8 thoughts on “Tweet of the Day, YOU TELL ‘EM, HAN edition.”

  3. Ford also is on record as thinking that Rick Deckard was NOT a replicant. Ridley Scott disagrees.
    .
    Ford 2, Lucas/Scott 0.

    1. That was ambivalent in the movie.
      There were hints that he might be, but nothing with which to make a strong case to that effect.
      .
      However, the movie was loosely inspired by the book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, in which the protagonist was definitely a replicant.
      Of course, they changed most of the book in the translation to a different media, so using it as the loadstone to determine the truth of the movie is less than definitive.

      1. You’re wrong, actually. Deckard was not a replicant in the novel. I could say that’s because there are no replicants in the novel, and that would be true — but Deckard is clearly not an android. He’s married, and he has emotions that need adjusting. Both are traits that are only associated with humans.
        .
        In the movie, Deckard’s status has become more and more controversial with each release. That is because Ridley Scott keeps putting that crap in — there wasn’t nearly as much in the original release. So the right answer is that Deckard is a human, not a replicant, and Ridley Scott is a movie-manipulating tool on par with George Lucas. Hence my comment earlier.

          1. Philip K. Dick disagrees with you:

            “The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?”

Comments are closed.