|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
TimeEnough Community Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:18 am Post subject: Question regarding story |
|
|
Hey there, I'm new; not sure if I'm even at the right place. Blade Runner has been growing on me for the past couple of months, but I'm wondering something: If Deckard is supposed to be the best blade runner, then why doesn't he know about the 4 year life span on replicants?
Thanks,
Keith
p.s.
If you have any question regarding the story, go ahead and ask here.
Last edited by TimeEnough on Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
andy Community Guide
Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 6237 Location: Rochester, NY
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome to propsummit Keith,
He has been retired for more than 4 years. Plus the only time he would have to deal with newer replicants is when they escaped from offworld. Before that, he only had to deal with older style replicants that were probably still on Earth when the ban took place. He would have no reason to learn about them.
Andy |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
joberg Community Member
Joined: 06 Oct 2008 Posts: 9447
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome aboard Keith...good question for sure (I'm with Andy on that one ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
TimeEnough Community Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh.. nice, and the answer progresses the story. I bet he can't get off world because of the shakes, probably. My next question is about Deckard's conversation with Bryant: D asks Bryant, "And if the machine doesn't work?". Any idea what he may be referring to? The next scene Rachel asks him if he's ever retired a human by accident, which he seems to handle badly.
Thanks for the warm welcome guys
Keith
Last edited by TimeEnough on Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
joberg Community Member
Joined: 06 Oct 2008 Posts: 9447
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Voight-Kampff machine used on Replicant. First scene with Leon (begining of the movie)...later at Tyrell again but with Rachael: did Deckard was ever tested using the same questions and the V.K. machine...hence the famous debate: is Deckard a human or a Replicant?
(have fun with the last question ) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
TimeEnough Community Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right, I know he was speaking about Voight-Kampff machine, but he's speaking about something that happened badly in the past (look at Bryant's expression afterward).
As for Deckard being human or replicant, I think it's fun to see him as a replicant, but tbh, I'd rather think of him as a human (atleast for now) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Fangorn81 Community Member
Joined: 03 May 2009 Posts: 172 Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most likely the answer to this question is because it's a movie. The audience doesn't know about the lifespan. Everything that the audience knows about a story they are told or show on-screen. The writers probably thought this was the best way to get in some exposition.
The whole scene where they review the replicant files feels that way to me. This is stuff Deckard probably should already know, but it is for the benefit of the audience.
Plus, if you have read DADoES the VK is a newer testing method still being tested on Nexus 6 models, Leon (or Max Polokov in the book) and Rachel are the only replicants Deckard knows the VK test has been given to when he starts hunting. _________________ Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living? That's something else.
Joah Mahan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Art Deckard Community Member
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 Posts: 280 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TimeEnough wrote: | Right, I know he was speaking about Voight-Kampff machine, but he's speaking about something that happened badly in the past (look at Bryant's expression afterward).
As for Deckard being human or replicant, I think it's fun to see him as a replicant, but tbh, I'd rather think of him as a human (atleast for now) |
Welcome, TimeEnough.
And if the machine doesn't work?
To me, Bryant's look in response is basically 'well then we're up shit creek without a paddle'. Nexus 6 are supposed to be much harder to detect than previous models so the danger to the Blade Runner and the risk of killing an innocent are greatly increased. As for Rachael's question, I think we are simply left to wonder whether Deckard ever did 'retire a human by mistake'.
As for Deck-a-rep? Treat the thing as mere garnish on an already well crafted story and I think you'll enjoy the film much more.
Damn, I miss these conversations!
(or do I?) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
The Loyalizer Community Member
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 742 Location: Down in 4th Sector, Chinatown
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are actually a few narrative problems in this scene. And much of it depends on if you've read the book or not.
In regards to the machine not working, in the book this presents a problem for the police who will be unable to positively ID who is or isn't an android. For the company it presents a manufacturing problem because the UN will demand a halt in the manufacture of androids until a new test is found.
Deckard's question about the machine not working and Bryant's reaction to it, could imply a past incident where a false positive was generated in a test and a human was retired by mistake. That might even be why Deckard quit the business.
In terms of the film narrative, its a bit of dialogue used to imply that the new Nexus models are indistinguishable from us. But even that's a moot point in the film, because the issue of the VK Test never comes up, Deckard is shown the photos of his targets and they're confirmed as being replicants, on top of that they all attempt to kill him, thus negating any need for a VK test. The only one he tests is Rachel, and he's not tasked with retiring her until later.
In the book he didn't know what they looked like, he only had a written description, and there was a possibility that the suspect he was testing was in fact human. And in one case that's exactly how one of the androids almost manages to kill Deckard in the book, by posing as someone else.
Not that any of this diminishes the enjoyment of the film, but it does bring up some interesting questions. _________________
"We began to recognize in them a strange obsession..."
http://fcomin.cgsociety.org/gallery/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Art Deckard Community Member
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 Posts: 280 Location: UK
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Loyalizer wrote: | There are actually a few narrative problems in this scene. And much of it depends on if you've read the book or not.
