Ridley Scott Definitively Answers if Harrison Ford is a Replicant | Close Up With THR

Subscribe for Roundtables, Box Office Reports, & More! ►► bit.ly/THRSubscribe
Stay in The Know With all Things Hollywood, Subscribe to THR News! ►► bit.ly/Sub2THRNews
Ridley Scott ('Blade Runner 2049' 'All the Money in the World') joins The Hollywood Reporter for this season's Producers Roundtable. In this breakout episode of Close Up With THR talks about working on the original 'Blade Runner,' his choice not to direct 'Blade Runner 2049,' and being the FIFTH choice to direct 'Alien.'
Subscribe so you don't miss the upcoming full roundtable episode with Judd Apatow ('The Big Sick'), Jason Blum ('Get Out'), Seth Rogen ('The Disaster Artist'), Amy Pascal ('Molly's Game' 'The Post') and Eric Fellner ('Baby Driver' 'Darkest Hour').
Watch more videos on THR.com: www.hollywoodreporter.com/video
Like us on Facebook: / hollywoodreporter
Follow us on Twitter: / thr
Follow us on Instagram: / hollywoodreporter

[@KORUN666]

It's always great to listen to Sir.Ridley Scott, his Blade Runner is one of his masterpieces, D.Villeneuve, I mean, he owns this Blade Runner 2049, he did not just do a sequel. I saw both in theater (82 & 2017) and I must say that D.Villeneuve did a great job, he developed his own vision in the R.Scott universe, if only the sequels were all that good , bravo.

[@theothertoday]

Bravo indeed

[@AvatP5]

The vibe I got from Blade Runner 2049 is that it ultimately doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. Both arguments are well founded, but neither of them advance the story in a meaningful way.

[@viddiot]

'writing is everything, everything else is dressing'. Bladerunner and Bladerunner 2049 hit the sweetspot. Great writing accompanied by Great dressing.

[@natteandersson]

Harrison is definitely replicant. His character on the other hand...

[@Shazam961]

NatMan No!

[@teamhammerbros8466]

No he is a human. Just because scott throws one scene in, in later versions of the film, doesnt make the entire rest of the film change.

[@FabledGentleman]

@@teamhammerbros8466 so you mean surviving hand to hand combat against the absolutely superior replicants is not proof enough he is a replicant? lol.

[@teamhammerbros8466]

@@FabledGentleman that’s not any sort of characterization to be a replicant. Surviving? But not equal or competing? Just surviving......

[@FabledGentleman]

@@teamhammerbros8466 Nexus 7's are very rare. There are only two known versions, Deckard quite possibly being the third. Rachel isn't very strong, or at least she does not seem to be, yet she is indeed a replicant. Deckard is quite likely also a nexus 7, a prototype designed with the ability to reproduce. And they are not aware they are replicants. They also don't have a fixed lifespan of 4 years like nexus 6 had. Anyways, in BR2049 Deckard is able to make K bleed, which is a far superior model. And he also lived in a highly radioactive area for decades to hide. None of which a human could have done.

[@retardedvaxxedliberal]

Seth Rogan's laugh sounds like my car engine when I try to start it.

[@coal2710]

Höhöhöhö

[@taddghostal]

the tell tale sign of wayyy too much weed 😉

[@cronologia348]

your comment is so 2010s

[@Pat96813]

Thank you Denis Villenueve.

[@88feji]

No thanks .. 2049 is the single most disappointing sequel I've ever watched in my life ..

[@hood6089]

@@88feji Bruh you just have shuttle taste

[@elisapaim8198]

Thank you Ridley Scott....

[@worldprez6655]

He’s a replicant in the final cut, he’s human in the theatrical cut. The origami is a “gaff was here” sign in the theatrical cut. Ridley thinks he’s a replicant but the writer didn’t and ford didn’t Also the new story works either way, it’s a big deal if its a human and replicant reproducing or two replicants reproducing

[@wilbertone3]

Also, the whole point and race theme of the movie is that it DOESN'T matter if he's a replicant or a human.

[@brandonsamano7428]

You are wrong mate

[@PercivalC]

This, and as much as I like Scott's films, let's not forget that he is notorious for going back after they're made and changing them. One thing that makes absolutely no sense through Scott's justification is that Gaff leaving the unicorn while knowing Deckard's a replicant is a complete plot whole. Firstly, the origami unicorn is in the original theatrical cut, however, the Deckard piano unicorn vision is not in the original - the dream part was added into the other cut! Sure, Gaff could've looked at his file like Scott says Gaff did in this interview, but even then, how does Gaff know Deckard dreamt the unicorn? Scott's justification is complete nonsense, especially since Ford disagrees, and Hampton Fancher (the writer for the original and the sequel) implies that he's a human, and not a replicant.

