Do you think the sequel will answer this question?

Clearly he's lasted longer than four years.

Been answered. He is. Has no expiry date.

i think u have a replicant

No i dont he is a replicant and i hope the sequel answers the question once and for all

>>5
Same here, I think it will.

If you read the Blade Runner forums you'll find it's unequivocally impossible for him to be anything but human.

Five bucks says he'll reveal himself as a "repliCAN, not a repliCAN'T"

I've seen that one pretty convincingly debunked: http://1000misspenthours.com/reviews/reviewsa-d/bladerunner.htm

Except Ridley himself says he is, so 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

A solid argument. But I doubt many will make any effort in refuting it, choosing instead the mere alleged gospel of Scott, whose interpretation, even by his own admission, was not the only one involved during the making of the film.

But if the earth is round, why does it look flat from space!!!??

He isn't. Just read the book. It'll tell you.

It will continue to be unanswered.

The movie did not imply it; if it did, either I wasn't paying attention or it wasn't very well done.

It not only implied it, it spelled it out clearly. 😂😂😂😂

OK, I'll take your word for it - I guess I'll have to watch it again.

I've always entertained the idea that Deckard's memories had been accessed, yes, but without necessarily equating him as a replicant, thus revealing larger premises at work. In other words, the Tyrell Corporation (or maybe just Gaff alone) somehow accessed Deckard's memories to use for seeding another replicant model, as Tyrell did with Rachael via his niece. And perhaps that other model could be Ryan Gosling's character in the upcoming sequel?

In any event, I'm actually more interested in how they're going to account for the timeline, or if at all.

The 2019 of Blade Runner was imaginable for audiences of 1982 but, today, only two years prior, it clearly doesn't track, which by itself isn't a big deal. And it could've been something the sequel just sorta glazed over, ignoring aforesaid date of the original film to simply flow from the continuity of however many recurring, aging characters, namely Deckard.

Yet by tagging the sequel 2049, that's putting the whole issue right up on Front Street. So I'm wondering if they might actually switch the idea from what began as a 'what-if' possible future to a kind of alternate reality. Or, if the future we see is in fact supposed to be our own, but one that is further distant and where the universal date has for some reason been readjusted or reset.

Bottom line - if it does, it's garbage. The whole "is Deckard a replicant or not?" argument is completely irrelevant and would undermine his revelation and transformation at the end of Blade Runner.

As others have pointed out, Scott himself said that he is, but in this case he would have to be a replicant with no expiration date. However, Scott wasn't the only one involved into creative process behind the film, and some writers disagree with him. I disagree with him as well, in a way. No matter what he intended, as long as it isn't directly shown in the film, it's all left to interpretation. The way I see it, the most important thing is to wonder whether or not he is, that shows that the film succeeded in its message. Probably the most important theme of Blade Runner is the question "what makes us human?", where does one draw the line if both replicants and humans have intellect, consciousness and emotions? The philosophical idea behind the film is that biological origin probably isn't the most important aspect of what we consider humanity and as long as we don't even know what our protagonist is, we can only judge his humanity on his actions. Even if we take Deckard out of the equation, replicants clearly aren't shown as being evil, they just wanted more life, they were on a revenge mission against their oppressors, we could say. Can anyone really blame Batty for killing his inferior creator who only gave him 4 years to live? So, in short, the fact that it's left ambiguous is one of the things that make this film so great, imo.

Maybe the new film won't comment on Deckard being a replicant or not. But since Scott is executive producer and is adamant on him being a replicant, maybe they would kill the ambiguity and confirm it.

That's a possibility, but I wouldn't like that to happen. It depends how it all ties into the new film.

The better question is: what does it matter? It doesn't change anything either way.

I like to believe he's human.