It's fine if you want to run around spouting off nonesense with nothing to back it up but uninformed opinions. Be my guest.

They have FAQ's about this stuff? Yikes.

Nonsense? I thought my argument was pretty well founded. What do I have to do? Get a recording of Ridley Scott admitting that he made up the idea of Deckard being a replicant post-filming? How many times do you have to watch the movie to belive what you belive? 20? 30? 100? Done that. How many times do you need to read the screen play? 10 times? Done that. The book, 3 times, done that. Deckard was broken battered and beaten at the end of Blade Runner. He WAS GOING TO FALL if Roy hadn't reached over with one hand and lifted him up. If he was a replicant he could have just pulled himself up.

It is not me who has to prove he wasn't it is you who has to prove he is. The reason, it never says he's a replican in the film. And I am sorry, glowing eyes in a neon filled world is not concrete evidence.

Deckard wasn't a replicant. There is no argument. I have another news flash for you, Maximus died at the end of Gladiator.

On a personal note Superfly I am happy to discuss movies with just about anyone. I am a student of film and I love to discuss movies. If you are going to de a jerk and insulting take it somewhere else because I am just to damn busy to have a meaningless conversation with a 6 year old.

What is this... i-n-t-a-r-w-e-b-s?

That could definately help your case. I do know that there's a Ridley Scott quote stating that he always intended Deckard to be a replicant -- so that puts me one step ahead of you in the evidence department.

Your argument was absolutely baseless. "Ridley Scott was told by the studio to shoot script X verbatim." OK...Any proof? Copies of a contract maybe?

Anything I cite as evidence in the film was gleaned during my first 3 viewings of the Director's Cut (I'd seen the theatrical 1 or 2 times as a kid, so didn't really get it). To be clear, anything I will further list as proof of Deckard being a replicant in the Blade Runner film was not read in any document before I thought it poignant.

I have since come across a few fansites and forum posts that list things i did miss, mostly while searching for help as I played the video game. These arguments I will leave out of this short discussion, as they were not my original ideas on the movie.

I've never read the screenplay, but I did read P.K. Dick's novel -- which is almost nothing like the movie, let's be honest -- so it is not a relevant source of evidence. I have recently read a 'sequel novel' to the movie that was supported by P.K. Dick, but not by Ridley Scott. This novel also purports that Deckard was human, and isn't a bad story, but in the end is nothing but glorified fan fiction with some very cool ideas.

At this point I've probabaly seen the movie in it's various cuts at least 12 times.

A good point, but something that can be explained very easily. Not all the replicants in existence would be 'Physical Level: A' types like those being hunted, which would explain Deckard's inability to pull himself up AFTER GETTING HIS FINGERS BROKEN. Perhaps he is Physical Level C or D -- made to be closer to human so as not to distress the population on earth.

Since when did subtlety on the Director's part become evidence to the contrary of his intended effect?

No, it never says he is a replicant in the film because that would ruin the flow of the movie. Note the slightly put-offish attitudes and sidelong glances (Bryant in particular) of everyone on the police force who dealt with Deckard. Or the way that James Olmos's character was almost always with a cadre of armored policemen when he'd escort Deckard around the city. Or how only those who were known replicants, suspected replicants, or replicant owls had eyes that GLOWED LIKE ANIMALS -- Deckard's being revealed right before the 'love scene'.

All these clues were there to give the audience a mounting sense of suspicion until they figure it out around the middle of the film. It's a very well-presented subplot, with many levels only hinted at and never really expanded upon.

I would define Olmos's very dystopic character (Gaff, just looked it up on IMDB) as being a case worker who was probably crippled on the job, and then assigned replicant Blade Runners to look after while they hunt down other replicants. I will also point out that at no time is he ever referred to as, or hinted to be, a Blade Runner. He enters at the beginning of the movie to corral the unsuspecting Deckard, and brings him to HQ to get the mission. Gaff then escorts him around, showing him whatever evidence the department has found. Afterwards, he lets the Blade Runner operate solo, with the story unfolding mostly from Deckard's point of view.

In the end, Gaff takes pity on Deckard and lets him escape with the girl.

Oh, give me a break. Their eyes were glowing for the most part inside buildings where there was no neon lighting present. The owls and Rachel's eyes glowed in the dark of the Terrel arcology at sunset with no neon to be found. And when she's in Deckard's apartment after killing Brion James, her eyes are practically spotlights the entire time right until Deckard looks up and his eyes are glowing as well....A brilliant reveal!

What does Maximus have to do with the price of tea in china other than being the central character in a completely different Ridley Scott film?

I am also a student of film. Imagine that?

I also just presented you with a very clear argument as to why Deckard was always intended to be a replicant. I cited strong supporting evidence, and even offered further conjecture in my retort. If you are indeed a film student, then it pains me greatly to see such a well-crafted piece completely lost on you.

My post that started all this asked for you to supply some evidence to support your theories -- thus far, you have failed to do much of that -- and what little evidence you have given (Deckard's inability to pull himself up) has been sufficiently countered.

