Support NeoGAF

[Number_6]

Jesus, that's pretty dismissive of another's interpretation. I'm not sure how anyone could think that Deckard isn't a replicant. Wishful thinking? Hearing what you want to hear? Was the movie your own personal Joi?

Nah, I'd want to hear confirmation he's human.

EDIT:

To add though, there is literally no confirmation. Wallace hinted at the possibility while essentially trying to mindfuck/interrogate Deckard. No more, no less.

 

[Addi]

is there a place to buy or legally stream the soundtrack? I found some stuff on Spotify but I don't know if it's an official playlist.

The official album is on spotify:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5kSUsy5FU3Wcxd4DBvXFm4

Earlier post

Some other connections to Tyrell: his eyes were smashed by Roy Batty, he is reborn blind. Tyrell was killed before going to bed (sunset) and is renewed at dawn.

 

[SolidChamp]

The Rachel scene in question didn’t do anything for me until the payoff; executing her right then and there on the spot served a great purpose. Every character in that scene had something revealed about themselves as a result of that.

 

[hamchan]

Can I just say that Mackenzie Davis’ character looking down on Joi for being an AI despite both of them artificial creations is just the most perfect thing.

 

[Comrade Crunch]

I'm gonna have to think on it some more, but I think this is my favorite film of 2017.

I've gotta give props to Denis, he put exactly the right amount of Jared Leto in the film, directors have a habit of putting him in too many scenes.

 

[Window]

You answered your own question. The baby is just a plot device, adding it being Deckards adds absolutely nothing to this. It's basically the only anchor to the original film and it's such a crucial one for this movie. More stuff like yer man making origami sheep instead of the shoehorning in of Deckards legacy would have made the callbacks more palatable.

Because there's an added layer of emotional attachment for the audience by it being linked to characters they know and like, it just seems like an economical way to achieve this instead of spending more screen time to setup new characters. From a plot perspective, to convey the essence of the story it could be any replicants' child. Again as I said if we are to take that perspective, the film didn't even have to be set in the Blade Runner universe or continuity. To be honest despite all that, the organically birthed baby isn't the most interesting part of the film for me, which is a failing for sure.

 

[Curious Puppy]

Although BR left that open-ended, BR2049 made it abundantly clear that Deckard is a replicant.

No it didn’t.

Jesus, that's pretty dismissive of another's interpretation. I'm not sure how anyone could think that Deckard isn't a replicant. Wishful thinking? Hearing what you want to hear? Was the movie your own personal Joi?

If only the “deckard is a replicant” crowd stuck to just explaining their own interpretation instead of declaring it the “abundantly clear” fact they think it is. Same thing happened in discussions of the original.

 

[SolidChamp]

I'm gonna have to think on it some more, but I think this is my favorite film of 2017.

I've gotta give props to Denis, he put exactly the right amount of Jared Leto in the film, directors have a habit of putting him in too many scenes.

Agree totally. Not a big Leto fan but really enjoyed him in this and felt he was utilized to perfection.

 

[III-V]

lol at number_6. No, there was no confirmation bias. Pre-2049 I was in the camp that Deckard was likely not a replicant. I have argued against that in the past. This movie closed the case for me.

1.) Deckard lives in solace, raising bees. This is identical to what we see at the beginning of the film, where the replicant is living in solace raising grub. No humans are ever seen farming/raising animals in this or the other film. Humans have lost humanity, replicants have become more human than human.
2.) Wallace is not rambling. Tyrell's legacy was just that: replicants can reproduce when engineered to do so. Wallace is not skilled as Tyrell was, he is an opportunist imposter.
3.) "I know whats real" - So thought K until he saw Joi's billboard and realized that it was all just what he wanted to feel, hear and see. Deckard never 'awakens' in that same manner that we see.
4.) Gaff sees K as a sheep (common, or follower), while Deckard was a unicorn (unique, special, different).

There was more, but thats all I feel like typing out at the moment.

Some other connections to Tyrell: his eyes were smashed by Roy Batty, he is reborn blind. Tyrell was killed before going to bed (sunset) and is renewed at dawn.

killing it

 

[Nekofrog]

I went at 8 friday night and there were maybe 20 people there. And there was weird laughter during some of the deeper character scenes.

 

[Farside]

Nah, I'd want to hear confirmation he's human.

EDIT:

To add though, logically, there is no confirmation. Wallace hinted at the possibility while essentially trying to mindfuck/interrogate Deckard. No more, no less.

