theme, etc. In fact, the state of population that had been thinned out due to environmental issues in the novel, is more closely depicted in 2049, vs. the burgeoning population depicted in 2019.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]It is a hotly disputed fact that Ridley Scott creatively high-jacked the project, hence his supposed intent of Deckard being a replicant from the get-go; so while editing can literally change the entire direction of a movie, whichever conclusion one prefers is legitimate depending on how one weighs the creative authority of the various creative personalities as well as the studio's. What's interesting with 2049 is that whether Deckard is a replicant is not conclusive and arguments for and against are both present and strong, though it is not ultimately material to the plot.[/*]
[/list]
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
[list=*]
[*]The 4-year life span was not a given production limitation, but rather a control mechanism engineered in.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]The novel (which audio version I'm in the middle of listening to) intentionally characterized the replicants as inhuman in attitude, per the ultimate tome of the original movie's development and production, "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon. However, the movie was never meant to be a point-for-point adaptation of the novel particularly in terms of characterization, theme, etc. In fact, the state of population that had been thinned out due to environmental issues in the novel, is more closely depicted in 2049, vs. the burgeoning population depicted in 2019.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]It is a hotly disputed fact that Ridley Scott creatively high-jacked the project, hence his supposed intent of Deckard being a replicant from the get-go; so while editing can literally change the entire direction of a movie, whichever conclusion one prefers is legitimate depending on how one weighs the creative authority of the various creative personalities as well as the studio's. What's interesting with 2049 is that whether Deckard is a replicant is not conclusive and arguments for and against are both present and strong, though it is not ultimately material to the plot.[/*]
[/list]
I was rewatching the scene where Rachael finds out that she is in fact...a replicant.
Showing pictures of her mother to make him believe that she was human and it totally backfiring.
A bloody cold bastard to make her cry.
It's as if he didn't had zero empathy for any replicant and viewed them all as one, his machine quote notwithstanding.
At the very least he realised what a total dickhead he was at the end.
Brilliant scene.
Another one that I rewatched was the one where he retired Zhora, the sculptures looking towards her as she falls to her final resting place.
It sort of reminded me of T2 when the T1000 looked at the metal sculpture after he threw the T800 out the window but it was probably intended as a joke than anything else.
When I was in LA earlier this month I visited a lot of the filming locations for the original Blade Runner. Visiting these locations, especially the Bradbury building, gave me a whole new level of appreciation for the film.
I also confirmed that Gosling wears the 8 inch Bates tactical boots in BR2049 even though sites like GQ are saying its the 6 inch model.
When I was in LA earlier this month I visited a lot of the filming locations for the original Blade Runner. Visiting these locations, especially the Bradbury building, gave me a whole new level of appreciation for the film.
I also confirmed that Gosling wears the 8 inch Bates tactical boots in BR2049 even though sites like GQ are saying its the 6 inch model.
Nice! Last year I visited the Bradbury Building, but missed out on the tunnel and Union Station, maybe next time. There's also the Ennis House that was used for establishing shots of Deckard's apartment building, including the outside wall that was used for the texture of Deckard's interior wall, which I also wanted to visit but couldn't because of time constraints.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
When I was in LA earlier this month I visited a lot of the filming locations for the original Blade Runner. Visiting these locations, especially the Bradbury building, gave me a whole new level of appreciation for the film.
I also confirmed that Gosling wears the 8 inch Bates tactical boots in BR2049 even though sites like GQ are saying its the 6 inch model.
Nice! Last year I visited the Bradbury Building, but missed out on the tunnel and Union Station, maybe next time. There's also the Ennis House that was used for establishing shots of Deckard's apartment building, including the outside wall that was used for the texture of Deckard's interior wall, which I also wanted to visit but couldn't because of time constraints.
Bradbury was definitely the best location to visit. Union station and the 2nd street tunnel are cool but lack the wow factor of the Bradbury. And we thought about visiting the Ennis house but its a bit far from downtown and there's not much to see since its a private residence so figured it would be too much of a hassle.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Yeah, the Bradbury Building is definitely a treat, a freebie at that, and I was able to park across the street (metered) and enjoy a great breakfast inside the Grand Central Market in front of the Bradbury (next to the Million Dollar Theater briefly seen in front of Sebastian's apartment). The Grand Central Market, given time to decay, looks like a worthy Blade Runner destination, but it's full of nice eateries!
I got to take in a 2nd viewing last Friday, which might be timely because it's being predicted that 2049 won't last in the theaters for long; it was love at second sight, since the first time it was only "like"!
