Blade Runner Ending Explained: Is Deckard a Replicant?

There's one question about Ridley Scott's Blade Runner that audiences have debated for decades: Is Harrison Ford's character, Rick Deckard, a Replicant? In time for the sequel, Blade Runner 2049, we explain the ending of the original.
Sign up to our email newsletter for exclusive updates: bit.ly/2oVVB1Q
If you like this video, subscribe to our KZbin channel for more: / screenprism
Like ScreenPrism on Facebook: / screenprism
Follow ScreenPrism on Twitter: / screenprism
Visit ScreenPrism.com: screenprism.com/

[@Carmai7]

It doesn't matter, because all these analyzes will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

[@jf_iskindabored]

dabs internally

[@agentsmith4735]

Rip

[@archerj.maggott1372]

If Deckard is a replicant, does that mean the unicorn in his dream is electric?

[@bartacomuskidd775]

thick milky

[@JohnnytNatural]

Deckard was not a replicant but then Scott changed him to be one so he can look smart. Scott's always changes thing after the fact. Just look at Alien and Prometheus.

[@mortalterminus]

To me, the film is far more impactful if Deckard is a human. It also makes the scene of Batty saving Deckard more poignant, as it shows that a replicant can show more compassion/humanity than an actual human.

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

The one "showing compassion" is Batty, though. Deckard doesn't do anything except allow himself to be saved. He's completely passive. It's better if Deckard is a human because you have a Replicant--who's not supposed to be human--showing a "real" human how to be human (again). It's almost like a miracle that a "machine" can awaken a person's dormant humanity. You lose all that if Deckard is a Replicant because then you can suspect that Batty simply saved him because they were fellow Replicant bros or something. That's not nearly as powerful, imo.

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

Heh....well I'm with you. I mean, I like the idea of toying with people in a 'Dickian" fashion. But I think he should definitely ultimately be human.

[@helanordela8068]

Same. Read somewhere about this huge conflict between Ford and Scott. Scott wanted the movie as a neo-noir style with the sax music and a bitter hero in fedora hat of Humphrey Bogart's type, while Ford hated the voiceover and happy ending. And in 1982 theatrical release Ford's character was a human with no evidence of replicant thing. But years later since the conflict was not really over and Ford insisted his character as a human being it seems to me that Scott came up to the idea of replicant just to make the last punch. Like "you want him to be human, no way, he's a replicant now, ha-ha!" Even though it ruined the whole point of the movie that a replicant an be more human that the human.

[@sjames5027]

Deckard is human, which is why Batty beats him to a pulp very easily. He isn't Human because of the Book, the book is completely different to the movie not least because Rosen isn't killed. Blade Runner is pure Freemasonic occult propaganda about their "Fifth Age" New Order. Many Hollywood movies are such occult allegories, and yet most still don't get it even though Hollywood is now getting very overt as we approach their so called Fifth Age. Some symbolism in the movie was esoteric, but other symbolism is so obvious everyone should spot it, but it usually flies over the head of even the religious. Hollywood is full of occultist Freemasons who follow something called "The Mystery School" religion. The entire start of the first Blade Runner movie was occult symbolism, the eye symbolism that runs throughout the whole movie. The two uncapped pyramids represented the eyes of Horus looking at you. The wounded left eye (slightly set back with a green/blue light) symbolizes Destruction, Evil, the Moon, while the Right Eye represents Creation, Good, Sun, God. Who lives in the right eye Pyramid that of course is on the left of the screen? Eldon Tyrell (Elder God), the "Maker". During the sequence we actually see a left eye for a couple of seconds to instruct those who are clued in what the Pyramids represented. And in the end the way Tyrell is Murdered also identifies him as God. Horus has his left eye gouged out and lives, so Ridley has both of Tyrell's eyes gouged out to put the creator down for Good. The movie is about the death of God in the new age, the occultists "Fifth age of man". It starts with the "replicants", who symbolize fallen angels, falling to earth unseen in a Shuttle. Unlike in the book where the androids were poor imitations of the authentic human, the "replicants" are supermen, in fact Ridley said his replicants were "Supermen who couldn't fly", a good description for fallen angels. They then move to kill their Creator. But Tyrell hasn't just created the Supermen, he's created two other beings that for reasons left unexplained in the movie as it would ruin the allegory, don't have super powers. These two, Deckard and Rachel, represent Adam and Eve, also created by "The Maker" but devoid of superpowers. In the end we see the fallen angel Batty (The Light that burns so very brightly/Lucifer/Prometheus) "freeing" Deckard and Rachel, who represent the human race, from the Maker. This is the philosophy of the Mason's mystery school religion, which you can learn about in this video ''MajestyTwelve - William Cooper: Hour of the Time Broadcasts 1998- Bill of Rights Null and Void''. You will also note that another Scott movie, Legend, is a similar story. Jack and Lily (or Lilith?), Adam and Eve, live in a forest paradise (Eden). But Eve lures Adam to a tree where a Satan character, Darkness, teaches them Evil is necessary (there can be no good without evil). A lesson the scrolling text instructs the watching children from the start. And once they are freed from innocence, they happily leave the forest. Pretty simple obvious message. Blade Runner was a complete Freemason message about their planned Fifth Age, the end of the old religion with the death of God. But perhaps because a young audience might not watch the original B.lade Runner or maybe because they have something else to say, God had to be resurrected in 2049. The God character gets a new face and name, Wallace, whose name means Foreign New Man for some reason. He is blind as his eyes were previously gouged out. They also included the plot device of the "Black Out". As God's Right Eye (Eye of Horus/ Sun) was blinded, so the lights went out and the two uncapped pyramids no longer have beams of blue light for the right eye and green/blue for the injured left. Unlike the previous movie, they're super overt, God's home is called Heaven, his creations, Angels, and he states he wants to "Storm and Retake Eden". 2049, opening up with a right eye for creation, the creation of replicants, had a different message. Even though a genetic engineer could easily copy the reproductive process from man, Wallace can't for plot convenience. God is now a transhuman machine (there's a reason for that, not enough space to explain why here) and has lost his creative powers with his right eye gone. The land has become infertile, supported by machines like he is, and he seeks the Mystery of the "Miracle" of child birth. We will have to see the next Blade Runner movie to understand the purpose of this strange occult message they're pushing there. God is going to die again, but this time he'll probably be replaced by a new God/ a new order. The Daughter of Deckard and Rachel, Adam and Eve, represents the "New Man" the human race will supposedly give birth to (the Elite will see to it) in the fifth age, what the Elite wants to replace us with. Like the God character, Snoke, was dispensed in the second movie of that other allegory with a similar message, Star Wars the Last Jedi, so will Wallace be disposed, his death won't be the climax

[@fireinthesky657]

I agree

[@kurthines8874]

Roy Batty says "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe." Roy believes that Deckard is a real human.

[@jakegraham3758]

Correct and Roy is so ahead of his replicant contemporaries that he’d be able to spot one of his own

[@vipersuphere]

I agree

[@jothishprabu8]

That's what he believes

[@abloogywoogywoo]

I think he's seen Deckard's file after killing Tyrell - a Nexus 7, implanted with the memories of a deceased Blade Runner, a legendary professional marksman, who retired many replicants. As Batty keeps taunting Deckard as the "man" and wanting to know what's he's made of i.e. putting him to the test of old model vs new.

[@vipersuphere]

abloogywoogywoo no way unless maybe he had hard copies in his room or something i dont think hed have enough time to hackninto the network and know

[@cryoladd8225]

I feel like Roy Batty saved Deckard because he was bearking away from his programming. He is made for combat. Made to kill. But in saving Deckard he overcomes his programming and truly becomes human.

