>Weaker than any of the replicants (even the sexbots)
>Is constantly out of breath during every scene
This guy is obviously a human, why would you make the robot who hunts other robots inferior to the robots he's hunting?
The movie is NOT ambigous, people just have a retarded fantheory.

>>213451372 (OP)
I think they just made him weak and squishy unlike the other replicants to fuck with him

>>213451400
what a bunch of scamps

>>213451372 (OP)
the motto of the Tyrell corporation is "More Human than Human." Is it really beyond comprehension that they might design a replicant that doesn't have super strength and has a human-like cardiovascular system?

>>213451422

>>213451422
okay but why would they make it his job to hunt the robots who DO have superpowers?

>>213451372 (OP)
Making him human that acts like a robot is more profound than a secret robot that is weak and doesn't know ira a robit. Ridley is a hack.

>>213451467
They gave him the skills to be able to track them down, and a gun that can blow holes in them. If he dies they can just make another one

>>213451481
he doesn't act like a robot. there's not one scene where he trips and falls down helpless on his back from a simple obstacle.

>>213451372 (OP)
No, it's ambiguous, you're just a retard.

>>213451467
They were new models meant for outer space, not earth. Some were even soldiers. Deckard, if he was an android, wasn't designed to fight that kind of robot.

The whole debate is nerd shit though. The point of the movie is that there's no way we can know for sure. Same as Total Recall.

>>213451519
>we've made a new kind of replicant designed specifically to hunt dangerous rogue replicants
>what does it do
>eats noodles, drinks whiskey, has sex and above all tries to weasle out of hunting replicants by talking shit to its human boss
>is it good at finding and taking down replicants?
>no

>>213451372 (OP)
there was nexus-1 all the way to 6 you ignorant retard.

>>213451422
What the FUCK would the point be of spending billions making a 1:1 human from scratch when you can just fuck someone and make one for free?

>>213451598
>>is it good at finding and taking down replicants?
Except he does find them and personally kills two of them?

>>213451464
That's a lot of nuts.

>>213451585
neither was the sexbot, but she has super strength
also there's nothing ambiguous abotu Total Recall either. in the reality of the film Arnold shot people. in the reality of reality he did not. Anything else is trivial.

Maybe that’s why he was able to live longer? The trade for super human capabilities that the other replicants had was a shorter life span perhaps.

>>213451519
>If he dies they can just make another one
Or just hire a regular cop to do it

>>213451627
the standards of mid LA women went WAY up in the future

>>213451531
>there's not one scene where he trips and falls down helpless on his back
But that did happen. I saw it and you were the cause. You were in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a replicant. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it on its back. The replicant lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?

>>213451372 (OP)
>>213451422
Why wasn't Deckard treated like a masterpiece from the freak Tyrell just like Rachell was? Only way to make it work is to add more convoluted shit like making Deckard a replicant from another company.

It's a lot more interesting to think how were Deckard's dreams implanted as first experiments on memory imprinting, or how could Gaff or anyone else be capable of reading his mind

>>213451662
they say in the movie that he's the best, he has "blade runner magic" I don't think any old cop would do

>>213451662
yeah but if you assume that there are other robots who act absolutely nothing like the robots esablished in the movie and that they are employed in siutations that don't actually make any sense you could argue Harrison Ford looks like one of them.
Yes this involves assuming a whole bunch of stuff that's not hinted at in the movie. But people say this is an ambiguity of the filma nd not a fantheory for some reason.

>>213451641
>we made a robot that's acceptable at doing its job 50% of the time, but you have to cajole it into working first or it'll just smoke and drink and play piano

>>213451713
>theory created by the guy who directed the fucking movie
>"""""""fan theory""""""""

>>213451400
>we built him wrong on purpose, as a joke
lel

>>213451721
well when ya factor in insurance and pension and overtime maybe they would be cheaper than hiring a real cop once they get mass produced.
Except they are also paying him. So I guess it's all the expenses of a real cop plus the expense of making a cop from scratch.

>>213451481
This. The scene in the book where Deckard starts to think he might be a replicant is significant because it shows he's starting to doubt his humanity so he administers the replicant test on himself. When he is revealed to be a human, the reader is like "what the fuck, so he's really just like that as a human being?" Ridley gets none of this of course

>>213451721
It didn't take much cajoling, he gets called up and agrees to do it after a 1 minute conversation

>>213451748
Ridley did not direct Blade Runner. I know because I've seen the other movies he's directed and none of them were any good.
You REALLY think the man who made 2010's Robin Hood could have made Blade Runner?

>>213451748
he was a fan of the book. and when he got to make the movie, he decided to insert his retarded fan theory in it.

>Imagine how much municipal police departments will pay for a force of mechanical officers who get hungry as much as a normal officer, get tired as much as a normal officer, and say "no" as much as a normal officer

>>213451422
They made the most human-like replicant hunt other replicants and then casually went back to giving superpowers to sexbots? Okay cool

>>213451641
Except he should have been killed by both of them. Zora karate chops him in the throat and was about to go for the killing blow since she was an assassin. Pris had the drop on him, kick his ass, and had him dead to rights. In both cases, for zero reason, extreme plot armor gas the replicants stop attacking and do something that allows Deckard to recover and kill them. It's dumb

>>213451875
maybe the sexbot was made for men with strength fetishes.

>>213451913
they didn't kill him cus replicants aren't allowed to kill other replicants

>>213451627
God complex. Pretty common trope.

>>213451372 (OP)
>Okay, so as a countermeasure for this replicant program, in case any go rogue, what we're gonna do is make another replicant, but he's literally just a normal man. He has the exact same physiology as a normal man. He actually might be in slightly worse shape than the normal, average man because he may or may not become a no good drunk. Yes, give him the ability to become drunk, it's important. So basically he's a normal man, and we'll train him up to be a good detective, and he'll hunt replicants, and he's a real hero and a real human being.
>But sir... Why not just train a regular detective to be a blade runner? there's no need to make him a replicant if he does a man's job.
>the pottery, man, the pottery!

>>213451627
To enslave them, duh

>>213451372 (OP)
Ridley Scott is a retarded person. He's a Zack-Snyder-tier fucking moron.

>>213452009
he certainly filters his movies into unwatchable garbage the same way Zaddy does

>>213451960
That's not a thing kek. And they killed a shit ton of people. That would be way more illegal than killing other replicants

>>213451979
It's straightforward told in the movie that replicants are meant to be enslaved. Regular humans cannot be (legally) enslaved. Hence the need for replicants. Stop making shit up when the question is retarded and answer obvious.

