“What I wish I’d said”
• After finishing watching Blade Runner (An impressive movie to say the least) I have one question concerning the differences of human vs. replicator... “What makes us human?”
Harrison Ford character, Deckard, is introduced as a cold-hearted detective sent to elimanate several escaped replicators. However, his humanity is not really expressed widely in the movie. Through the progression of the movie, the viewer notices the replicators begin to show emotions. Such as the final scene between Deckard and Ray. Ray chooses to let Deckard live, thus conveying respect for human life and empathy in his decision. What makes the replicators non-human is that do not possess the emotions humans can. However, the replicants begin to show these feelings, just as Deckard does through his relationship with Rachael. Although in their love scene, Deckard is still cold, and seems overly-aggressive with Rachael in making her stay when she tries to leave. This could also support his possibility of being a replicator. Even if he is not a replicator, he does not seem to show true emotions like love until the movie is near the end. The company who produces the replicators, does so on the motto “more human than human”. With the use of the emotions, it is then that the replicators are human, in the sense that they feel human emotions. Compared to Deckard intially, or even Gaff, the replicators seem to be more human, than the actual “humans”. Rachael believes she is human, and with her implanted memories, can very well be human. She cries when Deckard, rejects her prove of the family photo. However, the memories do not matter in regards to humanity. Rachael’s extensive array of emotions, and how those are reflected in her character presents her as a emotion-sensitive human. (EA)
• You asked the question, “Why is the replica snake more expensive than the real one?” Students suggested some reasons for the price difference, but I do not see a significant reason as to why the snakes varied in price. I thought of the snakes as jewelry. Fake diamonds are very cheap. They look real and can even feel real, but they are fake. A real diamond is very expensive. It looks a lot like the fake diamonds, but real diamonds are rare and hard to come by.
A student suggested that real animals may be hard to find in that futuristic setting. I don’t believe that they would be harder to find when looking at the whole planet, but they may be hard to find in the city setting. That is what I wish I said. (JC)
• In Blade Runner, the replicants are made to be so much like humans that a comprehensive test must be performed to identify them. This technology is obviously very advanced, but is it ethical to make robots that similar to humans?
This question addresses the “just because one can, does not necessarily mean one should” maxim. I feel that the creators of the replicants were far too consumed by their desire to create the most advanced, humanoid robots. They failed to realize that the robots would most likely want to be human. This makes the design of the replicants unethical. It would have been wiser to create robots of the same technological ability, while making them distinctly different from humans. (BF)
• My question is about what the movie was trying to convey about humanity. Were they trying to say that the Replicants were, in the end, about as human as humans because they were able to experience things and store memories? Or does the fact that they don’t have as complex emotional development rule them out as “human?” I think an argument can be made in both directions.
I would argue against Replicants being human. I think that human emotion is just too complex to ever be equaled by robots. The Replicants can store others memory, and they can interpret that, and believe that it is theirs, but I don’t think they could only analyze it, not have emotional responses. I think the movie does a good job of trying to make the Robots appear to develop emotions, but I don’t think that they could ever develop real, complex emotions like humans possess. (WF)
• What did Gaff mean when he said “It’s too bad she wont live, but then again who does?”
By this statement I think Gaff was referring to Rachael and the fact that she is a Replicant, but It seems like he is almost warning Deckard about his death or someones death. or trying to send some kind of message by leaving an oragami unicorn behind for Deckard to find. As soon as Gaff makes his comment, Deckard rushes back to his apartment as if he expects to find Rachael dead, but doesn’t then the movie ends. (KH)
• I thought that the issues with memories and artificial animals were the most significant aspects with the film.
In regards to the memories, I think that the reason why the replicants were so obsessed with their past was because humans are defined by their past. Without past experience that shape you, you are not any different then anyone else. The pictures represented these memories, so the obsession with photographs is obvious; replicants valued pictures because pictures are physical evidence to some sort of identity. Decker plays the piano, has many pictures, and is obviously struggling with his life because he drinks a lot (this is why I personally believe he is NOT a replicant). When Decker tells his girlfriend that she is a replicant, her picture means nothing anymore, so she leaves it behind.
Secondly, the issue arose in the discussion about replicant animals. I think the reason why real animals cost more is because of value. People always will pay more for unique things or perhaps items with personal sentimental value. This is an interesting paradox tho because in most cases, fabricated goods are more trustworthy than the real thing. Value is also an issue for the replicants. They value what humans have; inherent freedom and a long life. However, the main antagonist, Decker, and Decker’s girlfriend all realize the same thing in the end; all humans and replicants are the same, everyone and everything WILL die, and the only way to live is to appreciate the present and work with the cards you are dealt. This is why I believe Decker runs away with his girl in the end, crumbling up the unicorn, because it does not matter if she is real or not; he’s happy. (SM)
• What can we take away about death and immortality from Blade Runner?
