The Ending Of Blade Runner Explained

What other iconic science fiction films would you like us to cover next?

The book is just as wow..if not even more awe inspiring than the movie. Highly recommend

In the documentary 'Dangerous Days' you see so many unshown bits from the reels. The next line from Gaff, not in the movie: 'You've done a man's job, sir. But are you a man at all?' Also, Ridley Scott in the commentary directly says that the unicorn Gaff leaves behind, and Decker's subsequent nod, shows Deckard is a replicant. And yet even with the Final Cut giving clues the ambiguity remains enough and is such a good idea.

I saw it in the theatres in the summer of 1982. I loved it.

Deckard is a believable human because in reality, he is a replicant who is terrible at Blade Running.

good video, replicants aren't robots tho

I prefer Deckerd as a human. This makes his relationship with Rachel so interesting. Can robots be designed so that they fool humans on an emotional level? What ARE emotions, really? Can replicants actually experience them? With Deckerd as replicant, the love affair is rendered no more mysterious than the sense of camaraderie between the replicants in Batty's group

My mother do not like her but has some of the components. I showed this picture to father when young and what got him hooked was her ... only at the start ..... cause then he actually watched movie and at the end he said "what a film!" Yeah he dropped his crossoword and everything and watched it. Some breakthrough achieved hahahahahahahahaa

Reckon Gaff is Replecant and Decker is a human.

For me the question is if Gaff is a replicant.

Way off base. The unicorn is Rachel.

My take is that it doesn't matter if dekkard is a replicant. If you can't tell the difference between a human and a replicant, why does the difference matter? Why should they be treated differently than real humans if there is no difference?

Edit: looks like I agree with philip k dick

They say that Deckard was Gafs replicant because Gaf was injured and couldn't blade run anymore. He had Gafs memories, so Gaf knows his dreams

I watched this film when it was first released. I thought it was a classic film. And Deckard was human. And I loved the voice over.

but what about if that unicorn is the only one being real and everyone else replicants ? ;)
anyway, this movie is mostly about life
the ones that has life they want for that life to be real, they want that life to be longer, they want that life to be more happy and less sad
i think this movie makes you calculate where you are as a real human, if you are not happy with your life than doesnt matter you are a real human you got replicants fate
so while its been impossible for a replicant to turn into real human it is possible to turn from a real human to replicant, just be sad with where your life is and where its going and there you are, you are a replicant, and your fate is just like theirs
you will be afraid and slave to suffering
the only way for replicants to free themselves is to die, nothing can change their life in fear, they can kill those who forcing them to be slaves and work but they are still going to be slaves to fear
so the only way to relieve their suffering and stress is to die
just like us, the real humans
how many of us made suicide because we wanted to be pain free
when i said that this movie is about life, i meant its not about any life
its about the happy life ! if the life you are living is not happy then its not considered to be a life
but because theres no real lust for the sun until you felt cold rain, its good to have some pain in your life, but nothing too serious
i am planting a lot of tomato plants in my garden, sometimes mosquitos attacking me in the large numbers and while trying to push them away and plant tomato plant i forget to be gently, for the just one second i forget to be soft and i break tomato plant with my fingers
tho it was thick and strong the pressure was more than it could take
you know what makes tomato plant stronger, the winds, high temperature during the day and the cold temperature during the night, rain during the sun and large rain during the night, small insects chopping off little pieces, dry soil, poor quality of the soil
everything that is a pain for the plant but when plant beats all that, all those bad things made her stronger, tho its not unbreakable
and the life we all have should be with a little pain there and there but nothing so serious that could break us in a moment
if that happens then the only thing that can truly free us is death, no hard broken heart ever healed, it only became hard as rock and rock cant feel anything so life is not possible on a rock, under rock or in the core of the rock
just like a tomato plant or any plant, if it is soft, cheerful, colourful then it has life, when it becomes hard and monotone it is no longer with us

It does not matter if Deckard is a replicant or not, if you cant tell the difference there is no difference.
what is a human body other than an organic vessel to house our conscious, and thus they are all human.