If only the ”deckard is a replicant" crowd stuck to just explaining their own interpretation instead of declaring it the ”abundantly clear" fact they think it is. Same thing happened in discussions of the original.

The "I know what's real line" from Deckard during the discussion with Wallace is pretty telling, as the entire idea of planted memories that seem real, K's horse, is a call back to Deckard's unicorn. Wallace confirming Rachel and Deckard's love was manufactured, is another.

But as Number_6 thinks this is Wallace "mindfucking" Deckard, I'm going to go ahead and say that this is probably not confirmation for either of you.

 

[Window]

lol at number_6. No, there was no confirmation bias. Pre-2049 I was in the camp that Deckard was likely not a replicant. I have argued against that in the past. This movie closed the case for me.

1.) Deckard lives in solace, raising bees. This is identical to what we see at the beginning of the film, where the replicant is living in solace raising grub. No humans are ever seen farming/raising animals in this or the other film. Humans have lost humanity, replicants have become more human than human.

I think you maybe taking this too literally. I don't think the rest of the points you make direct us toward a clear answer either. It's deliberately left ambiguous.

 

[Curious Puppy]

lol at number_6. No, there was no confirmation bias. Pre-2049 I was in the camp that Deckard was likely not a replicant. I have argued against that in the past. This movie closed the case for me.

1.) Deckard lives in solace, raising bees. This is identical to what we see at the beginning of the film, where the replicant is living in solace raising grub. No humans are ever seen farming/raising animals in this or the other film. Humans have lost humanity, replicants have become more human than human.
2.) Wallace is not rambling. Tyrell's legacy was just that: replicants can reproduce when engineered to do so. Wallace is not skilled as Tyrell was, he is an opportunist imposter.
3.) "I know whats real" - So thought K until he saw Joi's billboard and realized that it was all just what he wanted to feel, hear see. Deckard never 'awakens' in that same manner that we see.
4.) Gaff sees K as a sheep (common, or follower), while Deckard was a unicorn (unique, special, different).

There was more, but thats all I feel like typing out at the moment.



killing it

This is the definition of confirmation bias, fitting pieces as you perceive them to fit an argument. Living alone and the quote about knowing what’s real is so broad and amorphous that an argument could be easily made for the opposite side. It was all ambiguous, Denis himself basically said that was the intent.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

I went at 8 friday night and there were maybe 20 people there. And there was weird laughter during some of the deeper character scenes.

Same for me. The laughter was fucking weird.

 

[hamchan]

I’m so glad they never answered the Deckard replicant question. That’s something that should never be definitively answered. It fits the whole theme of both movies to always be wondering what he is and whether it even matters.

 

[III-V]

It's not a coincidence about them (replicants) both raising life. This fits into the central theme of the movie, that the replicants were able to reproduce.

This is the definition of confirmation bias, fitting pieces as you perceive them to fit an argument. Living alone and the quote about knowing what's real is so broad and amorphous that an argument could be easily made for the opposite side. It was all ambiguous, Denis himself basically said that was the intent.

K is the mirror to Deckard, hence Deckard's "who am I to you" after rescue.

 

[Farside]

This is the definition of confirmation bias, fitting pieces as you perceive them to fit an argument. Living alone and the quote about knowing what's real is so broad and amorphous that an argument could be easily made for the opposite side. It was all ambiguous, Denis himself basically said that was the intent.

So if you say he isn't a replicant and use evidence, I guess we could say that this is confirmation bias, as well.

And if you are paying attention to the context of the film that real line is anything but ambiguous.

 

[daviyoung]

Because there's an added layer of emotional attachment for the audience by it being linked to characters they know and like, it just seems like an economical way to achieve this instead of spending more screen time to setup new characters. From a plot perspective, to convey the essence of the story it could be any replicants' child. Again as I said if we are to take that perspective, the film didn't even have to be set in the Blade Runner universe or continuity. To be honest despite all that, the organically birthed baby isn't the most interesting part of the film for me, which is a failing for sure.

I know why they did it. And it's bullshit. Aside from acting as the audience's lynchpin Deckard didn't have to be in this for it to still be a Blade Runner story. It's the world that is created, it's politics and it's metaphors that would have guided the story (like the first film does). If it wasn't set in Blade Runner world it would have been like a Children of Men story but the fact that it's set in Ridley Scott's world is what makes it a Blade Runner movie. Not that it features a couple of characters from the last film.