Roy's monologue means absolutely nothing if he's saying it to another replicant.
>you humans dont get it man... ive seen the sea beams and im a real boy just like you!
>uhh actually roy im a fake boy too

>>213452077
if replicants can be legally enlsaved, why the fuck is Harrison Ford getting a salary?
The replicant theory makes less sense the more you think about it

>>213452009
Yup. He has a great eye for visuals but ruined every script he's touched. Every project in which he had too much creative control was a failure.

>>213452130
his bosses made him think he was a human being because they wanted to pull a tweest on the audience they somehow knew was watching

Deckard is a civilian replicant of Gaff hence his detective skills and memories, Gaff didn't do the job because he's old and disabled yet literally knows what Deckard thinks and it's about to do, explicitly showing it via his paper figures.
A civilian replicant just like Rachel, like some anon said it is pointless to make a killer without the killer skills like the military or pleasure models but perhaps Tyrell really went on with the More Human than Human. It all can be assumed but to be fair Scott reserved those character studies to himself because even the jew Ford didn't know what his character was so the only confirmed instance we can use to deduce the replicant thing is with Gaff's actions and Deckard literally dreaming an impossibility, one which can be seen as an affinity by the replicant's memory creator in his house (unicorn toys)

Certainly a movie that has to be interpreted after a couple of watches, i still have to think if that's a good thing or not, it makes re-watches much more enjoyable but seems like a cheap trick to need such a good eye for background details in the case of the toys when something more interesting is happening in the foreground.
2049 was abomination btw

>>213452130
Probably because Deckard was never meant to be a replicant and Ridley Scott is a massive retard who unfortunately thinks he's smarter than people who wrote "his" most successful films

>>213452130
>why the fuck is Harrison Ford getting a salary?
Proofs?

>>213452130
>why the fuck is Harrison Ford getting a salary?
I question this all the time but for real life

>>213452206
90 iq: the post

>>213452226
who was buying all the booze?
Also if he wasn't getting paid you think he'd mention that to his boss at some point

>>213452263
>No arguments
Nigger IQ: The Post

>>213452206
>but perhaps Tyrell really went on with the More Human than Human
Since when was the motto As Human As Human
Just a Regular Human, Lmao
What the fuck would be the point

>>213452250
SOMEONE has to play for all those planes to crash!

>>213451467
>has a gun
>has blade runner skills to hunt replicants
You dont need to get into hand to hand fights when you have these

>>213452277
>who was buying all the booze?
He bought the food with cash and the bottle with a card, which only implies an account but not a salary. All which can be provided by the state as a project.
The rest was comped shit, there's a whole scene about that when he tries to push the club owner.
>you think he'd mention that to his boss at some point
His boss calls him out of seeming retirement to tell him he has to kill some dudes, no other way around it, hence the line "no choice"

>>213452336
you can just give a normal man a gun and teach him to use the voight kampff thing

>>213452309
>Just a Regular Human, Lmao
Did you read the book or see the movie? that's the point, all humans became desensitized sociopaths, that's the whole point of the eye test, replicants are soft as fuck in terms of emotions.

Probably because
>kill your exact same kind
lead to some problems in the past, also Rachael is clearly a replicant who isn't aware of the fact that she is one, so clearly there's the technology available to produce human-like replicants

There's a very good theory that Deckard is a replicant implanted with Gaff's memories who used to be a prime Blade Runner before he got injured (hence his limp), main evidence for this being that Gaff can predict or read Deckard's mind with the origami figures in different scenes
>chicken origami when he first gets tasked, IE he knows Deckard is afraid
>boner origami when he first meets Rachael, IE he knows Rachael is his type
>unicorn origami at the end, IE he's aware of Deckard's dream, as it was actually his dream to begin with

Makes total sense to not juice him up with replicant powers to spill the beans on his entire memory-slate being copied

>>213451372 (OP)
>people
>not YOU people
u dun goofed faggot

>>213451422
they all do. the implication of voight-kampff is that they are virtually indistinguishable

>>213452339
okay so instead of having a salary he just gets a company card he can spend on whatever he wants?
So in addition to the billion dollars they spent growing him in a tube he also gets to spend way more money than a regular cop would?

>>213452403
>There's a very good theory
No it's garbage

>>213452282
The argument is that it's a retarded theory that you, the viewer, have to make up a bunch of shit to make work. You have to not only throw our world's logic out the window, but also the movie's own logic. It was a piss poor attempt that nobody who didn't read the story catch. The fucking theory had to be pushed by the director because he did a piss poor job showing it in the movie.

>>213452619
How? You got an alternative take on how he knew of the unicorn in his dream?

>>213452677
Not the same anon but that was my first interpretation of the movie the first time I saw it - what "logic" of the movie is being violated here?

>>213452707
Bad directing. The proof being the half dozen different versions of the same film and the need to watch all of them and STILL have to make shit up just to make the theory work.

>>213452707
>watching Ridley's director cuts that incorporated footage from other productions
You're a retard.

>>213452789
no movie should have so many cuts.
now people think they are talking about the sme film when they are in fact discussing very different films.

>>213452789
There's three versions and I'm pretty sure vast majority of people watch the one with the unicorn dream in it, which is all you need to piece things together, the whole Gaff thing isn't even that important for the ambiguous possibility of Deckard being a replicant, the question forces itself upon the viewer immediately in any of the versions
What is being "made up" to keep the film ambiguous?

>>213451372 (OP)
Yeah, the movie was a state of the art in terms of filming technology and cgi but that's it. The plot is ridiculous and barely even exists, actually. It's more like a plot in Dark Souls - there kind of some continuity and characters, but it's all random and doesn't make any sense together. You also might've heard that it was "based on the book", but that's a marketing lie. It has nothing to do with "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?". The sequel with the guy from Drive is even worse because it's not even an attempt at producing modern state of art film, they just turned it into a generic capeshit and retconned things just so they have nostalgia bait.

>>213451422
That's a cope.

>>213452832
>the question forces itself upon the viewer immediately in any of the versions
No, it doesn't.

>>213451372 (OP)
ion even know wtf youre talking about. a movie? a show? state the name of what youre talking about you stupid fuck

>>213452753
No other replicant shares any traits with Deckard. The director did nothing in film to hint at Deckard being a replicant outside of one scene. A scene that can easily be explained the same way the ambulance appearing at the end of Die Hard can be explained. A director fuckup.

Legend was better than Blade Runner.
but only the Tangerine Dream version

>>213451372 (OP)
>This guy is obviously a human
Of course
Scott is a revisionist liar

>>213452864
if I say the name I'll be banned for racism outside /pol/ (1992 sspace movie)

>>213452847
Yea because Rachael literally asks Deckard if he's ever tested himself, the second the movie reveals there are Replicants that don't have superhuman powers you'd have to be retarded to not wonder about Deckard

>>213452866
Rachael

>>213451372 (OP)
Of course he is human. This debate has been happening ever since Ridley fucked with the film. Deckard is a human. It's the whole point of the story.

>>213452846
>It's more like a plot in Dark Souls
autistic retard /v/irgin spotted

It takes a real special kind of autist to not see that Deckard is human.

>>213452907
Wrong. Rachael was portrayed as a replicant, whereas Deckard was portrayed as a human. Try again.

>>213451913
>Pris had the drop on him, kick his ass, and had him dead to rights. In both cases, for zero reason, extreme plot armor gas the replicants stop attacking
Pris didn't know how to kill people because she was never programmed to do that. That's why she tried to kill him with acrobatics, because that's the most violent verb she had access to.

>>213452832
>I'm pretty sure vast majority of people watch the one with the unicorn dream in it

Their loss, the director's cut is shit compared to the international theatre version.

>>213452999
Checked

>>213452999
In opposition to the rogue superhuman Replicants, there is no difference between Deckard and Rachael ability-wise, if by portrayed you mean they literally stated Rachael is one but they didn't literally state that Deckard was one then that's the in-movie support for the ambiguity thesis

>>213451372 (OP)
Ridley is a great director but also kind of a midwit when it comes to themes who also probably got it in his mind that Bladerunner was thematically flat and it needed some kind of surprise and so making Deckard a replicant was the easiest way to accomplish that. He has this recurrent obsession with Frankenstein but Rutger Haurer fulfilling that obvious function wasn't enough for some reason

>>213453034
The unicorn dream is in the final cut too. Most people probably watch the Final cut since it's the easiest available version to watch. You have to literally go out of your way to watch the theatrical version.

>>213452009
So you know him? No? Then shut the fuck up.

>>213453167
He's not a "midwit" he's a fucking retard

>>213453167
a great director? the guy who made Robin Hood (2010)?

>>213453218
>>213453242
He made Alien

>>213453203
Which is worth it, because directors/final cuts are shit and Scott should be executed.

>>213451372 (OP)
Were is my 15 y/o Taylor Swift replicant????????

>>213453242
He also made The Duellists (1977) and Blade Runner (1982) so he can be called great even though he's also made garbage

>>213453262
And left writing the script to actually intelligent people so it succeeded

>>213453262
Ridley Scott did not write the story of Alien
Ridley Scott did not design the world of Alien nor the title creature
Ridley Scott wanted the movie to end with the xenomorph killing Ripley and then recording a log entry in Ripley's voice
Ridley Scott is a retarded person who makes pure bile whenever producers aren't holding his hands and slapping him whenever he tries going full retard.

>>213453096
No. I am arguing the only reason there is ambiguity is because of bad directing/writing. The movie tells you very explicitly that one is a replicant and the other a human. The replicant shares more traits with the other replicants. The movie shows you this with the acting. The human shares more traits with the other humans. This is also shown, through acting. Now, what TRAITS do Rachael and Deckard share that is shown in the movie, and not assumed by the viewer?

>>213453290
I liked the Final Cut aside from the glowing deckard eyes and the unicorn scene. I do prefer the theatrical more though but the Final Cut is tolerable. I never seen the directors cut and probably never will.

>>213453330
>what TRAITS do Rachael and Deckard share that is shown in the movie, and not assumed by the viewer?
Lust for one another

>>213451372 (OP)
>Director himself says hes a replicant
>Scene were its heavily implied hes not human but a replicant
>This guy is obviously a human, why would you make the robot who hunts other robots inferior to the robots he's hunting?
you are a fucking retard, for fuck sake

>>213453374
well that's not a shared trait because each of them only has lust for the other and not for themselves

Where can one see the theatrical cut of Blade Runner?

>>213453330
What traits are you even talking about though? What "traits" other than physical super powers seperate say Deckard and Roy? What traits seperate then Deckard and Rachael? The movie goes out of its way to humanize the replicants, especially Roy and Rachel, to the point where one is shown to have fallen in love

If yo mean their physical superpowers, Rachael has none

>>213453375
>script writer says he's not a replicant
>actor says he's not a replicant
>original book says he's not a replicant
>only ridley's director cuts that add unicorn footage from separate productions say he's a replicant
Ripley can go fuck himself.

>>213453374
No. They can't share that trait. The replicant is shown to lust after a human. The human is shown to lust over a robot. These are two completely different creatures with completely different lusts. These traits cannot be shared. Try again.

>>213453423
Torrent or buy an old Blade Runner dvd copy or something.

>>213451372 (OP)
Rachel is a replicant and displays no strength. It's also obvious that Tyrell would want to create something that could skirt the laws against being on earth.

>>213453478
How are they completely different lusts, where are you pulling this extra info from, what is this headcanon
>robot

>>213453429
>The movie goes out of its way to humanize the replicants
And does the opposite for the humans of the film. Knowing this, what traits does Deckard share with the replicants? None. You said it yourself.

>>213453499
she has a superhamnly strong neck to carry the 87 pounds of gel holding her hair together

>>213453518
I just explained. Robot to man : man to robot. Two completely different things lusting after completely different objects.

>>213453541
He decides to become a vigilante becasue he falls in love, he's cold and stand-offish like Rachael, his character is the direct opposite from Roy who is melodramatic and whimsical, he is much more like Rachael than any of the replicants, you also avoided all of my questions
What "traits" other than physical super powers seperate say Deckard and Roy? What traits seperate then Deckard and Rachael?

>>213453593
No this is poor reasoning for multiple reasons, also
>robot
You're a priori already assuming Deckard is a human and Rachael is a replicant to make up this division, when your argument is supposed to arrive here as a conclusion, you can google "begging the question fallacy" for more info

Also, just staying it's different doesn't make it different, you're saying Deckard would have lost all of his attraction if he knew Rachael was human, or that his "lust" would change in a qualitative manner, or that Replicants' first-person qualitative experience of lust differs from that of humans, all of these claims coming straight from your ass with no hope of finding backing from the film

>robots
>secret robot
>android (in response to a post calling them robots)
>sexbot
>robots
>robot
>sexbot
>Robot to man : man to robot
this thread is riddleyed with straight-up MORONS

>>213453810
T clanker

>>213453610
>the movie goes out of its way to not only STATE which actors are replicants, but the director also has them act like replicants instead of the humans of the film, which are portrayed as humans
>tell me the similarities between the character that is stated to be a replicant and the character that is stated to be a human in the movie that goes out of its way to show the differences
You are going to overdose from the amount of copium you need to make this retarded theory of yours work.

