Always preferred the is he isnt he type ending, audience making their own mind up kinda like The Thing is Childs or MacReady The Thing? Just wish Deckard hadnt been in the 2029
soysaucesausage on
This is why Ford is a famous actor and not a famous director. The whole point of Blade Runner is to question what it means to be human and whether our narratives about it identify a real difference
spcbfr on
I’ve realised I’ve never seen middle aged harrison ford before.
I’ve only seen young harrison ford and really old harrison ford
ItyBityGreenieWeenie on
I think the film wouldn’t have worked had Ford believed Deckard to be a replicant.
oversoul00 on
Well it just seems obvious that the intent is to get the audience to feel sympathetic towards the replicant situation and the best way to do that is to transform your human lead character into the very thing he is hunting.
drunkhoboboy117 on
Blade Runner 2049 LITERALLY proved he was de facto, a replicant. So it doesn’t really matter how he feels.
brus_wein on
Ambiguity was the best option
Matman161 on
I’ve never seen Harrison Ford so eloquent in an interview. Usually use to him grunting in dissappiment when someone asks him about star wars.
honkymotherfucker1 on
I like the ambiguity of it, I also think Harrison is missing the narrative theming of having a relatable human protagonist turn out to be just like the people he’s hunting which makes the viewer question their morality and the “evil” nature that the replicants are portrayed as having, although I think the film does a good enough job at that without Deckard being one.
So yeah I can see it either way, I’m actually glad it’s not so cut and dry amongst discussion either. Discussion is life for a film, if there was nothing to debate you can only wax lyrical about how good it is for so long
tannu28 on
First clip is from 2003 Ridley Scott AFI documentary.
Second clip is from 2007 Blade Runner The Final Cut special features.
AidilAfham42 on
But why was he being weirdly rapey in that one scene?
SkyJW on
Never liked the Deckard being a replicant idea.
I agree with Ford’s assessment of it, but I also just think that the real emotional poignance of the film was the realization that Batty, despite being an artificial human, was probably more human than Deckard was. That what made him human wasn’t his physical makeup, but his relationship with the world and what his aspirations and beliefs were. Ford portarying Deckard with that monotone voice and general stoicism is what makes the contrast between their characters so interesting.
Deckard experiencing having to kill a replicant – who even saves his life – that seemed to embody more of the human spirit than he did is way more emotionally impactful than if he actually is a replicant.
Wild-Psychology-7343 on
Honestly, Im with Ford on this. Deckard being a replicant undercuts the whole point of the first movie — its about a cold, inhuman hunter learning to be human.
DiscHashDisc on
Is there anyone who hates the characters he plays more than Harrison?
the_great_ashby on
Him being human was better because of the Replicants showing more humanity then him,despite suposedly being subhuman.
EmotionalHighway on
Wow I’m not gay… but god sploosh
Dorsai_Erynus on
Of course he would think he was human. Did someone ask him about the tortoise?
DoradoPulido2 on
I have to wonder, why a replicant can’t be an “emotional representative” for the audience. Roy Batty certainly proved one can evoke emotions from the audience at the end of the film. The beauty of the film, for me, is that it asks the question, even if all your memories and who you are is fake, isn’t what you experience real?
Kotleba on
When people say it’s ambiguous or up to interpretation they are talking about the original, right? I’ve only ever seen the director’s cut and surely with the addition of the unicorn he’s explicitely a replicant in that version.
Macabre_Noir on
The argument of Deckard be just makes the movie of Blade Runner, incredibly literal and superficial whereas him being a human brings out the poetic irony and tragedy of the story, and the themes in which Deckard is a man isolated by his own world, and the only person or people who can truly see things from his perspective are the things that he sent it to destroy.
ezagreb on
I just re-watched this movie on a plane and was thinking about this question most of the movie. TBH, I did not see even the slightest or indication that Decker was a replicant in fact he seems all too human and many of the extended scenes where he’s emoting or being beat up or trying to make sense of his job appear to support that. This whole discourse came along many years after the movie came out
Paulisooon on
In the book he is not!
