Everyone who thought he was also a replicant, APOLOGIZE

Everyone who thought he was also a replicant, APOLOGIZE

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zOgq51ldJ2o
youtube.com/watch?v=NGjF_BVNATQ
youtube.com/watch?v=-hW2vhkCOFc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Arguments over whether Deckard is or is not a replicant are totally irrelevant. I have never understood this debate. The movie is asking the question of what it means to be human. Is Roy Batty not human simply because he wasn't born, but rather made? Doesn't he feel the spectrum of human emotions? Doesn't he have memories and experiences that HE crafted? And due to his shortened lifespan, he even seems to have a great appreciation for life than those around him.

The Final Cut heavily suggests that Deckard is a replicant. Which is fine. Outright saying Deckard is or isn't a replicant is missing the entire fucking point. He could be, and that's all that matters.

fuck you

OP here; all Sup Forums-isms aside, his existence in 2049 pretty much shuts down both theories. I also agree that the stronger message is "does it even matter?"

Who says he's not a replicant?
>inb4 but he's old in the trailer, and replicants have a short lifespan.
So fucking what? Wait to see where the story goes.

He was never a replicant in the book, deal with it moviefags

Ridley Scott did, and guess what kiddo, he is the judge on the matter.

Ridley Scott literally said he was a replicant.

pic not related

I don't care what some fancy Hollywood schmuck thinks.

>Scott confirmed he was.
>Bladerunner sequel already confirmed as non canon
LMAO

Thank you. It's baffling how everyone seems to miss the point entirely. Including Ridley.

>It's too bad she won't live
>But then again who does

The book was mostly about his drugged out wife and how embarrassed he is over his shitty fake lamb, anyways.

Then get off Sup Forums

I'm sorry

>He could be, and that's all that matters.
this is the actual point.
And what sums that up is Gaff line near the end.
>It's too bad she won't live. But then again... who does?

I fucking love that movie.

>tfw you realize that the Deckard in the 2049 teaser is the real Deckard and not the Replicanr Deckard from the original movie.

Ridley has outright said in aninterview he is a replicant

He's a NEW replicant in the latest film

HOLY SHIT HE IS A REPLICANT

"HE IS MOST DEFINITELY.... A REPLICANT" ~ RIDLEY SCOTT

SOURCE:
youtube.com/watch?v=zOgq51ldJ2o

>tfw i suspect this as well

Read the book, dingus

>PRO-HUMAN DEKARD FAGS BTFOOOO

Show me the book called Blade Runner.

gosling is the replicant hunting former replicant hunters

cap dis

There's other people of Hollywood like Hampton Fancher, the screenwriter, who say unequivocally that he isn't a replicant. Not everyone involved withe the movie became senile like Scott.

>reading books

what are you some kind of nerd

:^)

>I think no one in this thread has seen this before.

So what does autism feel like? Is it frustrating?

Scott decided Deckard should be a replicant while they were still filming the original.

SCOTTS THE FUCKING DIRECTOR SO HE IS A FUCKING REPLICUNT YOU FUCKING CUNT

I keep forgetting which one is the definitive version besides the workprint versino you literal memes

everyone already knew harrison ford was starring in it, why the big reveal moment for the teaser? it felt like star wars all over again

even in the original version his narration says Rachel has no expiration date.
Ridley has said Deckard would be a Nexus 7, same as Rachel
I agree with you and have always hated this debate derailing the purpose of the film

Final Cut

But, he isn't you fucking autitsts. Deckard won't be a replicant in the 2049. Case closed. You lose.

No he didn't. He fucking added a unicorn scene from fucking Legend in the 2000 Directors Cut, and started saying that he was replicant to sell copies.

Final cut was the one ridley had full control over right?

This movie better actually have an Electric Sheep in it. And Rachel has to throw it off a roof, like in the book.

Are you fucking dense or something he is a replicant, the film wouldnt have got made with Ridley as prodcer if he wasnt you stupid fucking inbreeding faget

>He fucking added a unicorn scene from fucking Legend

Is this bait?

nope it's 100% legit

youtube.com/watch?v=NGjF_BVNATQ

Yes he did. There's an interview with Ford about a disagreement he had on set with Scott about whether or not Deckard was a replicant.

He wont be a fucking replicant in the 2049. Theres no arguing this. You can keep tying yourself into blue rage knots all you want, autist. It won;t change a thing.

>In 2007, Scott was finally able to release what he considered to be the definitive cut of the film, which is labeled The Final Cut.

I know there's no arguing im right. So carry on sucking your fathers cock while i enjoy kino

in his original cut for the film in 82 he had the unicorn as well, the studio cut it out and the film of that scene was lost, so yes he used some Legend shit but it wasn't a new idea. Also the Directors cut was not even made by Ridely.

Right, thanks. I get the director's cut and final cut mixed up with regards to how much control he had.

Have you already seen Blade Runner 2049?

Legend has nothing to do with this scene.