 

[Curious Puppy]

The "I know what's real line" from Deckard during the discussion with Wallace is pretty telling, as the entire idea of planted memories that seem real, K's horse, is a call back to Deckard's unicorn. Wallace confirming Rachel and Deckard's love was manufactured, is another.

But as Number_6 thinks this is Wallace "mindfucking" Deckard, I'm going to go ahead and say that this is probably not confirmation for either of you.

Wallace never confirmed their love was manufactured, he was talking out of his ass. He was a teenager when they met and isn’t actually the omniscient god he tries to sound like. He has no idea whether their love was real.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I'm legit shook that Jared Leto was not a replicant, or at least not explicitly revealed to be one. I 100% got the impression that he was from marketing somehow. Like I thought they were going to reveal that he was a replicant who engineered the blackout and then used the chaos to rise to personal power.

I didn't actually watch the blackout video or most of the trailers though, so I'm assuming if I had I wouldn't have got that impression at all.

 

[ronaldthump]

We know they were not looking for the daughter but we don't know they weren't on the hunt for Deckard. It's been 30 years, it was probably not an active manhunt but if he were identified by an officer he would probably be apprehended. Given the ending of the first, I don't have any reason to believe otherwise.

The LAPD of the future can’t even chase down Coco or Robin Wright’s killer. 🤔

 

[Window]

It's not a coincidence about them (replicants) both raising life. This fits into the central theme of the movie, that the replicants were able to reproduce.

Or you could go all Battlestar Galactica and have the central theme be about a human and replicant birthing life, further blurring the line between the two.

There's no answers to Deckard's true nature here.

 

[Farside]

Wallace never confirmed their love was manufactured, he was talking out of his ass. He was a teenager when they met and isn’t actually the omniscient god he tries to sound like.

Again, that's your opinion.

 

[Freewheelin']

I haven't seen 2049 yet, but Deckard being a replicant is the least interesting thing about the first film. Absolutely comes across as Scott being Scott for the sake of being Scott.

 

[Farside]

I'm legit shook that Jared Leto was not a replicant, or at least not explicitly revealed to be one. I 100% got the impression that he was from marketing somehow. Like I thought they were going to reveal that he was a replicant who engineered the blackout and then used the chaos to rise to personal power.

Yeah, the trailers gave me serious Ghost in the Shell allusions for Leto's character.

 

[Milijango]

I liked it. Doesn't come close to the first film for me, and I'd be here if all day if I listed every little thing that bothered me, so I'll just stick to... Luv.

Man, after a really promising start to her character, she just doles out some cheesy pre-execution one-liners and then goes out in an *incredibly* protracted fistfight that blew a lot of the goodwill I had towards the movie at that point.

7/10. I'm sure I'll see it again; maybe the last act won't sour it as badly next time.

 

[nOoblet16]

Also, was it me or were they intentionally vague on whether Deckard was actually a replicant? Wallace seemed to say he had no way to know for sure, because of incomplete records, but the conspiracy theory in his head was that Tyrell created Deckard to mate with Rachel and carry out the plan for replicant reproduction.

You are correct.

Although BR left that open-ended, BR2049 made it abundantly clear that Deckard is a replicant.

No it didn't. They were intentionally (and very bluntly) being vague because the answer to the question is not as interesting as the question itself. And that's exactly what Denis Villeneuve has said about this matter. It's really pointless as it does not matter whether Deckard is a replicant or not as it doesn't changes anything at all, if he is a replicant then he's so ordinary without anything superhuman about him that he might as well be human. If he isn't a replicant then well...it doesn't matter either.

 

[Number_6]

lol at number_6. No, there was no confirmation bias. Pre-2049 I was in the camp that Deckard was likely not a replicant. I have argued against that in the past. This movie closed the case for me.

1.) Deckard lives in solace, raising bees. This is identical to what we see at the beginning of the film, where the replicant is living in solace raising grub. No humans are ever seen farming/raising animals in this or the other film. Humans have lost humanity, replicants have become more human than human.
2.) Wallace is not rambling. Tyrell's legacy was just that: replicants can reproduce when engineered to do so. Wallace is not skilled as Tyrell was, he is an opportunist imposter.
3.) "I know whats real" - So thought K until he saw Joi's billboard and realized that it was all just what he wanted to feel, hear and see. Deckard never 'awakens' in that same manner that we see.
4.) Gaff sees K as a sheep (common, or follower), while Deckard was a unicorn (unique, special, different).

There was more, but thats all I feel like typing out at the moment.

