"Is Deckard a replicant?" Topic

Ambiguous, to say the least.
But I think he is.

I thought it was established later that he was.

Thanks.

John

If he's dreaming of electric sheep, he's probably just weird…

Well yes, of course, that is the whole point. But it is quite subtle.

That's what the consensus is

Yes. It was already in public decided many years ago (after the first Blade Runner movie in 1982), but in Blade Runner 2049)- made in 2017 – it again becomes clear that both he and Rachel are "special" replicants: not only survive both the genetically automated term of two years of life, but also they create a daughter. Now who can tell the "difference" between humans and replicants, is the new question being told us.

I remember seeing at least three versions of the film.

In one of them the photos on Rachel's piano matched his own memories – confirming that he was a replicant too.

The problem with Ridley Scott is that he is regarded as a prophet – opening the curtain on a cohesive, magical, world – whereas he is only an advertising person out to peddle his media product.

As noted, three or four versions of Blade Runner. Depending on which one, "Yes" "Probably" or "Conceivably." Almost surely "No" in the source material.

Harrison Ford insisted that he played him to be human. Not a replicant.
But then he changed his mind, until he changed it again.
Others on the "creative" side had similar ambiguous thoughts.

Yes, he is.

Very clear in the Director's Cut.

I don't know. I jus' do eyes.

"Very clear in the Director's Cut."

Director's cuts and special editions are best avoided, especially in such conversation.

The original theatrical version is what's important. Although, even then there can be multiple versions.

Anything after the date of release is a post addition. Even if it was in early scripts or ideas.

I'm the oddball who doesn't think the film is really all that great. Evocatively filmed and moody as only Scott can make ‘em, but the plot to me is dull. At the end, I didn't care whether anyone was a replicant or not. Heck, maybe they all were. Did it really matter? Not that I could tell.

@peredur

Yes – from 2025 the plot is dull. It's procedural – like a comic-book – with very little suspense.

However, at the time (1982) – fantastic! – gripped the imagination and depicted a futuristic world.

A world away from Thatcher's Britain of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure…

Another film of the time – which hasn't weathered so well – Escape from New York (1981).

The computer-graphics – as Snake Plisskin approached NYC in his glider – were actually model buildings with dolled-up edges:

Before and After – Fake CG Glider graphics

My theory is that most of the major characters are replicants – just as how most of the characters on Battlestar Galactica are cylons.

How do we know that EVERYBODY isn't a replicant? But in a way that's the question of the film— what's the moral difference?

(So I *get* the movie— I just don't *like* the movie.)

Reading the novella now, for the first time (found a free version online).

Halfway through— and, as is typically the case, the book is waaaay better.