So, was Decker (Harrison Ford) a replicant too?

(I thought so, but I'd like a consensus from this esteemed forum.)

(Sorry, got called away).

Violence.
In most SF movies violence runs from comic-book violence like Star Wars in which nobody REALLY gets killed, or even really hurt to super clean flashes of beams that make the victim simple disappear, to blood-spattered butchery like Alien.

In Bladerunner we have a tired, burned-out cop reduced to shooting an unarmed woman in the back on some grubby street.  He doesn't pass this off without a thought and get on with the movie, it has a discernible effect.

Guns in Bladerunner are also reasonable.
They aren't ridiculous Light Sabers, ray-guns that shoot hear-to-now undiscovered beams, or massive and unlikely barely man-portable guns.

Bladerunner's weapons are again, strangely familiar, reasonable weapons that we could pick up and instantly use.

In sum, Bladerunner's world is our world turned about 45 degrees.  It's recognizable, but oddly distorted.  Familiar, but strange.  

In all the other SF worlds you wouldn't be able to find a bathroom.
In Bladerunner you'd have no problem getting a beer, a hot dog, and a room for the night.

It's that gritty feel of something you know, but slightly off, like arriving in an unfamiliar city that makes it so real.

Am I the only one bothered by this article?  Have reporting standards really dropped so low that people can't even get such a simple article right?

LONDON (Reuters) - "Blade Runner", a bleak vision of the future set in Los Angeles, has been voted best sci-film of all time by a group of international scientists, according to a poll published by the Guardian newspaper on Thursday.

Hello!?  What, a story about another story - not so much even researching the name of the group in question?

Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001: A Space Odyssey" was voted second, while Luke Skywalker's moral journey through "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" -- the first films in the Star Wars trilogy -- helped secure third equal spot.

"third equal spot" - this IS english, right?

... "The Day the Earth Stood Still", the tale of an alien landing in Washington to tell earthlings to live peacefully, secured seventh position...

He didn't tell Earthlings to live peacefully - he warned them that if their weapons technology got to the point that it became a threat to other worlds that robots like Gort would destroy the Earth.

"The Matrix", starring Keanu Reeves as Neo, a computer hacker who discovers the world he lives in might be artificially constructed, was voted ninth best sci-fi film.

"Might be artificially constructed? I think the movie made it pretty clear it WAS.

In tenth position was Stephen Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", an ultimately positive reflection of what it will be like when aliens get here.

"When,"  not, "if?"  Is the author letting his own belief in aliens influence his word choice?

The poll also found that Isaac Asimov was the scientists' favourite author, followed by British writers John Wyndham and Fred Hoyle.

Hmmm - at least it wasn't an American journalist - that Commonwealth spelling of "favorite" gives it away.  It's good to see we don't have a monopoly on shoddy use of the English language among people who make their living using it!

Definitely my all-time favorite (the director's cut).  I do like the voiceover/cheery ending of the original hollywood release, for different reasons. Anybody actually seen the deleted scenes that didn't even make the director's cut? For some strange reason, I remember seeing them when I was in Jr. High or high school, but don't remember where or when.

Cool things about this movie:

- SFX still looks good, 20+ years later. There's enough "futuristic" stuff to be cool, but not so much that it looks like a swarm of moving lights (ala Matrix III or the new Star Wars movies).
- The entire movie has that dark, gritty, film noir feel. Even the sunrises and sunsets are seen through layers of smog and dirty windows.
- Replicants are genetically engineered humans. The eyeballs and the snakes/birds are lab products. 20 years ago, this stuff was sci-fi. Now, it's sci-fact.
- Deckard gets his ass kicked, and he's sore afterwards. I get tired of modern action heroes getting shot or beat to shit, and then jumping up the next minute and kicking ass.  Deckard would have died at the end, had Roy not let a bit of the "good" human nature inside him shine through.
- Vangelis. The soundtrack rocked. Vangelis produced some of the greatest scores of all time. He's up there on the first tier with John Williams. Not too many movies have great soundtracks anymore - what they offer is a mix of somebody else's music.  Tangerine Dream was way up there, too.
- No "straight white cop / funny black cop" routine.
- That question which shall forever be unanswered (no matter what Ridley Scott says):  Is Deckard a replicant?

