Ignoring 2049, do you think Deckard being a replicant adds or takes away from the story...

Ignoring 2049, do you think Deckard being a replicant adds or takes away from the story? What would you call the best cut of the film?

General Blade Runner thread as well I guess.

If he's not a replicant then the plot about independence from humans falls flat

If he is is, it makes the plot and theme of roy less compelling.

But Replicants are humans, user. were you not paying attention?

i thought the original theatrical cut was the best. also the idea of a human escaping with a replicant seemed more interesting than two replicants going off. the director's cut just adds the unicorn scene right?

And removes Deckard's monologue.

No they're not. They're golems at best.

How so? It just makes it even more sad since replicants can be as human as Deckard.

It would've been interesting if it was thought out and not implemented after the fact. 2049 tackled the concept much better.

final cut is best cut

So the directors cut is the final cut?

There are other clues that Deckard is a replicant than the unicorn dream. Like when Bryant refer to him as the best blade runner. but he still briefs him on the detail on what a replicant is and Deckard acts like he never heard about them.
Also pic related.

Other than the eyes and the Voight Kampf test, is there anyway to tell a replicant? I guess by the role they have in society, but anything appearance wise?

deckard being a replicant doesnt make sense
why coz when he visited the rose corporation (tyrell in the movie)
they did absolutely their best intention of bribe him with a billion dollar owl.

Nope.

No. The Final Cut adds some visual effects, digital retouches, and a (shitty) blue-green filter over the film. Unlike with the theatrical version, the Director's and Final Cuts are pretty much the same movie.
Personally, I prefer the Director's, because the filter detracts from the aesthetics of the world, and the unicorn scene is shorter.

He is an experiment like Rachel. The movie is way different than the novel like most adaptations, they never bribed him in BR.

roy saving another replicant isn't impactful as him saving a human.

Final cut. It adds context to Asian guy and his relationship to deckard and also hammers home the question on what is human.

the can do a bone marrow test on you, but that requires a couple of hours to get the result and you have to go to a lab. That might only be in the book though.

Ridley Scott is a complete idiot who doesn't even get what makes some of his movies good.
Some replicants fucking around with each other doesn't have any interest.
A human having to hunt creatures infinitely stronger, smarter and better than him, who wishes they could be human, and their nteraction exploring what it is to be human, with the two learning from each other is a kino concept.
If you legit think deckard is a replicant you're a brainlet who cares more about le ebin twists than the philosopical meaning of a movie.

final cut is the best.
doesnt matter if deckard is a replicant or not, the ambiguity is what's key and what makes the film compelling

thankfully 2049 did not ruin this by confirming deckard being a replicant. the line ford says after gosling asked if his dog was real was perfect and made me love 2049 even more

Scott himself said that Deckard is a replicant. I've heard some omegaretards attempt to argue this point, implying that Scott is wrong about his own film.

So how will you explain this then?

>It didn't tell the story of a generic hero taking on generic impossible odds
How sad for you

Anyone that says the unicorn scene is the only clue is mentally retarded, tbqh

I think his point is despite what the intentions of his identity are, him being human works more thematically with the story and the overall universe. I don't have a horse in this race, just casually enjoying a thread.

Everyone else involved disagrees.

>More thematically with my desired story
ftfy

"eat shit. a million flies can't be wrong"

...

Ridley Scott is a senile asshole who doesn't actually have a clue what he's doing anymore.
He probably thinks Alien Covenant is better and deeper than BR. You shouldn't listen to him.
Ridley Scott being a hack and not having any idea what he's doing.
If you see Deckard as a replicant you're going to think it's a proof of your theory.
If you don't you might think it's just that his eyes look the same as Rachel's. when they're in the same lighting.
The Deckard being a replicant thing isn't about whether it works or no. There's enough in the movie to suggest he is, and you could completely assume he is one.
The problem is that if you start thinking of Deckard as a replicant, then the story and everything happening is less meaningful. It only detracts from the greatness of the film. There's no scene that works better that way.
That's why I think Ridley Scott really doesn't understand what makes some of his movies great. He'd rather have Deckard be a replicant for a cheap twist instead of keeping all the meaning and philosopical implications of him being a human.
People don't remember Blade Runner for its cool lights and pretty smoke effects, but because of how deep the story is, philosopically speaking.

>Roy is omniscient

Why not just say "Roy is not omniscient" instead of doing that autistic greentext shit?

deckard being human or not doesn't change this in the slightest
the whole point of BR is to blur the line between humanity and artificial life. that they aren't different. deckard being human doesn't make saving his life worth more or less

Theatrical cut a shit

Because the post implied he was, which is about the level I'd expect a 2 year old to be at. So I have to belittle that thought process.

I don't care one way or the other; the strength of Blade Runner is its aesthetic. Director's cut because it removes the objectively distracting, bad monologue.

having read hundreds of these threads for years i can say without a doubt, with 100% certainty that the side against deckard being a replicant is reddit and soyboys

Deckard being human is what allows those lines to blur. Him being human is what serves to highlight and give meaning to the fact that he himself has begun to lose sight of the distinction. If it's the story of a bunch of replicants getting together and fucking off while one other noble human just says "I know you're all replicants but go do your replicant thing" while deciding to let them live, that says nothing about the line between humanity and replicant. Nobody learns anything. For deckard running away with Rachel to mean anything he has to be human.

He doesn't even realize until after he makes that decision

nobody has to learn anything. it's an examination. there's no difference between humans and replicants. this is the point. a replicant saving a human is the same as a replicant saving a replicant. a life is a life

>there's no difference between humans and replicants.

The Replicants are genuinely emotionally unstable. They're a bit like children with human bodies and minds. It's often too much for them. That's why the later ones are given fake memories to stabalize them.

This. Every decision deckard makes is as a human, in his mind. The story is literally the same, save the last 3 seconds when he realizes he's not human.

Hard evidence is a bit difficult to find, but replicants had a weird obsession with photographs and pictures as a kind of anchor to their false memories. Deckard had a metric fuckton of them in his apartment

Did you feel 2049 followed from the original well?

He was young when he made BR and the real ending, which is Deckard is a replicant, definitely adds more philosophical questions about self identity, memories and authenticity about ones being.

It follows the themes very well.

Fixed in the 4k bluray