Replicants in "Bladerunner"

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2002-11-30 07:32pm

Were the replicants in "Bladerunner" movie somekind of genetic engineered humans? What exactly could a replicant do and not do?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-30 07:43pm

Artificial Persons, or Biological Andriods

A person made up from a mix of robotics and cultured cells.

It wasn't until Rachel and Dekker that they were sucessfully able to get the cultured cells to stop diing off, and Make "Fully Functional" versions. (Read the last generation Rachel type is believed capable of reproduction)

Most Replicants cells were engineered by tropisimisms to be stronger and faster then human But they were still a mechanical mockery of the human form.

The Tyrel Corp slogan says it all: More Human than Human.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-30 08:53pm

I think Im one of the few people that likes the non-director's cut of the movie.
Probably because thats the first one I saw, I also was very young, and never had a clue from the movie that Dekerd might be a replicant.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-11-30 09:02pm

I like them both equally. The book is really good too.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-30 09:07pm

The replicants are a form of genetically engineered humans. They live for a much shorter period of time than regular humans, but symolically are far more human than the "true" humans.

Incidentally, after AotC, Bladerunner is my favorite film. I think it's even better than things like Citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-11-30 09:38pm

Actually I have developed a teory about Ridley Scott...After his first movie he sold his soul to the devil to make a really good movie. He did Alien. But he tryied to cheat the devil when making Blade Runner but the Devil is smarter and took control of the movie and make a better movie, because without the powers of Devil Ridley Scott is just one more Spielbergs wannabes able to make just well done but empty movies like Gladiator. The non-directors cut of Blade Runner have a genius trait, the off narration of Ford and actually the cut scenes are almost useless...
That is why Scott, able to make a masterwork like Blade Runner can not make a really good movie, where the visual is overwhelm by the narrative.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-30 09:41pm

lgot wrote:Actually I have developed a teory about Ridley Scott...After his first movie he sold his soul to the devil to make a really good movie. He did Alien. But he tryied to cheat the devil when making Blade Runner but the Devil is smarter and took control of the movie and make a better movie, because without the powers of Devil Ridley Scott is just one more Spielbergs wannabes able to make just well done but empty movies like Gladiator. The non-directors cut of Blade Runner have a genius trait, the off narration of Ford and actually the cut scenes are almost useless...
That is why Scott, able to make a masterwork like Blade Runner can not make a really good movie, where the visual is overwhelm by the narrative.

What about Black Hawk Down?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-30 10:01pm

lgot wrote:Actually I have developed a teory about Ridley Scott...After his first movie he sold his soul to the devil to make a really good movie. He did Alien. But he tryied to cheat the devil when making Blade Runner but the Devil is smarter and took control of the movie and make a better movie, because without the powers of Devil Ridley Scott is just one more Spielbergs wannabes able to make just well done but empty movies like Gladiator. The non-directors cut of Blade Runner have a genius trait, the off narration of Ford and actually the cut scenes are almost useless...
That is why Scott, able to make a masterwork like Blade Runner can not make a really good movie, where the visual is overwhelm by the narrative.

No one criticizes Lord of the Flies for having a lack of plot or narrative. Why should we be allowed to criticize Bladerunner for the same thing?

Mike_6002 · Post by **Mike_6002** » 2002-11-30 10:03pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
lgot wrote:Actually I have developed a teory about Ridley Scott...After his first movie he sold his soul to the devil to make a really good movie. He did Alien. But he tryied to cheat the devil when making Blade Runner but the Devil is smarter and took control of the movie and make a better movie, because without the powers of Devil Ridley Scott is just one more Spielbergs wannabes able to make just well done but empty movies like Gladiator. The non-directors cut of Blade Runner have a genius trait, the off narration of Ford and actually the cut scenes are almost useless...
That is why Scott, able to make a masterwork like Blade Runner can not make a really good movie, where the visual is overwhelm by the narrative.
No one criticizes Lord of the Flies for having a lack of plot or narrative. Why should we be allowed to criticize Bladerunner for the same thing?

I liked lord of the flies, lots of symoblism, good plot, but a crappy DEUS EX MACHINA ending

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-30 10:24pm

lgot wrote:Actually I have developed a teory about Ridley Scott...After his first movie he sold his soul to the devil to make a really good movie. He did Alien. But he tryied to cheat the devil when making Blade Runner but the Devil is smarter and took control of the movie and make a better movie, because without the powers of Devil Ridley Scott is just one more Spielbergs wannabes able to make just well done but empty movies like Gladiator. The non-directors cut of Blade Runner have a genius trait, the off narration of Ford and actually the cut scenes are almost useless...
That is why Scott, able to make a masterwork like Blade Runner can not make a really good movie, where the visual is overwhelm by the narrative.

