At first I thought "no".
Then I thought, " The pictures on the piano give him away as a replicant ".
Now, I will not say.
The original movie, no. The second, I thought it was a possibility. Actually, a yes. But I only saw the movie twice. Back to back.
shareHe was human in the book. Ridley Scott is simply a narcissist who thought he could tell the story better than Philip K. Dick.
shareI've never liked the idea of Deckard as a replicant. In the first place, why make a replicant like him, who lacks all the advantages of the other replicants? He doesn't have the strength that Batty and Leon have, and it sure would be a nice thing for a blade runner going after replicants to have. The idea that Deckard was one seems more like an idea that occurred to someone as an afterthought, and that they ran with, than something that had been planned for the story, or that had been thematically intended. In the second place, one of the themes of the movie is suggested by the Tyrell Corporation motto: more human than human. In Blade Runner, we see a world where the replicants are showing more humanity in some ways than the human characters. They are desperately struggling to preserve and extend their lives, and to help each other in this struggle, where humans have become cold and callous, casually terminating the replicants, when they're not exploiting them for slave labor. The replicants are displaying more humanity than the humans are.
I think the story works better with Deckard as a human who has been desensitized by his society, reawakened to his humanity when Batty saves his life at the end, seemingly since Batty can't save his own. Thus he's motivated to try to help Rachel escape. I think his character arc is more profound, more moving, and more admirable if he's a human who reconnects with his humanity in that dystopian world, than just another replicant who's now going to join his replicant brothers and sisters in their struggle.
^^^This is the best answer to the "is-he-or-isn't-he" question I've ever read!
shareI never saw Deckard as a replicant.
shareIMO the whole point is that we don't know for sure, and we can never know. And more important, Dekard doesn't know. The fact that it's an unanswered question is what gives it value. To answer the question deletes any weight of importance the story had.
I've always leaned very far toward assuming he's human. But every version of the film introduced some doubt, e.g. with Rachel asking him "Have you ever taken that test yourself?"