[@kjrbdm]

Cryo Ladd that’s brilliant

[@Icecreamforcrowtoo]

Exactly. The replicants are specifically designed to NOT be human (i.e. they lack empathy). So you can't say we're "all the same" like some people are doing in these comments. "Aw gee shucks folks, we're all human!" No! No! No! That utterly trivializes the film. The replicants, miracles like Batty aside, are clearly different because they're MADE to be different. They're made for task X and task Y and are programmed to not be human but to function as machines. Only Roy Batty at the end of the film as he was nearing death showed any signs of "going beyond" his programming and becoming human or being "the same" as a human. The rest had emotions, sure. But so does a deer or a pig. That doesn't make them human. Roy actually acquired a sense of legitimate disinterested empathy and compassion and possibly acquired a soul as a result (represented by the dove). The people trying to turn the message of the film into a humanist one are missing the boat, I think.

[@smallies7154]

TIME TO DIE

[@tracymetherell8744]

Exactly, he is more human than human in every way.

[@Malt454]

I think Batty might have spared Deckard because he suspected that he might be another replicant, and so he wouldn't rob him of whatever time he had left.

[@strangelee4400]

"Is Deckard a Replicant?" Is the wrong question everybody asks. The actual question the movie portrays is 'Does it matter'?

[@abloogywoogywoo]

No, the question is "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" obviously. Seriously though, Nexus 7 blurs the line between the real and the artificial and makes us all question "what is human?"

[@elizabethrose3703]

Honestly I have to write a short essay on whether or not hes a replicant, but everytime I watch the movie that's all I can think about. It's a question about what really makes a human a human. Is it morality? Is it flesh and blood? I'm scared that is too off topic for me to write about.

[@strangelee4400]

@@elizabethrose3703 I think it is the very essence of the topic. What defines 'Human'.

[@thesorrow4664]

🤯

[@kilgoretrout475]

I always thought that this ambiguity was exactly the point Scott was trying to make - it's impossible to know whether he's a replicant or not, and the point is that it doesn't actually matter - the fact that it's so ambiguous shows there's virtually no difference between human and replicant anyway

[@ranearia]

Agree, it didn't matter in the end, because it was the discover and rediscovering of humanity

[@johnmatrix3664]

Thank you! I've always been baffled why people don't seem to get this.

[@Bitmongol]

Agree. I see it as a comment on any kind of system that places higher "value" on any group of people. Taking it further I get a sense of nihilism from the story. Most noticeably from Roy's monologue "All these moments.."

[@Nautilus1972]

It's not "impossible" to know, it's explicitly explained in the DC.

[@Arigator2]

Its not really Scott. Its Phillip K Dick. He has a lot of stories about replicants. Impostor is an underrated movie its about aliens who are infiltrating earth with replicants that seek out targets and explode. The main character spends most of the movie denying he's a replicant. (also based on a Phillip K Dick story)

[@misterquantum9840]

"I don't care." - Harrison Ford

[@christan9812]

that was the response of Tommy Lee Jones talking to Harrison in The Fugitive.

[@HealthySkepticism1775]

No it wasn't. It was the one armed man!

[@HealthySkepticism1775]

@@seang2700 What did you think of 2049?

[@logicaldude3611]

@@seang2700 lol it's a great movie, not sure what you're talking about. The joke is that Harrison Ford almost always seems completely indifferent in real life to the characters he plays in some of his most famous movies.

[@fleadoggreen9062]

It’s ok if he doesn’t care, but he should be cooler to the fans of the movie and say , “I don’t care, but honestly I don’t know either “ I guess it’s open to interpretation, or he is a one off replicant, like they only made one in his style?

[@1R0QU012]

Deckard is human. The replicants dream of real creatures, deckard dreams of unicorns. Also, they have 4 year life spans. Deckard is in the sequel 2049.

[@danb4900]

Rachel is proof thay Tyrell can create longer lifespan Replicants

[@bartacomuskidd775]

Deckard is a replicant. theres a dozen things. Personally.. my favorite, its Holden has an attraction to Treasure Island. Deckard, Quotes Treasure Island, Joe has read Treasure Island.

[@pedrolanna1551]

@@danb4900 If Rachel died from childbirth, she died on 6.10.21, less than 3 years after the end of Blade Runner. If you take the Final Cut as the definitive version, according to Ridley Scott, there is no happy ending. It's implied that they are both replicants with less than 4 years to live and, just like any human, will try to live however long they have while they can. If you take the original theatrical release, we know the studio demanded a happy ending, and so they both probably live indefinitely. For the 2049 story to work, Deckard has to either be human or a replicant with indefinite lifetime, which rules out the "official" Ridley Scott version. Personally, I find it better to have and ambiguous ending, undetermined whether he is human or a replicant. Not only this should satisfy everyone's opinions, but also point out the essence of the movie, "is he a replicant, is he human, if there's no difference, should it matter?" The truth is, just like replicants are not special, neither are humans.

[@YungBeezer]

Dan if Deckard is a replicant then he was created before Tyrell created Rachel, a replicant with an open ended lifespan. Deckard would expire before the events of 2049 if he was an inferior model replicant to Rachael.

[@bartacomuskidd775]

@@YungBeezer Gaf knew Deckards dreams. Not only that.. he let him know, he is a hunted man, with the warning at his doorstep. "Too bad she wont live.. But who does." Whose to say how old Deckard is, with a a head full of old police memories.

[@uglybastard7940]

i think i prefer deckard being human. for as a human he changes as a character and learns that replicants lives have as much value as those of humans. in turn we, the audience connected with deckard, start to reevaluate what we consider alive or human. if deckard is a replicant then we have learnt nothing, its just a twist for the sake of a twist, plus we already have rachel as the replicant who shows us that there is no big difference between a replicant and a human and who is shocked to learn she isnt human. im probably wrong though... ''sigh''

[@xBINARYGODx]

WRT to his views of replicants, it's less important whether he is or isn't, and more important that he thinks/believes he is human. If it turns out at the end, based on interpretation, that he realizes that he is one too, I don't think that makes his previous "I thought I was human" behavior and less telling or important (or the change in view).

[@Engel990]

Thank you, you just explained the beauty of the source material.

[@YourBigRosie]

Honestly, I would find Deckard being human and seeing and empathizing with someones pain who he once viewed as lesser more impactful over the existential crisis of possibly not being really, well, real

[@blankname6629]

YourBigRosie especially after seeing 2049 I think he is human.

[@bigbluemonkeyx]

The fact that we even ponder the question is exactly what makes Blade Runner so interesting. Does it matter if he's a human or a replicant?

[@acespectre5461]

I’m so happy seeing most people here think Decard is human. The idea of him possibly being a replicant is best left ambiguous at most.

[@Cryptonymicus]

The only person who thinks Deckard was a replicant is Ridley Scott and he didn't think so till ten years after the film was in the can and he didn't know how to dramatize a mystery -- which is why Deckard had so much narration, and, in early versions of the script, had even MORE narration. So frankly I wouldn't pay any attention to what Scott has to say. Look at how Harrison Ford played the character. Look at how easily Pris ("a standard pleasure model") kicked Deckard's butt.

[@peakdennis1]

I prefer Decard being human as it makes Roy saving him and also him running away with Rachel way more impactful but unfortunately the final cut having the unicorn dream and gaffs unicorn origami was definitive evidence he's a replicant. In the book he's human, in Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 he is a replicant. People need to accept it.

[@TheGreatMunky]

I think the unicorn sequence is just Deckard remembering watching the unicorn scene in the 1985 Ridley Scott film Legend.

[@smallies7154]

lol

[@Sawlon]

Good one! Haha!

[@beejeepacha]

Blade runner was released in 1982.

[@MrZebrawr]

@@beejeepacha But set in 2019, so he could have watched it still

[@malik87breaker]

Lmao

[@planesrift]

He's a repliCAN, not a repliCANT.

[@leefox5596]

planesrift yes well done, we seen the review too

[@88feji]

I've always suspected they are pelicants ! Stealing our fishes !

