Blade Runner 2!?


You are wrong because the premise is that Tyrell designed Deckard to meet and fall for Rachel and their “accidental” meeting was anything but accidental.

The sequel deliberately works both if he is a replicant or if he is not.


Your theory requires Deckard to be a replicant, go out into the big bad world to kill dangerous other replicants at great risk since he does not have the same physical abilities, have 4 other dangerous skin jobs escape and come back to Earth to kill Tyrell employees, have Deckard put on that particular case, travel back to Tyrell, fall in love, almost get killed at least 3 times and then choose to escape with Rachel.

Wow. That is more than a bit far fetched and that is being kind. It actually is not even remotely plausible. That makes the plots of Geostorm and Sharknado sensible in comparison. If Tyrell wanted Deckard to fall for Rachel he could have easily kept them both at Tyrell HQ and had them meet there, engineer an “emergency” and have them escape with no risk.

Moreover, it as previously discussed that theory also makes Wallace literally the world’s biggest movie moron in the 2nd movie. He has a unique replicant who holds the key to all he seeks and his only thought is to torture him? That makes no sense whatsoever.

We all know that the Blade Runner universe is a bit of a mess anyway, given all of the various versions. But that theory simply does not work on any level.


[quote=“Granath, post:303, topic:75988”]
Your theory requires Deckard to be a replicant, go out into the big bad world to kill dangerous other replicants at great risk…

No, it doesn’t. It just requires Deckard to be one of the replicants capable of mating with Rachel. Whether that makes him unique, one of every male replicants, or a smaller subset isn’t clear, but it’s certainly not necessarily group 1 or 2 (although it also could be).

You are clearly wrong here - surprised you are even continuing to argue the point. The filmmakers have expressly said that the issue of Deckard being a replicant is left open-ended in this movie.

Denis V expressly didn’t want to deal with an issue belonging to the previous movie, and didn’t want to expressly overwrite Ridley Scott’s movie or the more ambiguous theatrical release of the first movie, so he carefully crafted a sequel that works either way.


[quote=“Desslock, post:304, topic:75988, full:true”]

You are right that the filmmakers said they did not want to make a declaration either way. Their plot suggests something quite different because the logic breaks down quickly if Deckard is a replicant. The pieces no longer seem to add up if he is.

I am all ears for a logical explanation of how this all logically works if he is but have yet to seen one offered. The closest you have offered is that Deckard is not unique but normal for his series, in which case somehow Tyrell spent the money and time making many/all male replicants of that series capable of mating with a specific, sequestered (or even not created) female replicant and then relied on a set of extreme and unlikely set of circumstances to create that coupling. That just simply does not make much sense. It is possible. It just is not plausible.

  • or he is unique and was programmed to fall for Rachel;
  • or any male replicant could have impregnated Rachel;
  • or any male replicant or male human could have impregnated Rachel (which seems the most likely - that she was unique).
  • or any male replicant or male human could have impregnated Rachel but Deckard was programmed to find her irresistible making mating likely.
  • or some small group of male replicants (late models) could mate:
  • or some large group of male replicants could mate (anything but special task)
  • or any male replicant or male human could have impregnated Rachel but Deckard was programmed to expressly try to mate with Rachel (also suggested in the sequel).

There are many possibilities that don’t preclude him from being a replicant, and the filmmakers said they didn’t preclude him from being a replicant, so it’s weird that you think otherwise.


None of these change anything. It is quite simple. If he is a replicant, either he is unique (or exceptionally rare) or he is not.

  • If he is not then the entire first movie is not plausible as there would be a million better ways to engineer the breeding of Rachel than sheer happenstance. Moreover, the making of many replicants who could mate with a single female makes little logical sense.
  • If he is unique (or damn near) then the second movie’s plot is not plausible (Wallace is a moron for not recognizing that he has half the key) and the first movie’s plot is also not plausible (Deckard is unnecessarily put in harms way).

There would be a more logical explanation of this whole thing but the second movie shut it down. If the mating of Deckard/Rachel was actually an accident and NOT engineered (i.e.,a “miracle”) then the series makes a bit more sense (though Wallace should still want to study him if he was). But Wallace outright indicates that Tyrell made Rachel with that ability.

Continue to argue it if you want but to me this last movie seems to unintentionally defeat the “replicant Deckard” theory.


Deckard is implied to be a Nexus 7 (if he’s a replicant at all). Not unique but a newer model than the ones he hunted, but older than the ones hunted in the new movie.

First model to have no finite lifespan, but not special, more a prototype.

If he’s a replicant in the first movie then everybody knows it (the other blade runner certainly does) and all the romance in the first movie is a setup through careful selection of memories (which this movie’s plot would support). It’s not happenstance.


I think Granath’s points are well reasoned and logical. If any replicant male could reproduce, there would be a much simpler way for Rachel to be made pregnant. If Deckard was a special replicant, why would he be a blade runner, and why wouldn’t Wallace acknowledge it. BUT, Wallace does have Decker in his custody and plans to take him apart. Maybe he DOES realize he hit gold and isn’t just letting Deckard know.


