Hi, I'm new, just started listening and just signed up to post....but enough about me, lol.
I'm really glad to see this on top of the posts in the general sci-fi discussion, because this is a topic that's been bugging me A LOT.
I read the book pretty early on in my pursuit of classic sci-fi...or any sci-fi outside of Star Wars really, (I'm 23, so I probably got a pretty late start compared to most of you), so I was a bit younger and maybe not as thoughtful about what I read then as I am now...but the truth of the matter is that I did not see ANYTHING in the book that made me question if Decker was a replicant, and even less in the movie to make me think this was an issue.
I know that in the book there were parts where his humanity was brought into question, but anything that we as readers were meant to pick up on as being foreshadowing or hinting at some deeper meaning was completely lost on me.
Part of me can't help but feel that we have these questions about whether or not he is a replicant because we are told we should be thinking about them.
The specifics you point out in the movie, though, make a lot of sense to me, and if Ridley Scott says so about his own movie then it must be true!
But even then...is his movie just his own interpretation, or is he drawing from some official answers somewhere?
So, I guess what I'm wondering is if any of you fountains of sci-fi knowledge
have anything specific to share about this debate...or if it's not actually a debate reasons why it was so completely over my head.