If Deckard was a replicant how did he get his ass beat so easily by the other replicants?

If Deckard was a replicant how did he get his ass beat so easily by the other replicants?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because he wasn't a replicant.

He's only half-replicant.

Only plebs think he was a replicant-the movie doesn't make any sense if he was. Anyone who claims he was are basically admitting they didn't understand blade runner.

He was programmed without any super-strength so nobody got suspicious

he wasn't a nexus 6

Even replicants have a class system. Fighters, entertainers, etc. They don't all have the same strength. Also, it was what, three-to-one? And they were desperate.

DAS RITE, he wasn't a replicant, and if he was, probably was a version not made to fight or have endurance (Nexus 7?) he was weak af my nigga

He almost got strangled to death by one of the entertainers

He didn't know he was a replicant so he couldn't access his replicant strenght

Normal people can't take the beatings Deckard did in and of themselves, and he did all that and still kept up the running and jumping.
The fact that his plot (specific injuries and introspection) mimics Roy's is also suggestive.
You also consider Roy's behavior toward him in the end. It looks like he gets it in that final chase. The way he talks to him, the way he chooses not to kill him.
He could just be having an existential realization, but maybe he's found respect for him as a "brother" just trying to stay alive the way he is.

wrong, Nexus 6 lifespan is 4 years

IF he was a replicant, probably a Nexus 7/Nexus 8 version, OR a totally old, really old ass version

but IMHO he was human desu.

tfw you will never be crushed to death by pleasure model nexus 6 thighs

Yeah, if Deckard's a rep, he's probably not a "fighter class". He could be an early model of Rachel's.

>wrong, Nexus 6 lifespan is 4 years
Who's wrong?

If deckard is a replicant how come he lived way longer than a replicant normally should?
Mary suebot?

If Deckard was a rep then he was either a really fuckin old model, which wouldn't make sense with his lifespan, or he was an exceedingly complicated plant with half the police department being in on it.

I just don't think the proof of him being a replicant outweighs the opposite. It's enough to make you ask the question, which is part of the theme; how do you differentiate between a replicant and a human anyway.

What lifespan? Their memories are implants. For all you know they switched him on 2 seconds before the first time we see him.

If he's a replicant why is he legally allowed on earth ?

>sucks at his job
>can't aim
>can't fight
>supposedly best agent around

if he was a Nexus 6, Deckard was dead already in 2023

how tf he still alive in 2049? who's wrong?

Same reason Goosebot is allowed to

>drinks

ugh what is wrong with you

If they programmed him with superhuman strength, don't you think he'd become suspicious he was a replicant and therefore become less willing to do his job of retiring replicant?

The thing that really doesn't make sense to me is his lifespan, if he was designed with the express purpose of retiring those 4 replicante why would he have an open ended lifespa

It's explained why Goosebot is on (((earth)))

You are correct, the best Blade Runner was Crystal Steele, Holden, then Gaff...

but i think they need him to impregnate Rachael???

he's still alive in 2049, which takes place 30 years after the original

Why was Deckard even in this film? All of the exposition he experiences in the first 15 minutes could've been rewritten for Batty, and then we could have had that extra development and interest in his strife instead of 2 hours building up to an ultimately moot final scene.
Film is fucking awful. One of Scott's worst, other than the aesthetic of course.
Moon is what Blade Runner should have been, since it was never going to be a proper adaption of Dick's material. Bell > Batty.

>author of the book says he isn't a replicant
>Harrison Ford says he isn't a replicant
>script writer says he isn't a replicant
>Ridley Scott, 10 years after the movie, then suddenly says he is
Him being a replicant also defeats the whole point of the movie. He's a human who needs to be completely unfeeling and dehumanized to retire machines that just want to enjoy life and feel emotions and love. It's about challenging the idea of what makes something truly alive/human.

Making Deckard a replicant is such a needless twist and it really cheapens the whole thing.

Is the book good?
Isn't it about actual robots instead of engineered humans?

Book's alright.
It's about robots.

