So, was Deckard a replicant or not?

[Dayman]

Nah, the alternative take on Kaiser Soze's identity is guff, for approximately ten billion reasons. It's about as convincing as the alternative take on the moon landings and with a similar weight of compelling evidence.

Another important observation I'd like to make is that I don't drink gin. Not unless, exceptionally, some Noilly Prat's caressed it on its way into the glass.

Dribbling, though, aye.

Just about to say the same thing, only had 2 reasons though, why the limp, and the fax kinda seals the deal. Oh, and sub whiskey for gin.

[Disgraced Toblerone]

I pegged Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire on first viewings (it's a gift).

You what?

[Professor Puzzles]

He pegged Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire on first viewings. Apparently he has a gift.

[oli]

He pegged Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire on first viewings. Apparently he has a gift.

Is it a gun?

[Professor Puzzles]

A gun is not a gift. A gun is for life*, not just for Christmas.

*Or taking lives anyway.

[oli]

A gun is not a gift. A gun is for life*, not just for Christmas.

*Or taking lives anyway.

What about a staple gun?

[NecroMorrius]

I think Deckard's doubts about his own humanity are made pretty clear in the original, especially in the scene with him looking at his own photographs after Rachel shows him hers. I was 10 or so when Bladerunner was released and I got it then, it can't have been too obscure.

I agree with you of course about the question being the point, that's why it rankles with me that the DC tries to answer it.

I see what you're saying there, but I always took it more as sympathy for Rachel or pondering on the nature of the situation ('Wow, imagine what it must feel like to discover your memories aren't real!' or 'I'm so glad these memories of mine are real!') Your method is certainly just as (or more) valid than these, but I never felt like it played into the story as it does with the directors cut. After seeing the directors cut however, it's impossible to avoid the connotation, regardless of the version being watched. I should add that both versions have merit, and the fact that they both exist only fuels the question. Even if the directors cut pretty much stamps 'replicant' on Deckards forehead, it's somewhat negated by the original cut, and thus no more an answer than we had before. As we've both happilly agreed on, the question is most definitely the point, which is why I love the movie so much

I need this mofo on bluray, stat.

[Plissken]

What about a staple gun?

They are dependable, but bland.

[womblingfree]

I though Deckard had been killing skinjobs for years.

Memory implants?

The whole point of most Philip K Dick stories is that everyone, the characters and the reader, aren't sure what's real and what isn't. Deckard doesn't know if he's a replicant or not, nor do we, and nor does Ridley Scott.

He might be, seems likely with the unicorn and all. But you could just as easily twist it so he isn't. We'll never know thank god, which is why we're still talking about it 27 years after release.

[sandman]

I see what you're saying there, but I always took it more as sympathy for Rachel or pondering on the nature of the situation ('Wow, imagine what it must feel like to discover your memories aren't real!' or 'I'm so glad these memories of mine are real!') Your method is certainly just as (or more) valid than these, but I never felt like it played into the story as it does with the directors cut. After seeing the directors cut however, it's impossible to avoid the connotation, regardless of the version being watched. I should add that both versions have merit, and the fact that they both exist only fuels the question. Even if the directors cut pretty much stamps 'replicant' on Deckards forehead, it's somewhat negated by the original cut, and thus no more an answer than we had before. As we've both happilly agreed on, the question is most definitely the point, which is why I love the movie so much

I need this mofo on bluray, stat.

[/quote

the blue ray is amazing!