I am listening to you Dankeplace - So I gather your points are to support Deckard being a clone himself. The discussion with Tyrell and Batty about burning twice as bright doesn't imply there is a mechanism to reduce a clones power and extend their life. Tyrell was just explaining away his limitation on life imposed to control the Clones, it wasn't a natural consiquence of their superior power. Their superior power was the superior biological engineering used in them; if anything that might imply you'd live longer; but they were intentionally designed to have a short life. You say you believe there is a glow that Ridley Scott intentionally put in 4 characters eyes in the movie you tell me Batty, Pris and the owl. Why not the other known clone and Rachel then? How about all the other toy clones? I can't say I noticed this glow except the owl's but maybe you'll tell me where to look and go see if Rachel and the 4th clone ever had it. If not it is a fairly weak claim isnt' it?

Claiming the original author as the authority on a movie is insane! Obviously Ridley Scott would have more authority!

The whole idea of this movie is that replicants are essentially people only artificially created vs natural child birth. They are human beings who develop unique identities and are subject to the same emotions including depression like Deckard. The word replicant is a racial slur actually. They have no civil rights and are forced into slavery for the colonization of new worlds. History repeats itself over and over.

Such a visually stunning movie, far ahead of its time. I always thought of Deckard as world-weary cop, who rediscovered his humanity by having to "retire" replicants. Roy was so distressed, knowing that he was going to die early and fighting for answers about his origin and nature, that it made Deckard reexamine and value his own humanity. Deckard being a replicant does not fit, IMO.
Like others, I interpreted Gaff leaving the paper unicorn as a bit of a taunt about Rachel... like him saying "I know she's a replicant and could've taken her out". But he let Rachel and Deckard go free.

there's a moment that made it ring to me that he was a replicant someone says something to the extent of "get a load of that" i'm paraphrasing but he gives this look like "Um uncalled for" like he was just insulted
They mention version 6 maybe he's version 4 or 5 close enough to human but isn't as prone to dying as fast as the others.
Maybe he's a replicant who's specifically designed to age or die slower, His acting is dictated by the director nothing is shown without purpose in this film, it is rather scary that something artificial (i know i know bio-mechanical) but distinguishing from replicant to human is so close that subtle things are a giveaway I haven't seen 2049 yet but I wouldn't be surprised if ryan gosling is a replicant, given the 'emotion' they display and how memed he's been over the years, Bladerunner is Art it provokes a feeling, an emotion I love when the director leaves things to interpretation and leaves a trail of breadcrumbs if you pay close attention

After forty years who needs anything about “Blade Runner” explained?

It’s still a long boring movie

Tyrell was a mad genious with an obsession of making a perfect replicant that couldn't be distinguished from a human, so he created two experiments to create confusion andt try and achieve his dream. He created one replicant who thought she was human and then he someway along the line implanted false memories in a human and made him doubt he was human and perhaps a replicant. Then he managed to get both of them together to see what would happen...the result was a child born of a replicant mother that thought she was human and a human father, that thought he could probably be a replicant....mystery solved :)

don't be stupid - these are not robots that are built- they are biological dna enhanced clones; otherwise they would be easily detected, they even have a segment about the designers of these biological entities - Robots no way. Obviously Harrison Ford a blade runner is not one - he has no enhanced abilities. He would have been killed, but Rachel shot one attacking replicant; Another saved his life at the end of thier fight and could have killed him. Dummy. Unicorn dreams - maybe he talks in his sleep; maybe he has an analyst as he feels guilty about slaying the clones. The other detective is assigned to make sure Deckard does the job he is assigned;he assigns no jobs to Deckard; he's only the message carrier; he doesn't like Deckard because he knows Deckard is conflicted about killing the clones, this is why he follows him around. Ultimately Deckard does spare Rachel.

Wherever I click in the timeline, its just BLA BLA BLA

Ridley Scott didn't write the screenplay, and he didn't write the book that it's based on. So his opinion is no more valuable than that of anyone else when it comes to interpretation. In the book, Decard is clearly not a replicant.

Ive always find Deckard more like a Human who lost his humanity and i think the movie makes more sense with this theory and also because i hate the theory of him being a Replicant

I think I have the answer: Harrison Ford is a replicant.

