Blade Runner rpg - having trouble getting sucked in

MGibster

Legend
I think a lot of people miss that Deckard is a replicant, even after Scott said it with Gaff leaving the origami unicorn on the landing. I guess maybe Gaff could also be a Blade Runner, though like most healthy humanity had fled the Earth. He could be a detective, and Deckard is just wielded as a weapon against other replicants, which is the story of the second movie.
Deckard's status as a replicant is a contentious opinion. I'm of the opinion that Deckard was not a replicant, that it doesn't make any sense for him to be a replicant. But there are valid arguements in favor of him being a replicant, so I'm certainly not going to say such a belief is ridiculous, just that it's not my particular school of thought.

As much as I love the movies, the setting is far too problematic to be enjoyable.
I don't usually have a problem with the problematic. But I can certainly see why it would turn some people off.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.
Thats not very convincing. Tyrell has been proven to experiment with the replicant lines. Deckard could have been designed physically weaker, or even given extensive psychological programming.

Though yes, despite director comments and included elements like Gaff knowing Deckard's dreams, folks enjoy the truth being left ambiguous. Like did or did not Tony Soprano get whacked?
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.
Yeah, it's ambiguous that Deckard is a replicant in the movie as it plays out - could be/might not be. Blade Runner 2049 doesn't really weigh in on that issue in either direction other than continue to portray Deckard's human or human-like limitations compared to replicants. The director, screenwriter, actors, and others involved in crafting the vision that Blade Runner projects do not agree. Some see him as human, some as replicant. And I consider that to mean the ambiguity is probably ideal.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
Yeah, it's ambiguous that Deckard is a replicant in the movie as it plays out - could be/might not be. Blade Runner 2049 doesn't really weigh in on that issue in either direction other than continue to portray Deckard's human or human-like limitations compared to replicants. The director, screenwriter, actors, and others involved in crafting the vision that Blade Runner projects do not agree. Some see him as human, some as replicant. And I consider that to mean the ambiguity is probably ideal.
I believe thats rather consistent P.K. Dick's writing too. He was constantly examining existence and its meaning. I was kinda hoping the RPG would lean into that.
 

Voadam

Legend
The first time I saw the original I did not really think at all about the possibility of Deckard being a replicant.

The second time decades later after having heard the theory, the part where Deckard reluctantly gets brought back in to do the job by his overbearing and threatening boss, it struck me that everything up to the beginning could have been false memories, he might be manipulated entirely into this in front of our eyes partly by lying that this has been his job. He might not even actually ever get paid for his "job."
 

dragoner

KosmicRPG.com
Deckard's status as a replicant is a contentious opinion. I'm of the opinion that Deckard was not a replicant, that it doesn't make any sense for him to be a replicant. But there are valid arguements in favor of him being a replicant, so I'm certainly not going to say such a belief is ridiculous, just that it's not my particular school of thought.
A lot of people don't agree that he is. One argument against the idea is that, compared to known replicates, he's weak and outclassed. The only reason he makes it to the end of the film is because Roy let him live.
Ridley Scott said he is, that is how Gaff knew to make the unicorn, because his memories are implanted like Rachel's. I own every cut, even director's cut with commentary, I also have the soundtrack, and saw 2049 twice. If people want to say he isn't that is fine, though officially he is.
 

MGibster

Legend
Ridley Scott said he is, that is how Gaff knew to make the unicorn, because his memories are implanted like Rachel's. I own every cut, even director's cut with commentary, I also have the soundtrack, and saw 2049 twice. If people want to say he isn't that is fine, though officially he is.
George Lucas also told me the original trilogy was always about Darth Vader, but I'm not quite buying that either.
 

Thats not very convincing. Tyrell has been proven to experiment with the replicant lines. Deckard could have been designed physically weaker, or even given extensive psychological programming.

That's not very convincing, either. That's just a whole lot of handwaving things that don't at all mesh with what we see by saying "Well, maybe he made him different for reasons that are not at all explored".

Though yes, despite director comments and included elements like Gaff knowing Deckard's dreams, folks enjoy the truth being left ambiguous. Like did or did not Tony Soprano get whacked?

I mean, Ridley Scott was basically at odds with everyone on that view, so saying "despite director comments" misses that the alternative goes against the actor, writer, and others. I also think it utterly neuters the ending, which is basically par for the course with Scott: A good director, but he has to be kept from ruining the movie by other people. When he doesn't, you get stuff like Prometheus.

And the Gaff-Unicorn thing was always kind of weak, anyways. The dreams about unicorns aren't anything special, it's Deckard's subconsciously knowing that he's seeking something he can't find (satisfaction, meaning). Meanwhile, throughout the movie Gaff is making those things to mock Deckard: the origami chicken, or the man with the erection. Why start suddenly revealing dreams? He's making a metaphorical commentary on his love of Rachel, or that he managed to find Rachel at all, is an unlikely, almost mythical thing. No replicant needed, it's just a thematic tie-in.

Ridley Scott said he is, that is how Gaff knew to make the unicorn, because his memories are implanted like Rachel's. I own every cut, even director's cut with commentary, I also have the soundtrack, and saw 2049 twice. If people want to say he isn't that is fine, though officially he is.

The writer, actor, and everyone else on that production disagrees. Hell, the unicorn-part wasn't even added back in until a decade later. The whole idea about Deckard as a replicant is largely just Scott being Scott: too clever by half.
 


I mean I think there are other clues, though I'm just saying what Scott said.

I think there's an ample amount to interpret, but I bristle at Scott's idea being definitive when it's never fully made clear in the film and that he's always been alone in saying it. Again, I find him to be his own worst enemy when it comes to making films.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top