[@uprsng44]

End he fuljoing but never endjoyed

[@Garrus1995]

I thought Roy saving Deckard had nothing to do with a personal rule regarding not killing other replicants. Roy wanted to live a long and full life, but at that point he realized that that was impossible. By saving Deckard, Roy ensured that someone would be around to remember him, which also explains the "Tears in rain" monologue (he tries to get Deckard to understand that what little life he had still meant a great deal to him). By saving his life, Roy will continue to live on in Deckard's memory.

[@wendaltvedt4673]

That's a good theory. I always assumed he didn't kill Deckard because he knew he was about to die and didn't want to die alone. Even if that meant dying with someone hired to kill him.

[@KillaSin515]

Good theory. If Deckard is really a replicant then you can also say that after Roy saved his life and gave him the speech he came to the conclusion that he was himself a replicant. So he went looking for Rachel to save her. When he found the origami unicorn he knew Gaff knows that he is a replicant. How did Gaff know? Maybe he did help in creating Deckard with the unicorn dreams and maybe he knew the real legendary Blade Runner named Rick Deckard.

[@christopherstock5280]

@@wendaltvedt4673 That is really interesting. He also may have wanted someone there to share his final thoughts. I always thought he realized how precious life was since his was about to end.

[@christopherstock5280]

That is a really beautiful thought. This final scene will have more impact next time I watch it.

[@maxm.m.7219]

@@KillaSin515 Something that just came to mind is that Gaff's origami was perhaps another taunt, and added to his statement that she won't live long (despite the fact that she's a Nexus 7 model that has an undetermined life-span). A way to say that what Deckard was imagining was just fantasy, and that he cannot make a happy life for himself and Rachael. It was also a way to tell Deckard that he needn't worry about getting pursued by Gaff.

[@joostisabelle]

Deckard = Descartes "I think, therefore I am." ... "My dreams, pain and fears are real. That makes me as human as you guys, please let me live."

[@davidlean1060]

But that is, in actual fact, a misquote. I think, therefore I am is not the end of the argument Descartes was having. He goes on to say, 'but I doubt that I think' and then concludes his arguement with the declaration, '..but I cannot doubt that I doubt'. So, strictly speaking, the quote should be 'I doubt, therefore I am'.

[@Jjrmtv]

aways chokes me up when Roy speaks his last words... poetry! Sort of the same line with Hamlet, "Remember me."

[@brianogilby7220]

Well Roy Battys a Shakespearian tragedy type figure like Hamlet.

[@CarSVernon]

There is no poetry whatsoever in him speaking his last words if they are to a fellow replicant.

[@Necronauta_]

RIP Rutger Hauer

[@110110pab]

Rutger actually came up with that piece of dialogue and proposed it to R. Scott, for Roy's last scene in the film. And I think it's one of the reasons this film is such a masterpiece. RIP Rutger, you're greatly missed.

[@edumaker-alexgibson]

@@CarSVernon Surely, the reverse? A machine, designed as a tool for combat, becomes aware of himself, his own mortality, learns all his creators know about his own design, loves and grieves for his fellow creatures, commits premeditated murder of his creator - and it is truly murder - then as his final hours tick down, he is torn between initially avenging his lost friends, but then showing another machine what it is to be alive, to be afraid for its own life, and then to save it, only so that he can truly communicate the depth of his awareness and experience before it is lost. To me that's at least as poetic as a machine communicating the same to a de-sensitised human? A spark of life is passed either way.

[@theejcookproductions]

According to the original theatrical release - Deckard is Human. Harrison Ford is sticking to the original. Ridley Scott was being swayed by fan theories to a point where he got swept into the fame of his fan-proclaimed genius twist ending and later made Deckard a replicant. In my opinion, Deckard (protagonist) is a human and that's why this story is so touching to us (audience connection to what is left of his humanity in an inhuman world).

[@peterribolli8300]

"Time to die" RIP. R.H 2019

[@mattemery4081]

Thats abit of a fucked thing to say

[@QuasiELVIS]

Who is r h?

[@devonmarr9872]

QuasiELVIS Rutger Hower. The replicant who died of age in the film which takes place in 2019 also died in the real year 2019

[@ivorbiggun710]

Before the various re-cuts and the insertion of the unicorn footage I always thought the origami unicorn that Gaff made was a metaphor for Rachel, that she was unique and special, like a unicorn, and a symbol of why he didn't kill her when he had the chance.

[@JFTL81]

Ivor Biggun Exactly how I felt. Or it could have been a little less interesting than that and just have been a coincidence that Gaff made an origami unicorn. Either way, Gaff spared Rachel because he sympathized with Deckard, especially after the ordeal he went through hunting down the replicants and fighting Roy. The “theories” in this video are reaching so hard.

[@Malt454]

No, Gaff's origami reflects his ideas about Deckard (too "chicken" to take the job, "big dick" investigator and finally a tin foil unicorn, a creature that doesn't exist in nature). Th efirst two are made of paper, the third made of tinfoil once Gaff knows Deckard is artificial.

[@bathombre9739]

It's obvious he is human, his strength and agility are normal. He could not lift himself up at the end and had to be saved. He would have known by experience if he had super strength

[@davidhawley3337]

Yes. He's a strong, tough guy, but not at all superhuman.

[@Malt454]

In order to do the job they want him to do, Deckard has to believe first that he's human, which is why he can't be given extraordinary strength or agility.

[@bigfootmm]

Roy says, ". . . you people ..." to Deckard. Would Roy say that to another replicant? He spared Deckard because he saw how Deckard struggled to stay alive, which aligned him with Roy's own struggle.

[@davidhawley3337]

Yes.

[@marcguimaraes]

The beauty is, The director leaves to you to choose. It is a masterpiece that as far as I can see it will never be overthrown.

[@despacitodaniel801]

Pulp fiction briefcase

[@mariog1490]

2049 answer bud

[@franksanchez8111]

Except in the interviews where the director says that he IS a replicant

[@davidlean1060]

@@franksanchez8111He says it In one interview with Mark Kermode. He made an hour long special years ago called On The Edge Of Blade Runner. You'll find it on YT if you look for it.

[@osvaldorubalcava9721]

Looking at it from an objective standpoint he is not a replicant due to physical differences which is the only way to know what’s an Android since the movie gives so little information. Everything else is just bad plot holes

[@yensid4294]

So much of Philip K. Dick's work centers around a protagonistic not knowing what is real or not & questioning reality. The novel Bladerunner was based on is no different. The replicants being hunted down isn't even a big part of the book, it's about how the earth is literally dying & turning to dust & everyone left on earth is a reject whose been lied to by the government. I actually enjoyed the movie better.

[@just-a-random-person-on-utube]

Same, i know the book was very important, but i just couldn't really get into it, maybe i should've read it before watching the movie

[@yensid4294]

Primo , I saw the film long before I ever read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, & I've often wondered if reading the book after or before seeing a screen adaptation influences me one way or the other. In this case, they took a couple ideas from the source material but the stories & themes are entirely different. In the movie you have sympathy for the synthetic humans, not so much in the book. And the whole earth dying, everyone is sterile angle is abandoned in the movie. As a whole I've just enjoyed the screen adaptations of Dick's novellas more than I've enjoyed the reading of the original short stories & novellas. Maybe the films have just been more visual & the plots trimmed down? Not exactly sure why. His writing is somewhat difficult to follow...

[@averroesthecommentator2989]

I read the book before watching the film, and, for me, Deckard's life as a bounty hunter and hunting down andy's was just as, if not more, impactful as it was in the movie. He ends up struggling a lot due to his experiences with hunting down the Nexus 6 models about whether or not they're actually living.

