Deckard: You're reading a magazine. You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl.
Rachael: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
more like personal study object, the way he was impressed by how many questions it took for deckard to realize she is a replicant gave me creep vibes...
omg what i literally saw this post and thought of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (I've never seen blade runner)
The whole point of the movie, besides the cyberpunk dystopia that it created and popularized, is that Deckard is a HUMAN who acts like a ROBOT. He has no joy, no purpose, no meaning. And he rediscovers all of that, ironically, from his interactions with replicants - Roy Batty and Rachael most of all. It's the Sarah Connor, end of Terminator 2 thought that "if a machine - a Terminator - can learn the meaning of life, perhaps there's hope for the rest of us."
And that DOESN'T FUCKING WORK if Deckard is a replicant. Philip K Dick, Harrison Ford, EVERYONE on the production EXCEPT Ridley Scott either knew this or figured it out. But because Mr. Auteur decided to share his braindead take and even cut a scene from a whole-ass other movie into Blade Runner to make you think MAYBE the robot-killer cop is himself a robot because "whoa man how mind-blowing", now we have to get people saying that's how it is for the rest of humanity.
Deckard is not a replicant. END OF.
edit: it has been pointed out to me that Harrison has reversed his stance on whether Deckard is a replicant, and my last sentence was factually incorrect in that there IS, of course, ambiguity in the film about who's a replicant or not. Making Deckard into one, IMO, is still a braindead take that makes the movie subjectively worse, but I should still try to be accurate.
There was ZERO ambiguity about this
Okay, you had me up till this point. There was definitely ambiguity. That's sort of the whole joke of the Voight-Kampff test (and the movie at-large). Discerning humanity isn't trivial or obvious. You can argue that the movie reads better if Deckard isn't a replicant, but the screenplay is deliberately ambiguous with the intent of putting the viewer in Deckard's shoes.
And not merely to ask if this particular character is a replicant, but to ask whether there's any value in hunting for them or any real means of drawing a distinction at all. What is the point of trying to "detect for humanity" if not to find a population we can ethically treat as less-than-human?
The sequel tries to delve into that question a bit more deeply, but gets high on its own auteur supply along the way. What is the purpose of hunting replicants, really? Is there any real social good in sorting "real" humans from artificial ones? Or is it just a hysterical impulse that will lead to our collective self-destruction?
Fair enough. I think it's safe to say that my reply was a little heated. You are, of course, correct. I will edit my comment.
Or, alternatively, you should consider that maybe the replicants are closer to being human than you think.
Of course they are! I never disagreed with that. They are "more human than human". That's not even a counter argument to what I said, which is "this one specific human, who has basically forgotten how to BE human, rediscovers the joy of humanity through his interactions with non-humans who are ironically more human than he is".
DECKARD👏 IS👏 NOT👏A👏 REPLICANT👏
I will bang this gong 'til the day I die.
Harrison Ford recently said he always knew that he was a replicant. He didn't say it in the start since he felt Deckard would want to believe he was human
That's never explicitly stated in the movie. I believe it's hinted at just enough to make you wonder. Which in turn makes you wonder what even makes a human person. In the sequel I think they pretty heavily lean on him being human.
The writer disagrees though, that’s all the matters. You may as well say the camera thinks Deckard is a replicant.