Reply With QuoteThey were never AI, Frog. That's all you.
The hype is real guys, go see it.
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
They were never AI, Frog. That's all you.
Yeah, they were always bioengineered beings.
You sir, are a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.
Yeah if they were robots it would be easier to identify in the first one.
The plot was more convoluted in this than I wish it was. I would have been fine without involving Deckard in this, I would prefer that his story just not have been connected at all to this movie. That said, I think Ford did the best performance he’s done in years and I still loved the scenes with him. I’m going to see this again in the theater soon, it looks so good on the big screen.
Why are you reading this? go to your general settings and uncheck the Show Signatures box already!
I disagree, though Deckard was very much the MacGuffin
Load"*",8,1
Did the movie touch on this subject?
Sure did!
Though the love scene in the first film is the writing on the wall IMO. The weird violence to it and 'tell me' stuff comes from Deckard and Rachel not feeling the genuine emotions properly but needing to 'act it out' like real humans. They're doing a pantomime of a romantic relationship because that's what they want (or feel obligated to have), but neither of them quite knows how that's supposed to work on account of being Replicants. They do have emotional responses (due to whatever weird model Tyrell made them to be), but they're a bit glitchy and undeveloped about it.
Last edited by YellerDog; 08 Oct 2017 at 02:29 AM.
Load"*",8,1
I like Rutger Hauer's view of his character in this interview.
It's funny to see how Siskel and Ebert took the stance that most viewers did of the original film. They didn't quite get the layers of the character of Deckard and Rachael. Skip ahead to the 20 minute mark. It's funny that Ebert can't even pronounce Replicant properly and he then goes on to talk about the visual effects and can't connect with what the story was about.
Last edited by gamevet; 08 Oct 2017 at 03:11 AM.
Ebert revisited it again later and came up with a different answer iirc
Y'all got any proof of this from Hampton Fancher and David Peoples? Half of the people that worked on the first movie couldn't even agree what the fuck Deckard was, let alone what a replicants was. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? commented several times that the androids and robotic animals were electric. It is also commented that Rachael has human and Replicant parts, implying that there is some difference between replicants and humans. There is also the short, showing how mechanically they move. Lastly, just about every cyberpunk thing spun from Blade Runner interprets them as robotic.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks