Was Deckard a replicant or human?

exactly. making deck a robot just means he's programmed to hunt relentlessly, but since he's a man, you get the interesting juxtaposition where the merciless, nearly emotionless hunter is the human, but the emotional, sympathetic one fleeing the law is the robot

Eat shit, fags

Attached: br unicorn.jpg (480x325, 6K)

Part time.

almost everything electronic got wiped out in 2022 during a simultaneous EMP blast over LA and bombing of nearby servers
Bautista and the one-eyed lady were in on it

He's phoning it in. He was
>coerced
into hunting down this group of replicants.

The fact that he's alive at all means he almost certainly is.

I'd argue that the point of the movie was that replicants were the same as humans. I never got the sense that the replicants were more human than human. Everyone lives in the same shit hole and has the same desperate desire to live.

>Was Deckard a replicant or human?
watch 2049

Maybe.

Attached: 1547773531914.webm (1920x800, 3M)

He was washed up and was blackmailed into it, an old job that he didn't like. Can't really blame him.

I have never understood why people treat this as the ultimate proof that Deckard is a replicant. It's meant to make it ambiguous but it still makes no sense. The unicorn scene is a dream. Replicants have memories implanted, not dreams. There's no purpose for having a dream implanted.

>never actually sat down and read any of PK Dick's stories or novels
>thinking the ending is an emotional resolution and not a hellish revelation

Attached: Scott.jpg (450x450, 22K)

How does Captain Adama have knowledge of what Deckard is dreaming?

The thing is, replicants weren't androids. They were biomechanoids--machines made of meat. So the difference is negligent.

Attached: blade runner thread.png (1897x962, 224K)

Harrison Ford rightfully fought and won against Ridley Scott’s terrible idea that Deckard should be revealed as a replicant. He’s been butthurt about it ever since.

I thought the time limit for replicants was for the replicants shown in the first movie, but the second mentions that the generation after them has a longer life span. Rachel was a next gen model during the first movie and she even did the impossible - have a child. Why couldn't Deckard also been one of those next generation models, tasked with destroying the previous generation?

What's Sir Ridley Scott's problem?

Attached: The Duellists.webm (704x400, 2.75M)

The book=/=The movie.

based and dickpilled

Pretty much this.

The better question, what is the best version of the movie? Directors with unicorn removed?

Dude legit has awful storytelling instincts. His strength is in cool sets and visuals. IIRC he wanted Alien to end with Ripley getting killed and the alien mimicking her voice to make a distress call.

Got a chuckle out of me

It was HIS unicorn dream, along with his ability's that were sampled to create Deckard. He knew all along of his replicant nature, hence his taunt, "You've done a man's job, sir."

But he's nice enough to leave Rachel alive, because he believes they'll both be dead shortly in any case. A real bro.

Attached: Ol Blue Eyes.jpg (474x300, 17K)

Real men don't fear tragedy.

Attached: 1523927401519.png (500x353, 374K)

the original film is garbage if he's not a human, and he's alive in 2049 so he has to have been a human. all the 'he's a replicant, subverted lolol' bullshit that happened after the fact and in the final cut is trash, just ignore it.

I'm too lazy to look at wikipedia.
What is the definitive version that does NOT have the unicorn shit at the end?

He doesn't. When is it said that you can just hook a replicant up and read his independent thoughts? It would go against a point of the movie which is that a replicant can create experiences of his own that can't be mimicked or fully understood by others; and the whole point of the unicorn is simply to create ambiguity. Practically Adama left the unicorn as a calling card to let Deckard know that he'd been to the apartment and could have "retired" Rachel (which is why it looks like she's in a body bag at first glace).

He's a replicant that ages. He was very unique and was the only one compatible with Rachel.

But Deckard was dreaming of a unicorn. If he was dreaming of a sailboat and Adama left the unicorn origami, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No. His presence in the casino (polluted by radiation) proves he's a replicant. Specifically the scene, when the bad guys come to pick him up. There are two guys with gasmasks. Those are only humans on the spot.

Exactly m8.

Attached: edge-of-tomorrow-g.webm (1280x532, 2.95M)

The book takes place in San Francisco in 1992 following World War Terminus

Attached: san francisco.jpg (640x854, 87K)

The theatrical cut. With Harrison Ford's bored voice over.

It’s a weird case. Ridley Scott wanted him to be a replicant but Harrison Ford and the studio heads told him it to fuck off. The movie comes across as conflicted because it very much was behind the scenes.

joey diaz said on his podcast that he did coke with one of the writers and was told that deckard is a replicant.

