Talk:Replicant

message: meaning, are they biologically based on manipulated human DNA and NOT manufactured synthetic copies of human biology? The film doesn't explain this in detail, and the Wiki page for this reflects that to large extent, only referencing "inspirations" for the term Replicant itself.
I guess a good analogy to Replicant manufacturing would be the very cheesy sendup of this year's "The Island", where mad scientists took donor DNA and manufactured them into fully grown adults, but m>mb vcbgnjkl39.8.110|contribs]]) .</small>
:Yes they are physically human as standard physical tests cannot easily detect them. However, to what extent they are copied from other humans, or re-engineered from scratch is up in the air. It may be premature to believe they are cloned from human; however even if that were the case it would likely just be the aethetics (exterior) that was copied. - RoyBoy 800 06:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that's how it is with the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica. They have DNA, but it wasn't copied from pre-existing people. Noneofyourbusiness 02:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Replicants 'physically' human? 

message: Considering that Rutger Hauer's character 'Roy Batty' is one of the most famous replicants in movie history, if not perhaps even the most famous, shouldn't there consequently also be an image of his character in the article? 
 Okama-San (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No image of Roy Batty? 

message: Walter Görlitz, with regard to this reversion, I'll clarify my reasoning, and can you clarify yours please?
I removed the entire section because it hinges on the assumption that Gant may know that Deckard is a replicant:  "that Gaff leaves an origami unicorn at Deckard's house may imply that he knows of Deckard's implanted dream".  Not only is this  completely unsourced, but your reversion reinserted the  tag.  The relevance of the unicorn and the rest of the paragraph hinges on this assumption that Gaff has some extra knowledge of Deckard - which is not backed up by any part of the film in any format.
There is no doubt that Gaff calls out "It's too bad she won't live... then again, who does?", but what is the relevance to Deckard being a replicant?  There is nothing to support this claim, and in reality my summary that it's just as likely (and just as unsourced) that Gaff himself is a replicant therefore has knowledge of such things.
The inclusion of the Unicorns and dreams is in the film, but the leap that this proves in some way that he's a replicant is unsourced supposition.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I was arguing that plots are verifiable by their existence on the media. :MOS:PLOTSOURCE: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." We cannot assume what it means, but that it happens does not need to be sourced. The difference between cuts has no bearing on replicants. The "may imply that he knows of Deckard's implanted dream" phrase is what you object to, not the lack of sourcing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gant & the Unicorn 

message: Is this section even relevant? This article is about replicants in the Blade Runner universe, the question of whether a particular character seems far too specific for an encyclopedia entry.--Roybatty675 (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is a debate about whether he was or was not, I see it as relevant. I did not add it though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Deckard a replicant?