[@Nautilus1972]

You didn't listen to a word he said. Dekkard = Replicant. End of.

[@PercivalC]

Scott's losing his marbles - his reasoning is completely nonsensical. As mentioned, the series screenwriter and the lead actor disagree with him. The director is the one whose vision is ultimate for the film - yes. However, the director is not the writer, nor was Scott for Blade Runner. As WorldPrez said in his comment above, and as is true, the original theatrical version of the film is not one of Ridley Scott's changed pictures. Think about that for a second. How could I have not listened to a word he said, when I completely pointed out the stupid plot hole Scott creates with his reasoning? You did not address any of the points I made, either.

[@ggff3761]

Blade runner 2049 is one of my new favourite films of all time it's a masterpiece

[@Ixnatifual]

I’m really looking forward to watching it again when the blu-ray’s out.

[@Nautilus1972]

It gets better with rewatching - as with all classics.

[@treasonabledoubt7251]

Man, no clickbait at all, he just went right for it! I appreciate this video, thank you!

[@inisboru3181]

Deckard is not a replicant. And the proof is how easily the replicants dealt with Deckard physically in the original. It seems Scott was trying to lay on a layer after the fact.

[@751Anth]

Just an opinion. The replicant is Riddley Scott. It's the first model. Imperfect, subject to rapid decay. Proof? Prometheus!

[@kengruz669]

I think leaving the question open as to whether Deckard is a replicant is more intriguing, unsettling, and has more lasting resonance than being told definitively that he is a replicant.

[@kinemaHall]

Deckard might not be the last nexus version, but the previous one.

[@yanceyboyz]

Dear everyone in the comments getting angry and defending one camp or the other, think of it like this...the disagreement between writers, director and actors is manufactured to hammer home the critical and essential question these movies ask, what does it mean to be human? Each time you spout off your very human emotion defending one camp or the other, you are fuelling that core question. You know your opinion is right....in the same sense that Deckard “knows what’s real” in his conversation with Wallace. You think the replicant dog knows it’s a replicant? You think the question from K “is it a replicant” and the answer “who knows” by Deckard, are in he film by accident? Does the dog know it’s a replicant? Would it? Does it even matter if it is? Does Deckard know if he is a replicant? Would he? If they let officer K carry on believing he was born, would he ever have questioned it further? The fact that he wants to be the one who was born shows a replicant is thinking about life and what it means to be alive. The very title of the book is a question!!! The constant question is all that matters. It’s beautiful.

[@sameerdodger]

Yeah, people need definitive answers to something that cannot be answered. I suppose it's human. But to me the Ascension comes in the realisation that it does not matter at all. If anything, it kinda projects exactly what the film is trying to say. That people are bigots that are obsessed with where/how people are born rather than who they are.

[@TimeLimey]

Ridley Scott is the Boss of filmmaking. He cuts to the chase and 9/10 gives great results and that's what its all about.

[@dougwebb7792]

He's not a replicant. In the final scene of Blade Runner, Deckard finally faces Roy Batty played so brilliantly by Rutger Hauer (the reason that Blade Runner 1 was so much better than Blade Runner 2, but I digress). Roy completely overpowers and utterly dominates Deckard in every respect. If Deckard was also a replicant, this would not have happened, the fight would have been a lot more balanced. But most importantly, in the final scene, Deckard was beaten. He was literally hanging from the precipice in the rain by his finger nails and he had lost. (Ironic given that the one thing that the Nexus 6 replicants wanted (their crime), the only thing in fact, was life.) Roy Batty stood over Deckard and looked down and all he had to do was stomp on Deckard's fingers and it would have been over. (Deckard surely would have let Roy fall to his death if the situation had of been reversed.) But what does Roy do? He demonstrates the advanced trait of mercy (something that never would have crossed the Deckard's mind) and he saves Deckard's life. Roy then goes into his famous "like tears in the rain" soliloquy and we the audience see, perhaps for the first time, that Roy and his fellow replicants are indeed sentient beings capable of self understanding, love, fear, vengeance and yes, mercy. We the audience then sympathize with Roy Batty the "skinjob" and not Deckard the human. What makes it really interesting is that Roy was a better human than Deckard. It all ties back nicely to one of the central themes of the movie; what does it mean to be human. All of this nuance would be lost if Deckard was also a replicant. Deckard needs to be human so that the audience learn something and think about what it means to be human.

[@1G_G1]

You've captured it perfectly Mr. Webb. Also, Rachel was "special". If Deckard was "special" as well, I doubt Tyrell would have let him be a cop.

[@Domino1972]

Not to mention Zhora Leon and Pris beat and knocked him around with no problem. He was scared of Rachael too at first.

[@MarkLewis...]