It doesn’t really make sense, though. It’s the third of his origami figures, after a chicken and man.
If it wasn’t a movie, an Chekhov’s gun wasn’t assumed, it would just be gaff taking the piss. You’re a coward, now you’re unstable, now you’re chasing the unattainable.
Who the fuck has a memory of a unicorn dream, anyway? Particularly since Deckard is awake in the scene.

>and read his independent thoughts?
Where is it said that the unicorn dream is an original thought?

the workprint

even the best replicants in the original blade runner could only stay alive for a couple years. deckard being not only alive but aged means he is certainly human.

lol

You get one paragraph of narration at Roy’s death. Plus missing scenes. Director or final cut is the way to go, it’s completely reasonable to accept the unicorn as a parallel imagining. The question is, which filter looks better?

Rachel got pregnant. Is she a human too?

I haven't seen 2049 and I have no intentions of ever watching that zoomer tier trash get fucked mongoloids

Attached: 200-2001974_80kib-800x699-tiktok-trollface-dab-marked-troll-face.png.jpg (880x779, 285K)

lmgtfy.com/?q=blade runner pregnant replicant

>has nothing to say
>pretends to answer by posting a random link

you're retarded

>still has no reply to the question
>throws insults
Ah yes, namecalling. The true sign of intelligence.

@116691238
not giving you another (you) mate

There are some pretty good moments in the book
>Lubba
>the other police station
>all those fake animals
>that empathy box
>that dial-me-a-motivation thing

gb2rddit then. Rachel getting pregnant and still being a replicant implies Deckard can age while still being a replicant.

He's human. All the writers said so. The only person involved in the entire production of the movie who thinks otherwise is Ridley Scott and he's fucking senile.

Wise decision desu

scott is a fucking hack.

It would be better if he wasn't a replicant

I don't understand why more people don't get this. The humans in Blade Runner were defined by their jobs, and seemingly content with their station. They didn't ask whether or not there was more in life, and they certainly didn't question the moral foundation of their society. The replicants however were the only ones who were performing any form of introspection. The replicants, much like Tyrell's sales pitch, were more human than human. They had hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Deckard, and the others lacked such human qualities because the world of Blade Runner is a brutal slog of deprivation and degradation. By the end of the movie, Deckard is reminded of his humanity by something he would deem "non human', making it all the more poignant.

it was absolutely shit and the stry was fucking trash. the only good part of the film were the baseline tests which were fucking kino the rest was utter garbage with the shitest "twist" in movie history. truly an insult to the original

>faggot refusing to watch Kino

Color me surprised.

Attached: 1545966021519.jpg (1024x576, 78K)

god... he's just like me.

I fucking love everything about this movie, such an underrated masterpiece.

Attached: 1557333420729.jpg (1200x800, 51K)

You are wrong in both cases.
It's left ambiguous.

I'll watch it if it happens to be on tv one day

the ambiguity around whether he is or isnt a replicant was the best ending the first film could have asked for.
the second film fucking shat all over that with it's shit plot

>kino
the original was kino of the highest caliber but I highly doubt that a AAA film in the year of our lord 2019 is capable of being a joint let alone a kino.

How is he just like you?

Neither of you are that smart: it doesn’t matter if Rachael could get pregnant if Deckard was shooting blanks.

Rachel (and possibly Deckard) were Tyrell's greatest creation. Tyrell was killed int he first movie. Rachel was a replicant who gave birth to a new life.

Between the movies there was civil war and a huge digital blackout occurred erasing most everything stored digitally. So if there was any files and how Rachel was made they were gone.

If that got out and was public it would have fucked that whole world up because replicants are nothing more than disposable slaves.

Wallace (Jared Leto) is the main corporate guy in this movie who wants the child Rachel gave birth to because he was failed in being able to create a replicant who can give birth. It would in turn make him diety like.

The entire point of the movie is that it doesn't matter.

Attached: 1548945515790.png (878x584, 1.29M)

Because i'm a misunderstood person still trying to to find myself doing a thankless job. We all want to find a larger meaning to our existence.

oh yeah and the cinematography, set and costume design are rubbish too compared to the first film. but yeah watch it if it ever comes on tv i guess. ive completely written it off the same way ive written off the matrix sequels.

exactly this. well does and doesnt matter both at the same time but it is supposed to be open ended

Speak for yourself, brainlet.
If Rachel got pregnant, Deckard canonically wasn't shooting blanks. Don't bring your cuck fantasy into this either.

If Rachel got pregnant, and is not human, Deckard could age, and not be human.

