Is Deckard a Replicant?

They were genetically engineered. Perhaps not those toys you refer to (who knows really about them), but surely the Replicants. The whole setup is that it is very hard to determine the difference which is why Deckard did that eye-question thing and that the new models in this movie need their right eye to be imprinted with a seriel number for the same reason. Biologically they are near human. And the movies then questions, if this makes them human?

Ridley has borderline lost the plot. It must be a requirement in the scifi movie business.

I'm generally of the belief that the creator has the final word on something, or someone in a story they created. However, in this case, there is more evidence that points to Deckard being a human than a replicant. So I'm not sure how much of a bearing his "opinion" has here.

Just to clarify, I know you mentioned the pictures, but I don't remember them not showing that they age. I could have bet everything Freysa looked younger in her picture.

Yes indeed. The original cut is mostly leaning towards hm being Human - like in the novel. But then the different "directors" cuts all allude to him being perhaps a replikant too. So which is it? Well, it is ambiguous, although clearly stronger towards him being a replikant in the subsequent cuts as you mention. I got a feeling though that this is an idea he got later on and then also later cut this ambiguity into his film. Regardless of when he got this idea, the original film and in all its cuts (I have seen all of them) it is never above or below ambiguous.

I like your take and your view on how the story telling is giving us the twist in the end to make us the audience punder what and if there really is any difference. And so this distinction becomes rhetorical. One may leave it at that - but unfortunately my brain needs an answer ;) And so, my post as your read above :).

"(In the first movie, you'll remember that Replicants weren't even allowed on earth. In this movie, they live and work among humans which would be a natural evolution from the earlier successful testing of models such as Deckard and Rachel. I'd love to pick the brains of the screenwriter to see if this was what they were thinking when they set up the premise of 2049.) "
- to answer this we need to understand what happened between the first movie and this one. They released three short films on YT in connection with the release of this movie that builds on this: After Blade Runner (1982), Tyrell began to make Replicants with no expiry date, modeled in part after Rachel we must assume. This ultimately resulted in a revolt from humans (we do not like competition) and inhere Tyrell was destroyed (or decommissioned) and all Replicants became illegal... and those Replicants with no expiry date that Tyrell had already made, were hunted for retirement... however, those remaining then organized and executed a "terrorist attack" (later called; "The Black Out") on all the files kept on them and all other humans... by deleting these, we would become equal in a sense, as there would be no files to distinguish them from other humans. And so they would be much harder to find herafter the black out. This black out worked and sort of gave them a better chance to simply live peacefully, which was all they wanted... now in comes Wallace. He shows the humans in power that he can make Replikants that obey humans completely and flawlessly. Unlike those made by Tyrell. And so with this invention the band against making replicants were lifted, and Wallace is in business.... K is then made. He is one of those obedient replicants. And his job is to still hunt down and retire those Replikants that Tyrell made with no expiry date... and this is when the movie begins.

So the short answer is that Tyrell made them with no expiry date. And that it created instability and they were thus outlawed... the new versions (like K) are obedient to humans and so tolerated.

Imo it is not in the book. I could be wrong.

The original has several cuts. And no doubt the director play more on the Unicorn in the subsequent cuts, which is why I say they are ambiguous. But in the original (first cut) it is less and actually not at all, imo. Google the original ending and listen to the narration. It seem to be not even a potentiel interpretation... and the Unicorn is in all the cuts.

Anyway, my view is like this: Galf makes Origami though out the movie, each time they are made to substantiate his point. When Deckard picks up the Origami Unicorn, he hears Galf's words saying; "Too bad she wont live, but who does anyway". A Unicorn is a fable creature, a beautiful idea that is ultimately not real.... like Rachel. So Galf made a Unicorn because it delivers his message: As beautiful as Rachel is, she gotta go. In the original cut, Deckard disagrees and runs.... in the subsequent cuts, he might kill her shortly after. It is unclear in those.

Now, why does Deckard dream of a Unicorn? This seem very coincidental? Well, yes. But perhaps he dreams about it for the same reason that Galf thought of it then and there.... they are in the same business after all, and so are inspired by similar things we must assume. Deckard does not dream about killing this fable creature, unlike what I think Galf does. Deckard dreams about it roaming in the free in all its glory... perhaps deep down it tells us that he actually long for beauty and freedom, more than the order and destruction a Blade Runner otherwise brings. Deep down he wishes fables like those about Unicorns could be true.... and so in the end, he chose to protects Rachel. This coincidence is actual the reason I think he does not end Rachel as a good Blade Runner should - even in the subsequent cuts... she is the Unicorn he has dreamed about his whole life... and this final Unicorn Origami is the straw that pushes him to follow his dream and not his command...

This is my way of looking at it. But I totally understand the other way of looking at it too... which is why I see it as an ambiguous ending.

Yep, even before 2049 people speculated about Deckard being some kind special replicant like Rachael. But like you said, that doesn't really make any sense considering they had him doing menial/dangerous work. The choice has always been between normal four year replicant or human.