Well it's good to see that issue settled unequivocally :D

Just trying to start a discussion. ;-)

Ogopogo99--

Oh boy, you started the first discussion for this film with the most controversial question. Way to ease into this board;) I know back on the soon-to-be-defunct IMDB, over the years the discussion on this topic has been absolutely brutal; people are really emotionally-invested in where they come down on this. Personally, I've always been in the "Deckard is human" camp. I remember reading in Film Comment magazine (or some other such publication) back in the 1990s that one powerful argument for why Deckard is human is that every time he has to face a Replicant without his gun, he gets the crap kicked out of him. It's never an equal fight. However, I do see the arguments for why he would be a Replicant, among them the fact that Deckard's eyes "go red" whenever he talks to Rachael, and that with the whole unicorn origami thing Deckard's police partner (played by Edward James Olmos) seems to have access to Deckard's memories. I also respect people's right to come away from a film or a book and have different, personal meanings as to what the work in question means to them (even to the point of disregarding what the filmmaker or author might say is the "correct" meaning; works of art are highly personal experiences not just for the artist, but also for the audience). Of course, in the debate over what Deckard is, both camps might be missing the larger message: the answer to the question itself may not matter; Blade Runner is a film about existentialism, and in just getting us to ponder questions of what it means to be human, the film has already succeeded. Great first topic for this board, Ogopogo-- you sure didn't start small!

The arguments, either way, are pretty compelling. When I first saw it back in 82 it honestly never occurred to me that Deckard was anything but human. Over the years I, like so many other fans, discussed, argued, changed my mind, changed it back again and re-watched every different version of the movie that came out. I think maybe one of the things I like best about this movie is that this very idea is left ambiguous.

I seem to recall either an interview or maybe a DVD commentary from Ridley Scott that said flatly that Deckard is a replicant. Then I either read or heard another interview or DVD comment by Harrison Ford that said he was human. You could argue that the director of a movie is more authoritative than an actor, even the lead actor but I never buy arguments from authority and I'm glad the question is still debatable even today.

CrazyIvanova--

I have heard similar things, secondhand. That is, that Ridley Scott has said that Deckard is a Replicant. I've also heard that Harrison Ford said he (Ford) thought of his character as human. It seems to me, if I recall correctly, that Ford even said that Ridley told him during filming that Deckard was human. But then afterwards-- years later, in fact --Ridley started saying in interviews that he always intended Deckard to be a Replicant [thus implying that he only told Harrison Ford that Deckard was human so that Ford would be "tricked" into thinking his character was human, when in fact he was a Replicant]. Again, though, I think what the individual viewer believes Deckard to be is a highly personal feeling, and even though I personally like to think of Deckard as human, I don't think those who think he is a Replicant are necessarily wrong.

Hi, northcoast. I agree, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation. While I definitely feel like it's worth discussion, it's not worth getting hurt feelings over a quarrel about it. I'm actually intrigued by both sides of the argument. For me, though, I like the idea he's human because it gives a better context for Roy's saving him at the end.

Hi Crazylvanova, I agree with your reasoning. Also, as the film progresses, there is the shifting of humanity from Deckard, to something approaching the replicant mentality of Roy, - and then we see Roy , at last, behaving so touchingly human and humane. That is my reason for believing Deckard is human .

Invidia--

Well, according to every version of Blade Runner EXCEPT the 1982 theatrical release, it is heavily implied that Racheal only has a four-year life span (It's too bad she won't live-- but then again who does?". Of course, in the theatrical version they tacked on a happy ending voice-over by Deckard saying Racheal had no expiration date as they drive away from Los Angeles, but that ending was only put in because of studio pressure).

And since we're going to see Deckard again in Blade Runner 2049, this would be another reason to believe he is human; because if he was a Replicant, he never would've lived so long.

By the way, I love your screen name, Invidia! Long live the Comet Empire:)

Invidia--

Tyrell only told Deckard that Rachael didn't have an expiration date in the theatrical version (again in the ending voice-over by Deckard). Otherwise, all we get from Tyrell in the other versions of the film is that "Rachael is an experiment, nothing more." And then he goes on to explain that all this means is that Rachael has a more developed sense of memory [than other Replicants] and does not even know for sure if she is a Replicant, though Tyrell says he believes Rachael probably suspects that she is one (I'm paraphrasing here).

To my mind, Rachael is more like a Nexus 6.5 version, but not a full-on next-level "Nexus 7." Another clue that Rachael is lifespan-limited is that Deckard refuses to tell her what's in her file when she asks him; instead, he just answers weakly, almost choked-up: "It's classified." He knows she's not going to live long and he doesn't want to tell her; he probably doesn't even want to believe it himself because he is falling for her.

Also, like I said, just wait for Blade Runner 2049. I bet you Rachael is not in it, and that Deckard mentions that she passed away shortly after he ran away with her.

As for Rachael asking Deckard if he'd run the test on himself, she said that out of anger. The VK test is very emotionally-invasive for the recipient, to the point of cruelty. That's why she'd asked him if he'd ever put himself through it.

And finally, Invidia, in the end this film is very open to personal interpretation, and you might have come away from it with totally different impressions than I did. . . and we both could be right. The above comments are just my own interpretation:)

As for the Comet Empire, yes, here's to hoping that there's no one out there like them. If I HAD to live under an alien species from Star Blazers, it would be the Gamilons. The Comet Empire had better technology, but the Gamilons--especially Desslok --had a certain level of class to them that the C.E. lacked. Just my opinion:)

I think Rachael asked Deckard about testing himself because, as northcoast said, she was angry. She was upset to learn that her whole life had been a lie and if she was a replicant, how could he be sure he wasn't?

"If you think that, you're already wrong. But who cares? It's the question mark that's interesting. The answer is stupid."

Hampton Fancher

I just watched the final cut after seeing the trailer for the new one. It has been a few years since I saw blade runner. I was keeping an eye out for situations that would point to ford being a replicant. I think the movie definitely is playing with the idea and that it was the intention to create the mystery. I don't think it is the main point of the movie, and I do like the discussions on how this is Roy s journey, because imo it is the most interesting aspect of the movie.

there are many clues that point to the possibility of deckard being a replicant, but one specific line that Gaff (the guy making all the figurines out of everyday objects) says at the end after roy dies, "you've done a mans job sir". I found it to be one of the more bigger clues to proving that he is a replicant. why would he say this to him and in that way? I don't see it has him just stating the obvious either. I may be looking too into the line, but the unicorn also at the end helps solidify this. any thought?

the biggest problem is there are so many versions and i do remember tyrell stating that rachael s live span wasn't like the others. great movie though regardless.

@Rtodd110 said:

there are many clues that point to the possibility of deckard being a replicant, but one specific line that Gaff (the guy making all the figurines out of everyday objects) says at the end after roy dies, "you've done a mans job sir". I found it to be one of the more bigger clues to proving that he is a replicant. why would he say this to him and in that way? I don't see it has him just stating the obvious either. I may be looking too into the line, but the unicorn also at the end helps solidify this. any thought?

it's just an expression.

Re Ridley Scott saying in interview that Deckard is a replicant, but Ford saying Scott told him he was a human whilst filming;

I don't think there is necessarily a contradiction here. Directors often lie or omit to get the performance they want. If Scott wanted the character to believe he is human (whether he is or not) then the best way to achieve that was to ensure the actor believed it too...

Just food for thought.

I am now firmly in the camp of those who believe Deckard is a Replicant.