About Deckard's lack of strength compared to Nexus 6s: one can imagine superior abilities were obtained at the expense of lifespan -- In order to achieve greater longevity, Nexus 7s would then have been provided with a less energy-consuming and more durable metabolism

abandoned by the majority lucky enough to have left for better lives off world.

Either you or I misunderstood the film here. I interpreted it as the well-off and the rich live in the arcologies you see in the Tyrell Corp shots and the slums are in their shadow (hence sunlight in the Tyrell office scene). The off-world life adverts read as an attempt to attract people to what's really a dangerous and tough life, all we hear about the off-worlds is mining, prostitute androids and battles.

"Either you or I misunderstood the film here. I interpreted it as the well-off and the rich live in the arcologies you see in the Tyrell Corp shots and the slums are in their shadow (hence sunlight in the Tyrell office scene)."

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" takes place in 1992 (in later publications, it takes place in 2021) several years after the fallout resulting from "World War Terminus" destroyed much of Earth. In the aftermath, the United Nations encourages people to emigrate to off-world colonies to preserve the human race from the effects of the radioactive dust. One incentive is that each emigrant will receive a custom-built android servant (colloquially referred to as an "andy").

The people who remain on Earth live in cluttered cities where radiation poisoning causes significant illness and gene damage. All animals are endangered. Owning and caring for an animal is considered a civic virtue and a status symbol, depending on the rarity of the species.

it's been awhile since i've watched the movie, but in the book the movie is derived from, most of humanity has moved offworld (mars) to escape the conditions of earth.

I take the testing of Leon to be a formality. They can't exterminate someone without being absolutely 100% certain they are a replicant. Thus he is given the Voight-Kamff test.

"In an early scene, where Bryant and Deckard are looking over Nexus 6 profiles, Bryant now describes Leon

They better have damn well gotten rid of that idiotic "I've got four skin jobs walking the streets" line from when Deckard meets Bryant in his office. The ONLY reason that line is in there (in the 1992 Director's Cut it is painfully obvious the line was hacked in) is to facilitate the voiceover, specifically Deckard equating Bryant's use of the term "skinjobs" as a racist term.

Please, tell me that line is gone. I would really waffle on buying this thing if they haven't fixed that glaring error.

I may be an old fuddy-duddy, but I truly disliked the
Director's Cut because of the lack of the voice over.
I saw the original in a movie theater and was in awe.
When I first saw the Director's Cut it seemed empty.
Then I bought an old video tape of the original, and
saw what was missing. That's why I won't be interested
in this cut.

I thought the mug shots were silly, when I first saw this in the 80s, because the replicants weren't people, but rather mass produced products -- so they shouldn't have needed mug shots. All the Leons would look like Leon. All the Roys would look like Roy.

The flaw isn't in the story. It's in Ridley Scott's movie, and the blame is shared with director, continuity crew, and anyone else who didn't think, during production, "Hmm, now why would they have mughots here, and not there? Why use them here, but not there, too?"

But "Skinjob" was a masterstroke. It sounds just like something real [and therefore mean-spirited] people would think up as a slur for replicants.

Initially Scott didn't want the VO in the film. He was required to drop it in by the studios for the viewer who wasn't able to follow the film without them.

I always felt the VOs were a bit un-necessary and am glad to see that the new version will remain true to the director's vision and leave them out.

I always thought the zoom into the window of the gigantic building (showing a model ceiling fan), followed by a cut to the interior with the interrogation looked very fake.

This "error" was COMPLETELY integral to the storyline. Deckard was the sixth replicant, captured, and reprogrammed to think he is a 'blade runner' to find the other replicants. This was all explained in the sesond book.

I'm sure Ridley Scott is wrong and you're right. After all, he only directed the movie.

"Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing? He seems to spend a large part of the film being bashed to a pulp."

Because he doesn't know he's a Nexus 7, by design, so he has no idea of his physical capabilities, yet can take a beating and still keep going.

And a Nexus 7 isn't necessarily stronger than a Nexus 6; 6's would have been built for off world work and high grav or combat work.

The original actress, Joanna Cassidy, performed the stunt herself, replacing original footage of an obvious stunt double.

