The Official Movie Thread

[rms]

Why isn't it believable that a society would craft replicants that are indistinguishable from humans?

The film is making a point. If what people want are replicants of human beings, then the logical end result is that you want a replica that is indistinguishable from the real thing. You're using your replicant for sex? How effective would it be if you could easily tell that you were fucking a replicant? The urgency of technological development moves toward total simulacrum - a perfect simulation of the "real" thing.

People fuck hand held vaginas now, I mean if a replicant looked exactly as it did in the film but had a barcode on its neck or ass or something, how does that change anything? No, instead, they go through all these bioengineering hoops to somehow create a flesh(apparently?) replicant of a human being, but can't make one characteristic that identifies it as non humans. Slaves or Military replicants would have no use of looking like humans, unless it's some sort of guerrilla warfare thing. If the film portrayed the relationship between replicants and humans as the same, then I would agree, but they aren't the same in this futuristic society. They still place humans above replicants

The problem is, when you reach this hypothetical point, what actual difference is there between a human and a machine? This is far more powerful in the novel: not that we humanize machines, but that human beings might be nothing more than machines. It's a figurative movement, to be sure; the film acknowledges humanity's advanced state of technological development and asks "How, when we have so many various technologies mediating our experience with reality, can we call ourselves 'human' anymore, in the sense it once meant?"

Some opinions I read quoted the book/summarized and said it goes into much more depth than what the film shows. I will see eventually when I get around to reading the book.

But it doesn't go into detail of this point, the film just presents it. "Oh humans and replicants are so much alike in this new society that they are now banned from Earth"(even though the new planet(s) seem to be much more imporant than Earth now?) I also don't think the film defines humanity in a sense that complicates it with replicants.

If you're using a replicant to get off, are you actually have sex? Would you call using a fake vagina "having sex"? We want perfect simulations of the real things, so as to avoid the messiness that comes along with reality; but if technology continues to develop increasingly perfected models, the line between reality and artificiality begins to blur.

Think I addressed this earlier, but if not let me know.

Furthermore, the symbolic utility of these androids is that they are treated like nothing more than slaves - thus what their primary uses are. They manipulate people through sexuality and other means because this is all they have, unless they engage in physical violence. The whole entire symbol of the "android" is bound up with all kinds of uneasy questions about sexuality, identity, etc., which is what makes them uncanny. Pris's athletic routine is a kind of embodiment of human motion and grace that makes us uneasy because she isn't human.

I don't know what you mean when you say this is all they have. This is all humans have too, except replicants are better in every way or at least equal in intelligence.

Are you referring to the symbol of android in blade runner or overall? I don't think sexuality or identity is a question for these guys, except maybe Rachel. The others that we are privy to seeing are just wanting to live longer. Not how they fit in this world.

Earth is a wasteland in the narrative - relegated to a third-world colony and polluted with nuclear waste. It's reasonable to suspend our disbelief for a moment and entertain the idea that their radar systems aren't all operational.

I don't remember the nuclear waste bit, is that in the book? Earth is obviously on the downward trend, but it doesn't seem like it's about to end tomorrow. More like "Well it's a lot better on this planet than Earth, but we're only taking the smartest/fittest/etc"

Which adds two more problems. Why the hell is Tyrell, who owns probably one of the most important companies in the human race, still on this shit planet? And how close are these planets, or have we learned time travel? Let's just assume Mars is the planet where the Nexus 6 came from, it takes like 13minutes to get travel to/from at light speed, on average. I mean it's just a bad plot narrative. It doesn't add up. Would have had the same effect if the replicants were drilling for tar sands in Alberta Canada and took a nice drive to LA/flight to Tokyo to do this.

Don't sadistic human killers "toy" with their prey? The basic ontological problem faced by the androids in the film is that they actually do feel human, but they know they're not.

It really appears that Roy had no intention to kill Deckard. It doesn't really make sense, unless there is some sort of perspective I haven't heard yet.

The question goes deeper than the human/nonhuman divide, and how do we tell the difference. It penetrates the core of human existential crisis, which is: "How do I know that what I think is 'me' is actually 'me'?"

There is no doubt it presents an interesting question about human nature, but the film's execution does not do that question justice nor explain it logically/rationally.

 

[Einherjar86]

Don't take any offense to this, but I think you're looking for too much explanation in dialogue and plot. The film presents these questions, but it doesn't have any answers. The biggest ideas it has to offer come in its insinuations and textures - the images of mannequins, the odd and uncanny behavior of the androids, the question of empathy.