>>213453765
>assuming Deckard is a human
I'm not assuming anything. You are. Tell me which scene, that is in every edit of the film, states that Deckard is a replicant. I'll wait.

>>213451372 (OP)
>This guy is obviously a human,
not really faggot you may be tarded

>>213453901
>STATE
That's the point of the ambiguity thesis, not the Deckard is a replicant thesis, which I wasn't defending
And again, this is crucial, what is the difference between Rachael's (proven Replicant) and Deckard's (open) acting? What are the trait differences you allude to but never come close to naming?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Read this real quick btw, it's of irrelevance what the movie states outright (unless you have critical autism I guess, then sorry for bothering you)

>>213452336
Are you sure? Because he got into hand to hand fights with all 4 of them.

>>213451960
Rachel killed the slow guy, didn't she?

>>213452009
MoS outgrossed superman 2025.

>>213453979
>what is the difference between Rachael's (proven Replicant) and Deckard's (open) acting
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I have to spell it out for you. The actress acts like a fucking robot either due to her shitty acting or direction from the director. I'm gonna go with the ladder due to she portrays a fucking robot in the film. The actor acts like a human either due to his shitty acting or direction from the director. I'm gonna go with the ladder due to he portrays a human in the film. The only reason there is ambiguity is because Ridley Scott added one fucking scene that doesn't make any sense and can ONLY be explained by either: assumptions based on more assumptions OR the director fucked up trying to get his point across the first time and then hamfisted it in years later.

>>213454163
This is ridiculous, as I said, Deckard and Rachael basically play the same character temperament-wise, if you deny this you are a mentally ill retard
Compare Rachael (Replicant) to Roy (Replicant), two completely different characters, Rachel and Deckard overlap the most out of any characters in the film, what a retarded fucking premise to build your argument on Jesus Christ

>>213454064
Not by his choice.

>>213454263
I accept your concession. You can cope til the cows come home, but you'll be seething forever. You can't explain why there are 5 versions of this film. You can't explain how this theory fits without that unicorn. The same unicorn that wasn't even in the original film. You can't explain any part of the theory without making assumptions that are not based on anything SHOWN in film. This theory would not exist without the story the FILM is based on. This theory would not exist without a unicorn added years later. Ridley Scott is a hack and that is why the movie is ambiguous. Like I said, the only way to explain the unicorn is the same explanation for the ambulance at the end of Die Hard.

>>213453969
>red eyes
>all the replicants are shown with red eyes
>so is Deckard
>Gaff : 'You've done a man's job, sir"

>>213451372 (OP)
>This guy is obviously a human, why would you make the robot who hunts other robots inferior to the robots he's hunting?

Phillip K. Dick said that Deckard is a human.

Harrison Ford said that he played the character as a human.

Ridley Scott said that he wanted to make it ambiguous and he added in the weird unicorn dream in the director's cut to reinforce that along with the origami unicorn at the end of the film..

So there's your answer. The guy who wrote the book says Deckard is human, the guy who played the character says Deckard is human; but the director thought it would be clever to make it ambiguous. The story doesn't really support it because it wasn't an idea Phillip K. Dick intended; but in places the movie does imply it because it was an idea that Ridley Scott intended.

>>213454480
>the director thought it would be clever to make it ambiguous
It's unfortunate when a complete imbecile tries to be clever. They don't know how.

>>213454479
Wrong. Try again.

>>213454480
Don't forget the screenwriter also said Deckard was a human.

>>213451372 (OP)
ahhh no dont smother me with your sexy thighs ahhhh

>>213454586

I mean I don't think its a terrible idea. The blurred line around what it means to be human in relation to the replicants is one of the main themes of the story. Its just a half baked idea because the story the film is based on doesn't intend it so you've got a few scenes in the film that imply it while the overall story doesn't.

I don't think it detracts from the film and its an amusing topic to talk about which is likely what Scott intended by introducing the idea.

>>213451709
Because Deckard had to be treated like a human cop in order for him to do the job. If they gave him special treatment like Rachel, or if they gave him replicant super strength, the game is over, Deckaed knows he is a replicant and he wont go after Batty and the gang, because he knows the police will kill him for being a replicant too. The idiots in this thread who keep saying Deckard is human still cannot grasp this simple logic, everytime I bring this up there is always a guy that can only say "durr thats retarded", but its the only comeback they have. Get you weak shit out of here.

>>213454643
Explain Gaff's line.

>>213451372 (OP)
I thought the replicants were kinda like modified human clones not robots

>>213454848
then why did they have serial numbers on their bones?

>>213454872
why would a robot have regular old humans bones?

>>213454840
It's ironic. Deckard's job has dehumanized him, and only at the end of a Replicant's life has he relearned what it really is to be a man.

>>213452866
More lies, you have some weak shit, learn how to argue. Ridley Scott intended the Unicorn scene to be in the movie to show Gaff nknew he was a replicant. The studio took it out:

>Scott intended the unicorn scene to be in the 1982 theatrical release, but the producers vetoed the idea as "too arty".

Deckard is a replicant.

>>213454848
That's exactly what they are. We literally see their eyes are grown.

>>213454480
while I used to find it interesting to talk about all the little hints that Scott put in the film that suggests Deckard is a replicant, I think him being a replicant really detracts from the film in that and Deckard's arc. The whole human vs machine, Roy being more human than Deckard and Deckard realising that at the end, it just comes down to two robots trying to kill one another. Though it would have been interesting is we were on a journey with deckard as a replicant to discover he was one, but the character never really questions this, there's just a few random scenes thrown at the audience to trick them. I guess it comes down to what type of film you like but as I get older, directors that make their films ambiguous are just weak.

>>213454909
HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHA
Your bullshit is a joke.

>>213454848
idk if they were clones or used harvested human dna from real humans, they are more like androids, synthetic humans

>>213455008
I think the original ones are assembled using grown parts
the ones in the sequel appear to be grown whole

>>213451372 (OP)
He's not a replicant.

>>213454922
Don't give a fuck. Scene wasn't there. Added later as a fan theory by the director. Rowling also claims years later that Hermione's skin color was ambiguous, even though it isn't. Just like the movie. It only became ambiguous years later. There was no ambiguity in the original.

>>213451372 (OP)
the movies make more sense if he's a human being contemplating his own essence; if he's a robot the whole things loses meaning.
in the books, he's human.
they run the voigt-kamp on other blade runners as a control group.

>>213452846
it didn't use cgi

>>213454840
>Explain Gaff's line
Not until you can explain the scene that states Deckard is a replicant.

