The whole point in creating this ending in the first places was to make the audience to walk away thinking "Is Deckard like Batty?"
- Hampton Fancher: The idea of Deckard really being an android sort of invented itself. In the final version of the screenplay I wrote before David Peoples stepped in - which I'm not sure he ever saw - I'd ended the film with Deckard coming back home and sitting down at his piano. There was a close-up of Deckard's hand going down towards the keys ... and suddenly his hand cramped up, just like Batty's did. You weren't quite sure it's the same thing, but it look an awful lot like a replicant clench. Then that image froze, the music came up and that was it. The end. The last shot of the picture. (Future Noir (3rd version) p410)
- Hampton Fancher: I wanted the audience to walk away thinking, "Is Deckard like Batty?" That was my whole point in creating this ending in the first place. The idea was supposed to be , take your own empathy test. Constantly monitoring your emotional temperature, See how human you really are, because we can always be better at being human. That's all the notion of Deckard being a replicant originally meant to me. (Future Noir (3rd version) p410)
- David Peoples: In the ending I wrote for my first draft of December 15th, 1980, Deckard kills Gaff because Gaff tried to terminate Rachael. Then Deckard takes Rachael to the beach - and he kills her too. Next he returns to his apartment. Now he's sitting in his bedroom laying out ammunition for his gun, because Deckard knows that someone from the police department is going to come to his apartment and try and shoot him for murdering Gaff.(Future Noir (3rd version) p411)
b.ii) Peoples' interesting contemplative voice-over
- David Peoples: At this point I invented a kind of contemplative voice-over for Deckard. Here , let me read it to you. "I wonder who designs the ones like me... and what choices we really have, and which ones we just think we have. I wondered if I had really loved her. I wondered which of my memories were real and which belonged to someone else. The great Tyrell hadn't designed me, but whoever had hadn't done so much better. "You 're programmed, too," she told me, and she was right. In my own modest way, I was combat model. Roy Batty was my late brother"(Future Noir (3rd version) p411)
b.iii) Peoples' intention wih the voice-over
- David Peoples: Now what I'd intended with this voice-over was mostly meta-physical. Deckard was supposed to be philosophically questioning himself about what it was that made him so different from Rachael and the other replicants. He was supposed to be realizing that, on the human level, they weren't so different. That Deckard wanted the same things the replicant did. The 'maker' he was referring to wasn't literally Tyrell, either. It was supposed to be God. So basically, Deckard was just musing about what it meant to be human."(Future Noir (3rd version) p411)
- David Peoples:But then Ridley - well, I think Ridley misinterpreted me. Because right about this period of time he started announcing, 'Ah-ha! Deckard's a replicant! What brilliance! How Heavy Metal!' I was sort of confused by this response, because Ridley kept giving me all this praise and credit for this terrific idea. It wasn't until many years later, when I happened to be browsing through his draft, that I suddenly realized the metaphysical material I had written could just as easily have been read to imply that Deckard was a replicant. Even though it wasn't what I meant at all.’ (Future Noir (3rd version) p412)
- David Peoples: On the other hand, while I may have accidently initiated this suggestion of Deckard's android nature, it quickly became Ridley's, because he's the one who picked up the idea and ran with it. (Future Noir (3rd version) p411)
- David Peoples:What I had meant was, we all have a maker, and we all have an incept date. We just can't address them. That's one of the similarities we had to the replicants. We couldn't go find Tyrell, but Tyrell was up there somewhere. For all of us. So what I had intended as a kind of a metaphysical speculation, Ridley had read differently, but I now realize there was nothing wrong with his reading. That confusion was my own fault. I'd written this voice-over so ambiguously that it could indeed have meant exactly what Ridley took it to mean. And that, I think, is how the whole idea of Deckard being a replicant came about.’(Future Noir (3rd version) p411)
- Ridley Scott: I think he absorbs, he thinks about the possibilities of it, yeah, but there is never a scene where he would say it or speak it, you see. (American Institute, uploaded 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZPg1CSPSII )
- Ridley Scott: Instead he would say with great irony, and as if he almost hated himself, when he describes to a replicant , it's not her inner most thoughts she's having, it's Deckard's niece, and she doesn't believe him so he's able to describe a couple of details that he knows from her files in her head and out of that he upsets her, and out of that, i get a funny feeling he's quite upset, and I think he... with himself, and I think, er, he shows a bit of humanity there where he's clearly not happy for what he just did. So gradually you have an evolution of a character who's getting interested in his quarry, which is beyond consideration. If you're, if you're a cop, you can not get involved, and er, he starts to get involved, and er, and so, essentially, you have a Humphrey Bogart film evolving in front of that world, or Sam Spade is basically the er a personification of that downward healed cop isn't he, and that's what he is. (American Institute, uploaded 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZPg1CSPSII )
Ridley noticed that the French got it immediately from the first release.
- Danny Peary: In the Novel, Deckard constantly worries he will mistakenly kill a human he thinks is a replicant.
Ridley Scott: At one stage, we considered having Deckard turn out to be, ironically, a replicant. In fact, if you look at the film closely, especially the ending, you may get some clues - some by slight innuendo - that Deckard is indeed a replicant. At the end there's a kind of confirmation that he is - at least he believes it possible. Within the context of the overall story, whether it's true or not in the book, having Deckard be a replicant is the only reasonable solution (Omni: Screen Flights/Screen Fantasies, p302)
- lan McKenzie: Are you disappointed that the references to Deckard being a replicant are no longer there?
Ridley Scott: The innuendo is still there. The French get it immediately! I think it’s interesting that he could be. (Starburst No.51, November 1982, p18-21) (copied and pasted from http://br-insight.com)