Was he a Replicant?

Was he a Replicant?

No. Fuck off.

/thread

This movie does not hold up, no matter how much I wish it did

No. It ruins the movie and doesn't make any sense if he is.
Deckard is human.

There is nothing to suggest that he is in the theatrical version.
He is in the Director's Cut, but it's up to you whether you consider that the definitive version or not.

As of the sequel, he's absolutely a replicant.

yes. The director's cut implies this and the sequel is irrelevant

/thread

>As of the sequel, he's absolutely a replicant
What ? Pretty sure 2049 suggests the opposite

That's not what I got from it. The two bits that made me lean towards him being a replicant were the conversation with Jared Leto where Jared implies that he may or may not be a replicant, and the moment where Olmos says that Deckard is probably dead by now because of "something in his eyes", which I took to be a reference to the shot in the original where Deckard's eyes flare up like a replicant's.
I know that the eyes thing is an unintentional trick of the light in the original, but it seemed like the sequel took the fan theory and ran with it with that line. Seemed like a very cute little nod to it.

SPOILER
the whole point of 2049 is that hes the first replicant to have a child... its literally the ending of the movie

WRONG
It leaves it open ended

no it doesn't...

see

I mean, you're right in that it's never blatantly stated to the camera, but I feel like you need to be particularly stubborn to ignore the evidence that's there.

He was a human. It trivialises the whole story and the characters arcs if it turned out he was a replicant all along. It's such a tired and terrible twist that 'the main character was the monster all along', and has been done better in other movies.

Maybe the twist in 2049 that K is just an ordinary replicant and isn't special at all is a clever little poke at the whole thing, loads of speculation about the characters backstory when Deckard is just an ordinary dude.

Fuck that unicorn, fuck it hard

...

unicorn is canon no matter how hard you plug your ears

i choose to believe yes and no
the one we saw was a replicant based off a seasoned and talented blade runner that was used as a throwaway cop to fix problems
it literally doesnt matter if the decard we saw survived or not, as long as he succeeded most of his job, because they could just send another to another problem somewhere else

But it's not though, the point is that Deckard reattached with the humanity that he lost after the woman he loved died, and he got a chance to see his own daughter.

How is this a difficult thing to comprehend? Literally the only one who ever said that Deckard was a replicant was Ridley Scott. Harrison said he was human, Hampton Fancher says he's a human, Philip K. Dick had him as a human.

Regardless of whether it's canon or not doesn't mean I can't fucking hate it. Its just a stupid idea.

He was a Gestalt.

Yeah, you're going to have to go by when it comes to anything suggested by the film.

unless he was purposefully programmed/manufactured to be physically a lot weaker than normal replicants, then no.

fpbp

Yes. Director said so. His movie.

Nope

...

I too thought that k was special.

Sup Forums hates these movies now.

Yes, otherwise the entire point of reproducing replicants is moot.

although he technically is supposed to have a crisis where he wonders if he is one he is not

Sup Forums turned to shit real quickly desu. Sup Forums and Sup Forums rival in awfulness nowadays.

does them not liking these movies make this board shit? not defending them, im just trying to figure out what Sup Forums generally thinks of this movie. personally i think all the luv posting probably contributes to this hatred for the movie. I for one loved the first movie and the second movie. also this probably isnt the thread for this but is it possible to love movies even though there are objective flaws with it? Are movies subjective? or is a great movies strictly objectitve where nobody can deny its greatness? take this with a grain of salt im fucking retarded.

Its shit. If some small element is shilling the film, it's basically guaranteed to be shit.

No, you retard
Rachael is the replicant who had a child. Deckard is undetermined.

Said so decades after the fact. Lucas-tier revisionism is fucking trash.

you're like actually retarded. Rachel was the first replicant to give birth

So you mean if people make a thread about them enjoying a movie its "shilling"? and the movie is shit?

To an extent it doesn't matter, thematically. I think the story is more poignant if we assume he's human, though, or at least the poignancy is more accessible for obvious reasons.

Deckard being a replicant just strikes me as a superfluous subversion that doesn't really contribute anything. I haven't seen 2049, though. A big part of me doesn't want to, but I suspect I will eventually.

...

>When Sean Young grabs your dick and you have flashbacks to your Weinstein interview

The entire point of the two movies was that he, a human, was saved by two replicants, who were "more than human" because of their emotions.

but he was. saying he isn't is clearly fandom.

> Philip K. Dick had him as a human

Not quite. There were hints in the book that he was a machine too.

Holy fuck this guy actually gets the movies

In the book, Deckard literally takes the test and it proves him to be human and not an android. The book's focus is what it means to be human. That is, the definition of humanity. It was a thematic and philosophical point rather than a plot point.

I had a thought that 2049 was basically Blade Runner but with Roy Batty's and Deckard's positions swapped.

some replicants pass the test also in the book?
its been while, if Im wrong.

The point of the book is the nature of humanity. A machine is a machine (they're robots in the book, not flesh) and a human is a human. But if humans behave more and more like robots while robots are programmed to behave more like humans, do we need to reset our definitions? It's not about dissecting the robot or human to prove what they physically are, but asking what is it that makes them what they are.