>>213455146
>the movies make more sense if he's a human being contemplating his own essence
That's why it sucks and doesn't make sense. At no point does Deckard ever question his humanity in the film.

>>213455146
>if he's a robot

Replicants aren't robots. They're genetically engineered artificial life. They're more like clones.

>>213451721
I really need a norm folder

>>213454840

"You've done a man's job" is an old fashioned way of saying you've done a hard job. Its ambiguous; but it still makes perfect sense if Deckard is human.

The origami unicorn is the only overtly out of place thing and it could just be a coincidence. The guy makes origami animals and he decided to make a unicorn for no real reason rather than because he was trying to send Deckard a message.

>>213455554
i'm not humanizing a skinjob.
they're toasters that "dream" of electric sheep.
also I sided with the Brotherhood in Fallout 4; I'm not getting replaced by Synths.

>>213455282
>At no point does Deckard ever question his humanity in the film.
exactly. only in the "final cuts" that ad & post hoc butcher the film.
really the film should end with Roy death.
to me, that is satisfying/cathartic.

>>213455811
we learn more about humanity from Roy than we ever do from Deckard or Rachel.
That was the best part of the film.
Personally I think Ridley Scott hated the cast of the film for being "difficult", especially Rutger Hauer for improving lines, despite all them contributing to a better film than Ridley's soul could muster. That's why so many schizophrenic endings/edits; it was an egotistical fuck you.

>>213455876
I remember Ridley Scott throwing shade at Harrison Ford for lamenting having to do narration for him; reminding him that only "hack directors" use narration.
Then you got Sean Young who I believe is clinically hysterical (see her trying to get the role for Catwoman in Batman 2).
Edward James Olmos wanted to chew the scenery so bad they tried everything in their power to distract his character from having and plot consequence (again hence his voice over and inclusion in the various endings and it makes the most sense that he'll be hunting Rachel and treat Decker as a wanted & dangerous human fugitive harboring an illegal replicant).

>>213455876
I remember Ridley Scott throwing shade at Harrison Ford for lamenting having to do narration for him; reminding him that only "hack directors" use narration.
Then you got Sean Young who I believe is clinically hysterical (see her trying to get the role for Catwoman in Batman 2).
Edward James Olmos wanted to chew the scenery so bad they tried everything in their power to distract his character from having any plot consequence (again hence his voice over and inclusion in the various endings and it makes the most sense that he'll be hunting Rachel and treat Decker as a wanted & dangerous human fugitive harboring an illegal replicant).

>>213451422
If they really wanted to make him human they should have designed him to give up immediately and quit the police force.

>>213455554
just like AI "consciousness" will never be human consciousness; it might be like it, but it's of a different substance/nature; just like how a squirrel consciousness is different than ours.

>>213454480
harrison ford's opinion is completely irrelevant though

why does it even matter? I thought the whole twist was that the replicants aren't actually robots but humans with some genetic modifications.

>>213451627
you need to wait decades for the workforce to come online. you manufacture a replicant in a minute

dont know what this thread is only clicked because i saw the word sexbot. how close are we to sexbots?

>>213451751
>>213451464
Steam that film, if you're so great.

>>213451580
It‘s not ambiguous. In the final cut he‘s a replicant no discussion. In the other ones he isn‘t, no discussion on that either.

>>213451585
>The point of the movie is that there's no way we can know for sure.
Mot media literate /tv/user

>>213451467
>okay but why would they make it his job to hunt the robots who DO have superpowers?
Because if he was built as “durably” as the other replicants, the replicants would realize who and what he was.
The movie implies he was good at his job hunting down replicants.
While the replicants usually knew he was a cop/blade-runner, they usually underestimated his ability to survive when attacked by a replicant.
This “human frailty” built into a replicant would make a replicant that was inherently not supposed to know they themselves were a replicant, believe they were human, and that therefore when they were hunting replicants, they were “protecting humanity”.
The “human frailty” would also hide the blade runners actual strength from the replicants they were hunting, meaning the replicant might be more willing to out themselves as a replicant since replicants were built “stringer and better” than humans, and attacking a human blade runner would be “easy”.
Roy Batty (Hauer), seems to have possibly realized Decker was a replicant after attacking Decker, probably due to Decker surviving the fight.
Most replicants probably just thought the Blade Runner lucked out when they managed to take out a replicant.
It’s sortbof like the skinheads in Getmany who decided to mug some old man, who promptly killed the skinheads with his bare hands.
Apparently the old dude was some ex soviet spook, who had been trained to do close up wet work.
The German Police just shipped the old dude back to whatever Slavic country he came from.

>>213457267
one trillion years according to me

>>213451372 (OP)
>Replicants are indiscernable from humans
>are super strong
???

>>213454922
Isnt the whole point that theres no difference, there literally no stakes on deckard being or not being. Which is also why the movie is pointless and stupid

>>213451467
Then he would know he was a replicant and switch sides

>>213459874
They're not indiscernible from humans. They're organic robots, even the ones not built for space mining are physically superior to humans, that's why they have an artificially shortened lifespan you potato.

>>213451422
Anon... the super strength is why they're "More human than human"

>>213451467
No one forced him to hunt replicants, he took the job. In that world hunting replicants is probably one of the better professions.

>>213451627
Because when I make a replicant I get a creature built from scratch to do the job, when I fuck your mother all I get is you.

>>213451372 (OP)
He isn't a replicant, but if he were they made him weal on purpose. After he's killed all the other replicants, they'll have to kill him.

>>213451662
its a setting where human beings are still considered valuable. i know this is hard to comprehend.

>>213451851
every single solitary word phillip k dick ever put to paper was dripping with some brand of paranoia. there was a whole sequence where deckard gets picked up by "real" police and taken to a "real" police station and gets grilled by the "real" police until his handler is able to dig him out.

you should read the book sometime. or any book.

>>213451519
Or you could just send another combat model after them. Also, it's been a while since I saw it, but is there no mention of the replicants being implanted with trackers?

I'm just saying, if I were designing the replicants, and had knowledge that them going rogue was enough of an issue that Blade Runners exist, I would probably install a tracker and maybe some kind of small bomb in their brain, so the second they bolt, you can track them without a bunch of detective work being necessary, and if they can't be apprehended, just blow their heads up.

>>213460607
like a few others in this thread have been able to comprehend, he's weak because if humans need to kill him, they won't have much trouble.

>>213451700
gotta make sure to grill both sides

>>213451372 (OP)
>replicants
What?

deckard is a replican.
he hunts down replicants.