Cassidy came in and performed the MOVEMENTS of the stunt so they could digitally graft her head onto the stunt performer's body. (Comparison shots are in http://www.thedigitalbits.com/...ver01.html of the upcoming sets.)

For the scene where Deckard muscles the snake merchant, they fixed the awful Godzilla-grade lip sync by having Ford's son, Ben - Ford was unavailable due to scheduling conflicts - come in, get a prosthetic chin scar to match his old man, and mouth the proper dialog so they could superimpose his mouth over his father's.

Why turn "I want more life, fucker" to "..father"? I felt the original line gave Roys character more emotional depth, suggesting he's breaking out of his limited programming.
Maybe Scott's angling for a theatrical re-release, one that the kids can see too.

>"I want more life, fucker" has been replaced with "I want more life, father

"Deckard was the sixth replicant, captured, and reprogrammed to think he is a 'blade runner' to find the other replicants. This was all explained in the sesond book."

Is it inconceivable to think that Deckard was made on Earth to hunt down replicants? He's a Nexus 7, designed to think he's human, would it make any sense for him to be working in punishing offworld environments alongside replicants that are obviously superhuman? The escaped replicants are Nexus 6.

The 'second book' wasn't even written by Philip K Dick and came out 13 years after the movie (and PKD's death), apparently basing part of its plot off a misspoken line. I wouldn't exactly call that canon.

Scott is revising history. Deckard was always a human if you ask Harrison Ford. Ford is also reported to have denied tanking the VO and didn't care either way about it.

I first watched the original and at the time I liked the VO (I was very young at the time). I haven't seen the original since the DC was released so I can't decide which I like better, hence the box set is a welcome release.

I like the DC but think the unicorn is unnecessary and really just Scott trying to be overly clever after the fact. May be that is the way he originally intended it, or may be Han shot first.

I am worried that Scott is playing with a classic for the sake of his ego, but I will but the box set because I am a huge fan. I think this will be the last set and it is in HD so I will get it in full glory.

Rutger Hauer has stated that he did this dialogue several times, sometimes saying 'fucker' sometimes saying 'father'. He intended the word to be indistinct, so that the viewer could not tell whether Roy was calling Tyrell 'father' or insulting him. It may be that there were different lines in the different releases, as some were bowdlerised.

Scott has taken the 'father' dialogue and edited it in to this release, clearly.

I'm dubious about the Benjamin Ford report. Got any source on that?

In the original theme the idea was what is human? Deckard was not a replicant and he plodded through life while the Replicants did things, they were proactive. They were "more human than human". In fact if it wasnt for there own actions Deckard with his drinking and looking at old photos and pining over the past probably wouldn't have caught them. In the end his own life and death is Roy Batty's choice, not his own. The only real difference between the two was art. The little unicorn was a simple example of the creativity the Replicants did not have (probably would if they lived longer).

Now that Ridley has been brainwashed into believing the nonsense of Deckard's lack of humanity due to a stupid consistancy error the theme of what is it to be human is muted or gone. It's sad really because it was the the thought provoking theme that I felt made Blade Runner something more than a dystopian future.

The news on Ben Ford doing his father's lines came from the DVD producers themselves at Comic-Con this past summer. I hadn't heard them using Ben to reshoot, but using his voice as his was apparently similar enough to his father's. I've seen other reports since then indicating that some footage of him was used & integrated a bit like what they did with Joanna Cassidy.

The first time I saw the film in the theaters I thought Rutger Hauer said "father"... Then on further viewings I could not tell.

In my opinion, "father" is more dramatic plus it makes more sense.

>Scott is revising history. Deckard was always a human
>if you ask Harrison Ford.
That's not what the book - although very different - says, or the Director says. The actor's quote is not really helping

>The 'second book' wasn't even written by Philip K Dick and came out 13 years after the movie

Seconded.. I almost fell off my chair when I read Second Book. Second book of what and from who? It's as good as fan fiction at this point.

Personally, I loved the voice over and happy ending.. it's too bad Riddley doesn't like them..

Deckard doesn't have the strengh of a Nexus 6 because otherwise he'd know he's a replicant! DUH!

"Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing? He seems to spend a large part of the film being bashed to a pulp."

