For the last time: Deckard is NOT a replicant

[Orrex]

Anyone who says otherwise is a Ridley Scott sycophant.

What is gained by making Deckard a replicant? Very little.

What is gained by keeping Deckard a human? The entire film.


End of discussion. Forever.

[DarkTirade]

1. Umm... your MOM says Deckard is a replicant...

Yeah, that's the best I got. :P

[hedgehog]

2. No, but I heard he is a Mason!

or is that Skull and Bones!

[Orrex]

3. Maybe Bush is a replicant?

Now that I could believe. One of the dumber models, like Leon.

[Bucky]

27. Oh come on. Who would replicate THAT?

[edbermac]

4. Roy Batty breaks two of Deckard's fingers near the end.

So he's human...fuck you, Ridley Scott and your cheap-ass marketing ploys.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Neener neener neener. I'm right and you're wrong.

Neener neener neener! :P

[Frank Cannon]

6. Deckard being a replicant brings the film from a masterpiece...

down to being completely retarded... worse than Megaforce or Solar Babies.

[DS1]

10. Worse than Megaforce?

This, sir, is not possible.

[LynneSin]

7. I think it's Dumbledore is the Replicant and Deckard was Gay

That's my story and I'm sticking with it!

[Dr. Strange]

8. Watch this scene closely and tell me that this guy is not a replicant.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

You can't! This is so absolutely, clearly the behavior of a replicant that to deny it could only expose you to a metaphysical mocking of such profound proportions that it would result in the soiling of your shorts.

[Ikonoklast]

9. Must have been one of the earlier iterations of the assassin model

Designed to make one kill themselves after being exposed.

[TrogL]

11. Jeezuz warn somebody next time, that's scary

:spank:

[Swede]

12. I've seen things,you people wouldn't believe.

:puke:

[quip]

15. There is no way that you

aren't my twin separated at birth! :hi: :rofl:

[Dr. Strange]

16. Do you have the other half of this magical amulet?

:rofl:

[Orrex]

17. Would you two please get a room already?

It's getting embarrassing, for crying out loud!


Not that there's anything wrong with being sexy.

[quip]

18. BAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!11111

Is that your first, Orrex!????

You have broken your Tap cherry! :rofl:

Now, if there is a God, you are a Capricorn..... :rofl: :hi:

[Dr. Strange]

19. Wait, are you seriously suggesting adding Orrex to the band?

I would never have imagined in a million years it was him! Look, this is my position okay? I am not playing with some kewpie doll, especially one that dresses like an Australian’s nightmare! I quit. Wake me up when the Japan tour starts!

[quip]

22. Okay, listen:

You can't argue with the stars. IF he's a cap, we shouldn't mess with destiny. At the very least, he can be the drummer (wink wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, say no more)

Cabcere should be on bass, because she's a cap, only her "p" is upside down ;)

Further, there is nothing wrong with Australia-- least of which for their fine table wines.... :9

[Dr. Strange]

24. Ooh, yeah, Orrex can replace Peeps!

http://www.moviewavs.com/0058536645/WAVS/Movies/This_Is_Spinal_Tap/first2drummers.wav

[quip]

26. You mean Stumpy Joe (Peeps' replacement)

I always thought that Peeps looked remarkably similar to Dr. Ehrlich from St. Eligius Hospital in Boston.

[quip]

20. Well, I do have this funny necklace piece that was around my neck

when I was dropped off at the orphanage:

http://www.maj.com.nyud.net:8090/gallery/J-2/NonLEGO/leftam.png

I never really understood what it was. :shrug:

[Dr. Strange]

21. It does look somewhat similar to mine:

But what does it mean?

[quip]

23. I have no idea.

:shrug:

[Dr. Strange]

25. Oh, and when Cabcere was left at the orphanage, all she had was this:

The Prophecy

[quip]

28. MY GOD!!!1111

Are you somehow suggesting that the number ones on our similar looking amulets aren't actually number ones?????? :wow:

[Dr. Strange]

29. Crap! All this time I thought I was number 1...

now it turns out I'm only number 11.


On the bright side, that means I'm one louder than everybody else!

[quip]

30. "On the bright side"

Nice double entendre! :rofl: :hi:

[EstimatedProphet]

13. If it's any help, he's not one in the book either.

[Orrex]

14. You're right, of course, but...

I get the sense that Scott hasn't read the book since at least before the theatrical release of the film.

[Ediacara]

31. Philip K Dick went to great pains to point out that Deckard is human

Just because Ridley Scott thought that would be some kind of GREAT twist, doesn't mean it's actually true.

BTW, I think that Blade Runner is a crap film (I understand I'm in the minority), but the book isn't much better, but it IS better. Had Scott made the book into a film, I think I would have enjoyed it.

[EstimatedProphet]

32. Wait - didn't Scott make the book into a film?

I don't know what you mean...

[Ediacara]

33. He did, but as all book->film stories go, he left out a lot, and had a lot of stupid ideas for...

....making it better. What I meant was that if Scott had focused less on the four year age limit and dystopian LA, and more on the fact that Roy Batty et al were escaped slaves who's lives were just as miserable as the humans that left Earth because of a nuclear war, I would have liked the film more.

