Chuck does Blade Runner

[Ahriman238]

Ironic, since I just mentioned the movie in the shocks thread. Chuck put up a review of Blade Runner.

I actually never questioned that Deckard was human when I watched the movie.

[Patrick Degan]

By coincidence, I had this movie on last night.

Another way to look at Leon's apparent stupidity when he's in the void-comp interview is that he's playing a role. His purpose was to infiltrate Tyrell Corp. in order so that the Replicants could get to Dr. Tyrell in hopes of life-extension, but as he's supposed to be a low-grade worker, he'd have to feign an ignorant persona so as to be able to blend in with the other workers. Leon shoots the interviewer perhaps when he figures he's already been tumbled and that the only option is to escape as quickly as possible. Being a manufactured killer, his solution involved a gun and a reversion to basic combat survival instincts. That he was packing artillery to begin with would indicate that he already suspected discovery by the department supervisors and he went in prepared to fight his way out of the building if necessary.

[Keevan_Colton]

The trouble with that is how retarded he is when dealing with the EyeGuy later on too and when pounding on Deckard. He really does seem to be the short bus special model of replicant when compared to Roy.

[VarrusTheEthical]

I've always interpreted Leon to be a kind of "grunt" combat replicant, as opposed to Roy who strikes me more as an officer. Leon is probably good enough when it comes to following orders and breaking things (and people), but if you want any kind of planning done, you use replicants like Roy.

[Ted C]

The trouble with that is how retarded he is when dealing with the EyeGuy later on too and when pounding on Deckard. He really does seem to be the short bus special model of replicant when compared to Roy.

When you see the dossiers on the replicants in the police station, they all have mental and physical ratings. All four replicants are rated "A" in physical. Roy is rated "A" in mental, Pris and Zhora are rated "B", and Leon is rated "C". Leon just isn't as smart as the others; he apparently wasn't designed for work that would require much thinking.

[Shroom Man 777]

Roy had to ask him if he saw men, specifically "police-men".

[DudeGuyMan]

I never thought Deckard was a replicant back in the day. Him having his ass brutally kicked by every replicant he fought, even the fucktoy model, always seemed to indicate against.

[VarrusTheEthical]

I never thought Deckard was a replicant back in the day. Him having his ass brutally kicked by every replicant he fought, even the fucktoy model, always seemed to indicate against.

Though I personally prefer the idea that Deckard is human, I think that it's ultimately up to each individual viewer what Deckard's nature is. I think that's one of the reason why Blade Runner is so compelling. That and the awesome opening soundtrack.

[FSTargetDrone]

Paul Sammon, the author of Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (a book written after the writer spent time on the set and based on interviews with the production staff and actors during and after) believes that the question of whether or not Deckard is a Replicant depends on which version of the movie you are watching:

N: This seems a good point to drop in that most annoying and intriguing of questions - is Deckard a Replicant? [audible groan]. Right at the beginning of FN, you make the comment, "Maybe now people will stop asking us if Deckard is a replicant!" Guess again! Even though Scott has been saying it for years, it was still reported in mainstream news when he stated it again in the Channel 4 documentary. But the debate continues unabated. There is no doubt that BR is Ridley Scott's film and that he did a stunning job. But the associated debate is whether a director can dictate how people view his creation - or does the creation become an entity unto itself, separated from those who made it?

Another factor is that, back in 1982, Scott said in interviews that he wanted to suggest that Deckard might be a Replicant - something that seems to be reflected in your own description of events. In the end, is it not more interesting to have the question than to "know" the answer?

PS: That's a good point. I agree that the ambiguity of Deckard's true nature is far more interesting than simply inserting a scene where a character blurts out, "C'mere, you fuckin' android!"

What I do find amusing and more than a little exasperating about this issue, though, is how some BR fans simply won't accept the facts of this matter. I mean, Ridley first told me in 1980 - 1980! - that he thought it would be interesting to suggest Deckard was a replicant. Of course, 18 years later, Ridley began telling interviewers that he'd always meant Deckard to be a replicant. Well, maybe Ridley was being a little disingenuous. Or maybe he'd just forgotten the reality of the situation. Because I never heard Scott ever come right out and say, at least while the film was being made, "Yeah, this cop is a replicant." The words I recall were, "He might be a replicant."

The foil unicorn I do know that Ridley argued with Harrison over this point, because Ford never wanted Deckard to be anything but a flawed human being who was redeemed through love and an understanding of the replicants plight. However, having said that, I also think Ridley himself probably inwardly felt that Deckard was an artificial human. Why else include the daydream/tinfoil unicorn tie-in? Of course, the galloping unicorn footage was one of the last things filmed for the picture, so perhaps Ridley had come down more squarely on the side of the "Deck as Rep" issue by then.

