Replicant vs human question

This movie is hardcore:

The introducing text claims that replicants are "evolved robots", then immediately states that the replicants are created by "genetic engineers", to mess with you even more, by saying that replicants are used as "slave labor".

If you understand what a slave is, you understand that replicants can't be robots. Even though Deckard himself states that replicants are machines. He tells this to Rachael when he first meets her. And he refers to Rachael as "it", when he discovers that she's a machine, a replicant, when he talks to Eldon: "-How can it not now what it is?"
Deckard then proceeds to get horny for Rachael, and wants to put his baby inside her fagina. That's because... suspense suspense suspense:

Replicants are humans!

Deckard is a human!


Then, what is the difference between Deckard, and a replicant?

As you will quickly see, there is no difference between Deckard and a replicant.

A slave is a person who is not free. What is freedom? Freedom is being able to not go to your job, tomorrow, after tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, never forget, yes we can! and still be able to feed yourself, survive in this world.

Somehow, Deckard doesn't have this luxury, of not accepting the job that Bryant gives him: "-No choice, pal."

How can Deckard not know what he is?
That's an interesting question, showing that you are a very evolved person, at least equal in intelligence to the social engineers who programmed you!


In reality, this movie is not a sci-fi story about robots, but a masonic manifesto about luciferianism. Movies, instead of books. Ain't nobody got time for books!

Eldon Tyrell is the Christian paradigm brainwashing you with the idea that you have been created by a dude, who needs you to work hard for the benefit of the churchmen.

Roy Batty is the Masonic paradigm brainwashing you with the idea that you can be like Tyrell, if you accept the Light that Burns Twice as Bright in your heart as your Lord and Savior.

Wow, great reply! Thanks, I'll definitely be keeping that in mind the next time I watch Blade Runner.

Too late, I already called in. They said I'd be fired if I don't show up. Looks like I'll have lots of time for analyzing Blade Runner. I can live with that.

Depends which version of the film you watch. Ridley Scott himself said that in the Theatrical Version, Deckard is human, but in the later Cuts (with the Unicorn scene), he's a replicant. If you read reviews and essays on the film before 1992 (the year of the Director's Cut), there are very few references at all to Deckard possibly being a replicant, but, after the release of the DC, they come in thick and fast. The reasons why most people seem to have assumed Deckard was human in the TV is that (1) there is no Unicorn scene, so Gaff doing his unicorn origami doesn't have any significance beyond telling Deckard that he's been in his apartment but let Rachel live and (2) the voiceover, where Deckard tells us about his ex-wife and so on, so he has much more of a backstory than in the later Cuts. The mere fact that we're inside his head makes us assume he's human (although it could still work if he's a replicant, of course). The point is that I'm not sure the viewer even considers the idea that he's a replicant until the idea is planted in the first place, and, in the TV, there isn't an awful lot of 'planting' going on compared to the later versions.

Thanks for the replies!

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. When I first saw the theatrical version of Blade Runner on video in the mid1980s, it never even entered my mind that Deckard was anything other than human. But I was a little kid and wasn't prone to reading deeply enough into a movie to pick up on subtle hints. And as was mentioned, it wasn't very hinted at in the TV. All I knew was Harrison Ford was Han Solo and Indiana Jones, and I just wanted to watch BR because of that.

Now fast forward the better part of a decade and I rented the director's cut of BR as a teenager. Of course, my reaction was a mix of "wow!" and "what??" It challenged my previously held notion that Deckard was human, but I still wanted to think he was.

This movie seems to involve a lot of personal preference when it comes to the "is he/isn't he" question. Yeah, I know that after the DC, it's hard to see Deckard as not being a replicant, but in terms of personal preference, I just like aspects of the story better thinking Deckard is human. Like, human/human, not more "more human than human."

And that feeling I hold really comes down to one scene. Not that it's the only reason, but it's the one that stands out the most for me. When Roy Batty delivers his dying speech, the scene, for me, is made more poignant by thinking Deckard is a human. Again, just personal preference.

Sorry for going so long, just being nerdy. Thanks again for the great replies, they were very thought-provoking.

Wait, let me rip a bong hit and read that again.

On second thought, scratch that, I'll just get too inside my own head and start wondering if I'm a replicant. Swear to Roy Batty, if I see an origami unicorn when I get home later, I'm outta here.

But damn, homie, you open a brutha mind and sh!t.

Scott has gone both ways and Ford says he wasn't(a repicant) so let's get that out of the way.

Now personally it occurred to me that if Deckard was a replicant he was a piss poor one seeing as how he was 0 fo 4 in unarmed combat against the fugitives. JMR.

What it comes down to is which version of the movie do you prefer. In the original theatrical version he is human. In the directors cut he is a replicant. The sequel should answer this question, and my guess is that he'll just be a human. They'll want to make this a sequel to the version that has been most widely seen and that's the original theatrical version.