I just read an article on the CGI used for Rachel in BR 2049... http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/motion-graphics/how-mpc-recreated-rachael-for-blade-runner-2049/#1 ...and only stopped to think just now how in one of the sequel novels, "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (1996) by K. W. Jeter, Deckard gets involved in off-world filmmaking and it described a process very similar to the CGI used in 2049. In the story, all the characters in a movie are GGI'ed with the entire cast of stand-ins. Judging from the acting in some of today's movies, you'd think that the process is more widely-used than we're aware of )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Yeah, the Bradbury Building is definitely a treat, a freebie at that, and I was able to park across the street (metered) and enjoy a great breakfast inside the Grand Central Market in front of the Bradbury (next to the Million Dollar Theater briefly seen in front of Sebastian's apartment). The Grand Central Market, given time to decay, looks like a worthy Blade Runner destination, but it's full of nice eateries!
I got to take in a 2nd viewing last Friday, which might be timely because it's being predicted that 2049 won't last in the theaters for long; it was love at second sight, since the first time it was only "like"!
I just read an article on the CGI used for Rachel in BR 2049... http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/motion-graphics/how-mpc-recreated-rachael-for-blade-runner-2049/#1 ...and only stopped to think just now how in one of the sequel novels, "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (1996) by K. W. Jeter, Deckard gets involved in off-world filmmaking and it described a process very similar to the CGI used in 2049. In the story, all the characters in a movie are GGI'ed with the entire cast of stand-ins. Judging from the acting in some of today's movies, you'd think that the process is more widely-used than we're aware of )
I had lunch at Sarita's in Grand Central Market, now famous as being briefly seen in La La Land. It's definitely a really cool place to eat and explore.
Yeah, the Bradbury Building is definitely a treat, a freebie at that, and I was able to park across the street (metered) and enjoy a great breakfast inside the Grand Central Market in front of the Bradbury (next to the Million Dollar Theater briefly seen in front of Sebastian's apartment). The Grand Central Market, given time to decay, looks like a worthy Blade Runner destination, but it's full of nice eateries!
I got to take in a 2nd viewing last Friday, which might be timely because it's being predicted that 2049 won't last in the theaters for long; it was love at second sight, since the first time it was only "like"!
I just read an article on the CGI used for Rachel in BR 2049... http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/motion-graphics/how-mpc-recreated-rachael-for-blade-runner-2049/#1 ...and only stopped to think just now how in one of the sequel novels, "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (1996) by K. W. Jeter, Deckard gets involved in off-world filmmaking and it described a process very similar to the CGI used in 2049. In the story, all the characters in a movie are GGI'ed with the entire cast of stand-ins. Judging from the acting in some of today's movies, you'd think that the process is more widely-used than we're aware of )
I had lunch at Sarita's in Grand Central Market, now famous as being briefly seen in La La Land. It's definitely a really cool place to eat and explore.
"IT'S ANOTHER DAY OF SUN!!!" Don't get me started! ) I ate at this place called Jose Chiquito and had a basic diner's breakfast of eggs and hash browns, but I wish I had ordered one of their huge breakfast burritos.
On the BR front, broke down yesterday at Barnes and Noble and bought the movie book, with the incentive of a 10% discount that made it the cheapest option even over Amazon Prime. The book is pretty loaded with photos and information behind the movie and its production.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Yeah, the Bradbury Building is definitely a treat, a freebie at that, and I was able to park across the street (metered) and enjoy a great breakfast inside the Grand Central Market in front of the Bradbury (next to the Million Dollar Theater briefly seen in front of Sebastian's apartment). The Grand Central Market, given time to decay, looks like a worthy Blade Runner destination, but it's full of nice eateries!
I got to take in a 2nd viewing last Friday, which might be timely because it's being predicted that 2049 won't last in the theaters for long; it was love at second sight, since the first time it was only "like"!
I just read an article on the CGI used for Rachel in BR 2049... http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/motion-graphics/how-mpc-recreated-rachael-for-blade-runner-2049/#1 ...and only stopped to think just now how in one of the sequel novels, "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (1996) by K. W. Jeter, Deckard gets involved in off-world filmmaking and it described a process very similar to the CGI used in 2049. In the story, all the characters in a movie are GGI'ed with the entire cast of stand-ins. Judging from the acting in some of today's movies, you'd think that the process is more widely-used than we're aware of )
I had lunch at Sarita's in Grand Central Market, now famous as being briefly seen in La La Land. It's definitely a really cool place to eat and explore.
"IT'S ANOTHER DAY OF SUN!!!" Don't get me started! ) I ate at this place called Jose Chiquito and had a basic diner's breakfast of eggs and hash browns, but I wish I had ordered one of their huge breakfast burritos.
On the BR front, broke down yesterday at Barnes and Noble and bought the movie book, with the incentive of a 10% discount that made it the cheapest option even over Amazon Prime. The book is pretty loaded with photos and information behind the movie and its production.
I had lunch at Sarita's in Grand Central Market, now famous as being briefly seen in La La Land. It's definitely a really cool place to eat and explore.
