MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Discussion > Question on Deckard (Spoilers)

Question on Deckard (Spoilers)

posted 7 years ago by HAL 9010 (904)
7 replies | jump to latest

Was he a replikant too? If so (or not) why and what makes you think so?

I say he is human.

Interests are on Rachel's ability to get pregnant, not on his ability to provide swimmers. The interest in him seems solely on getting info out of him so they could get to their spawn. Not about his ability to breed.

.... but, he lived in a place of radiation, and those who came to bring him in wore masks as though the were protecting themselves from the environment there.... telling us that no humans can live here, or ??? And sooo? This part I may he misread though.

What do you think?

[–] blissquest (133) 7 years ago

Deckard is a replicant.

This was speculation in the 1982 version, but it's pretty much implied in 2049.

There's a clear giveaway of this fact when Wallace is about to introduce him to the cloned version of Rachael. Deckard says "i know what I feel" That's the same remark K/Joe makes when Deckard's daughter tells him THE (his) memories are "real"

Wallace also flat-out tells him his initial meeting with Rachael was staged.

As a replicant, there seems to be constant inner conflict regarding memories. Are they implants or real? With K, the conflict only comes to the fore when he's assigned the case, which is why he flipped-out right after the revelation.

[–] Nipsey_Russell (1339) 7 years ago

🤔 I had the interpretation he was human by the things he said

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I figured he was human too.

Btw, what happened to the expiry dates of replicants, how can they live for 20-30 years after? The Blackout?

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 7 years ago

The answer lies in; what happened between this and the original movie?

You get some of this info if you watch the three short films (on youtube) that was released shortly before this movie. The following is the best I could figure out:

After Blade Runner (1982), Tyrell began to make Replicants with no expiry date, modeled in part after Rachel we must assume. This ultimately resulted in a revolt from humans (we do not like competition) and inhere Tyrell was destroyed (or decommissioned) and all Replicants became illegal... and those Replicants with no expiry date that Tyrell had already made, were hunted for retirement... however, those remaining then organized and executed a "terrorist attack" (later called; "The Black Out") on all the files kept on them and all other humans... by deleting these, we would become equal in a sense, as there would be no files to distinguish them from other humans. And so they would be much harder to find herafter the black out. This black out worked and sort of gave them a better chance to simply live peacefully, which was all they wanted... now in comes Wallace. He shows the humans in power that he can make Replikants that obey humans completely and flawlessly. Unlike those made by Tyrell. And so with this invention the band against making replicants were lifted, and Wallace is in business.... K is then made. He is one of those obedient replicants. And his job is to still hunt down and retire those Replikants that Tyrell made with no expiry date... and this is when the movie begins.

So the short answer is that Tyrell made them with no expiry date. And that it created instability and they were thus outlawed... the new versions (like K) are obedient to humans and so tolerated.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I guess I have to check those short vids on YT.

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 7 years ago

Thank you for your points.

I have since come to terms with him being human. Allow me to comment to your points above and to paste in a post I later made about why I now see him as human.

First; The clear giveaway you mention can be interpreted either way. The theme in the book and imo as well as in the movies, is that the line between humans and replicants is not really that clear or even relevant. What matters is our feelings and consciousness and not the intention of our maker. And so this giveaway you reefer to could be interpreted to show the opposite; that we are not that different in our desires and wishes and our souls....

Indeed Wallace says this, but then immediately hereafter says the opposite. In other words, he plays with Deckard's mind (and ours?). Why? Well, he wanted to break him in order to get him to talk about his child...

I am more elaborate in my point of view in my reply below, if your are interested :):

[–] HAL 9010 (904) 7 years ago

Deckard is human. (SPOILERS AHEAD) I have no doubt.

There are several strong and less strong indicators in this new film especially. And I will try and list them here.

In the original movie from 1982 it is ambiguous on some level perhaps, but truly becomes more of a debate in the later cuts and version of it. The one scene that sort of makes the decision for me that he is a human is the incredible beautiful end-scene with Roy Batty. This is beautiful because a human and a replicant at this moment become equals. If this scene is simply between two replicants, much is lost. So, for the sake of art, imo, he has to be human in this first one.

Plus his ponder is not tied to the fact he may not be, but to the fact that there may be no essential difference. Humanity is defined by consciousness and not intentions of a supposed creator. This, I think, is the essence of the story and so therefore he has to be a human just as much as Roy needs to be a replicant.

In the original book by Philip K Dick; “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968)”, Deckard is human for sure and it is not an issue in that story – but he becomes progressively dehumanized in his work as a Blade Runner. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human to him as the story unfolds. The book is essentially questioning if there is any real difference? The issue is not whether or not he is human, but what it means to be human, and so Deckard being a human is essential for the story to work.

Now in “Blade Runner 2049 (1917)” there a a few factors that weighs in as well: The rebels want Deckard killed because he may lead Wallace to them. If he was as important as Rachel was, surely, they would not want him killed? If he was a Replicant, then a more logical move would be to get him back in the rebels. He is after all a great soldier. They don’t even consider this. He is now in the attention of Wallace and so he must be killed. They say. From this logic K should be killed too. He had same knowledge (in fact more) and he was hunted for this knowledge too. However, K they consider an ally. Why? Well, because he is a Replicant – why wouldn’t he be. Deckard on the other hand they consider expendable and a risk. Why? Because he is a human.

Wallace too wanted Deckard for what he knew and not for what he was. It seems to me that those characters in the know treated him strictly as human. And this to me is a big tell.

Regarding the point that Wallace plays with him as he is interrogating him: Wallace puts kindle on both sides of the argument, but if he was created for the purpose of procreating with Rachel, as he first plays with…. then lets us take the idea further; why make him a Blade Runner in such a case? Why not just create two replicants and keep them in the dark and see what happens on their downtime. Instead they trained him to sniff out replicants better than most and to even realize Rachel is one, and they give him a job that constantly risks his life. Not logical if he is so special and unique, I think. If he was designed for the higher purpose of breeding, he would have been an accountant. Wallace plays with his mind here because he aim to break him, not to enlighten him.

In the new one we also learn that all the Replicants do not age. Evident as we see pictures of them taken 30 years before, and they have not changed. Also evident in one of the three short films that was issued at the same time as this movie (on youtube). Deckard surely aged. Does this prove he is not human? Well no, because one can argue he was special from the beginning ….but it surely does not support he could be a Replicant either.. All replkants we meet, do not age.

And again, for the sake of art and this magnificent story we are told. Two designed breeders are just not what this whole story is about.

The child between Deckard and Rachel represents the unity of man and machine – I am sure Philip K. Dick would agree.

So here we have it.

The book says he is human.
The first movie and its following cuts are ambiguous.
In the last one, all signs I can see point to him simply being human – more or less in thread with how the book saw him.
Ergo sum, he is human.

Now the real question is; Does their daughter dream of electric sheep?

She has real dreams, we learn for sure as a pivotal part of the story. And she has "electric" fantasies, we see directly form before us when we are introduced to her. The answer: She dream of both.

Rachel is a replicant and Deckard is a human, and their daughter is alive.

.... though, K is dead, baby. K is dead.