>>213454480
>The story doesn't really support it because it wasn't an idea Phillip K. Dick intended
There is an entire section of the book about Deckard secretly being a Replicant which is then subverted (PKD seems to like these double-twists, he does the same thing in Ubik). I will never understand how people think this "is Deckard himself a Replicant?" question is some crackpot idea Ridley Scott came up with when it comes directly from the book

>>213460165
Then why do they bother with the goofy test, could just take their bp or do an xray

>>213461173
its a holdover from the book, empathy being a religious concept. if the replicant understands empathy on a level beyond that of a child they aren't dangerous. the core idea is that replicants are mentally children in the bodies of super-powered adults, and that's why they're dangerous.

>>213460669
That's stupid. You're stupid.

>>213451627
There are infertile men and men with microdicks anon
They dump all their brainpower into replicants both as a cope and because they have no choice

>>213461523
I accept your concession.

>not wanting a sexbot that can overpower you
What are you, gay?

>>213451627
because you can build them up to specifications

>>213462011
>I want a sexbot that is hot, dumb, obedient, cant spread STIs, eats only once a day and doesnt need to sleep
>sure, give me two weeks, chief

>>213454480
>Harrison Ford said that he played the character as a human
"No":
>https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-movie-rick-deckard-replicant-confirmed-story-changes/
He explains he always knew Deckard was a Replicant and just wanted to contribute to the ambiguity, which is the point, if you're not a retard.

Scott has also never once said any of the bullshit lies you've made up here and can be seen in the special features of The Final Cut insisting thaty Deckard is a Replicant, to say nothing of the full ending he orginally shot:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAl07rl2jew
>"I think we were made for each other."

Like seriously, like 1-800-COME-ON-NOW, anyone contending he's 100% not a Replicant at this point is either kidding or fucking mentally retarded. There are any number of criticisms of how such a Replicant would be portrayed, or why one would even exist at all, but a handful of trivial quibbles in no way at all undermines the basic thesis.

>>213454643
>what is The Final Cut

>>213451372 (OP)
because he is a new generation that is even closer to humans retard

Replicant? No, a repliCAN'T.

>>213462136
Not the movie that most people have seen. Why are Scott fans pretending that the theatrical cut is not the most viewed edit of the film?

>>213455766
Knowing what Gaff did with the unicorn origami, and Gaff's obvious dislike for Deckard through the movie (Gaff ignores Deckard when he can, doesnt say anything to him in the Spinner on the way to Tyrell) the choice of the line is obvious and not said for old times sake.

>>213463008
>Why are Scott fans pretending that the theatrical cut is not the most viewed edit of the film?

because it flopped bro

>>213452846
>The plot is ridiculous and barely even exists
Because they cut out all the important characters and plot points. What's left is disconnected from anything. I couldn't make it 20 minutes into it is so bad

>>213451372 (OP)
Movie Deckard is absolutely a replicant because Scott said so. Were you there mate? No? Then stfu.

>>213453167
>got it in his mind that Bladerunner was thematically flat and it needed some kind of surprise
It was thematically flat because HE cut out all the themes

>>213463862
No, in the movie that everyone watched and loved, Deckard was a human and it's not ambiguous whatsoever. Ridley pulled a George Lucas and after the fact retconned his shit movie to make Deckard a replicant because Ridley loves idiotic pointless nonsensical twists and knows sloppers like you will guzzle it down

>>213464202
>the movie that everyone watched and loved
so the director's cut? sure as fuck wasn't the theatrical version

>>213464202
>and knows sloppers like you will guzzle it down
Oh, you're autistic. Could have figured as much.

>>213451585
Total Recall makes it pretty clear when the bead of sweat rolls down the guy's temple.

>>213451372 (OP)
Ridley Scott is fucking retarded. He pushed the whole Deckard is replicant shit.

>>213464575
He should never be left alone to make a movie unchecked. He would have ruined Alien if not stopped. And did ruin the series later on. When he got enough power and clout, he ruined Blade Runner

the entire narrative only makes sense when deckard is human, just because you like feeling clever and smug doesn't make make him a replicant which is something ridley scott apparently is incapable of grasping

Deckard being a human robs Roy's entire speech of it's meaning.

>>213465150
Most retarded post in this thread.

>>213451372 (OP)
Deckard is a replicant and David created the xenomorph, get over it faggots.

>>213451372 (OP)
I don't think that whether Deckard is human or replicant is important to the film and its themes.

>>213464967
Exactly this. It's putting in a twist just to have a twist.

>>213465555
Quads confirms you're incredibly dumb and only fit to watch superhero movies

>>213451372 (OP)
The point of implying Deckard is a replicant, which the film does do whether you ultimately believe he really is a replicant or not, isn't for it to be some big mind blowing twist like an M. Night Shamylan flick. It ultimately doesn't matter what Deckard is.
The point is that if you look at the story from the angle of the hypothesis that Deckard is a replicant, it changes what the story is about in a very profoundly interesting way. It takes on new philosophical breadth if you look at it that way.
If you're not capable of even considering the story from the angle that Deckard is a replicant, you've failed the Voight Kamphf test.

>>213451372 (OP)
This is why books are superior
Hollywood can't help themselves

>>213463803
Then why are you pretending anyone watched or gave a shit about a fan edit of a movie that flopped? More people have seen the theatrical release than any other version. That is a fact that cannot be refuted. There was no ambiguity until years later when Scott added one scene that doesn't make any sense because he never filmed any scenes to go with it to make it make sense. I don't care that he originally wanted it to be ambiguous. He did a piss poor job and he knows it. That's why he added the scene years later. But because he is a hack, he couldn't even do that correctly. We have more than enough evidence by now that Scott is a hack. Any director that has to put out multiple edits is a hack that couldn't get their point across the first time.

>>213465917
It does matter though. If he is, the movie is retarded and a waste of time. Only morons like you keep parroting "durrr it don't matter doh!"

>>213464224
Can you prove, with numbers, how many people have seen the director's cut vs theatrical?

>>213465983
I'm going to be real
Books are a drastically inferior art form.
Most movies suck. But the few good ones have subtleties the written word could never approach.

>>213451372 (OP)
>This guy is obviously a human, why would you make the robot who hunts other robots inferior to the robots he's hunting?
Because Scott is a dumbmy

>>213466168
Follow me here.
Where do you believe humans came from?

>>213466188
sure. >>213463803

>>213451851
PKD said Blade Runner was better than anything he ever wrote.

>>213466281
I'm sorry. Didn't realise you were ESL. Can you show me, WITH NUMBERS, that any edit had more viewers than the theatrical?

>>213451372 (OP)
He's human. "More Human Than Human" doesn't mean a human is secretly a Replicant and there's an epic tweest, it means the robots were getting surprisingly close to human. In the scene people bring up where Rachael has red eye glint and so does Ford, that's just a testament to how "real" she is and how "human" the new line of Replicants has become. She has the spark of life behind her eyes.

