Eu não diria que eles "se acovardaram", mas eles mantiveram a ambiguidade do Final Cut de propósito, sim.

Na entrevista mencionada em este filme & Resposta do TV Stack Exchange , o diretor Denis Vileneuve tem isto a dizer:

So when Blade Runner 2049 director Denis Vileneuve met with reporters at San Diego Comic-Con, someone inevitably had to ask which version of Blade Runner is Blade Runner 2049 a sequel to. "The thing is that I was raised with the first one," Vileneuve said, referring to the original theatrical cut. "There was one Blade Runner at the time. I remember seeing the first movie and falling deeply in love with it."

But his love for the original doesn't mean that there isn't room for nuance, or that he can't acknowledge the intent of Scott's later versions of the film. "The key to making [Blade Runner 2049] was to be in between," Vileneuve said. "[The theatrical version] is the story of a human falling in love with an artificial being, and the story of [the director's cut] is a replicant who doesn’t know he’s a replicant and slowly discovers his own identity. Those are two different stories."

In order to tell his story without alienating fans who prefer one version of the story, the director went back to the source material, Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? for inspiration. "I felt that the key to deal with that was in the original novel," Villeneuve said. "In the novel the characters are doubting themselves and they aren’t sure if they are replicants or not. From time to time the detectives are running scans on themselves to make sure that they are human. I love that idea so I decided that in the movie Deckard is unsure, as we are, of what his identity is. I love mystery."

As for which version Harrison Ford and Scott consider to be the truth? "Harrison and Ridley are still arguing about that," Vileneuve says. "If you put them in the same room, they start to talk very loudly about it."

Intencionalmente ambíguo

A velha questão de saber se Deckard é ou não Replicante tem sido debatida nos últimos 34 anos, e não menos pelo Diretor do original ( Blade Runner ) Ridley Scott, até ao diretor - Denis Villeneuve - e escritores - Hampton Fancher e Michael Green - de Blade Runner 2049 .

Especificamente, Green e Fancher concordam que este tópico deve permanecer ambíguo, e é assim que eles o escreveram, como eles disseram em um Revista recente com Josh Rottenberg (Los Angeles Times):

Josh: As I see it, this movie seems to suggest that Deckard is a human, not a replicant. But there are other people who interpret it differently.

Green: One of my favorite outcomes from the film from early reactions I’m seeing is that people are coming out of it even more sure of the opinion that they’ve held — and still not agreeing. That gives me tremendous joy. And that includes some of the people that were responsible for the original film and this film. The debate seems to continue, and people seem to think that those who think the opposite of them are nuts.

Fancher: I’ve always thought that if the replicant-cy is a success, then you don’t know that you’re a replicant. So either way you’re … in terms of the ambiguity of it — and life is ambiguous.

Deeming Deckard a replicant closes the door on the party: “Go home, everybody, it’s closed.” It’s got to be up in the air or there’s no dog fight. It’s an aesthetic philosophical equation. Like, I’m not so sure Michael Green is an authentic human being. You know what I mean?

Green: I agree. I don’t think this movie answers definitively one way or the other, but I’m tickled that many people do and I’m also tickled that many people don’t. Some people come out saying, “Thank you for not answering it” and other people come out saying, “Thank you for answering it.” And that’s what we set out to do. We wanted to make sure that the ambiguity is built into the story.

“Blade Runner” is all about questions of authenticity, comfort with ambiguity, and you can’t discuss the film without talking about that particular ambiguity — is he a human or a replicant? — or even about which version of the film is the authentic version of the film. So the film itself is representative of gradations of realness.
_{-Los Angeles Times, 2017-10-09, Is Deckard a replicant? 'Blade Runner 2049' writers discuss that and other mysteries, by Josh Rottenberg}

A posição de Fancher e Green sobre o assunto (como deve permanecer ambíguo) também é elaborada em outra entrevista recente com Adam Chitwood (Collider):

Fancher: “Yeah, I always [believed] he’s not a replicant. I thought if he’s a replicant, the game’s over. I think he doesn’t know, also. So to make him a replicant—Ridley from the beginning [said] he’s a replicant, and I from the beginning said he’s not, or we shouldn’t know if he is, I don’t know if he is. The press has always asked me, I don’t know. And when Ridley put in the ostensible evidence that he is, the red eyes or whatever, in Blade Runner 1 I didn’t like that.”

Green: The fact that it’s a question is what’s important. The puzzle of Blade Runner, one of the many reasons it’s the classic it is, is that the chasing for authenticity is both baked into the narrative of the story and the meta-narrative of the film that there is no authentic answer to that question. Which just meant that telling the further story, that had to be baked into the story as well, that everyone who watches it has that question of which version should I watch, what does that mean, and the answer is you don’t get to know. Generally American audiences are very uncomfortable with that level of irresolution. Blade Runner challenges that and it’s not just an American favorite, it’s a global favorite.”
_{-Collider, 2017-10-09, 'Blade Runner 2049' Writers on Whether Deckard Is a Replicant, by Adam Chitwood}

Além disso, o diretor Denis Villeneuve, disse em um entrevista recente com Marcus Errico (Yahoo Entertainment):

“I know Hampton believes [Deckard’s] human, and Harrison believe he’s human, ... I went to see the film with Ridley when it was playing in London on Imax and after it ended, he turned to me and said, ‘See, now you know that he’s a replicant,'... I said, ‘OK, Ridley, it’s your film, you can think whatever you want.’

“But as a fan of the original film I enjoyed the ambiguity and I did not want to ruin the mystery for fans.”
_{-Yahoo Entertainment, 2017-10-10, Is Deckard a replicant? Director Denis Villeneuve explains how 'Blade Runner 2049' handles the great debate (spoilers!), by Marcus Errico}

Eu diria que sim. Na cena de abertura, com o texto trazendo os espectadores até a velocidade com o universo de 2049, ele mencionou que os replicantes são "aposentados" (existe uma sinopse semelhante para o original)

Mais tarde, quando K visitar Gaff perguntando sobre Deckard, Gaff afirmou que você não pode encontrá-lo "porque ele foi aposentado"

O fato de ele não ter mudado o fato de Gaff acreditar que ele estava morto e os replicantes não são mortos. Junte isso com a ambigüidade com o unicórnio e o corte final que Gaff deixou para Deckard também ajuda a manter isso juntos.

Eu diria que não, em razão de elementos do primeiro filme: basicamente os limites da tecnologia são tais que Deckard não poderia ser um replicante.

Como gravar o filme (por exemplo, caixa de diálogo) no valor de face :

1. Até o momento, a tecnologia de replicação é limitada - devido à incapacidade de controlar os replicantes, sua vida útil é limitada a 4 anos. Rachael é (em teoria) o primeiro a ter implantes de memória, na tentativa de superar essa limitação.

2. O Deckard é um Bladerunner comprovado / efetivo, sugerindo que ele está nisso por algum tempo (e assumindo que ele não é um replicante e, portanto, particularmente eficaz), portanto pré-datando os limites da tecnologia como a conhecemos. Mesmo se ele fosse um modelo experimental anterior, tê-lo envolvido em policiamento replicante parece ser um exagero.

3. É improvável, dadas as restrições legais, que eles permitam que um segundo modelo - especialmente um em um programa experimental - se envolva no policiamento replicante. Se o fizessem, você esperaria melhor supervisão.

4. Se Deckard é um replicante, por que a luta entre ele e Roy Batty é tão unilateral a favor de Batty?

Isso tudo dito, eu não me importo com a ambigüidade em torno do assunto - mas para mim é bem claro.