Geeks rejoice!

[Gubbi]

In that case Scott has completely misinterpreted the book and changed its very fundamentals. If Dekard is a replicant and is just a terrible tool to do a terrible job against other terrible tools, then Scott confirms that humans are better than replicants. Humans do the good deed of giving replicants life, where replicants do horrible things to each other and to the much "better" humans.

Scott makes the ambiguity about whether Dekard is human or not. Dick makes the abiguity about whether replicants are morally or philosophically as "valuable" as ourselves. More precisely, Dick makes the ambiguity about whether the replicants are as "human" as the humans are. Dekard and his actions are that representation of what it is to be human.

Yes. In fact that was a source of contention between Scott and Dick.

Dick saw the replicants (androids) as deplorable; cruel, cold and heartless. That is how they are exposed: The Voight Kampff tests the lack of empathy.

Scott saw them as smarter, stronger and faster humans.

The change, I think, has to do with the different technology used in the book vs. the movie. In the book androids are mechanical, that makes it a lot easier to see them as non-humans. Whereas in the movie they (now called replicants) are essentially the same wetware as humans.

So the distinction between replicants and humans is a lot less clear than in the book.

I don't think you can say Scott confirms that humans are better, quite the contrary. It's a lot easier to empathise with the replicants when the protagenist is replicant himself.

The question the movie raises: Should we (humans) produce slaves that are virtually identical to humans ? And I think Scott answers with an emphatic: NO!

Cheers

 

[pax]

Well that's the whole point of the book. If something looks human, acts human, thinks it's human, then how's it different from us? How's it any less valuable or important?

Exactly. And having Deckard being human makes one want to see replicants as human... It would have been interesting to have the replicants be more mechanical too... Having them be genetic constructs, basically the same as us, from that perspective makes it too easy to empathize with them. Maybe that was the trade off Scott was aiming for.

 

[Althornin]

For Scott to decide that Dekard is a replicant simply undoes all the meaning and weight of a human coming to empathise with (and even love in Rachael's case) the replicants as he would another human. The whole point of Dekard's character is for Dick to say of the replicants "they are like us, they are our children". Make Dekard a replicant and everything he is and represents becomes a fake, constructed, valueless viewpoint. We believe in what Dekard feels because he is one of us. If he can empathise with the replicants, then so can we. And if the replicants can empathise with us, as Rachel does with Dekard, and Batty does in his dying speech, then they truely are as human as we are.

I think you are wrong here.
If Dekard, being a replicant, can come to love, can regret his dirty job, etc just like a human - thebn what makes a replicant different from a human?
Dekard being a replicant is proof of exactly what you say him being human means - "they are like us, they are our children". Dekrad as a replicant does not devaule what he is into a fake and constructed viewpoint, it re-affirms (proof by example!) that replicants are human by eny fair definition of the word. They feel like we do, act like we do, emote like we do. Dekard as a replicant doesn't destroy the point you think should be made, it makes it stronger.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I think you are wrong here.
If Dekard, being a replicant, can come to love, can regret his dirty job, etc just like a human - thebn what makes a replicant different from a human?
Dekard being a replicant is proof of exactly what you say him being human means - "they are like us, they are our children". Dekrad as a replicant does not devaule what he is into a fake and constructed viewpoint, it re-affirms (proof by example!) that replicants are human by eny fair definition of the word. They feel like we do, act like we do, emote like we do. Dekard as a replicant doesn't destroy the point you think should be made, it makes it stronger.

The conventional view of humans in the film is that if a replicant feels empathy or love, it's not real - it's fake, programmed, constructed. Without Dekard being a real human and effectively standing up and saying replicants are real, can love and be loved, are as "human" as he is, then all these things are nothing more than the same faked viewpoint.

Imagine the same story taking place a few hundred years back with the replicants as black slaves, and Dekard as a white sheriff that specialised in catching and killing runaway slaves. What's going to have more of an impact on the audience (both the fictional one and the actual one) - a black slave saying they are human too, or the white sheriff saying it?