"IT'S ANOTHER DAY OF SUN!!!" Don't get me started! ) I ate at this place called Jose Chiquito and had a basic diner's breakfast of eggs and hash browns, but I wish I had ordered one of their huge breakfast burritos.
On the BR front, broke down yesterday at Barnes and Noble and bought the movie book, with the incentive of a 10% discount that made it the cheapest option even over Amazon Prime. The book is pretty loaded with photos and information behind the movie and its production.
What book is it?
It's titled "The Art and Soul of Blade Runner 2049" though it's listed with a different title on Amazon: http://a.co/hbfm988
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Just got Ryan Gosling's Blade Runner 2049 boots in the mail. They're extremely comfortable and look even cooler in person. The perfect choice for walking through a snowstorm in a dystopian city.
Usually I would expect the film's protagonist to discover something about himself or complete a character arc thru the course of some bigger conflict.
In Blade Runner there seemed to be no real pressing situations facing this dystopian society. There was virtually no drama whatsoever other than Ryan Gosling trying to figure out if he is a human or a replicant. And he does so at an incredibly slow pace with a very low body count.
The concept of memory implants have already been pretty well discussed in Total Recall. Ryan's wide range of emotions and behaviors make me wonder why it even matters if he is a replicant or not. Plus, why would society even care about replicants needing to be retired? The one featured was being a productive protein farmer. Why the need to kill him? And this is coming from a society that values hologram girlfriends???
About the hologram...seriously what the hell was that about? Are they trying to make me believe that Ryan Gosling can't get a real date?
And why aren't there any mention of male holograms? Does this city only cater to hetero men?
If replicants were created for slave labor, why go to all the trouble of giving them memory implants and making them as human as possible to the point where almost no one can tell the difference?
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Comments
"More human than human is our goal here at the Tyrell Corporation" - and although you're right in saying that replicants on earth were declared illegal (at least in the theatrical cut), how many times have you heard the phrase 'do as I say, not do as I do'? As we saw the origami unicorn in the original theatrical release, and saw Deckard's eyes do the trademark replicant glow too, I think that it was always intended that the main character should be a replicant. Also, in the work print (which was the original version, pre-dating the theatrical version), the stuff about replicants being illegal on earth was absent.
I think that it's clear Scott always wanted Deckard to be regarded as a replicant, but the studio officials over-ruled this with the release of the theatrical release, with the happy ending from The Shining tacked on the end.
Later, after the poor reception of the sanctioned version, and when Scott was hot property, the studio bosses thought they could milk a bit more money from the movie by allowing the Director's Cut, and finally the Final Cut. In these 2 latter releases, Scott was finally allowed to express what he'd wanted all along, to assert that Deckard was a replicant.
But, in the end, with the central replicants at least, it doesn't matter, because they are basically one and the same as humans.
EDIT
Yes, before you say it, I know that Dick always insisted that the character was human and that the story (in Electric Sheep) is about the de-humanisation of people by their jobs and situations. However Blade Runner isn't Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it's at most, inspired by the book.
And Deckard clearly did not possess 'paraphysical capabilities.'
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
On the flip-side, Rachel's ignorance is evidence that other replicants can also be programmed to be "ignorant." My theory is, as in Deckard's case if he is a replicant, the ignorance as designers theorize, help in his motivations in carrying out his special kind of work.
Actually, no, at least not in the case of smarter replicants like the combat model Roy Batty was, which was why Blade Runners need the Voigt-Kampff machine. Maybe models like Leon were easier to spot.
Perhaps the human emotions and weaknesses were programmed by the designers to better give special replicant models emotional stability, again, to better function in their special roles.
Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.
I was in the same mind frame, it was almost a conceit or prejudice to think, "how could Deckard not be human," which could be likened to some people reacting today to someone who came out as gay. So, to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Deckard being a replicant?
There would be less to complain about in 2049 with Deckard being a replicant, but the problem with the original is that Harrison Ford played Deckard as a human, he is notably different in many ways from all the replicants, even Rachel who come accross almost childlike and naive even Roy does although he has a sinister undertone, and maybe it's these differing (well played) performances that mark the true difference.
I think that was the novelty of the new movie, which pretty much mirrors development and innovation in the real world in which sometimes convention is bucked by a radical approach...in this case, use self-aware replicants for Blade Runners. The interesting thing is, that the new batch of replicants that include K have a new innovation, which is they're (more) obedient, yet K exercises free will through his against-orders investigation because he has a vested interest. So, it's a slightly different take on the first movie's original theme of inequality.
One thing that always sticks in my mind which goes against Deckard as a replicant is his narrative at the beginning of the film, particularly how he'd had enough of killing. I don't think a replicant would feel this empathy, empathy is what most psychopaths lack and separates humans from most animals.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
That nod was indeed very telling, and it seems it was not a simple throwaway action that Ridley Scott made sure was included in that scene with that important implication.