Because he doesn't know he's a Nexus 7, by design, so he has no idea of his physical capabilities, yet can take a beating and still keep going.

it probably goes further than that. if deckard were truly unaware he was a replicant, he might find it kind of strange that he could bench-press thousands of pounds, or pull his hand out of boiling water unscathed.

I did want to see Blade Runner for some time now, and since I really like to see films on the big screen (and not at home), I went so see the Final Cut some 6 weeks ago.
Its a fu..... amazing film and I'm so glad that I had the chance to see it in a cinema because the visuals _are_ absolutely stunning. The Vangelis soundtrack is absolutely brilliant. All in all my English is lacking to describe this film.
Great Art.
(I just wanted to make sure that this is not forgotten when discussing the details.)

Grettings, astifter

I am a huge Philip K. Dick fan (I've read EVERYTHING of his--no easy feat). However, this film NEEDS the voice over. It is not a coherent whole without it--you are required to know some facts from the book (or be lost).

Can you even buy a DVD with the VO? If you can't, then this product has been destroyed by the now standard practice of edit-after-release.

Thanks a bunch, Ridley.

I just have to ask - everyone here saying 'Deckard is a Replicant' is saying that Deckard's a Nexus 7.

The change to the line eliminates the possibility that he's one of the escaped Nexus 6s.

So uh . . . what's the problem?

There should be no doubt about whether Deckard is a replicant if you read the book.

I was at the (in)famous Dallas test screening and there was some voiceover even in that version. It was just at the beginning, setting up the plot.

In any case, making Deckard a replicant is clearly retconning.

>Scott is revising history. Deckard was always a human
>if you ask Harrison Ford.
That's not what the book - although very different - says, or the Director says.

Maybe my memory is faulty but I remember the Phillip K. Book being clear that Deckard was human. Who cares what a book written after the fact has to say. Maybe someone should ask the screenwriter(s).

According to Wikipedia (not the final source but...)

Phillip K. Dick wrote the character Deckard as a human.[citation needed]
Hampton Fancher (original screenwriter) has said that he wrote the character Deckard as a human.[citation needed]
Ridley Scott stated in an interview in 2002 that he considers Deckard a replicant.[17][18]
Harrison Ford considers Deckard as a human. "That was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time," Ford told interviewer Jonathan Ross during a BBC1 Hollywood Greats segment. "I thought the audience deserved one human being on screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won Ridley's agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways."[19]

There is an extremely important plot element in _DADOES_ which did not form part of the movie at all, and which has great bearing on Deckard's humanity. The point being that there is this mechanically mediated religion, in which all real people believe, and in which no replicant does -- this is one of the major distinctions between people and replicants.

The irony being, of course, that at the end of the novel, Deckards discovers that the religion is, in fact, a fake. Which brings up the question I think PKD wanted to pose in the book -- how can we tell what is really human?

I saw this last week in Minneapolis for it's limited run. I've seen a few versions of this film. Took along a friend of mine who had never seen it.

We both enjoyed it. Yes details have changed, but it's still a great film. You really should get out and see it.

As to Deckards strength. If I am not mistaken, one of the drawbacks of having all that power and strength is a short life span (burning the candle at both ends). If you have somebody with all that history and knowledge, you'd want him around for a while. As to the opening questioning, how many times in a investigation do they start looking before the the pictures and information gets fowarded to the correct department. They know some replicants are missing, the info follows later. Thats all I got to say..........

They are giving you the choice of THE ORIGINAL version, the EDITED version, The REMASTERED version, even a WORKPRINT version with different music. Something for every BLADE RUNNER fan. The 5 disc sets in SD & HD versions. :cry

Besides missing the voice-over (yeah, I liked it) what I hated about the director's cut were the proportions of the unicorn horns and the fact that they wobbled when the horses ran. In fact with such a precise film, that scene destroyed the illusion for me!

The wobbly unicorn horn and proportions has more to say about Deckard's sex life (or was it Rachel?) than anything else. It was a dream after all.

On the subject of Nexus 6s being stronger than a Nexus 7, with the lifespan issue maybe it's that they are different types of relicant intended for different jobs rather than Deckard being a 'newer' model than Batty et al. I don't think any of the Nexus 6s are supposed to be used on Earth, so maybe the Nexus 6 is an off-world model (perhaps stronger because of different gravity levels?) and the Nexus 7 is the Earth model.

If Deckard is the reprogrammed member of Batty's team, why do none of them recognise him (Zora is pretty hostile to him from the first time he meets her)? Where does he get the time and money to find and stock an apartment from? And why is he not the first choice to track down the replicants?

I think Scott said a few years ago (the Edge of Human documentary?) that Deckard was A replicant, not THE replicant.

I have to agree I preferred it when Ford seemed to be human, but I don't mind the slight element of doubt he wasn't. But to make it blatent he isn't human, to my mind is a mistake.

Here's my 2c on the strength issue. The scene in Bryants office when they are viewing the files on each Replicant clearly shows Mental and Physical ratings A thru C. Roy Batty was the top of the line "combat model, optimum self sufficiency" and rated A in both areas, Leon was rated Mental C and Physical A. This implies that these characteristics can be set at the genetic level when the Replicants are first created. Pris was the "basic pleasure model" same rating as Leon. Whereas Zhora was a "offworld kick murder squad" ? and I don't recall her ratings but she was certainly smarter than Pris for obvious reasons, she saw thru Deckards charade pretending to search her dressing room for "holes" "you'd be surprised what a person would do to get a look at a beautiful lady" LOL

I too prefer the VO version, it creates a certain mood that to me suits the style of the film as an updated film noir detective story. This is also reflected in the wonderful retro style of Deckard and Racheals wardrobe.

Check

Wait Wait!
I know, this is R. Scott's "I had a good idea 25 years ago" special edition. It has a 2 hour of comment from the director beggin' you to forget about 1492, Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven!

But do not despair because next Blade Runner edition will be the 'Final premium collector's platinum special milestone limited HD/BlueRay edition' with newly found footage of Sean Young having breakfast with a robe before shooting.

seriously... GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY POCKETS!

Deckard - to be a man or not to be a man.

Why did Gaff disappear always right after Deckard had killed a replicant (like he knew exactly what Deckard was doing) and why did he say after the death of Ray Batty to Deckard: You did a MAN's job.

As Mabuse said Rutger Hauer's line was not simply father OR fucker - it was intentionally ambiguous so you would think of both.

As for the number of replicants not adding up: the line wasn't misspoken, and there isn't a huge conspiracy. There was originally another replicant, a scene involving the first blade runner being in the hospital, etc. that got cut. The continuity error caused by the scene being removed should have been picked up somewhere along the way, but wasn't.

Because Gaff is a chickenshit coward and a sexist. That just plays into the original theme of the replicants being more "human" than human as all the humans shown are deeply flawed and hte Replicants are superior in every way but lifespan (and a willingness to violence to defend themselves).

"Not revisionism
Written by ulric
Personally, I loved the voice over and happy ending.. it's too bad Riddley doesn't like them.."

They are crap tacked by producers meddling with the artists vision because the producers themselves were too stupid to understand the story. Good riddance.

Something I never understood...
For what purpose was Zhora working as a dancer???

In response to The All-seeing I who said:
"
This "error" was COMPLETELY integral to the storyline. Deckard was the sixth replicant, captured, and reprogrammed to think he is a 'blade runner' to find the other replicants. This was all explained in the sesond book.

This change is wrongness on the level with "Han shot first."
"

First off sir, it was a script error, it was actually recorded correctly in the workprint as "two got fried". This excerpt from the Blade Runner FAQ explains the error and why Deckard is NOT the sixth:

"Bryant tells Deckard that there were six replicants, three male, three
female. Obviously, Roy and Leon are two of the males, and Pris and Zhora are
two of the females. Bryant also says that "one of them got fried trying to
get into the Tyrell building", but doesn't specify the sex. That leaves one
replicant, either male or female. It has been hypothesized that Deckard was
the sixth replicant, but there is ample evidence that this is not the case.
In an earlier version of the script "Mary" was the fifth replicant, and "Hodge"
was the sixth. Bryant's line in that script got past the screenwriter
unnoticed. It was recorded correctly in the Workprint as "two got fried" but
botched again on the release print."

See? It's not Deckard. Third, nobody cares about what a novelization "sequel" to Blade Runner says. It's obviously not written by the original director or anyone who worked on the film, so it's not canonical. The author cleverly took an error in the films and tried to make it into a backstory for his book. If he was a bit more clever he would have done research and not used that bit from the movie.

So yes, this is not wrongness on the level of "han shot first". The final cut of Blade Runner changes so little that it's not worth getting worked up about. I'd rather watch this version, as it's cleaner than the director's cut.

I like the voice over better. Just my personal preference.

JFTR, My director's cut isn't wide screen, lacks narration, and includes the unicorn insert.

My international "bootlegged" version IS wide screen, and includes narration, and even though it's a bit grainy, I still prefer it.

I really doubt Deckard is or was intended to be a replicant, only because replicants were illegal on Earth, he obviously was not part of the original 6 (he didn't slash down just yesterday), he was physically weaker than replicants (not stronger as a replicant hunter should be) he was an ex cop, had a drinking problem, divorced, etc, etc. Not that it really matters anyway if he was or wasn't. Just seems like some doth protest too much about nothing. I'd be willing to believe it if Dick or Scott say so unequivocally "in writing". Otherwise, - who cares.

Just wanted to point out that Deckard not being as strong as the other replicant's doesn't mean anything. Did anyone expect Sean Young's character to pull out a can of whoop ass? Each generation becomes more human than humans, right?

I always thought that Gaff was a replicant. Maybe that's why he doesn't like Deckard. Maybe they should come out with a sixth cut that makes it a bit more clear. hehe.

Nexus 8, what if the Deckard we see received memory implants from the human one? Maybe the original ex-cop, divorced, hard-drinking Deckard died and they needed a replacement. He would have pretty much the same mannerisms and motivations I'd imagine.

And by the way, Gaff pretty much lets Rachel and Deckard live. If he knew they were replicants, then why didn't he retire them, or at least her? It always seemed to me like this was actually a decent (human) thing to do, and one spark of goodness of a human in the film.

It doesn't really matter. It's a brilliant film in any case. I grew up with the director's cut version so the unicorn, Deckard is a replicant, thing is old hat to me.

You get all the other films in the box set anyway so, take your pick.

Nexus 8, what if the Deckard we see received memory implants from the human one? Maybe the original ex-cop, divorced, hard-drinking Deckard died and they needed a replacement. He would have pretty much the same mannerisms and motivations I'd imagine.

And by the way, Gaff pretty much lets Rachel and Deckard live. If he knew they were replicants, then why didn't he retire them, or at least her? It always seemed to me like this was actually a decent (human) thing to do, and one spark of goodness of a human in the film.

It doesn't really matter. It's a brilliant film in any case. I grew up with the director's cut version so the unicorn, Deckard is a replicant, thing is old hat to me.

You get all the other films in the box set anyway so, take your pick.

I realize there were some problems...but changing roy's extremely powerful "fucker" to "father" was a mistake worthy of a 10th grader.

When we say the work "father" our tongue sitcks out between our teeth on the "th".
When we say the word "fucker" we look like Roy did in that scene.

Bad form, Ridley.
Very bad.
Booo.

I know i'm in the minority here but I can't stand the lack of voice over.
Visually stunning and interesting as it is that VO really tied it up. I think the voice was more in line with the book. I didn't really care about the character in the movie. People I know who saw only the DC have never watched it more then once. I have to admit I've never managed to stay concious through the whole DC version.

I'm wondering does the latest and greatest have the option to hear VO or should I save my cash?

The four disk edition includes the final cut and all previous releases 82 US theatrical (w/o unicorn, w/voiceover and happy endint), US international (same as US but with the extra gore (i.e. Roy's nail through hand, Tyrell's eyes gouge, etc), and the 92 Directors cut.

The 5 disk version adds in the Workprint, which gives you some nice "source" for where some of the tweaks in the Final Cut originated.

With all that variety pick the version you prefer.

I prefer the Final Cut minus the unicorn scene. I think that Deckard as a Replicant loses some of the emotional impact. Specifically the ending where Roy Batty shows more humanity in his saving of Deckard, than Deckard has shown throughout the movie. It is this point that the Nexus series does indeed become "more human than human".

