New Figure Project- "Nexus-7: Rachael" (Blade Runner)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Deckard's not a replicant!

Is to.

1. More Human than human is what the Tyrell corp says. Thats why he is always pensive, acts in weird ways. Acts like a little kid.
for instance Insults Rachael then realizes he made a mistake then tries to make it up to her. Hes more human than human
2. How come his childhood photo is almost the same as Rachaels.
3. Plus how does Gaff know that Deckard had the dream of the Unicorn. Gaff making the Unicorn says point blank- I know you are a replicant




I went over the the Props summit site. I think they love Scots work more than we do. Come on guys, were the 1/6 collectors. Show some major appreciation.

SCOTT ROCKS!!!!!! BO YA
 
Scott-

first, this looks fantantic. Is there a website link you can post for ordering? or do we just shoot you a pm? Also, others referenced a price, but i dont see that either.

Thanks.
 
Thanks guys for liking my work :hi5:

ali032373- thanks and here is my web link for pre-orders: https://www.spettersenart.blogspot.com

In regards to Deckard being a replicant or not-
Here's what I've gathered from the bluray (there is an entire chapter of interviews discussing it). Ridley Scott intended from the get go that Deckard was to be a replicant but Ford didn't like the idea. Ford comments that they finally agreed that he wasn't. Then in interviews Scott references the scene with the glow in Deckard's eyes and said "it can't be more obvious than that". Ford still says he wasn't...So I guess it's up to the viewer to believe what they want.

but now what about Dr. Eldon Tyrell?:)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CkiDuHrxsM[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more. To me it's not about whether he was or wasn't. For me the whole issue detracts from the story. And no, if he was or wasn't isn't "the" story imo.
 
While there are pros and cons to either interpretation, I prefer a non-replicant Deckard myself. The character wasn't in the book on which the film is loosely based. I never liked the idea of him being a tool for man out retiring his own kind. I also liked the idea of a human falling in love with a replicant. That said, it's probably best left to ambiguity as to whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Like whether or not the top falls in Inception or what's in Marcellas Wallace's case in Pulp Fiction.
 
The question as to whether he is or isn't a replicant is very much like the posed thematic question of 'how long we have to live'... would you really be happier knowing the answer?
 
I cant believe they censored the "____" in "Philip K. ____."

What about ____ Van Dyke (maybe a 2 fer)?
 
Never understood the need to define Deckard. I always liked the duality of the possibility. Getting an answer takes away the fun of the possibility.

:exactly:

although i am relieved george lucas has confirmed ford IS a replicant in the next indy movie. a replicant that fell out of a time travelling voodoo alien's butt, and was given magic powers by voldermort and the baby jesus. it'll help me make sense of the plot.
 
This is incredible !. One of those figures I'm tempted to buy with no interest at all for a figure of the character. :lol
 
Back
Top