[@yensid4294]

Averroes The Commentator, you know I read the book about 2 years ago & couldn't even remember what Deckard's official occupation was. What stands out in my memory is his wife being consumed with that weird device & the odd religious experience it gave, the omnipresent TV show, & the fact that all life on earth was sterile from radiation ... (?) I do remember Deckard almost being paranoid over who was human & who wasnt, even unsure if he himself was. And I remember the girl destroying his pet android sheep that he kept on the roof. Weird what sticks with you. I don't remember Deckard "retiring" any replicants. I need to reread that book apparently. Did you favor one over the other?

[@averroesthecommentator2989]

In terms of them philosophically, I definitely enjoyed the book more... probably because it discusses the same ideas in the movie and more (with all that other stuff such as Mercerism, as you mentioned) but I will agree that the movie was better in some aspects such as the final confrontation, which was much more climactic in the movie than it was in the books, as well as Roy and Pris' backstories with having been slaves (andys are used as slave labor in the book too, but we only ever know of, specifically, Roy as having been a pharmacist and nothing before, so we can only assume he escaped his master earlier by himself or something). (Also, not all life was sterile from radiation! John R. Isidore was though, since he's a special) I saw some (what seemed to me) pretty clear parallels between the book and movie when he was hunting down the replicants: Zhora was supposed to be Luba Luft (they're both performers, the way Rick confronts her is similar in both, etc.), Leon was supposed to be Polokov (he suddenly surprises Rick and attacks him in both, although I *did* find it shock me more in the book since at first Dick had us believing that it was a Soviet police agent then revealed than he was actually an android), and Roy, Pris, Rachael, Rick, etc. were obviously all more direct. The book just spent a lot more time talking about them philosophically and the type of effect that killing the Nexus 6's was having on Rick, like how he regretted killing Luba Luft and how the world would've been better off with her even though she was an android. In terms of the sheer amount of bounty hunting he does, I'd even argue that the book and movie are roughly equal, although the movie was (obviously) more action packed and that the confrontations made up a much larger *percentage* of the movie than they did in the book. Still, the view that hunting down the androids was a *minor* or *secondary* thing to Mercerism and animals in the book is a misinterpretation. The book just spent much more effort in reflecting and evolving Rick's moral and empathetic responses to his experiences than the movie. I still view the book as the primary medium, even though the movie is more famous, and still base most of my interpretation of the movie off of the book since there's just so much more that the book goes into that the movie had no where near enough time to cover.

[@michaelhorning6014]

Harrison Ford is right, and Ridley Scott is wrong.

[@EsteamedLobster]

Michael Horning you’re right, it really is just that simple.

[@gutspraygore]

You guys are way over thinking this. Keep in mind, when the movie was released Deckard was definitely NOT a replicant and the main point of the story was if you could make something that was so human that you couldn't tell the difference then is not actually human... or does it not deserve to be? This, already, was heavy thinking on the part of the audience. Implying that Deckard was a replicant so many years later is just ironic fluff. This works as a Greek tragedy, but raises a ton of more questions that render the main narrative totally stupid. The Tyrell corporation created a replicant to hunt replicants? Ok lets explore that... doesn't pan out the way the story goes. (I can go on about this if anyone is game.) The unicorn imagery is used by Scott again in another film to represent light. It could just symbolically represent that here as well. Knowledge, illumination, maybe even love. But to argue the point would just get back into a whole bunch of "could'ves" I don't care what Ridley Scott says so many years after the fact. He's a consummate bullshit artist despite the amazing things he's done.

[@desafortunato]

I agree, making Deckard a replicant kind of invalidates the central themes of the movie. RLM addresses this in the Blade Runner Re:view episode, if you're interested.

[@Jester123ish]

Not to mention we know they can implant memories, but where has it ever been established that they implant specific day dreams? To what purpose? The Unicorn is not a memory and Gaff therefore can't know about it, the origami is co-incidence. No reason both Deckard and Gaff might not have the same imagery come to mind, Gaff might be saying that Deckard and Rachael spending a life together is a fantasy.

[@SNoone89]

@Ron Maimon no it isn't. The screenwriter didn't even want him as a replicant. Scott went behind everyone's backs to insert the unicorn footage that was test footage from Legend in post production. The studio agreed with the screenwriter and asked him to then cut it. No one on set wanted Deckard to be a replicant.

[@ivorbiggun710]

Having read Future Noir by Paul Sammon (a beautifully a researched and fascinating book) I don't remember there being any arguments with the studio about changing Dekkard from replicant to human. Most of the issues were concerning the audience not being able to understand the story (according to the studio) and the insertion of the VO and happy ending. Admittedly it was a long time ago that I read it.

[@ABT212]

If Deckard's a replicant he's a Nexus 1 hunting Nexus 6s and he doesn't stand a chance. Deckard being a replicant is just plain impossible.

[@Nexus9_KD6-4.8]

I think the question of whether Deckard is human or replicant might be more important than the answer. There are strong arguments on both sides. Saying that, my opinion is Deckard is human. From a storytelling perspective I think it carries more weight if he is human. From childhood I've always seen Deckard as a human character coming to terms with the fact (by the end of the film) that Replicants are more than just malfunctioning machines, but actually living breathing beings with fears, hopes, and desires just like natural humans. To me Deckard represents a naive humanity in the first film, and humanity in general in both films. If Deckard were a replicant, a lot of the growth the character undergoes would be taken away, simply because humanity has learned nothing. It would mostly be a drama between Replicants, aside from some interactions between Bryant and Gaff. I know Ridley Scott has stated on numerous occasions that Deckard is a Replicant, and I'm choosing personally to ignore that. Ridley Scott is a master of cinema, there is no question, but considering some of his recent work, I think it is okay to question his judgment from time to time, as with anyone. One argument presented to me in favor of the Deckard is a replicant theory was simply that Ridley Scott had (and has) creative control, and what he says is what goes. I would like to argue that sometimes the art becomes greater than the artist and that it should be left up to the viewers to decide their own interpretation of Deckard. I view him as human personally, as I feel it makes more sense and fits better with the films. I also feel that officer K's self-sacrifice at the end of BR 2049 carries more weight if Deckard is human. Edit: After completing the video I 100% resoundingly disagree with the assessment that Deckard is a Replicant, but again, to each there own.

[@JohnnyArtPavlou]

Brandon Michels, it’s a richer story if he’s a replicant. I think I resisted the notion up until this moment but I feel that switching over has put me in a place of greater mystery about the human condition.

[@davidhawley3337]

Yes.

[@tallykev6608]

Scott may have decided later that Deckard was a replicant, but clearly he wasn't written that way to begin with. For one, he didn't have the strength of any of the replicants he fought...not even close.

[@bigcity2085]

Dam good point. Plus Roy tells him, you people have no idea what i've seen. I go for human.

[@MartinMShorty]

Neither did Rachel

[@justlilyanne]

I thought from the first camera frame on Deckard he was a replicant. Just something in the way he was posed as if he were brand new. As many times as I've seen these movies and all of the various releases I never changed my mind.

[@MariWakocha]

I think it's really beautiful that Ford didn't think he was a Replicant. Talk about another layer, and I think it really confuses audiences more too, since his performance is based on him being human, while the script is based on him being one.

[@Rekaert]

I too tend to fall on the side of Deckard being a Replicant, though it doesn't really matter. There are so many versions of Blade Runner, you can pretty much pick the version that you consider works best. The two things for me are of course the Unicorn/Gaff connection which pretty much slaps the audience in the face with the realisation, and Deckard's nod of understanding seems to back it up. The other one is Deckard's collection of sepia photos, which of course is a habit that Replicants tend to form. His piano is covered with them, and with them being sepia this is Scott's way of telling us very simply that they're of nobody Deckard knows personally. So why keep them? It just makes sense to me that Gaff is the Blade Runner, and it's his skill, experience and memory that has been implanted into Deckard. It was Gaff whose marriage broke down, who was referred to as cold fish by her, and due to his disability can no longer continue in his role, but can act as a handler for the disposable Deckard, which explains him shadowing Deckard pretty much through the entire film and his clear disdain for him, considering that this Replicant is now doing Gaff's job. It's a step down for Gaff that he probably finds quite insulting. Add to that, not just the Unicorn, but all three Origami models he makes seems to suggest he knows how Deckard his feeling. His fear at taking the job, his attraction to Rachel, and finally the dream he keeps having. It has a symmetry to it that I quite like. But, as I say it doesn't really matter. The film plays well a number of ways, and despite Ridley's clear assertion that Deckard is a Replicant, there is enough ambiguity there to cater to all. The sequel kept the ambiguity going too, so it's all good. Replicant, human - a damn fine film whichever way you go.