IF Deckard is a Replicant, (IF!!!) he's "special" like Rachael, but still more powerful than a human of his size, or... he's a "special" Nexus 5 (or less) combat model... Roy and the gang are Nexus 6s. That's why Roy "completely overpowers and utterly dominates Deckard in every respect." Deckard is only Windows 95 to Roy, comparatively. Roy's holding Deckard (from falling) by the wrist at the end, and after quite a while, pulls him up by it! if he's "only human" Deckard's arm is dislocated. The Nexus 6s would easily beat a Nexus 5 or less. Roy had enough power to crush a human skull, so Leon would be as strong, if not stronger. Deckard did get the diodes beat out of him, but he should have been far more injured as a non-Replicant or "human". I don't believe the "nuances would be lost if Deckard is a Replicant"... because we can still learn about humanity either way. I like it left ambiguous, but it doesn't really matter... If you feel Rick Deckard is the main protagonist of BR, that's fine, but Deckard, (regardless of his existence in the movie) is either a human, or Replicant, but a McGuffin either way. Yes! Deckard is an elaborate, very fleshed-out McGuffin in the movie. If you feel he's a Replicant, he is... if you feel Deckard is a human, he is. It doesn't matter... Deckard isn't the story... The Nexus 6s and the audience in their introspection are. The real protagonists AND antagonists of BR is the audience, through Roy Batty and the other Nexus 6s. But believe whatever you like... it's your "humanity"

[@barbaradimajo485]

Roundtables are here! YES! Cannot wait for more thank you THR!!!

[@TheWelchProductions]

I love Blade Runner 2049.

[@matthewking2011]

The new movie totally works without him being a replicant, considering that's how I view it personally and I loved 2049. God damn it Scott.

[@FabledGentleman]

No it does not. No Human could survive in Las Vegas where the radiation had been that high. Also, humans are not even capable of making a dent to a replicant, yet, Deckard makes K bleed. I could go on and on.

[@danielpatache8843]

God bless Ridley for creating Blade Runner and everything, but boy am I happy he didn't direct it. There is no way in hell he would've done as good a job as Villeneuve.

[@reinhardschneider9186]

he did a way better job. like a 1000x better

[@pho3nix-]

I need to see this entire interview!

[@nigelcarren]

I have learned more about imagineering from Sir Ridley Scott than anyone else. He truly has the eye and knows how to create a world. "If you want to make an amazing movie its simple, put something amazing in front of the lens". Sir Ridley Scott

[@v-22]

As a screenwriter, it's great to hear that from a renowned non-writer-director.

[@La-PetitMort]

@Mike O'Horny What are you talking about?

[@battlep0t]

I like how Denis Villeneuve seems to understand the themes of the original Blade Runner better than the guy who actually made it.

[@Pun2404]

Hearing Ridley Scott talk about his craft like the master he is, it's like catnip to this film nerd.

[@JeremyDempsey714]

The problem I have with Blade Runner 2049 is this: If Tyrell couldn't extend Roy Batty's lifespan, I find it impossible to believe he had developed the technology to manufacture a nexus model that could reproduce. The technological leap doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about consecutive nexus models.

[@garugi1545]

the reason tyrell couldn't extend Roy Batty's lifespan was because it was already late for that. tyrell himself said : "A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established" wich means that Roy was designed to live only 4 years.. most nexus 6 was originally designed to live 4 years, and this was because they started to develop their own emotional responses which made them very unstable and dangerous. "the designers reckoned after a few years they might developed their own emotional responses, SO THEY BUILT IN A FAIL-SAFE DEVICE -Deckard : which is what? -Bryant : four-year lifespan this basically means the designers made them with a built-in fail system just in case it was necessary to stop them. but not because they couldn't make them live longer or make them reproduce.. i'm pretty sure they had the technology to make them reproduce, or even live longer.. rachel and deckard could be one of these replicant that actually are able to reproduce and live longer.

[@TomDeLaCruz]

but ridley... replicants always had expired lives... of like 5 years... how can a replicant exist after 30 years?

[@pistoleta]

That was a security measure for the nexus 6 gen. Deckard was an older model

[@laerciomabota2117]

Sir. Ridley Scott is a true Alchemist, a one of a kind.

[@donurban7146]

So, if he is a replicant, that means Gaff knew, his boss Bryant knew, and so did Tyrell. (and possibly Rachael) That doesn't make sense. Also, he is almost defeated by all the replicants he is hunting. (Rachael saves him and Roy's 'humanity' saved him) Why would Bryant send him to hunt replicants that have triple his strength. Why does Deckard have a name then? Why doesn't he have a number then? Like KD6-3.7? (Joe in 2048) That makes no sense at all. The point of Blade Runner was the humanity of the replicants (who were said to have no empathy) and the insensitivity and coldness of the humans. Swapping it all out years later is just a cop out by Scott.

