BS. That linke of thinking is entirely inconsistent with the canon of the movie, despite what Scott has to say about it. Replicants had a limited life span, and the Nexus 6 were the most advanced and most human-like, and they had a lifespan of 6 years. How long was Deckard a Blad Runner? It was never specified, but he is referred to as "the best" - you don't get to be the best at something in just six years. Besides, Deckard knew the culture and syntax of the street. Why didn't Deckard shut down? Because he's human. One scene with a unicaorn and Gaff's origami hardly amounts to a revelation that would contradict the rest of the entire movie.
I think you need to be more familiar with the theories of "narrative." The movie wasn't told from Deckard's point of view. References to Deckard as "the best" didn't exist inside just the context of his personal narrative. It existed in the context of the narrative told by the movie to the viewer. Implanted memories in one character do not create "a way around all" of the arguments above. To suggest such would imply that the entirety of Blade Runner was told solely in the context of Deckard's narrative, which is not the case.
Not to expose myself as an English major or anything, but I think it's a mazed text -- there isn't supposed to be a right answer or a provable answer. Thus, I cannot in all conscience vote.
I wrote a paper that argues that whether he was born or made is irrelevant to the question of his humanity anyway. But I have an English degree, so you have to expect this sort of thing from me.
True the film's narrative is not from Deckard's point of view, however references to him as "the best" are only made in his presence, and seemed as much a show for Deckard as anything else. So, I'm not sure any of those statements should be given any empirical weight in the narrative.
Also, he collects photographs, like the other replicants, although family is never mentioned except in the original cut's voice-over. Then there's the unicorn dream, the fact that the movie clearly introduces the possibility that replicants can have memories implanted, Deckard's own admission to never taking the test. Really, I'm not sure how someone could watch the director's cut of the film and not get the impression that Deckard is a replicant.
However, all this is a bit of a red herring in the film, because as Eilonwy points out, the nature of his birth is irrelevant in regards to his humanity.
Discussion (6)
I've heard that said before, but I just don't see it. Is there anything specific I should look for that gives you that impression?
BS. That linke of thinking is entirely inconsistent with the canon of the movie, despite what Scott has to say about it. Replicants had a limited life span, and the Nexus 6 were the most advanced and most human-like, and they had a lifespan of 6 years. How long was Deckard a Blad Runner? It was never specified, but he is referred to as "the best" - you don't get to be the best at something in just six years. Besides, Deckard knew the culture and syntax of the street. Why didn't Deckard shut down? Because he's human. One scene with a unicaorn and Gaff's origami hardly amounts to a revelation that would contradict the rest of the entire movie.
I think you need to be more familiar with the theories of "narrative." The movie wasn't told from Deckard's point of view. References to Deckard as "the best" didn't exist inside just the context of his personal narrative. It existed in the context of the narrative told by the movie to the viewer. Implanted memories in one character do not create "a way around all" of the arguments above. To suggest such would imply that the entirety of Blade Runner was told solely in the context of Deckard's narrative, which is not the case.
Not to expose myself as an English major or anything, but I think it's a mazed text -- there isn't supposed to be a right answer or a provable answer. Thus, I cannot in all conscience vote.
I wrote a paper that argues that whether he was born or made is irrelevant to the question of his humanity anyway. But I have an English degree, so you have to expect this sort of thing from me.
True the film's narrative is not from Deckard's point of view, however references to him as "the best" are only made in his presence, and seemed as much a show for Deckard as anything else. So, I'm not sure any of those statements should be given any empirical weight in the narrative.
Also, he collects photographs, like the other replicants, although family is never mentioned except in the original cut's voice-over. Then there's the unicorn dream, the fact that the movie clearly introduces the possibility that replicants can have memories implanted, Deckard's own admission to never taking the test. Really, I'm not sure how someone could watch the director's cut of the film and not get the impression that Deckard is a replicant.
However, all this is a bit of a red herring in the film, because as Eilonwy points out, the nature of his birth is irrelevant in regards to his humanity.
When Dekard brings Rachael to his apartment his eyes are clearly glowing in his dark kitchen. Also, Ridley Scott admitted it fairly recently.