>Is it [the owl] real?
>Of course not
>Must be expensive
>Is it [the snake] real?
>You think I'd be working here if I could afford a real snake?
So what is the meaning of this? Has Ridley been a hack forever?
Are Replicant Animals cheaper or more expensive than living ones?
In the story both replicant and real animals are very expensive. Real animals are all either extinct or priceless treasures.
I think that in that first bit of dialogue you bring up, the statement "Must be expensive" is actually an afterthought unrelated to the fact of its being a replicant. Hope this helps.
A Lambourghini is more expensive than a Ferarri which is more expensive than a Civic.
Real animals are mostly extinct so they are the most expensive. Good Replicants, as in Rachel, are much more expensive than crappy skin jobs like Roy and his crew. Same applies for animals.
No. Leon was literally made to lift heavy stuff.
They lack the emotional abilities that Rachel has. Remember how many questions it took for Rachel to fail the test compared to Leon in the beginning?
The owl is so realistic that it fooled Deckard in close inspection with how realistic it was. Owls are complicated. They have feathers and eyes and bone structure and wings and talons and beaks. It's a good replicant. It must be expensive.
That snake is decidedly less complicated, but it is still expensive. Not as expensive as a real snake, though.
Things aren't either expensive or inexpensive. A poodle is expensive. An African grey parrot is more expensive. A Bengal tiger is more expensive. A Bengal tiger being very expensive doesn't make the poodle less expensive.
But Rachel was a prototype of sorts, no? And kinda unfair to compare them to her, given they weren't allowed to develop past a four year lifespan. Hardly "skin jobs" when it's implied that only their models, Nexus-6, are even capable of emotions.
>Did the guy from the beginning survive?
Yes. The chief says something in the beginning that he's fine as long as no one unplugs him. There's a deleted scene where Deckard visits him.
Are humans more or less expensive than animals? They're more expensive than replicants of the same nature since they make replicant sex workers, but what about the value of the average human? Kinda weird how they had to threaten Deckard, when given the available technology and populace they should just be able to train another human. Deckard's skill didn't seem rare.
I mean, why even bother with figuring who's a replicant and who isn't when they could just track the replicants from the start? Why didn't they just put some simply tracking chip into the replicants and problem solved?
Humans are worth whatever they make themselves worth, same as it is today. Someone who is smart will go farther in life than someone with mental handicaps. Tyrell is worth more than the noodle salesmen, for example.
As for your question about Deckard, we have to look at it in two different ways.
If he is a human, than his experience and skills are worth something, just like any detective in the police force. He just happens to be a really good detective, that's all, and they needed the best.
If he's a replicant, then he's worth nothing. His whole life is a fascade. There's probably been dozens, if not more, Deckards that have had the same skills and memories implanted and have used the same room over and over.
Originally, and if you read Rachel's lips, she says "Of course not!" because to own a real animal in that world is a status symbol. It is implied in the book as well. Ridley Scott changed it in post-production to what it is now because he's a moron who can't tell a story without fucking it up somehow.