[@JMTBFLOW]

Where can I find the full episode of this roundtable?

[@withnail-and-i]

I remembered this after 5 years and just replay the first 10 seconds over and over

[@JorgeCarnero_]

When are we getting the complete roundtables????!?!?!!??

[@Goremeister100]

If he is a replicant and a cop at that, wouldn't he have any kind of strength? Hauer was kicking his ass at the end of the first film.

[@FabledGentleman]

He is a nexus 7. He doesn't even know himself he's a replicant until the end of the movie. Being a replicant doesn't necessarily mean he has super strength, but it does mean he can some serious beating, which he does. A human can't even survive a single punch from a replicant.

[@Juggernaut01]

what and where is the full interview ??

[@eclecticmethod]

Why were there no electric sheep?

[@USDAselect]

They run on iOS 11 not Oreo?

[@fightermma]

There us a TV show about that coming out starring Bryan Cranston

[@fightermma]

Caitlin Elizabeth What has that got to do with my comment?

[@fightermma]

Caitlin Elizabeth You don't own a film studio. What are you talking about?

[@breathoflifellc]

I really wish that The Hollywood Reporter would start putting up the full interviews like they used to. I love watching these but not everyone at the table has their own close up segment and I want to watch it uninterrupted.

[@sethwheeler3531]

No way...if he was a replicant, how did he live so long? He would have been the most advanced model made and they had him out there pretty much doing his own thing? Doesn't make any sense.

[@ngonzale3]

Listening at 4:46, is why I will continue my pursuit of being a paid screenwriter. It's all about the script.

[@suhijo]

Is it normal to like 2049 over 2019? because I am in love with new one !!

[@reinhardschneider9186]

no.it's not

[@andersenkalle]

One of the greatest directors we have. Not all of his movies are great but give him a great script and he will most likely turn it in to gold. Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, American Gangster and The Martian. Personally i also really like Prometheus and Body Of Lies. Many great movies. His new one also looks terrific.

[@Bobby_Hall]

When Deckard picks up the unicorn origami his reaction doesn’t strike me as realizing he’s a replicant and that Gaff knows this. If that were the case Deckard would’ve had a shocked expression as that realization would be a huge blow to him. In the film he just seems like he realizes that Gaff was there and is letting him and Rachael (Deckard’s special unicorn) escape together.

[@SeniorAdrian]

full interview?

[@Zlist1994]

One of my fav directors of all time

[@rclrd1]

A message I get from Blade Runner is that when replicants are as advanced as Nexus 6 and Nexus 7 they experience the world exactly as humans do; they are then no longer “just machines”; they are _self-aware_ and have emotions and feeling indistinguishable from human emotions and feelings (Batty’s memorable speech moments before he dies makes that obvious). The distinction between humans and replicants is then no longer applicable. It seems to me that all the interminable arguments about whether or not Deckard is a replicant are missing this crucial point. _It doesn't matter:_ replicants _are_ human!

[@Domino1972]

No they don't, as Ridley said they gave them memories and things to help balance their creation of mimicking emotions. Rachael was about to say to Deckard that she could not reply on her programming...

[@Neal_YouTube]

I watched an entire video dedicated to breaking this down at some point years ago. Here is the summary. He is NOT a replicant, but the director (Scott) really wanted him to be a replicant. That's it. Of course he isn't a replicant. If he was, the whole movie falls apart, as well as the premise for the sequel. I firmly believe that people that claim he was a replicant are like flat earthers... ie trolling people to work them up.

[@JockDoubleday]

The director distorted 180 degrees the truth of the original story. Thus, good and reasonable people disagree with the director by staying true to the original story. Thanks 4 your opinions, KZbin.

[@TheChris2RC]

The script writer doesn't even agree, Mr. Scott doesn't even understand his own film. The new film works if he isn't, the old film is about a human falling in love with a replicant while this one is about that union producing something new.

[@bertraminc9412]

alaimalo mataafa he didnt write it. He only directed it. He really doesnt get the humanity aspect of a human fighting replicants. Who cares if a replicant dies fighting other replicants yet we all care if a human dies and thus we have more of a vested interest in Deckard as a human surviving.

[@aughtnt]

alaimalo mataafa he’s a visionary visual director. He’s not the writer. You can shoot a movie of Hamlet but not understand Shakespeare’s intent. What I resent is the artists intent is irrelevant, so he should just keep quiet. A work of art should be open ended he wants to close it down. Many other people worked on the film he doesnt get final say

[@ironmanjakarta8601]

The director can change anything he wants. Directors change stories all the time.

[@ironmanjakarta8601]

This isnt Hamlet. Its sci fi where anything can happen. Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant to provide a subtle but very powerful twist at the end, which he thought would add tremendous drama to the movie, and he was right because look at us now still arguing over it. Proof.