According to Ridley Scott (Blade Runner director), Deckard is definitely supposed to be a replicant in his film version.  Hence the unicorn dream sequence, and Gaff's unicorn origami.


As far as deleted scenes, I have the more violent version on VHS, in which Roy Batty gives "putting a thumb in your eye" new meaning.  There's supposed to be a scene still out there with Deckard visiting  Holden in the hospital after Leon shoots Holden.

I believe the premise of the unicorn dream sequence is that gaff(replicant) and deckard have the same 'memories' meaing deckard is a replicant.

I'm gonna watch the directors cut right now, awesome movie.

Quoted: According to Ridley Scott (Blade Runner director), Deckard is definitely supposed to be a replicant in his film version.  Hence the unicorn dream sequence, and Gaff's unicorn origami.

There is also this dialog from the end of the movie:

Gaff: You've done a man's job, sir! I guess you are through?
Deckard: Finished.

and as I posted above:

Gaff: It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?

Use the Force Wedge!

PERSONALLY,

I can't stand the movie.  Harrison Ford's worst.  By far.

My favorite memory of Blade Runner was sitting in the theater as the movie started.  We see the mega-scraper buildings jutting up into the brown smog, the flying cars moving across the sky, and, in lettering across the bottom of the screen, "Los Angeles, 2019."

My brother says (loudly):

"HASN'T CHANGED MUCH"

The entire theater broke up laughing.

As far as deleted scenes, I have the more violent version on VHS, in which Roy Batty gives "putting a thumb in your eye" new meaning. There's supposed to be a scene still out there with Deckard visiting Holden in the hospital after Leon shoots Holden.

Supposedly the soundtrack for that clip was trashed/ lost. Think they still have the edit of the Hospital scene but the soundtrack for it is supposed to really suck. They trimmed it out supposedly because it added nothing to the story that wasn't related elsewhere by the characters in the storyline but I for one would like to see it. Still waiting for the Re-release done as Scott wanted it done but there are a lot of issues as far as property rights that seem to have an enduring ability to remain unresolved. My favorite all time movie even tho I hated it the first time I saw it.

Quoted: "Wake up.  It's time to die."

#@$!!!  Oh well:  +1

("If you could have seen what I have seen with your eyes.")
("Home again. Home again.  Jigidy Jig.")

just finished watching the directors cut again, incredible on 34"XBR widescreen. only hokey part was the "snake lady" as you could clearly see it was a stuntperson, but someone had to jump thru all that plate glass. lots of hints that deckard was a replicant. definitley one of the best movies ever.

Quoted: According to Ridley Scott (Blade Runner director), Deckard is definitely supposed to be a replicant in his film version.  Hence the unicorn dream sequence, and Gaff's unicorn origami.

How could that possibly be true when he had no where near the pain tolerance nor the strength of any of the other replicants?

One flaw I noticed in the movie is that Bryant (I think that's the guys name) has to educate Harrison Ford about the 4 year life span on replicants. Wouldn't he already know that, seeing as though he was one of the best Blade Runners?

I always like the original Blade Runner. The voice over works for me.

If Deckard is a replicant, wouldn't he be the "pussy" model? He gets his ass kicked from everyone and doesn't seem to have any super human abilities.

Quoted: I always like the original Blade Runner. The voice over works for me. If Deckard is a replicant, wouldn't he be the "pussy" model? He gets his ass kicked from everyone and doesn't seem to have any super human abilities.

Yeah, that's the point.  He's like Rachael, a replicant that's a perfect copy of a human in every way.

Nexus \6  was the advanced model " the light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long", hence their advanced capabilities.