You are also the first one to name call -- a juvenile tactic, by anyone's standard -- implying that I am a 6-year-old child.

I most certainly stated that your comments are baseless and uninformed, and that accusation stands until you can present something beyond speculation and conjecture as to Ridley Scott's standing with the studios in 1982. Consider it a challenge to your professional abilities as an aspiring filmmaker, rather than seeking my "meaningless validation".

you want to claim Deckard wasn't a replicant, that's cool. you've got lots of company. you want to claim that there's no argument? that's just retarded. we're having the argument right here.

there are plenty of clues that Deckard was a replicant. there's a quote from Harrison Ford saying that Scott wanted Deckard to be a replicant during filming. stop spouting this nonsense about how there's no supporting evidence. the evidence exists. it's arguable--you don't have to accept the evidence as proving what some people say it proves. but there are plenty of very intelligent people who see the evidence and follow it to the conclusion that Deckard is a replicant. there are also plenty of people who see the evidence and disagree that it means Deckard is a replicant. there are very few people who don't believe there's any evidence at all, especially after other people keep hitting them over the head with it. stop being one of those people. those people are dumb.

i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it never says he's human, either. matter of fact, when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the replicant test, he doesn't answer. you could assume he's human, of course--but given the fact that it's a movie about androids who pretend to be human (and the humanity of those androids), it's baseless to make any assumptions regarding Deckard's humanity.

Please tell me you're talking about you're evidence here and not about Deckard being a replicant. I'll explain later.

People have been using the word 'intended' alot, specifically what the movie intended. That's a bad idea, the movie presents stuff, but it's the director, writers and producers who 'intended' for things to be certain ways, and it's obvoius they did not have the same intentions.

Since I'm adding fuel to the fire I may aswell do it right, you're ALL wrong.

Or right, whatever. My read on things is this, the studio 'intended' for Deckard to be human. The producer has outright said it, there's no reason for the writers to add it, and it's not in the original story. What the original story and probably what the screenplay did was drop hints, not to say 'Deckard IS a replicant' but to raise the question that he could be. You know, the whole line between replicant and human thing? What some might call 'the point'. It's also true that almost all of what people in the Deckard=Replicant camp cite as 'evidence' very much isn't evidence at all.

The main exception being the eyes. Ridley Scott, contrary to the studio, pretty clearly intends for Deckard to be Replicant. The glowing eyes are purely a narrative device (why have a V-K test if you can just turn off the damn lights and see if their eyes glow?), it's ONLY purpose to indicate to the audience who is and isn't a replicant.

Now back to my original statement, ie, why Deckard being a replicant is NOT a well crafted piece. It's pure cheese. I can't know for sure why Scott decided to make him a replicant, I can only geuss, that he saw the 'hints' in the screenplay and came to the conclusion that either he was a replicant and decided to include less subtle hints, or he thought it would be cooler to make it certain that he was. This is retarded, it's a twist for twist sake and it undermines what is otherwise a very good story regarding the nature of humanity and what it means to human. The comparisons between humans and replicants, the tool by which the story raises the question of humanity, is somewhat removed if NOONE IS HUMAN. I personally can't see the value in undermining the core themes of the story for a cheesy twist (especially considering that the 2 'humans' actually both being replicants and running off together was also the final twist in an old school kids claymation I saw when I was younger about Dr Frankenstein's heir and how all the other monsters like dracula didn't want a 'human' in charge, good kids film and all, but not exactly challenging).

So to sum up, the original intent of the story is for Deckard to be human, but Scott's intent is for him to be a replicant, but the movie, in my opinion would be better if Scott had not tried to include it, and I think THAT's what people in the Dackard=/=Replicant camp should be arguing. The only thing his being a replicant adds is a cheesy twist (which my younger brothers -age 12- saw coming without noticing any of the more ethereal clues, just as an indication of HOW cheesy it is), but it takes away so much more. Ofcourse the better/worse movie argument is my just my opinion, but it's a valid one.

EDIT: Just thought it funny to point out how different some forums are. Here this thread has turned into the 'Deckard: human or replicant?' debate, on another generic gaming forum, it's turned into a discussion of how crap Keanu "Canoe" Reeves is and how 'hugo weaving' sounds like a high tech textile that could make a good plot hook/MacGuffin in ShadowRun.

Deckard, if he's a replicant, isn't necessarily a Nexus-6 replicant. therefore, he isn't necessarily stronger, faster, or tougher than a regular human.

Like I said this moves into the realm of opinion, so I'm not going to spend too much energy arguing it, but I think atleast part of the reason the movie would work better with Deckard as human is that it was written that way. Quite simply, themes and deeper meanings aside, parts of the story don't make sense with him being a replicant because they were written as if he was human. Ridley Scott deciding he's a replicant and giving him glowing eyes (honestly Shadow, how can you be a film student and ignore such a blatantly obvious literary device?) feels/is tacked on as a result.

Behold, your best, Shadow.