[@christopherthorkon3997]

The new film was deliberately left open ended. The union produces something new, that is true. But it is amazing whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Replicants reproducing on their own is pretty amazing and something new -- something not foreseen by others in the Blade Runner world. To me, it is pretty clear that Deckard is a replicant. And why on earth should society risk getting human blade runners killed while they are trying to off a bunch of robots. It makes so much more sense to have replicant blade runners go after other replicants. I came to this conclusion 30 years ago. And, sure enough, the new movie features a main character who is a blade runner...and...is...a replicant.

[@truthfilter]

in bladerunner the final cut they added a red glow to the eye's of replicants in one scene deckard's eyes are red

[@iamcase1245]

The explanation is what literally every Blade Runner fan has used as an argument for Deckard being a replicant for 40 years.

[@sailorrenek7823]

How does the unicorn dream that is not a deleted scene from blade runner but from the movie legend. say deckard is a replicant? It doesn't work, you need to have clues placed in the movie from begining to end. If you read the opening crawl it say replicants are illegal on earth so how would a cop thats a replicant be allowed to retire from the force and live alone without some form of handler always being close at hand. Remember Rachel was always keep in the building and was watched, then she went AWOL and placed on the blade runner list. Deckard is not a replicant there is no facts to back it besides the one person who wants him to be 1 as an after thought.

[@marlabloodstone1811]

Your point about Deckard retiring and living alone is an excellent one and one I hadn’t heard considered before (and trust me, I’ve been reading about this debate for YEARS!!). That makes total sense, of course, and confirms the notion that Scott didn’t understand the script he was making. It’s an incredible film, and has always been in my top 10, but Scott’s nonsensical insistence that Deckard is a replicant sadly ruins the experience for me these days. Deckard is a human. It’s the only way the movie works. And the sequel works either way, which is what the writer clearly intended so as to not piss off Scott but satisfy Villeneuve- who claims the theatrical cut is his favorite version because it the only one where it’s absolutely clear Deckard is human. It’s funny also to consider the scenes that were deleted that never made it to screen. Scott directed those scenes as well, and if you watch them there is absolutely no ambiguity about Deckard.

[@jleezypd1445]

Lord Renek Gamer when did he retire from the force and live alone? I don’t remember that part

[@millsshumps1968]

I'm sorry Ridley Scott, but I'm not buying into your vision maintained for decades that the character of Deckard is a replicant in the original Blade Runner. If that has been your original intention for the movie, it simply didn't play that way....with the exception of the Director's Cut which made us question if Deckard was indeed a replicant.

[@musicmusic6595]

Yeah i agree entirely if he meant deckard to be a replicant then why did he not have any replicant abilities what so ever, totally goes against the original movie.

[@teetaunjj7894]

Ridley is not telling the truth unfortunately

[@martinrenner2992]

Nonsense. Maybe Deckard bumped into Gaff in a bar and said: "Man, I had this freaky dream last night... do you remember that movie Legend? Well..." Then, when Gaff left the unicorn origami, it was his homage to the Tom Cruise fantasy flick.

[@potato4534]

If Rick Deckard is a Replicant then it ruins the movie

[@potato4534]

John De Quincey I feel the movie needs a human element in it for it to work in my opinion. It guess I was exaggerating when I said “ruins” but still I feel Rick being a human is a better idea.

[@LabRat6619]

I can watch Ridley Scott movies all day long, he has incredible vision.

[@stephennoonan8578]

3:50 Does anyone know what’s so funny about the idea of Robert Altman directing Alien ?

[@srinivasvangala3783]

Ridley Scott vs James Cameron 1) Alien vs Aliens 2) Blade Runner vs Terminator 2 3) Thelma & Louise vs The Terminator 4) Prometheus vs The Abyss 5) Black Hawk Down vs True Lies 6) Gladiator vs Titanic 7) The Martian vs Avatar

[@alicenestpasmonprenom5784]

What?

[@srinivasvangala3783]

@@alicenestpasmonprenom5784 Comparing their movies one to one

[@Domino1972]

The original movie doesn't work as Deckard being a Replicant. Ridley made that move off of a mistake. No one even Harrison says Deckard is not human.

[@philtaylor3098]

Blade runner 2049 Now my fav film of all time.

[@johnulcer]

And this is exactly why Villeneuve was the correct choice for 2049. Old Man Riddy has no sense of subtlety anymore, and his sequel would have undermined the beautiful ambiguity of the original movie (which Villeneuve so deftly maneuvered around and paid homage to with the showdown scene between Ford and Leto). 2049 got slagged off for being "too long" by Sir Diddy this past week, but it's a better movie than he's made in literally decades.

[@jeevangopal112]

I aspire to be like him or a version of him in my career as a filmmaker!