>>213466344
That was debunked

>>213452864
Weak bait, or jus genuinely retarded zoomer. One word makes it very obvious what he's talking about, and then there's the image which can be reversed searched.
>ion
Yeah, dumb zoomie niggerspeak. Go back to wherever you came from.

>>213451372 (OP)
>hmm why does this futuristic megacorp who has ties to interstellar mining need multiple variations of their android line?
Why can’t they all be super human monsters, including those designed for sex work?! They should all be combat and mining ready killing machines!!

>>213466377
yes, I can show you that the theatrical cut flopped and the director's cut was a huge deal because ridly was the first person to do it.

>>213451372 (OP)
>tanks attacks from replicants
>"He's definitely a regular human tho!"

>>213466500
>the robots were getting surprisingly close to human

the point is you can't create something that is ostensibly human and then expect it to act like a robot.

>>213467252
He didn't tank any attacks. He got his shit pushed in the entire movie and needed saving repeatedly. He was a weak bitch alcoholic human

>>213467266
99% of the time they acted like robots, idiot. Only when they got close to the end of their lives did they start acting human.

>>213467339
you mean after a few years of horrific abuse they want to stop being abused?

feel free to watch the movie any time, and note how childish the replicants act. because they're three year olds with super-strength who've learned they're about to die.

>>213451467
humiliation ritual

>>213467238
I accept your concession.

The game was better than the movie

>>213467315
>He didn't tank any attacks.
That explains why he died during the first replicant fight.

>>213461001
>I will never understand how people think this "is Deckard himself a Replicant?" question is some crackpot idea Ridley Scott came up with when it comes directly from the book
No, it doesn't. A clear blatant lie that is immediately called out is not ambiguity. It's the same as when they lie saying Rachael( and the owl ) is a real person and immediately fold when called out. Except that is also taken out of movie making it seem like she doesn't know.
And the movie doesn't even have the underground railroad police station scene

>>213465555
Well, it doesn't have theme

>>213467266
Okay. Deckard is human.

>>213451372 (OP)
Shut your whore mouth you filthy pleb

>>213451372 (OP)
deck just wanted in them thighs. let's be honest

People who won't even consider the possibility of Deckard being a replicant have failed the film's Voight Kamphf test.

>>213451372 (OP)
It’s almost like Ridley Scott is full of fucking shit.

>>213471227
I have considered the possibility, it's still inferior to deckard being a human

>>213471227
What is shown in the movie that would even HINT at giving the viewer a reason to think Deckard might be a replicant? And, no, you can't use fan edits as proof.

You guys realize that he is more or less confirmed to be a male pleasure “model” , right? It’s why he gets so rapey

>>213451372 (OP)
have you ever considered that they made him weak by design? not physically but in his mind he is programmed to struggle, not to release the beast inside him.
is it human to put your fingers back in place after they have been snapped?

>>213471395
One of the bigger points of evidence people point to is Gaff creating origami figures which predict Deckard's actions. A chicken, right before Deckard caves to threats from his former boss which force him to take the job, a little paper man with an erection, before Deckard goes to hunt Zora in the stripclub, and the Unicorn - which has little context in the theatrical cut, but which Deckard dreams about in Ridley's cuts of the film.
Contrary to rumors, the Unicorn dream sequence was originally filmed for Bladerunner and was not footage shot for Ridley's fantasy film Legend, which also featured a Unicorn. The unicorn dream was originally planned. Gaff couldn't possibly know what Deckard had been dreaming, unless he was some kind of eastern psychic, or if, say, he knew what Deckard's memory implants were.

Another suggestive detail: the Replicants are obsessed with photos. Physical reminders of their false memories. Deckard's piano is covered with them.

Sebastian is a genetic designer for Tyrell. He has "methuselah syndrome", a disease which causes his organs to deteriorate rapidly - isn't this curiously similar to Replicants having a designed pre-deterimined short lifespan.
Sebastian creates "toys", two of which seem to be little cloned midgets. This is actually horrific if you think about it for more than a second - he's somehow created these little guys that are biological and yet behave like wind-up toys. Utterly bizarre detail, like something straight out of a dream.
If we buy the theory Deckard, and indeed everyone in the story is a Replicant (in fact in an early draft even Tyrell was meant to be a Replicant, who's head would explode into sparks and bits of clockwork when Roy crushed it - the real Tyrell being long dead), then it makes Tyrell a kind of toymaker himself. He's created a whole city of little replicant toys, living replicant lives.
Sebastian being a toymaker who has made himself his own toys and has a short lifespan is suggestive

>>213464289
Personally I like to think it’s real, but the sweating guy could just be part of the simulation, everything after Recall was a hallucination from the implant including the attempted “rescue.” The main evidence of it all being a simulation being he selected/created the girl based on a list of features. Even if he was just recreating the person he knew from before, it shouldntve looked like her on Recall’s screens.

>>213471794
Kek, no. That shit is always reaching hard. And they don't predict anything. It's always some idiotic commentary after the fact because Gaff is upset that Bryant re-hired a retired blade runner that had worked there a long time instead of promoting Gaff. Deckard has a lot of history with tons of people. He's not some random new face. And he's not doing anything crazy special they need a replicant for it.

>>213467849
The game is great. It goes alongside the movie and actually follows the book plots where it makes a bit of sense the main character could possibly be a replicant. But also makes sense someone wanted to frame him and make him question his reality because that guy was running a con job. All things missing from the movie

>>213472816
Ok, let me know when you've read my post and have formulated a response worth my time.

>>213451721
>but you have to cajole it into working first or it'll just smoke and drink and play piano
The human element.

>>213472816
>That shit is always reaching hard.
This post does showcase an interesting thing about the different kind of viewership, some people get presented with complete ideas and they finish the meaning, some other nigger cattle get presented with the same ideas and want the director to do a monologue or explanatory montage on the meaning of the whole scene and even movie.
That's the difference between Nolan's Hollywoodesque and real Cinema

Whether Deckard is human or not is irrelevant in the sense that Deckard BELIEVES he is human - Harrison Ford would play him as such because Deckard can't go down the doubting trail now, not after all he has done.

Chief Bryant watches Deckard very closely when explaining his mission to him - studying him. This is in the script. They have their suspicions about Deckard because ANYBODY could be a replicant at that point. That is the point of the scene with Bryant where he is both legitimately afraid because what does it mean for him? Note that in the future, Blade Runners are seen as being out-and-out replicants - their fears come to life.

