Blade Runner 2049 - 10.6.17 (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

Perhaps that's the central theme of the film (and it appears somewhat likely) - that Tyrell Corporation has always had the ability to make replicants who have a normal human lifespan. Deckard could be one.

Replicants as I understand are not required to have a limited lifespan, this was put in place as they found that if a replicant is alive for too long they eventually revolt.

If you go by the theatrical cut, Rachel did not have a limited lifespan. This makes sense since Rachel had memories implanted into her and it's established that she doesn't know she's a replicant. Presumably, if Deckard is indeed a replicant, it's likely he's the same as he doesn't know he's a replicant either.

 

[SamT]

Are the replicants biological?

 

[dpippel]

Replicants as I understand are not required to have a limited lifespan, this was put in place as they found that if a replicant is alive for too long they eventually revolt.

If you go by the theatrical cut, Rachel did not have a limited lifespan. This makes sense since Rachel had memories implanted into her and it's established that she doesn't know she's a replicant. Presumably, if Deckard is indeed a replicant, it's likely he's the same as he doesn't know he's a replicant either.

If you watch the scene when Tyrell is talking to Roy, he specifically states that their limited lifespan was a problem that he had yet overcome. But yes, Rachel was different, and if Deckard was a replicant he would obviously be different as well. I'll be interested to see if the new film addresses these questions.

 

[dpippel]

Are the replicants biological?

Yes.

 

[SamT]

That's interesting because then they are human and all is solved. But they keep calling them machines in the original movie. They say they are like any other machine.

 

[dpippel]

They're biological machines AFAIK, but they don't fully explain or explore the subject in the original film. When they get injured or shot, they bleed, and there's the infamous scene with Roy and Leon in the lab where they "grow" eyes for replicants. Rachel also tells Deckard that the owl in Tyrell's office is "synthetic", not mechanical.

 

[WillG]

If you watch the scene when Tyrell is talking to Roy, he specifically states that their limited lifespan was a problem that he had yet overcome.

True, but I take that to mean that once they implement the limited lifespan, they can't undo it. But it's a non issue to the replicants that never had a limited lifespan in the first place.

 

[Edwin-S]

The director did not write the film so that really has nothing to do with him. That is the script he shot...not wrote.

I don't think you can say the film has failed at anything yet as it has not been released and so can't be judged on a single line.

He may not have wrote it, but he is the face of the film. No film has ever stated "a film by (fill in the writer)". Regardless of who writes it, the film is always referred to as the director's. If it was in the script and he filmed it that way, without bringing up any concern, then he tacitly agrees with what is written.

There has always been a debate on whether the main theme of Blade Runner was about slavery or humanity.A character speaking a piece of dialog that unequivocally talks about slavery indicates to me that the writer and director have made a choice as to where they stand, So, to me, this film is already a failure, because it appears the writer and director are directing what a person is supposed to think, unlike the first film which allowed a person to decide for themselves what the true meaning of the film was.

Edit: I should clarify that by failure I mean in terms of comparison to the first one, not an outright failure as a film in totality.

 

[WillG]

They're biological machines AFAIK, but they don't fully explain or explore the subject in the original film. When they get injured or shot, they bleed, and there's the infamous scene with Roy and Leon in the lab where they "grow" eyes for replicants. Rachel also tells Deckard that the owl in Tyrell's office is "synthetic", not mechanical.

Plus, if the replicants did have machine parts; they'd be very easy to detect. All you'd need to do is X-Ray suspected replicants.

 

[dpippel]

True, but I take that to mean that once they implement the limited lifespan, they can't undo it. But it's a non issue to the replicants that never had a limited lifespan in the first place.

You may very well be right. My memory of that dialogue is far from crystal-clear. Methinks I should rewatch the scene and refresh my brain cells.

 

[WillG]

He may not have wrote it, but he is the face of the film. No film has ever stated "a film by (fill in the writer)"

Not to nitpick, but Francis Ford Coppola has sort of done that on some of his films ("Mario Puzo's The Godfather", Bram Stoker's Dracula")

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's interesting because then they are human and all is solved. But they keep calling them machines in the original movie. They say they are like any other machine.

They're biological machines AFAIK, but they don't fully explain or explore the subject in the original film. When they get injured or shot, they bleed, and there's the infamous scene with Roy and Leon in the lab where they "grow" eyes for replicants. Rachel also tells Deckard that the owl in Tyrell's office is "synthetic", not mechanical.

The original film never clearly states what they are, and there are internal consistencies. From watching the Dangerous Days doc, reading Paul Sammon's book, and other interviews with people involved in the productions (particularly the writers), it seems that this is a problem leftover from the troubled development of the film. The different writers that did different drafts seemed to have different ideas of what replicants were, and as those drafts kept getting revised and rewritten, some things that were not internally consistent remained. Frankly, I think it's a flaw in the original film. The original film works in spite of its flaws, not because of them, in my view.

The original film both suggestions that they're indistinguishable from humans, and that they're not. The scales that Deckard finds had serial numbers on them; they were identifiable under close examination as not being the real thing. So why wouldn't replicated humans also have that? The Voight-Kampff test works as a dramatic device, but it would seem that a simple blood test (or just examining a skin flake or hair follicle under a microscope) would have revealed who was real and who was a replicant. But that's not as dramatically interesting as the Voight-Kampff test is.