[@khanhhoangnk]

So Harrison Ford is a replicant. So what about Deckard?

[@YeeSnarky]

Read the book before I ever saw the original film (saw the film in 1982) and Deckard was never any sort of replicant. I still prefer the original theatrical cut, it was perfection. Even when people were slagging it off back in the day I told them they were missing out on a classic, and it still is. I do not care for the later cuts, where Ridley Scott is trying to push some other agenda.

[@GoldenArtsOnline]

I loved the new Blade Runner but also loved the new Alien movie and I was thinking for myself how can people hate Prometheus and covenant so much if Ridley does Blade Runner this good? And I read on IMDB he didn't even direct or produce it so my arguments for the last 2 alien movies being good flew right out the window.

[@jeffreythomas7402]

I know he and the main writer- Hampton Fancher disagree on this; Hampton says he is not, but considering what Ridley Scott seems to say here, how then does Gaff know what went on inside Deckard's head, placing the unicorn where he did? Is this synchronicity-- a phenomenon that many people have experienced, talked about by Carl Jung among others, or is Gaff also a replicant - and/or is the world around them much deeper than told in the story? Like Rachael was an experiment, perhaps so-to was Rick? The themes that include synchronicity might be in the names of characters themselves; Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? A "Rachel" means a female sheep; In 'Do Androids', Rick has a robotic sheep - unless I'm mistaken. Basically, what I'm saying is, the basis for Rick being a replicant that Ridley talks about is pretty much a part of this film, and many-- The interconnectedness and reflective-ness, or/and relatedness of things. And perhaps we can all be seen as biological machines, replicants, as our DNA replicates itself to create the beings that we see today- Us. And we're made from whatever else has processed.

[@GVxoxo]

Where is the THR Actress roundtable?

[@aleisterseverusgrey3778]

The joke is everyone is a replicant. I'd also like to point out he was 79 here. He's 82 now...I try to keep that in mind with the last few movies and still enjoy them even if they story just went left field. Still the best sci fi movies

[@plasticweapon]

ha ha ha. not funny.

[@wrath231]

To me , my personal 'canon' of the movie is we don't ever truly know if Deckard is a replicant or not...that's the beauty of the movie. You decide for yourself.

[@josephfarrugia2350]

TL;DR timeframe where he answers the question please?

[@NoItsUrTube]

He answered that question back during the release of the DVD. Here's to a third movie telling of a replicant revolution.

[@1977Suspiria]

People in these comments need to calm the fuck down. You can choice to ignore his opinion if you like just the same as anybody elses so why is everyone getting all bend out of shape about it? This amazing visual feast that it is the original wouldn't even exist without Ridley's direction, or at least it wouldn't have been half as breathtaking, so chill.

[@UnbelievabIeMontages]

visual feast? it looks like diarrhea. the shot composition is weak af and it doesn't look anything near the level of van gogh, it's dog shit. same goes to that hack roger deakins who calls himself an photographer. what a disgrace to aristocratic upper class men ship. he should be ban from the tea party.

[@1977Suspiria]

UnbelievabIeMontages Van Gogh? That's right, I forgot all those Sci-fi masterpieces he helmed. 😂😂 Wtf is your trolling arse going on about?

[@UnbelievabIeMontages]

Not a single frame or visual in Bore Runner 1982 matches the power of Van Gogh's work. one single static painting makes Bore Runner look like dog shit. real aristocratic shit, not this lower class pretentious wannabe high art shit that Ridley Scooter drunk depicts himself. Humanity has become more talentless than a bundle of logs in the woods.

[@BloodyEddy09]

Agree and just ignore this UnbelievableMontages, this pretentious dude is triggered and just came out from his mom's basement !

[@UnbelievabIeMontages]

says the person who thinks game of thrones is high art. a sell out product of HBO whose only suggestion is to create fan service stories instead of following the original source material selling out and manipulating its entire fan base as if season 7 was high class TV shit when it was one of the most mediocre seasons in TV history.

[@SoundAuthor]

I've always been fine with Deckard being a replicant. But why did he get a longer lifespan than the standard issue Nexus series replicants made by Tyrell Corp?

[@KMReviews]

I love how people disagree.... with the fucking DIRECTOR of the film!

[@alexk5907]

KM Reviews because we all hate the idea of Deckard not being human. It completly destroys the idea of what is really human.

[@KMReviews]

Alex K “we all” is pretty broad because I know lots of people who assumed that for years. That’s how I took the ending of the final cut too. It doesn’t destroy anything in my opinion. Both the Blade Runner movies combined show how “being human” is beyond how we are born. Whether we are made or conceived, at the end of the day it’s not about “being human”, it’s about life, and intelligence, and love. Transcending being a robot or a machine or replicant, is a soul. The replicants in the old movie and new movie want to survive, they want to love, they see beyond being used as slaves. Harrison Ford being a replicant is a small detail, because people are fighting for him, and he loves. Tags the bigger picture. It’s taht the real humans need to realize replicants are not simple things that take orders. They have evolved beyond that into basically a new race of being.