I think Granath is about to pass a Turing Test.

Also, I think you can torture someone for info and dissect them at the same time. Seems cruelly efficient.


I thought the movie is deliberately vague about whether Deckard is a replicant. Certainly as @Granath said it would be internally implausible (but not impossible) for Deckard to be a replicant. On the other hand, nobody in the movie actually makes any kind of declaration on whether Deckard is a replicant. In fact, the premise of the movie itself is putting the old theory to the test: that a replicant is built to hunt replicants.

Which brings me back to the original theory. I’ve watched the Director’s Cut (it was a while ago) and The Final Cut (recently because it is the only “official” version still in wide circulation), never the original cut (too young for that!). None of that led me to believe Deckard is a replicant. Those dreams Deckard had can just be dreams, and nothing more.


Whether they’re dreams or implanted memories, you have to account for the movie making a point of showing you that Gaff knew about them.

It’s really very simple: Ridley Scott made a movie in which Deckard was a replicant, but the studio cut and released a movie in which Deckard wasn’t a replicant. You can have whatever opinion you want about a fictional character, but supporting your opinion depends entirely on which of the two versions you’re referencing.



It’s so vague that I didn’t even notice it the first time I watched the movie! I do think it leans more towards Deckard is a replicant, but you’re right that it’s deliberately vague. It’s so coy about it that you might not even notice if you’re making assumptions about which version it’s following!



You mean Gaff giving Deckard orgami that matched Deckard’s dream? It was kind of vague whether Gaff knew about the dream or maybe it was just an unsettling coincidence. And Gaff gave K an orgami horse in the sequel. Maybe it was his thing (or they are trying to retcon). And then we have to compare which version of Bladerunner we are talking about.

The sequel left it vague for their own self-serving reason. A) invalidating one version over another probably means they will lose some audience from one camp or another. B) they can say that this story is about Rachel and her legacy. Whether Deckard is a replicant is tangential to this story and therefore they refuse to address it.

Is there a director’s/producer’s commentary on this?


Dude. Please. You think Ridley Scott put that in there as a last minute red herring? Just a coincidence to throw you off before you leave the theater? Wow, that guy happened to make an origami figure of a thing the other guy dreamed about in a movie where mental images can be manufactured and implanted into people’s heads! What are the odds?!?!??


It’s a reveal, not a coincidence.

Well, that’s what you’ve got to establish up front. As I said, it’s a simple matter of which movie you watched. In one he is, in the other he’s not. And, yes, there’s a director’s commentary, books, interviews, scripts, footage, etc., etc., etc, that all corroborate Ridley Scott’s intent.



Now I’m confused. Ridley Scott said he is a replicant, Harrison Ford said he is human, but the script writer Hampton Fancher said he isn’t a replicant.

When I was watching The Final Cut, I (like many others no doubt) looked for conclusive evidence that Deckard is a replicant. You say Gaff’s orgami is a reveal, but it could just as well be interpreted as a coincidence. Orgami is Gaff’s calling card, he is just putting Deckard on notice that he will come after Rachel (and/or him). The Final Cut did not settle the debate one way or another. There is evidence but nothing conclusive.

And we aren’t even talking about David Lynch. It is Ridley Scott! That Ridley Scott who made Alien: Convenent! So I thought he left it vague even in The Final Cut. He can talk outside of the movie, but looking just inside the movie it wasn’t clear.


He is not the Ridley Scott that made Covenant, but the Ridley Scott that made The Duelist and Alien. A different guy, and we’ll capable of subtlety.


We all know the unicorn sequence was not in the initial filming. It was filmed for the movie Legend and only put in for the Director’s Cut. As far as Scott “making a movie in which Deckard was a replicant”, Harrison Ford’s own words dispute that point as far as the original cut goes. He said that Scott was purposely non-committal on that point and we all know that Ford then decided that Deckard was human and acted accordingly. Your statement that it was the studio that declared Deckard to not be a replicant is not quite true. Ford says he is not. The two writers (Fancher and Peoples) say he was not written that way. The guy who wrote the original story (Dick) says he is not. Scott himself was non-committal on this point until his 1992 version. All evidence suggests that Deckard was most certainly not a replicant during initial filming.

For me, the defining characteristic is the actor playing the character played him as human and would have played him differently than if he was a replicant. The performance onscreen that we see is of Deckard as a human and there is no getting around that.


It really can’t. The director is telling you something, Soma.

There’s other evidence in the movie and that reveal is a significant part of how this is noir: the detective investigating something that ends up involving him directly. Here’s the discussion we recently had.



Sigh. I really have no desire to get into all this again, but you’re repeating something that’s not true. Unicorn footage was indeed shot specifically for Blade Runner and taken out before the movie was released. You can read specifics in the other thread if you’re really interested.



Do you also think Ben Hur didn’t have an homosexual relationship with Messala just because Charlton Heston didn’t play it that way???