Hampton is great and also spot on saying "It would be game over" if Deckard was a replicant. One of PKD´s themes was the blurring between good and evil: what if humans think like machines and machines think like humans? Where do you draw the line? Batty to Deckard: "are you not supposed to be the good guy?" It falls flat if Deckard is not a human.
What an amazing movie! I had to watch it twice, and I'm itching to watch it again in theaters for the experience. Also, I don't think Deckard is a replicant ^_^ Regardless what Ridley Says; love that it is left questionable in both movies.
I think the whole movie is about K finding his humanity. Throughout the movie, he constantly is belittled by everyone for being a replicant, he’s not real to anyone, not even to himself. But deep down, he knows there's something more, but because of his job and the world he lives in, he won't accept it. That’s why his girlfriend isn’t real either, he doesn't think he deserves a real one, and he See's himself in her. But as the story continues, and he begins to figure out that he may actually be this prophecy child, he begins to realize that maybe he is real. He starts breaking down, realizing that this whole time he was right, that what his girlfriend told him was right, that he is special. Because of this he begins acting human, he goes against what he's told, he lies, as he believes he really is real, that he has a soul. But after its revealed to him that he isn't this child, he loses hope. They tell him to kill deckard, and begins to act as he did at the beginning of the film, just following orders. But before he does, he See's his girlfriend advertising hologram, and then realizes something. He realizes this whole time, she was just as unreal as he was. But he loved her just the same. So it hits him, if I can believe she is real, why can't I believe I am real? He realizes that this whole time, he always had a soul, that everything he did while he thought he was this "child" the way he acted, that was just him. The memory of the horse was like placebo for him. You even hear the voice over say "dying for a cause is the most human thing a person can do" which is exactly what he did. But this not only alludes to him, but to Joi too. She risked her life to help him, and died because of it. In this scene, he realizes that she was real. Him realizing she is real, is his "miracle" (like sapper said) that gives him a reason to believe he too is real. He then uses this freedom to go against what he is told, freeing deckard, reuniting him with his daughter, and then dying peacefully just like Roy. As he has now proven to himself. That he was always real. As he lets the snow land on him, just like the rain did on Joi when she discovered she was real. He is real. He is free.
I have read this comment on another youtube page by you. I agree. I sent this to my friend who also loved the film. Blade Runner is hard to explain to the laymen - I believe it's about humanity and finding your humanity.
Babylonthegreat - Fantastically stated. There is no question Deckard is human. The entire film is structured on that premise. Being a replicant is a cheap gimmick.
They probably shoulda thought about NOT making a movie that was 40 minutes longer than the original. BLADERUNNER: 117 minutes BLADERUNNER 2043: 163 minutes.
Right, because it's just crazy to make movies that long (excluding Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, The Godfather 2, There Will Be Blood, Apocalypse Now, Once Upon a Time in America, 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Dark Knight, The Good the Bad & the Ugly, Schindler's List, Harry Potter, Bridge on the River Kwai, Lord of the Rings, Gahndi, Amadeus, The Deer Hunter, Short Cuts, AI: Artificial Intelligence, Scarface, Ran, Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, La Dolce Vita, Stalker, Solaris, and hundreds more)
Great interview Frosty! This movie is so good, I really tried to find something I didn't liked and after a second watch I just couldn't find anything wrong with it.
First movie to move me to tears since Interstellar...like finding water in the desert! Especially moving was the moment K killed Luv,,,I wondered if he wondered why she would serve a man like Wallace....she was tragic especially as she refers to K as "dog"....yet she was even more trapped than him! Or did she free herself of Wallace's programming but kept killing because she liked it....truly a film for the ages.....
Sorry but you are quite wrong about that ... Hampton Fancher failed to impress both Ridley Scott and Philip K Dick with his first god knows how many drafts of the movie, its was David Peoples who gave the script a major overhaul and Peoples' re-written script immediately won high praise from PKD ... and more importantly, Ridley Scott was the one who came up with many novel ideas that shifted the movie from the usual sci fi fare, such as the unicorn symbolisms, the eye glares, Deckard's real identity reveal at the end of the movie etc etc ... All these things are detailed in the various interviews and documentaries of the movie ...
@@88feji Wrong. Peoples came in when Ridley demanded so many changes to teh script that Hampton stressed out, could't handle anymore and quit. The movie was in pre-production already and PKD had given his OK to the work.
I loved this movie. I thought it was terrific, much better than many other films this year. So sorry (& surprised) it didn't make more money. People should go see it at the theater!
Blade Runner 2049 was the most viewed movie this Monday and Tuesday. Seriously, check it out at Box Office Mojo. After the great debut of Happy Death Day this weekend, Blade Runner 2049 was number one these last two days. It is still holding up and it still has to open in China. It is not going to make "It" money, but it will make some. It is not like it is out of the theatres already.
I know. Actually the budget on wikipedia is: $150-185 million. People speculate that is actually 200M. However, unlike its predecessor, this one will make at least its budget back and will cross 200M. The first one didn't even made half of the budget back. The fact that it bounced back to the top after 2 weekends in theatres gives me some hope. I remember that Arrival remained in theatres for a long time and slowly reached the point where it started to make some profit. I don't think that this is a reason to celebrate nor that with this results they will make another one, but won't be the bomb some want it to be.
+ColliderVideos This was one of the most introspective experiences I ever had in a movie session. In the end, all the people in the theater, in absolute silence, digesting the emotional load of what they just watched and experienced. They stood in their seats for a few minutes, quiet, and left in complete silence. Very impressive, and unique.
It’s great to see and hear the writers. Thanks. I love Bladerunner, my favourite film. I liked the new one too. But I look back with nostalgia on the first film 🙂
One of the better videos I've seen from around the time of release. A lot of the interviews are really cagey because the people involved were trying not to spoil the movie. Hopefully an anniversary can be chosen (this year? 10 year?) for a reunion where the actors and other creatives can talk more about the characters, themes, etc.
My favorite scene that’s a lot of critics aren’t talking about is when the love character tells Ryan gosling she’s the best one and than he comes from under the water like a fucking shark and starts choking her
Lmao yeah Ryan gosling isn’t getting enough credit for his performance, in the beginning when he’s just chillin on the couch when Batista walks in, and when he’s doing that baseline test for the 2nd time and his neck is just throbbing, it’s amazing
I really thought he was the child. One of the things I didn't understand though, is that Deckards real child, the girl who was making memories, said it was illegal to use a real persons memories, no? I haven't seen the movie in a while but saw it twice and I think she said that. If that is the case, why did she implant the memory in so many replicants, when K finds out he's not the child because the rest of the group says a couple of them also had similar memories and thought they were the child initially. I still think the movie is freaking amazing and I was totally fine with the switch.
@@merlin9943 I love both films but I think a third film would be over kill even if it did well in the box-office. A third film has a high chance of ruining all sense of mystery if it isn't made by the same team of 2049 I feel.
The question about Deckard is the point of the movies, in that the moral issue is that there is no distinction between replicants and humans any more - Tyrell Corporation and its successor are, for all intents and purposes, making people who shouldn't be slaves based on their origin any more than anyone else should be. That said, the subissue - did the authorities use replicants to hunt other replicants, in possible contravention of the laws of the time, because of similar thought patterns - is interesting in that it reflects upon the corrupted nature of the society itself, unable even to live even by its own rules. The answer to the second issue, to the degree it can be answered, is decided depending upon which cut of the movie you're talking about; in those with the unicorn vision, there's almost no question Deckard is a replicant, lacking the superpowers of the others he's chasing so that he can believe himself to be human until his thoughts/memories are proven to have been seen by Gaff.
Hampton is an interesting character. I am glad to see he is still at it. He was a great part of Blade Runner like Dan O'Bannon (RIP) was in Alien. One of the documentaries on Blade Runner talked about how Phillip Dick was not happy before the film came out. The special effects people put together 10 mins of the film, I think Ridley told them to do it. Phillip saw it and was astonished and dumbfounded. He said something like "how did you know what I envishoned or in my mind" or something. He was amazed. The special effects people were very pleased. My feeling is that Rutger Hauer stole the show in Blade Runner as Roy Batty. The first movie I would have liked to see is the replicants birth, their lives in space and their battle to get back to earth. This was the most interesting part of the plot for me. The replicants lives offworld, their toil in space doing all the crap jobs, getting back to earth and their desire for more time to live from Tyrrell. Sadly, the technology for that type of offworld special effects would have been expensive and there was very little CGi back then. Today, CGI is so overused.
The movie ended up tripling its budget, so I want to know if they will be making a sequel, I don't think K is dead. Deckard could easily come out and take him into the upgrade center to save him. And we could see K go up against the replicant army and Wallace for part 3. I don't think it was a good idea to kill K considering hes so iconic and such an amazing character. Please cyber punk gods, give us more BR with ryan gosling, at least one more for our lifetime.
I love the sequel. It is sad to learn Rachel died, she was first of her kind, a replicant to give birth to a human child. Decker rejected the clone because he knows is not his "Rachel," because she had green eyes when she took the Voight-Kampff machine test from the original film.
I like Ridleys Scotts take on the films Deckard as a replicant. I think it brings up deeper thoughts on what is alive and what is a thing and it echos the Tyrells line "more human than human". It also plays well with the sequel where in BR 2019 you have replicant that thinks its human hunting replicants , his own kind, he just doesnt know it , and then beside this in BR 2049 you have replicant whos job is to hunt his kind out of obediance to his masters. Theres so much more going on in the story with Deckard as a replicant it makes for a lot broader and deeper story.
