I thought the point of the film was a man's hypocrisy, how he could love and ruthlessly kill replicants at the same time

>I thought the point of the film was a man's hypocrisy, how he could love and ruthlessly kill replicants at the same time
>I missed all the hints and apparently Deckard was just a replicant the whole time
Am I brainlet or what?
I watched the final cut by the way

>I thought the point of the film was a man's hypocrisy
>when blade runner 2049 dudebros from reddit watch a real movie

Can you explain what's wrong with this?

I'm a pleb myself when it comes to movies. The only thing I remember that would hint at Deckard being a replicant is the unicorn origami. How would Gaff know of Deckard's "dream" of the unicorn? These two don't talk much so I doubt they discussed it over coffee. But it could also be said that, that fucker made origami everywhere all of the time and that the dream was inspired by this. Or it just doesn't make sense. Anyone has some insight on this?

The unicorn scenes pretty much confirm deckard is in fact a replicant, only those sequences weren't in the final cut, where Ridley Scott had full control over the film.

>only those sequences weren't in the final cut
The unicorn were on the Final Cut.

>The unicorn scenes pretty much confirm deckard is in fact a replicant
Scott says as much, but I still fail to see the proof. What is the pivotal moments that confirms Deckard is a replicant?

Oh. I'm getting the final and directors cut mixed up then.

>Scott says as much, but I still fail to see the proof. What is the pivotal moments that confirms Deckard is a replicant?
His eyes glow like a replicant, he collects photos similarly to how replicants do. The evidence that he is a replicant really outweighs the evidence that he is not. I'd prefer to think he is a human, though.

it's pointless to ask a pseud to be specific, ambiguity allows them to pretend to be better than you

You were supposed to notice man's murderous inhumanity and Batty's exceptional sacrifice and learn from it.

Then have the rug pulled out from you, cynically and stupidly with this replicant shit. To be shown you are powerless, a slave to your programming and the system. Abandon all hope. Sucker.

>His eyes glow like a replicant
I really need to rewatch the movie then, because that sounds quite explicit.

>I'd prefer to think he is a human, though.
Yeah, me too. I don't why but I just don't like the idea of him being a replicant.

I'm here to discuss the movie and, among others things, Deckard humanity/lack thereof. I don't think that liking or disliking ambiguous movies makes you more or less intelligent, and you're just pretentious if you think so.

I was referring to the ambiguity of his comment, not the film itself

No you had it right, Scott just became a fucking hack right after this and decided Deckard was a robot for an ebin twist ending. The movie is far more thematically rich and interesting with Deckard as a human.

>His eyes glow like a replicant
I need to rewatch the movie then.

>I'd prefer to think he is a human, though.
Me too, I don't like the idea of him being a replicant.

Liking or disliking a work of fiction doesn't make one more/less intelligent.

I really liked Roy character. I expected him to murder the chinese eye engineer without remorse like a boring villain but he -seemingly- didn't. Too bad he kills J.F. Sebastian, what's the point?

Shit, that's more teneous than "both gaff and deckard think about unicorns, so he must be a replicant."

Double posted because I though my first post didn't go through, my bad.

He's a human. The original theatrical release should be considered canon otherwise you can change any fucking story with a final cut. That's jarring and ridiculous.

>His eyes glow like a replicant
In the background of a single scene where Rachel's eyes are also glowing. This is because of how they created the effect since it was before CGI. They strapped a small reflector at a 45 degree angle to the top of the camera and shone a light into it so it would be reflected off the actor's eyes without reflecting back into the camera itself or lighting up too much of their face. Deckard's eyes are glowing not in the center but on the sides because they're catching the reflector as well, it wasn't an intended effect.

If Deckard is a replicant, the cops in the first movie whom seemed to know him were all in a big ploy to bamboozle him?

>In the background of a single scene
Specifically, which scene? The one where Deckard is washing his bloodied mouth?

>a big ploy to bamboozle him?
a bit like the "It was all me, James" from 007 Specter bullshit.