I think you're neglecting the first Blade Runner a bit.

Yes, humans have lost humanity and replicants have become more human than human. That's the point of the first film. Deckard learns this when Roy saves his life. He, as a human, wakes up and starts to truly value life as replicants do. Live to the fullest. Don't waste it. You don't know how long you've got (this is true for humans and replicants alike).

He's not living like a replicant in 2049 because he's a replicant. He's living like a replicant because he'd rediscovered his humanity in the first film, thanks to replicants. Also, he was being hunted, since he went rogue with them.

EDIT: Anyway, that should be enough to open the case again, at the very least.

 

[III-V]

Or you could go all Battlestar Galactica and have the central theme be about a human and replicant birthing life, further blurring the line between the two.

There's no answers to Deckard's true nature here.

There are more hints as well:

Q: "who keeps a dead tree"

A: Replicant grub farmer in the beginning of the film, Deckard keeps and carves them into little animals. Wood described as 'old, old' (dead) by the scientist.

I think you're neglecting the first Blade Runner a bit.

Yes, humans have lost humanity and replicants have become more human than human. That's the point of the first film. Deckard learns this when Roy saves his life. He, as a human, wakes up and starts to truly value life as replicants do. Live to the fullest. Don't waste it. You don't know how long you've got (this is true for humans and replicants alike).

He's not living like a replicant in 2049 because he's a replicant. He's living like a replicant because he'd rediscovered his humanity in the first film, thanks to replicants. Also, he was being hunted, since he went rogue with them.

EDIT: Anyway, that should be enough to open the case again, at the very least.

Like I said earlier, I had a similar takeaway from the first film as well, but after watching 2049 and considering the both as a whole, I have changed my mind. For me, there was enough in 2049 for me to see he was replicant the whole time.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

I'm legit shook that Jared Leto was not a replicant, or at least not explicitly revealed to be one. I 100% got the impression that he was from marketing somehow. Like I thought they were going to reveal that he was a replicant who engineered the blackout and then used the chaos to rise to personal power.

I didn't actually watch the blackout video or most of the trailers though, so I'm assuming if I had I wouldn't have got that impression at all.

Yeah, the blackout abime movie shows the exact events that caused the Blackout (Replicant activists trying to erase the databases by using an EMP). The one with Leto in it makes it very clear he's a human; it has him introducing the first Nexus 8 and then showing their obedience by asking it to choose to either kill itself, or him, prompting it to commit suicide.

Also, he's blind. That seems like a small thing (why couldn't a Replicant go blind?) but Replicants are nearly always shown to be perfect, superior humans physically. They don't really have flaws like that. Even Batista's glasses seem more like an affectation than something he actually needs to see.

 

[Lyonaz]

Love this movie, it ticked all the right boxes for me. K and Joi's relationship was the highlight for me, reminded me of the movie Her.

 

[Curious Puppy]

Again, that's your opinion.

No it isn’t, Luv explicitly states the blackout fried all of the records except for fragments. Wallace knows what Rachel looks like and has some video recordings, but it’s his own cynical outlook on Replicants and his desire to fuck with Deckard that makes him say their love isn’t real. He doesn’t actually have evidence she was programmed to fall in love with him. There’s also the fact that it being real love was a huge part of the soul of the original. Wallace doesn’t know about the intimate details of what Tyrell was really up to, and doesn’t really care because he thinks he already has all the answers. Remember that he’s an industrialist, he’s only interested in what replicants can do as workhorses. He took over Tyrell Corp as a means to gain more power after saving humanity through his crops.

 

[Number_6]

There are more hints as well:

Q: "who keeps a dead tree"

A: Replicant grub farmer in the beginning of the film, Deckard keeps and carves them into little animals. Wood described as 'old, old' (dead) by the scientist.

Again. Deckard was awoken in the first film to value life. You're right, replicants were more human than human, which, as a human viewer, is tragic. Thus, a human realizing this and regaining his own humanity is a powerful thing.

A robot learning to do as other robots do--not so much.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Yeah, the blackout abime movie shows the exact events that caused the Blackout (Replicant activists trying to erase the databases by using an EMP). The one with Leto in it makes it very clear he's a human; it has him introducing the first Nexus 8 and then showing their obedience by asking it to choose to either kill itself, or him, prompting it to commit suicide.

Also, he's blind. That seems like a small thing (why couldn't a Replicant go blind?) but Replicants are nearly always shown to be perfect, superior humans physically. They don't really have flaws like that. Even Batista's glasses seem more like an affectation than something he actually needs to see.