[@alexk5907]

KM Reviews in the movie its pretty hidden if he is a replicant or not. That is the mystery that most people love. That unicorn scene Ridley put in his movie was not even shot for blade runner. It was unused footage from a previous movie Ridley made. Al blade runner fans ive talked says that they hate the idea of Deckard being human because that makes the movies more intresting. He feels special. He becomes living proof that us human can procreate with replicants. It also shows that it dosent have to be 2 replicants in order too make a child. Thats what i loved about the new bladerunner. It showed that replicants are not that different from us Humans.

[@KMReviews]

Alex K agree to disagree but I understand where your comin from

[@Ryan-Petre]

Scott didn't write the original novel, nor did he write the film's screenplay. The notion that the director is the absolute authority on a film is just a myth.

[@seaque.]

Ridley tried to change, but no… Deckard is not replicant.

[@griffinh21]

Does 2049 really answer this question... I thought the premise was finding a child who was born because a human (ford) and a replicant (Rachel) banged

[@AndyPaxTheGameCat]

*SPOILER*...I thought 2049 confermd that he is not a replicent. Were they not serching for the a human-replicant offspring? Rachael is defenatly a replicant. So Dekard must not be...right? Am i missing something?

[@elimitchell9716]

well remember at one point jared letos character brings it up like “maybe u are a replicant too and ur relationship with Rachel was entirely manufactured” i don’t necessarily believe he is a replicant but i also don’t NOT believe if that makes any sense. i like to keep it open ended for myself personally

[@What-go8ng]

1:02 lol Rogan gets so miffed

[@Congslop]

Decker being a replicant makes zero sense and was only something Scott slapped in on a later cut. Literally everyone else involved including the writer say Decker is human

[@nawalnawi8159]

Makhanathaa yule yule haezi kua mzuri nakuwwkea fatihaa hyo alkhamisss uone kazi pumbaavuu ushazowea pijwaaa so ogeleyaaa uonee bahari kubwaa yaaa haween. Mjingaa vilee vile😜😜😜😜😜😜👊👊👊👊👅👅👅👅💔💔💔💔🙏🙏🙌😂😜👍

[@jozupiwa883]

Decker being a replicant spoils the ending of the film and his escape with Rachel.

[@DeathBringer769]

Oh please shush with this title. We've know what his opinion of his creation is for years and years now already at this point. Any good art is still open to interpretation beyond the original creator's intent though. That's what makes good art so great. It's not them trying to force you into one perspective. They may try to lean you in one direction or another, but you can still have your own artistic interpretation of the work, like any great painting (and we all know the direction the Directors/Final Cut of the movie *heavily* leans in and implies, lol. I like to think he's a Replicant as well, but I still respect the concept of artistic interpretation and not having the author/creator be the sole dictator of everyone's subjective perception of a great piece of art.)

[@johnchang7]

If Deckard was a replicant how did he live so long? There was a definitive life span for nexus models.

[@crissrudd4554]

In the theatrical cut, Ford says in voiceover that Rachael was ‘special’ with no expiration date. If Deckard is a replicant he is likely the same make as her.

[@lorenzobasileus]

Mike O'Horny I think he gas just a different life span It’s very weaker that Roy

[@drshn3137]

@@crissrudd4554 so that means line Rachel says at the end of movie , "I think we were made for each other" is also a way of telling the audience that Deckard was also a replicant.

[@RoyLevan]

All Nexus models until 7 had a definitive life-span. We know Rachel was a Nexus 7 so if Deckard really is a Replicant he’s probably a 7 as well. K from 49 is a Nexus 9 btw

[@user-in2en5pv2u]

Why would 2049 not work if Deckard was human?

[@mikeheffernan]

Nothing wrong with 2049, it was great.

[@milansekularac6196]

I don't see why he has to be a replicant? The origami at the end can be understood as a track , that Gaff was there, looking for Rachel, and left the sign deliberatly to Deckard to say: you two are free to go. Now, for the second movie plot to work, Rachel, who is a replicant of a special kind, it needs to be capable of having a child (with Deckard), i.e. a type of replicant that can actually reproduce 'naturally'.

[@k.t.5405]

no dude, the origamies are programming avatars. In Blade Runner '82 , the chicken origami at police HQ. Decker is programmed to be afraid of the police, so they knew he'd agree to come back.

[@tkegal]

He was a replicant? Wow, I totally missed that!

[@Beamber]

I’m so glad Ridley did not make the Blade Runner sequel. The man does not seem to understand his own creation. The question is what matters, not the answer.