If Deckard were a replicant, it's all poetic and I agree. But who's gonna explain the origin of Deckard who is obviously WAY more advanced than the most advanced replicants at the time? It is such a timeless movie, a true classic.

Do the sheep dream of electric androids?

Love the film noir angle....the narration explains what otherwise would be long drawn out sequences with no idea of whats going on....who cares what Scott and Ford say....those who agree with wiping the narration already saw that version and know whats happening....obviously he's not a replicant otherwise how do you explain the fact that he's completely over matched fighting them....he is either saved gets lucky or let off the hook....I love combining gritty detective noir narration with sci fi....get that unicorn crap out of there....he keeps the replicant as a love doll...much better ending....loved this movie when it came out...dont screw around with it decades later....

I always thought replicants aren’t androids they are genetically enhanced clones of humans not synthetic life forms.

Deckard was a human becoming a robot emotionally. The narrative version Deckard's wife called him "cold fish". He got conquered by the robots, a sign he was human. The robots just wanted more life. The point? Rachel and the others are robots becoming human, valuing the important things of human life. Deckard accepts Rachel's need to be human which returns his humanity. Even Ridley Scott missed Philip Dick's message.

Would be even nicer if an alien bursted out of the chest of Deckard at the end, for the viewers just to question themselves.

Deckard was Obviously Human, he carried himself as a Total man, drank and ate like a man, had emotions of a man, and his spirit was of that of a man when dealing with replicants, and then in Bladerunner 2049 he totally came off as a old man, ( with Love for his Elvis song!) yea, He The Man! And also the fact that almost drowned in that last fight scene in that space car. ( as a man of course)

So dey do Overpowered Androids and when they go rogue they choose an underpowered Android to hunt down the overpowered ones... Think, dude, is still free...

The narrative of the movie crumbles a decent amount if Deckard is a replicant. It's why I agree with Harrison cuz narratively it doesn't really make sense.

What matters isn’t whether Deckard is human or a machine but whether us biological humans in general are simple machines or that we’re cosmically designed with a consciousness. Bear in mind Deckard is an implicit reference to Descartes, the French philosopher that questioned the very exisyence of a non mechanical consciousness. So the whole point, the very tension of the story isn’t in the answer but in the questioning itself by the main characters and therefore the audience since we identify with either Deckard or Rachel. Is Deckard a replicant? I have my hypothesis, but the point of the movie is elsewhere. It’s about all of us.

So.. is he a replicant?

He was never a replicant

Maybe that's why the Rutger Hauer character didn't finish him off.

So basically it’s in the air.

I've resisted for years the idea that Deckard is a replicant, but by watching so many versions of this movie and thinking about it, it make sense that he is. Also and perhaps oddly, "2049" helps that idea make more sense. In fact, the whole think kind of make more sense if Deckard is a replicant but doesn't know it. I'm now on board with that.

Now I have to watch another hundred times with that in mind!

The whole point is a debate that will go on indefinitely regarding whether Deckard is a replicant or not. Same as in Total Recall where at the end of the movie, we still, no matter how closely watched while taking notes, really don't know whether Arnold is supposed to actually be Quaid or Hauser, and whether he's awake or dreaming for part of or the entire time.
I did notice while Deckard was running in one of the dark hallways at the strip club... there is 1 or 2 frames where his right eye briefly is red-eyed.
It's amazing how the more crappy real life has become in terms of current events, and despite having a stable and good job, I am now questioning whether this reality is actual true or otherwise created for us.

Here's my input I'd say The Date/setting of blade runner was more:

2091

2190

2901

2910

9012

9021

9120

9201

9210

than 2019...

What happened to Riddly Scott...... is the same that happened to His goat..... blew my mind...... they tell you not to do drugs and pay your taxes .....

Let me tell you a secret: Deckard is not real. It's a story. As the story didn't tell you one way or another, you choose whatever makes the most sense to you.

Deckard is a replicant = THE END
He just doesn't know it , & thinks he's human
' what is it to be human ? '
Ridley Scott and this extremely brilliant quandary = Master of film and question of mortality