We get a different perspective about death and immortality in this movie. As human beings, we don’t know how long we will live and don’t think as much about death. Many times, people don’t live their lives as fully as they should because we assume we have a lot of time before death. We see a different way of looking at death in this movie since the replicants only have four years to live, and therefore are always trying to find ways to avoid death. They also live their “lives” differently because of the guaranteed shortness of their lives. (DM)
• In the movie, Blade Runner, there is no sure-fire method to distinguish real humans from replicants. If no test can show definite discernment then are replicants indeed completely human?
The discerning of replicants and humans in the movie is not of certainty. Early in the plot, it can be seen that Rachel, a newer replicant, resembles a human even closer and also shows signs of emotion. Roy, the replicant which shows mercy to Decker, also displays emotion and tries to show Decker that they are not so different. I believe that the replicants are in fact completely human. The creation of them may not be ethical but the treatment they receive after their creation is not ethical either. If an outsider were to come across two dogs knowing nothing about them and not have the ability to definitively distinguish one from real or replicant then they would go on forever thinking both dogs were real. The same theory should apply to humans and artificially engineered human replicants. There are subtle signs throughout the movie which hint that Decker himself may indeed be a replicant. The audience is led the entire movie thinking he is a human, which is ironic but could have been intentional. The fact that Decker is possibly a replicant yet the audience can find no certain differences from a human is a perfect support for my opinion. (AR)
• Ive always wondered what it really means to be human. Is it possible that the Replicants could be considered human?
I guess what being human meas is being aware of your own existence. this means questioning your purpose in life and having free will. This being said, I feel that the Replicants have a right to be treated as humans. (RS)
• Would the film have the same effect if the setting was in our time period?
Do the positives out way the negatives of being a replicant? (ChS)
• Why are humans so fascinated by the creation of human-like robots? What purpose could possibly be worth the risk these robots entail? There is always a risk of the robots being disobedient to commands when they have a complex human-like thinking process. The greatest benifit I see in most movies about robots is using them for slave labor. Isn’t it inhumane for these replicants to be slaves when they have complex emotions like us? History has shown us that slavery is not only immoral but is unacceptable. Some may say there is a difference between human slaves and robot slaves but there is a fine line when the replicants have human-like emotions. (CS)
• When Sebastian asked the replicants to show him something, the female asks, “What do you mean?” This implies that she thinks that they are no different than humans, because she does not know what to show him. But then she gets up and says, “I think, Sebastian, therefor I am,” the quote made famous by Descartes. Then she proceeds to stick her hand into boiling water without being harmed. This fundamental philosophical statement is brought up throughout the entire movie. What does this mean? If the replicants have the ability to think about “Being”, then they are… but are they? She just stuck her hand into boiling water without feeling anything. They feel no physical pain, but they feel fear, which is an emotional kind of pain. This movie touches on life at many levels that can be argued in many different ways so if is difficult to differentiate what is real and not real. (AW)
• I wish I would have asked if everyone believed it was possible to create a replicant. I believe it may be a faulty premise to say that we may be able to create something that is so human like. I realize that the movie is science fiction, however I noticed that many of the questions that arise from the move are based on the creation of these replicants. We can only resolve the issue of what defines personhood if we can answer this question. (PW)
• Q: Why Batty saves Dekard at the last moment instead of killing him?
A: This question asks for the interpretation of humanity in the movie Blade Runner.
As the best product Tyrell has ever made, Batty shows a high level grasp of human emotions in his affection to Pris and his grief for Leon. Such perception suggests that Batty has the spiritual traits of human beings. Unlike Dekard, who cruelly shots the replicants to “retire”, Batty wouldn’t kill a “stranger” (in this case, a human shape creature stranger, let’s say). Although Batty is responsible for Tyrell and Sebastian’s death, Batty’s murders are still understandable in that his hope for life is extinguished at the moment, and desperation rather than indifference is a normal part of human emotion. His behavior, compared to the human society’s merciless rules and its individual’s grimness, is “More Human than Human”.
If we define humanity as the specific spiritual traits of the human species, then, in the movie, humanity is more of arrogance, cruelty, and destruction than of respect, compassion, and salvage. (PY)