I'm confused, not necessarily with what Raq is saying, but in general. Do people still claim that Deckard isn't a replicant since the last director's cut?
It never even occured to me that Deckard
was
a replicant until I heard Scott talking about it. For a long time I kinda blew that off, because it didn't make any sense to me, particularly how adding in the image of a unicoran was supposed to indicate that he was, in fact, a replicant. I have since started to see the light, both in the book and in the film. But only because of how emotionless Deckard is, not because of the unicorn.
For a long time I kinda blew that off, because it didn't make any sense to me, particularly how adding in the image of a unicoran was supposed to indicate that he was, in fact, a replicant.
It wasn't the unicorn itself, it was the oragami unicorn that Gaff left for Deckard that was the indicator (i.e. Gaff knows Deckard's dreams because he knows Deckard is a replicant). Without the dream the oragami is just another random one Gaff made and left to show Deckard he was there.
I've seen it on You Tube, and just fell apart laughing. Definitely worth a search. Which I will attempt.
I remember Tony Slattery from the British Whose Line is it, Anyway? He was wonderful! As was John Sessions, whom I almost didn't recognise in The Good Shepherd.
Thompson and Fry. Liquids warning.
Well, Harrison Ford said for years that Deckard wasn't a replicant, even though Ridley Scott said yes he was. (And according to the Wired article, Ford hasn't so much changed his mind as given up arguing about it.) So it's ambiguous on a pretty fundamental level from the start.
Oh, Cambridge Footlights! I brought that DVD to the SF F2F, but we never got around to watching it.
Daisy has me blocked! Awww, sad now.
Nah. It just took me longer to get the link.
's okay. That skit is pretty hysterical. I love the way their accents get harder and harder to decipher the longer the sketch goes on.