[@youngwolf6896]

And that’s the films greatest success that it works multiple ways

[@TheChuckers123]

This channel is truly a gem! Love the videos.

[@RevanDarth4000]

Scott laughs after both times saying that Deckard is a replicant. He's having a laugh.

[@arekp8880]

Scott fucked up his own work by suggesting that Deckard is replicant. Whats the point of Batty`es speach if he addressing it to the replicant. Thats the whole point that Batty shows Decard that a replicant can be more human that human (which is also a motto of the tyrrel corp.) Scott is the second Lucas who fucks up his own legacy by altering his own work, sad :(

[@TheHikeChoseMe]

exactly, and scott re-edited and re-released the movie like 7 times to TRY to get that replicant idea to fit..it doesn't and he ruined the movie imo.

[@viniciobusani]

Replicants have "basical" emotions, quite infantile and bipolar. Roy Betty is crying then he is furious two seconds later. Leon is numb and attached at his photographs. Pris is glacial. Rachel is fragile. Deckard no, he is human. He has a lot of tones of gray in his personality. If it was an old nexus model, he could not have this complexity

[@ModeratelyAmused]

I just took it as Deckard was seeking out his own personal unicorn which was Rachel and the origami unicorn was letting Deckard know, "I know about her but will walk away." Deckard's nod, being a thank you to Goff.

[@jarnokorhonen3840]

Exactly.

[@88feji]

YOu can interprete the movie anyway you want even though its not what the director's intentions .... thats the beauty of movies .... but it will be considered your personal wishful thining ... I personally finds Ridley Scott's intention for Deckard being replicant to be a genius touch .... its how the movie differentiates itself from the source novel, even the novel's author said the deviation is a stroke of genius. Its really poetry the way Ridley Scott uses a simple origami to reveal the big twist, such a simple detail yet such a big reveal ....one of the greatest and most elegantly contructed reveal in movie history ...

[@kf8113]

Nobody seems to acknowledge the possibility that Deckard is a human but was the subject from which his memories were taken, much like Tyrell's niece. That's what I believe.

[@jonsnowight9510]

Ive told no fewer than a dozen friends and family members to subscribe to this channel and videos like this are the reason why. Another outstanding analysis and explanation, as always. Plus, the narrator's voice is hypnotic. I think i make that comment on every Screen Prism video...Lol

[@thetake]

Haha, you're a star! Thanks for being such a great supporter of the channel. We appreciate it so much

[@jonsnowight9510]

ScreenPrism As long as that wonderful narrator keeps guiding me through labyrinthine concepts like those explained here and continues delving into the deep symbolism of Game of Thrones, I will be a loyal and, dare I say, evangelical supporter of Screen Prism. I would likelt continue to watch if she were no longer a part of the repertoire, but i think it best not to try that particular scenario. ...lol

[@oppasaranhae]

That is a really well made review. Thank you

[@lindapruitt2656]

Rutger's scene on the roof in the rain made me cry..his best work! That soliloquy offers us the theme of the film. One of the most beautiful films I've ever seen on the big screen. Exquisite Hello, Decker isn't killed because Roy dies...note how he begins to lock up and lose control of his muscles..."time to die" refers to himself not Decker. Surprised they don't realize that in remarks.

[@alisterfolson]

Excelent vlog...all aspects of the question have been examined

[@colinferguson7400]

I'm a new subscriber and I LOVE your videos. I watch a lot of video essays and the like about pop culture and your perspective and insight are refreshing. Also, your sound mixing is on point! I listen to so many podcasts and other movie/tv show breakdowns and I get tired of all these deep voices hammering my eardrums. Props to your whole team for making this channel happen!

[@colinferguson7400]

A few weeks ago I watched Blade Runner (Final Cut) for the first time, and visually and aurally it earns the title masterpiece, but I actually thought the script was a little shaky and at times, comically bad. My wife and I both laughed out loud at Roy's final line, "Time to die" and we thought the sex scene with Rachael was pretty rapey. I sort of wasn't that impressed with it plot-wise. I had absorbed some tidbits of the plot of the film from online discussions, and I thought going in that Deckard's dubious status as a Replicant would be a major focus of the film, only to find that there was basically that one line from Rachael, asking if he had taken the Voight-Kampf test himself, that really addressed it. However, this video made me rethink it in a lot of ways, and you pointed out a ton of clues that were totally lost on me. In retrospect, I didn't really understand the purpose of Deckard's unicorn vision (though I have a feeling 99.99% of first-time watchers didn't either) and I didn't connect it to the origami unicorns. TL;DR, you have inspired me to give Blade Runner another watch with my thinking cap on, and I love your channel. My request for a movie you should watch and dissect is Princess Mononoke. Cheers!

[@thetake]

Thank you, that is so awesome to hear! We put a lot of sweat and love into each video so it's great to know that it's noticed. Thanks so much for watching. Please spread the word to your friends!

[@thetake]

Agreed, that sex scene especially feels very uncomfortable to watch. It will be interesting to see how 2049 updates the story.

[@schwarzweiesschaaf6029]

If you read the script you'll see that Deckard was designed as a replicant. At the end Deckards voice-over says: "We were brothers, Roy Batty and I! Combat models of the highest order." The tears in rain scene reveals a deeper connection between Deckard and Roy as they feel the same. That's why it actually doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant because Roy feels exactly like a human being. Deckard sees himself in Roy and Roy sees himself in Deckard. "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?"

[@iinmediasres4938]

I think you guys are psychic. I watched Bladerunner for the first time in YEARS just two days ago and immediately came here to see if you guys had done a video on it. Two days ago, there wasn't one, of course, but now there magically is. Mind readers! Thanks for another great video :)

[@thetake]

Hah, that's definitely it, we were reading your mind :-)

[@aalderet]

Terrific. Great interviews as well

[@TunaFreeDolphinMeat]

Another great analysis. The final Director's cut and John Carpenter's The Thing are two of my favorite endings (and films). Replicant or not, Bladerunner forces us to think about our own mortality, the gift of life and our one opportunity to be the best human that we can be.

[@stephenlayland2889]

If Deckard is a replicant, we humans cannot identify directly with him. If Deckard is a replicant, then there is no redemption for any character but Roy Batty, and his saving last act is wasted. Ridley Scott, in declaring Deckard a replicant, was taunting a clueless audience.

[@abloogywoogywoo]

# Deckard would be a brand new model, not older. He's Nexus-7, straight off the production line, like Dave Holden. No superhuman strength, no accelerated aging, nothing to make them question "Am I real?". With implanted memories, bits and pieces of knowledge, of a deceased real Bladerunner, Gaff's partner, hence why he knew all of Deckard's memories and despite his taunting, bonded with him, and spared Rachael and he from being "retired". # He's kept under constant watch from Gaff as the law still stands its illegal to have replicants on Earth. Of course, they're making an exemption for them. This is their trial run, to see if they are stable or not, to be safe around humans or not. If he steps out of line, Gaff will retire him. # Deckard had no knowledge whatsoever of Nexus-6, and had to be briefed on their makeup. As a veteran Bladerunner, hell, as a supposed human being not living under a rock for the past several years, of course he'd know what they are. So he's brand new. # Brian already knew there was a "Nexus-6" waiting for him at the Tyrell Corp. Impossible for him know, unless their meeting was pre-planned ahead of time, which brings us to; # The Voight-Kampff test scene was Tyrell testing not Rachael, the Nexus-7 prototype, but Deckard himself, and sure enough, he passed. He wasn't in the least bit perturbed by the questions meant to provoke emotional responses from Replicants, thus rendering the test worthless to identify the latest "more human than human" model. # Roy spared Deckard, when he did not spare his makers, for he feels sympathy for a more advanced replicant that doesn't even know what it truly is.