Deckard was 100% a human. The idea of it even being ambiguous came decades later after Ridley went full hack.

>a technically non-living creature

those technically non-living creatures sure can kick and punch.

that video has probably been converted to a dozen different formats. it started off as 8192x7268 120fps and ended up 320x200, 4fps

You're right, however Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is not Blade Runner. It's clearly the origin and foundation of BR, but they're different enough that you can't really use one to draw a conclusion on the other.

Checked. But I believe K did a scan of the area and it indicated the area was habitable.

>projecting this hard
You retard, replicants are sterile. If Deckard was somehow this lengthy lifespan replicant for whatever the fuck reason, he still would be sterile.

They are living, but they are basically a slave race.

The movie is about society deciding who is who and who can do what based on ultimately arbitrary distinctions. Replicants are stronger than humans and live for less time, but in every important way they are human. They're biological humans, just ones that are vat-grown rather than birthed. Whether Deckard is a task-grown replicant or a human with serious rewiring done on his brain, it doesn't really change anything. He might die in a few years from replicant aging, or he might hit his head on a pipe tomorrow and die immediately. It doesn't make a difference or change who he is.

Attached: 1559696617612.png (608x349, 233K)

The unicorn scene is a deleted scene from Legend that Ridley Scott put back in the movie for the final cut he releases sometime between now and the distant future that is 2019. Deckard and Gaff both knew the scene from watching it together.

But if Deckard is a replicant, the entire film is both invalid, and nonsensical, since the point is to show the interaction between replicants and humans. You know when black mirror pulls back with “but they were computers all long!” shit? You probably like that, but it’s rightfully called retarded, because without having a human reference point, the relationship does not compute. It’s possible to have a stand in for a human, such as your fantasy elves, but if the story is explicitly about the relationships between humans and androids, it requires a human in a central role.

I just wanted a dad...

Attached: jgfnbncgf.jpg (1361x568, 107K)

You still alive, user? Didn’t sepukku?

>Theatrical release
human
>Final Cut
replicant

The difference is that replicants aren't androids. By every description in both films, they're essentially tailored clones, who are so similar to humans you have to run a complex psychological analysis on them to pick them out, and even then it's not foolproof. If Rachel had a little more time to mature, she might have fooled the test altogether.

The best comparison for the first film is a caste society, where the lower castes are forbidden from entering cities. The way they distinguish between castes is basically arbitrary. Ridley Scott is saying that applying the same logic to synthetic humans is equally arbitrary.

Attached: 1559579821944.jpg (440x351, 9K)

I don't talk to retards, so I stopped replying to you.

Attached: 1556493363020.gif (300x300, 2.88M)

My mistake, I used the wrong word. The point is, you need to have some frame of reference, just like if you want to use a number line, you start at zero. Obviously, the definition between the two is arbitrary, that’s the entire point of the film, as humans become more soulless, and replicants become soulful. And that moment is highlighted in the final showdown between Roy and Deckard, but if they’re both replicants, it loses some impact. To use an extreme analogy, you cannot judge the behavior of a toaster by watching it interact with another toaster. You need a human in there. Animated films, like say lion king, skirt around this issue by ignoring it. Anthropomorphic animals, assumptions made. But if you’re trying to make a message about the nature of humanity, you need something more definitive.
Reminder that you’re the cancer, and you need to go back to reddlt.

this

This, only retards that like le epic twist and Ridley "senile" Scott think otherwise.

>the best replicants in the original blade runner could only stay alive for a couple years.
That's not how it works. If you read the book you'd know that some androids can be built with longer lifespans. The vast majority of them have a killswitch of ~4 years. Rachel in particular was noted to be built to live as long as a human. If Deckard is an android (as he is in the movie), it's plausible that he could also have an extended lifespan.

He's human with replicate prosthesis.

what if everyone in that gay society was a replicant

youtube.com/watch?v=gFuGfwIhv14

it would explain why Gaff knew about the unicorn dream, and why Roy and the others are so pissed about being retired, at least

anyways my point is that the whole point of the movie is that at that point in human civilization humanity is so soulless that humans might as well be extinct. For all anybody knows, they're all meat robots rather than "humans" who gestated inside of a living being's womb

They were the new nexus-6 models, more advanced than ever before. He also had the challenge of hunting down people who were stronger than him and knew he was coming.

Is Blade Runner from 1982 a book ? If not, why the hell are you bringing up a book?

No, u first. It's time you realized that the book are not the same as the movie. Deckard is a human in the movies. Braindead aspie