Are you talking about the one where Deckard dreams about that unicorn? I think that scene should be in there cause otherwise you don't know what the hell the movie is trying to tell you when Deckard finds that origami unicorn at the ending.

I think the Director's Cut is much better.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-11-30 10:29pm

However, had they put in the frog or the sheep, it would have made even more sense.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-30 10:33pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:However, had they put in the frog or the sheep, it would have made even more sense.

Eh???

Deckard dreams of unicorn, the guy (forgot his name) makes an origami unicorn, hinting that Deckard is a replicant cause the guy somehow knows what Deckard is dreaming about, or knows his memories.

Frog? Sheep?

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-11-30 10:35pm

Shinova wrote:
Kelly Antilles wrote:However, had they put in the frog or the sheep, it would have made even more sense.

Eh???

Deckard dreams of unicorn, the guy (forgot his name) makes an origami unicorn, hinting that Deckard is a replicant cause the guy somehow knows what Deckard is dreaming about, or knows his memories.

Frog? Sheep?

You've never read the book.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-30 10:36pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:
Shinova wrote:
Kelly Antilles wrote:However, had they put in the frog or the sheep, it would have made even more sense.

Eh???

Deckard dreams of unicorn, the guy (forgot his name) makes an origami unicorn, hinting that Deckard is a replicant cause the guy somehow knows what Deckard is dreaming about, or knows his memories.

Frog? Sheep?
You've never read the book.

Oh...

I've watched the movie, read the sequel, and read Replicant Night. Don't think I've read the original.

Wait....Are you talking about "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"?

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-11-30 10:42pm

neolong:

What about Black Hawk Down?

Never seen it so I can not judge it. But if it is good then it means Devil is forgiving.

Master:

No one criticizes Lord of the Flies for having a lack of plot or narrative. Why should we be allowed to criticize Bladerunner for the same thing?

or my bad english caused some confusion, but I did not that. Actually, I said Bladerunner is the only movie of Scott that the narrative is superior of the visual...I mean, I even called it a masterwork...

Are you talking about the one where Deckard dreams about that unicorn? I think that scene should be in there cause otherwise you don't know what the hell the movie is trying to tell you when Deckard finds that origami unicorn at the ending.

Yeah, of all scenes added it is the only one that actually do something for the movie but even so it only makes a hit of deckard being one of the replicants as well. I had the same hit "Is he or not" in the original version due the teasing of E.James Olmos character, that is why I think this scene was irrelevant in the end.

[/code]

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2002-11-30 10:46pm

Shinova wrote: Oh...

I've watched the movie, read the sequel, and read Replicant Night. Don't think I've read the original.

Wait....Are you talking about "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"?

Yes, the original book. "Do Androids Dram of Electric Sheep" Excellent book.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-30 10:59pm

I like narratives in movies. Are they poo-poo'd by most people?

The director's cut is the version where we see the Unicorn dream.

The theatre release didnt have that, and it had a voice over of Ford explaining things along the way.

So, do you think its immoral for us to build a replicant? They seemed to be a slave race of sorts. It is okay to make a replicant for sexual pleasure?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-30 11:02pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I like narratives in movies. Are they poo-poo'd by most people?

The director's cut is the version where we see the Unicorn dream.

The theatre release didnt have that, and it had a voice over of Ford explaining things along the way.

So, do you think its immoral for us to build a replicant? They seemed to be a slave race of sorts. It is okay to make a replicant for sexual pleasure?

They are a slave race. But they're not exactly human either, so no one's complaining over them like the they did over the Africans. Or it could be that the world has gone so decadent in the Bladerunner-verse that no one cares about anything (the very atmosphere of the film's setting supports this).

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-30 11:11pm

Or it could be that the world has gone so decadent in the Bladerunner-verse that no one cares about anything (the very atmosphere of the film's setting supports this).

I got the impression from the film that corporations held much of the power. Also, the human impact on the environment was so extreme that most animals (at least wild ones) went extinct.

One thing I always find amusing is the presence of Japan's influence in sci-fi from the 80's. Things have not quite turned out the they we thought.