I didn't realize he was actually supposed to be blind, I just assumed he had cybernetic modifications and so whenever he wasn't looking at someone directly it was because he was using his other eyes (by choice, not because he couldn't).

 

[SolidChamp]

I haven't seen 2049 yet, but Deckard being a replicant is the least interesting thing about the first film. Absolutely comes across as Scott being Scott for the sake of being Scott.

*Scott downs a glass of whiskey*

Scott: So what were we talking about again?

Interviewer: Alien Covenant is your-

Scott: Derkerd’s a replicant, okay? There, I fucking said it. Fuck’s your problem?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

No it isn’t, Luv explicitly states the blackout fried all of the records except for fragments. Wallace knows what Rachel looks like and has some video recordings, but it’s his own cynical outlook on Replicants and his desire to fuck with Deckard that makes him say their love isn’t real. He doesn’t actually have evidence she was programmed to fall in love with him. There’s also the fact that it being real love was a huge part of the soul of the original.

Yeah, Wallace seems to have an extremely low opinion of Replicants in general. Which is why he calls them Angels. In the Bible the Angels were God's servants; humanity are his children and get his love but the Angels were just expected to do their thing and stay out of the way. Wallace clearly had the same opinion; humans are special and deserve the universe and they will do it on the back of his expendable creation.

It stands in opposition to Tyrell who was basically over humans and wanted to make Replicants to basically replace them. Perfect, innocent humans, uncorrupted. Tyrell loved his replicant children, Wallace just sees them as a means to an end, as we see in the scene where he murders a newborn for not being good enough.

So it makes sense he'd both be confused, and probably a little put off, by Deckard's love of Rachel. He just doesn't get it.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Watched the first one again the other night and never got the idea that Deckard was a replicant at all. He has none of the abilities of a replicant. Also, if he was built just to fall in love, why the whole Roy side story?

 

[III-V]

Again. Deckard was awoken in the first film to value life. You're right, replicants were more human than human, which, as a human viewer, is tragic. Thus, a human realizing this and regaining his own humanity is a powerful thing.

A robot learning to do as other robots do--not so much.

Contrast this with an actual human like Gaff. Gaff is now in what appears to be some sort of nursing home, and although claiming to prefer to 'work alone' is now surrounded by other people. He does not even meet in private. Many of the humans in the film are always shown close, huddled together, while the replicants are often solitary.

Meanwhile Deckard is alone in a Las Vegas post nuclear fallout, where it was not even safe to go for humans years ago. You see when they arrive they have special masks to protect themselves. Luv, Deckard and K do not need them, as they are (seemingly) not in danger, being replicants.

 

[Window]

I don't remember arguments against Deckard being a replicant but I have a hard time thinking of any other plausible explanation for the unicorn connection in the Final Cut.

 

[tonysidaway]

Although BR left that open-ended, BR2049 made it abundantly clear that Deckard is a replicant.

If anything, you have it backwards. Ridley Scott believes Blade Runner doesn't work unless Rick is an android, though principal writer Hampton Fancher disagrees. Villeneuve's sequel doesn't address the ambiguity at all. If anybody in the film has information confirming he's an android, they don't mention the fact on screen.

Spoiler

In my opinion, Deckard shot first.

 

[Curious Puppy]

Yeah, Wallace seems to have an extremely low opinion of Replicants in general. Which is why he calls them Angels. In the Bible the Angels were God's servants; humanity are his children and get his love but the Angels were just expected to do their thing and stay out of the way. Wallace clearly had the same opinion; humans are special and deserve the universe and they will do it on the back of his expendable creation.

It stands in opposition to Tyrell who was basically over humans and wanted to make Replicants to basically replace them. Perfect, innocent humans, uncorrupted. Tyrell loved his replicant children, Wallace just sees them as a means to an end, as we see in the scene where he murders a newborn for not being good enough.

So it makes sense he'd both be confused, and probably a little put off, by Deckard's love of Rachel. He just doesn't get it.

Exactly. Tyrell really did love them because he was a real creator. Wallace is a vicious industrialist who seems to want to conquer the galaxy with an army of his own personal slaves. He’s a straight up video game villain who chooses to use floating robots to see just to intimidate people (he could just fix his eyes instead), and puts on that affected way of speaking to try and sound less monstrous than he is.