Mike Adams One of Tyrells goals was to create replicants that could pass as human so much so that even the replicant would think it was human , like Rachael and Deckard. If Rachael and Deckard were strong enough to be tossing things around like Leon and Roy did then no one would ever think that they were human including Rachael and Deckard.
Well, the only way to find out for sure is to wait for Deckard to die, and then analyze his remains/ look for a serial number LOL! Otherwise.. what difference does it make? I don't care if Ridley Scott says Deckard's a replicant; Hampton Fancher, Harrison Ford and Philip K. Dick himself said Deckard is human. Movies don't have one sole god creator. A lot about life cannot be defined or explained 100% - so we can only trust our own perceptions. That's one of the themes of the film, itself.
I disagree that it's deeper to have Deckard as a replicant. We already have clear cut replicants struggling with similar questions so Deckard's contributions to the themes comes from the his unclear nature. If you answer that question definitively you make the films more shallow.
*SPOILERS* This movie made it obvious Deckard is not a replicant. But they did it the blade runner style. They showed you, instead of giving you a blatant answer and idk why so many people don’t get that. He’s well behind 4 years of life, in the original blade runner he was never called any slur that replicants are called. In 2049 they say that the child is half human, which would make Deckard the obvious human element since Rachel was a replicant. Rachel’s purpose was to give birth which is why she expired at childbirth cause she was designed to give a child and die right after. The fact he can’t ever hold up a fight against a replicant or equal their strength, etc. Both movies are about reading between the lines but everyone wants to be spoon fed this answer when the answer is so obvious.
Brenden Johnson ... not only that! Tyrell in the original Blade Runner movie was not doing things "double checking Decker" if he was the first model "open life span Replicant!" Instead, the LA police allow his escape with Rachel in that movie's ending!? Rachel dies in 2021 (4 years from character 2017 movie time period); and, having Decker's DNA to mix with "less perfect DNA of a Nexus 6 or 7" makes no movie sense between both movies!
Yeah you say that but then there's the dialogue of Wallace saying he was 'programmed' to meet Rachel. You also don't account for how he managed to survive in a nuclear wasteland like Las Vegas had become for 30 years. In the first film there's the dreaming of the unicorn. There's also always one line, a small almost throw away one, when he's talking to Bryant and it goes: Bryant: Stop right where you are. You know the score pal. If you're not cop, you're little people. Deckard: No choice, huh? Bryant: No choice pal. You're little people? No choice? No choice suggests that if he doesn't do the job he gets retired. There's lots more. There's lots of instances that point to him being and not being a replicant, that's the fun of it. I like the idea of him not knowing for sure if he is or not.
TheColossalBlanket yeah but none of those have to do with him if he was a replicant. Only the idea of him being a replicant makes you think if there was a correlation. If you knew he was for sure human, you would just take it as normal dialogue. That’s how the writers play with you.
I don't recall them ever saying that the child was half-human (though I've only seen the movie once so they absolutely could have and I just missed it or don't remember, and even if they did I don't know the context). He wouldn't be called a skinjob if it wasn't common knowledge that he was a replicant. He obviously isn't as strong as the replicants he fights in the original, but that could either be explained as him (like Rachel) being programmed to believe he is human and so fights with that strength because that's what he believes he is capable of, or simply that he is not a Nexus 6, and so has different abilities (if he is a replicant, he obviously couldn't be a Nexus 6, probably not a Nexus model at all). His long life would also be explained by him not being a Nexus 6. Sapper Morton is still a Nexus (though not a 6) yet he has been alive for at least 28 years. In fact I don't think 2049 mentions the replicant expiry at any point in the whole movie. There are many indications in the first film that he is a replicant (not to mention the fact that Ridley Scott outright stated it, and the director kind of has the final say on that sort of thing, whether it makes much sense or not). But the real "obvious" answer is that, it's not real, it's a movie, and these things are chosen to be presented by storytellers. Both movies portray him as human and imply that he is not, specifically so that it's deliberately vague, and people will have these sorts of conversations.
Brenden Johnson I got the exact opposite, the second time I watched it I picked up hints that Deckard was a replicant. For instance when K is having his meltdown when Dr. Ana Stelline tells him his child memory is real he's says "I know what's real", Deckard says the exact same during his conversation with Wallace in similar circumstances.
Watching 2049 I thought it was clear Deckard was a replicant. I didn't realize this wasn't clear to everyone else until I went home and watched vids on the movie.
Deckard always gets fucked up by replicants he doesn't stand a chance strength wise, I get the origami reference in the first one but I don't think he is a replicant
It is very clear he is a replicant.... Ridley Scott has said it. and its his film. the confusion comes from the investors who kicked ridley off the movie and didnt think the public would understand he was a replicant. so in the original cut, which isnt Ridleys cut it is the investors edit... he is a human. in the directors cut he is a replicant. and that is the edit that Ridley wanted from the start. they even say in the new film 'im not here to take you in, im here to ask questions'. So anyone that thinks he is a human is wrong. and yes it does matter lol. the whole meaning of the film changes if you think one way or the other.
@@ryanflood635 Yeah i think it also makes a lot of sense for him to fall in love with a replicant because he was programmed to do so. And it makes the procreating of the replicants even more special. That they don't need humans anymore to make replicant babies. Would be weird if he fell in love with a replicant while he was human. And it also explains his very dull performance in the first movie of being more robotic.
@@ryanflood635 It is not very clear because it does not matter what he said. It always matters what the guy who actually writes it says. Hsmpton Fancher wrote the movie. He made the soul of the movie. And that's it.
Ridley obviously wants Deckard to be a replicant -- with the red eye shine he added in the director and final cuts. I think both movies work better if he isn't. One of the points Dick was trying to make in the book was that as machines were getting more human, humans were becoming colder/emotionless and more machine-like with the mood organs and artificiality of their daily lives. Ridley went for the more straightforward irony of a replicant hunting other replicants.
When I first heard of them making it with Ryan I thought 'No fucking way are they doing a Ridley Hampton' film based on their stuff right. But the movie is fucking fantastic. I'm even a Ryan fan now. Like I thought I would ever have anything to say to this guy a friend of mine discovered. By the way this guy is a fantastic interviewer.
My biggest question is this: if Deckard is a replicant, why is Wallace not interested in him? It would take two specially designed and engineered replicants to create a baby. Deckard would have to be one of them, and if he was, Wallace would have been equally interested in him for that sake. It's apparent in the movie that Wallace isn't interested in Deckard other than for the information. I guess my point is this: at the least Wallace doesn't believe Deckard to be a replicant, despite his monologue.
its such a shame that people have become so used to the wham bang thankyou mam aprouch to movie making that for a lot of people they just couldent relate to it. it would be like getting someone that only eats junk food to sit down to a home cooked meal with real vegatables and depth of flavour. i would recomend it above every movie last year and it will probabaly still be the best movie next year, just dont expect the marvel in your face quick cut all action stuff, all that stuff is fine for a bit of frivoulus fun but this film is hardcore in everyway and its better for it. i hope that i get to see more films like this even though it did not do so well considering the high budget of the film it is what films used to be about a reverance to the charicters and the world they are creating.
In one of the earlier scripts Hampton was the first one to suggest Deckard might be a replicant. The movie would end with Deckard at the piano when suddenly his hand cramped, just like Roy Batty's hand cramped in the first BR movie. He even admitted that he preferred Ridley's red eyes
there’s no way that a human could escape from a perfect and extremely strong, and 100% perfect Replicant in that matter, and get away with it.. Deckard was a replicant.
I felt that scene could have gone either way. Rachael was used to pinpoint exactly Deckard's brain algorithms so he could fall in love with her and have the baby. It works if he's human or replicant. That's the beauty of Blade Runner, never any concrete ideas, only ever ideas and debates.
''Are humans real or not?'' The same old question we ask for centuries and still don't know the answer, because there is no definite answer. The answer depends on how we define what is human or real and that answer is constantly changing because mankind is still evolving and constantly shifting its societal paradigms.
Ive a major question about writing a screenplay. Do you need to write it like the reader is watching the movie or reading a book? I mean with no spoilers. For example, a character that is called Ricky talks. But the reader doesnt know hes called Ricky. Do you need to call him Ricky or unknown person for example. Would be nice if somebody could help me out.
*boris felix A screenplay is a combination of scene description and (named) character dialogue. The screenplay should contain all the necessary information to convey a clear image and understanding of the film as a whole. It would make no sense to conceal that information from those involved in creating the piece! It would be like asking someone to bake you a particular type of cake, but handing them a recipe with the ingredients listed as, 'ingredient 1' and 'ingredient 2'; and so on, just so you don't give away the overall result! It's self defeating. (Anyway, just look up the screenplay to films you like and you'll get the idea).
He's a replicant, how else do you spend 30 years in the nuke zone of Vegas? Tyrell created a special series, - I believe - and chose to introduce them to each other.