[@michaelkennedy8270]

Deckard was not a replicant, I'm starting to have my doubts about Scott though.

[@keithdubose2150]

It's a better story if he's human

[@theroebuck123456789]

The way Ridley thinks make me think that the studio must throw at him a pretty hefty budget if he wanted to

[@plasticweapon]

well ridley, if you wanted him to be a replicant, you should have MADE him a replicant.

[@CarlosRiveraFernandez]

How is Deckard a replicant if he aged from BR to 2049? Genuine question.

[@marciocouto3543]

Probably the Methuselah Syndrome.

[@roothik]

A Replicant isn't a robot. It's bio-engineered with real flesh and blood.

[@FabledGentleman]

There are replicant models that age. The Nexus 8's can definitively age. But Deckard is probably a nexus 7, so is Rachel. They are most likely a prototype which was made to not know what they were, and to also be able to reproduce. How many nexus 7's there are, is hard to say, but very few might have been made.

[@Puma5]

What makes you think that replicants cannot age? They are no robots...

[@FabledGentleman]

Nexus 6's was made to not age, but to break down and die after 4 years. I'm guessing this is where his confusion is at.

[@slordmo2263]

OH, it's funny..... I love the 1st Blade Runner, Ridley is still just holding a grudge at the studio because they made him put in the voice over, and 'happy' ending... unfortunately, the story makes NO sense if Deckard is a replicant... and there exists many reasons...(one being that it could only have been the Tyrell Corp. that made him, and Tyrell would have 'treated' Deckard differently if he was a replicant) And again, it was a total different story than the book by P. Dick, but it was loosely based on the fact that in this future, this man was feeling like he had been de-humanized by society.... he could only feel that way, IF HE WAS HUMAN.... Ridley is a foolish man for trying to change the story....just saying...

[@shreyaskonaje2915]

Sir Ridley Prometheus budget was more than $150m

[@cristoputazo85gmail]

where can i see the whole video???

[@pukki34]

His lost his mind and nobody of these Yes-men dare to say it

[@zooropa5722]

Well the writers obviously chose to keep it ambiguous in 2049. I don't quite get what Ridley means with "he has to be a replicant, otherwise it wouldn't work", that comment makes no sense when looking at 2049, which is a masterpiece and luckily keeps all of the questions open.

[@Zombiesnyder13]

I just don't get how Deckard lived more than his 4 years life span if the new generation happened after him

[@akichi2431]

製作陣も歳取っちゃいまたね〜 とは言っても 作品の話をしている姿は素敵なヲタさんたちw

[@mauriciorodriguez4996]

I like more the idea of a human who learns the value of being a human after he confronts an android with a short life span craving to live...

[@jamesdelta6297]

If Deckard is a replicant why does he get the crap beaten out of him by Batty.

[@amrx76]

I'm sorry to go against the director of the film in this... but if Deckard was a replicant then the whole movie argument would be unsustainable... Deckard had a past as a cop.. he was well known in the police squad.. why would they treat him as a normal human and not as another skin job?.... it has no sense... The main plot of the movie is how a human can go against his duty and principals because of the love for a non human.... the unicorn dream was not in the original script and was only added to force the misleading idea of him being a replicant... the origami unicorn left by Gaff was ment for Rachel... because she was a different replicant... not Deckard.

[@SpontaneousWeasel]

Regardless of how i feel about ridleys comments here, the plot to 2049 works if you believe deckard is a human. Personally, I choose to believe ridley here. It fits as rick deckard and rachael could be an adam and eve of tyrells final nexus 7 tech. Replicants with complete functional reproductive organs. Then the 'final cut' origami figure ending from Blade runner 1982 fits to a tee as ridley describes.

[@issiewizzie]

Ridley says it as it is ...I made 6 films this year ...lol (proud man ) old fashioned business .

[@curtisbell2872]

I get the whole, "he's not the writer" argument, but it's wrong. The director does have the final say of his representation of his work. In this interview, you can see that he intentionally thought through shots in order to lead the audience to the understanding that he was a replicant. That is final. Is that what the original writer had in mind? Apparently not? But his presentation of the story made him a replicant, and he just confirmed it. Disagreement between writers and directors is nothing new, but you have to leave the authority of meaning to the final author of the work. Remember how passionately King disagreed with Kubrick's representation of his work "The Shining?" Does that mean Kubrick's version is "wrong?" No, just different. Therefore, (if its true that the writer disagrees with Scott) the writer intended Deckard to be a replicant, and the Director changed it. You can argue which one is better, but don't discredit an authors intention.

[@kopitejake87]

Weird how Scott says the writing is everything, considering how bad Covenant is.

[@Ressic]

I laughed at this too. Prometheus is no prized-script either.