So on one hand, all of this gives the filmmakers for the new film a lot of wiggle room in making the new film to make the replicants whatever the new story needs them to be. But it bothers me somewhat as a viewer of the original film that a lot of that world seems poorly conceived once you move beyond surface level depictions.

 

[WillG]

You may very well be right. My memory of that dialogue is far from crystal-clear. Methinks I should rewatch the scene and refresh my brain cells.

I don't think that dialog specifically makes it clear, but, again if you go by the theatrical cut, they can make replicants without a four year lifespan. And If your not watching the theatrical cut, Deckard has to have it explained to him by Bryant that Roy and co have a four year lifespan which would suggest that it was a development that happend while Deckard was inactive (also note that Deckard initially doesn't fathom why Roy and co would want to come back to Earth)

 

[WillG]

There has always been a debate on whether the main theme of Blade Runner was about slavery or humanity.A character speaking a piece of dialog that unequivocally talks about slavery indicates to me that the writer and director have made a choice as to where they stand, So, to me, this film is already a failure, because it appears the writer and director are directing what a person is supposed to think, unlike the first film which allowed a person to decide for themselves what the true meaning of the film was.

I could be mistaken, but doesn't the opening crawl of Blade Runner specifically mention that replicants were used as slave labor in the off world colonies?

 

[Edwin-S]

Not to nitpick, but Francis Ford Coppola has sort of done that on some of his films ("Mario Puzo's The Godfather", Bram Stoker's Dracula")

Those are the original authors of the books, not screenwriters. Coppola referencing them in the title is one creative paying respects to another creative. The film is still Coppola's. Most people talking about the film will talk about it in terms Coppola's vision, not Mario Puzo's.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't think that dialog specifically makes it clear, but, again if you go by the theatrical cut, they can make replicants without a four year lifespan. And If your not watching the theatrical cut, Deckard has to have it explained to him by Bryant that Roy and co have a four year lifespan which would suggest that it was a development that happend while Deckard was inactive (also note that Deckard initially doesn't fathom why Roy and co would want to come back to Earth)

Which brings up an excellent point that I forgot to mention in my earlier post - what happens in Blade Runner, and therefore what Blade Runner may or may not mean, changes heavily depending on which version of the film you see.

If you watch the theatrical version, Deckard is absolutely not a replicant. Replicants are generally made with four year life spans, but some can be made to last longer, it's just not an option that's often taken.

If you watch the director's cut and especially the final cut, Deckard may be a Replicant (the final cut inches even closer to where he's probably one), but it's completely unknown to Deckard whether a replicant can be made that lasts longer than four years.

I know a lot of people like to think of this as a film where it can mean whatever the viewer wants it to mean. I see it as a film where the filmmakers themselves didn't fully understand or fully care about the world they were creating. Too many competing visions in the scripting department, too much pressure to get the film finished by a certain release date, and more attention payed to visual than written and verbal details.

 

[Edwin-S]

I could be mistaken, but doesn't the opening crawl of Blade Runner specifically mention that replicants were used as slave labor in the off world colonies?

I'm embarrassed that I had to check and, yes, it did refer to them as such in the opening crawl, which apparently would negate my entire argument. Still, in actually watching the film, the theme, to me, has always been about what fundamentally defines one as being human and being recognized as such. Replicants in the Blade Runner world were treated worse than slaves. In Rome, slaves could earn their freedom and become citizens. Even in America, slaves could be granted their freedom if their owners so chose.

In Blade Runner, replicants don't even have those meager options. They have only two routes: death by limited life span or death by termination. That denotes a view of them on the order of domesticated animals.

 

[WillG]

If you watch the director's cut and especially the final cut, Deckard may be a Replicant (the final cut inches even closer to where he's probably one), but it's completely unknown to Deckard whether a replicant can be made that lasts longer than four years.

I'm not sure that's true. As I mentioned before, Bryant had to tell Deckard that Roy and co. had 4 year lifespans (clearly it's exposition for the viewer, but it also seems to be new to Deckard). Deckard also indicated that off world replicants, in his experience, have little motivation to return to Earth again indicating that the older replicants that he had previously dealt with were not implemented with a limited lifespan.

 

[Edwin-S]

If you watch the director's cut and especially the final cut, Deckard may be a Replicant (the final cut inches even closer to where he's probably one), but it's completely unknown to Deckard whether a replicant can be made that lasts longer than four years.

When I watch "The Final Cut" BD, it is for the quality of the mastering and transfer. I pretty well ignore all of Scott's asinine additions in trying to make Deckard appear to be a Replicant.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm not sure that's true. As I mentioned before, Bryant had to tell Deckard that Roy and co. had 4 year lifespans (clearly it's exposition for the viewer, but it also seems to be new to Deckard). Deckard also indicated that off world replicants, in his experience, have little motivation to return to Earth again indicating that the older replicants that he had previously dealt with were not implemented with a limited lifespan.

If Deckard had no idea to begin with that Replicants had limited life spans then he would have no reason to believe that other replicants that he dealt with didn't live to ripe old ages. Him indicating that "older" Replicants had no desire to return to Earth doesn't mean that they had unlimited lifespans. It just means that in his brief interactions with them he had no basis to know that they would die shortly after his interactions with them ceased.

On the other hand, I guess it could be argued that "combat models" had limited spans imposed due to them being so dangerous.