If anything, you have it backwards. Ridley Scott believes Blade Runner doesn't work unless Rick is an android, though principal writer Hampton Fancher disagrees. Villeneuve's sequel doesn't address the ambiguity at all. If anybody in the film has information confirming he's an android, they don't mention the fact on screen.

Spoiler

In my opinion, Deckard shot first.

Harrison Ford also believes Deckard is human.

 

[III-V]

If anything, you have it backwards. Ridley Scott believes Blade Runner doesn't work unless Rick is an android, though principal writer Hampton Fancher disagrees. Villeneuve's sequel doesn't address the ambiguity at all. If anybody in the film has information confirming he's an android, they don't mention the fact on screen.

Spoiler

In my opinion, Deckard shot first.

I do not agree with RS and I think BR worked with Deckard as human or replicant. I saw him as a human for years. Of course Deckard shot first, K did not have a gun at the time.

 

[Number_6]

Contrast this with an actual human like Gaff. Gaff is now in what appears to be some sort of nursing home, and although claiming to prefer to 'work alone' is now surrounded by other people. He does not even meet in private. Many of the humans in the film are always shown close, huddled together, while the replicants are often solitary.

Meanwhile Deckard is alone in a Las Vegas post nuclear fallout, where it was not even safe to go for humans years ago. You see when they arrive they have special masks to protect themselves. Luv, Deckard and K do not need them, as they are (seemingly) not in danger, being replicants.

You keep contrasting lifestyles, but Deckard, even if human, is different from other humans because he learned a lesson in the first film. Then he joined with replicants.

Vegas had a dirty bomb, not fallout. Not that it matters. Anyway, a mask alone isn't going to protect you from radiation. They were more likely dust masks, as the pursuers had just blown open the window and let the dust in. You're right though, Luv and K don't need dust masks. Deckard wasn't planning on going outside, didn't grab his beekeeper suit.

 

[RS4-]

Re: Deckard being a replicant. I think this really depends on whether you've seen the theatrical or final cut only of the original, and didn't do any reading up on it.

In 2049, when he's asked why he didn't look for his kid, he mentions that he and they were being hunted. From that, people can assume that he is also one. Or hunted because he ran away with Rachel.

 

[Window]

Would you watch a holographic recreation of a concert of your favourite artist?

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Would you watch a holographic recreation of a concert of your favourite artist?

They already did that at Coachella.

 

[III-V]

Deckard wasn't planning on going outside, didn't grab his beekeeper suit.

They showed a beekeeper suit? I never saw that, but if I did that would be a nugget in the other direction.

Would you watch a holographic recreation of a concert of your favourite artist?

absolutely.

 

[Number_6]

I don't remember arguments against Deckard being a replicant but I have a hard time thinking of any other plausible explanation for the unicorn connection in the Final Cut.

Simply coincidence for the sake of symbolism. That shit happens all the time in movies.

Deckard dreamed of chasing something truly special--a fulfilling life. Gaff, having insight into people, sees this too. That Deckard actually dreamt a unicorn and Gaff saw Deckard as chasing his personal unicorn can just be coincidence that serves the symbol.

I mean, that's a possible interpretation.

Re: Deckard being a replicant. I think this really depends on whether you've seen the theatrical or final cut only of the original, and didn't do any reading up on it.

In 2049, when he's asked why he didn't look for his kid, he mentions that he and they were being hunted. From that, people can assume that he is also one

Deckard ran off with a prototype replicant. He went rogue. Broke the law. Of course they'd be after him.

Human or not, he can't get taken because of what he knows. He has to hide or die.

 

[Window]

They already did that at Coachella.

I know but I mean an exact recreation of a famous concert e.g. Elvis' Hawaii one. Was the Coachella one an actual reenactment of a real Tupac concert?

Simply coincidence for the sake of symbolism. That shit happens all the time in movies.

Deckard dreamed of chasing something truly special--a fulfilling life. Gaff, having insight into people, sees this too. That Deckard actually dreamt a unicorn and Gaff saw Deckard as chasing his personal unicorn can just be coincidence that serves the symbol.

I mean, that's a possible interpretation.

Possible but it doesn't strike me as plausible.

 

[LenHendricks]

Deckard was never a replicant in the original script or the original shoot of Blade Runner itself. If anything it was supposed to be ambiguous, but the FInal Cut/Director's Cut stripped the ambiguity out and explicitly turned him into one. Harrison Ford always hated that notion but Scott ended up falling in love with it.

Villeneuve is on record in interviews as stating he preferred the mystery so 2049 can be read either way. I'd have to look it up, but it's out there.