Seems kind of silly to be that the guy who writes the story (and has the most story input in both installments together) and therefore has the power to decide has to switch from "he's no replicant" to "I don't know" and back and forth as well as this seemingly for fanservice placed movie line "if you were created" instead of flat-out answering. Like no fans should be offended that way. I never think of that as a good thing. It is similiar to Zelda Breath of the Wild where Nintendo weeks ago said they will not reveal the timeline placement of the game because so many fans have their own theories. Well, then they should not have made a timeline in the first place. They are the creators, not the fans. If I want to have my own story then I start it from zero where I can actually and totally write what I want. If creators do ot give a clear answer or cannot actually agree on something like Mr. Scott and Mr. Fancher then I don't see any reason to debate because then the answer is that there is no answer as this universe only exists as an idea and its legal and intellectual owners say "it consists of this element and of that element". Writers create a story from nothing and we already accept that world. We should not stop at the part that we dislike and say "well okay, here I don't believe the writer even though the world only exists because of them" and should not go too far with that constant misuse of the nowadays way too popular "Death of the Author" that is used as an excuse for people to not accept something. If he himself says "I always thought he was no replicant" that is enough I would say. I just don't see the point in watching a movie, reading a book or playing a game and then saying "uh, I don't like that part of lore the author created; I am gonna make up my own crap"; why even bother spending time with his/her creation in the first place then. You can like/dislike stuff but it will not change things anyways as long as you have no creative control over it. And in the end, it really does not matter because those androids, or replicants as they are called in this universe seem like the super typical sci-fi AI's: Alive on a psychological level and that is what counts for a person.
There isn't. They specifically write things one story at a time and there was no consideration for making Blade Runner a new franchise that spits out movies. Given how it has underperformed, there probably won't be another for some time anyways.
Deckard has to be human or the story doesn’t actually have meaning. Blade Runner is about a man who’s become machine like who regains his humanity after dealing with these machines. If he’s a robot it doesn’t mean anything.
@@rusted8157 No the whore story becomes meaningless if he is a replicant and I believe he has some feelings he might be but that is the point of the movie.... what is it to be human?
Waited 35 years for it. Not impressed. Ridley Scott had to fiddle with the whole Deckard being a replicant thing, so he pulls a marketing scam and cuts out some audio, ending scene, throws in a unicorn scene, holds some interviews planting this "Deckard is a replicant" idea, slaps on a new wrapper, and markets it as the "Directors Cut" then does the same damn thing with the "Final Cut." Sloppy work to make more money. Pitiful. If you wanted to make Deckard a replicant, then you could have taken the time to incorporate that idea into a well crafted sequel, 5 or 10 years later, not 35 damn years later with this BS. Also, Ridley, did you ever stop to think that if you wanted Deckard to be a replicant, that hunts replicants, that it would make sense that he had the abilities, at least, of the Nexus 6 models? Deckard wasn't meant to be a replicant, because it takes away the moral dilemma of a human killing replicants, but you had to have your way and go back and fuck it up. As far as I'm concerned, every thing that came out after the original theatrical release is irrelevant. I understand why they waited 35 years to release this "sequel."
MeesterVegas it takes away the moral dilemma of killing replicants? How about the dilemma it would create in him killing his own kind? And that sequel was one of the best sequels to any movie ever made
Look at Sixth Sense. At the end it revealed that Bruce Willis was dead, while all along you thought he was alive. That revelation blew people away and thats the holy grail for movie makers. To make Deckards status ambivalent only works for the writers who want to look clever, to impress other writers, but it wasnt the best choice for the audience. It robbed the movie of a much more powerful climax, so it was a mistake to make it that way.
If Deckard was a replicant would have been one created when replicants had a short life ( think would have been 4 years ) and where hunted down by Blade Runners so ............
Whenever I read about BR2049 I hear about souls and sacrifice so I guess its a religious movie. Dick must be spinning in his grave. I've only ever seen the original (many times over) and dearly love it despite its many flaws. It is a complete movie with a simple message...no sequel is needed or called for...especially one that negates and attempts to refute the original.
Making Deckard a replicant is gratuitous. It's cool for a moment, but it adds nothing of substance to the story. We already know that there are replicants who don't know what they are so he's not unique and it's not particularly shocking. It makes the misguided revulsion of replicants which Deckard embodies less powerful. It makes Roy's ultimate act of grace less meaningful.
As far as I can tell from the story in both movies, Deckard is almost certainly a replicant. Putting aside the unicorn dream and the other easter eggs, we now know that Tyrell was trying make replicants who could reproduce. So the question becomes does Tyrell create female replicants that can reproduce with human males, or does he make male and female replicants who can reproduce with each other? If he's only creating fertile female replicants, does he own the patent to the human/replicant hybrid offspring? What's the ethical precedent here? And what about the children of those hybrids? And how does he control the outcome if he can't determine half of the genetic contribution to the child? How does he make sure there are no genetic defects carried by the father that find their way into the child's genome? What is the purpose of a half-human/half-replicant hybrid from the perspective of a company that manufactures replicants? In the second scenario, Tyrell creates male and female replicants who can reproduce with each other and create predictable offspring with no random elements introduced by ordinary human DNA. The children of these replicants would be products that are wholly owned by Tyrell. If both parents are replicants, the child will be a replicant as well, and will not be subject to the vagaries of natural selection. The line would 'breed true', as it were. Tyrell would also avoid the messy ethical question of hybrids, assuming we are setting aside the idea that replicants deserve the same rights as humans regardless, which it seems no one but replicants cares about in this universe. So, given what we know of Tyrell, what makes the most sense?
Siansonea Orande ... I don't think so!? Rachel dies in 2021 written on wooden horse and tree stump (4 years after 2017, the premise of the original Blade Runner character date)! Remember Tyrell told Decker in Blade Runner (1982 movie), "Prove to me testing on a positive before I give you a negative!" Decker tells Tyrell that Rachel is a Replicant and if she knows she has his daughter's memories! Maybe Tyrell, making Decker after Rachel as an "open ended Replicant life span" he was not, himself under tests and similar scrutiny ... thus NON-REPLICANT!
I disagree, Deckard is not a replicant. He couldn't match strength with any of the replicants. Hand to hand he got his ass kicked by every replicant that he battled. You never see deckard running through walls.
Lawrence Jelsma, Rachel died in child birth not of replicant old age. Also her incept date is May 23rd, 2018. Besides that 4 year life span was something coded into replicants as a fail safe. If Tyrell is going through all the trouble to create replicants that can replicate, why would he put that measure into them? He wouldn't. I'm not saying whether Deckard is a replicant or not i'm just saying your reasoning is faulty.
Justin Ballew ... that's highly speculative in understanding historical mothers who die in labor (most because of illness or malnutrition reasons)! Blade Runner does delve into Wallace's mid-movie belief system action's (and the alarming rock full sound movie theater music score within the movie paints that picture) paint a more healthier interpretation of child bearing consequences!! I believe Tyrell had Rachel as a Nexus 7 not a Nexus 6 in the original movie; but, his talk around his death scene suggested "DNA problems" in trying to compensate initial creation genes!
Whether or not Deckard is subjected to a Voight-Kampff test is immaterial and tangential to the question of Tyrell's motives in the scene, and unrelated to the question of whether Deckard is a replicant. And we don't know what scrutiny Deckard is subjected to outside the scope of what is shown in the original film. We do know that Gaff is wary of Deckard, and seems to know about Deckard's movements even when he seems to be taking pains to avoid detection. Everything Gaff says and does in both movies points to the idea that at the very least, Gaff believes that Deckard is a replicant. And there is the unicorn dream/origami connection from the Director's Cut, which pretty much explicitly states that Deckard is a replicant, because otherwise Gaff leaving the unicorn origami is just a coincidence. We can argue which version of the original movie is 'canon' at this point, but that would be unproductive, and would not take away from any of the observations based on interpreting both movies as a single narrative. Also, are you familiar with the concept of the "unreliable narrator'? We can frame everything said by Tyrell within two separate frameworks. One is that Tyrell is being completely truthful with Deckard, and we can accept everything he says at face value. The other is that Tyrell is telling Deckard things in order to achieve a specific result, and that the things he says may or may not be completely true in an intrinsic sense. So whenever we are saying "Character X says ABC to Character Y" as proof of an intrinsic fact in this or any narrative, we have to factor in the idea of the unreliable narrator. We don't know if everything Tyrell says to Deckard is true, or is true from a certain point of view, or is a half-truth, or is an outright lie. One could interpret the entire meeting of Deckard and Rachael as completely orchestrated and engineered by Tyrell. In the first movie, Tyrell's creation of Rachael is stated to be an attempt to create a replicant that is easier to control, and can pass for human by passing the VK test that Deckard administers. Well, she doesn't pass that test. Deckard spots her as a replicant after a protracted VK test, and it is his duty at that point to retire her, but he does not. Is it because Rachael is so desirable that she makes him violate his own duty, or is it because they are BOTH replicants that were literally made for each other? And we learn in the second movie that Rachael was created to be able to reproduce, in addition to having an unlimited life span and false memories. It is in fact the main purpose of her existence, a fact omitted by Tyrell in the first movie. So we know at least that he wasn't telling Deckard everything he knew. And then there is the question of the idea of blade runners as a concept. Does it make sense for the control of a company's product to be relegated to the local law enforcement agencies? Or does it make more sense for a company to create a fail-safe product that will seek out and retire replicants that become uncontrollable. We see in 2049 that the best blade runner is a replicant, Ryan Gosling's "K". And Deckard withstands a great deal of physical punishment in the first movie at the hands of Zhora, Leon, Pris and Roy Batty. The first blade runner that Bryant sent after them ended up in the hospital on life support, yet somehow Deckard gained the upper hand in spite of the fact that all four replicants are enhanced beyond the abilities of an ordinary human. Deckard doesn't seem to be especially skilled at hand-to-hand fighting, but he can take a beating. I think it's another thing that points to Deckard being a replicant. And really, it's when you place all these indicators together that you realize that there aren't any indictors on the other side that explicitly make Deckard seem like an ordinary human. When you factor in all of these variables, the conclusion weighs in favor of Deckard being a replicant, in my view.
