Let's settle this once and for all:

Did you literally just not understand the film?

Writer and director say yes. Brainlet Ford says no. I’m going with the actual creative talent behind the film and not the dancing monkey, personally.

Replicants only have a limited life span of 4 years, and pea brains like you somehow still can't understand that Deckard can't be a replicant with this premise.

they just called them robots so they could dehumanize them

>I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. It was in that moment I truly became Blade Runner.

Attached: 1508989557957.jpg (600x249, 11.5K)

Tyrell created Rachael which was a special replicant literally capable of reproduction, how do you know Deckard isn't a special model just like Rachael aswell you triple pea brain

Obviously he was which is hilarious because scott knew and didn't tell pretty boy ford.

>robot

Deckard, my man, do you even realize the importance of these events which I am vaguely describing right now? Lasers going pewpew and ships going boomboom in space. This changes everything! Your perception of replicants such as myself and a possible love interest of yours shall never be the same, I'm sure. Peace out.

Attached: Screen-Shot-2019-07-24-at-1.13.49-PM-1.png (1310x695, 621.22K)

No, it was not ambiguous. The unicorn scene that made it ambiguous was just some horseshit irrelevant fluff that was never needed in the first place. Replicants with long lifespans weren't even really a thing at that point anyways, so it was really a stupid ass move.

>robot
This is bait.

it's b8, dumbass

You are right be he is one. He is one of the new models that has a longer lifespan and can reproduce. Its never even remotely stated but its in the "behind the scenes stuff". The unicorn origami the other detective places at his door at the end of the movie is supposed to tip deckard off because hes been having dreams about unicorns.
There was also a scene or two that had that detective in it that was cut. The movie is far more coherent with its deleted scenes.
Its safe to assume the movie starts when deckard is activated. When you watch it you assume hes human and has been doing this for years. Its an underlying message about how tragic replicants are.

You can spot a pleb who hasn't read DADOES when they say this shit. The question of whether Deckard is a replicant himself features prominently in the middle of the book, and no, the unicorn scene was not an outtake from Legend as is often claimed.

>No, it was not ambiguous
Yes, quite literally it was. Wallace even outright points out if Deckard's "love" is true or just a mathemathicak equation. Not to mention that the film points out multiple times that Deckard "knows what's real", or in other words doesn’t care about the state, like he doesn’t care if his dog is a real dog or not.

was he a replicant

Attached: 1572220399272.webm (720x480, 1.8M)

How do you know Deckard is a special model you fucking tard?
It was an afterthought you fuckig retarded cunts, kys

I would agree if Blade Runner was a direct adaption of the book, but it wasn't. So whatever universe and canon established in the book has no bearing on what actually happens in Blade Runner.

>deleted scene is an afterthought

Scott's vision is the only one that matters. Kys fucking garbage book pleb. No one fucking cares about that shit.

>How do you know Deckard is a special model
Well no one knows, which is why his state is ambiguous.

To be fair the book is so far removed from the film that it might as well be considered separately when judging merit. Also am I a pleb if this is maybe my favorite film of all time?

This. Isn't it basically confirmed that he is a replicant because he could survive in the nuclear wasteland?

>Scott's vision is the only one that matters
The writer of the script also disagrees with Scott. The person who played the character aswell.
Basically everyone who worked on the film disagrees with him lol

YOU'VE DONE A BIOLOGICAL HUMAN MALE'S JOB HERE SIR *winks*

>which is why his state is ambiguous
Nope, since it's clearly stated that replicants only live 4 years. Point me to a source that says different.

No, K even reads out that the radiation isn't strong in that part. Which why bees can live there.

But then again are they real actual bees? And this is why it's ambiguous

My take on the OG film was that it was meant to depict humanity as something experienced rather than biologically innate. The Replicant like Roy only lived four years and had these juvenile underdeveloped view of the world, but their rich tapestry of experience and strong emotions was giving them humanity.

Meanwhile Deckard, someone deemed truly human by his society was living soullessly as a lonely alcoholic in his dingy apartment, whittling away with no love, no feeling, no humanity. The ending of the film has Deckard embracing the experience of humanity by falling in love and running away with Rachael, taking life into his own hands and giving him some direction/purpose.

Making Deckard a Replicant undermines that take of the film to me.

Attached: 00604358.png (255x205, 65.29K)

Well the screenwriter says he's human

>it's clearly stated that replicants only live 4 years
A Nexus 6 model. Rachael was a Nexus 7 model which was quite different than the previous generation.

Now tell me where does it way which model or generation Deckard is?

How big of a fucking brainlet do you have to be to not comprehend such a simple scene? You do realize there's a fucking sequel now that even further confirms it even though it was painfully obvious he's a fucking android from the beginning. Honestly ford is perfect for the choice.

This. The entire meaning of the film is Deckard rediscovering his humanity and appreciation of life through Roy's furious drive to obtain understanding and purpose. To make Deckard a replicant misses the point entirely.

The writer Fancher quite literally opposes Ridleys opinion you dumb fuck

It defeats a lot of the movie's purpose to have him be a replicant.

Deckard was a 1st gen. They weren't given limited lifespans.

That would explain Ford's acting.

Point me to a source that says Nexus 7 models have longer lives.

>there's a fucking sequel now that even further confirms it
It doesn’t. Literally, both Villeneuve and the writers agree on that.

No he wasn't.

>You do realize there's a fucking sequel now that even further confirms it even though it was painfully obvious he's a fucking android from the beginning
It does the EXACT opposite you dumb fucking cunt

Attached: Facepalm-Meme-04.png (674x432, 28.07K)

It’s about an objective appreciation of life in all its forms. It doesn’t matter that the replicants aren’t human, they clearly exhibit they have the same capacity for humanity

Wrong again. Scott says he's a replicant who the fuck are you lol.

I know