Comics Creators

Blade Runner 2049 SPOILER THREAD


And I think the whole “importance” the child makes more sense if Deckard is human.

If a human can produce life with a replicant - the rebellion’s whole rhetoric gains weight since it obliterates the line between the two.


Ford played him as someone who thought he was human, he may have been correct or…

Honestly though, I’m not concerned with that because the whole point is that whether they’re human or replicant they’re all people.

Roy Batty is just as much a person as anyone in the first film.


Even though Rutger said that he played Batty as a machine whose responses were entirely preprogrammed.


That’s not a quote I’ve heard before.

I did some Googling and couldn’t find it. I did find this;

–he (Hauer) has a long history of holding forth on the philosophy behind the film, including the all-important question: “Is Deckard a man or a machine?”

“He certainly behaves like a replicant,” he says. “Because he’s so programmed. Ironically, through their very actions, you understand that it is the replicants who are free.”

Which suggests to me that he thought Batty had free will?


In this Mark Kermode documentary, Scott goes on record as saying Deckard is a Replicant. (The last interview in the film)

It’s well worth a watch.


I think we all know Scott’s perspective, but he’s outnumbered.

And what are we if not a democracy? :us:

Yeah, which feeds into the whole contrast with Deckard.


In an interview he talked about that speech at the end being something assembled as a prepared speech by the programmers that he ran at the moment of death and that He was constantly looking for ways to show Batty’s personality as a performance written in by the creators. In a sense that would appeal to an actor who is essentially a lifelike android running the program of the script.

As far as the story, Batty is alive but it’s ironic that he played him as a machine programmed to be “more human than human.”

The freedom may be that replicants know they are programmed but humans always have to wonder if they are.


I’ve never heard that before. All I’ve seen is things like;

It was Hauer’s final addition to the script – the “tears in rain” line – that really sealed the speech’s status; on the day of filming itself, crew members allegedly applauded and cried when the scene was completed.

“For the end line I was hoping to come up with one line where Roy, because he understands he has very little time, expresses one bit of the DNA of life that he’s felt,” Hauer says.


That same phrase can be used to accurately describe a human


I think we’re just restating basic themes now.


As I was watching the movie, I couldn’t help but to think of HBO’s Westworld series.

Maybe Wallace and Delos can merge?


I couldn’t stop thinking about Battlestar Galactica.
And how much more interesting Deckard is than Helo.


Blade Runner was a major influence on BSG at the start - the pilots’ sidearm was based on Deckard’s blaster, and of course they borrowed the term skinjob to describe the human-form Cylons from the movie.

And one of the actors in BSG was in Blade Runner somewhere.


I knew I had seen Romo Lampkin in the street vendor scene


I never made the connection until they showed up in the same episode of Doctor Who, but Mark Shepard, who played Romo in BSG is the son of W. Morgan Shepard, who’s been in pretty much every SF franchise ever.


I only know him from Supernatural and I think one of the Law and Orders.

But to get it back on track, it was so weird seeing Olmos in his cameo. Could have spruced him up or spruced him down. Kinda felt like I was just seeing Adama doing some cosplay with that bowtie haha.


I was surprised when I read it. I believe it was in his book ALL THOSE MOMENTS. I knew he used some animalistic behavior for the way Roy moved but he also seemed very interested in how a machine could convincingly portray humanity.


I think there is also something to the way Blade Runner jumped directly to organic androids with Replicants. It was an unexpected and innovative step just like using a gun as opposed to a ray weapon. The fact the replicants are obviously alive and not simply complicated machines makes the question of their humanity even harder to solve.

In the novel, they made them mimic humans because they were meant to allieviate the solitude of colonists on other planets. The human race had been decimated by war and loneliness was leading to depression and suicide.

However, realistically there is no reason for a slave force to appear or behave human. There would be no good reason to build a machine that could suffer.


Well, that isn’t exactly true.

The original purpose of the androids in the novels were as historical replicas, they were later re-purposed for use on the off-world colonies.

It’s all covered in another Philip K. Dick book called We Can Build You which takes place before Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

It was written before, but published after Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?


Except for the reason we make anyone and anything suffer - because we can.