"I've seen things YOU PEOPLE wouldn't believe...." Read: People Notice how in 2049, all the Replicants know who the other Replicants are... and who is not....
Is Deckard a replicant, seriously???? This unending question milks the drama and preys on the slow! Final Cut is the definitive cut! Ridley Scott had full artistic control - no studio interference to pander to sales.
Which is canon for Fans of the epic 'The Shining' movie: 1.) Stephen King's novel (source material) 2.) Stanley Kubrick's movie Hint: If you haven't seen the movie or read the book, they are two totally different universes! Source material stops being canon for the adaptation, when the adaptation and source material are undeniably different. In other words, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' is canon only for the written source and not for Blade Runner, the movie.
K is not a replicant but he's been mind controlled to think he is. He is constantly being told he is a replicant. Like how normal people accept they will work all their lives and then 'retire'. Mass mind control. If K was a replicant he wouldn't be developing morality preference and awakening. Its a real person under mind control. They know this. Very scary that you can con a real person to be like K and put up with all the abuse and crap. Then he wakes up kind of. Trauma based mind control and dissociation to create a military assassin.
@@rusted8157 What facts do you base that interpretation on? I don't see anything suggesting that and the sequel is specifically made to not make any statements whether Deckard is a replicant.
@@rusted8157 I've never seen anything like that said by someone with deciding power. Feel free to point me in the direction of some such case. In any case, people involved with the films don't say the same things. Ridley Scott said that Deckard is a replicant outside the film but many that worked with him think he was wrong to say that. And as said, Denis Villeneuve absolutely don't want the question of Deckard's nature to be answered so he made a film where there isn't one.
@@rusted8157 Your evasive and non-constructive comment is exactly what people tend to do when they don't want to have a proper discussion, as that always includes supporting your statements. I already did a quick google but I mainly saw more that spoke against it. Not least an interview with the writer that worked on both films that said that they always considered Deckard to not be a replicant. Hence why I leave it to you to back up your statement rather than speak for you.
All of the so called evidence that Deckard is a replicant from the first film is a unicorn dream and an origami. If there was another scene where Deckard and Gaff joke about "My Little Pony" whenever they are forced to be in the same room all of that evidence becomes nothing. The lines by Wallace are just a bone to keep Ripley happy and a percentage of the fanbase - but considering the character is always talking likes he's the old testament god there isn't anything decisive there either when he talks about creation and destiny. The Deckard argument might be a very Phillip K. Dick style "what is real" issue - but it exists more in the audience than in the actual movie.
It always bugged me that they never explained why they're hunting replicants if they're just going to die in a few years, anyway. 'Replicant' is also a pretty lame word also, since it implies that they're clones instead of androids ( I was confused about this on the first watching ). If Deckard is a replicant, why are replicants hunting replicants? Why do some replicants have a four year lifespan and others don't? At a certain point a line is crossed between this being a structurally contiguous, thought-provoking story and poor writing disguised by impressive visual effects as something deep.
Is Deckard a replicant? The answer is: Who f*cking cares? The point is that you can't tell the difference, therefore it doesn't matter. They are alive. How do people miss that so thoroughly through decades. It's a movie about what it means to be alive, to be real, not some bullsh*t about where the guy takes his mask off at the end and it's like oh this character was this all along. Yawn. Blade Runner is bigger than that. It's better.
The question matters a lot, regardless of what's the true answer, so I couldn't disagree with you more on that. That question is at the core of the existential questions of the film.
The marketing really hurt the movie. The main story was about a baby. Women love babies right? Yet not one word about a baby in the trailers, so women, who are not big sci fi fans usually, didnt go. Not smart.
Michael P. Shipley I think it hurt the film by not giving away anything about the movie, the marketing gave nothing up and interviews with the actors were silent, they literally didn’t say anything about it and weren’t allowed to
INTERESTING... a sequel to a 30 year old movie nobody saw or remembered doesn't do well. so much for my "Adventures in Babysitting" sequel.... "Adventures in Retirement"....... :-(
A SH$# MOVIE...A Blade Runner flick is supposed to be a Sci-Fi Noir. PERIOD. Not Spartacus meets the Matrix. How many Replicants did Deckard blow away in BR 1? FOUR! Every kill was an awesome action scene and allowed for great character development. I payed to see a fu%$in Blade Runner hunting down Relicants, but I got some fu%$in half-baked Matrix-meets Spartacus slave rebellion bullsh$#.
Deuce Horn No wonder it's a 'CULT CLASSIC.' No one went to see it in the 80s, and Noone's grandchildren went to see it in 2017. Warner Bros... LITERALLY throwing money away for art. Their shareholders must be THRILLED at their dedication to art over profit.....
Deuce Horn Did you even read what I wrote. A sequel to a movie nobody cared about in the 80s and even less today is a FAILURE GRAB, to borrow one of your chiched phrases..... I'm a GOOD movie fan. And expecting audiences to be invested in a story that nobody cared about the first time is just being a snob. And a prick. Harrison Ford's farewell tour is of to a rocky start. First Han bites it, then BR flops.... what's next? INDIANA JONES AND THE NURSING HOME OF MISSED GRANDCHILDREN VISITS!!!! :-O
I see you wanting a young Ethan Hawke to play you in the movie about your life. Your dull, dull life as a barista for a coffee chain in a bookstore NOT named BARNES&NOBLE. Because in the end, you just don't have what it takes to play in the big leagues.
Hampton is great and also spot on saying "It would be game over" if Deckard was a replicant. One of PKD´s themes was the blurring between good and evil: what if humans think like machines and machines think like humans? Where do you draw the line? Batty to Deckard: "are you not supposed to be the good guy?" It falls flat if Deckard is not a human.
"Is he real?"
"I don't know, ask him."
Movie Nerd Hito I loved that scene and the expressions on Deckards and K's face.
So whatever happened to Deckard's poor dog after he was kidnapped, anyway? Maybe the rebels adopted him when they came for K?
I love Hampton Fancher. He has accomplished great ideas, adventures and followed his dreams.
What an amazing movie! I had to watch it twice, and I'm itching to watch it again in theaters for the experience. Also, I don't think Deckard is a replicant ^_^ Regardless what Ridley Says; love that it is left questionable in both movies.
I think the whole movie is about K finding his humanity. Throughout the movie, he constantly is belittled by everyone for being a replicant, he’s not real to anyone, not even to himself. But deep down, he knows there's something more, but because of his job and the world he lives in, he won't accept it. That’s why his girlfriend isn’t real either, he doesn't think he deserves a real one, and he See's himself in her. But as the story continues, and he begins to figure out that he may actually be this prophecy child, he begins to realize that maybe he is real. He starts breaking down, realizing that this whole time he was right, that what his girlfriend told him was right, that he is special. Because of this he begins acting human, he goes against what he's told, he lies, as he believes he really is real, that he has a soul. But after its revealed to him that he isn't this child, he loses hope. They tell him to kill deckard, and begins to act as he did at the beginning of the film, just following orders. But before he does, he See's his girlfriend advertising hologram, and then realizes something. He realizes this whole time, she was just as unreal as he was. But he loved her just the same. So it hits him, if I can believe she is real, why can't I believe I am real? He realizes that this whole time, he always had a soul, that everything he did while he thought he was this "child" the way he acted, that was just him. The memory of the horse was like placebo for him. You even hear the voice over say "dying for a cause is the most human thing a person can do" which is exactly what he did. But this not only alludes to him, but to Joi too. She risked her life to help him, and died because of it. In this scene, he realizes that she was real. Him realizing she is real, is his "miracle" (like sapper said) that gives him a reason to believe he too is real. He then uses this freedom to go against what he is told, freeing deckard, reuniting him with his daughter, and then dying peacefully just like Roy. As he has now proven to himself. That he was always real. As he lets the snow land on him, just like the rain did on Joi when she discovered she was real. He is real. He is free.
I have read this comment on another youtube page by you. I agree. I sent this to my friend who also loved the film. Blade Runner is hard to explain to the laymen - I believe it's about humanity and finding your humanity.
This is like..... the best explanation of the film I've seen! I think u r 100% right
This take was better than anything in the video. Thanks you!
Or he doesn't feel anything.
Great summary!
I think it's great that there are people in the comments saying "It's so obvious he's a replicant!" and others saying "It's so obvious he's human!"
Yet they don't even know if they themselves are replicants or not.
experiment54 True.
Joe run through walls and makes increadable jumps. He is a replicant
Babylonthegreat - Fantastically stated. There is no question Deckard is human. The entire film is structured on that premise. Being a replicant is a cheap gimmick.
The first movie he's definitely a replicant, in the second movie no one seems sure
Im sad that movie is not doing well in box office.Would love to see next movie and not waiting another 30 years for that.
They probably shoulda thought about NOT making a movie that was 40 minutes longer than the original.
BLADERUNNER: 117 minutes
BLADERUNNER 2043: 163 minutes.
I'm gonna see it again it was quite an experience seeing it on the big screen
who cares how long it was, i wish it was longer
Right, because it's just crazy to make movies that long (excluding Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, The Godfather 2, There Will Be Blood, Apocalypse Now, Once Upon a Time in America, 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Dark Knight, The Good the Bad & the Ugly, Schindler's List, Harry Potter, Bridge on the River Kwai, Lord of the Rings, Gahndi, Amadeus, The Deer Hunter, Short Cuts, AI: Artificial Intelligence, Scarface, Ran, Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, La Dolce Vita, Stalker, Solaris, and hundreds more)
you googled that, didn't ya?
Great interview Frosty! This movie is so good, I really tried to find something I didn't liked and after a second watch I just couldn't find anything wrong with it.
+Marizane Bogdan
My opinion of 2049 is quite the opposite of yours ... I have a long list of problems with the movie ...
88feji and you are wrong
First movie to move me to tears since Interstellar...like finding water in the desert! Especially moving was the moment K killed Luv,,,I wondered if he wondered why she would serve a man like Wallace....she was tragic especially as she refers to K as "dog"....yet she was even more trapped than him! Or did she free herself of Wallace's programming but kept killing because she liked it....truly a film for the ages.....
He also realised it was like killing a person I think for the first time.
Next to Philip K Dick, Hampton Fancher is the true visionary of the Blade Runner mythology. Ridley was adapting what Fancher envisioned.
Sorry but you are quite wrong about that ... Hampton Fancher failed to impress both Ridley Scott and Philip K Dick with his first god knows how many drafts of the movie, its was David Peoples who gave the script a major overhaul and Peoples' re-written script immediately won high praise from PKD ... and more importantly, Ridley Scott was the one who came up with many novel ideas that shifted the movie from the usual sci fi fare, such as the unicorn symbolisms, the eye glares, Deckard's real identity reveal at the end of the movie etc etc ... All these things are detailed in the various interviews and documentaries of the movie ...
@@88feji Wrong. Peoples came in when Ridley demanded so many changes to teh script that Hampton stressed out, could't handle anymore and quit. The movie was in pre-production already and PKD had given his OK to the work.
Immaculate movie
I loved this movie. I thought it was terrific, much better than many other films this year. So sorry (& surprised) it didn't make more money. People should go see it at the theater!
Blade Runner 2049 was the most viewed movie this Monday and Tuesday. Seriously, check it out at Box Office Mojo. After the great debut of Happy Death Day this weekend, Blade Runner 2049 was number one these last two days. It is still holding up and it still has to open in China. It is not going to make "It" money, but it will make some. It is not like it is out of the theatres already.
I know. Actually the budget on wikipedia is: $150-185 million. People speculate that is actually 200M. However, unlike its predecessor, this one will make at least its budget back and will cross 200M. The first one didn't even made half of the budget back. The fact that it bounced back to the top after 2 weekends in theatres gives me some hope. I remember that Arrival remained in theatres for a long time and slowly reached the point where it started to make some profit. I don't think that this is a reason to celebrate nor that with this results they will make another one, but won't be the bomb some want it to be.
doomer23488 fuck Happy Death Day, fuck Blumhouse productions and fuck american audiences.
Fuck
doomer23488 it could easily be 200 to even 300 million, considering all the marketing they did.
(China Japan and India)
but,don't worry Half the Money given by sponsors for the movie
+ColliderVideos This was one of the most introspective experiences I ever had in a movie session. In the end, all the people in the theater, in absolute silence, digesting the emotional load of what they just watched and experienced. They stood in their seats for a few minutes, quiet, and left in complete silence. Very impressive, and unique.
It’s great to see and hear the writers. Thanks. I love Bladerunner, my favourite film. I liked the new one too. But I look back with nostalgia on the first film 🙂
One of the better videos I've seen from around the time of release. A lot of the interviews are really cagey because the people involved were trying not to spoil the movie. Hopefully an anniversary can be chosen (this year? 10 year?) for a reunion where the actors and other creatives can talk more about the characters, themes, etc.
2:03 Oh man i adore Hampton Fancher so much.
My favorite scene that’s a lot of critics aren’t talking about is when the love character tells Ryan gosling she’s the best one and than he comes from under the water like a fucking shark and starts choking her
Haha, "like a fucking shark." That bit kicked ass, no punching or moving, just chokes her to fucking death like a Terminator, no fancy stuff.
Lmao yeah Ryan gosling isn’t getting enough credit for his performance, in the beginning when he’s just chillin on the couch when Batista walks in, and when he’s doing that baseline test for the 2nd time and his neck is just throbbing, it’s amazing
Yes - loved that too
I wonder what ending Hampton Fancher wanted since it seemed he was quick to point out he had nothing to do with the ending we got in 2049.
Just ask him already
He actually wanted K to be the child. Michael Greene suggested a change.
Where did you get that info? Seen several opinions on that already.
Alexander V r/bladerunner forgot the source
I really thought he was the child. One of the things I didn't understand though, is that Deckards real child, the girl who was making memories, said it was illegal to use a real persons memories, no? I haven't seen the movie in a while but saw it twice and I think she said that. If that is the case, why did she implant the memory in so many replicants, when K finds out he's not the child because the rest of the group says a couple of them also had similar memories and thought they were the child initially. I still think the movie is freaking amazing and I was totally fine with the switch.
It was the best movie I saw in 2017. Saw it twice in the theater, and pre-ordered the Blu-ray.
“Is Deckard a replicant?” It doesn’t matter, and that’s the point.
Michael Hobbs He is
Antony Díaz Ibargüengoitia Way to miss the point.
If Deckard is a replicant then it breaks the rules set by the Blade Runner universe. Replicants don't live 30 years.
Do I care that Blade Runner 2049 is not doing well at the box-office?
NO!
It was only made for ME anyway.
if that's true, that it was only made for a select few, that is why there probably wont be a sequel.
@@merlin9943 that's what they said about Star Trek.
@@merlin9943 I love both films but I think a third film would be over kill even if it did well in the box-office. A third film has a high chance of ruining all sense of mystery if it isn't made by the same team of 2049 I feel.
Just found this... a REALLY great interview. Thanks so much!
I really appreciate this having seen and loved the movie.
Yep, Hampton's version ended on Gosling in the snow, with the "tears in rain" music.
Would have been perfect honestly.
Maybe life's moments can live on like snowflakes, as opposed to quickly washed away like 'tears in the rain'
Tim Larsen damn son, why do u gotta make me cry like that
Just came back from my 2nd viewing. Great film!
The question about Deckard is the point of the movies, in that the moral issue is that there is no distinction between replicants and humans any more - Tyrell Corporation and its successor are, for all intents and purposes, making people who shouldn't be slaves based on their origin any more than anyone else should be. That said, the subissue - did the authorities use replicants to hunt other replicants, in possible contravention of the laws of the time, because of similar thought patterns - is interesting in that it reflects upon the corrupted nature of the society itself, unable even to live even by its own rules. The answer to the second issue, to the degree it can be answered, is decided depending upon which cut of the movie you're talking about; in those with the unicorn vision, there's almost no question Deckard is a replicant, lacking the superpowers of the others he's chasing so that he can believe himself to be human until his thoughts/memories are proven to have been seen by Gaff.
Hampton is an interesting character. I am glad to see he is still at it. He was a great part of Blade Runner like Dan O'Bannon (RIP) was in Alien. One of the documentaries on Blade Runner talked about how Phillip Dick was not happy before the film came out. The special effects people put together 10 mins of the film, I think Ridley told them to do it. Phillip saw it and was astonished and dumbfounded. He said something like "how did you know what I envishoned or in my mind" or something. He was amazed. The special effects people were very pleased.
My feeling is that Rutger Hauer stole the show in Blade Runner as Roy Batty. The first movie I would have liked to see is the replicants birth, their lives in space and their battle to get back to earth. This was the most interesting part of the plot for me. The replicants lives offworld, their toil in space doing all the crap jobs, getting back to earth and their desire for more time to live from Tyrrell. Sadly, the technology for that type of offworld special effects would have been expensive and there was very little CGi back then. Today, CGI is so overused.
I like, that he just sticks to facts within the film and no speculation on other Ks and all that.
The movie ended up tripling its budget, so I want to know if they will be making a sequel, I don't think K is dead. Deckard could easily come out and take him into the upgrade center to save him. And we could see K go up against the replicant army and Wallace for part 3. I don't think it was a good idea to kill K considering hes so iconic and such an amazing character.
Please cyber punk gods, give us more BR with ryan gosling, at least one more for our lifetime.
I love the sequel. It is sad to learn Rachel died, she was first of her kind, a replicant to give birth to a human child. Decker rejected the clone because he knows is not his "Rachel," because she had green eyes when she took the Voight-Kampff machine test from the original film.
Great interview. I hope that the blu ray has a huge making of and that cool anime 2022
I like Ridleys Scotts take on the films Deckard as a replicant. I think it brings up deeper thoughts on what is alive and what is a thing and it echos the Tyrells line "more human than human". It also plays well with the sequel where in BR 2019 you have replicant that thinks its human hunting replicants , his own kind, he just doesnt know it , and then beside this in BR 2049 you have replicant whos job is to hunt his kind out of obediance to his masters. Theres so much more going on in the story with Deckard as a replicant it makes for a lot broader and deeper story.
AMEN! DECKARD AS HUMAN is silly at this point.
But Deckard doesn’t have that crazy strength they have .
Mike Adams One of Tyrells goals was to create replicants that could pass as human so much so that even the replicant would think it was human , like Rachael and Deckard. If Rachael and Deckard were strong enough to be tossing things around like Leon and Roy did then no one would ever think that they were human including Rachael and Deckard.
Well, the only way to find out for sure is to wait for Deckard to die, and then analyze his remains/ look for a serial number LOL! Otherwise.. what difference does it make? I don't care if Ridley Scott says Deckard's a replicant; Hampton Fancher, Harrison Ford and Philip K. Dick himself said Deckard is human. Movies don't have one sole god creator. A lot about life cannot be defined or explained 100% - so we can only trust our own perceptions. That's one of the themes of the film, itself.
I disagree that it's deeper to have Deckard as a replicant. We already have clear cut replicants struggling with similar questions so Deckard's contributions to the themes comes from the his unclear nature. If you answer that question definitively you make the films more shallow.
*SPOILERS* This movie made it obvious Deckard is not a replicant. But they did it the blade runner style. They showed you, instead of giving you a blatant answer and idk why so many people don’t get that. He’s well behind 4 years of life, in the original blade runner he was never called any slur that replicants are called. In 2049 they say that the child is half human, which would make Deckard the obvious human element since Rachel was a replicant. Rachel’s purpose was to give birth which is why she expired at childbirth cause she was designed to give a child and die right after. The fact he can’t ever hold up a fight against a replicant or equal their strength, etc. Both movies are about reading between the lines but everyone wants to be spoon fed this answer when the answer is so obvious.
Brenden Johnson ... not only that! Tyrell in the original Blade Runner movie was not doing things "double checking Decker" if he was the first model "open life span Replicant!" Instead, the LA police allow his escape with Rachel in that movie's ending!? Rachel dies in 2021 (4 years from character 2017 movie time period); and, having Decker's DNA to mix with "less perfect DNA of a Nexus 6 or 7" makes no movie sense between both movies!
Yeah you say that but then there's the dialogue of Wallace saying he was 'programmed' to meet Rachel. You also don't account for how he managed to survive in a nuclear wasteland like Las Vegas had become for 30 years. In the first film there's the dreaming of the unicorn. There's also always one line, a small almost throw away one, when he's talking to Bryant and it goes:
Bryant: Stop right where you are. You know the score pal. If you're
not cop, you're little people.
Deckard: No choice, huh?
Bryant: No choice pal.
You're little people? No choice? No choice suggests that if he doesn't do the job he gets retired.
There's lots more. There's lots of instances that point to him being and not being a replicant, that's the fun of it. I like the idea of him not knowing for sure if he is or not.
TheColossalBlanket yeah but none of those have to do with him if he was a replicant. Only the idea of him being a replicant makes you think if there was a correlation. If you knew he was for sure human, you would just take it as normal dialogue. That’s how the writers play with you.
I don't recall them ever saying that the child was half-human (though I've only seen the movie once so they absolutely could have and I just missed it or don't remember, and even if they did I don't know the context). He wouldn't be called a skinjob if it wasn't common knowledge that he was a replicant. He obviously isn't as strong as the replicants he fights in the original, but that could either be explained as him (like Rachel) being programmed to believe he is human and so fights with that strength because that's what he believes he is capable of, or simply that he is not a Nexus 6, and so has different abilities (if he is a replicant, he obviously couldn't be a Nexus 6, probably not a Nexus model at all). His long life would also be explained by him not being a Nexus 6. Sapper Morton is still a Nexus (though not a 6) yet he has been alive for at least 28 years. In fact I don't think 2049 mentions the replicant expiry at any point in the whole movie.
There are many indications in the first film that he is a replicant (not to mention the fact that Ridley Scott outright stated it, and the director kind of has the final say on that sort of thing, whether it makes much sense or not). But the real "obvious" answer is that, it's not real, it's a movie, and these things are chosen to be presented by storytellers. Both movies portray him as human and imply that he is not, specifically so that it's deliberately vague, and people will have these sorts of conversations.
Brenden Johnson I got the exact opposite, the second time I watched it I picked up hints that Deckard was a replicant. For instance when K is having his meltdown when Dr. Ana Stelline tells him his child memory is real he's says "I know what's real", Deckard says the exact same during his conversation with Wallace in similar circumstances.
Watching 2049 I thought it was clear Deckard was a replicant. I didn't realize this wasn't clear to everyone else until I went home and watched vids on the movie.
Deckard always gets fucked up by replicants he doesn't stand a chance strength wise, I get the origami reference in the first one but I don't think he is a replicant
It's not clear to everyone because the best case scenario for you is that it is deliberately unclear and worst case you are simply wrong.
It is very clear he is a replicant.... Ridley Scott has said it. and its his film. the confusion comes from the investors who kicked ridley off the movie and didnt think the public would understand he was a replicant. so in the original cut, which isnt Ridleys cut it is the investors edit... he is a human. in the directors cut he is a replicant. and that is the edit that Ridley wanted from the start. they even say in the new film 'im not here to take you in, im here to ask questions'. So anyone that thinks he is a human is wrong. and yes it does matter lol. the whole meaning of the film changes if you think one way or the other.
@@ryanflood635 Yeah i think it also makes a lot of sense for him to fall in love with a replicant because he was programmed to do so. And it makes the procreating of the replicants even more special. That they don't need humans anymore to make replicant babies. Would be weird if he fell in love with a replicant while he was human. And it also explains his very dull performance in the first movie of being more robotic.
@@ryanflood635 It is not very clear because it does not matter what he said. It always matters what the guy who actually writes it says. Hsmpton Fancher wrote the movie. He made the soul of the movie. And that's it.
I love Bladerunner 2049. Somehow I missed the other 2048 sequels though. :(
BladeRunner it would be 2047 additional sequels.
Harrison Ford is definitely a replicant. As for Deckard? Not so sure.
Wow, I'm trying to imagine Robert Mitcham as Rick Deckard, some serious old school noir private eye stuff.
Ridley obviously wants Deckard to be a replicant -- with the red eye shine he added in the director and final cuts. I think both movies work better if he isn't. One of the points Dick was trying to make in the book was that as machines were getting more human, humans were becoming colder/emotionless and more machine-like with the mood organs and artificiality of their daily lives. Ridley went for the more straightforward irony of a replicant hunting other replicants.
When I first heard of them making it with Ryan I thought 'No fucking way are they doing a Ridley Hampton' film based on their stuff right. But the movie is fucking fantastic. I'm even a Ryan fan now. Like I thought I would ever have anything to say to this guy a friend of mine discovered. By the way this guy is a fantastic interviewer.
My biggest question is this: if Deckard is a replicant, why is Wallace not interested in him? It would take two specially designed and engineered replicants to create a baby. Deckard would have to be one of them, and if he was, Wallace would have been equally interested in him for that sake. It's apparent in the movie that Wallace isn't interested in Deckard other than for the information. I guess my point is this: at the least Wallace doesn't believe Deckard to be a replicant, despite his monologue.
Logical.
its such a shame that people have become so used to the wham bang thankyou mam aprouch to movie making that for a lot of people they just couldent relate to it.
it would be like getting someone that only eats junk food to sit down to a home cooked meal with real vegatables and depth of flavour.
i would recomend it above every movie last year and it will probabaly still be the best movie next year, just dont expect the marvel in your face quick cut all action stuff, all that stuff is fine for a bit of frivoulus fun but this film is hardcore in everyway and its better for it.
i hope that i get to see more films like this even though it did not do so well considering the high budget of the film it is what films used to be about a reverance to the charicters and the world they are creating.
Deckard is human! End of story! I want more stories! :D
The weakest spot was edward james olmos using his cptn adama voice. Took me right out of the movie flow.
In one of the earlier scripts Hampton was the first one to suggest Deckard might be a replicant. The movie would end with Deckard at the piano when suddenly his hand cramped, just like Roy Batty's hand cramped in the first BR movie. He even admitted that he preferred Ridley's red eyes
there’s no way that a human could escape from a perfect and extremely strong, and 100% perfect Replicant in that matter, and get away with it.. Deckard was a replicant.
Yes he is, Walace hinted that, he was a prototype replicant along with Rachel, thats how they managed to make a baby.
I felt that scene could have gone either way. Rachael was used to pinpoint exactly Deckard's brain algorithms so he could fall in love with her and have the baby. It works if he's human or replicant. That's the beauty of Blade Runner, never any concrete ideas, only ever ideas and debates.
''Are humans real or not?'' The same old question we ask for centuries and still don't know the answer, because there is no definite answer. The answer depends on how we define what is human or real and that answer is constantly changing because mankind is still evolving and constantly shifting its societal paradigms.
Now I need to know what was Hampton's ending version !!!
to hampton: cheer up grumpy
I'm going to go watch it for a 3rd time now
PKD said he is not replicant, Hampton said he is not a replicant, but the rest of the world said he is, Whom should I believe?
long film too but I loved it
Nice. 👍
It was nice of Hampton to put some clothes on. Almost.
Ive a major question about writing a screenplay. Do you need to write it like the reader is watching the movie or reading a book? I mean with no spoilers. For example, a character that is called Ricky talks. But the reader doesnt know hes called Ricky. Do you need to call him Ricky or unknown person for example. Would be nice if somebody could help me out.
boris felix - Yes. Why don’t you read some screenplays before asking a stupid question?