Surely the agency that oversaw the Blade Runners would have done tests to see if their own people were replicants? So what are the hints besides the unicorn dream? I don't even understand how that is a hint that he's a replicant. Maybe I'm just not deep enough.

Gaff the cop(and another runner) says to deckard almost at the end " too bad she won't live, but then again who does) implying their accellerated mortality(being replicants), knowing Rachel is hiding at his Apt., this is confirmed when rachel and deckard go to leave and he finds the origami unicorn(made by gaff) revealing that he and deckard have the same 'memories' 'programmed' into both of them.

lots of hints with the eyes, including deckards

in the beginning when the chief meets deckard and shows him the leon video. deckard"what would he want with the tyrell corp", chief " i don't know, that's why you're here" implying deckard's connection with the tyrell corp.

and a few others, watch it again. it took me a few watchings to see all the subtle connections.

directors cut is much more telling

Quoted: I disagree. The story line for Star Wars (1977) was actually Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress."

Hmm... didn't know that. Well then Lucas did one hell of a job coating it in bubble-gum.

IMO, I came away from each of the Star Wars movies pondering nothing about the human condition, life, God, nature, the past, present or future which is all great sci-fi stories are supposed to do.

The only things I wondered was why in the HELL did he have to make Ewoks or Jar-Jar so frickin annoying???

European Theatrical Release/Criterion Laserdisc/Videocassette (117 min):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Batty sticks his thumbs in Tyrell's eyes, which bleed copiously.
- Pris lifts Deckard up by his nostrils when she beats him up.
- Deckard shoots Pris a third time.
- more of Pris kicking and screaming when she is shot by Deckard.
- shows Roy actually pushing the nail through his hand
- Deckard and Rachael ride into the sunset

The added violence makes this version about 15 seconds longer than the US
theatrical release.  The 10th Anniversary video edition is the same as this
release.

The bootleg CD includes an 8-page booklet containing 6 movie stills.  Cover
art is from the British one-sheet movie poster that accompanied the 1982
release.  The back cover is a color still from an aborted sequence in which
Leon's photo turns out to be a hologram that shows Batty's head turning
(Cinefex no. 9, July 1982).  The inside back cover is a bird's eye view of
Deckard's spinner as he and Rachael escape the city (Official Blade Runner
Souvenir Magazine, 1982).  Another photo possibly unfamiliar to many is
Deckard looking at Holden in a life-support machine (a similar photo appeared
in Video Watchdog, Nov-Dec 1993).

Quoted: According to Ridley Scott (Blade Runner director), Deckard is definitely supposed to be a replicant in his film version.  Hence the unicorn dream sequence, and Gaff's unicorn origami. As far as deleted scenes, I have the more violent version on VHS, in which Roy Batty gives "putting a thumb in your eye" new meaning.  There's supposed to be a scene still out there with Deckard visiting  Holden in the hospital after Leon shoots Holden.

2001 sucked ass. We watched it in film class and I fell asleep halfway through. Then we had to write about it

14. IS DECKARD A REPLICANT?

This question causes the most debate among BR fans.  The different versions
of BR support this notion to differing degrees.  One might argue that in the
1982 theatrical release, Deckard is not a replicant but in BRDC, he is.

There is no definitive answer: Ridley Scott himself has stated that, although
he deliberately made the ending ambiguous, he also intentionally introduced
enough evidence to support the notion, and (as far as he is concerned),
Deckard is a replicant. [See section 9.]


The "FOR" case
--------------

- Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a
 replicant.  In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:

       "Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled
       with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the
       audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that
       because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I knew it on the
 roof that night.  We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, therefore Gaff knew what dreams
 that Deckard had been implanted with. (BRDC only)

- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to
 their non-existent past.  Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of
 them are recent or in color.  Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo
 as an emotional cushion.  Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his
 memory implants.  Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his
 flat.

- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!".  Early drafts of the script
 have him then add: "But are you sure you are man?  It's hard to be sure
 who's who around here."

- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then
 struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.

- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be
 an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.

- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't
 go  after her, "but someone would".  Deckard is standing behind Rachael,
 and he's out of focus.

- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it.  Some speculate that
 Deckard might have been part of Roy's off-world rebellion, but was captured
 by the police and used to hunt down the others.  In tht case, Bryant is
 including Deckard among the five escaped replicants.

- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants,
 particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work.  Of
 course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing
 to hunt down other replicants.

- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the
 Replicant retirings almost immediately.  Gaff is always with Deckard when
 the chief is around.  This suggests that Gaff is the real BR, and that
 Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.


The "AGAINST" case
------------------

- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the
 value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?"  If all the main
 characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is
 lost.

- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in BRDC was a
 result of having seen her implants.  Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants
 at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.

- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants?  Why did the police
 trust Deckard?

- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and
 Tyrell.

- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant
 would have an ex-wife.  

- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they
 give him bad memories of the police force?  Wouldn't it be more effective
 if he were loyal and happy about his work?

- Deckard was not a replicant in DADoES, although he has another Blade Runner
 test him at one point just to be sure.

Quoted: Surely the agency that oversaw the Blade Runners would have done tests to see if their own people were replicants? So what are the hints besides the unicorn dream? I don't even understand how that is a hint that he's a replicant. Maybe I'm just not deep enough.

I love both versions of Blade Runner and it is my favorite. Another is "Logan' s Run." I hear there's a possible remake in the works.

Quoted: Violence. In most SF movies violence runs from comic-book violence like Star Wars in which nobody REALLY gets killed, or even really hurt to super clean flashes of beams that make the victim simple disappear, to blood-spattered butchery like Alien.

Funnilly enough this came uip a while back in discussion regarding the new DVD of Star Wars, once again modified by Star Wars George, you probably dont want to know how.

But in between the initial theatrical release, and the re-release for Empire Strikes Back, he changed the firefight in the prison block, originally when blasters hit, you see the strike, and a little flame bursts from the point of impact (Hard science or not, who knows). But he modified it so you saw the shooter a little longer before cutting to the target and you see only them fall, with some smoke coming from the scorch mark.

George has been modifying this shit from the word go, it's time he (was) stopped.

/PHil

So when is Bladerunner 2 coming out?

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, I agree that "Blade Runner" deserves #1. +1 on Dune (original) deserving a place in the top 5. I can't really agree with 2001 getting #2 though. I do appreciate the deeper messages in the movie, but I'm sorry, some of the scenes were just TOO long and slow to call the movie "great" overall. 2001 was so much more than a sci fi flick. Some people just don't get it.

 Have faith, Bro...2001 is number 1 in my book also.  One of the few TRUE hardcore Sci Fi films.

Another good sci-fi flick that isn't mentioned yet is GATTACA.


Not in the same league as Bladerunner or 2001, but still a damn good movie.

Why Deckard ISN'T a replicant:

You don't go to the time, trouble, and most important, EXPENSE of buying a replicant hunting replicant who isn't up to the job.

Deckard was no more strong or durable than an ordinary human.  Even the replicant women could pound him into the ground.
He survived Zora by blind luck.  Somebody interrupted her as she was finishing him off.
He survived Pris simply because she didn't finish him off right away.  Instead she pulled the gymnastics routine allowing him time to grab his gun.
He survived Leon only because Rachel intervened.
He survived Roy only because Roy allowed him to live.

This is a poor return for the money for an expensive replicant.

If a Deckard/replicant is no better than an ordinary human, why bother, just hire a human.
If you're going to buy a replicant hunter, you buy one up to the job.  
This means tough enough and strong enough to stand up to them.  
There is NO REASON to limit him to ordinary human level strength.
Until he's required to get rough, no one will ever suspect he's a replicant, and the only "people" who realize he's a replicant are going to be "retired".

