Ridley Scott Definitively Answers if Harrison Ford is a Replicant | Close Up With THR

Yes and his answer is as real as a used car salesman saying “yes this car has all new parts”. Scott just jumped on board a popular fan-theory to help promote the film and its sequels.

Dude litterly ate my friends brownie and then crashed his plane 4 hours later 😑 into a golf course

put ridley scott, with this stupid dope clow its a shame

Hello
Im 50 seen it all.
But i didn't know he was a replicant .
Wondered buy no.
Always a mystery to me.
Great movies

i'm sorry Harrison ford was born in 1942. The technology just did not exist to create a replicant at that time.

Man, no clickbait at all, he just went right for it! I appreciate this video, thank you!

The explanation is what literally every Blade Runner fan has used as an argument for Deckard being a replicant for 40 years.

Why is Seth Rogan even at this table...ugh.

if harrison is a replicant how did he live so long if current replicants only live 4 years. i accept it but have so many questions!!!!

When Deckard picks up the unicorn origami his reaction doesn’t strike me as realizing he’s a replicant and that Gaff knows this. If that were the case Deckard would’ve had a shocked expression as that realization would be a huge blow to him. In the film he just seems like he realizes that Gaff was there and is letting him and Rachael (Deckard’s special unicorn) escape together.

Scott has created a master piece. Yet he missed the point of Dick's book. Which is Deckard is human but becoming cold and without emotions. Rachael is a manufactured human with a human brain and memories. Their join union has made each of them more human. Even Roy the killer and the other replicants are becoming human. A condition Tyrrel did not predict.

The only thing clear from this interview is that Seth Rogen is also a replicant... hE hEhEhEhEhEhEhEhEhE

Read the book before I ever saw the original film (saw the film in 1982) and Deckard was never any sort of replicant. I still prefer the original theatrical cut, it was perfection. Even when people were slagging it off back in the day I told them they were missing out on a classic, and it still is. I do not care for the later cuts, where Ridley Scott is trying to push some other agenda.

Этот Ридли Скотт ненастоящий.

Sir. Ridley Scott is a true Alchemist, a one of a kind.

Seth Rogan does not belong at this table. His laugh is like nails on a Chalk board😊

Replicants only live 4 years. Harrison for is a replicant how? And he is weak.

I watched an entire video dedicated to breaking this down at some point years ago. Here is the summary. He is NOT a replicant, but the director (Scott) really wanted him to be a replicant. That's it. Of course he isn't a replicant. If he was, the whole movie falls apart, as well as the premise for the sequel. I firmly believe that people that claim he was a replicant are like flat earthers... ie trolling people to work them up.

TL;DR timeframe where he answers the question please?

I can watch Ridley Scott movies all day long, he has incredible vision.

Ridley Scott is wrong.

Decker being a replicant spoils the ending of the film and his escape with Rachel.

No more Rogen.

where can i see the whole video???

min 3:30 "Denis was a terrific choice (to helm BR 2049)" Meeeh.

The question is important as it's the answer to the true question is ' do humans have a soul ? '
- the entire point of the constant returning ' Eye ' infatuation = ' The eye being the journey to the soul '

Visionary. Super interesting films that have changed storytelling. However, the money is outrageous.

No way...if he was a replicant, how did he live so long? He would have been the most advanced model made and they had him out there pretty much doing his own thing? Doesn't make any sense.

Deckard is not a replicant. And the proof is how easily the replicants dealt with Deckard physically in the original. It seems Scott was trying to lay on a layer after the fact.

Can't believe it took me this long to find this interview

I don't see why he has to be a replicant? The origami at the end can be understood as a track , that Gaff was there, looking for Rachel, and left the sign deliberatly to Deckard to say: you two are free to go. Now, for the second movie plot to work, Rachel, who is a replicant of a special kind, it needs to be capable of having a child (with Deckard), i.e. a type of replicant that can actually reproduce 'naturally'.

I remembered this after 5 years and just replay the first 10 seconds over and over

The original movie doesn't work as Deckard being a Replicant. Ridley made that move off of a mistake. No one even Harrison says Deckard is not human.

Ridley Scott vs James Cameron
1) Alien vs Aliens
2) Blade Runner vs Terminator 2
3) Thelma & Louise vs The Terminator
4) Prometheus vs The Abyss
5) Black Hawk Down vs True Lies
6) Gladiator vs Titanic
7) The Martian vs Avatar

I’m so glad Ridley did not make the Blade Runner sequel. The man does not seem to understand his own creation. The question is what matters, not the answer.

So Harrison Ford is a replicant. So what about Deckard?

He isn't.

well ridley, if you wanted him to be a replicant, you should have MADE him a replicant.

“Writing is everything, everything else is just dressing”. I love that !

I like more the idea of a human who learns the value of being a human after he confronts an android with a short life span craving to live...

Of course he is it doesn't make sense otherwise the origami is the key he knows dekkards implanted memories the unicorn daydream !!! It's a clever way of revealing the truth Scott's a visual genius

Harrison Ford? You mean Deckard. And no, he isn't. He wouldn't have gotten tossed around like a rag doll by the real replicants, or easily apprehended by humans.

this dude sleeps in a hermetically sealed box to not waste any of his farts

He is not sorry your wrong

I always thought it was obvious he was a replicant