When he's standing behind Rachel in the same scene I believe before he assaults her.

everybody collects photos.

I'm going to check that out, thanks.

Dont listen to Scott he's a fucking retard when it comes to this. The book has Deckard as a regular human. The script writer and producer think Deckard is a human. Harrison Ford regularly argued with Scott during filming to keep Deckard a human. Deckard being human reinforces the themes of humanity and its loss far better than if he was just a robut.

>Deckard being human reinforces the themes of humanity and its loss far better than if he was just a robut.
That I do agree with.

Scott is the only one who wanted Deckard to be a replicant. The entire rest of the cast and crew fought him on it because it's fucking retarded.

OP here
So here's all the evidence that Deckard is a replicant
>Got beat up by a bunch of replicants, one of which was made to be extremely strong and survived, at one point his neck appeared to be snapped
>Unicorn dream and Gaff's origami
>Eyes glow like a replicants in one scene
>Ridley says he is
All this being said, if Ridley truly is a replicant, then the message I concluded on can't make any sense (pic related from sums it up better than I can myself). It's not really worth the cheap twist for him to not be human.

>I watched the final cut by the way

There is you problem. Only Scott thinks he was a replicant and he threw in a bunch of shit in that version to make it seem like that. Even the writer of the damn script said that Deckard was human and that it make no sense if he wasn't.

>Got beat up by a bunch of replicants
Leon wanted to make him suffer first, he was about to deliver the final blow when Rachael conveniently headshotted him without hitting Deckard. All the other injuries didn't seem fatal, or were tied to plot armor (like how Pris could have killed him easily but decided to jump around some more to get killed).

>Unicorn dream and Gaff's origami
You could also interpret that Gaff is also a replicant and that he leaves Deckard run because of that. Gaff then continues to pretend he doesn't know he's a replicant to avoid retirement. Unicorn origami isn't a solid proof.

>Eyes glow like a replicants in one scene
See >Ridley says he is
He's just one guy on a project that requires many people. He recently proved that with Covenant.

By the way, I'm pleasantly surprised we're having a civil conversation.

Thanks. I'm fully convinced he's human now.

what if both gaff and deckard were replicants?

>This opinion sponsored by RedLetterMedia™

That may very well be if Deckard is a Blade Runne replicant and Gaff it also one and they both see the Unicorn. But you cannot affirm/infirm it. Makes me think of Phantom Pain, when Ocelot says to Miller "What if I'm a traitor? what if you're a traitor?"

Blade Runner wasn't even Ridley Scott's fucking movie. He was just the director. Not a producer or writer or the author of the book it was based on. He had no right to take such creative liberties with it. Nearly everyone involved with the movie agrees it was fucking stupid. The reveal of him being a replicant adds NOTHING and undermines what was a great movie. The theatrical version is THE definitive version. Fuck Ridley Scott in the asshole the smug arrogant prick.

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF HE WAS A HUMAN OR A REPLICANT

I find it hard to relate to Deckard if he is a machine.

it actually does

my fave scene is when prips dies. that was some intense poetry shit right there.

It doesn't. It has no impact on what he does or what he feels.

what would it change if he was replicant?

Expand on that.

the whole scene starting from when deckard enters the room. the doll hides, the doll fights back, the doll dies (the scream! i shivered).

Thank fuck i found this thread

I just saw the sequel in the cinema and i was wondering how the fuck can a human and machine make baby

It makes a LOT more sense if theyre both replicants, but it's not a 'miracle' anymore then, making the rebel replicants a lot more retarded

Anyway him not being a human in the original makes it garbage

Oh yeah, that scream was something. I wonder if Pris could change aspect to better please a customer. Some scenes she's really feminine and other a bit more androgynous. The doll part is full on creepy.

It makes him a little bitch. The story is about a human cop that fights super human replicants who ambush him, yet he still survives, just barely. He is a vulnerable protagonist, who gets bailed out of danger multiple times.