>Implying Ridley Scott gives a shit about Blade Runner
I really don't understand why anybody cares, or thinks that Scott cares. He's not a writer and has always been a conceptual director. He read a draft, maybe he had read the book (doubtful), and thought it sounded cool, because it does sound cool.
Deckard being a replicant or not doesn't even matter in Blade Runner. The movie has none of the themes of the book and is just an awkward noir with stupid slow-mo action sequences and a fuckton of fog.
One scene does not a movie make. It's trash, throw it out.

The book was pretty good. I think replicants are actually robots in the book but they're completely identical to humans on the outside. Also there's more depth to Deckard and of course it has him living with his wife. Rachel is also described as being a lot more scary looking than attractive imo, since it describes her as being really tall, thin, dark haired and pale. Rachel is also evil in the book.

>implying that a replicant that thinks is actually a human doesn't have a deeper message and blurs the line between what makes us human and not when compared to replicants even more

He actually never read the book apparently. Who the fuck makes a movie based on a book and doesn't read the fucking book?

>science fiction film is so complex not even the director understands it.

The guy who made Starship Troopers?
The book is amazing by the way.

I always thought that he was a replicant and that is why Gaff left the unicorn, because he knew his implanted memory. If Tyrell created Rachel who was able to bear child could he not create a replicant designed to be a blade runner also built with the ability to bear children. It doesnt explain his aging tho unless tyrell figured that out. Also what about the dust, he lives in the dust for years and years yet he seems to have suffered no damaged like J.F. Sebastian?

Walk through the logic here. Why would blade runners use replicants (who believe they are human) to do their job? So they don't have to risk real human lives killing skinjobs.

If you're going to have a replicant kill replicants, and dupe this replicant into believing he's human, the worst thing that can happen is for that replicant to realize they are a replicant. So giving this replicant super strength ruins the illusion, while replicant abilities like being able to take a massive beating and walk away don't.

He's either a really shitty replicant or a really good replicant. Either the way the idea that Deckard is a replicant is fucking stupid and Ridley Scott is a hack for ever suggesting it.

I'll check that out now. I never even knew it was a book.

If he's a replicant he'd be a Nexus 7.

Nexus 6 replicants are replicants like Roy, who have a capped 4 year lifespan.

Nexus 7 replicants were an experimental model Tyrell used to test an open ended lifespan, implanted memories, and reproduction. Rachel is a Nexus 7, as is Deckard (if you believe him to be a replicant). Unfortunately the secret of replicant replication was lost when Tyrell was murdered.

Nexus 8 replicants are the post-Tyrell models that have an open ended lifespan and implanted memories (but no reproduction). These replicants caused the blackout and all that, leading to the replicant ban.

Nexus 9 replicants are the first Wallace line of replicants, such as K and Luv. Nexus 9s like Nexus 8s have an open ended lifespan and implanted memories.

>not knowing about Heinlin
How pleb are you?

The unicorn origami represents Rachel. Rare, beautiful, impossible and unique. It was Gaff acknowledging that he knew about Rachel and spared her.
The origami man with an erection that Gaff makes earlier also refers to him knowing that Deckard is attracted to Rachel.

Fairly I guess. I only ever saw Starship Troopers once or twice and that was 10 - 15 years ago.

Rachel already ticks that box though, it's pointless to do it with Deck too

I get the erection one i figured he just knew he was attracted to her because he was "programmed" to in a sense.
Why would it show Deckard having a dream/memory/nightmare of a unicorn if Gaff leaving a unicorn is supposed to resemble Rachel?

no reason to think he was designed to hunt those 4 specific replicants, and he is said to be taken out of retirement for that job

rachel's not the protag. We don't think of her as the hero with an arc.

two test are better than one..also ive never thought about how ironic the Rachel test scene would be one replicant giving another a "human test" lol

Why bother using replicants for that at all? Just to save some cops lives they'll go through this convoluted and dangerous conspiracy? That's stupid and makes no sense and besides all Deckard does is track them and shoot them, it doesn't seem that much dangerous than dealing with a human terrorist or criminal. I mean why not use replicants for all police work at that point.