*boris felix A screenplay is a combination of scene description and (named) character dialogue. The screenplay should contain all the necessary information to convey a clear image and understanding of the film as a whole. It would make no sense to conceal that information from those involved in creating the piece! It would be like asking someone to bake you a particular type of cake, but handing them a recipe with the ingredients listed as, 'ingredient 1' and 'ingredient 2'; and so on, just so you don't give away the overall result! It's self defeating. (Anyway, just look up the screenplay to films you like and you'll get the idea).
deadlyvoid111 thanx.
How can they say he's not a replicant? In both DC and 2049 it is heavily implied he is.
Nautilus1972 ah but it is still left ambiguous because Denis Villenueve didn’t want to flat out answer the question
What a reflective room....why interview in this space
He's a replicant, how else do you spend 30 years in the nuke zone of Vegas?
Tyrell created a special series, - I believe - and chose to introduce them to each other.
Addition = 30 years in a Nuke zone with nothing but whiskey and Elvis.
Seems kind of silly to be that the guy who writes the story (and has the most story input in both installments together) and therefore has the power to decide has to switch from "he's no replicant" to "I don't know" and back and forth as well as this seemingly for fanservice placed movie line "if you were created" instead of flat-out answering. Like no fans should be offended that way. I never think of that as a good thing. It is similiar to Zelda Breath of the Wild where Nintendo weeks ago said they will not reveal the timeline placement of the game because so many fans have their own theories. Well, then they should not have made a timeline in the first place. They are the creators, not the fans. If I want to have my own story then I start it from zero where I can actually and totally write what I want. If creators do ot give a clear answer or cannot actually agree on something like Mr. Scott and Mr. Fancher then I don't see any reason to debate because then the answer is that there is no answer as this universe only exists as an idea and its legal and intellectual owners say "it consists of this element and of that element".
Writers create a story from nothing and we already accept that world. We should not stop at the part that we dislike and say "well okay, here I don't believe the writer even though the world only exists because of them" and should not go too far with that constant misuse of the nowadays way too popular "Death of the Author" that is used as an excuse for people to not accept something. If he himself says "I always thought he was no replicant" that is enough I would say. I just don't see the point in watching a movie, reading a book or playing a game and then saying "uh, I don't like that part of lore the author created; I am gonna make up my own crap"; why even bother spending time with his/her creation in the first place then. You can like/dislike stuff but it will not change things anyways as long as you have no creative control over it. And in the end, it really does not matter because those androids, or replicants as they are called in this universe seem like the super typical sci-fi AI's: Alive on a psychological level and that is what counts for a person.
first he says he's not a replicant, then he says it's unknowm..which is it?
he is or is not it's up to the viewers its just movie people
Possibly he is look how they treat him
why the fuck didn't ask them if there s a script for a 3rd film?
There isn't. They specifically write things one story at a time and there was no consideration for making Blade Runner a new franchise that spits out movies. Given how it has underperformed, there probably won't be another for some time anyways.
He’s Human, not a replicant.
Deckard has to be human or the story doesn’t actually have meaning.
Blade Runner is about a man who’s become machine like who regains his humanity after dealing with these machines.
If he’s a robot it doesn’t mean anything.
He is not a replicant... period
@@rusted8157 No the whore story becomes meaningless if he is a replicant and I believe he has some feelings he might be but that is the point of the movie.... what is it to be human?
If Deckard is a replicant then why is he so weak? He got his ass kicked by a pleasure model.
Waited 35 years for it. Not impressed. Ridley Scott had to fiddle with the whole Deckard being a replicant thing, so he pulls a marketing scam and cuts out some audio, ending scene, throws in a unicorn scene, holds some interviews planting this "Deckard is a replicant" idea, slaps on a new wrapper, and markets it as the "Directors Cut" then does the same damn thing with the "Final Cut." Sloppy work to make more money. Pitiful. If you wanted to make Deckard a replicant, then you could have taken the time to incorporate that idea into a well crafted sequel, 5 or 10 years later, not 35 damn years later with this BS. Also, Ridley, did you ever stop to think that if you wanted Deckard to be a replicant, that hunts replicants, that it would make sense that he had the abilities, at least, of the Nexus 6 models? Deckard wasn't meant to be a replicant, because it takes away the moral dilemma of a human killing replicants, but you had to have your way and go back and fuck it up. As far as I'm concerned, every thing that came out after the original theatrical release is irrelevant. I understand why they waited 35 years to release this "sequel."
MeesterVegas it takes away the moral dilemma of killing replicants? How about the dilemma it would create in him killing his own kind? And that sequel was one of the best sequels to any movie ever made
Look at Sixth Sense. At the end it revealed that Bruce Willis was dead, while all along you thought he was alive. That revelation blew people away and thats the holy grail for movie makers. To make Deckards status ambivalent only works for the writers who want to look clever, to impress other writers, but it wasnt the best choice for the audience. It robbed the movie of a much more powerful climax, so it was a mistake to make it that way.
Making Deckard's status ambivalent makes it possible for the audience to believe as they wish.
Not a bad choice in my opinion.
If Deckard was a replicant would have been one created when replicants had a short life ( think would have been 4 years ) and where hunted down by Blade Runners so ............
This guy looked just like Ford until he opened his mouth!🤣
You need your eye sight checked if you thought HE was Ford. No homo, but Ford is way more handsome than Hampton
Great fucking movie thank u
Whenever I read about BR2049 I hear about souls and sacrifice so I guess its a religious movie. Dick must be spinning in his grave. I've only ever seen the original (many times over) and dearly love it despite its many flaws. It is a complete movie with a simple message...no sequel is needed or called for...especially one that negates and attempts to refute the original.
You seem unaware of that the original film differs on some key points to the novel. Not surprisingly your guess is poor.
Making Deckard a replicant is gratuitous. It's cool for a moment, but it adds nothing of substance to the story. We already know that there are replicants who don't know what they are so he's not unique and it's not particularly shocking. It makes the misguided revulsion of replicants which Deckard embodies less powerful. It makes Roy's ultimate act of grace less meaningful.
Dodgy acoustics, struggling to hear some parts of this video.
As far as I can tell from the story in both movies, Deckard is almost certainly a replicant.
Putting aside the unicorn dream and the other easter eggs, we now know that Tyrell was trying make replicants who could reproduce. So the question becomes does Tyrell create female replicants that can reproduce with human males, or does he make male and female replicants who can reproduce with each other?
If he's only creating fertile female replicants, does he own the patent to the human/replicant hybrid offspring? What's the ethical precedent here? And what about the children of those hybrids? And how does he control the outcome if he can't determine half of the genetic contribution to the child? How does he make sure there are no genetic defects carried by the father that find their way into the child's genome? What is the purpose of a half-human/half-replicant hybrid from the perspective of a company that manufactures replicants?
In the second scenario, Tyrell creates male and female replicants who can reproduce with each other and create predictable offspring with no random elements introduced by ordinary human DNA. The children of these replicants would be products that are wholly owned by Tyrell. If both parents are replicants, the child will be a replicant as well, and will not be subject to the vagaries of natural selection. The line would 'breed true', as it were. Tyrell would also avoid the messy ethical question of hybrids, assuming we are setting aside the idea that replicants deserve the same rights as humans regardless, which it seems no one but replicants cares about in this universe.
So, given what we know of Tyrell, what makes the most sense?
Siansonea Orande ... I don't think so!? Rachel dies in 2021 written on wooden horse and tree stump (4 years after 2017, the premise of the original Blade Runner character date)! Remember Tyrell told Decker in Blade Runner (1982 movie), "Prove to me testing on a positive before I give you a negative!" Decker tells Tyrell that Rachel is a Replicant and if she knows she has his daughter's memories! Maybe Tyrell, making Decker after Rachel as an "open ended Replicant life span" he was not, himself under tests and similar scrutiny ... thus NON-REPLICANT!
I disagree, Deckard is not a replicant. He couldn't match strength with any of the replicants. Hand to hand he got his ass kicked by every replicant that he battled. You never see deckard running through walls.
Lawrence Jelsma, Rachel died in child birth not of replicant old age. Also her incept date is May 23rd, 2018. Besides that 4 year life span was something coded into replicants as a fail safe. If Tyrell is going through all the trouble to create replicants that can replicate, why would he put that measure into them? He wouldn't. I'm not saying whether Deckard is a replicant or not i'm just saying your reasoning is faulty.
Justin Ballew ... that's highly speculative in understanding historical mothers who die in labor (most because of illness or malnutrition reasons)! Blade Runner does delve into Wallace's mid-movie belief system action's (and the alarming rock full sound movie theater music score within the movie paints that picture) paint a more healthier interpretation of child bearing consequences!! I believe Tyrell had Rachel as a Nexus 7 not a Nexus 6 in the original movie; but, his talk around his death scene suggested "DNA problems" in trying to compensate initial creation genes!
Whether or not Deckard is subjected to a Voight-Kampff test is immaterial and tangential to the question of Tyrell's motives in the scene, and unrelated to the question of whether Deckard is a replicant. And we don't know what scrutiny Deckard is subjected to outside the scope of what is shown in the original film. We do know that Gaff is wary of Deckard, and seems to know about Deckard's movements even when he seems to be taking pains to avoid detection. Everything Gaff says and does in both movies points to the idea that at the very least, Gaff believes that Deckard is a replicant. And there is the unicorn dream/origami connection from the Director's Cut, which pretty much explicitly states that Deckard is a replicant, because otherwise Gaff leaving the unicorn origami is just a coincidence. We can argue which version of the original movie is 'canon' at this point, but that would be unproductive, and would not take away from any of the observations based on interpreting both movies as a single narrative.