The argument that Rachel is a replicant but isn't strong, JUST LIKE DECKARD, doesn't hold water.
Zora and Pris didn't "show me something" until they went postal on Deckard.  Only then did they display super-human strength.
Rachel had no reason to, so we don't know if she was super-strong or not.
Therefore, we don't know if human strength-level replicants exist or not.
On the strength-durability issue, we have no evidence Deckard isn't just an ordinary human.

Deckard and Gaff are both replicants or Deckard is a replicant and Gaff is his controller......
First, Deckard has retired/quit not only the Bladerunner unit, but the police department entirely.
This has been at least a while, SINCE HE DOESN'T KNOW GRAF.  
When first introduced at the street restaurant, Deckard doesn't know who Gaff is until he see's a uniformed cop with Gaff, and the waiter tells him Gaff is a Bladerunner.
This means that both the Bladerunner unit and the police department allowed a dangerous and expensive replicant to quit, walk away, and STAY away for some period of time.

If you have money invested in a potentially dangerous replicant, you DO NOT allow it just quit.
This is doubly true when YOU NEED him on an on-going basis.
Remember, there is a special police unit assigned to hunting down and "retiring" replicants.
This unit is big enough to require a police Captain to supervise.  Police units composed of one man (Gaff) do not have Captains supervising.
This means there are other Bladerunners in the unit.
This means there are enough rogue replicants running around loose to REQUIRE a full-time Bladerunner unit to hunt them.
With that much work needing to be done, you don't allow your best "man" to walk away when you own him.

Deckard isn't stupid.  Rachel suspects she's a replicant even before Deckard tells her for sure.
As a hunter of replicants, Deckard is smart enough to wonder who's who, and find out.

You don't buy weak, inferior tools.
You don't allow your tools to quit.
You don't allow tools to quit when you have a on-going need for them.
You don't buy tools that are so smart they can figure out they're tools.

Why spend money and take risks on a tool that's no better than a human.  
Use a human. He's doing it because he WANTS to.  
When he doesn't want to anymore, there's another one (Gaff) who wants to take his place.

Bonus question:
What other SF movie provokes this level of analysis and discussion?
Nobody's wondering about Han Solo's motivations, or who told the government a star ship was coming to a mountain out west.

Bladerunner is THE thinking man's SF movie.

Wow faris, I'm convinced. You've obviously thought about this a lot.

Quoted: Why Deckard ISN'T a replicant: You don't go to the time, trouble, and most important, EXPENSE of buying a replicant hunting replicant who isn't up to the job. Deckard was no more strong or durable than an ordinary human.  Even the replicant women could pound him into the ground. He survived Zora by blind luck.  Somebody interrupted her as she was finishing him off. He survived Pris simply because she didn't finish him off right away.  Instead she pulled the gymnastics routine allowing him time to grab his gun. He survived Leon only because Rachel intervened. He survived Roy only because Roy allowed him to live. This is a poor return for the money for an expensive replicant. If a Deckard/replicant is no better than an ordinary human, why bother, just hire a human. If you're going to buy a replicant hunter, you buy one up to the job.   This means tough enough and strong enough to stand up to them.   There is NO REASON to limit him to ordinary human level strength. Until he's required to get rough, no one will ever suspect he's a replicant, and the only "people" who realize he's a replicant are going to be "retired". The argument that Rachel is a replicant but isn't strong, JUST LIKE DECKARD, doesn't hold water. Zora and Pris didn't "show me something" until they went postal on Deckard.  Only then did they display super-human strength. Rachel had no reason to, so we don't know if she was super-strong or not. Therefore, we don't know if human strength-level replicants exist or not. On the strength-durability issue, we have no evidence Deckard isn't just an ordinary human. Deckard and Gaff are both replicants or Deckard is a replicant and Gaff is his controller...... First, Deckard has retired/quit not only the Bladerunner unit, but the police department entirely. This has been at least a while, SINCE HE DOESN'T KNOW GRAF.   When first introduced at the street restaurant, Deckard doesn't know who Gaff is until he see's a uniformed cop with Gaff, and the waiter tells him Gaff is a Bladerunner. This means that both the Bladerunner unit and the police department allowed a dangerous and expensive replicant to quit, walk away, and STAY away for some period of time. If you have money invested in a potentially dangerous replicant, you DO NOT allow it just quit. This is doubly true when YOU NEED him on an on-going basis. Remember, there is a special police unit assigned to hunting down and "retiring" replicants. This unit is big enough to require a police Captain to supervise.  Police units composed of one man (Gaff) do not have Captains supervising. This means there are other Bladerunners in the unit. This means there are enough rogue replicants running around loose to REQUIRE a full-time Bladerunner unit to hunt them. With that much work needing to be done, you don't allow your best "man" to walk away when you own him. Deckard isn't stupid.  Rachel suspects she's a replicant even before Deckard tells her for sure. As a hunter of replicants, Deckard is smart enough to wonder who's who, and find out. You don't buy weak, inferior tools. You don't allow your tools to quit. You don't allow tools to quit when you have a on-going need for them. You don't buy tools that are so smart they can figure out they're tools. Why spend money and take risks on a tool that's no better than a human.   Use a human. He's doing it because he WANTS to.   When he doesn't want to anymore, there's another one (Gaff) who wants to take his place. Bonus question: What other SF movie provokes this level of analysis and discussion? Nobody's wondering about Han Solo's motivations, or who told the government a star ship was coming to a mountain out west. Bladerunner is THE thinking man's SF movie.

