Deckard a replicant? (Blade Runner)

[KB]

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/eonline/0717/blade_runner.asp



<<
The Blade Runner director has confirmed Harrison Ford's character was indeed an android in the sci-fi classic.

&quot;He's a replicant,&quot; Scott told Britain's Channel 4 during an interview for an upcoming documentary
>>



I don't believe it for a second. Why was he so much weaker than the andriods he was fighting? And how did he live longer than the 4 year live span of a replicant.

 

[desy]

Actually just watched that movie a couple of weeks ago . . . Been a while.
I certainly don't think that was even slightly implied anywhere in the movie. I didn't pick up on it anyway and that was the directors cut.

 

[bluemax]

Wonder if that's why they made it a big part of the game...? Remember Harrison Ford's girlie-friend with the big hair? She lived beyond 4 years too! Must be the fun you can have in the kipple!

 

[Russ]

Must be a sequel in the works.

desy,



<< The issue did not really arise in the original theatrical version since studio-imposed cuts forced the acclaimed British filmmaker to take out most of the clues about Deckard's true nature. >>



Russ, NCNE

 

[XMan]

They say it has something to do with a vision of a unicorn Deckard has (I don't remember that part) and the origami unicorn that Edward James Olmos left in the floor of his apartment.

I've only seen the Director's cut, so I don't remember any unicorn scene . . .

Anyway, if they don't say it in the movie or a sequel, it never happened as far as I'm concerned.

 

[desy]

Sorry didn't read the article
But it would be cool if they made another with modern effects. Like I said just watched it again and for a 20 yr old movie it holds up pretty damn good. With all of todays Biological tech and Nano machines it even seems more plausible.

 

[Bleeding Jawa]

desy...what in the hell would they ADD by using new effects???

This movie is THE standard by which almost all &quot;futeristic&quot; movies were based...showing us the doom &amp; decay of society. There is absolutely no need fo any updates. The film was made (wisely) without over-doing it on the special effects...that's the reason it holds up so well--there is really not much for us to shoot holes through.

--------------------------------
As far as the replicant thing...
--------------------------------
(I should preface this by saying that Ridley Scott is probably my favorite director behind David Lean, simply based on this movie &amp; the 1st Alien movie.)

...Now--WHERE IN THE HELL DOES SCOTT GET OFF TELLING US WHAT THE STORY MEANS??? Yes, this is his vision, &amp; it is not exactly the same as &quot;Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?&quot;; however the fact remains that &quot;Blade Runner&quot; is NOT an original story &amp; it's not HIS story--it is based on a book. Furthermore, the movie is worthless (aside from the historical significance of the setting/tone) if this part of the plot is GIVEN to us. The whole strength of the concept is based on the audience NOT knowing for sure &amp; Deckard NOT knowing for sure. The story plays out regardless of Deckard's true background...you don't focus on that possibility...it is in the back of your mind (almost subliminal) just like it is in the back of Deckard's mind. The under-stressing of this whole concept is what makes it so powerful.





[Deep Breath]whew...

Enough spewing.

I think I will pop this bad boy in &amp; watch it old-times sake.
It is the only DVD I have ever owned.

 

[kamiam]

Xeroxman... I read that too...I have both copies and the unicorn sceen is a dream seen Deckard has while Sean young is playing the piano... he wakes up sets down next to her and seys he dreamed music...a killer movie in my opinion

 

[bozack]

ahh but it was implied in the movie, at least the original and not the directors cut-remember the unicorn in his dreams, now think to when edward james almos made the origami unicorn at the end as if he knew of deckards dreams-also the fact that deckard had alot of pictures and some specific memories-some subtle hints there

 

[desy]

Mmmm
I didn't mean so much as special Star Wars effects as much as I meant modern production values. Typically I find pace, sound mixing, visual quality etc today better. Conceptually I wouldn't change that story a bit as much as I'd like a continuation or maybe a whole different story line based on that future.
Like I said its held up well, you know how sometimes you've watched a movie 15/20 yrs ago and go back and sometimes its a little flat compared to the memory of it. So I'll avoid favorites so as not to tarnish them but this one held my attention every minute again..

 

[reitz]

KB, I actually wrote a research paper (for a bullsh!t English class freshman year) on that topic. The paper was based on the director's cut of the film, and almost all the sources I used agreed with my thesis. It was intentional, and only a matter of time before the director admitted it (Sorry, I'd argue some points, but it's been so long since I saw the movie that I can't remember much). If I can find the paper, I'll post parts of it so you can read them.