I think that further adds to the irony, if he is a replicant, that his programming includes empathy to theoretically make him optimally effective in his highly specialized function, to hunt those hardest to hunt. The crux of replicant technology at that particular point of their development (2019) was emotional stability. Rachel was revealed to be Tyrell Corporations most developmentally advanced model (unbeknownst to the observer, Deckard, also an advanced replicant) and she displayed utter empathy and vulnerability. A further irony is how Batty, the cognitively obsolete replicant ultimately discovers empathy in his final moment of life, exceeding that of Deckard’s and the “superior” humans.
That's because Harrison was adamant Deckard was a human and played him that way, all the other actors playing replicants in the original are markedly different in all their attributes.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
[list=*]
[*]The 4-year life span was not a given production limitation, but rather a control mechanism engineered in.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]The novel (which audio version I'm in the middle of listening to) intentionally characterized the replicants as inhuman in attitude, per the ultimate tome of the original movie's development and production, "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon. However, the movie was never meant to be a point-for-point adaptation of the novel particularly in terms of characterization, theme, etc. In fact, the state of population that had been thinned out due to environmental issues in the novel, is more closely depicted in 2049, vs. the burgeoning population depicted in 2019.[/*]
[/list]
[list=*]
[*]It is a hotly disputed fact that Ridley Scott creatively high-jacked the project, hence his supposed intent of Deckard being a replicant from the get-go; so while editing can literally change the entire direction of a movie, whichever conclusion one prefers is legitimate depending on how one weighs the creative authority of the various creative personalities as well as the studio's. What's interesting with 2049 is that whether Deckard is a replicant is not conclusive and arguments for and against are both present and strong, though it is not ultimately material to the plot.[/*]
[/list]
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Showing pictures of her mother to make him believe that she was human and it totally backfiring.
A bloody cold bastard to make her cry.
It's as if he didn't had zero empathy for any replicant and viewed them all as one, his machine quote notwithstanding.
At the very least he realised what a total dickhead he was at the end.
Brilliant scene.
Another one that I rewatched was the one where he retired Zhora, the sculptures looking towards her as she falls to her final resting place.
It sort of reminded me of T2 when the T1000 looked at the metal sculpture after he threw the T800 out the window but it was probably intended as a joke than anything else.
I also confirmed that Gosling wears the 8 inch Bates tactical boots in BR2049 even though sites like GQ are saying its the 6 inch model.
Nice! Last year I visited the Bradbury Building, but missed out on the tunnel and Union Station, maybe next time. There's also the Ennis House that was used for establishing shots of Deckard's apartment building, including the outside wall that was used for the texture of Deckard's interior wall, which I also wanted to visit but couldn't because of time constraints.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I got to take in a 2nd viewing last Friday, which might be timely because it's being predicted that 2049 won't last in the theaters for long; it was love at second sight, since the first time it was only "like"!
I just read an article on the CGI used for Rachel in BR 2049... http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/motion-graphics/how-mpc-recreated-rachael-for-blade-runner-2049/#1 ...and only stopped to think just now how in one of the sequel novels, "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (1996) by K. W. Jeter, Deckard gets involved in off-world filmmaking and it described a process very similar to the CGI used in 2049. In the story, all the characters in a movie are GGI'ed with the entire cast of stand-ins. Judging from the acting in some of today's movies, you'd think that the process is more widely-used than we're aware of
"IT'S ANOTHER DAY OF SUN!!!" Don't get me started!
On the BR front, broke down yesterday at Barnes and Noble and bought the movie book, with the incentive of a 10% discount that made it the cheapest option even over Amazon Prime. The book is pretty loaded with photos and information behind the movie and its production.
It's titled "The Art and Soul of Blade Runner 2049" though it's listed with a different title on Amazon:
http://a.co/hbfm988
Usually I would expect the film's protagonist to discover something about himself or complete a character arc thru the course of some bigger conflict.
In Blade Runner there seemed to be no real pressing situations facing this dystopian society. There was virtually no drama whatsoever other than Ryan Gosling trying to figure out if he is a human or a replicant. And he does so at an incredibly slow pace with a very low body count.
The concept of memory implants have already been pretty well discussed in Total Recall. Ryan's wide range of emotions and behaviors make me wonder why it even matters if he is a replicant or not. Plus, why would society even care about replicants needing to be retired? The one featured was being a productive protein farmer. Why the need to kill him? And this is coming from a society that values hologram girlfriends???
About the hologram...seriously what the hell was that about? Are they trying to make me believe that Ryan Gosling can't get a real date?
And why aren't there any mention of male holograms? Does this city only cater to hetero men?
If replicants were created for slave labor, why go to all the trouble of giving them memory implants and making them as human as possible to the point where almost no one can tell the difference?
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK