Talk:Themes in Blade Runner

Moving Out

I think what we have done in this page is a load of original research. Unless we can properly reference, it should we moved out of Wikipedia. vaceituno

In a number of lectures given between 2000-2004, Robert Clark, PhD, a teaching fellow at Berkeley discussed the importance of eyes in Blade Runner. I dont know if he has published on it yet, and unfortunately I don't have time to look atm. 75.73.50.113 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Eronoel

Hope this article is not removed from Wikipedia, it's a great read. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to it (and still are). --roddie digital (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Debate over whether Deckard is Human or a Replicant

Well, first of all, I'll improve my paragraph by putting back its meaning, because somehow you got that by "nobody tells you" that I meant "sitting with you in the theater" rather than "in the movie" and by "you" I mean "Deckard". So when you changed it to imply that I was saying the audience needs the plot explained to them, it just went from dumb to dumberer. Having to have the plot explained isn't Dickian; having to be told you're not human is. I'm mulling whether to use mind-fuck rather than mind-bend, because Phil would have wanted it that way. Mulling, mind you.

And I'm going to remove the idiotic statement in one of the upper sections that "Deckard" is pronounced like "Descartes." It isn't in the movie, and not even an Austrian with a head cold would rhyme the two. It's either the dumberest part of the article, or the subtlest troll I've seen in months. Blair P. Houghton 17:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. I actually have a very strong opinion on the subject (i.e., it's Ridley Scott's film, not Dick's, not Ford's, not Fancher's, and Scott even changed it to make the issue crystal clear, and the question is much deeper and involves the audience much more using the device of recasting the entire story through a final revelation), but I also believe that NPOV is the soul of wikipedia, so I make sure my side and the other side get the same level of rhetorical emphasis and let the reader decide which makes logical sense. Your scientific method at work. Blair P. Houghton 23:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Reasons for replicant:

- I think that Deckard being a replicant makes the film MORE interesting, as the audience is led into an emotional relationship with Deckard on the presumption that he's human. To find that he is a replicant, points up the poignancy of the film's core ethical position : the problem established by Frankenstein of the position of artificial sentience in the circle of empathy (per Lanier). In terms of the story itself, Decakard's staus as a "skinjob" makes him more orthogonal to the beings he kills, but it problematises the most important relationship: that with the audience. Hwarwick - To emphasize Deckard's struggle to find his own identity, and to cause the audience to feel as he does in their own struggle to understand Deckard's identity, and ultimately to question their own understanding of how we can know our own humanity is different, and how we can know anything (cf. epistemology). If the audience does not know the answer until the end, and the characters do not know it either, then the story makes the audience and the characters ask again what is the difference between me and something un-human if I can be either human or un-human and I need someone else to tell me which? This interpretation would also fit the mind-bending quality of a work by Philip K. Dick. Tension in his books often relies on the false paranoia of characters whose identities are being manipulated, impressed on them, or hidden from them. His style is to misdirect the reader—brainwashing the reader as the character is—before allowing the mystery to be solved, sometimes leaving open the identity crisis as well as the philosophical questions of identity and knowability.

I agree the information is presented earlier in the article, but I think at the point where the scene is presented as evidence it's important to point out the purposefulness of Scott's director's cut revision. I'll leave it as-is, and if you agree, you can add it back in. I'm just going to nudge a typo I noticed. When I've got some more time (right now I'm kind of procrastinating on something else) I'll read all the stuff you've pasted here and see if there are things that are missing in the article. Blair P. Houghton 00:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the end of the movie, he clearly feels empathy for Roy and the other replicants. He has, I think, learned, that the replicants are just as human and just as deserving of life as any "real" human. And, through Deckard, we learn this too. We, too, are challenged by the notion that humanity cannot be assigned, that it is not an inherent trait as much as the label we assign to a very deep, colorful, and complex interplay of thoughts and emotions. And regardless of their origins, the replicants, by virtue of their emotions, needs, and desires, had become just as human as us. If Deckard had been a replicant, much of the movie's relevance to us, the real humans, would have been lost. What would Deckard have learned provided he was an N6? That he too was a "skin job"? That he was being used by humans to do the dirty work agains his own kind? That his memories lied to him and so how can anyone trust their memories? Except for the memory question (which is still valid if we hold Deckard to be a human) all of these are internal conflicts--ones he must struggle with himself, and ones that we may be titillated by, but not ones that have much relevance to the viewers. On the other hand, if we consider Deckard to be a "real" human, his gradual insight into the humanity of the replicants and into the tragedy of their situation becomes a lot more personal. Deckard becomes our "Watson", our personal probe into the movie's world, and his struggles and discoveries are also ours. I don't think we can have him be a replicant AND have his personal dilemmas and ponderings on life be directly relevant to us at the same time. For those who say that we could just as easily learn from a machine, I suggest that then Deckard's central role in the movie was superfluous--after all, we could learn a lot from Roy or Pris too, couldn't we? To learn MORE though, Deckard has to be human.

My take on it was always that Deckard is human, but the deliberate confusion about possibly being a replicant is primarily there (as part of Dick's way of thinking) to raise the issue of what it means to be human. What exactly is the difference between human and replicant in the end? - surely the basic theme. Scott's just taking things a bit too literally; or, if you like, giving an answer when the point is in having the question. Rd232 15:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well put Rd232... and I would like the comment on the last point of "The final speech of Roy Batty turns from poethic to pathetic if Deckard is a Replicant." That and the analysis that follows is POV. I could easily argue that having a Replicant empathizing for Roy and the others shows that Replicants *are* more human than human and that Man messing around with "God's" creation had unexpected concequences which were both good and bad.

Actually I have half a mind to add at the end of that debate my thesis on the Deckard issue. Which is essentially this, whether Deckard is human or a replicant is a reflection of ourselves. If we are pessimistic about the human condition Deckard is a Replicant, if we are optimistic he is human, and if we are neutral or unsure... then we sit on the fence. Deckard's nature becomes a reflection of our philosophical position on humanity. On the other hand this is just a long way of saying the question should remain open to interpretation.

Keep in mind that when Scott voiced his opinion he smiled knowingly; which is to suggest he knew it would/should not put an end to the debate. The debate section should be kept to the essentials, if it got to large it would need to be moved to a sub article. Because I intend to add more stuff to other sections, specifically BR and todays issues.

Actually I'm undecided if the paragraph I added about the Unicorn representing Rachael should be moved down to human section. I'll move it for now. - RoyBoy [∞] 20:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated question: are replicants Philosophical zombies? Rd232 15:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy, Blair and I were trying to agree on an NPOV version in the talk page before publishing. Do you want to join our efforts? As there are strong feelings on this I won't make any more changes to your version until we agree on this. vaceituno 15:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hiya. While I agree Deckard having bad memories appears to be a problem; it can be explained if we are to assume Deckard is a replicant with transferred memories/experience from a Blade Runner. To assume this is a problem for the Deck-a-Rep theory is POV as well. Actually I just came up with a novel reason to believe Deckard to be human. He screams. (Just remembered Zhora and Pris screamed too... although they seemed to scream in death, not pain, so I still might be onto something there. I'm replacing deleting the First/Last name point, because it's wrong; Leon is referred to by his first name, Zhora and Pris only have one name. - RoyBoy [∞] 15:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RoyBoy, Zhora, Pris, Leon and Roy are first names and Deckar, Gaff, Sebastian, and Tyrell (for example) are last names. During the film, both "sides" are consistently and predominantely called by their first and last names. Am I wrong? vaceituno 00:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but your original entry was reversed. :'D "All humans are referred to by first name, all replicants are referred to by last name." I've reverted a corrected version. - RoyBoy [∞] 02:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the description of Deckard's name; he has both a first and last name, only the last was referenced. brlancer 09:35, Jul 31 2005 UTC

For future reference put new items below in their own section below. I understand this is related to this section, but it is an old discussion... and finding your addition is difficult. Thanks by the way; I had thought that since "Rick" wasn't mentioned in the movie and credits, but it does say Rick Deckard on the DVD cover, so I guess it alright after all. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the reasons for wanting Deckard to be human or replicant are very relevant to the debate. Blair's version on that improved the section and made it more informative. As I quit editing the article, Blair or RoyBoy, would you mind putting it back?

It wasn't removed, I put it in its own section... what I should have done is put it as a sub-section to the debate, so I'll change that now.

I don't think interpretations belong to the article (unicorn interpretation in the Debate section?)

I will disagree for now. I think without other interpretations there wouldn't be much of a debate.

For other thing, if you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability article, it would be better to look at the evidence _against_ D being an H or a R. When you think DIR, you tend to dismiss the evidence in the contrary, the same when you think DIH. The opposite position brings you closer to the truth, as finding no contrary evidence is more important than finding evidence that supports your position. That was the reason I frased the evidence section and "evidence against D being H", and not "evidence of D being a", which is less clarifying.

You've put a bit of thought into this :'p, that's good. The thing is this isn't a scientific theory... its a literary (film) debate, it isn't falsifiable.

If you put you POV aside, it is clear that there is very weak evidence against DIH in the theatrical version, and strong evidence in the Director's Cut version. There is strong evidence against DIR in theatrical version, and some evidence against DIR in the Director's Cut version that are left as plot holes. We should reflect this in the article, but stating just the evidence.

But to say there are "plot holes" in the Director's Cut is POV; and does not account for alternative interpretations in the debate. However I agree there should be mention of OV (original version) being DIH and DC (Director's Cut) being considered DIR. I've heard it mentioned before so it is important to note.

For example, the good guy is hard bitten but finally fights back in so many hollywood movies I can't remember how many. I wouldn't say Deckard shows a great resilience, as he never gets to fight back Roy effectively, which is remarkable for the fiction of a film. That "evidence" falsifies nothing and should be removed. [User:vaceituno|vaceituno] 08:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of the evidence falsifies anything, that's the point. For example Deckard being weaker than the other replicants doesn't mean he's human, he could simply be a model that is type-B physical. Deckard doesn't need to fight back to show resilience, but rather to bounce back after being beaten by Nexus-6 replicants. Because replicants (physical-A type) are stronger than people Deckard's ability to keep working is interesting. I'll edit the article after "The Faculty" is over. - RoyBoy [∞] 03:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The unicorn thing for example is difficult to explain if Deckard is human. Every believer in DIR or DIH just tries to find convoluted explanations for the evidence that doesn't support their positions. Deckard being resilient to being beaten up is compatible both with DIR and DIH, so it falsifies nothing and is not valid evidence.

I agree, I'll remove it... but I will also move Deckard being weak to misleading; since it is clear Replicants can be weaker than type-A Nexus-6's. As to convoluted, I consider the unicorn = fantasy to be pretty straight forward considering it is an iconic symbol for fantasy; just as a chicken is iconic for cowardice.

Most of the rest of the evidence presented in the article now is not compatible with both options, and that makes it valid evidence.

Says you! ;') You'll notice many of the "not replicant" evidence has to do with things not being explained in the movie, since when has Blade Runner spelled things out for us? If one is willing to entertain the idea Deckard is a copy of a Blade Runner with his memories, the fact he would have an "ex-wife" or "bad memories" doesn't need to be explained; they are simply a part of his experience that was copied over.

Every inconsistency in the plot is a "non sequitur". If you go to a small room were someone claims to have burnt loads of paper a few minutes ago, and stay there since, but there is no smoke and no ashes, an explanation should be given for the phenomenon. So the existence of something can be as evident as the absence, and these absences are very important evidence. The logic behind making a replicant to become a blade runner implies to make him as strong and willing as possible to do his job, and signify an important advantage for the aims of the makers. If this logic is not to be followed, it must be explained, as "anything goes" is not a valid explanation for the stringent requirements of a constructed reality. vaceituno 00:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vaceituno, I'm enjoying our conversation here... but you should keep in mind I've actively debated this issue for around 4 years, and have not come across anything new in the Deckard debate in the last year. Once again you assert there are "inconsistencies", and as good as your analogy is burning paper, it is not applicable here... since it yet again rests on physical (scientific) phenonmenon rather than literary elements, and a dark mysterious and ambiguous film.

As to your logic argument of Deckard needing to be strong and willing, it doesn't hold up. Willing does not equal good at the job. Perhaps the things that make a blade runner good at their job is no family/friends and experiences that make a blade runner question what they are doing, abuse alcohol, and dislike the job, yet it also makes them most qualified to do it! As to making Deckard as strong as possible, is it a smart idea to make someone stick out? Deckard's boss and fellow blade runner's wouldn't welcome a replicant, would they? If he is as strong as Roy it would be pretty clear he was a replicant and he wouldn't last very long as a result. Besides, as mentioned, Deckard is pretty tough.

By the way, I think Deckard is human, but that doesn't mean I'll try logical arguments to prove it. It will just get you into trouble. ;'P - RoyBoy [∞] 02:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would remove the unicorn interpretations, as they are not relevant to the debate. An article should contain as little interpretation as possible. vaceituno 23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the second part. I will remove the first, more dubious interpretation, but not the second. To leave it out is to imply a different interpretation is wrong or not worth consideration, and that too is inappropriate for an article about a debate. - RoyBoy [∞] 01:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further references for the opinions:

• Ridley Scott stated in an interview in 2002 that Deckard is a replicant:

Twilight Zone magazine from a 1982 issue: "TZ: one important element of the novel that you did not include in the film is the idea that Deckard begins to suspect that he himself is a replicant. Scott: you've hit on a bone of contention here, because I loved that aspect of it. Blade Runner is a very paranoid film. In fact, I shot that layer of the story and we cut it out. It was a kind of general consensus that the way I had shot it was a bit arty."

• Harrison Ford continues to insist that Deckard is human:
• UK's "Total Film" magazine Harrison Ford said he wouldn't have played the character of Deckard if he had known Ridley Scott was going to insist he was a replicant, which he believes diminishes the emotional impact of the movie.

Hmmmm, we should definitely put external links as references (if they exist), but I'm not sure if we need/should elaborate on their opinions in this article. I think it could be another case of keeping interpretation to a minimum. - RoyBoy [∞] 02:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further evidence interpretation candidates for DIH or DIR

• Gaff's quip to Deckard: "You've done a man's job, sir!". This is a common expression, that implies nothing.

True, but given the context it does seem to be designed to raise doubt. Besides Gaff is the one that also makes the Unicorn origami, he's the conduit of commentary on Deckard's character, with the chicken, and the man... Gaff's words and actions are few but obviously carry meaning.

• Deckard's eyes glow: If the glow was real a Voight-Kampf test would not be necessary, it would sufficient to test for glowing eyes.

I do prefer your wording, its much shorter than my version... I'll combine it with the mention of where it occurs in the film.

• Wouldnt other Blade Runner's be after Deckard if he was a replicant?

Perhaps they will be. What makes you think they won't?

After all Rachael still needs to be retired.

Speculation on usenet news was that Gaff was the actual Blade Runner working for Bryant and was making certain Deckard 'stayed on task.' Notice how Gaff shadows Deckard's every move throughout the film. Presumably Scott wanted to emphasize the imagry from Gaff's origami & matchstick man and downplay the less dramatic elements of the character. But the character represents a real purpose in the narrative.VeeFourAJ (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• If Deckard learns he is a replicant when seeing he origami unicorn, why is his reaction so low key?

(More possible material to include in the main article) vaceituno 00:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because he has suspected it for some time, or has begun to suspect it when he finds out from Tyrell, memories, history, can be copied. But as you, I, and Harrison Ford *believe* (not logically conclude) he's acknowledging its metaphorical implications of fantasy, and his future with Rachael on the run. And there is nothing stopping Deckard from being a replicant, and Gaff not knowing. - RoyBoy [∞] 02:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So this means sooner rather than later I will be reformatting and deleting some of your reasons, not evidence, for Deckard not being a replicant. It needs to be worded more naturally and have a similar number of points to Deckard not being human. - RoyBoy [∞] 06:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a rewording, but the reasons are powerful ones. How do police uncover the truth often? Out of inconsistencies. Instead of relying of hidden causes to the BR inconsistencies, we must point out that they exist. What evidence could you possibly give for him being human? That he walks, talks, drinks and behaves like a human? Would that be valid evidence? The weight of the proof by evidence is obviously on the replicant side, as by default, characters that look human are considered human.

vaceituno 11:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I initially didn't like the fact the evidence sections are now so small (and may still need to be tweaked, for example I think Gaff's quip should be in both versions, since his insight into Deckard is in both versions), after a while I realized it was a pretty good comprimise. But I was considering combining all the plot hole reasons into one point to help balance the two evidence sections.

As to the police finding the truth through inconsistencies, well yes, but inconsistencies such as "contradictions" between what two people say; meaning one of them is lying. In Blade Runner we don't have contradictions, just a lack of information. Then there are inconsistencies between someone's story and the physical evidence. We don't have physical evidence to examine here, since as you said above its difficult to prove someone human, so that doesn't work either.

I'm happy with the current format, but I might tweak it in the future... for example planting a Replicant in the police department might have been Tyrell's idea. So there doesn't need to be a conspiracy, in fact asking the police to hire a Replicant could be more difficult than just sneaking one in. I am inclined to try and explain this in the article... but at the same time I do want to keep interpretation low. What I might eventually do is eliminate several plot holes and put in "Tyrell's motivation to plant a Replicant in the police force" is not explained and/or hinted at. - RoyBoy [∞] 22:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever convoluted explanation you, or anyone can think for the plot holes, the plot holes are still plot holes, as those explanation is not in the film itself. The plot holes are well documented, a reference is given for a "Blade Runner" communitiy forum on the issue. So it is not a question your or my particular opinion on the plot holes; They have been discussed by other people elsewhere. Think of the Debate Section as a simple and accurate summary of a wide discussion. We should reference it well and present opinions, implications, hard evidence, etc, withou qualifying it or looking for creative interpretations and hidden causes.

Has it occured to you those "plot holes" written in forums weren't well thought out by people who are *hostile* to Deckard being a Replicant. I submit to you they are sloppy and do not consider simpler alternatives that create fewer holes in the plot. Also if you want to present opinions, then present the secret Tyrell alternative... because I've come across it a few times in alt.fan.blade-runner.

If the one and only source of an interpretation is you, write your own analysis elsewhere, wikipedia is not the place for your particular opinions.

LOL, if this is a matter of sources; then that isn't an issue. I could write something in a forum and get people to agree with me; then voila a source. Trust me, its an idea floating around the Blade Runner community of which I am a part.

For the Gaff comment, the implications are there in the DC version. In the OV version, the comment implies nothing, as Gaff knows nothing of Deckard's dreams in that version.

I understand, what I am pointing out is Gaff has insight into Deckard's character in both versions.

For the balance between the evidence for Human and Replicant you mention some times, is not a question of number of word or lines. It is a question of what is relevant or not. It doesn't make sense to add material to balance the amount of material, material should be added for its own value.

Indeed, those plot holes suck! :' D

For the Significance and Issues section, I would like you to give some references to your writeup. If they reflect you own opinions on Blade Runner, you should consider set up a web page to publish them, wikipedia is not the place to do this.

vaceituno 11:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I already have a webpage on Blade Runner. One of the problems I have is people get so involved in human vs replicant, what it is to be human? and all this interesting philosophical stuff; but then don't bother mention some basic themes about the film. You know why? Because all of this stuff is *assumed* in dystopia and cyberpunk films. Do me the courtesy of putting in "corporatism" and "blade runner" into Google, then do the same for "globalization" and "blade runner"; I think you'll find far better sources than forums. - RoyBoy [∞] 20:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, a minor point (overshadowed by the presentation of the unicorn model in the director's cut) but Gaff does say (about Rachel) 'It's too bad she won't live... but then who does?' which seems to me to be a line suggesting that he doubts that Deckard is genuinely 'sentient', whatever the hell that means! Is this comment in both versions or only in director's cut where the unicorn is presented? I have editted the page on the basis that it is only in the director's cut but do please ammend if you know better.Andrew F. 23:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More evidence for Deckard as a replicant: Roy calls Deckard by name even though there is no way he would know it. Replicants seem to have an obsession with old photos (i.e. Leon), Deckard's apartment is full of them.69.33.101.98 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowing the name isn't compelling; as a commando Roy has obviously gathered intel on Deckard, he also knows Deckard "is supposed to be good." He simply did some research on it... as to the photos, I personally think that's pretty weak, as Deckard, could simply be lonely. Also, Leon is the only one to show an interest in photos. Rachael only uses a photo in an attempt to prove the validity of her memory. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a deleted scene where Deckard visits Holden in a hospital (if the link fails please search Youtube). They discuss the new type of Replicants they are up against. Deckard and Holden appear to be old friends/rivals. The scene makes sense if Deckard is human. If Deckard is a Replicant, it raises questions. How long could the Police use a Replicant without Holden knowing? Is Holden faking? Pheyos 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) There are two deleted scenes between Holden & Deckard on the final cut disks. In the second one, Holden describes in explicit language an intimate scene/situation between Deckard and Zhora that takes place just before or during her 'retirement.' On a narative level, inclusion of this scene in the film makes absolutely no sense, and that discussion belongs elsewhere. But what is notable, is that on its own, this second scene only makes sense if Holden completely believes that Deckard is human. VeeFourAJ (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly interesting questions, but if Deckard is an experimental Replicant he also might have no termination date. Making it possible for him to have a past. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Logical evidence that Deckard is human

Replicants are created for a purpose, and since they have a limited lifespan, replicants have limited time to "switch careers". Thus, IF Deckard is a replicant, he must have been created TO BE a hunter and deactivator of illegal replicants. The fact that he is physically inferior to the replicants he's supposed to apprehend makes no sense. Thus, it only follows logically that Deckard cannot be a replicant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.175.139 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

And? This isn't a discussion forum, and everything you just said is original research. magnius (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

isn't this the "talk" page? isn't this a place to "discuss" stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.175.139 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about whether he's an android

I thought the article went too in depth about whether or not Deckard is an android. I think one of the points of Blade Runner is that it makes us question what exactly is human by replicant characters that are easier to empathize with than some of the human characters. In the middle of this we have Deckard, whose identity, I think, has purposefully been left ambiguous.

Indeed, but how you define Deckard given that circumstance; be it human, replicant or unknown, I think is an important reflection on the film and yourself. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-debate edits

did anyone hink to ask ridley scott what the story was with it? or even the guy who wrote it?

At the risk of opening old wounds or arguments, I was at a screenwriter's seminar, where the at-the-time PM for Percy Main studios presented. She said explicitly and outright, "And, yes, Deckard was a replicant." My head almost exploded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.96.190.6 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Now that themes have been split into its own article, I think this could be merged with it. What do you guys think? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deckard is Descartes is /deck-art/

The human ersatz who claimed credit above for deleting the Deckard=Descartes piece is – in the tone he's himself accustomed to for qualifying others – the dumberest ignorant idiot:

• Dick, who majored in German, would hardly ignore that "-ard" is pronounced "-art" in German – cf. current German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, whose first name is pronounced /gair-hart/.

• Dick, who was so interested in philosophy, would hardly ignore that Descartes, philosopher of the "Cogito, ergo sum " (I think, therefore I am) and eponymous of 'cartesian', was an ideal reference for his Deckard.

• Dick, who named his literary alter-ego "Horselover Fat" because "Philo hippos" is Greek for "Horse lover" and "Dick" is German for "fat", is hardly the last one can suspect of such games with names.

Unfortunately, if Ersatz:Blair P. Houghton seems to be a dick, he's not of the Philip K. sort.

Further reading: http://www.brmovie.com/Analysis/Postmodern_Memories.htm

removed Descartes reference

I've taken the liberty of removing the following passage from the "is a replicant" arguments section:

" Naming Deckard may well have been inspired by Rene Descartes whom was famous for, amongst other important works, his quote 'I think therefore I am' - a direct reference to the characters ignorant state. "

I see this sentence has already caused some contraversy on this little talk page, but really, the reason's simple. Deckard's name was taken straight from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Since Deckard is definitively NOT an android in the book, his naming, whether or not inspired by Descartes, could not be a reference to a non-human existence.

So basically, the though might be insightful (I'm not sure), but it definitely didn't belong as evidence for the "is a replicant view point". So paste it back somewhere else if you see fit. 68.121.216.194

←^#6  _talk 1 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Happy ending note in Human side of Deckard debate

• The end is extended with a short "happily-ever-after" sequence in which this voiceover declares Rachael a "new model", without the four-year limit on lifespan accorded other replicants. This seems done to placate the audience, which might otherwise be offended by the notion of a human running away for a few short years with a replicant.

I'm unsure how this section impacts if Deckard is human. I can see that since Rachael has no time limit Deckard expects to live a lifetime with her... but that might not be the case if he is a replicant, and it has no bearing on the issue since a replicant without a time limit is still a replicant. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What the --? Additions of widely discussed points have to be "approved" here?

Seems some additions I'd put into this page have been bulldozed over by those who consider themselves BR experts. I'm aghast. I thought the Wikipedia NPOV policy mandates that no one contributor gets to undo other contributors additions based on "It's been discussed to death" or "that belongs on the discussion page instead" or "I disagree" or any other arbitrary reaction.

I suggest all authors of this page take a step back and remember that this is a collaborative project. No one person gets to play "editor." Do that on your own web page. If someone puts down a fact here, and it can be confirmed (in the script, in the DVD, etc.), leave it alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidbspalding (talk • contribs) .

Looking at the history of the page I'm assuming this is in reference to Vaceituno edit summaries. While I agree with the gist of your statement, Vaceituno's edits for the most part are in keeping with NPOV policy; and where attempts to limit speculation; and keep the article to points that are easily verifiable and widely discussed (to death in some instances). At first glance some edits may seem arbitrary, but they are not. This isn't just about being experts in the subject matter and the debate; it is about limiting Original Research and sticking to notable arguments to provide a relevant summary on the Themes of Blade Runner. If you have a specific point you wish addressed, please do mention it here. Non-specific, general criticism is not helpful nor collaborative. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with David that Vaceituno is violating NPOV. Vaceituno seems to consider this thread his personal domain and reverts items with which he disagrees without discussion. For instance, it is a *very* common talking point in the Deckard-replicant debate that the emphasis on Deckard's photograph collection is significant. Yet Veceituno reverted the addition of this point to the clues section with the comment that "The police chief also has photographs". So what? Obviously a significant number of people consider the photographs an important clue, as a cursory google search will clearly demonstrate. Joncolvin

The analysis of photographs is certainly prevalent, but so is analysis of Deckard being the sixth replicant. It doesn't make it inherantly helpful for inclusion; on the flip side to not have it would encourage good faith future contributors to add it in future, and feel rebuffed when it is removed. Maybe a compromise where the photo point is added to both sides; or it could be the first point in a new third section "Neutral". Vaceituno might be bold, but it isn't against NPOV, as he considers adding it to one side of the discussion Undue Weight. He happens to be right; as the Captain indeed has photos of his own, and the only Replicant with a photo fetish is Leon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is also emphasis on Rachel's photos (and the police chief's are viewed only cursorily), the lingering pan across Deckard's photo collection is significant, as is the fact that the photos are obviously historical rather than mere snapshots. While not a clue with the force of the unicorn, its certainly more suggestive than some of the other clues included. The sixth replicant debate is not comparable, since that idea is clearly incorrect.Joncolvin

Quite, Ridley's position on Deckard's nature is clear, hence the emphasis; however, so is Ford's. It doesn't have much force IMO, as photos and the emotions they illicit can be entirely human in nature. I'm unsure how their historical nature leans the issue one way or the other. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my use of "emphasis". I meant emphasis in the movie. There is a clear and continuing theme on the relationship between (some) replicants and photographs, which they cherish as providing a historical context for their existence. The obviously historical, sepia-toned nature of Deckard's photos seems designed to suggest a similar relationship between Deckard and his photos, emphasizing their historical aspect. Then again, they might be there to provide an old-world counterpoint to the futuristic city. But the two are not mutually exclusive. I can't agree with adding this clue as "neutral". There is a large body of discussion w.r.t to Deckard's photo collection: here's just one: www.scribble.com/uwi/br/brtv.html "Deckard's narration, "I don't know why a replicant would collect photos...," collapses the movie's parallel simulacra. The text deals with the discovery of replicants, and the sub-text deals with the construction of representation, visuality, and verisimilitude. The line becomes a hint that Deckard himself is a replicant, the strongest blow to the viewer's sense of reality, when we see his own piano covered in black and white family photographs. Adding this clue as a "neutral" seems to itself violate NPOV.Joncolvin

I'm aware there is much discussion on it. That is one interpretation, of the photos the voice over and NPOV. Although the bulk of the discussion on photos and glowing eyes is in relation to Deck-a-Rep, that does not defacto make it Deck-a-Rep evidence; more accurately it is evidence interpreted as such and seized upon by the observant wishing to make their case (which they write about to do so). That's fine, but one cannot maintain one is correct while Deck-a-Human interpretations of said evidence are incorrect; it is that which may violate NPOV. Also, be cognizant that the amount of text given to an interpretation (photos = Deck-a-Rep) does not (necessarily) translate into one view being more prevalent than the other. In the end, I may agree with you that the photos are Deck-a-Rep as was Ridley's intention... but its not as clear cut as you presented; and mentions of NPOV doesn't clarify anything.

As to sepia, are you trying to draw a parallel between Rachael's photo? I'm sorry, but as much as that makes sense; it could simply be they are both old photos. A photo Rachael "cherished" so much, she brought it to Deckard without protection and left it there. Is what I just said conclusive, of course not... as she might have protected it quite tightly in her purse until that point and cherished it dearly; alternatively she may have had to find an (fake/reprinted/or maybe even real album of the origianl niece) in a dusty closet to acquire the photo. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that photos can be used to think of Deckard as a replicant or to think of replicants as humanlike. After all _humans_ love photos, so the photos could be an indication of how human replicants are. As discussed elsewhere (see above in this page), the best evidence is the one that falsifies what is being proved. The photos can be taken eiher way and therefore are not good evidence. vaceituno 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, cya tomorrow. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The basic point made my myself and (many) others is that looked at in the context of Deckard's narration ("Why would a replicant collect photographs?"), Leon's obsession, and the information provided that replicants are provided with false photographs to butress their identity, the lingering *emphasis* given in the movie to Deckard's collection of photographs is the strongest clue in the original cut that Deckard is a replicant. And that's not just my opinion. For many (myself included) who watched the original cut this is the *one* thing that suddenly clued them in (in the absence of the unicorn) that Deckard might well indeed be a replicant. On the other hand we have a (brief) glimpse that Bryant has a few photos on his desk, and some speculation (original research) that Deckard might be lonely. I dont think it is deniable that the volume of debate re. Deckard's photo collection warrants that they get a sub-topic of their own in the Deckard Human/Replicant section. If you like I'll make it NPOV by saying "Many observers believe...". Any objections?Joncolvin

IMO it is deniable, and I know its a bad idea. I've participated in the debate and read much analysis on the subject, and the photos have *always* been at best a footnote to the debate. It's simply not notable enough to have prominance. As to speculation, yeah I speculated wrote that; just as people speculate these photos are somehow insightful regarding Deck-a-Rep. They can very well be insightful on Deckard as a person (human); if all the Replicants were into photos I wouldn't disagree with you... but they aren't, not even Rachael, just Leon.

The reason its a bad idea is it then permits sections on *everything*. It would quickly get ridiculous with analysis, back and forth on every detail of the Deckard debate. Wikipedia is not the place for that as it is a summary overview for a topic and the Deckard section is sufficiently large already. However, you could add relevant links to the External links section; and if you really wanted footnote refs in the photo paragraph. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to have to hit back on this one. "Original research" that Deckard is lonely? Common now, that ain't exactly ingratiating yourself... nor is it filling me with confidence you can weigh the evidence appropriately and give it true context (true, meaning balanced context); do I really need to hunt down a source to state the obvious? (I have Google search results ready and waiting if that becomes necessary.) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the thrust of your argument is, photos are discussed and referred to repeatedly as Deck-a-Rep evidence. Absolutely and a strong point. However, that does not denote its actual weight on the debate; as the counterpoint is prominent photos are entirely consistent with a lonely human. These offset in my opinion, even though the majority of discussion is an analysis of how the photos could mean Deckard is a Replicant. Because the Human explaination is the plainer and simpler of the two; hence there is little need for analysis. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote:"I understand the thrust of your argument is, photos are discussed and referred to repeatedly as Deck-a-Rep evidence. Absolutely and a strong point." That is *the* point. I happen to believe the photos are strong evidence. You (and Vaceituno) evidently disagree. But our personal beliefs are irrelevant to NPOV. If you *really* want me to, I will compile a list of citations for the relevance of photos-Deck-a-Rep, while you can compile a list of citations arguing that the photos-Deck-a-human. I've no doubt that the photos-deck-a-rep list will outweight the photos-deck-a-human by 100 to one. Do we need to go to that step? You agree yourself that "the majority of discussion is an analysis of how the photos could mean Deckard is a Replicant". Quote:"The reason its a bad idea is it then permits sections on *everything*." Not so. Deckard's photo's are FREQUENTLY cited as Deck-A-Rep evidence. Citing this fact does not in any way imply that *any* fringe idea about deck-a-rep should be entered. The longer this discussion goes, the clearer it becomes that deliberately omitting photo-deck-a-rep violates NPOV. I refer you the "Imformation suppression" clause of the NPOV tutorial: "Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance; Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible."Joncolvin

Even if the photos are frequently pointed out, that doesn't mean they are a valid point, as they can be taken either way, they are not "hard evidence". I suggest we create two separate tables, one for hard evidence, one for other frequently discussed points. For example, the sixth replicant is frequently discussed, but this is a mistake in the script due to the suppression of one replicant. So it is frequently cited, but wrong. The same way, the photos clue is frequently discussed, but wrong as well. Otherwise we would be giving way to a fallacy of "this is correct because it is popular". Hard evidence are facts, not opinion BTW, I think "Deckard battles them alone and holds his own; it would make sense to send a replicant to catch one." is opinion, not fact, as tit doesn't make sense to send a weak replicant to catch others. vaceituno

What I meant by everything, is not fringe stuff, but every point frequently brought up in the Deckard debate could then be equally expanded. That isn't a good thing, and its not the function of this article to be so detailed; nor is the Deckard debate notable enough to warrant its own article (as it qualifies as fancruft). It simply won't happen.

I've also already explained how a ratio of 100 to 1 isn't necessarily relevant. As to NPOV policy, no significant information is being suppressed nor omitted. Rather it isn't being presented as you prefer; there's a difference. (however, if there are sufficient points, then a photo sub-section could certainly be made under Eyes and memories, or maybe one in its own right? I'd love a new theme explored further in the article, what I am against is expanding into minutia about the Deckard debate.) "photo-deck-a-rep" is in the article at this very moment, in the neutral section. The longer you try to (poorly) Wikilawyer, the weaker your case becomes. For example, placing the photos point in the neutral section is an attempt to avoid omitting a "minority view" (at least according to citations), of photo-deck-a-human. Your NPOV citation undercuts your case.

I suggest you focus on why we should split up the neutral section and make human and rep points for photos seperately. Because if you can't make *that* case, then I also want to add Deckard's physicality points to the neutral section:

• Known replicants (except Rachael) are stronger than humans, but Deckard is of merely human strength. He is beaten physically and, like any human, tires.

• Replicants are strong and dangerous; Deckard battles them alone and holds his own; it would make sense to send a replicant to catch one.

As these points essentially offset each other; one says he's weak like a Human, but the other says he's tough and resiliant like a Replicant. Seems to end in a draw, right? Or not? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the neutral section altogether. It is rather illogical, since if something is neutral, then it is not a clue. A clue is by definition not neutral. Making a "neutral" section only makes sense if one clue completely balances out another clue, which is a matter of opinion; so paradoxically a "neutral" box violates NPOV. If you don't think that a separate subheading for the photos (like origami) is warranted (and the subtopic could certainly inlcude photos-deck-a-human), go back to how it was before. Otherwise half the clues will end up in neutral (including the Unicorn, since there's a counterargument). Put the points from photos-deck-a-rep on one side, photos-deck-a-human on the other.Joncolvin

Regardless of whether the neutral section is retained or not, the contents were poorly structured. I've improved it.Joncolvin

Sounds reasonable to me. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Split up and removed neutral section. Had to abbreviate it as these clues should be in point form; those details and more can go in a photo analysis if you wanted to do one in its own section. Covering the entire photo theme, not just their Deckard implications. I think it would be a nice fit under Eyes and Memories. Perhaps eye could be split off, and the section would then become Memories and Photos? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better that way. I added another point (Deckard's narration re. photographs and replicants) to the photo-deck-a-rep to, IMHO, do better justice to the photo-deck-a-rep argument, without making the citation over-long. A photo section with memories sounds like a good idea. Photographs are definitely a continuing theme throughout. I will get to the photo section next week unless someone starts it first.Joncolvin

Deckard musing

Deckard muses "Why would a replicant collect photos?"

I don't understand how the above adds to the Deck-a-rep case. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Origami (DC)

I have a problem with this section. It seems highly speculative for wikipedia. Please make it more factual and add references or delete the original analysis. vaceituno

I agree it should have some references. Removed it here until it acquires some, but I would say I like the section and for the most part references can be found. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks horribly like a lift from some UBerk student's Media Studies assignment. Cain Mosni 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Origami (DC)

Gaff's folding of a chicken when Deckard is "chickening out" of the task being pushed at him, and the matchstick man later in the film representing Deckard's attraction to Rachael, indicates that the unicorn was also a message for Deckard. The origami unicorn stands alone as a symbol of what is "not real" and yet exists. Before the addition of the unicorn dream sequence it is possible that this symbol was intended as a reference to Gaff's knowledge of Rachael being a replicant. Or, a reference to the mythical, savage beast which could only be tamed by a chaste maiden; in this case, the cold-blooded bounty hunter, softened by a new love. Alternatively, the unicorn could simply be meant to symbolize Rachael (both are man-made creatures, in a sense), with the dream indicating Deckard's falling in love with her.

