Human or replicant?
>>67652157
Irrelevant to the plot.
He was a human of course, but I like to think all the teasing to the contrary wasn't meant to be taken literally, but rather was inserted to push the themes of questioning self-identity and personhood.
>>67652211
very relevant to the theme of the movie
>>67652307
Not at all.
Replicant
The point is the replicants are more human than the actual humans. If Deckard is a replicant, that theme is lost.
>>67652157
movie was shit, who fucking cares
Human. The book got this tired old trope out of the way early on.
nerfherder
Is he human, or is he a dancer?
>>67652377
am I reading a book or a comic ?
He was a replicant. Scott literally confirms
https://youtu.be/_7o0rvVxU0w
Junker
>>67652485
>Scott
means shit
>>67652485
>mfw I am Barthes
>>67652323
thank you
who the fuck cares if he is a replicant or not. it doesnt change anything
>>67652323
>>67652541
>movie is about humans and robots
>protag might be human or robot
yeah, not important at all. fucking pleb retards.
>>67652585
THE THEME IS WHAT IS HUMAN AND WHAT IS MAN AND ARE REPLICANTS MORE "HUMAN" THAN ACTUAL HUMANS?
IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER IF DECKARD IS A REPLICANT.
>>67652585
>replicants
>robots
>>67652616
If Deckard is a replicant, then all the movie talked about was one replicant being mean and the others not.
>DEEP
>EEP
>EP
>P
The theme of the movie is absolutely dependent on what Deckard is
>>67652485
>that smug grin
Scott be fucking with us. He probably made it ambiguous because: fuck you, that's why.
>>67652585
What >>67652616 said.
It isn't about humans and robots, it's what makes humans humans and robots robots. It's about the very fine line between organic consciousness and synthetic consciousness.
It's about how these synthetic being would be treated in society and ultimately how one of them was more human than most humans.
100% a replicant. Watch the final cut. The unicorn is a seeded memory.
Scott has said as much in more recent interviews.
Human. It cheapens the story by having a totally pointless twist, it reduces from a classic to a tacky M Night movie.
>>67652663
>The theme of the movie is absolutely dependent on what Deckard is
Fuck off, no it isn't at all. Jesus you're stupid. Just because Ridley explored that idea doesn't mean it's the central theme of the movie. Ridley fucked up and "made" him a replicant for no reason.
>>67652690
FFS THE REPLICANTS ARE NOT ROBOTS
>The replicants in the film Blade Runner are biological in nature: they are organisms of living tissue and cells created artificially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorobotics
>>67652770
I'm not saying they're robots, even though robot is kind of a generic term anyway. Responding using the words he provided.
>>67652690
>>67652616
>these people exist
Jesus, to be blessed with such ignorance and such loud opinions.
The movie was never about robots vs. humans. It's society vs. human. The movie shows what society did to humanity. It rubs this motif in your face so fucking much, and you idiots ignore it. It's the nested greed and hatred created by society. Roy and his crew are the opposite of this. He has love, hate, ambition, ect. He is a direct opposite of what Deckard is. Deckard is an agent of society, set to kill those against the status quo; Roy.
>>67652157
He hasn't got replicant eyes.
If you take the source material seriously, then no, he isn't a replicant.
>>67652836
I think this is seen more in the book where everyone is a jackass. In the movie the characters are more likeable, specially Deckard.
>>67652872
So? He could be a new kind of replicant that doesn't have those eyes.
>>67652836
Thanks for basically repeating my point with more meat.
He's a replicant, but an earlier model, one that isn't designed to "burn so brightly", so to speak. This is why he's physically much-weaker than the newer models he's pursuing, but is capable for living much-longer.
Human.
If he's a replicant, it has no significance other than "Wowee! Twist ending!"
If he's a human who has no privacy, literally cannot refuse a job and gets placed under arrest simply to get a job offer, it shows how worthless having humanity is in the movie's future. The plight of the replicants is more tragic when they want to live longer and feel human in a world where, as it turns out, that makes absolutely no difference.
>>67652157
this question is neither implied nor of any significance to anything in the movie.
asking it just shows that it didn't work for you.
>>67652157
there is no debate anymore,
Ridley quite literally said he was a replicant in a recent interview, google that science.
>it's this fucking thread again
important question because of implications, irrelevant to answer; in fact, the act of giving an answer for ANY reason goes counter to the themes of the movie.
ambiguity is both elegant and essential.
if you can't get this into your fucking skull than you literally missed the point of the movie.
>>67653257
who gives a shit what he thinks
the author or director cant say what is right or wrong with material they have released. they can only explain what they intended
>>67653199
>never implied
Unicorn
>no significance
motif of the movie runs otherwise. See above
>>67652585
I don't remember Star Wars teased Luke Skywalker secretly being a fucking droid.
>no real answers
so what was he
>>67652483
the comics adaption leaves in the narration removed in the director's cut. Never actually seen a version with the narration; has anyone here? Is it good?
>>67652872
His eyes shined like a replicant at one point, when he was with Rachel I think.
>>67652157
replicant.
scott agreed.
