Groupmind

[scarfman]

Who here knows Blade Runner like the back of your hand? Tonight we watched last week's AMC airing. When Harrison Ford's just killed the snake dancer, M. Emmett Walsh tells him, "Four to go," and Harry says, "No, three," and M. Emm says, "No, four, cuz Sean Young's run away from home." Now, originally M. Emm told Harry that there were six that came back to Earth, and one had died in their previous attempt to break into the Tyrell Corporation. So by our count there ought to still have been four of the original six still at large after Harry offed the snake dancer, or five including Sean Young. What did we miss? In M. Emm's first scene did he tell Harry that a second had already died besides the one we remember he told of? Thanks.

Comments

[jamtorkberg.livejournal.com]

My theory has always been that, as we learn at the end that Harrison Ford is a replicant, he must be one of the original six. He was captured, given the memories of the Blade Runner that was shot at the beginning, and set loose on his cohorts. There was a little bit of psychological conditioning, so that he would not discover his true nature (despite blatant clues such as poor arithmatic) until the job was done.

I have no clue if that was Ridley Scott or Philip K. Dick's intention, that's just always the way I've seen it.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Ridley Scott insists that Decker was a replicant, and the miscount is one of the clues that fans use to back it up.

Actually, though, it was just bad editing.

[jamtorkberg.livejournal.com]

Bad editing perhaps, but I do believe that Deckard is a replicant. It just makes the movie a little better.

[scarfman]

There's supposed to be a Director's Cut that's supposed to have bigger and better hints that Deckerd was a replicant, but I've not seen that edition and I never picked it up from the editions I have seen. Except maybe this miscount thing. Except then wouldn't Deckerd and Bryant have had different counts? Oh forget it. Either one believes Deckerd was a replicant or one doesn't.

[jamtorkberg.livejournal.com]

Oh crap, I thought we were talking about the director's cut. I've never even seen the theatrical cut, I hear it is very different, from pacing to story to ending.

[scarfman]

My guesses were, one or the other of these. Actually my guess was bad editing by whoever cut this version for tv in the 80s.

[pedanther]

I didn't say anything earlier, because I couldn't remember where I'd heard it, but what I heard was (a) that it's bad editing, and (b) that it was there in the theatrical version as well.