Also, are you familiar with the concept of the "unreliable narrator'? We can frame everything said by Tyrell within two separate frameworks. One is that Tyrell is being completely truthful with Deckard, and we can accept everything he says at face value. The other is that Tyrell is telling Deckard things in order to achieve a specific result, and that the things he says may or may not be completely true in an intrinsic sense.
So whenever we are saying "Character X says ABC to Character Y" as proof of an intrinsic fact in this or any narrative, we have to factor in the idea of the unreliable narrator. We don't know if everything Tyrell says to Deckard is true, or is true from a certain point of view, or is a half-truth, or is an outright lie. One could interpret the entire meeting of Deckard and Rachael as completely orchestrated and engineered by Tyrell. In the first movie, Tyrell's creation of Rachael is stated to be an attempt to create a replicant that is easier to control, and can pass for human by passing the VK test that Deckard administers. Well, she doesn't pass that test. Deckard spots her as a replicant after a protracted VK test, and it is his duty at that point to retire her, but he does not. Is it because Rachael is so desirable that she makes him violate his own duty, or is it because they are BOTH replicants that were literally made for each other?
And we learn in the second movie that Rachael was created to be able to reproduce, in addition to having an unlimited life span and false memories. It is in fact the main purpose of her existence, a fact omitted by Tyrell in the first movie. So we know at least that he wasn't telling Deckard everything he knew.
And then there is the question of the idea of blade runners as a concept. Does it make sense for the control of a company's product to be relegated to the local law enforcement agencies? Or does it make more sense for a company to create a fail-safe product that will seek out and retire replicants that become uncontrollable. We see in 2049 that the best blade runner is a replicant, Ryan Gosling's "K". And Deckard withstands a great deal of physical punishment in the first movie at the hands of Zhora, Leon, Pris and Roy Batty. The first blade runner that Bryant sent after them ended up in the hospital on life support, yet somehow Deckard gained the upper hand in spite of the fact that all four replicants are enhanced beyond the abilities of an ordinary human. Deckard doesn't seem to be especially skilled at hand-to-hand fighting, but he can take a beating. I think it's another thing that points to Deckard being a replicant.
And really, it's when you place all these indicators together that you realize that there aren't any indictors on the other side that explicitly make Deckard seem like an ordinary human. When you factor in all of these variables, the conclusion weighs in favor of Deckard being a replicant, in my view.
"I've seen things YOU PEOPLE wouldn't believe...."
Read: People
Notice how in 2049, all the Replicants know who the other Replicants are... and who is not....
Is Deckard a replicant, seriously???? This unending question milks the drama and preys on the slow!
Final Cut is the definitive cut! Ridley Scott had full artistic control - no studio interference to pander to sales.
hump frog except there is Canon Source material that he can't change.
Which is canon for Fans of the epic 'The Shining' movie:
1.) Stephen King's novel (source material)
2.) Stanley Kubrick's movie
Hint: If you haven't seen the movie or read the book, they are two totally different universes!
Source material stops being canon for the adaptation, when the adaptation and source material are undeniably different.
In other words, 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' is canon only for the written source and not for Blade Runner, the movie.
K is not a replicant but he's been mind controlled to think he is. He is constantly being told he is a replicant. Like how normal people accept they will work all their lives and then 'retire'. Mass mind control. If K was a replicant he wouldn't be developing morality preference and awakening. Its a real person under mind control. They know this. Very scary that you can con a real person to be like K and put up with all the abuse and crap. Then he wakes up kind of. Trauma based mind control and dissociation to create a military assassin.
James Grey it clearly stated in the film he is a replicant
When K dies at the end in the snow. Ana the memory maker is in the process of creating a memory about snow. Hes been mind controlled.
James Grey dude he’s a replicant no question about it
No grandpa?
This man gets such little credit compared.
If Decard was human, he would not survived the awful deadly beating Roy gave him.
If Deckard is a replicant he is of a model that doesn't have superior physical capabilities to humans, so that argument wouldn't work.
@@rusted8157 What facts do you base that interpretation on? I don't see anything suggesting that and the sequel is specifically made to not make any statements whether Deckard is a replicant.
@@rusted8157 I've never seen anything like that said by someone with deciding power. Feel free to point me in the direction of some such case.
In any case, people involved with the films don't say the same things. Ridley Scott said that Deckard is a replicant outside the film but many that worked with him think he was wrong to say that. And as said, Denis Villeneuve absolutely don't want the question of Deckard's nature to be answered so he made a film where there isn't one.
@@rusted8157 Ah, there we see the common Internet rhetoric of someone that's so afraid to actually support his claims.
@@rusted8157 Your evasive and non-constructive comment is exactly what people tend to do when they don't want to have a proper discussion, as that always includes supporting your statements.
I already did a quick google but I mainly saw more that spoke against it. Not least an interview with the writer that worked on both films that said that they always considered Deckard to not be a replicant. Hence why I leave it to you to back up your statement rather than speak for you.
All of the so called evidence that Deckard is a replicant from the first film is a unicorn dream and an origami. If there was another scene where Deckard and Gaff joke about "My Little Pony" whenever they are forced to be in the same room all of that evidence becomes nothing. The lines by Wallace are just a bone to keep Ripley happy and a percentage of the fanbase - but considering the character is always talking likes he's the old testament god there isn't anything decisive there either when he talks about creation and destiny. The Deckard argument might be a very Phillip K. Dick style "what is real" issue - but it exists more in the audience than in the actual movie.
It always bugged me that they never explained why they're hunting replicants if they're just going to die in a few years, anyway. 'Replicant' is also a pretty lame word also, since it implies that they're clones instead of androids ( I was confused about this on the first watching ).
If Deckard is a replicant, why are replicants hunting replicants? Why do some replicants have a four year lifespan and others don't? At a certain point a line is crossed between this being a structurally contiguous, thought-provoking story and poor writing disguised by impressive visual effects as something deep.
Is Deckard a replicant? The answer is: Who f*cking cares? The point is that you can't tell the difference, therefore it doesn't matter. They are alive. How do people miss that so thoroughly through decades. It's a movie about what it means to be alive, to be real, not some bullsh*t about where the guy takes his mask off at the end and it's like oh this character was this all along. Yawn. Blade Runner is bigger than that. It's better.
The question matters a lot, regardless of what's the true answer, so I couldn't disagree with you more on that. That question is at the core of the existential questions of the film.
The whole story makes no sense if he is a replicant.
Blade Runner 2049 is boring. Couldn't wait for it to end.
Ridley should sue the sh$% off these two...they WRECKED what coulda been a beautiful franchise.
The marketing really hurt the movie. The main story was about a baby. Women love babies right? Yet not one word about a baby in the trailers, so women, who are not big sci fi fans usually, didnt go. Not smart.
Michael P. Shipley but that does in turn ruin the surprise of the film
Michael P. Shipley I think it hurt the film by not giving away anything about the movie, the marketing gave nothing up and interviews with the actors were silent, they literally didn’t say anything about it and weren’t allowed to
So, why is the movie then so sterile and plainly boring?
Cant afford a shirt that fits. They dont pay this guy enough.
Michael P. Shipley it's Hampton fancher! He can wear a dressing gown if he wants!
INTERESTING... a sequel to a 30 year old movie nobody saw or remembered doesn't do well.
so much for my "Adventures in Babysitting" sequel.... "Adventures in Retirement"....... :-(
A SH$# MOVIE...A Blade Runner flick is supposed to be a Sci-Fi Noir. PERIOD. Not Spartacus meets the Matrix. How many Replicants did Deckard blow away in BR 1? FOUR! Every kill was an awesome action scene and allowed for great character development. I payed to see a fu%$in Blade Runner hunting down Relicants, but I got some fu%$in half-baked Matrix-meets Spartacus slave rebellion bullsh$#.
The story for this one was too convoluted. It was a mystery story. The first movie was simpler and that made it better.
they coulda just done a REBOOT. or a movie under 160 minutes long. :-(
Deuce Horn
No wonder it's a 'CULT CLASSIC.' No one went to see it in the 80s, and Noone's grandchildren went to see it in 2017.
Warner Bros... LITERALLY throwing money away for art. Their shareholders must be THRILLED at their dedication to art over profit.....
Deuce Horn
Did you even read what I wrote.
A sequel to a movie nobody cared about in the 80s and even less today is a FAILURE GRAB, to borrow one of your chiched phrases.....
I'm a GOOD movie fan. And expecting audiences to be invested in a story that nobody cared about the first time is just being a snob. And a prick.
Harrison Ford's farewell tour is of to a rocky start. First Han bites it, then BR flops.... what's next?
INDIANA JONES AND THE NURSING HOME OF MISSED GRANDCHILDREN VISITS!!!! :-O
art house ticket taker, huh?
I see you wanting a young Ethan Hawke to play you in the movie about your life. Your dull, dull life as a barista for a coffee chain in a bookstore NOT named BARNES&NOBLE.
Because in the end, you just don't have what it takes to play in the big leagues.
Deuce Horn
it's "hit the NAIL on the HEAD!!!!"
You sound like more of a moron than usual when you say it wrong!!!!!
And that's sayin' something!
duh
ur movie was a flop a roonie sirs.
nice reverb chamber