The whole point of the Blade Runner experience is how technology dehumanizes us, and the irony on how an artificial intelligence or replicant can show more humanity than the real humans that created/hunt them.

In any case, The whole human/replicant argument was meant to be ambigous which is why we still discuss the film 25 years later. The unicorn scene is not only out of place, but tips the scales too far to one side. There were already enough clues, (Deckards own fondness of photo graphs, The "glowing" eyes during his explanation that he wouldn't hunt down Rachel, the "You've done a Man's job".)

The clues were there but nothing definitive. The unicorn dream sequence tips the scales too much to one side. I prefer the ambiguity.

Either way, the fact that this film is still actively discussed and debated is testament to it's lasting power and it's powerful subtext on what it means to be human.

I admit that I really fell for a lot of the extra footage that was shown in dangerous days and really wish that a lot more of it made it into the movie after it was edited. I think the final cut really could've been something different and should of resurrected a lot more of the archive footage rather then just a few extra shots.
Its funny but one of my favorite bits from the archive footage is just a building shot of a empty cross section street with some rubble in it, for some reason it just gives the movie more of a decayed and dark feel to it. And this will sound corny but I honestly felt the Deckard, Rachel love scene needed a fresh take and extension on it so that it wouldn't feel so harsh and unnecessary like it does.
I've never liked the idea of voice over's in the movie, it just seems kinda ancient and dumb to me, after all its suppose to be future noir not a 1940s detective film. Overall Blade Runner still feels a little short for something so beautiful, mysterious and inventive.

All these years I thought it was just me who preferred the v/o...

The main things about this cut are (the desperately needed) removal of the dove flying off into the sky above an industrial estate in Swindon, England (finally transforming it into an OK LA 2019 scene) and the change to 2 getting fried rather than 1.

What surprised me is I think that they still have the Pris and Zhora characters the wrong way round in Bryant's explanation. So Pris is the described as the pleasure model and Zhora is part of a kick death squad. Or did I get that wrong as I'm so used to it? Definitely worth forking out for the boxed set once I've got an HD player...

I'm glad they've left in the _third_ unicorn that appears among the toys in J.R.Sebastian's pad. This tells us where Deckard's childhood memory comes from.

I didn't spot this until I saw the film on IMax.

Deckard's a replicant: Harrison Ford gets used as an actor because he's good at not catching on to the Big Picture and this makes for a believable character who's not good at catching on to the Big Picture. Check his other films. More evidence for D's being a replicant: (1) the replicant owl's eyes glow red, so do Rachel & Deckard's (scene where he tells her "but someone would"), a nice trick that gives anyone redeye but Scott used it to good effect; (2) scene where Roy teases Deckard "aren't you the Good *Man,* Deckard?" making fun of his friend's inability to remember what he is; (3) the stripper *doesn't immediately recognize Deckard, but she can't break her story unless she knows what D's story really is (she tries to tease it out of him, e.g., "are you for real?" after which she sees he's not in the know, but on The Man's leash, and so is a danger, and so tries to off him); (4) continuing on, Roy is trying in his own way to get Deckard to "wake up," by making him FEEL in as many ways as he can (he could have killed Deckard half a dozen times, but instead he coaches him"you'd better get it up!" or "that's the spirit!!") - Roy's bond with Deckard is one of the most poetic ever rendered to film, witness the mirroring of their hands (R's nail, D's re-locating), etc. It doesn't matter if/whether Deckard was Roy's friend or rival before, it doesn't matter whether Deckard was a Nexus 6, 7, or 70, it doesn't matter if Deckard was minted on Earth and given fake memories and a "used" apartment to go after "skin jobs" : Roy, at the end, has transcended the issue of his own proximal nature and has reached his ultimate state: to see another, even one's clueless "enemy," as a true brother-in-arms against the system that's pitting them against each other. Having lost his 'family,' he hopes to get Deckard to break the bonds of his training/implants (a big theme for PKD) and transcend the system. Roy hopes more than hates. More human than human.