It's what I knew all along. I really never could buy into that Deckard is a replicant stuff. It just doesn't make sense to me for all of the reasons you've mentioned.

I agree with starwars not belonging on the list, but not because they aren't good movies, but because they aren't true sci-fi, the original trilogy is space opera. Space opera focuses on the human stories of adventure, in a sci-fi setting, while sci-fi focuses mainly on the effect of the technologies on the people. The technology in star wars is mainly use as a setting, while in lots of sci-fi movies the technology acts almost like a character and a device for plot advancement.

The prequels go a little closer to true sci-fi, and they suck. Trying to give a scientific explanation for the force, all the sleek high-tech looking space ships, etc. It just changes the whole feeling of the movie. IMO episode I and II almost seem closer to star trek than star wars.

My personal Top 5:

1. Blade Runner
2. Gattaca
3. The Matrix
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. The Minority Report

The Andromeda Strain!!

I watched BR in a private theater when it first came out and after it was over all I could think about was Darryl Hannah.
Raging hormones were in overdrive that night.

No matter how many times I saw Blade Runner and can't figure out how people think Harrison Ford is a replicant

Mars Needs Women.

Yvonne Craig!!!

My favorite best's:
Bladerunner
2001. (Special effects only).
Forbidden Planet. Old, but still stands up.
Terminator
Them.  (Technically a monster movie, but about the best of the 1950's SF).
The Thing. (Original with James Arness as the monster).  Wasn't as blood-spattered as later monster movies, but scary as hell.

Quoted: IMO, I came away from each of the Star Wars movies pondering nothing about the human condition, life, God, nature, the past, present or future which is all great sci-fi stories are supposed to do.

Not all movies are supposed to make you ponder these things. The story from Star Wars is an adventure story (one of the best in recent history I might add). Read some Joseph Campbell & it will explain a lot. Think of Star Wars as being in the same line as Gilgamesh, Hercules, The Illiad, or even the tales of King Arthur. It's just mythological stories in a modern guise.

Quoted: I agree with starwars not belonging on the list, but not because they aren't good movies, but because they aren't true sci-fi, the original trilogy is space opera. Space opera focuses on the human stories of adventure, in a sci-fi setting, while sci-fi focuses mainly on the effect of the technologies on the people. The technology in star wars is mainly use as a setting, while in lots of sci-fi movies the technology acts almost like a character and a device for plot advancement.

Good description, though I think that your definition of what makes a story Sci-Fi is a bit narrow.