What I'm curious about: do you maintain Deckart isn't a replicant in 2044? Your video suggests as much, but it's not just implied but directly stated/demonstrated that he is a replicant in the sequel.
@@justinsherman9350 i don't think it does at all. hes still much weaker than every other replicant and the only guy who says he might be a replicant is the villain who's a liar.
He's not weaker than Rachael, who is his counter-prototype: the first breeding pair, made by Tyrell as a (likely illegal) experiment. Wallace makes this pretty clear, and his obvious extreme interest in Deckart would make no sense if Deckart were just an ordinary man. Wallace says this directly, has no reason to be lying, and proceeds to try to transport Deckart off world for experimentation/disection after failing to seduce him with the replica of his love. No reason to waste his time on any of this if he didn't believe Deckart was a replicant, and it's made pretty clear in the beginning when he examines and executes the newborn replicant that his special eyes and little ocular drones can see into her deeply enough to conclude that she couldn't reproduce. He's also found living in a radioactive zone where humans cant/don't, drinking radioactive booze.
If somebody who doesn't believe he's a replicant rewatches the film while telling themselves that Deckard, like Rachel, was secretly purpose-built by Tyrell...to be activated in case rogues made it back to Earth...then the entire film still makes sense. But on a few points, it will make even more sense than saying he's just a guy.
The film is full of deliberatel clues, a few of which which you covered, which I've seen lead people who knew nothing about BR ask, "So he's one too?" I've long been convinced that we're intended to at least wonder if he is one. The story works fine for me with Rachel figuring out herself first, then wondering about Rick, then him accepting the truth about himself when he finds the unicorn and nods his head in the closing scene. They go on the run, not just for him to save her but because now he's committed the same sin she did: figuring out what he really is. What saves them is Gaff's mercy because "You've done a MAN'S job."
There was a "making of Blade Runner" book that had a selection from the screenplay, where Deckard was thinking that if replicants can be indistinguishable from humans, down to the memories, how could he be sure he wasn't a replicant--how could anybody? Apparently Scott read that and thought, "that's it! He's a replicant!" I never thought it made any sense for him to be a replicant. He's a decent enough detective, but not physically superior. He gets beat up a lot, and his only wins are shooting unarmed women, one in the back. I don't get how replicants can be illegal on earth, but they'd give (at least) one police powers and basically a license to kill. I agree with you that Deckard being human gives the story more meaning and character growth (don't know if I phrased that correctly). Over the years, it actually decreased my opinion of the movie the more I heard that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. It never sat right with me. Anyway, thanks for the observations, and all you do with these videos.
Replicants for illegal on Earth under any and all circumstances. So if Tyrell Corp had secretly created...oh, let's call it a Nexus 6a, a replicant purpose built to pass as and believe it was human, activated for the police only to hunt and retire rogues on Earth without risk to real human cops...they absolutely would. Someone exactly like Deckard would be the result.
Great essay, Chad. I completely agree. It’s a fun question to exist within the fiction of the films, but as an actual question I’ve never bought it. Nothing about Deckard being a replicant really works, from the themes you point out to the more mundane elements like the way he ages between the two movies, his clear physical and mental inferiority to other replicants, etc. Having seen this movie far more times than I can count, starting with seeing it in first run theatrical release at age 11 (how did my parents let that happen? 😄), him being human is the only answer that works within the film itself imo.
I honestly think Ridley Scott is just trolling at this point; he's tired of the subject. I think an important point of the first movie is that replicants are indistinguishable from humans. We're not meant to know for certain whether Decker is human or not; we're supposed to have doubts. (By the way, I think Deckard is human.)
i believe that the experiment he was referring to was "a replicant that doesn't know they're a replicant" BUT! that doesn't mean that reproduction isn't also involved. and it's the best explanation for why rachel was fertile. Without that line it's kind of just a miracle so good ear.
The experiment was Rachel being given a preloaded identity and past via real but implanted memories, to see if it made her more emotionally stable than all previous replicants were.
I dont and have never understood the suggestion that Deckart being a replicant somehow 'spoils' the theme, or takes the humanity out of it. The whole point of Bladerunner is that the replicants arent truly machines, they're just the slaves of the future, as human as anyone else. That the excellent sequel 100% confirms Deckart is indeed a replicant asside, there's plenty of strong evidence in the first film besides the later-inserted unicorn stuff that Deckart is indeed a replicant. For example, by what right does Edward James Almos basically arrest him and drag him into work? He's a cop himself, and yet they immediately treat him as though he has no rights. Why is this supposedly grizzled, experienced, world-weary detective with a long history as a bladerunner a 20-something year old? Not to mention one who looks a lot like the older Bladerunner shot in the beginning? He's a young man playing an old man; couldnt that suggest memory implants? Why does Tyrell have such a keen interest in Deckart and Rachael's interactions? Why does he allow her to go to him? They're both being surveiled, so why not prevent his prototype from going awol? Perhaps (again as the sequel confirms) he wants them to be together, and is running his own experiment? Again, I find all of these questions and ideas make the OG film far more intrigueing, and to me the notion that Deckart is a replicant only enhances the themes of slavery as a horror difficult if not impossible to avoid, as even those who are 'free' may truly be slaves themselves. I also thought the modern sequel was really good, and Deckart being a replicant isnt really disputable in that one.
Do you believe Deckard is a human or a replicant? How does your interpretation affect your understanding of "Blade Runner" and its sequel?