The point is, what if? That's what good science fiction does. If they marked these androids as androids somehow, then what becomes of the questions they're asking? Even in our world, sometimes science does things because it can. Why does any SF story make its machines indistinguishable from humans, if that's the point? The malevolent, uneasy side of the question is: what if machines gained the ability to masquerade as humans?

The more technology develops, the more efficiently it supplements what we take to be more naturalized behavior (eating, fucking, athletics, etc.). The film is first and foremost a work of fiction; its androids are just a figurative stand-in for technology in general.

 

[rms]

The point is, what if? That's what good science fiction does. If they marked these androids as androids somehow, then what becomes of the questions they're asking? Even in our world, sometimes science does things because it can. Why does any SF story make its machines indistinguishable from humans, if that's the point? The malevolent, uneasy side of the question is: what if machines gained the ability to masquerade as humans?

SF films do this, but it's always clear that they are androids/machines. Other than Alien, what film doesn't show it? I can't think of anything else on the top of my head. There's a much better SF flick

 

[Einherjar86]

The entire Alien franchise uses replicants, the Terminator movies, the film Moon (clones, not androids - but achieves the same effect), Ex Machina, The Machine...

The idea of replicants that masquerade as humans, or can "pass" as humans, isn't rare in SF. It's a wonderful image for symbolizing the cultural phenomenon of "passing" among African Americans.

The most recent piece of filmmaking to do this really effectively was the episode "Be Right Back" on Black Mirror.

 

[rms]

Oh I mean using androids that aren't made aware to their co workers/society. Alien had it with Bilbo Baggins but the guy from Aliens made it clear he was an android. Interstellar thing talks about how he was programmed to be more human like.

Blade Runner and Alien are similar in that their android(s) are hidden. What other films do this?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not concerned with awareness, but with markings. That is what you mentioned - making androids that bear some kind of mark.

 

[SentinelSlain]

The entire Alien franchise uses replicants, the Terminator movies, the film Moon (clones, not androids - but achieves the same effect), Ex Machina, The Machine...

The idea of replicants that masquerade as humans, or can "pass" as humans, isn't rare in SF. It's a wonderful image for symbolizing the cultural phenomenon of "passing" among African Americans.

The most recent piece of filmmaking to do this really effectively was the episode "Be Right Back" on Black Mirror.

Moon was pretty much the same as Outland.

 

[rms]

I'm not concerned with awareness, but with markings. That is what you mentioned - making androids that bear some kind of mark.

Hmm I feel like you're missing my point. Most android films are in some sort of known state but appeal to the personalities of humans in different ways. Bilbo from Alien and Replicants in Blade Runner seem to be the exception here and I was wondering if you knew any other instances. Markings = awareness as far as im concerned. Robot parts instead of organs, milk blood, etc made it all clear that they were androids

 

[Einherjar86]

I guess I'm having trouble following you.

I think the films I listed are examples: In Terminator the absence of markings is so that humans won't be aware it's a robot; in Moon the absence of marks is also intended to conceal; likewise, there have been recent films that deal with replicants intended to be able to pass as humans without other humans being aware. This has been a fantasy of SF since Alan Turing proposed that an artificial consciousness could pass as an actual consciousness (whatever the hell the difference between "fake" and "real" consciousness is).

The logical, although subconscious, tendency of technological evolution is to approximate, and eventually supplement, human forms. Even in films that portray androids as physically different, the intellectual thrust is often how their behavior or thought processes resemble ours, making them a good example of "the uncanny."

I suppose I'm just confused on your original problem with this idea - that we would make androids indistinguishable from humans. It's clear in the film (or at least, I'm pretty sure it is - it's definitely clear in the book) that previous models were distinguishable. The idea that science would gravitate toward creating androids indistinguishable from humans isn't that far-fetched, considering they would easily possess market value. The films listed above all exist in worlds in which that value already exists, and thus there are obvious reasons to make indistinguishable androids. If the value isn't immediately apparent in Blade Runner, this doesn't mean that it then makes no sense to still try and make indistinguishable androids. More often than not, inventions come about before there is any marketable use for them.

 

[rms]

Terminator's also act differently and are made of metal. Even the guy from T2 was made out of whatever alloy, but sure he could possess good manipulative abilities. Arnold was made out of metal. Replicants are apparently human except their life span and memories. Born at a certain age. That's the distinction i'm making.

Ash from Alien was assumed to be a human until he went nuts and then was found that he was actually a robot being used by his corporation to bring the alien back. There was no way for anyone to know he was a robot, or at least never showed it in the film.

