Why does Reddit get so butthurt if you suggest Deckard was a replicant?

Why does Reddit get so butthurt if you suggest Deckard was a replicant?

Because ultra plebs think he's a human and it ruins the story if he's a replicant, plebs think he's a replicant and it's a better story that way, and patricians think that the ambiguity is the point.

If he isn't a human then there's no real protagonist in BR2049, it's just a movie about machines, it has no life

fpbp

although I think it works better for 2049 if he IS a replicant (also it's pretty much implied)

>although I think it works better for 2049 if he IS a replicant (also it's pretty much implied)
I agree but the ambiguity is a big part of Deckard's own perception of himself in the sequel.

The irrelevance of the ambiguity is the point, you infra pleb.
Humans are machines.

Because it's a "twist" that Ripley pushed after the fact
Because having him be a replicant completely undermines the whole narrative of the story. Not only does it make no sense within the context of the plot itself, but it completely destroys the themes of the movie (on what it is to be human, etc) when the human-replicant juxtaposition turns out to just be comparing replicants with other replicants.

t. soyboy

Get out of here with your unicorn bullshit Ripley

Fuck off reddit letter media

You mean Ridley tried to make the film he actually wanted without studio meddling when he had the chance?

Wow what a hack

Yeah fuck directors who edit movies

Hmm maybe I'm an ultra pleb but I think the best option is he IS a human it's just at least ambiguous to him.

This is just Lucas-tier post hoc rationalization, saying that shit he added later on after the fact was totally always part of "the big plan". Wasn't directed with Deckard being a replicant. Wasn't written with Deckard being a replicant. It's literally just some speculation fans made after the fact that Ripley caught wind of, and decided to say "lmao yup this was always my grand vision!"

IMO "he's human" and "it's ambiguous" are effectively the same side here, since either way you're still arguing against Scott and his juvenile way of saying "No no no! I say he is a replicant and that's that!"

Are you stupid?

You people aren't making serious arguments, how about instead of calling Scott a bitter old man you come up with a proper criticism of the use of editing after a theatrical release to bring a film closer to the original vision of the filmmaker? The Original Trilogy would be unwatchable today without Lucas' additions in the special editions, even if not all the editions were good; likewise, if the director's vision can be better approximated on a narrative level, rather than on a purely visual one, what's wrong with adding a few seconds of film to give the movie the meaning the director wants it to have? You can say whatever you want about writers or actors but it's the director who gives the film its final form, and working qua editor and qua director, Scott with the Director's Cuts is able to put forward his vision without 'But the editor objected!' being a problem. Writers and actors provide material for the director to work with: it's not the writer's job to make the finished product work, unless he's also the director (Rian Johnson sucks).

It depends. Are you talking about the novel or the film? Deckard in the novel can be taken as either a human or a replicant. It's ambiguous, however in the films Deckard is a human.

This

The problem is that the movie is still made with the Deckard being human in mind. I doubt that the ambiguity was Scott's original vision in the first place and was just him liking fan theory and debate and incorporate it in the "edit" to fuel the debate or w/e. However, the edit in later version doesn't change enough to justify the possibly of Deckard being a replicant neither. Most of the structure and theme of the movie has to be thrown out to fit the Deckard being a replicant in there.

Because it's fucking stupid, nobody should listen to senile Ridley Scott who also said that Blade Runner 2049 was "too fucking long"

>"edit"
There is no need for scare quotes, it's literally an edit.

It has no bearing on the plot. Dont even know what its discussed so thoroughly

Because we want to be able to relate to a human rather than a robot.

The idea that he was a replicant is purely a fan speculation based on a 5 second sequence of Deckard dreaming about a unicorn. This scene doesn't prove jack shit, people just made an assumption about it and got mad at Ridley for letting them speculate about a movie.

I always thought him being human was an argument for the humanity of the replicants. They were the ones with the vibrant personalities and who saw the world with curiosity and amazement, while Deckard looked bored with life.

It's most likely Ford's limited acting range, but it works in my mind.

>patricians think that the ambiguity is the point
Get a load of this fucking retard. Millennials, amirite?

It's probably less embarrassing to just write "bump"

>patricians think
Patricians don't rate blade runner