[@ALLinALLgood]

Yes, IMO you nailed it. Finally, in year 2019 I get the perfect explanation that fits well with Rick Deckard still alive in Blade Runner 2049.

[@ivorbiggun710]

But how would Roy know?

[@collectorduck9061]

Absolute hogwash

[@ALLinALLgood]

*Ivor Biggun* My guess: Sebastian told Pris a newer model Nexus was created to hunt rouge older Nexus models. Pris then informed Roy.

[@ohwow3063]

Except he was already hunting Nexus 5's before the movie took place. I don't think Tyrell would create the Nexus 5's, jump ahead to Nexus 7's for Deckard, and then for some reason downgrade back to the Nexus 6's.

[@aryanvyas2981]

I ADORE THIS MOVIE!! Thank you for such an amazing video this is easily the best video I've seen on this movie. Great work as always.

[@roccosmama192]

You Ladies are Awsome! So Happy I found your channel!!

[@greysuit17]

The glowing eyes were a mistake. They weren’t meant to shine in Harrison Ford’s eyes.

[@CarSVernon]

but how convenient were they for a lame backpedal years later tho?

[@zoso73]

I remember watching that scene in the theatre when i was 13(?) and my instant reaction was that he is a replicant also. The unicorn day-dream, the origame, "you've done a man's job," the photos on his piano, his non-responsiveness when asked by Rachael if he's self-taken the V-K test ... and the eyes. And Ridley said so.

[@sailorrenek7823]

The unicorn scene was never in the theatre cut.

[@varmine5099]

I think it detracts from the meaning for Deckard to be a replicant, but that's taking the books meanings into account as well, the idea of personality disorders or depression making people more likely to be mistaken for a replicant and such. Deckard seems to be clearly quite depressed in the book so it makes sense for him to be a human I think.

[@williamdrijver4141]

Well made documentary, thanks for the insights and explanations!

[@KingNefiiria]

When I first saw the unicorn as she entered the elevator, I thought "Oh no the elevator is going to blow up or he's hiding in the rafters." I was expecting that sort of tragedy, but then it ends as the doors close, which I actually like more than any of the other cuts I've seen.

[@johnwerner6445]

I think Gaff is the replicant. He knew about the unicorn because he is being implanted with Deckards memories.

[@Sean27007]

this could be a great theory

[@michaelhorning6014]

Makes way more sense than Deckard. Actually a great idea.

[@collectorduck9061]

@@michaelhorning6014 It would also be 100% irrelevant. But it demonstrates the idea that it's impossible to tell replicants and humans apart. Like you would almost need .... a machine... to tell the difference..

[@davegrenier1160]

I hope you're kidding. Because if Gaff was a replicant, one would have to ask, "How does he know it, and how does he know who his dreams come from?" Rachael has memories implanted to fool her into believing she's human. This would be unnecessary for replicants who know what they are, so presumably they wouldn't have such memories. (No evidence in the movie that the replicants being hunted have such memories. At the end, Batty only speaks of memories he has as a replicant.) Rachael has also been deceived because the deception is likely necessary for her to nearly pass for human. Also remember she's an advanced model in order to have these characteristics. Is there any indication that Gaff is one of these models? Deckard doesn't know or believe Gaff is a replicant, but there could be good reason for any pair of cops to know if his partner was a replicant. So it seems far more likely that Gaff is human and knows Deckard is a replicant, than for Gaff to be a replicant and for Deckard to not know, and less likely for Gaff to be an advanced model with implanted memories and yet know he's a replicant (defeating the purpose of the memories).

[@michaelhorning6014]

@@davegrenier1160 Gaff was created using Deckard's memories to be the first replicant blade runner. But something went wrong. He can't close the deal. So they have to call Deckard out of retirement. The unicorn is a refuting dream of Deckard's that Gaff remembers. He may or may not know what he is. The origami could be random, not directed at Deckard.

[@joey4track]

Damn you guys have been putting out some quality content lately, shit that is approaching Wisecrack levels of insight.

[@davidlean1060]

with respect, they plough other essays for info. I spotted a few insights that others came up with long ago. This vid is more a compilation, but one without nods to their original references.

[@highonfire885]

Great video I hope this video gets updated with new movie being out !

[@Domzdream]

Thank u so much for this clip! I'll get Ridley regretted not having just one ending. This debate and mess of all the endings chased him all the way from 1982 to 2007 !! I'm glad he released a final verdict.

[@danortiz]

Batty's speech was improvised.

[@CoinOpTV]

good stuff -- wondering how long it's gonna take to hit that 1 million subs -- if only YT was working properly more people would be watching your videos for sure

[@thetake]

Thanks so much! Please spread the word to your friends.

[@red5llaw]

Harrison Ford is ALWAYS FANTASTIC but Rutger Hauer is awesome. Hauer is a super under-rated actor. His role in Blade Runner is mind blowing. It really deserved recognition. Big-time.

[@Kampela99]

, Darth Vader -effect, bad boys winns our heart, lolz

[@DCMarvelMultiverse]

Deckard has Gaff's memories. He saw a synthetic unicorn or had a dream he remembered.

[@TrustMeIKnowEverything]

How can deckard be a replicant if he is still alive in 2049?

[@peakdennis1]

In 2049 it's stated nexus eight replicants don't have the 4 year life span they have indefinite lifespans. It's possible Deckard was the first ever replicant to be made without a 4 year lifespan and then it was regularly done when making nexus eight replicants. How did Deckard survive all those years in that toxic atmosphere K finds him living in? He's 100 percent replicant imo and tbh I think the first film is more intriguing if he's human but there's just so much more evidence pointing to him being a replicant.

[@souloftheage]

Sean Young was so gorgeous!

[@volumeturneddown9600]

Watching Ryan Gosling in 2049 makes you realize why it was such a twist to think Harrison' Ford's Deckard was a replicant. Ford just has a very expressive, very emotional .. very human face. He uses that wise-guy half smile a lot. He always projects this world-weary "you wouldn't believe the things I've had to do" persona that just doesn't gibe with an android with implanted memories. It was a great performance, but you can tell no one told Harrison Ford to play Deckard as if he was a replicant.

[@SandbagVideos]

Another brilliant analysis. Thanks Susannah & Debra

[@ronaldjohnson7449]

Unicorn ... a unique creature ... one of a kind like Deckard.... a unique replicant ... one without a termination date.

[@petercarioscia9189]

Ronald johnson how could such an advance replicant have been created 20 years before Rachel, the grand experiment?

[@hen913]

I wouldn't say advanced...he doesn't even possess the strength. Like the creators answer...commerce. All the new ones have an expiration date because they aren't built to last. Maybe Deckard was that unicorn experiment they let go. To be honest I've never considered him a replicant, because if he was, we wouldn't be able to relate to him as much, making rachels character obsolete. But these theories are fun.

[@theejcookproductions]

He originally was Human. Ridley wanted to spice it up and changed it later on. Deckard is a human according to the original theatrical premiere. Now...well...he's whatever you want to believe

[@UrHeadsMyTarget]

When the movie starts Deckard is "brought out of retirement" which means he has no direct contact with the police and doesn't seem to have any other human interactions. He most likely has been created for the special task of eliminating the four Replicants and has been created with implanted memories of a blade runner. He's probably the same gen as Rachel.

