Things are about to get extremely nerdy here, so please have your fedora and vape pen on hand at all times. And anyway, this is important, considering it has to do with the most influential (and presently un-ruined) sci-fi movie of all time.
As we know, replicants in Blade Runner are bioengineered androids built to work for humans. The latest model is the Nexus 6, which looks identical to humans with superior physical prowess and a lifespan designed to only last four years. These replicants can be distinguished from humans after answering two dozen questions in the Voight-Kampff test. In the original movie, however, we're introduced to the replicant Rachel, whose true identity is difficult to identify using the Voight-Kampff test and, in the theatrical cut of the film, is revealed not to have the four-year lifespan. (This information was removed in the more popular director's cut of the film.)
Which brings us to the main protagonist Rick Deckard. There has long been a debate over if Harrison Ford's character is himself a replicant. While he's never revealed to be a replicant in the basis for Blade Runner (Philip K. Dick's original book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), the movie leaves things more ambiguous. There's good evidence pointing to both sides, even though director Ridley Scott once claimed that Deckard is not a replicant. But, then again, Scott has also said that Deckard was definitely a Nexus 6.
While some claim that a sequel to the film set 35 years in the future is proof that Ford's character is not a replicant, that question is still up for debate among Blade Runner 2049's producers. Late last year, Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Villeneuve said that he didn't plan on messing with the mysteries of the original film.
But a new interview with IGN with Scott pretty blatantly says the opposite:
IGN: At what point while making the original film did you decide that Deckard would be a replicant?
Scott: Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, "Well, isn't it corny?" I said, "Listen, I'll be the best fucking judge of that. I'm the director, okay?" So, and that, you learn — you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no fucking chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, "You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be." Harrison, he was never—I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, "Uh, I don't know about that." I said, "But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, 'I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a fucking unicorn!'" Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is "Duh." So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other.
Okay, so, this quote is totally unhinged, and anyone who's seen Alien: Covenant wouldn't be surprised that this is how Ridley Scott speaks. But there are some important points there. One is the origami unicorn—which Edward James Olmos's character leaves at Deckard's house the morning after Deckard dreams of a unicorn. The other is when Scott literally says, "So now it will be revealed one way or the other." It's possible that Scott is interpreting the new film a different way than Villeneuve.
But what's more likely is that they're purposefully giving fake answers (as Scott has done over the last 35 years) to keep the mystery alive. Given what we know about the Rachel replicant in Blade Runner, it's still likely that Ford's character could be a replicant without an expiration date.