In terms of the film narrative, its a bit of dialogue used to imply that the new Nexus models are indistinguishable from us. But even that's a moot point in the film, because the issue of the VK Test never comes up, Deckard is shown the photos of his targets and they're confirmed as being replicants, on top of that they all attempt to kill him, thus negating any need for a VK test. The only one he tests is Rachel, and he's not tasked with retiring her until later.
|
I almost added this point to my post. It's like an echo of a key idea from the book that isn't really developed in the film. It doesn't matter in the film. I tried to put forward the argument (on Bladezone) that maybe the positive VK test was a legal requirement but then, as you say, the way Deckard deals with Zhora and co makes the whole thing moot. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
TimeEnough Community Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Loyalizer wrote: |
Deckard's question about the machine not working and Bryant's reaction to it, could imply a past incident where a false positive was generated in a test and a human was retired by mistake. That might even be why Deckard quit the business. |
I'm glad you said this
Are those CG renderings yours? They are very well done. Kudos to you. I'll have to check out the book very soon.
I think I'll hold off on any more questions until I watch the movie again (a few minutes), but I wanted to add that the scene when Gaff poses as a Chinese man does well to show the power of blade runners.
p.s. thanks for the welcome Art |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
The Loyalizer Community Member
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 Posts: 742 Location: Down in 4th Sector, Chinatown
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep those are indeed my renderings that are linked in my sig, and thanks!
I was thinking about it some more, the whole lack of the VK test on the replicants, I wonder if this is what Ford meant when he said his character was a detective that did no detecting. _________________
"We began to recognize in them a strange obsession..."
http://fcomin.cgsociety.org/gallery/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
BR12819 Community Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 180 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My take on all this is: Deckard quit in an attempt to save his marriage and because "He'd had a belly full of killing" (according to the VO). When Bryant tell's him that the Nexus 6's are the worst yet this could be in regards to their inability to be detected by the VK machine. Which is why Deckard later asks him the question about machine not working, when Bryant remains silent I assume it's because he know's Deckard may be right. I think we can infer that Bryant need's Deckard to take on the replicants because Holden was taken out of commission. _________________ full tilt boogie baby
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Vader Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011 Posts: 267 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: Re: Question regarding story |
|
|
TimeEnough wrote: | why doesn't he know about the 4 year life span on replicants? |
For me, the answer to this was always in Bryant's tone, when he responds to Deckard's "which is what?".
I read it to imply that Deckard does know about the four-year life span, but he was not aware that its purpose is to act as a fail-safe device against replicants developing their own emotional responses. _________________ 26354
Last edited by Vader on Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
joberg Community Member
Joined: 06 Oct 2008 Posts: 9447
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I don't understand with this line of thought is this:
Tyrell Corp is manufacturing Replicant for Off-World jobs too dangerous/risky to be performed by humans.
At a certain point in time, a policy/law is developed to keep said Replicants off our planet (is it because we had previous incidents with them returning to get answers about their existance, or are they simply too dangerous to be let loose?)
Too enforce the law, the police force needs some kind of technology to test and retire these replicants, hence the Voight-Kampff machine (Tyrell would be the only manufacture capable of producing it since they know how Replicants are built).
Why would Tyrell build a Replicant/product that cannot be tested by their own technology (V.K.)?
Is it because the Replicants are getting better at passing themselves for humans and the teckies/psychologists at Tyrell cannot keep up?
It takes Deckard more than a hundred questions to uncover Rachael...but she's uncovered at the end of the interview; so the V.K./questionnaire still performs well enough
Maybe the machine is not to blame: it's the operator that needs re-training |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
BR12819 Community Member
Joined: 31 Oct 2006 Posts: 180 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
remember that Tyrell had to "gift" them with memories to "create a cushion...for their emotions" Which to me says that without memories they are incredibly unstable. And don't forget the Tyrell motto. _________________ full tilt boogie baby
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
TimeEnough Community Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2011 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My guess is that a man as rich and intelligent as Tyrell probably has his hands in everything. Even undetectable replicants. He does say, "our motto is more human than human" -- commerce |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Vader Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011 Posts: 267 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
joberg wrote: | Tyrell would be the only manufacture capable of producing it since they know how Replicants are built |
I am not sure this necessarily follows. It's a bit like the assumption that manufacturers of drugs or explosives would be the only ones capable of building chemical "sniffers", or that only a gun maker could build airport X-ray machines. Or that only a submarine builder could make a sonar, and so on.
What I am trying to say is that it is actually quite seldom that the company that makes item A is the one most involved in developing item B, which is item A's countermeasure (into which category equipment for detecting it solidly counts).
Therefore, it might actually be the fact that a countermeasure — V-K — exists in the first place that has prompted Tyrell to develop the memory implantation technique, to counter the countermeasure. Sort of like the classical arms development race.
Another thought I've had on the subject:
As we know, in the current replicant technology, the fail-safe device against replicant instability is that they expire in a mere four years.
Now, assuming that a replicant is not cheap to buy (more like a car than a mobile phone), a four year life span can be a bit of a drawback, marketing-wise.
Developing an alternate technology to deal with the instability issue might obviate the need to limit the life span that severely. This in turn might increase the revenue potential of the product.
These two might not even be mutually exclusive. _________________ 26354
Last edited by Vader on Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
joberg Community Member
Joined: 06 Oct 2008 Posts: 9447
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keith is to blame for all that discussion taking place...see the can-o-worms he opened |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Vader Community Member
Joined: 19 Feb 2011 Posts: 267 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh yes ... good on him! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|