[@worldprez6655]

Ronald johnson in the original cut the unicorn is gaff in the others its been made into deckard

[@rorywhelan_]

The spider memory of the babies eating their mother, their creator. Also mirrors how the Replicants are going to eventually take over humans, their creator.

[@mac2309zzz]

Great analysis, I may have to agree with you now... Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on 2049

[@hsfhfejtpo5709]

This was good. A lot more things than I'd ever thought about. Thanks.

[@jamesgleyo4470]

I have never click so fast so quick

[@warped1589]

Siti Ulffah fuck outta here

[@rdecredico]

That is not anything to be proud of.

[@severeihne9613]

The "blade runner 2049" suite with an old Deckard definitely confirms that it is NOT a replicant

[@g4macdad]

Nope, the movie clearly states that replicants procreated, and it was a "miracle"... It never said that only 1 was a replicant. How did they know his intimate secret dreams?

[@obscure4847]

Well he wasn't originally (as the screenwriter has said), but then Ridley Scott thought it would be a neato idea if he was.

[@collectorduck9061]

@Ron Maimon Well they kind of just filmed the movie and that neato idea doesn't even really factor into the plot. It works no matter what he is.

[@thenorthremembers4221]

I really think that Deckard himself doesn’t and didn’t know if he was a replicant or not since he never gave it a thought until his last mission. I’ll never ever get sick of watching this masterpiece!

[@darrenkangmusic]

I learned more and more about this film from this analysis. Thank you for mentioning points I've never thought of before.

[@Kruegersbutthole]

If Deckard is a replicant, then how does he have a history with the police department? He's supposedly been there long enough to retire, which would mean he's an older model, probably before they added the shortened lifespan. If that's the case, it would be a lot easier to tell whether or not he's a replicant. Even without the VK test, replicants can be seen with glowing eyes so how would nobody notice a case of that if he's spent several years working with the police, people who are supposed to "retire" the outlawed replicants. Is the chief of police in on it? If so, that would contradict what we know of his character. He certainly sees replicants as inferior and if he was a replicant putting on an act why would he want to be part of those punishing his own kind?

[@withnail-and-i]

He and Gaff are probably prototypes, or maybe one of the only replicant built before the creator chose to set the lifespan chip in them?

[@jlecampana]

Limited life span was something that was introduced for newer models, as a countermeasure in case Replicants went Rogue on their masters.

[@Kruegersbutthole]

And I but again, how would nobody notice a case of his eyes glowing after at least a decade on the force?

[@withnail-and-i]

Ridley Scott has said that the eye glow is an effect intended only for the audience and that characters in the movie can't actually see it. It's more symbolic than pratical. I mean, what's the point of the replicant test otherwise?

[@ChangeChannels_plz]

Yeah this also bothers me i mean i get why they would want him to be a replicant but he obviously has some kinda history, Bryant says "I need the old Blade Runner" he just didnt show up outta no where. unless its all some convoluted secret plot. i mean unless they put some kinda thing where replicants age i dunno it just seems so unlikely but well all see next week

[@GrymsArchive]

I've always looked at it this way: IF Deckard is a Replicant, He's one of the worst models available. All 4 of the Replicant's have no issue putting the beat down on the much weaker Deckard. 3 of the 4 were stopped by being shot. So, IMHO No. Deckard is not a Replicant

[@smallies7154]

@Ron Maimon remember rachel shoots that one android through the head. increased aiming abilities the same as deckard. both were made with that i think

[@CrimFerret]

The Director's Cut version includes a few scenes that really point that direction. The dream about the unicorn and then being handed the origami unicorn impied that was an implanted image. I also think Roy figured it out at the end as well.

[@rickl7024]

CrimFerret i really think decard took the test at the same time he was testing Rachel ,, and he fails it

[@captainjakemerica4579]

Gosh this movie is awesome to analyze and dissect and this question is amazing!!!

[@PyroNexus22]

tbh I don't understand how that's even a question. It's obvious from the film that replicants are more powerful than humans, and we see replicants kicking around Deckard with little to no effort. If he was a replicant, he'd be able to fight back.

[@Espermaschine]

Maybe only the off-world replicants have super strength. After all, they were soldiers, killers, workers (and one prostitute). Rachel on the other hand apparently didnt have any superpowers. Shes a secretary or some sort of personal assistant.

[@PyroNexus22]

yeah, but they said she was an experiment. There's no reason Deckard would be one.

[@withnail-and-i]

Deckard would also be a prototype since he was created before they implemented the lifespan limit

[@PyroNexus22]

And I, where is it said that he was created?

[@PyroNexus22]

Daniel W despite the different models, all 4 replicants he was chasing has shown their exceeding abilities. Rachel, as I understood it, was made to resemble humans and not know she's a replicant. She was probably made very different from them, intentionally weak, and she was kept nearby the creator. There's no reason somebody would make Deckard that way and let him roam around, work for police and whatnot.

[@ivorbiggun710]

Oh bugger. I'm going to have to watch Blade Runner again!!! Quel dommage.

[@lordbiscuitthetossable5352]

I feel that Deckard is human, but the fact that his origin genuinely doesn't matter is the fascinating thing to me. At the start of the story, we see that the Replicants are merely broken machines capable of pale imitation of humanity, yet through exposure to Rachael and Batty either being born with or developing human empathy that the difference between Deckard and his quarry gradually diminishes too practically nothing. To me, Deckard is human but himself is an experiment being conducted on to discover how different. Like in Blade Runner 2049 it's indicated that Rachel is designed to cater to Deckard both on a emotional level and a compatibility level, which, a man and a replicant raising a child would logically be the next step of Replicant evolution, blurring the lines between what is Replicant and human even further. Basically, Tryen is a mad scientist who designs machines and isn't even mad when one returns to kill him. He really is a creator for the sole act of amusement.

[@mitchac123]

i always thought that the mystery was only added when the director's cut was released and carried over to the final cut. the theatrical release never implied that Deckard is a replicant.

[@qtarokujo3694]

could you probably do another Blade Runner video in honor of the late Rutger Hauer?

[@NoTimeLeft_]

Gaff: It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does? They are ALL replicants. All humans left the surface long ago.

[@TheHikeChoseMe]

nier automata?

[@JoJo-dj9ek]

I heard that its too bad that you won't live ... I need to check it back from the Netflix. I automatically thought that is when he realized he was one of them.

[@jeebsy718]

I thought that was just a comment on humanity. We all die too. Everyone dies.

[@polarshift11]

One important detail left out: Deckard did not have the physical strength that the replicants did. Also, Deckard aged from the first Blade Runner, to the next. Thus, he is HUMAN !!!

[@CYLee-kk6kk]

Just watched the final cut in theatre today. I don't think Deckard is a replicant simply because he outlives Rachel and into the 2049. Or if it that is too far-fetched then maybe just focus on Deck's fight scene with Roy, which, I believe, intentionally compares the human (Deck) with the replicant (Roy) in many ways via stylistic juxtapositions (e.g. like their different reactions to physical pain and mental fear, or their views about life). In this fight scene, Deck is way more fragile and weaker (maybe it's one of the reason he is human?) than Roy or even as a replicant (e.g. Deck doesn't successfully jump over to the other rooftop but Roy does so effortlessly; Roy easily breaking Deck's hands; Deck mends his broken fingers in the shower room while Roy uses a nail to "stimulate" his dying body, etc.) Or just pay more attention to the visuals and the tension of its mise-en-scene. You will see how inhumanely "strong" Roy is. Everything Roy does is so mechanical yet elegant (his gymnastics-like jumping is rendered in slow-motion) while Deck is just like a powerless mucous, fallen to the ground (especially after he is saved from falling from the rooftop). Just my opinion~ This film is very good! I hope 2049 can also have a re-release soon!

[@danielwilliamson6180]

If Deckard's a Replicant, why does he age and why doesn't he have a 4 year lifespan?

[@johndawhale3197]

He is a Nexus-7...

[@danielwilliamson6180]

@@johndawhale3197 "It's somewhere close. I can smell it. It's a stick! No, it's not. My god! I'm so jumpy. I thought it was stick! IT IS A STICK!!!" Cat - Red Dwarf

[@88feji]

Deckard and Rachel are experiment models built for observing how they react to having things like implanted memories etc, they do not belong to the slave labour (Roy, Pris etc) line of production models ... so why should anyone assume they will have the same 4 year lifespan ?

[@s.m.whiteII]

Philip Dick created the Deckard character as a human, he wrote the book, that’s settles it for me. Ridley meddling with the cannon of the source material bit him in the box office ass not only here, it did in “Legend” (1986) as well.

[@peakdennis1]

The films are unrelated to the book, there is no cannon between them, if Phillip wrote a sequel to the novel and out of nowhere Decard is proven to be a replicant that would be something to complain about because that would fuck up the first novels cannon as in the first novel he is proven to be human. Whether anyone likes it or not he's a human in the book and a replicant in the movies. I prefer the idea of him being human in the films but I accept that he's a replicant in them even if it makes some of the plot less intriguing. Gaffs unicorn origami is Ridley Scott definitively telling the audience that in his version of this story he's a replicant even if Phillip, Ford or anyone else hates it that way.

[@chrisdjernaes9658]

Beautifully Explained ...

[@leejohnstone3051]

Ridley Scott: Deckard is a replicant but he doesn't know it

[@dottore3870]

It's not important if Deckard is a replicant, but if he's human enough.

[@aidanrogers4438]

Between Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford, I'd go with what Scott said. After all, Scott is the directors and his word would go above Ford's word (who is simply an actor) and Scott has worked on two cuts of the film. But I've heard they won't answer it in 2049 and continue to leave it open, which I don't mind.

[@nei1995]

Yeah, we should trust the guy who directed Alien: Covenant.

[@willthomson6141]

but deckard has aged. Wouldn't replicants just die without ageing?

[@lewiscranston881]

Batman Jr. I'll go with Hampton Fancher, the screenwriter, who just believes it should be left to the audience to decide.

[@aidanrogers4438]

Lewis Cranston Although the screenwriter is important, once the director takes over its their version. It's always said there are three versions of a film, when it's written, filmed and edited. And Ridley did both direct and edit for the Final Cut.

[@aidanrogers4438]

Nico 1995 Oh yeah, the same guy who directed Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, Alien, Blade Runner and American Gangster. But yeah we shouldn't listen to him coz you don't like one movie he did.

[@CrazyAboutVinylRecords]

Philip K. Dick wrote the character as a human in the book. Screen writer Hampton Fancher said he wrote Deckard as a human in the screen play. These are the facts. Scott might have preferred Deckard as a replicant. I don't have a problem with the ambiguity in the film. But personally Deckard as a replicant diverges too far from the book and screen play for me to accept and I think it hurts the story, so I am glad the Scott didn't ruin the film for me and ram Deckard as a replicant down my throat. Blade Runner is perhaps my favorite film of all time. I stood in line at the theater to see it when it first came out in June, 1982, and I am probably in a minority of people who likes the theatrical release just fine, cheesy voiceovers and all. That being said, I do think the final cut is an improvement.

[@CidGuerreiro1234]

According to the director of the movie, yes. According to the author of the book, no. So everyone's free to pick who they think has the authority on the matter, or simply go with that Deckard is a replicant on the movie but not in the book. Every adaptation takes some liberties with the original material so they don't have to align.

[@user-jr4pp6qs4t]

Ι believe thta's the beauty of this film. That we don't actually know. And that's what I'm a afraid Blade Runner 2049 is going to ruin. Personally i don't need an answer about Deckard's identity. The ending of the movie left me complete. A true masterpiece of cinema art.

[@TheGeorgeD13]

Denis Villaneuve has said before that he intentionally leaves new information in Blade Runner 2049 to keep Decker's identity in question. This WILL NOT be ruined in 2049. No answers to that question will ever happen. At least with 2049.

[@uh3592]

bruh watch the final and directors cuts he is 100% a replicant in those because of the unicorn dream.

[@brianogilby7220]

uh true but its more then just the Unicorn dream.

[@Biggiiful]

George Daugherty yep. Just saw 2049. Its left ambiguous again.

[@Josh_Samuel]

It's still left up for question just saw 2049

[@Dangerousdaze]

Deckard is human. Scott probably heard the idea years later and thought it was cool (obviously it *was* cool or we wouldn't still be discussing it now) but I believe that when the film was made it was not in Scott's mind. Why? There are a couple of big clues used to "prove" that Deckard is a replicant: 1) The unicorn dream. As everyone knows, the dream itself was added later. When the film was made, Gaff's origami unicorn at the end was purely Gaff proclaiming that Deckard's desire for a happy life with Rachel was a fantasy. That's all. Just as the origami chicken was Gaff calling Deckard a chicken for wanting to quit, and the stick man with a hard-on, was Deckard "thinking with his dick". For some reason, the unicorn is proof and the other figures are conveniently relegated to insignificance. 2) The golden sheen in the eyes. This is just a happy accident and is purely down to how the effect was made - it wasn't CGI, it was done simply by reflecting a bulb into a glass plate in front of the camera. It thus was impossible for the effect *not* to appear in both actors’ eyes when they were both in the frame at the same time. Also, when Scott states that Deckard is a replicant his body language is awful - he clearly knows that he's trying to pull the wool over our eyes and hoping he gets away with it! He looks so uncomfortable in that interview you can tell he's not being truthful. One final thing. I hate the unicorn dream for one very good reason: it completely destroyed one of the best Vangelis music cues in the film. That key change as Deckard taps the piano key is *awesome* and the unicorn dream destroys it completely. It's a little thing, but it's important to me.

[@davidmorgan9458]

Deckard was mentioned specifically as a human in the short story and the fact that he's in the sequel proves that he's human since replicants have a short lifespan.

[@dennisnirmark1353]

Can you imagine that this movie is almost 40 years old!

[@Brain_Sync]

BS. Replicants have a lifespan of just 4 years and no memories prior to their creation. Deckard has a long career as Blade Runner and a past with an ex-wife. Rachel is a unique prototype of a new model with implanted memories. Replicants have enhanced abilities. Throughout the movie Deckard gets his ass kicked by each and every replicant he confronts. The unicorn symbolism can be seen as dreaming of an idealistic world. Question answered. Sorry, Sir Scott is wrong, Ford is right.

[@Brain_Sync]

Ron Maimon nope, Deckard was retired from the job at the beginning of the movie, therefore he MUST have had a long career as Blade Runner, in order to retire. He's human, period.

[@darklighter66]

Wasnt it just the Nexus 6 models given a limited lifespan?

[@esmokah]

His long career could be implanted memories. His long career could be from multiple Deckard replicants over the years, with their memories added to each new version. The cops know it!

[@QuasiELVIS]

Lol @ "he's a human, period". Fuck off, it's ambiguous at best and the fucking director said he was a replicant.

[@MacetazzOpina]

@@QuasiELVIS yes, the fucking writers of the story said he isn't and that the director is an ass, literally the only person who says he is a replicant is the director

[@ImmaculateOtter]

Just an FYI: one of these was confirmed in 2049

[@TheComedian95]

i think the point should be that because the question is genuinely polarising, there's ultimately nothing to distinguish the two. That is sort of the theme of the movie.

[@fireinthesky657]

In the book Deckard was definately human . He was married but his wife suffered from depression . People used to wire themselves up to mood machines so they could be able to control their own mood for the day . He never left with Rachel even tnough he had an affair with her and stayed with his wife .