>yfw they CGI young Harrison Ford in 2049

they did something similar by CGing his sons face onto him for the Final Cut

>all Sup Forums-isms aside

Denis would never do that to us.

I think the idea of a human who leads a pretty shitty existence hunting and killing things who want to truly experience life bring up much more interesting questions than a robot hunting robots.

>Movie strains the point that there's increasingly no real difference between man and replicant as technology advances
>Fans spend decades arguing the opposite.
Sometimes, guys... sometimes.

The Replicant Theory is the gayest shit ever. The people who support this theory are mouthbreathing retards including Ridley Scott. Ford and Dick both agree the theory is dumb.

I disagree completely.

Best girl.

I'll take retarded cliches for 400 mr. Trebek

Ridley Scott treats Blade Runner like George Lucas treats Star Wars.

The problem for me is that him being a replicant adds nothing to the movie and it's just a shitty old twist like from the Sixth Sense.

I hope Ana de Armas is some kind of hooker replicant, also looking forward to Batista.

the book wants you to think of the possibility of him being replicant but identify with him as a person

>The Final Cut heavily suggests that Deckard is a replicant.
Ridley Scott flat out SAID that Deckard is a replicant in an interview.

If he goes back on this in the new one, then fuck him.

He literally takes the test in the book.

It tells you that he's human, but lets you question the others.

he takes the test but it made you think maybe he was a cutting edge prototype possibly for a moment. I did think he was human it after that chapter .

I still think he's a replicant, he just circumvented the lifespan thing somehow.

...

>ridley scoot must apologize
wat

>The book was mostly about his drugged out wife and how embarrassed he is over his shitty fake lamb, anyways.

The book was P. K. Dick's defense of Christianity in the modern era.

The movie has absolutely nothing to do with the book other than character names.

he needs to be human in order for me to really sympathize with him.

WOAH

how does the mood synth thing fit into this

guess i know where the title of the movie comes from at least

>people are still pretending Blade Runner is oh so deep after 3 decades
Jesus Christ.

gottem

>people are still pretending the bible is oh so depp after 2 millenia
Roy Batty.

>Ridley Scott

You're really going to trust this old man's delusions? He made fucking Prometheus and a slew of shitty movies over the years.

DO NOT TRUST him!

But that's wrong. Maybe as one theme, but to say it has absolutely nothing to do with movie other than names is incredibly inaccurate

he also made the duellists and barry lyndon and blade runner tho

>barry lyndon

Yeah Barry Lyndon is great, Rdiley Scott is a genius!

A great performance to be sure, but there's no hidden depth there. He was a sentient machine who wanted to be free. It's very straightforward, and yet pretentious pseudo-intellectuals have been saying it's rife with hidden depth for longer than I've been alive.

>one theme

It's *the* central theme, and they were the complete opposite in each version.

Book
>humans are defined by their empathy, and androids will never understand it

Movie
>humans and androids (replicants) can both feel the same things [Roy's speech at the end hits you over the head with this]

>ywn do a drug binge and talk philosophy or religion with PKD

Well there's the whole ending. Batty realized his dreams of prolonging his life won't work out, so he dedicates the remainder of his life not to killing Deckard, but to putting him in a position where he is forced to empathize with the replicants, acknowledging the humanity of the androids he kills for not being human.

Suck my dick dude

Fact: Deckard is a replicant in the original movie.

Fact: This is being retconned for a sequel because Harrison Ford is too good a marketing tool to pass up.

And this is why the new Blade Runner will be terrible.

Fact: Scott mentioned aeons ago that he would make Deckard a Nexus 7 and make Nexus 7's able to age normally like humans

Fact: Scott wouldnt be involved with a sequel unless his vision was accounted for

And this is why your post is shit.

>Fact: Scott wouldnt be involved with a sequel unless his vision was accounted for
>implying Scott's vision isn't shitty now

Also facts: Fancher has said that Deckard is not a replicant. Fancher is credited for writing Blade Runner 2049.

In either case, we won't know until we see it. And we might not know even then.

>And we might not know even then.

This is how I like to view the original BL even after Scott added all the little tidbits pointing at Deckard being a raplicant and how I hope the new movie will leave it actually.

Fact: You're making robot PKD very angry and will soon feel his wraith

youtube.com/watch?v=-hW2vhkCOFc

>Fact: Deckard is a replicant in the original movie.
Actually in the original one he was human, but he was retconned by Ridley in later versions.

Actually in the original movie he was a replicant, but he was retconned by the studio for the theatrical release.

Well the original was a product of studio interference because the studio thought the plot was too complex for audiences to follow. They also added a terrible voice over throughout the entire movie.

The "Final Cut" version is the only Blade Runner cut in which Ridley Scott had complete creative control.

that's why scott isn't directing

but the theatrical release is the original movie

no, it's the theatrical release.

which is the original movie

if the girl replicant didn't have the 4 year lifespan, why should Deckard?