Also I think a lot of people are making way to big of a deal about how badly Deckard gets beaten up in this movie. I don't believe for a second that was supposed to be a hint about him being a replicant, it's just an action movie thing were a protagonist will take a somewhat unrealistic amount of damage and keep up the job for the sake of the plot. Besides people in real life can take a lot more damage than you think and keep going.

why not just get the replicant "DNA" from Rachels bones? you could match it up against non reproducing replicants
maybe it was an "accident" that she could reproduce at all. it just happened and wasn't planned by tyrell?

The unicorn is just a symbol. It means fantasy and impossible things.

I don't think OP's talking about 2049.

the unicorn represents "freedom"

Really the worst damage he takes is a few broken fingers and being thrown around a bit.

That scene was non-ironically a sexual awakening for me when I was 11.

I don't know. They don't really go into the details of it. There's just a line or two of Wallace calling it "Tyrells last trick" and how Wallace has been unable to replicate it. For whatever reason, Wallace's replicants are infertile despite his best attempts.

As for why DNA cloning wouldn't work, my assumption would be that Wallace's process of growing replicants in bags or whatever to yield a grown adult replicant is unable to produce fertility. But the movie doesn't give us much to go on as far as details.

ha

How about the irony of a human failing the test but a replicant nearly passing because that's how I always read it. That's what I always felt the point of Deckard's character was in the movie, he's a human with less humanity than the replicants he is hunting.

"Deckard is human" evidence:
>no replicant strength
>lives pasts expiration date
>him being a replicant would require a lot of people in on the conspiracy
>he's human in the book

"Deckard is a replicant" evidence:
>"Kinship!"
>unicorn dream
>has a child with a replicant

am I missing something?

It's all very ambiguous but I think the evidence points to him being a replicant. The unicorn dream/origami could be a coincidence and MAYBE the child was a hybrid but both things at once are a bit of a stretch. I think him being the same model as Rachel is the simplest explanation in-universe.

>watched deleted scenes last night
>shows Deckard lifting her skirt and showing them tighs and dem panties
>then pulling her shirt off and showing Rachels nips

What really bothers me is that if you actually listen to Tyrell and Batty's conversation, it's strongly suggested that Batty's lifespan is not arbitrary and that giving the replicants long lives is an unsolved scientific problem:
>Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Yet we're supposed to believe that they'd made replicants that could live long lives AND age at human rates?
We're also supposed to believe (spoilers for the new movie incoming) that they've managed to make a single special replicant that can have children, but that they then just let her wander away for the blade runners to kill? Even if they knew Deckard would be assigned to her and end up protecting her instead, what was the plan after that step? She and Deckard would be hunted and killed by the best detectives around, or would disappear never to be found again, and they would gain nothing and lose all their work.

Also, how the fuck did Love just wander into Madam's office and kill her with no panic button alarms or gun under her desk or anything? What kind of police station is this where someone dangerous can get to the chief's office with no obstruction?

>That's what I always felt the point of Deckard's character was in the movie, he's a human with less humanity than the replicants he is hunting.
That's also the point the author of the original book wanted to express.

they should have kept book holden in who embodies that idea

if if deckhards not human, the ones showing inhumanity are the humans in general, whether or not they are doing it through their creations

>all the brainlets itt missing the point this bad

The point is that it doesn't MATTER if Deckard is a replicant or not

Neat

>Movie makes a huge deal about memories and how replicants have known, implanted memories
>Spend an entire scene with Deckard dreaming of a unicorn
>Gaff later makes a unicorn when Deckard is questioning his own identity
>"Human Deckard" posters what everyone to totally ignore a blatant callback and assume the unicorn connection is pure coincidence

he takes an inhuman beating if that counts

also presumably if those were combat models, which they were, they'd be evenly matched, so it makes sense he'd lose some; maybe he was having a bad week

This old trope?
I doubt you've put any more thought into it than that.

The unicorn dream was not originally part of the movie. Scott added it after he decided Deckard should be a replicant.

Logically, how in the hell would Gaff know that Deckard dreamed of a unicorn?

