Last movie watched...

[Spikes]

Ridley has gone on record, and firmly stated his belief in regards to the old 'Is he/Isnt he' thingy.
But he's wrong.

No... I think that like it or not, he is right...

How so?

[Richmond Clements]

Ridley has gone on record, and firmly stated his belief in regards to the old 'Is he/Isnt he' thingy.
But he's wrong.

No... I think that like it or not, he is right...

How so?

Ummmm... he is the director. The movie is his vision. He makes the decisions. What he says is correct.

[Spikes]

Ummmm... he is the director. The movie is his vision. He makes the decisions. What he says is correct.

Nope. Not buying that.
Director, or not - Its purely his own view on what Blade Runner is. You either agree with that, or you dont.
Personally, i dont. Neither does Frank Darabont, 

When i saw Ridley make that comment (on the Kermode Doc?) i felt it was wrong to state one way or the other (and by stating a preference i suppose ive fallen into that trap, as well), so now, just like the film itself, ill say its best left as it is; totally ambiguous.

But he's wrong, so very wrong...

[Richmond Clements]

Nope. Not buying that.
Director, or not - Its purely his own view on what Blade Runner is. You either agree with that, or you dont.
Personally, i dont. Neither does Frank Darabont,

None of that matters. Doesn't matter what you or Frank Darabont thinks.

[Professor Bear]

NERD FIGHT

The director is not necessarily infallible, nor is he the last word - for instance, Paul Verhovan is on record as saying that Total Recall is a dream the main character is having, despite his directing several scenes that challenge this as a valid reading.

Once the material is out there, the audience can really interpret it as they see fit and it doesn't matter what the director - or writer - says was their original intention because now it is what it is - barring their re-releasing the work in an alternate form to suit their interpretation, of course.  In other words:
Theatrical version: not a replicant.
Director's Cut: replicant.

[Sideshow Bob]

Once the material is out there, the audience can really interpret it as they see fit and it doesn't matter what the director - or writer - says was their original intention because now it is what it is - barring their re-releasing the work in an alternate form to suit their interpretation, of course.  In other words:
Theatrical version: not a replicant.
Director's Cut: replicant.

Exactly !!....
Part of the 'beauty' of Blade Runner...( At least for me anyway ) is that even on numerous re-watches,  I'm not 100% convinced either way......
I've seen valid arguments for Yes he is a Replicant and No, he's not a Replicant and both seem to have equal merit.....
It's nothing less than a masterpiece of Sci-Fi....Thought provoking, intelligent and totally absorbing.....How else can you explain that 20+ years after it's been made, people are still arguing about  what the main character is ??.......

Cheers

[Spikes]

I've seen valid arguments for Yes he is a Replicant

Really?

[pictsy]

I don't know which versions of Blade Runner I've seen but this is the first I've been exposed to an "is Deckard a replicant" idea.  It is a concept that is briefly explored in the book the film is loosely based upon but I never personally saw it in the film.  I always saw Deckard as being human.  I'll certainly be more attentive next time I watch the film.

[Mabs]

I don't know which versions of Blade Runner I've seen but this is the first I've been exposed to an "is Deckard a replicant" idea.  It is a concept that is briefly explored in the book the film is loosely based upon but I never personally saw it in the film.  I always saw Deckard as being human.  I'll certainly be more attentive next time I watch the film.

In the directors cut you can spot a few clues;

1. The Unicorn dream Deckard has (or does he?  ) which suggests that he has a memory implant like Rachael, also Gaff leaves a unicorn origami in Deckard's apartment near the end which confirms that.

2. In one scene in Deckard's apartment, when Rachael comes to visit there's a brief moment you can see Deckard's eyes , or rather pupils, shining in a reddish/golden hue just like Rachael's does, a giveaway sign of a replicant

3. "kinship", the word uttered by Roy Batty as he grabs Deckard from the face of death near the end.

As for the theatrical version with the voice-over, these are missing (don't know about the "kinship" part though), which means Deckard is human (and it works better in that version).

[willthemightyW]

Blade Runner is a brilliant film, but one thing, Roy Batty does not say 'kinship', Rutger Hauer confirmed this :p

Will

[Mabs]

Blade Runner is a brilliant film, but one thing, Roy Batty does not say 'kinship', Rutger Hauer confirmed this :p

Will

I think it was added by Ridley afterwards for reasons he knows! It is there though, you can hear it clearly with the sound up a bit. I think it was either Ridley or Paul Sammon who talks about it in one of the docs in the 5 disc collection.

[Theblazeuk]

No reason that Death of the Author shouldn't apply to directors too. Though I agree it's definitely a case of Theatrical v Directors cut (and ignoring the american release with the green hills and voiceover entirely please thank you)

[Recrewt]

Eh?

Whatever the Director has gone with is correct.  We seem to be mixing a couple of other ideas in here.  If Ridley created the movie with Deckard as human then he is human.  Then if some time later he re-edits a Director's Version where Deckard is still human then he is still human.  Fair enough, if he changed it in the Director's cut so that Deckard is now replicant but ultimately Ridley cannot be wrong.

[Professor Bear]

Prometheus.

[JOE SOAP]

No reason that Death of the Author shouldn't apply to directors too. Though I agree it's definitely a case of Theatrical v Directors cut (and ignoring the american release with the green hills and voiceover entirely please thank you)

There's also the workprint, which is the better version between all 3, I believe.