Gaff is probably aware that Deckard is a replicant but again - what does that really mean at this point? The nihilism of the police versus the passion the replicants have is another point of the film. Whether they know that he is a replicant or whether Deckard is human becomes irrelevant in the context of their own universe - "more human than human". If you can't trust your own memories, and you can't really tell if someone is a replicant without a prolonged test that is increasingly failing, what does it truly mean?

In the end, it doesn't matter at this point. The robots are gaining souls and the humans are losing them in a Hell they created, but once you can't tell them apart, it becomes balanced.

>>213475899
It does matter. Stop being a retard.

>>213475931
It matters to you the viewer but in the context of the film at large, it does not. Deckard is sure in his belief that he is a human, if others know otherwise, it is hinted at and nothing more. Whether he is or is not ultimately does not matter beyond the philosophical questions the film is pitching ot the viewer. The OP question is in the context of what we see in the film - we can come up with ideas as to why Deckard is the way he is if he is a Replicant, but considering what is presented in the film (that a large portion of the population is probably replicants anyway, which we see to become more explicitly true in 2049) it is somewhat irrelevant. Deckard fulfills his function, human or replicant, and that is the point: humans are treated like the robots are at this point. The elite tower above them, robots are strippers and people sleep in moldy/leaky buildings. The line is blurred.

>>213451372 (OP)
and yet he goes hand to hand with several of them and emerges with only superficial wounds.

>>213475899
>Harrison Ford would play him as such
Ford phoned the role and didn't care about it at all, he's by far the weakest aspect of the movie. Brolin would've done much better in retrospective, silly jew producers did a number there.
The rest of the post is a pretty interesting take, the cops really do show a more explicit aspect of the whole "humans not being humans" idea the movie took, and with the old injun saying their actions are done because they think they are something regardless if they are or not. Very interesting but i highly doubt Scott was going for that, perhaps the writer did.

>>213452375
>Did you read the book or see the movie? that's the point, all humans became desensitized sociopaths
the book had the opposite message: even desensitized and literally drugging themselves to feel emotions, humans were still human and sought human and spiritual connections, which was something the androids could not understand no matter how hard they tried

>>213451464
I am a magician.
Your clothes are red!

Deckard is human, that's what makes his dogged determination to retire the Replicants so compelling. Because the Replicants are learning to be human and humans like him have to suppress their humanity to do their job. The sequel doesn't count.

>>213451372 (OP)
>tfw no sexbotfu with strong thighs that she uses to crush my head
what movie is this btw?

>>213476837
Boku no Buraiduranna

"I want more life, father" vs "I want more life, fucker"

>>213476822
But also what makes it so interesting when he finally develops sympathy for them and sees them as human too

>>213476822
Precisely. For all the visual flair the sequel is forgettable because the replicants turning human dynamic is missing.

>>213459682
>It’s sortbof like the skinheads in Getmany who decided to mug some old man, who promptly killed the skinheads with his bare hands.
>Apparently the old dude was some ex soviet spook, who had been trained to do close up wet work.
>The German Police just shipped the old dude back to whatever Slavic country he came from.
Source?

>>213451464
Anyone know the movie this is from?

>>213451372 (OP)
he was always supposed to be human even in the printed version. faggot scott forced the android shit by editing the unicorn dream into director's cut.

>>213477915
game of death

>>213451643
My understanding is that the replicants that we're being hunted were all from an early series, sexbot, outspace mining crew, soldier etc. that all had superhuman capabilities, a shelf-life and a tendency to go rogue. They were outlawed and replaced by replicants that didn't have both the capability and real potential to turn on their creators like these.

>>213451372 (OP)
bruh

>>213481115
No, they were all the very latest versions of Nexus 6. Top of the line. And the Blade Runners had never encountered them before. Nexus 5's and below were way easier to detect and simple to retire. Deckard goes to the hospital to see his long time friend Holden and they discuss how scary the new replicants are.

>>213480614
are his pants on fire

>>213460178
you didn't watch the movie
"if you ain't with you you're little people"

>>213481674
Wtf...I genuinely don't remember this scene at all. It doesn't even look familiar. Weird. Guess I gotta rewatch.

>>213481876
it's the style in the future

>>213482134
deleted scene

>>213451372 (OP)
blame Ridley Scott for putting the random unicorn clip in the middle of the movie
there's a reason everyone else who worked on the film assert that Deckard's human

>>213482897
Yep. Ridley had to wait until the movie was super popular and his voice was overpowering to finally put his idiotic idea in. He would have ruined Alien too if not stopped.

>>213451422
Proof that Deckard is a replicant:
>Rachel was made physically weak and tricked into thinking she was human so he could be as well
>some doing coincidentally made the same animal from his dream as origami

Proof Deckard isn't a replicant:
>the entire rest of the movie

Replicant tards need to be euthanized.

>>213451372 (OP)
> the robot who hunts other robots
If you ascribe to the idea that he's replicant then he wasn't made to hunt other replicants, he was made to believe he was human, to see if they could create a whole line of replicants without brain problems. This is the first time he's ever hunted any, the memories of doing so were taken from a regular human and imprinted on his head. If he'd had any strength above normal human strength then he'd immediately realise he's not human, so of course they wouldn't make him in the image of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

>>213483056
The studio pulled the Unicorn scene from the theatrical cut, Ridley did not wait to put it in.

>>213477915
Weekend at Bernie's

>>213451464
kek

>>213451372 (OP)
What schizo babble are you talking about?

>>213476822
>Deckard is human
Wrong.

>>213482897
I don't get how dreaming about a fictional animal = replicant. In a playful suggestion kind of way maybe but people treat it as some final statement.

>>213484247
I don't either. Feels more like a self report than anything

>>213471794
I accept your concession.

>>213477034
do you think this webforum even knows?

>>213481115
>sexbot

>>213483685
based studio

Blade Runner 2 never mentions Deckard being a replicant, Jared Leto's character would have known and brought it up. So there, its settled, deckerd is human.

>>213484406
Also he would be fucking ancient for one which wouldn't make any sense

>>213484406
Haven’t seen the movie since it came out. Doesn’t he live in an irradiated area in Vegas that’s unsafe for humans to live?

>>213484461
Rewatch the movie. They get to la and there is no radiation. The city is actually full of life

>>213451372 (OP)
>why would you make the robot who hunts other robots inferior to the robots he's hunting?
Given he ends the movie with every single one of his targets dead by his hand except Roy who dies anyway, "inferior" is pretty debatable.

>>213451464
That's alotta training.

>>213484660
Rachel kills one retard.

.

It's interesting how mad people get at the suggestion Deckard was a replicant.
It's like their own humanity is in question.