1. Stop nitpicking
2. I'm using the modern understanding of Unicorn, meaning a horse with a horn. That's what the movie choose to do anyway. In the same way someone says 'Frankenstein' when they mean 'Frankenstein's Monster'
3. Stop being pedantic
4. Replicants are robots just as androids are robots. A robot is a mechanical being designed to serve a function. The T-800 is a robot, Roy is a robot, C-3PO is a robot, and yes, even Deckard might be a robot. Replicant is just the funny little word they use to make their idea seem more original than the other versions. It all comes under the umbrella of 'robot'. It's stated in the movie that replicants are robots, machines. Wikipedia defines 'replicant' as a 'biorobotic android', meaning a robot covered in skin ala 'The Terminator', which still counts as a robot.
5. If you want to get REALLY technical, Mr Know-It-All, then Robot comes from an old Czech word meaning 'slave', as in one who obeys orders and instructions. Robots as a concept are designed to be obedient, Asimov himself made a career out of establishing that robots must obey orders and then systematically turned out multiple books defying that idea. So yes, considering what they were made for and how they work, Pris, Roy, Rachel, and maybe even Deckard are in fact robots
6. Stop being so stuck up
7. I like making numbered lists
8. What other reason would there be to pick a unicorn as the animal seen in Deckard's dream? It had to be something mythological, so they picked a unicorn, probably because it would be cheap to make. Get a horse, glue an ice-cream cone to it's face, done. They could have picked a spider, like Rachel mentions, or something pretty and graceful like a butterfly, or even just a regular horse. They clearly had access to one, so why go the extra mile to make it look like a unicorn? Because it had to be something mythological. Maybe, just maybe, back in 1982 they didn't have the internet to look up if unicorns were real or not, or what they counted as or not, and had to go on the assumption that a thing everyone alive claimed wasn't real just might be not real.
9. Get the *beep* over yourself. You're bitching at me for the movie's lack of logic. It's a sci-fi movie about robots set in a world of eternal rain with flying cars and black market eyes. The movie is allowed to take a few *beep* liberties with what we consider 'reality'.
10. If you really want to go and gripe about how awful and inaccurate this movie is, why not go and do that on the message board in an original post, as opposed to hijacking my post so you can piss all over the lack of logic in a movie set in a make-believe world?
reply
share
edisonnosidE
7 years ago
Hey , get over yourself and your know-it-all ego. You're a special kind of stupid, making a fool of yourself.
Had you been here from the beginning like many of us, you wouldn't be making such idiotic mistakes.
I recommend you go back as far as you can in this board and start from the beginning.
You can disagree all you want, and resort to cheap insults and ridiculous demands to prop up your ignorance, but that won't get you anywhere here.
Plus, you really know how to take offense when none is intended.
Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
+ =
reply
share
twofacetoo
7 years ago
So what exactly was wrong with what I said? All you did was try to put me down to make yourself look better and act smug and superior. You didn't actually refute any of my points, you just turned your nose up and said 'I'm far too haughty to deal with you, peasant', which is another way of saying 'I don't have a leg to stand on in this argument'.
And if that's oh-so wrong like I know you're going to claim it is, then prove it.
You've been a member on this site for ten years, that doesn't prove anything other than you've had an account for a long time. The Ancient Egyptians were around ages ago, but that doesn't mean that they knew jack about nuclear fission, now does it?
And how exactly do I have a know-it-all ego? I'm using logic and deduction whereas you came in here claiming you knew better than everyone else and throwing around bogus claims.
And then, just to cap it all, you have a go at me for insulting you and acting like that's a juvenile thing to do, yet here you are now insulting me in turn. How hypocritical we are under the skin, my man.
And I'm sure no offense was intended when you came in here and talked down to me as if you were the authority on not only 'Blade Runner', but also mythical beings, AND ancient history.
Fun fact: those pictures you showed me of medieval unicorns? Yeah, all horses. Every single one is a horse.
Fun fact again: that 'real unicorn' is in fact a real creature, but it's not a unicorn, it's a goat with a deformity. This is the same as finding a person born with one leg and saying 'LOOK! A MERMAID!' It's sick, and offensive, and cruel. Good job in spreading that kind of dickheaded attitude just so you can try and one-up someone in an online arugment that you started.
But hey, since we're measuring dicks, I'll be the bigger man by several inches and say that you're done here. Bye.
reply
share
edisonnosidE
7 years ago
I stated two facts with which you don't agree. You took offense. Defensive much?
So what exactly was wrong with what I said?
1. A replicant is not mechanical, not a robot. Roy: "We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical."
Plus they bleed like biological entities. They are biological entities.
2. Unicorns in history are one-horned goats. Modern misconceptions are horses with a forehead horn.
Sorry you couldn't distinguish a goat from a horse in the tapestries.
