I personally find Blade Runner a bit overrated now because of its ambiguity. Ambiguity is rarely used well and worse for most people they never get or interperet what messages they are receiving. Watchmen suffers from this aswell, what the heck are the quotes from historical figures add to the story. Most of it means nothing to what happens in the story that it comes off as pretentious.

I always liked the ambiguity until I read a very persuasive essay about how him being a human is what makes the entire movie work, because he's accepting Rachel for what she is and finding his humanity. If he is actually a replicant himself all that is kind of pointless.

But if Deckard was a replicant he was not aware of that fact. If he was convinced that he was human, wouldn't his acceptance of Rachel have the same meaning regardless of whether or not he was, in fact, a replicant?

Do you happen to remember the name of that essay? I'd like to read it.

Sorry, it was a long time ago. If I stumble upon it with some googling I'll come back and link it. He outlined a lot of examples that don't work as well if he's a robot, but it's hard to remember details. It convinced me the ending works better if he is running off with a replicant as a human, though.

Thanks. He may be right about the ending being more powerful that way, but I feel like the perversity of humans creating a replicant who is unaware of his true nature, for the sole purpose of having him hunt down his own kin, is so fascinating and terrifying that they should at least leave it as a possible interpretation.