>Yet we're supposed to believe that they'd made replicants that could live long lives AND age at human rates?
well, Wallace is meant to be a gene-protein farming mastermind.
I find it more odd that they are unable to simply design a new fertile replicant. They're all but genetic copies with enhancements, why would fertility disappear or be a problem?

>let's get a replicant to shut down other replicants
>let's make sure our replicant is weaker than the one's it will hunt down
Makes no sense, you goddamn retard.

wrong use of trope

film's not about who counts as human, but who counts as a person

>>no replicant strength
Replicant strength is arbitrary and tunable. Replicants in the original Blade Runner have different levels of strength (ie Leon vs Pris).

>>lives pasts expiration date
Nexus 6's were the last replicants to have an expiration date.

>>him being a replicant would require a lot of people in on the conspiracy
Or it's just common practice for police departments to use replicants as blade runners, and there have been thousands just like Deckard who were retired after their use was done. Or Deckard, Rachel, and their relationship were all engineered by Tyrell for the purpose of testing reproduction.

>>he's human in the book
The movie departs enough from the book that I don't think this is relevant.

Also:
youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w

Sure it's meant to be ambiguous, and even in 2049 Wallace taunts Deckard about it, but he's all but confirmed a replicant.

wasn't she an assassin model?

probably something to do with cells not interlinking right

deckhard has a gun. He can't know he's a replicant; they work together.

See
In the original version of the movie Deckard never dreamed or remembered a unicorn. The only unicorn was the origami one at the end.

it matters not if hes a replicant or not, the ambiguity is there only for thematic reason and ridley is a fucking hack harrison got it right

He wouldn't. Tyrell also says that implanting memories was a new experiment and Rachel was the first, since other replicants don't have them. Tyrell gave her memories since the 4 year life span of replicants isn't enough time to build up the knowledge and experience that "you and i take for granted".

D-money is clearly a replicant, but I just noticed something of a tongue-in-cheek smile when Ridley states he is a replicant.

>it's strongly suggested that Batty's lifespan is not arbitrary and that giving the replicants long lives is an unsolved scientific problem

My understanding was that lifespan was arbitrary, but once a replicant was made to have a 4 year lifespan it could not be reversed.
>The coding sequence cannot be revised once its been established

It's also mentioned that the 4 year lifespan was implemented as a failsafe against replicants developing emotions of their own and becoming unstable, implying earlier models didn't have the 4 year lifespan.

Rachel had less than four years to live. In that time, Tyrell corp had to go bust, Wallace had to take over, he had to design new models and in doing so solve the ageing and long-life problems, he had to release a bunch of new models, and one of them (the farmer at the start of the new movie) had to join the military, leave the military, meet up with Rachel and help deliver her child.
Actually, since she already slept with Deckard, that probably had to all happen in the 9 months she was pregnant.

Bull. Shit.

The assassin was the snake stripper that ran from him. Pris was a sex doll.

and the screenwriter

>The movie departs enough from the book that I don't think this is relevant.
Harrison Ford and even the script writer say he's a human. It's just Ridley that says he isn't.

How would Deckard know about the memories Tyrell implanted Rachel with?

Still had A level strength for some reason.

Pris was just a basic pleasure model.

>Lets make a replicant to shut down other replicants
>Lets make this replicant super strong
>Oh shit this replicant realized his super strength isn't human, that he's a replicant after all, and everything is a disaster

Which is the original point of this thread. All the replicants are stronger than Deckard, even the ones that have absolutely no reason to be.

It was in Rachels file since being a replicant, she had a file.

If Deckard was a replicant, then why was he allowed to quit? Why did he have an apartment and money to buy things?

Why did K have an apartment and money? Since when do slaves get bonuses?

What bums me out about the Deckard replicant discussion is that it's irrelevant to the story.
There are plenty of really interesting things to discuss, but autists just REEEE each other out over trivial details.

They're missing out on a really good movie.

He gave her a test and then he told him she was a replicant who didn't know what she was. I don't remember the scene perfectly so I can't say if he told him specifically about the memories but it's not fucking hard to figure out she has fake memories at that point.

Is Sapper Morton a Wallace design? Thought he was a 6.