It wasn't shown in the film, no prior models compared to the Nexus 6 looked different or even the newest in Rachel.

The idea that science would gravitate toward creating androids indistinguishable from humans isn't that far-fetched, considering they would easily possess market value.

I would agree with this except the roles that androids are used in this film. If they were being used in society, local store clerks and have romantic interactions with the population it could make more sense. But since they are a commodity of sex, labor and war, it makes no sense to me to have them exactly the same as humans

 

[Einherjar86]

I may be misremembering... but I seem to recall that, if you "opened up" an indistinguishable android in the movie, you would find wires and other mechanical apparatuses. Maybe I'm wrong. But if that's the case, then the problem is that if androids are "passing" as humans you can't tell until you open them up. Which, of course, presents ethical issues.

I don't understand why it makes no sense to have them be the same as humans. If they're being used for military purposes, then it seems that disguising themselves as humans could be potentially useful. Furthermore, there are psychological reasons for attempting to approximate human form. I don't really see your point there.

 

[rms]

Why disguise? Humans in warfare would be obsolete if someone stronger and faster came by. Humans might be left in only high types of command and not doing the grunt work. I doubt there is only one type of people with replicants and no one else can do anything. I'd say if were accepting robot war, it's robots on robots, not terminator style

They are only used for the weakest wills in human nature. They aren't CEOs. They aren't postmen. They aren't taxi drivers. Police men. Farmers. Newspaper writers. They do not infiltrate every day society. They are fringe people, fighting wars wherever. Slaving wherever. Fucking only military men(according to the film and maybe Zhora's character--but I doubt it was a replicant whore house)

I don't know how else to explain it?

 

[Einherjar86]

They do not infiltrate every day society.

But they do infiltrate everyday society. That's the point.

They can infiltrate, spy, sabotage, etc.

The fact that Rachel was tested on Deckard - that she was a kind of test run - implies that there are designs in the works for these robots.

In the novel, there are explicit examples of androids that infiltrate society. Furthermore, Dick goes into the details of the market for androids - some are even intended to be sold as replicants of African slaves from the "pre-Civil War South," suggesting that the androids fulfill perverse and ideological/psychological needs. There are numerous reasons as to why they would be designed to be indistinguishable from humans.

Also, I also just realized that you may have misinterpreted my earlier point about androids being used for sex. The question I raised was: does it still count as sex? Don't let this question obscure the point of an indistinguishable android.

The point is that fake vaginas might get you off, but they are not as psychologically pleasurable as the real thing. The closer an android is to looking like a human being, the more marketable it is for sexual pleasure (i.e. "You can't even tell the difference!"). It seems to me to be the most obvious thing in the world that you would want an android that looked exactly like a human being.

EDIT: why don't we move the conversation into the "Argument Thread" (seriously, that's what it should be called).

 

[rms]

"Can" when they are world's away.

Rachel wasn't tested on Deckard, Tyrell wanted to see if Deckard's/Police force test worked. Rachel wasn't thrown at Deckard posing as a human. She was the leading prototype for inhome/everyday usage and she was no different looking than the Nexus 6.

I can't talk about the book because I haven't read it, but it seems that Dick's novel goes into much more detail and whatnot than Scott's film. The book is probably great and influenced a lot of sci-fi thought, but the film doesn't do SciFi any justice and is a poor example for a film imo. If that idea is true of Dick, he truly was writing in the past/some sort of agenda.

The question I raised was: does it still count as sex?

Not sure I questioned this or anything. Sex, I guess, is a personal definition more than an overlapping one. I don't think the film tackles this point at all either.

But I have no problem talking about this in the argument thread, was really curious to hear more opinions on Blade Runner but guess that isn't going to happen.

 

[SentinelSlain]

The Petrified Forest was good. 7/10 The studio "desert" with its painted boards was a bit obvious though. Great acting and direction though with especially good dialogue. Might get into more oldies. I started watching M but I didn't finish it. I wonder if I'll ever explore silent cinema.

 

[SentinelSlain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451_(film)

there's one for you.

 

[arg]

Snowpiercer had a typical post-apocalyptic dystopian poor rising against the rich plot set in a train but it was executed well

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, solid acting, fucking great cinematography, and a complicated conclusion allowed that film to rise above its rather simple plot.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Are there any good films about a milf and a young guy getting with each other after getting lost somewhere, like on a desert island or something?

 

[Zephyrus]

The Graduate?