The replicant concept is a weak point in these movies.
Replicants aren't machines. For all intents and purposes, they are mass-produced clones with artificially embedded memories and stripped of emotions so they can exploited as a labour force.
However, we see that they can develop emotions, at which point they are considered a liability and disposed of. Why that should be the case is never really made clear... and that is the flaw of the movies.
I suppose that along with the idea of emotions, comes the concepts of dignity, compassion, fairness... Humans would then have a moral obligation to treat the Replicants with humanity and all that that entails... freedom from oppression, freedom to self-determination, etc.
The highbrow concept behind these movies is supposed to be: What does it mean to be human? This would have worked better if the Replicants had been true machines, i.e. androids a la Data, or The Terminator.
Instead, they are human in everything but name, so the movies are really exploring issues more closely related to racism... the idea that we consider some people to be less-than-human so that we can abuse them.
If the film makers had made Replicants all black or all Asian, the sub-text -- whether intentional or not on the part of the film makers -- would be immediately obvious.
Ever see that video of the Boston Dynamics big dog? It's a completely artificial 4-legged robot that looks and moves vaguely like a deer to me. To demo its balancing ability, the developers kick it a few times in "the ribs" -- the machine staggers off to one side but recovers its balance before falling over.
The first time I saw that vid, I was bothered because the machine looked and acted just enough like an animal to make me think of it that way, particularly when it "staggered" from the kick. I had to keep reminding myself that it was just an unfeeling machine.
That is how the Replicants should have been portrayed in these movies. Making them de facto human beings undercuts some of the philosophical questions that the film makers were asking.
reply
share
particles (37)
7 years ago
yea, until this movie and the prequel anime where none of the replicants were killed by the EMP blast, i thought replicants were basically robots
but now i realize replicants are basically clones (although clones of no one, so there's probably a better word) but it's the same idea, although i don't know if that was the intention for the original movie
so all of the philosophical questions about AI don't really apply, which is what blade runner seems to be about for a lot of people even film scholars (although who cares what they think)
the questions that come up are more like clone movies like sixth day or the island (i actually like those movies), except those questions don't get explored because it seems like the both scott and villanueve are actually treating them as robots most of the time, and i think probably 95% of the audience thinks of them as robots
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
they are manufactered life, like faux leather.
reply
share
particles (37)
7 years ago
not if they are created from DNA
the parts they swap out would be the faux leather
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
What do you mean? I don't think they are clones at all, I misinterpreted the concept of a Replicant but now it is perfectly clear to me, they are just that, manufactured humans, not clones and each is different, they are not from an assembly line like 2049 made it look like.
reply
share
particles (37)
7 years ago
they have DNA
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
and?? they are made of organic components, tissue. They may have dna.
reply
share
particles (37)
7 years ago
in this movie it's as if they are created completely from the DNA starting as an embryo
i don't know how ridley scott intended it, i feel like not much thought was put into it, he just wanted to make a situation for the movie to be in without the details of it
anyway it's purposely not explained in the movies, so neither one of us can be correct ever
they can be thought of as robots, like you're saying
but like the person who started this reply, i think of them now as more like clones (not clones, i'm saying like clones)
genetically engineered humans
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
no the movie does explain what they are and it's not clones. Also I didn't see where they said they were created from an embryo.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
"although clones of no one, so there's probably a better word"
Test tube babies is probably more accurate. Genetically identical to humans -- with tweaks to allow them to be used as labour -- but grown in a vat or similar outside a human body.
We are on the cusp of designer humans now -- genetically modified to be free of certain diseases. At this point, we can't design traits such a blue eyes, or six-foot stature but I expect that will come.
The script for a future Bladerunner movie -- if it came to pass -- might look like this:
i. Replicant technology improves to the point where Replicants are superior to humans in every way. A political movement has granted Replicants full recognition and rights under law.
ii. Replicants start producing themselves, improving on their own design and increasing their numbers. Eventually they grow powerful enough to form their own governments.
iii. They start to regard 'old' humans -- with all their physical and mental flaws -- as 'Neanderthals' whose time has come and gone. Replicant technology is seen as the future path for mankind's evolution. Part of this process involves breeding out all emotions as they are viewed as an obstacle and source of conflict.
iv. The story comes full circle when Replicants form Bladerunner-like units for the purpose of eliminating 'old' humans... to rid civilization of any trace of the feeble and deficient human strain.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
If you follow popular science articles, you'll recognize this as a variation of Stephen Hawking's warning against AI -- that we might create robots who come to realize that they are the superior 'race' and decide to eliminate or overthrow inferior humans.
What does it mean to be human? We somehow believe that our purpose in life is to improve our station, to evolve, to move towards some sort of higher ideal. But, in the process, if we collectively have to give up some facets of the things that make us 'human' -- dreams, hopes, and, yes, the evil bad stuff too -- would we/should we do it, if it means we end up resembling some sort of Borg-like civilization?
reply
share
particles (37)
6 years ago
i liked blade runner 2049, but i loved A.I. some of what you wrote reminded me of A.I. even tho it's nothing like what you wrote, in A.I. human's die off at the end but the robots are still around and wonder about humanity, and are curious about the main boy robot that they dig up. anyway, i am not really going anywhere with this post, but felt like writing it.
from what i remember, everyone hated A.I. critics and audiences... i feel like blade runner 2049 doesn't deserve all the praise it's getting from critics and audiences, even tho it looks great... and there's a couple things i liked in it
i found blade runner 2049 storywise to be about as good as babylon ad which was universally hated also, but i liked
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
Your comment should have been its own post.
That's my issue with the whole replicant thing as well. They are called "skin jobs" but that would work for something like Alien androids or Terminators, literal skin on metal shit, so they are "fake" on the inside. Here, they are all just...people with a weird start and some barcodes in their bones. What's the point in designing something for work if you're gonna give it all the disadvantages of a human body anyway?
The entire time i'm watching this movie, i just see ryan gosling being a weirdo that stares at things, not some android.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
6 years ago
I know but after you get it it does make sense, they are bioengineered humans but they also have added stamina and strength. So they are not just regular humans.
reply
share
[deleted]
6 years ago
That always confused me. I know nothing of the human body but wouldn't it be easier to test for increased stamina and strength rather than to ask them about turtles? I mean the muscles must exist, they can't just magically be stronger than humans but still have the same build, right? Maybe it's a stupid question i guess.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
6 years ago
I guess they were just designed that way, also maybe they could fake their strength and stamina, like Tyrell said, more human than human is out motto, so I assume any other form of testing could fail to identify them except for very small and involuntary reflexes like pupil dilation and so on. It really isn't bad logic, it does make sense once you understand the concept.
reply
share