Bye, big dick. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
+ =
reply
share
HerBrain-i8
7 years ago
4. Replicants are robots just as androids are robots.....
Okay here we go.....A looooooong time ago, in the 80's; Before there was an internet, before there was a IMDB and before most of the people on this board were born, Those of us who saw BLADE RUNNER in the theater and went to Comic cons (Yes they had them back then) or have read Phillip K Dick, have already discussed this at length and already know that REPLICANTS are not robots.
REPLICANTS are genetically engineered superior humanoids. Not robots.
In the universe of the book and film, When the term "Robot" or "Android" is used it is not meant as a literal physical description... but as a derogatory slur or an epithet.
Even though they were genetically superior; Humans looked down on them because were "made" and not "born". They were called robots as an insult.
Guess she didn't like the cornbread either.
reply
share
twofacetoo
7 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant
Specifically,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant#Organic_or_mechanical.3F
As the wikipedia page will tell you, the opening text says Replicants are the result of robotic evolution. Robitics.
reply
share
HerBrain-i8
7 years ago
Yes, a "RESULT" of (past) robotic evolution. By the time of BR it had "evolved" to a point where the term Robot no longer had meaning.
Mr. Replicant sir, You are just a robot; No better than your great, great grandfather.
Guess she didn't like the cornbread either.
reply
share
twofacetoo
7 years ago
So how exactly does robotics evolve from inorganic to organic? The term can evolve all it likes, the being itself is what matters.
Machine turning to organic matter isn't evolution, it's metamorphasis, the process of one thing becoming an entirely different thing altogether.
reply
share
BB-15
7 years ago
by twofacetoo;
"So how exactly does robotics evolve from inorganic to organic? The term can evolve all it likes, the being itself is what matters.
Machine turning to organic matter isn't evolution, it's metamorphasis, the process of one thing becoming an entirely different thing altogether."
It isn't the robots evolving into an organic life form.
It is the company evolving or changing its product.
An example in our world; Google used to only make a search engine.
Now Google/Alphabet makes self driving cars. The company evolved.
* Replicants are not robots.
They are organic life forms. Basically engineered human clones.
Evidence?
1. An X-Ray cannot tell the difference between a replicant and a human.
This is from the book the film is based on and is implied by the movie itself.
- Why go through the trouble of 100 emotional response questions if a simple X-Ray would show that the replicant was a robot?
Answer; the replicant is an organic life form. Specifically, a kind of human.
2. Tyrell in the movie says that a replicant is an organic life form. That's why the 4 year life span cannot be changed.
Tyrell: The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Batty: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.
Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?
Tyrell: We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again...
The replicant is not just a bunch of mechanical parts put together.
Replicants are not like androids such as Data in Star Trek or C3PO in Star Wars.
The core of the organism is based on the "coding sequence" involving DNA.
The bodies are incubated. They are organic, made of cells with flesh and blood.
The replicants are engineered human clones.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
twofacetoo
7 years ago
I always took it as being robots designed to resemble humans
I don't have much of an argument other than 'it's my opinion, nahnahnenahnah', but a point I want to bring up,
If Replicants aren't robots, why did Pris start freaking out when she was being killed? To me that looks like a machine going haywire, I always saw it as just that, a machine breaking and having a meltdown
reply
share
edisonnosidE
7 years ago
Ever hear of a seizure?
Not all seizures are epileptic, some are psychogenic, some are chemically induced.
Pris had exceptional physicality, the first shot didn't kill her and she was struggling to function.
Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
+ =
reply
share
BB-15
7 years ago
by twofacetoo;
"If Replicants aren't robots, why did Pris start freaking out when she was being killed? To me that looks like a machine going haywire, I always saw it as just that, a machine breaking and having a meltdown"
As edison mentioned, Pris was having a seizure. Something humans in our world can have.
- Also, under extreme stress a human in our world can seem to go "haywire".
For instance in a UFC fight Miesha Tate was choking out Holly Holm from behind and Holm began punching in the air.
Also, the replicants can have DNA programming which are not in naturally born humans such as greater strength and resistance to extreme cold / heat. So, when having a seizure or freaking out, a replicant may act somewhat differently than a naturally born human.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
criztu
7 years ago
So how exactly does robotics evolve from inorganic to organic? The term can evolve all it likes, the being itself is what matters.
Machine turning to organic matter isn't evolution, it's metamorphasis, the process of one thing becoming an entirely different thing altogether.
"Robot evolution" -as written in the intro text- can't mean 'evolution in the sense of development of a living organism', as robots are not living organisms. Therefore, "robot evolution" means 'evolution in the sense of gradual development of something (not necessarily living organism)
But then, in the same intro text, we are told that the replicants were created - created! - by genetic engineers. Well then, someone with minimum education knows that genetics deal with living organisms, while robotics deal with non-living objects.
This intro text is very cunning actually, it provides the key to decypher the movie, like a musician's clef. Replicants are created. Creators are genetic engineers. Genetic engineering is robot evolution.
reply
share