What I'm curious about: do you maintain Deckart isn't a replicant in 2044? Your video suggests as much, but it's not just implied but directly stated/demonstrated that he is a replicant in the sequel.
@@justinsherman9350 i don't think it does at all. hes still much weaker than every other replicant and the only guy who says he might be a replicant is the villain who's a liar.
He's not weaker than Rachael, who is his counter-prototype: the first breeding pair, made by Tyrell as a (likely illegal) experiment. Wallace makes this pretty clear, and his obvious extreme interest in Deckart would make no sense if Deckart were just an ordinary man. Wallace says this directly, has no reason to be lying, and proceeds to try to transport Deckart off world for experimentation/disection after failing to seduce him with the replica of his love. No reason to waste his time on any of this if he didn't believe Deckart was a replicant, and it's made pretty clear in the beginning when he examines and executes the newborn replicant that his special eyes and little ocular drones can see into her deeply enough to conclude that she couldn't reproduce.
He's also found living in a radioactive zone where humans cant/don't, drinking radioactive booze.
If somebody who doesn't believe he's a replicant rewatches the film while telling themselves that Deckard, like Rachel, was secretly purpose-built by Tyrell...to be activated in case rogues made it back to Earth...then the entire film still makes sense. But on a few points, it will make even more sense than saying he's just a guy.
The film is full of deliberatel clues, a few of which which you covered, which I've seen lead people who knew nothing about BR ask, "So he's one too?"
I've long been convinced that we're intended to at least wonder if he is one. The story works fine for me with Rachel figuring out herself first, then wondering about Rick, then him accepting the truth about himself when he finds the unicorn and nods his head in the closing scene. They go on the run, not just for him to save her but because now he's committed the same sin she did: figuring out what he really is. What saves them is Gaff's mercy because "You've done a MAN'S job."
There was a "making of Blade Runner" book that had a selection from the screenplay, where Deckard was thinking that if replicants can be indistinguishable from humans, down to the memories, how could he be sure he wasn't a replicant--how could anybody? Apparently Scott read that and thought, "that's it! He's a replicant!"
I never thought it made any sense for him to be a replicant. He's a decent enough detective, but not physically superior. He gets beat up a lot, and his only wins are shooting unarmed women, one in the back. I don't get how replicants can be illegal on earth, but they'd give (at least) one police powers and basically a license to kill.
I agree with you that Deckard being human gives the story more meaning and character growth (don't know if I phrased that correctly).
Over the years, it actually decreased my opinion of the movie the more I heard that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. It never sat right with me.
Anyway, thanks for the observations, and all you do with these videos.
Replicants for illegal on Earth under any and all circumstances.
So if Tyrell Corp had secretly created...oh, let's call it a Nexus 6a, a replicant purpose built to pass as and believe it was human, activated for the police only to hunt and retire rogues on Earth without risk to real human cops...they absolutely would.
Someone exactly like Deckard would be the result.
Great essay, Chad. I completely agree. It’s a fun question to exist within the fiction of the films, but as an actual question I’ve never bought it. Nothing about Deckard being a replicant really works, from the themes you point out to the more mundane elements like the way he ages between the two movies, his clear physical and mental inferiority to other replicants, etc.
Having seen this movie far more times than I can count, starting with seeing it in first run theatrical release at age 11 (how did my parents let that happen? 😄), him being human is the only answer that works within the film itself imo.
I honestly think Ridley Scott is just trolling at this point; he's tired of the subject.
I think an important point of the first movie is that replicants are indistinguishable from humans. We're not meant to know for certain whether Decker is human or not; we're supposed to have doubts.
(By the way, I think Deckard is human.)
It's been a while but I seem to remember Tyrell calling Rachel an 'experiment ' so perhaps he was talking about her being a reproductive replicant .
i believe that the experiment he was referring to was "a replicant that doesn't know they're a replicant" BUT! that doesn't mean that reproduction isn't also involved. and it's the best explanation for why rachel was fertile. Without that line it's kind of just a miracle so good ear.
The experiment was Rachel being given a preloaded identity and past via real but implanted memories, to see if it made her more emotionally stable than all previous replicants were.
Exactly!! Nicely done.
Awesome video chad
Killin it
I dont and have never understood the suggestion that Deckart being a replicant somehow 'spoils' the theme, or takes the humanity out of it. The whole point of Bladerunner is that the replicants arent truly machines, they're just the slaves of the future, as human as anyone else.
That the excellent sequel 100% confirms Deckart is indeed a replicant asside, there's plenty of strong evidence in the first film besides the later-inserted unicorn stuff that Deckart is indeed a replicant.
For example, by what right does Edward James Almos basically arrest him and drag him into work? He's a cop himself, and yet they immediately treat him as though he has no rights.
Why is this supposedly grizzled, experienced, world-weary detective with a long history as a bladerunner a 20-something year old? Not to mention one who looks a lot like the older Bladerunner shot in the beginning? He's a young man playing an old man; couldnt that suggest memory implants?
Why does Tyrell have such a keen interest in Deckart and Rachael's interactions? Why does he allow her to go to him? They're both being surveiled, so why not prevent his prototype from going awol? Perhaps (again as the sequel confirms) he wants them to be together, and is running his own experiment?
Again, I find all of these questions and ideas make the OG film far more intrigueing, and to me the notion that Deckart is a replicant only enhances the themes of slavery as a horror difficult if not impossible to avoid, as even those who are 'free' may truly be slaves themselves. I also thought the modern sequel was really good, and Deckart being a replicant isnt really disputable in that one.