Now, I have not seen a good eplantion yet, maybe someone else has wirtten this. but here we go.
Decard is and replicant. Confirmed by Scott.
How? well, he was made as a prototype that could procreate. He was programmed to be horny and full of lust, he is not the brightest model, but has charm.
He has not been able to impregnate any humans, he follow up on this. Tyrell makes another prototype, female. To see if they can make replicant offspring.
>Confirmed by Scott.
And denied by literally everyone else who worked on the original Blade Runner, from the screenwriter, person who played him to the novel writer. And his state is intentionally made ambiguous in the new one.
Deckard being a replicant completely ruins the point of the first film, and Scott is a hack.
Why bother with this? He is a replicant. The person who created the character says so and you're a moron if you don't believe it or see it. Showed the film to my girlfriend the other night and she was asking if he was a replicant as soon as he gave the first VK test. I love Blade Runner. It's one of my favourite films. You have to be a complete faggot in denial to hold such a strong resentment to the idea that he is a robot and ignore how that makes the narrative even more compelling. Especially considering how you have Gosling's character believe he is human and come to terms with it. Pottery.
The real theory you need to be discussing is whose memories does he have and why are they Gaff's?
>The person who created the character says so
Literally the opposite of what Phillip K. Dick says, what are you on about?
Oh, did you think Ridley Scott wrote the original story Blade Runner was an adaptation of?
It doesn't make the narrative more compelling. It does the opposite. Scott didn't even have the idea of Deckard being a replicant until years after the movie was completed. Harrison Ford himself attests to that.
>makes the narrative even more compelling
The narrative is about an artificial being who is more human than the actual human being sent to kill him. If Deckard was just another robot then how the fuck does that make the narrative more compelling you fucking mongoloid
>BTFO this hard
How he will recover bros?
I'm a huge fan of sci-fi literature and am capable of viewing the two as separate entities and being rational about it, which you, clearly, are not - otherwise you would come up with some compelling reason to suggest why every one should view the inspiration for a story as gospel in dictating the derivative's entire existence. The film was inspired by the story and isn't an elaborated version. If you believe it is then clearly you didn't read the story. If you did read the story then please note how the film uses it as the basis for a new idea and changes A LOT in addition to the central chacter's status as a human.
The entire point of both films is that it doesn't matter.
Op here, I swa the first one long ago, boring film. yes it has been retconned he is a replicant, I was just explaining why it makes sense, cause people are arguing it does not makes sense as he has been around for years yada yada... My explanation makes sense.
With the new film, they could just copy Rachael and have her inseminated with human sperm.
I think in light of the new film, and that Rachael had a child, Decard is one.
>it has to be a human hunting artificial intelligence to be profound
>MUH human being mechanical hunting a robot who is being emotional is as deep as my logic can fathom
The signs of an underage faggot trying to impose an edgy way of thinking as if it were fact and not realising how boring it is. The nuance linked into the fact that he is actually a machine hunting machines because they are becoming to emotional is clearly lost on you. And to miss the staggering amount of foreshadowing the film offers really makes me question your intelligence.
>ignoring the situational existence of the protagonist
>ignoring his routine behaviour
>ignoring the clear insight Gaff has into his mind and the way he is handled by the police
To say he is human is to say the plot is mundane and as boring as it gets.
>this is what smart people sound like to brainlets
Actually the point is that Deckard is human in body but Roy the Replicant, while not a human, is more human then him.
>ignoring that Scott only made Deckard into a replicant years after the film's release and had to splice in unused footage from a completely different movie for it to make any sense
>ignoring that everyone else involved with the film thinks the idea of Deckard being a replicant is stupid
Deckard always are a replicant
yeah that's why Ridley had to put footage from Legend into the film
>tfw you realize that everybody is a replicant and humans are long extinct.
Wait what's this about Legend footage in Bladerunner? I've never heard of this
Deckard's unicorn dream is b-roll from Legend.