In any event, the origami seems to be made of chewing gum wrapper which is foil on one side and paper on the other. It has been said that this hints at the organic and mechanical nature of a replicant.

Original and fambloyant analysis

If this article can't become more encyclopedic, perhaps it should be removed....I think. vaceituno 13 July 2006

Depends on verification. For example the Frankenstein theme has lots of refs, if anything Frankenstein comparisons can be expanded. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, please add some Frankenstein material based on BR and how it draws on the Frankenstein theme. - vaceituno 13 July 2006

The basic theme was already there... until recently, maybe next year. The socioeconomic point isn't referring to the past-within-the-film, but as in comparison to the present day. This is reflected in Tyrell's empire ... tall glimmering buildings in the background, and statements by set designers that no respectable person goes below the 60th floor. I'll look into the other stuff next week. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sixth replicant

yeah yeah it's a mistake, omg asl. buuutt -- ridley scott left it in the director's cut on purpose. it's mentioned in the book Future Noir. "leave that alone", he said. surely that counts for something? Artrush 23:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Which page is that on? Nevermind, Pg 352. Interesting, I'll add it to the notice. If it remains unchanged in the Special Edition coming out shortly, I guess we will have change it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to change it, the Special Edition explictly changed the dialogue to account for all the Replicants that came from off World. Deckard is no longer the 'sixth' Replicant. Nor is Rachael.VeeFourAJ (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if he was a replicant with implanted memories it's a real stretch to assume he came from Off World anyway. 193.226.105.89 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Roy's / Chew's eyes

I find it interresting that you enterpreted the following statement as you did: Roy: "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" You interpret the statement as Chew's own physical eyes when Roy says "...with your eyes." I always interpreted Rutger Hauer's delivery meaning his (Roy's) physical eyes as being Chew's eyes, as in "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with the eyes you created."

Another example of Hauer's delivery which many miss (and others disagree with entirely) is when Roy confront Tyrell. He tells him "I want more life, fucker." Hauer's execution of the line gives a hint towards "I want more life, father." --RedKnight 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought that interpretation is clarified in the ironic brackets. I've rewritten it with your language to shorten and clarify that point.

As to father/fucker, while I agree with you, that word is actually changed depending on which version of Blade Runner you watch. Censored for TV is "father", actual dialog is "fucker". I suppose its it is interesting enough to mention; but I don't see a section where it fits. I was thinking of creating a new section on parental abandonment or paternal themes, because of an extensive essay I once read on how LA 2019 could represent an abusive mother; nurturing while at the same time poisoning those who live with her. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed three flawed reasons

I removed the following reasons for why Deckard may be human:

• Known replicants (except Rachael) are stronger than humans, but Deckard is of merely human strength. He is beaten physically and, like any human, tires and shows pain.

If Rachel is one exception then why can't Deckard be another? And if he had superhuman strength then he would know he was a replicant.

• Deckard makes reference to his ex-wife. (Theatrical version only.)

That could be an implanted memory.

• Rachel was stated an experiment for memories in a Nexus 6; if she is the first experiment, then Deckard cannot be implanted with memories.

Nobody said she was the first.

Richard75 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the latter two removals, we have to be careful not to make this a debate. Every reason in the section is "flawed" since there is a counter-point to all of them. What the list is aiming for is to list common reasons/rationales are used (and are consistent with the film); not to judge which reasons are good or bad. I agree with the ex-wife removal, because it was added after the fact by film executives... whether it could be implanted or not isn't cause to remove it. And indeed since the film does not specify she was the first, it should be removed. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also previous versions of scripts have no bearing on the film as it is. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New source...

[1]

Most useful quote:

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.

Scott: It was, actually. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. [...] Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it's a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard's daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn't normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it's Gaff's message to say, "I've read your file, mate." [...] And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.

Don't have time to work it into the article right now, but I'm sure someone else can. JulesH 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant text

I'm going to remove this text from the Christian Symbolism section. Everything relevant is already expressed much more eloquently two paragraphs above.

Roy is compared to Satan, when Tyrell says that he is his "brightest light." Lucifer in Latin means "light." Roy is also compared to Jesus. Roy "crucifies" himself in the fight scene with Deckard by sticking the nail in his hand. His expiration date is January 8th which is the Feast of the Epiphanos (The Coming of God). When Roy saves Deckard at the end he becomes his Savior, just as Jesus Christ was a savior.

hey guys i have an idea for a section how about you talk about how stupid it is to argue the replicant/human issue and that by even stating an answer you've missed the whole point of the movie tia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.160.125 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blade Runner/Philip K. Dick/Modern Prose Science Fiction

Neither in the main article about the film Blade Runner or in the body of this article is much mention made of the content of Dick's early works in the 1950's and beyond. In particular his association with H L Gold and Galaxy Magazine and all the writers of the 1950's such as Fred Pohl, C M Kornbluth , Alfred Bester ... etc. Gold and all these authors were the next break point in the science fiction prose movement that brought about 'social science fiction', reference, Trillion Year Spree by Brian Aldiss see chapter X of this book. Dick was in concert with a whole wave of writers for which he contributed ideas that were influential on Blade Runner that are not all in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Aajacksoniv

http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0210_11/onbooks.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason for the murder of Sebastian?

Why would Roy do that? Does it tie in with other themes? I could see it as either practical, in that it would prevent Sebastian from talking to police, or thematic. The former is boring.

So here is an idea I've been tossing over in my mind just now - Saint Sebastian, patron saint against plagues, supposedly miraculously cured one of muteness and another of blindness. Of interest is also the attribute of beauty belonging to St. Sebastian, which J.F. Sebastian was clearly lacking due to Methusula syndrome (plague of sorts?).

It could be that this character is an alliteration to an end of a characteristic of humanity... Saint Sebastian actively encouraged two Christians to maintain their conviction and become martyrs. JF, though seemingly hesitant, was too weak in will or spirit to refuse... Perhaps also an allusion to another point I just thought of - that when Man (Tyrell) is placed above God in status one will lose the support of their convictions.

I'm not a Christian by any means, I just think there's definitely something more to the Sebastian character than a convenient method of introducing conflict/resolution to two main characters. 76.177.109.212 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, but please check Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for discussing edits on the article, not a place for discussing original ideas. You may consider moving the discussion to Wikireason -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 16:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought, perhaps, that these ideas would lead to an edit. Granted, this may not lead to an immediate contribution or edit, but further discussion may. I don't see how stifling the discussion at the outset with "move it here, this isn't productive" does anyone a favor. So there you have it, the discussion stays.

I'm sorry if you found it insulting. I've never meant to discourage anyone to contribute. I've just thought that such ideas flourish better in another wiki and talk pages of wikipedia are not here for original ideas according to guidelines. Since you are contributing anonymously, you might be a newcomer and I assumed that you may not be aware of main guidelines (there are many of them and I haven't read them all either). In any case they are just guidelines, not laws and we can always ignore all rules if we need to. I hope you'll assume good faith, I certainly do for you. Best wishes. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 23:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

New information on replicant vs human from Dangerous Days documentary

I added below the human vs replicant clues, a description of an alternate scene from the documentary Dangerous Days (included in the Final Cut editions). It's the scene after Roy dies, and Gaff stands on the roof saying to Deckard: "You've done a man's job, sir!". The second line in this alternate scene is "But are you sure you are a man?". I also added what i think is a reasonable conclusion as why this line was changed. This piece of information might better be worked in to the rest of the article. I haven't worked on this article before, so i put it in clear sight so others might work it in should they see it fit as an argument in this "debate".

Also, i noticed Wired's interview with Ridley Scott linked further up in this discussion page, and as far as I've seen, this piece of information hasn't really been entered into the rest. There's a fair amount of information in that interview. I might give it a shot later, and possible updating the main article of Blade Runner as well. (As a final note, i had apparently been signed out when editing in the information on the new scene, so my username doesn't show in the history. I also forgot to write a short description of the new information.) Martin (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Clues and questions

I suggest that the two color-coded charts in the "clues and question" subsection be deleted. None of the information is referenced, it has a highly speculative tone, and it looks like OR, or a synthesis of unreferenced information from numerous sources. The fact is, we do not know whether or not Deckard is a replicant, and the question is part of the mystery of the film. It is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article to engage in a lot of speculation. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. One of the points brought up is that Deckard didn't answer Rachel when she asked if he had ever taken the Voight-Kamf. When she asks this question, Deckard has already fallen asleep, so he wouldn't answer one way or another. He's asleep! Sir Rhosis (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BladeRunner Rachael.jpg

The image Image:BladeRunner Rachael.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Human vs Replicant

Removed a list of possible support for replicant. Seems to be original research. It also appears to be one-sided with no counters for each point. It seems to me to be out-of-place and would be better served to just have a reference to some comprehensive article where the pros and cons were detailed and discussed.AbramTerger (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The facts stated in the list are undeniably true, there is no original research, it has been public and notorious that said facts alone would tilt the balance towards the replicant option, and if you believe there is a bias in favor of one of the options you're more than welcome to fill in a list of the other facts, the ones for the non-replicant option. It's not like we're discussing a 2006 film here, there are tons of articles, books, interviews and commentaries pointing exactly in this direction (or in the opposite one, for which you're more than welcome to provide an alternative list next to the one I wrote). Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

But that is not a discussion page. It is not meant to be a list of facts. It is an encyclopedia and should shoot for brevity. And if there are so many articles, reference them and don't make a partial list of facts for one side, especially since none of those facts rule out his humanity. These articles are not meant to be a list of pros and cons. The article clearly mentions the debate and the ambiguity. Check out what What Wkikipedia is notI have added a link to an existing pros and cons list AbramTerger (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yours is a issue of fuzzy logic. You deem my contribution "original research" on account of its lack of reference (or lack of reference for the alternate option) and yet you seem to hover unassumingly over the rest of an article which is 90% subjective opinion and 5% referenced fact. What else could you expect from an article titled "Themes in [...]". Are you going to apply the censor's scissors on the rest of the entry as well? Alright. "Paranoia": all subjective (or original, as you'd put it) and 0 references. "Technicism": all subjective and 0 references. "Genetic engineering and cloning": all subjective and only 1 reference. "Eyes and memories": only 2 or 3 references and it all stinks of original research. The list goes on. Not to mention the intrinsic subjectivity (or should I say originality) of choosing these 9 themes instead of others. No, that was not a discussion page, but this is, and the discussion is over because I've got other work to do and I just won't enter an edit war against an IP with a semi-stable ego. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not making my point clearer. The original research was only one aspect. The bigger problem was the lack of a Neutral POV. One can conclude that Deckard is human, replicant, or that the film is meant to be ambiguous. Your listing of points was one-sided. This point was already made in the article. Your desire to list the "replicant side" and then ask others to research and rebut these points is not the way the articles are meant to work. The contributions you make should be neutral, the relevant opininons coming from outside sources.AbramTerger (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

language: stigmata vs stigma

"Nearing the end of his life, Roy creates a stigmata by driving a nail into his hand..."

shouldn't it be "STIGMA" instead of "STIGMATA" ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.228.28 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"You People"

I can't believe I've missed this before: I'd expect a replicant to know a replicant, especially one as intelligent as Roy. And he's had plenty of opportunity to analyse Deckard's psychological and physiological reactions. But when he says

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe ...

that implies that Roy sees Deckard as human, not a replicant. Am I missing something, given that the weight of other clues points the other way?

Brightonjon (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be sure how much to read into that, except that it made the cut on each occasion that RS took the bits to the edit suite. I must apologise for not signing in, but I'm on an i-pad & away from my passwords. thing is, I attended a screening of BR in 1991 that was introduced by mr hauer, & he did q&a afterwards. he claims authorship of that monologue, so the exact meaning of the words he chose may well have been outside of the director's control. I'm aware that I can't prove hauer's making this claim- perhaps there are other witnesses to come forth, or perhaps it is documented elsewhere. duncan.

Female Stereotypes

I note that the section on female stereotypes was removed from the page in August 2008 due to its being original research. I am not arguing against this, but I think that it some of these ideas would be relevant to the page. I would like to create a section that does not use original research and that follows neutral POV rules. Before I do so, I would like to have the input of editors of this page to see if there is any disagreement on the potential worth of recreating a section similar in theme to the original. Glass salamander (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your source material on the subject?AbramTerger (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So far I have some references by Donna Haraway and an article published in a film studies journal. I have not yet written much as I do not want to do the work if it isn't seen as something worth having on the page. Know what I mean? Glass salamander (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)