I know it's only a film, but...

After the last posting about Bladerunner, I went out and bought a DVD of the

asking what the other one was).

IMO, Scott decided Deckard was a replicant part way through filming and
scissored in the unicorn dream scene and a few others towards the end of the
filming process. I still claim that the screenplay started out with Deckard
human.

So, back to my BIMB (Deckard shouldn't be a replicant). Clearly the technology
allows very fine control over the phenotype that the manipulated genotype leads
to - many examples show this, particularly the menagerie. But just as clearly,
in this film there are limits. The replicant's clocks can't be reset, and the
gene tech's genetic disease can't be cured. Clearly the smooth umblemished
perfection of Rachel is entirely possible. How would the process produce a
rather lived in Deckard (complete with chin scar) in the weeks or months that
was available?

Roy and Leon have had four hard years to pick up any wear and tear. Pris and
Zohra seemed pretty umblemished anyway.

Secondly, if Deckard had already been made, why send in the idiot (who must have
been human - he was too inept to have been made) to test the new Tyrell
employees and get shot by Leon? Unless the process takes hours, not days or
months and Deckard was made AFTER the inept bladerunner was shot.

Thirdly, and back to the 'agreement' in the last post that if Deckard could pick
up that Rachel was a replicant, he should be able to decide he was a replicant,
I think one of the scissored in scenes has Rachel asking Deckard if he had taken
the test. But that cuts both ways - firstly suggesting that Deckard may be a
replicant, but it should also get Deckard himself thinking that he might be.

Lastly, think about the rooftop scene with Roy Batty (how did I forget that
name?). The scene's purpose is to show that Roy is physically, intellectually,
experientially and morally superior. To what? Another replicant? Unless Deckard
is human, that scene is pointless. Pity about the heavy symbolism of the white
dove flying off as Roy dies.

And I forgot Roy only broke fingers for Pris and Zohra. I guess because Rachel
shot Leon.

On a related point, the JEO character (did he ever have a name?) says at the end
of Rachel 'Pity she won't live - but then who of us does?' (repeated on
voiceover in case we missed it). This is enough for me to conclude Rachel
DOESN'T have a sell by date, but has a gene cut that will allow her to grow old
and die like a human.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/12/2010 6:35 AM, JimT wrote:


> asking what the other one was).

[Impish Grin] So, what was the other one, Jim? Tell us.. please, oh, 
please tell us. The world wants to know. (or at least this small random 
sampling of the world)
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

JimT wrote:
> to test the new Tyrell employees and get shot by Leon? 

Ah. Now it makes sense to me why they would even get a replicant in the 
first place. Because it's a dangerous job where you don't want to risk a human.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are tons of people doing dangerous jobs in 
that world. And Decker's bosses all treat him like a person. If the idea was 
to hide the fact that replicants were being made on Earth, telling half the 
police department that they're working with a replicant sounds like a bad idea.

> DOESN'T have a sell by date, but has a gene cut that will allow her to grow old
> and die like a human.

It took it more to mean that we all have sell-by dates, and that you take 
what happiness you can while you live, because you never know when you'll 
die, and that Rachel would die in her own few years. (Otherwise, why work on 
a technology to make replicants think they're human, when you could just let 
them grow their own memories?)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/2010 6:35 AM, JimT wrote:
>

> > asking what the other one was).
>
> [Impish Grin] So, what was the other one, Jim? Tell us.. please, oh,
> please tell us. The world wants to know. (or at least this small random
> sampling of the world)
> --
> ~Mike

Crank 2, irredeemible even by black insulating tape.

Post a reply to this message

JimT wrote:
> Crank 2, irredeemible even by black insulating tape.

I have to ask... Since the first one ends as it does, how do they possibly 
manage a sequel?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> JimT wrote:
> > to test the new Tyrell employees and get shot by Leon?
>
> Ah. Now it makes sense to me why they would even get a replicant in the
> first place. Because it's a dangerous job where you don't want to risk a human.
>
> On the other hand, I'm sure there are tons of people doing dangerous jobs in
> that world. And Decker's bosses all treat him like a person. If the idea was
> to hide the fact that replicants were being made on Earth, telling half the
> police department that they're working with a replicant sounds like a bad idea.
>
Deckard is brought in to the police station as an old experienced bladerunner -
whom half the police Department should have known but wouldn't unless he
replaced a real bladerunner who had retired and gone away. Again, I guess a
possibility.

To repeat myself, having seen the film again, the main reason I think Deckard
should be human is the rooftop scene. It screams out that killing replicants is
murder, not retirement, a message that is wasted if Roy's opponent is a
replicant. I really will have to stop getting exercised about this point.  It's
only a film.

> > DOESN'T have a sell by date, but has a gene cut that will allow her to grow old
> > and die like a human.
>
> It took it more to mean that we all have sell-by dates, and that you take
> what happiness you can while you live, because you never know when you'll
> die, and that Rachel would die in her own few years. (Otherwise, why work on
> a technology to make replicants think they're human, when you could just let
> them grow their own memories?)
>
The point about replicants is you don't produce babies and let them develop over
decades, but do produce adults within a short period that are useful as 'robots'
in dangerous or unpleasant jobs.

You have to be able to provide replicants with knowledge to do the jobs they are
built to do, so you have to be able to provide 'memories'. Tyrell hinted (or
maybe said) that if you don't provide them with personalities that let them
enjoy what they are made to do, they develop less helpful personalities, even in
4 years. This is clearly consistent with the 'mutiny' by the Nexus 6s who
probably had been provided with helpful personalities at 'birth'.

Speaking of 4 years, the 4 year sell by date is such an integral feature of the
film, it would be reasonable to expect the viewer to assume Rachel also had a 4
year sell by date - little of which would have yet expired - if not prompted
otherwise. So, the exchange (repeated on voiceover) with the JEO character is
redundant if Rachel does have the standard 4 year sell by date. I rest my case,
mainly because I have no more evidence..

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> JimT wrote:
> > Crank 2, irredeemible even by black insulating tape.
>
> I have to ask... Since the first one ends as it does, how do they possibly
> manage a sequel?
>
> --
By stretching the credibility (gullibility?) of the viewer beyond snappage.

Saving even one person from wasting their time on that film would be a
worthwhile act. Ditto Crank 3 when they make it. Though I quite enjoyed Crank 1.

Post a reply to this message

JimT wrote:
> Deckard is brought in to the police station as an old experienced bladerunner -

Wasn't he retired, or did I misremember that?  Certainly *someone* in the 
chain of command had to know he's a replicant.

> To repeat myself, having seen the film again, the main reason I think Deckard
> should be human is the rooftop scene. 

Yeah. To my mind, it doesn't add anything to the movie to make him a 
replicant and it takes away all the moral questions and turns the movie into 
Gozilla vs Mothra.

> decades, but do produce adults within a short period that are useful as 'robots'
> in dangerous or unpleasant jobs.

Sure. Fair enough.

> So, the exchange (repeated on voiceover) with the JEO character is
> redundant if Rachel does have the standard 4 year sell by date. I rest my case,
> mainly because I have no more evidence..

I heard it to mean that *everyone* has a sell-by date, human or replicant, 
and all you can do is enjoy what life you have. I mean, "but then, who of us 
does" clearly refers to humans as well as replicants.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message