Anyway, I don't remember him ever explicitly stating that, yeah, Deckard is a replicant. Not while the film was being made. Ridley always said, at least to me, that he thought it would be far more provocative to imply Deckard was an artificial being. That way audiences would have something to mull over and talk about after the lights came up.

To respond to your other query, I agree with you - some films definitely take on lives of their own. Sure, the director and writer and actors and cinematographer stamp their own personalities on a project. But there's something almost mystical about the way a film can then exhibit a separate identity of its own. It's almost like alchemy, you know? Transforming lifeless light and celluloid into a uniquely individual, subtly living thing.

But to get back to the Ford as replicant debate - as I wrote in Future Noir, it depends on which version of Blade Runner you see. I think that that experience will influence your decision more than anything. The original theatrical release, for instance, certainly makes a strong case for Deckard being human. But the inclusion of the unicorn shot in the Director's Cut more or less suggests that he is a Replicant. My advice is - keep arguing. Then make your own decision.

N: I was surprised no one referenced Future Noir when Ridley brought this issue up again a few years ago.

PS: Me too. That was really a wake-up call for me. I mean, the manner in which the mainstream media approached this issue, as if it was something brand-new, made me realize that the mainstream probably wasn't aware of Future Noir. Yet if you're a responsible, informed journalist, how could you not know that an entire book had already been written about this film? A book that had a separate, stand-alone section that addressed the Replicant debate at great length? And Future Noir certainly wasn't the first written reference to address this issue, either. I mean, come on! The first time I mentioned it in print was back in 1981, for Christ's sake. Later on, I repeated that hypothesis for my Video Watchdog piece. Yet not a single mainstream news channel or magazine mentioned these facts, or even seemed aware of them.

That's sort of depressing, you know, on any number of levels. Especially as it indicates how shabbily corporate networks and major news outlets must conduct their "research" before they do a story. If they do any research at all.

Anyway, want to know my personal take on this "Deckard as Replicant" controversy? I still think it's more fun, and challenging, to realize that Harrison might be an android… even if the Director's Cut clearly indicates that he is one.

N: I quite agree that the "nature of Deckard" question is more interesting than the answer, but the debate will no doubt continue regardless of anyone's answers! (laughs maniacally)

[LadyTevar]

I guess I only saw the Theatrical, as I don't recall anything about a unicorn other than the foil origami than Olmos' character made and left for Deckard

[Stark]

I never thought Deckard was a replicant back in the day. Him having his ass brutally kicked by every replicant he fought, even the fucktoy model, always seemed to indicate against.

They're combat models, designed to kill. Deckard doesn't have to have parity with them to be a replicant.

[Alan Bolte]

The "fucktoy model" didn't so much kick his ass as get the drop on him momentarily, then cartwheel pointlessly and get shot.

[Stark]

I'm pretty sure her bio says SEXUAL ASSASSIN or something anyway. Her appearance not being a good indicator of what she is is kinda a theme of Blade Runner, y'know?

[FSTargetDrone]

Here they are, from the DVD of The Final Cut:









Edit: The "V.K." field in Leon's file refers to the Voight-Kampff test Holden gave him. The others didn't take the test (at least not concerning this incident), so that's why that information is missing with the others.

Hope those come through. These image hosts are making uploading more and more tedious and I'll be damned before I start farting around with anymore captcha crap.

[Bright]

Speaking of the review itself, I thought it was one of Chuck's best in a while. He went into quite a bit of depth analyzing themes and symbolism, and discussing the movie as well as the story.

[Stravo]

Leon is stupid, he wasn't faking it. Look at his behavior throughout the movie, when they see the eye designer, when he attacks Deckard. Apparently from his file he is some sort of ammo loader. You don't need to be bright to know to lug this cannister into that tube. He is a strong back, a pack mule if you will. You don't need brains to do what he does. Roy is more of a sargeant or elite special forces model, probably commanded by human officers, dropped into the shit and expected to fight his way out so he has to be good at everything.

I know if it is not a direct sequel, prequel or what have you but the movie "Soldier" is intended by the director to take place in the same universe and I think we see more of what Roy is supposed to be in the replicant soldiers that replace Kurt Russel's character. Smart, super strong, highly motivated. They are not as independent as Roy is but remember Roy is nearing the end of his life cycle so he has a lot of experiences to fall back on and had a few years to develop that independence.