George Lucas often gets flak for making changes to the original Star Wars trilogy, but if we're going to criticize Lucas, then we also need to point the finger at Ridley Scott. After all, there are seven different versions of Blade Runner, and thanks to all that tinkering, sci-fans have spent countless hours discussing whether or not Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is actually a replicant.
So what's the correct answer? Well, if you go by the original ending, it's a straightforward "no." The theatrical cut ends on an upbeat note, with Deckard and his robotic lady love (Sean Young) escaping into the mountains to live a long and happy life. There's no origami, no unicorn, and only one android.
However, that all changed with the Director's Cut. That's the version in which Scott added Deckard's unicorn dream and cut the happy Hollywood ending. This time around, the film ends with our protagonist finding Gaff's (Edward James Olmos) origami message, possibly implying the creepy cop knows what Deckard dreams about because Deckard's memories are implants, thus making him a replicant.
Ever since, people have argued about Deckard's true nature. Even Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford don't agree. The director firmly believes Deckard is a machine, while the actor claims his character is 100 percent human. Those who side with Scott think the replicant ending adds a layer of darkness, mystery, and complexity. But those who agree with Ford—like Red Letter Media's Jay Bauman—believe the replicant theory ruins the whole movie. Why does it matter if Deckard rediscovers his humanity if he's not actually human?
Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, we can all agree Blade Runner is an incredibly influential film, and however people feel about Denis Villeneuve's 2017 sequel, they'll continue talking about the original's ending(s) for a long, long time.