PKD constantly intones the idea that one cannot truly know what is real, whether you are yourself human. Memory is faulty. Scott plays on this all through the film, to get you, the viewer, to feel that somehow 'this all seems familiar' - Scott is putting'implants' in our brains to echo later! To do this, Scott inserted shots, images, sound, and dialogue from late in the film, earlier in the film: (1) the early shot of Roy looking over his should 'at' Leon near a phone booth is actually just a left-right switch of the shot of Roy looking over his shoulder at Tyrell just before the final exchange (check out the thumb on the shoulder); (2) when Deckard is VK-ing Rachel, we faintly hear Deckard say (during the long shot) the bit about the spider that actually comes from when he later tells her about her implanted memories; (3) some of the shots on the photos in the drawer in Leon's apartment are dead ringers of steps in the sequence from Deckard's later search through the enhanced single photo; (4) the 'new' newspaper that Deckard is reading when we first see him turns up again as an old, yellowed, dirty version as a drawer liner in Leon's apartment The Same Day (this also throws doubt on Deckard's being what he appears to be...maybe he was newly implanted with memories has just begun his first day - we cannot know if he actually has a real history or not - and the VO doesn't help, cause Deckard's recollections cannot be trusted); there are many more examples throughout the film.

Did anyone catch on that any beautiful person in the film is an illegal replicant? Witness the whores in the bars - of course there will be a thriving black market and criminal underground - those guys won't be hoping for grizzled, weathered partners - the rich bad dudes will buy the hottest 'basic pleasure model' that can be smuggled in. Any 'human' who could pass the physical leaves Earth (J.F. could not, and is stuck behind; Deckard's boss is no looker...same for Gaff). And Deckard, and the *other* good-looking guy he replaced? Would they be working the streets as cops if they could pass their physicals and skip planet? No way...

Did anyone catch on that Deckard's boss has a lamp depicting hunting scenes, which is a crime in the PDK novel?

Can't wait to see the new Final Cut this week.

I disagree with this not being a money grabbing idea. It's so expensive and the changes are so slight, or for the worse. Why do we need to see exotic dancers, blood squirting from Tyrell's eyes, and Roy being submissive to the man he's about to kill? This tells us nothing of Deckard's path to enlightenment. And as for the unicorn, as my good friens "Harrison Ford Cluelessness Key for Decka" pointed out, there were many clues in the original. Plus, it took me several watches to really realise...and it was just as great before knowing that.

All in all I'm glad they made it, cos it made me watch it again and notice new depths and details...just like every time I watch it...

no one has thought of the possibility that deckard has less strength because nexus 6's were hard to control if they escaped which obviously happened alot needing blade runners, they perhaps were too strong so the 7's are weaker and perhaps more human.(not that im saying he is definitely a replicant). And i wish people wouldn't keep stating that they know all the answers because the book says this or that e.g. "deckard is a replicant because it said so in book or books", people have to underatand that books and films are completely seperate written or made by different people who in many cases have nothing to do with each other. if you tried to link them it would not make any sense at all so you cant use it as an argument for or against anything.

It could just be because I have seen it in various incarnations about 10 times now but I thought this version was much more coherent. The first time I saw it I was in awe of the graphic design but it seemed more like random scenes fused together.

I happen to prefer the 'father' line instead of 'fucker' mainly because I never was quite sure if he was saying 'fucker' or not, the dialog was just a bit mangled before.

I'm also for the 'deckard was not a replicant' theory. He wasn't a replicant in the book but the idea was tossed around, I think that's about as far as it goes here as well.

The visuals of this movie have never looked better. For the most part it holds up with modern movies still.

The audio seems mixed much better too, soundtrack sounds better than ever, and dialog is easier to understand and overall has a much more modern sound to it's mix.

Who cares, it's the best sci-fi movie on the planet.

Also in my opinion, the best SciFi movie ever: best story, best actors, best everything. The Final Cut, I mean.

And finally, yes, the androids do dream of electric sheeps. I do know.

As to whether Deckard actually is a replicant or not, Ridley Scott has gone on record to say he is. There is also a deleted line from the film- after Gaff says "You've done a man's job sir!" He goes on to add, "But are you sure you are a man?"

Personally I like to believe he IS human- the film doesn't really have the same impact if he wasn't (a human cop falling in love with a replicant, a replicant saving the life of a human who is trying to kill him).