ConstableGrey on
The story is much better when you have an emotionless human hunting down robots that show emotions.
23 Comments
Always preferred the is he isnt he type ending, audience making their own mind up kinda like The Thing is Childs or MacReady The Thing? Just wish Deckard hadnt been in the 2029
This is why Ford is a famous actor and not a famous director. The whole point of Blade Runner is to question what it means to be human and whether our narratives about it identify a real difference
I’ve realised I’ve never seen middle aged harrison ford before.
I’ve only seen young harrison ford and really old harrison ford
I think the film wouldn’t have worked had Ford believed Deckard to be a replicant.
Well it just seems obvious that the intent is to get the audience to feel sympathetic towards the replicant situation and the best way to do that is to transform your human lead character into the very thing he is hunting.
Blade Runner 2049 LITERALLY proved he was de facto, a replicant. So it doesn’t really matter how he feels.
Ambiguity was the best option
I’ve never seen Harrison Ford so eloquent in an interview. Usually use to him grunting in dissappiment when someone asks him about star wars.
I like the ambiguity of it, I also think Harrison is missing the narrative theming of having a relatable human protagonist turn out to be just like the people he’s hunting which makes the viewer question their morality and the “evil” nature that the replicants are portrayed as having, although I think the film does a good enough job at that without Deckard being one.
So yeah I can see it either way, I’m actually glad it’s not so cut and dry amongst discussion either. Discussion is life for a film, if there was nothing to debate you can only wax lyrical about how good it is for so long
First clip is from 2003 Ridley Scott AFI documentary.
Second clip is from 2007 Blade Runner The Final Cut special features.
But why was he being weirdly rapey in that one scene?
Never liked the Deckard being a replicant idea.
I agree with Ford’s assessment of it, but I also just think that the real emotional poignance of the film was the realization that Batty, despite being an artificial human, was probably more human than Deckard was. That what made him human wasn’t his physical makeup, but his relationship with the world and what his aspirations and beliefs were. Ford portarying Deckard with that monotone voice and general stoicism is what makes the contrast between their characters so interesting.
Deckard experiencing having to kill a replicant – who even saves his life – that seemed to embody more of the human spirit than he did is way more emotionally impactful than if he actually is a replicant.
Honestly, Im with Ford on this. Deckard being a replicant undercuts the whole point of the first movie — its about a cold, inhuman hunter learning to be human.
Is there anyone who hates the characters he plays more than Harrison?
Him being human was better because of the Replicants showing more humanity then him,despite suposedly being subhuman.
Wow I’m not gay… but god sploosh
Of course he would think he was human. Did someone ask him about the tortoise?
I have to wonder, why a replicant can’t be an “emotional representative” for the audience. Roy Batty certainly proved one can evoke emotions from the audience at the end of the film. The beauty of the film, for me, is that it asks the question, even if all your memories and who you are is fake, isn’t what you experience real?
When people say it’s ambiguous or up to interpretation they are talking about the original, right? I’ve only ever seen the director’s cut and surely with the addition of the unicorn he’s explicitely a replicant in that version.
The argument of Deckard be just makes the movie of Blade Runner, incredibly literal and superficial whereas him being a human brings out the poetic irony and tragedy of the story, and the themes in which Deckard is a man isolated by his own world, and the only person or people who can truly see things from his perspective are the things that he sent it to destroy.
I just re-watched this movie on a plane and was thinking about this question most of the movie. TBH, I did not see even the slightest or indication that Decker was a replicant in fact he seems all too human and many of the extended scenes where he’s emoting or being beat up or trying to make sense of his job appear to support that. This whole discourse came along many years after the movie came out
In the book he is not!
The story is much better when you have an emotionless human hunting down robots that show emotions.