At least BR2049 keeps things ambiguous as well. I hate sequels or prequels where they feel they have to explain everything. There's no definite answer to the Deckard dilemna and that's what makes the debate more interesting.

I do prefer the "almost inhumane human has to kill almost human robots". Deckard is clearly not what he used to be, if he ever was. That alcohol he's constantly drinking must do a lot of damage to him.

Yeah... and the writter of Apocalypse now loves his script and the scene with the french guys.

Yes, you and all the others that think Dekard is not a replicant missed the point. Cyberpunk is about humans questioning reality and what makes us humans. That´s what cyberpunk is in escense as a genre... that and noir tropes, night cities, rainy nights, etc.

Blade Runner stablishes that whatever it is that makes us human is not the flesh nor how we are born and it can´t be measured with some test. While created like tools replicants are not robots, they are a life form.

And FWI producers changed stuff on the theatrical version because the pyhrric ending of the noir was not popular on the screanings.
The director´s cut is how the film was intended by Scott.

Don´t be this dense. Learn a little about cinema genres, contexts and influences guys.

Are you stupid? The point is that Gaff can know Deckard's memories and dreams the same way Deckard knew about Rachel's.

He doesn't just think about unicorns.

Can we all just agree that Ridley Scott is a hack?

he hacked the fabric of time and space and made blade runner

>you and all the others that think Dekard is not a replicant missed the point.
>a human that has become an inhuman, uncaring killing machine regaining his humanity is somehow less cyberpunk than repeating the same character arc that Rachel has
No user, just no. Deckard being a replicant not only repeats the exact same shit we see from all the other characters, it strips away just as vital part of cyberpunk which is humans losing their humanity.

I think that "talentless hack" is something we throw around way too much. However I do believe that Scott owes a lot to his coworkers.

You are completely right

The way say the new alien movies try to explain everything just makes it more crap with everything new explanation

I just hope i don't get tired of mystery-bait cus i rly dont know what wouldn't be boring after that

Also - would a replicant age like deckard did? The big guy at the beginning of the movie didn't look that old yet he was supposed to also be X + 30 years old

Finding the right people to surround yourself with is its own kind of talent, but not one he still has.

Nicely put.

Here's a little piece of info for your dense skull...
Replicants aren't machines, they are humans made in a lab. Tyrell created a human in a lab that can give birth to a real human. Is it really that hard to grasp? These aren't terminators.

Nah bruv they definitely have inhuman properties like strenght and their body parts are from synthetic materials

>The evidence that he is a replicant really outweighs the evidence that he is not

Seriously? The only evidence are small indications. The replicant from the very first interrogation scene NEVER once had glowing eyes in the movie. that is not a good indication of who is a replicant
The ONLY piece of evidence anybody should look at is, if Deckard was a replicant then why was he getting his fucking ass handed to him every fight?

You could say that the apparence of a replicant doesn't indicate it's age. IF Deckard is a replicant he could be just "born" mere hours before the original movie begins, which would make him 30 in 2049. As for Sapper, I still don't understand the timeline. He's a newer model and yet he made the cesarian on Rachael? Was he around in 2020? Was Rachael life expectancy longer than other replicants?

He kills sebastion because his childlike wonder and sense of toyship with replicants offends roy batty as does tyrells false godhood, in the heat of the moment roy was pissed at his mortality and mocked by the replicants used as playthings or fixtures and sebastion was caught in the middle

Nexus 8s with their open lifespans were released a year after the first movie. So if Rachel was made say, within a year of the first movie then its fine.

Roy is not inhuman. Killing in anger and searching for answers is so very human. He doesn´t lose or regain anything because he is not a monster or an out of control machine but someone that´s totally justified, someone that´s been made to be used as a tool and then discarded after 3 years by a perverse society.
Roy is totally justified on human emotions and as explained by the film itself he is been made to be more human than human.
You could asume that´s just strenght and inteligence, which is why he rebels, but you can also interpret that he is more pasionate as well since he can interpret beauty.