Without Dekard as a representative of the status quo, his turning to support the downtrodden replicants ceases to have the same meaning. Dekard feels the truth of his convictions so much that he goes against his own kind. If he is actually a replicant, then his sacrifice is meaningless, he's given up nothing because he never was a human after all.

I think Harrison Ford is right when he says that Dekard needs to be human to be a connection for the audience, to be their representative. It's probably why Dick disagreed with Scott on making Dekard a replicant. Dekard had to be the human who decides the replicants are as real as he is, not just another replicant claiming humaninty from an artificially constructed (and therefore "inferior") life.

 

[NANOTEC]

Deckard has to be human, otherwise the whole story falls apart. Are you telling me Tyrell designed Deckard long before he design Rachel prototype which turned out to be inferior to old Deckard? What would be the purpose of Deckard giving Rachel the test? To confirm that Tyrell's previous generation design in the form of Deckard is superior to the latest and greatest Rachel prototype?

That's like benchmarking the latest Intel chip to confirm it's inferior to a 486.

 

[Gubbi]

Deckard has to be human, otherwise the whole story falls apart. Are you telling me Tyrell designed Deckard long before he design Rachel prototype which turned out to be inferior to old Deckard? What would be the purpose of Deckard giving Rachel the test? To confirm that Tyrell's previous generation design in the form of Deckard is superior to the latest and greatest Rachel prototype?

That's like benchmarking the latest Intel chip to confirm it's inferior to a 486.

You make no sense.

Deckard is just a plain ol' replicant. He doesn't know that though. What does that have to do with exposing Rachel as a replicant ?

Cheers

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You make no sense.

Deckard is just a plain ol' replicant. He doesn't know that though. What does that have to do with exposing Rachel as a replicant ?

Cheers

Rachael is supposed to be the first prototype of a replicant that doesn't know she's a replicant, with false implanted memories. If Dekard is a replicant, how can he not know it? He would be an older model than Rachael, and so would not have the fake memory implants.

He doesn't have all the pictures and the ability to play the piano because he is a replicant. He has those things because he is a human being. The replicants strive for those things because that is what makes them the same as us - a feeling of belonging, family, history, etc.

 

[pax]

Ya I mean thats what got me so damn confused about the dir's cut. Do some think that Scott changed his mind after the theatrical release and wanted to edit a different film?... I mean how could Ford hold a different opinion on something so basic about Deckard's character in that interview??

 

[Zaphod]

Ya I mean thats what got me so damn confused about the dir's cut. Do some think that Scott changed his mind after the theatrical release and wanted to edit a different film?... I mean how could Ford hold a different opinion on something so basic about Deckard's character in that interview??

Well... Scott was excluded from the final editing phase of the theatrical release. The directors cut was prompted by the emergance of a workprint from before said exclusion and made with consulattion from Scott (not edited by him) based on said workprint.

Thus, it was probably more the studio (nobody seems to know exactly who decided what with the quite entangeled ownership mess of the film) that changed its mind rather than Scott.

 

[pax]

Still hard to believe that Ford didnt go into the movie not knowing for sure what Deckard was or rather agreeing to Scott's vision for the movie. Sure things can change and a director's vision hijacked in the process but for something this basic to remain up in the air long after the film was done (and Ford hated the theatrical as much as Scott did) is a bit surprising.

It would seem that Ford, Scott and the producers each had their own project in mind to some extent even after filming had long ago wrapped. Quite a remarkable thing in film history... I gotta get my hand on Future Noir one of these days... damn that reading shelf is so packed lately ...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Still hard to believe that Ford didnt go into the movie not knowing for sure what Deckard was or rather agreeing to Scott's vision for the movie. Sure things can change and a director's vision hijacked in the process but for something this basic to remain up in the air long after the film was done (and Ford hated the theatrical as much as Scott did) is a bit surprising.

It would seem that Ford, Scott and the producers each had their own project in mind to some extent even after filming had long ago wrapped. Quite a remarkable thing in film history... I gotta get my hand on Future Noir one of these days... damn that reading shelf is so packed lately ...

As I said above regarding the recent interview I saw with Ford (Jonathan Ross, Film 2006 special), he said that he was in no doubt that he had agreed with Scott that Dekard was human for the "connection with the audience".

In fact he said "I thought I had agreed with Scott" in such a way that made me think they had come to a clear agreement, and then Scott had reneged.

If Dekard was a replicant, it would not be legal for to him to be on Earth. The business of Rachael being the first next-gen replicant is actually the same in both the theatrical and director's cut.

Yes Dekard survives against the replicants, but only just - he is not as strong or as fast as they are, and gets the crap kicked out of him and bones broken. If it wasn't for the replicants either toying with him or being too angry to think straight (can't deal with their emotions), them trying to run away, and Dekard just being plain lucky and using a gun, he could have been easily killed and nearly was several times.

The only thing that can be interpreted as Dekard being a replicant is the additon of the "unicorn dream" in the Director's Cut and the subsequent unicorn origami, but again this can be easily explained by the tradional oriental unicorn representing a warning to men (Dekard's society is heavily influenced by the far east). Dekard is being warned by Gaff, yet not being stopped. If Dekard was a replicant, would Gaff let him and Rachael escape? I doubt it.

 

[Snyder]

The conventional view of humans in the film is that if a replicant feels empathy or love, it's not real - it's fake, programmed, constructed. Without Dekard being a real human and effectively standing up and saying replicants are real, can love and be loved, are as "human" as he is, then all these things are nothing more than the same faked viewpoint.

Imagine the same story taking place a few hundred years back with the replicants as black slaves, and Dekard as a white sheriff that specialised in catching and killing runaway slaves. What's going to have more of an impact on the audience (both the fictional one and the actual one) - a black slave saying they are human too, or the white sheriff saying it?

Theres a critical flaw in your analogy.
In the analogy both the fictional and the actual audience have the same information:
Both know that it is a black slave who stands up for black slaves.
In the original case (almost) no one of the fictional audience knows that Deckard, and even to the actual audience it is only revealed at the end.
The point this revelation supports is: As you said, the common view of humans in the movie about apparent human behaviour by replicants is that it's fake.
On the other hand we see Deckard showing very human behaviour throughout the whole movie. We do believe his sincerity in his stance on replicants and the resulting actions.
More importantly, he believes it himself - he doesn't know he's a replicant (if someone means to question this assumption, please start another thread ). He acts just as if he were human.

Without Dekard as a representative of the status quo, his turning to support the downtrodden replicants ceases to have the same meaning. Dekard feels the truth of his convictions so much that he goes against his own kind. If he is actually a replicant, then his sacrifice is meaningless, he's given up nothing because he never was a human after all.

And that's the problem. He made his choices in the belief that he's human. This implies that for him - and everyone else that doesn't know he's a replicant - the sacrifice is real. So giving us - after those choices are made - the information that he isn't a human after all, but a replicant, emphasizes the insignificance of this distinction - which in turn is exactly Deckards position.

Interesting...this just somehow made me think of the Chinese Room Argument...

 

[Zaphod]

Interesting...this just somehow made me think of the Chinese Room Argument...

Hmm... As for the idea of the replicant hunting replicant, in the book there is an (kinda') analogous section where Deckard first question whether another bounty hunter is a replicant because of the apparent ease and cold eagerness expresses when disposing of replicants. When the other guy passes the Voigt-Kampff test Deckard then starts doubting himself because of his increasing tendency to empathise with them.

Dick seemed to think that 'humanity' was not something inherit to the 'humans', but rather that the humane and inhumane existed regardless of biology.