Bladerunner would be forgettable without the soundtrack.

[chaosWyrM]

The movie is asking the question 'what is life?' - what defines a human being. Does a silicon based 'organism' constitute a human if it looks and acts and thinks like one?

this bugs the crap outta me, and i cant believe how many times i need to explain this...its absolutely fundamental to understanding the film....

the replicants are not "silicon based"...they are not robots...they are not androids...they are not mechanical in any way shape or form.

they are artificial people. they are 100% carbon based biological living human beings, comprised of hearts and lungs and livers and bone and blood. i mean...they come out and specifically say so in the film. seriously...all the people we see in the film involved in making them are geneticists...not robotics engineers. how on earth do people keep missing this basic and important point???

replicants are real human beings...they were just manufactured.

the question being asked in the film is not "what is life" but rather...what is SELF. what makes you you...and how do you know its "real"?

its a question of identity and self awareness, not what constitutes a sentient being.

[dark water]

This thread is a daft 12-page debate about a hypothetical.

Bladerunner has a soundtrack.


And I'm not a fan of the movie, but why pick on that one as being forgettable without its soundtrack?

@_@!!

[inkwarp]

"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave. "
you can't get more existential than that : )

[xoxos]

it's never a question of self identity. what for? what we are after is bladerunner identity, vangelis identity. something really great and fantastic. yeah. who are you? not bladerunner that's for sure. have you seen bladerunner's studio? it's bigger than yours. get over yourself, we've got dvds.

and don't forget to hit the subscribe button because if you haven't figured out the hideous vampire sickness by now then it will keep you busy for a little bit longer.

[inkwarp]

come again?

[xoxos]

come again?

i'd have to have got there the first time.

[lotus2035]

Bladerunner was about a bunch of faulty toasters who repeatedly burnt the toast and fired said toast into the ceiling when the timer went. Harrison Ford played a toaster repair man who was hired to clean the toast off the ceiling. He may himself have been a toaster in disguise.

[chk071]

He even made love to a toaster.

[xoxos]

[IncarnateX]

Bladerunner would be forgettable without the soundtrack

So would The Sound of Music.

So fooking what?

A movie ain't a movie without it's soundtrack.

[inkwarp]

milk and cookies kept you up all night?

[inkwarp]

The movie is asking the question 'what is life?' - what defines a human being. Does a silicon based 'organism' constitute a human if it looks and acts and thinks like one?

this bugs the crap outta me, and i cant believe how many times i need to explain this...its absolutely fundamental to understanding the film....

the replicants are not "silicon based"...they are not robots...they are not androids...they are not mechanical in any way shape or form.

they are artificial people. they are 100% carbon based biological living human beings, comprised of hearts and lungs and livers and bone and blood. i mean...they come out and specifically say so in the film. seriously...all the people we see in the film involved in making them are geneticists...not robotics engineers. how on earth do people keep missing this basic and important point???

replicants are real human beings...they were just manufactured.

the question being asked in the film is not "what is life" but rather...what is SELF. what makes you you...and how do you know its "real"?

its a question of identity and self awareness, not what constitutes a sentient being.

i agree for the most part.
which is why rachel is such an important character. she has memories that define who she is, but they are not her memories. Does this mean that Rachel is not human? the central question for me.
there bodies are real and biological, there memories are unquestionable, so what and who decides what constitutes being human? if deckard admits to their humanity, then he must accept a prior i that he is a murderer. even though he has read the dossier on Rachel and knows he memories he still allows her to live as an equal, the fact she is not built to expire she is effectively on every level human.
remember tyrell's motto : "more human than human".
i wish people would remember the subplot that is quite clear Deckard is a replicant himself. this is due to the dream about a unicorn that gaff seems to know in the same way that deckard knows about rachel hence the origami unicorn gaff leaves outside Deckard's apartment. in the same way that Rachel is an experiment with no expiration date, we can assume that deckard is of the same. in the original release we got that absolutely terrible tacked on ending which made no sense at all. i for one think scott's 'final version' is the best beyond a shadow of doubt.

[harryupbabble]

Any intelligent human would not accept slavery so how can the Tyrell Corp expect "more human than human" replicants to accept it? The two-year life expiry for replicants doesn't seem adequate to control them because revolution can be done in less time? I can't imagine the Roy Batty character ever accepting the idea of slavery. Did Murphy's Law happened to Roy Batty? It seems like before him, the other replicants were compliant? Educate me.

Yup, to me, Blade Runner was one memorable movie, story-wise. But did I read it wrong (the movie plot, not the book plot, if the two varies)?

[incubus]

Everyone, please take your meds before posting! Thanks.

[deastman]

I forgot the details and can't be bothered to look it up, but I remember reading some conflicting opinions between Scott and Ford as to whether or not he was a replicant. I think it remains ambiguous.