[EstimatedProphet]

37. Ah. I agree with you.

Certainly the book was better than the movie for the plotline. I do like the movie, but I think that much of the meaning has a hard time translating to the screen, and it takes multiple viewings to get past the visual part to what the movie is trying to say.

[Mike03]

34. I just watched Scott's latest "Final Cut"...

Viewers who want to prove that Deckard is a Replicant can do so, based on material in the film.

However, I keep coming back to the fundamental truth of BLADE RUNNER: It makes NO SENSE if Deckard is a Replicant. There are all sorts of holes in the theory that he is--within the film itself, in spite of the two clues that he is.

The history of the film is rather turbulent. You will notice there are two screenwriters, and this is not because they collaborated.

Lastly, as wonderful an eye as Ridley Scott has for cinema, he is thematically tone-deaf. I maintain he has no clue what BLADE RUNNER is about and, therefore, is unable to determine for us whether Deckard is or is not...

[Westegg]

35. Ah, ambiguity! I love it?That said...

...This is a movie that is open to interpretation. That's the beauty of it? My take is that the unicorn origami Deckard sees at the end means that someone is inside his mind-- and who else but the company that made him? But I'm not entirely sold on that.

I may die never knowing the truth. What I know is: I DO have an expiration date.

[TZ]

36. Wow.....

Its a geek party in this thread.....I have to admit (oooh sacrilege) I have only watched this movie once. And honestly, never understood whats the big deal with it myself.
Now pardon moi, I have better things to do..Like reading my latest Terry Pratchett novel (I'm addicted!!) that came in the mail today!!:bounce: :P

[EstimatedProphet]

38. You want geek? I'll show you geek!

Terry Pratchett is a slim shadow of a writer in comparison to Philip K. Dick! Dick had more ideas in most of the opening paragraphs of his novels than most writers are ever able to develop into a novel themselves!

How's that for geek?

[TZ]

39. lol

I'll take your geeky word on that, never having even opened a Philip K. Dick book.However, I'll just stay with my nerdy Terry Pratchett for the pun of it...:P

[EstimatedProphet]

40. Actually, you should give PKD a try

If you like Science Fiction, he was one of the people that made it what it is today. And Terry Pratchett is a fantastic writer also!

[Orrex]

42. The first few chapters of VALIS are as strong as anything in American fiction in the past 30 years

PKD suffers from gross inconsistency in the quality of his prose, but I'd venture to say that as a writer he was generally more daring that Pratchett has ever demonstrated himself to be. Pratchett is a brilliant humorist and storyteller (better in either of these regards than PKD, I'd say), but in none of his work that I've read does he really take any chances or truly advance the genre.

I've been a fan of both for close to twenty years, so I'm not dissing either of them, but in terms of really exploring the methods of storytelling and the means by which characters interact with a universe, Dick far outpaces Pratchett.


My $0.02.

[TZ]

43. Then I would be curious to hear your opinion of this

I have found that in many ways Science Fiction is a man's genre (especially the novels from the 50's and 60's) although thats starting to change. Alot of this stuff was written by men and specifically FOR men in mind. I have found sometimes the writing styles are very macho, to much so for my tastes (although granted I am NOT a typical woman in my tastes, thats for sure). And even though I have yet to read one, and granted I may be way off base with this, I had thought that PKD was one of those overtly macho writers whom I would not enjoy.
Have you heard this critique?, and though I know you are a man and therefore would have a much different perspective, I am quite curious to hear yours (or anyone else's thoughts) on this.

[Orrex]

44. I don't know if I'd call him macho per se

However, he definitely had a very weak grasp of women, both in fiction and in his personal life. He had five wives before it was all over.

But one thing he was very good at writing about was his own self-destruction, and VALIS fictionally explores this and the events the preceded/surrounded it.

I'm not sufficiently well read of the golden age of science fiction to give a detailed critique of the one-sided treatment of gender, but it's impossible to deny that women were almost universally consigned to the role of helpless, screaming victim until Ripley kicked that Alien's butt.

PKD isn't "macho" in any sense of manly and heroic space-opera protagonists, but his one attempt at a strong female protagonist (in The Transmigration of Timothy Archer) comes across as false and unconvincing. However, in his last interview before his death, he expressed great interest in creating a solid female character, so perhaps he was attempting to grow as a writer even to the very end.

You asked a great question, though, and unforunately the traits of the genre that we'd like to leave in the 50's and 60's are still sometimes all too apparent.

[Benfea]

41. It's a brilliant film, but Ridley Scott butchered the whole story.

The story was inspired by interviews with Germans from World War II who complained that the screams coming from concentration camps interfered with their sleep. Phillip K. Dick was horrified that something so evil could walk in a human body and be indistinguishable from ordinary humans.

That's the horror that inspired the story: the replicants represent evil posing as ordinary humans and walking among us. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott decided to recast them as sympathetic victims. Go figure.