>Scott didn't even have the idea of Deckard being a replicant until years after the movie was completed. Harrison Ford himself attests to that.
This is complete horseshit. Fuck you.
The unicorn sequence was filmed before the movie came out and was always intended to be there. Scott was furious because it was taken out.
And that part about Ford is a complete lie. He himself has said him and Ridley had fights about it at the time.
'Deckard is human!' fags are the fucking worst. The point of the movie anyway was that 'replicants' were humans with genetic enhancements, so by being so butthurt about Deckard not being 'human' you're essentially saying you don't understand the movie and fell into Ridley's trap i.e. that you're a pleb.
>b-but everyone else!
Only Ford preferred him to be human, and even he has long since stopped giving a fuck because even HE finally got it. The writers deliberately left mixed messages.
TL;dr this:
bullshit
he's a replicant
nobody can live in las vegas because of the radiation
earlier generations of replicants were specifically engineered to be able to work in hazardous environments
deckard lives in las vegas
the dog is synthetic too
>Human Deckard
>being able to live in a nominally enriched tritium atmosphere
>Deckard being a replicant completely ruins the point of the first film, and Scott is a hack.
That's true but I think Villeneneuve salvages it and makes it better.
There's no reason for Deckard to be replicant in the first blade runner but in the second it adds depth in my opinion. In the end it doesn't matter though.
Deckard being a replicant was a stupid idea in the old movie and it's a stupid idea still. I'm pretty glad the new one left it ambigous.
lol is that true?
This has been long debunked. The footage was shot exclusively for Blade Runner.
Leto was awful but you should have at least listened to his sing song bleating with Deckard.
Villeneuve knows he is a relicant.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to say the atmosphere in Blade Runner is lethally radioactive?
Did you think about that for more than three seconds?
Did you watch the the same movie?
>I don't know what "nominal" means
If its supposed to be ambiguous, then why try to make it seem that Deckard is 100% a replicant? How is that any different then saying that Deckard is 100% a human?
Why would they make a blade runner replicant who isn't as strong or clever as the replicants he's sent to hunt down?
It ruins the point of the second movie too because it's about a baby born from a Replicant/Human couple.
People who get hung up on this question are missing the point.
It doesn't matter.
The pure fact that people like to think Deckard is a replicant shows they do not understand the original movie.
The pure fact that people think it matters one way or the other shows they don't understand the original movie
"How do you like our *massive fart noise* Owl?"
That was Ridley's choice, not the writers
I've considered both possibilites and I think him being a replicant adds more to the story of both BR and 2049
Haven't seen 2049 but read it confirms deckhard is a replicant. Is that not the case.
It doesn't make any fucking sense though. In the original film Rachel was the only confirmed nexus 7, and even she had a 4 year lifespan, so why the fuck would Deckard live for another 30 years?
And if Deckard IS a new model, why does he get his ass handed to him by everyone?
>And if Deckard IS a new model, why does he get his ass handed to him by everyone
perhaps part of the deception is to give him human levels of strength, endurance, etc. If Deckard was able to go toe to toe with Roy, it might have raised suspicion.
you're assuming the radiation levels have been nominal the entire time Deckard has been living there. Which is a stretch.
No it doesn't. The whole plot is about Deckard, a human, having a child with a replicant
>I don't understand how half lives work
You utter fucking brainlet the whole point is that REPLICANTS can reproduce on their own not humans you ggod damm MORAN
It is hinted Rachael is an open ended model, also he has human level strength because he is supposed to pass for human and inseminate them.. but it does not work, so Tryell make Rachael, as I said in the beginning of this tread. Op out.
Yeah dumbass and they're also compatible with humans you absolute retard
Do you not understand why Vegas had been abandoned in the new movie?
What? When is that ever said? The whole appeal for Wallace is that he can send a bunch of replicants to colonize a planet and not have to worry about replacing them with new models.
I guess he never played Fallout: New Vegas