As for Dekard and Rachel why do you think they ran away together? that´s another cyberpunk/ noir trope. The phyrric ending. Which is to say a victory that costs too much. In this case discovering that he is one of them is perfect... because that makes him the monster for treating them just like some robots. Now he knows, he understand that they are not different and that he has been killing sentient beings not "retiring" faulty machines.
Rachel is the only one left and she is like him. She is a mirror character (another noir trope) and Dekard has to atone, he has to save her at least.

It´s like you guys don´t know the genre conventions at alll.

What i meant is the process of aging, and the physical change related to that, unless that's scripted also.

What you say is fully true but once you see the chance happening you have to fit it into the lore somehow (obviously harrison has aged as hes a human)

Either they age naturally, or they can be changed to look aged, or they stay the same (3rd option would be the best as it makes the easiest to determine who is/isn't a robot)

>His eyes glow like a replicant
This is the game changer. If his eyes never glowed then there could be some skeptism. The fact that his eyes glow is both clearly intentional, and solidified the replicant theory into fact.

There is literally no reason to put glowing eyes on a none replicant. They could have simply omitted it.

citation needed

>I just saw the sequel in the cinema and i was wondering how the fuck can a human and machine make baby

maybe there's been other examples in other media, but that really reminded me of a game called binary domain, in which a character wasn't an android but was born from a human father and an android mother iirc

A likely explanation, thank you.

Does sequel count for you as lore

It is a genetically engineered being composed entirely of organic substance

Fuck Scott. I'll always go for the Fancher/Ford side: Deckard is human

Yes. Nowhere in the sequel does it show replicants being anything other than stronger faster humans.

Fair enough though it still said they think in 0's and 1's (driver and his holo-waifu looking thru the gene database scene)

Also the abilities to withstand pain (supress reflexes) and inflict force seemed very inorganic to me but that might just be bad filmmaking

If Deckard is a replicant, how did he manage to breed with Rachael?

Its a lot easier to create a system capable of reproduction than to engineer inter-species reproduction

unlike the book, there is literally nothing pointing towards him being a replicant apart from the dream and origami
it should have been an ignored plot point but the sequel fixes it a little

Yes, but do Deckard's eyes glow in 2049?

I could be wrong but this is not really adressed in the new movie.

See >a game called binary domain
I've got to say that I enjoyed that game immensely. Some cinematics were really well done. The replicants here are called "Hollow Child" I think.

Its a blink and you miss it, fuzzy as fuck background shot that was caused by the methods they used to make Rachel's eye glow. Its hardly evidence.

No, Joi said she is 0s and 1s because she actually is a programmed machine. Replicants have emotions which is why they need memory implants.

The writer specifically said Deckard is human. Scott is the only person who thinks he is replicant.

Im 80% sure she said 'we' and not 'I'

Nope. She said I, and was talking about how K is made up of DNA.

I know but in the book there is the entire plot of him being a replicant, it's pretty much absent from the film

When they are literally looking at the DNA of replicants, thats when K reassures her that even though she's half of what a replicant is, she is twice as remarkable.

Alright i believe you

It was twice as elegant btw

remember the guy who makes eyes in br1?

Pointless answer to shit on 2049.
I sperged years about the original still enjoyed 2049.

>Pris could have killed him easily but decided to jump around

she's a sexbot, not a murderbot

all she knew how to do apart from getting fucked was gymnastics and picking her nose (and other people's)

>in the book there is the entire plot of him being a replicant

and it ends with him definitively being human

>people say x and y and z people all said deckward wasnt a replicant

Ridley told Ford to act like he was a human the entire time, but was always making it throughout the film to appear as a replicant, that was his plan all along

just read up about the OG film and ridley

And once again, nobody cares what Scott thinks because Scott's decision is retarded.

>I missed all the hints and apparently Deckard was just a replicant the whole time
There was literally only one hint. You didn't miss much. Also, Scott didn't decide Deckard was a replicant until the original movie had been out for years. So it's understandable that you didn't quite catch it.