I always thought they were fully organic, but “grown” rather than “born”. Maybe they are gestated in vivo, I don’t know. Their genomes are also highly engineered, per the specifications of their manufacturers. They have false memories “implanted”, and I don’t know by what mechanism this is achieved. They could just have them watch a lot of movies while they’re gestating to give them “memories”, I suppose. I assume replicants are sterile, but I don’t think their reproductive abilities are discussed either. They certainly have normal-looking secondary sexual characteristics. Replicant’s are forbidden from Earth, and it’s interesting to speculate that might be because they (Tyrell Corp.) don’t want them breeding. But I think it’s primarily because the replicants have a habit of revolting, and maybe also labor laws prohibit them.
Wow, I got double-bumped.
Clearly not, or they wouldn’t have needed the battery of psychological tests in order to figure out whether someone was a replicant. A simple metal detector or X-Ray machine would have done it. Besides, Blade Runner was all about genetic engineering as a cottage industry. Clearly the replicants were some kinds of clones or genetically modified humans with some additional strength and modified for short life.
I think someone even says in the movie that they gave a Replicant an autopsy, and that it was so realistic, they were fooled into thinking it was a normal human.
Nope. Replicants are quite clearly synthetic humans “More human than human, that’s our motto” says Tyrrel.
The implication in the film is that replicants were created to serve various roles which were too dangerous for humans, and that what gradually happened to them was that they began in the words of Bryant, “Developing their own emotional response.” IOW, they realized that they were created to do the shit work, and wanted nothing to do with it, so Tyrrel built in the four year lifespan, because (as implied in the film) that’s how long it took them to realize their lot in life. One could argue that they’re called “robots” and “machines” by the humans the same way folks refer to people of different ethnicities with racial slurs: To prevent them from consciously acknowledging that the object of their hatred is human.
In reality, I’d say that it’s simply the process of writing that the script went through. It was rewritten a number of times (one of the drafts ended with Deckard killing Rachel), and changed even during the filming process (thus leading to the “gaff” where Bryant gets the number of replicants wrong in the briefing room scene). Originally, Scott wasn’t even going to do Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep he was going to do William S. Burroughs script entitled Blade Runner, but the studio heads took one look at it and said, “Sorry, no, but we do have this Philip K. Dick story you might be interested in.” As a way of apology to Burroughs, Scott used the Blade Runner title (and credit is given to Burroughs and his cowriter in the end credits).
Just to add:
The skinjobs were flesh and blood. Remember the scene where Batty went to the eye doctor? If you could see… what I’ve seen… with your eyes. He wasn’t building eyes, he was growing them.
And Terrell himself told Batty of the DNA from him that in Nexus series replicants.
Not machines - flesh and blood geneticly engineered bodies with built in ingrams.
Got football on my mind, obviously. Tyrel, not Terrell.
In the book Do Androids Dreem of Electric Sheep, which character dreams of one day buying an electric sheep?
It is Deckard.
Doesn’t he have an electric sheep but wants a real one?
In the (directors cut of the) film it is heavily hinted that Deckard is a replicant. In the book I don’t remember that being made clear (don’t hesitate to correct me people) but being a PKDick book lots of things aren’t clear.
There’s another film based on a PKD story called Screamers (it’s not very good) which I think gets closer to some of the ideas in ‘Do Androids…’ than Blade Runner does. It also has the equivalent of the Rachel and Pris characters looking identical as they are in ‘Do Androids…’ but aren’t in Blade Runner.
Meanwhile back at the OP:
I’m surprised Forbidden Planet didn’t make a showing. Maybe because it’s not really Sci-fi it’s Shakespeare 
In the book, part of the society that was left out of the film is that everyone but everyone has some sort of animal. Real ones are expensive but electric ones can be had and really nobody can tell the difference. There is even a story about an owner calling an animal vet and the vet discovers that it was fake.
He does keep a sheep (I think he does have a sheep but yearns for a much better animal) on the roof of his building. His neighbor has a horse up there. Deckard thinks the horse is real. Of course if you think about it, there is no way a real horse lives on the roof as described in the book. In short, there are no ‘real’ animals. Even a frog that Deckard finds out in nature is a machine. However, after killing a replicant Deckard has to wait for a bone marrow test to see if it was really a replicant.
Wow, I can’t belive that I forgot Gattaca. That is probably my most favorite film of all.
What? No respect for Dark Star? That’s just not right.
I’m also suprised another Phillip K. Dick based story, Total Recall, didn’t make a better showing.
I think you’ve got it backwards. The animal was real, and the guy picking up the animal (a cat, wasn’t it?) thought it was a fake.
The best thing in the book, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” (which, of course, was NOT in the movie :rolleyes: ) was the religion of the day. Anybody remember that? It’s been years, but I seem to remember that everyone had something like a walking machine in their home and as they used it they would be aware of walking up some hill in Mexico…
Dark Star – excellent!
Yeah. Mercer. Mercerism. And the rocks being thrown to stop his climb, and the blood.
They would grab two handles on an electreonic machine to connect…
Great memory, 2t!
You misspelled extremely. It may be the most scientifically accurate movie of all time, but it utterly fails in the storytelling department. My vote goes to Blade Runner.
I’m always torn between Blade Runner and 2001 as the best in the field. Technically and visually, 2001 is as perfect a movie as I have ever seen, but is inaccessible and rather obscure (even boring) to people not familiar with Sci-fi and not prepared to look at a movie as an experience rather than a clear-cut narrative. Plus, it has an amazing soundtrack so well-integrated with the visuals and story that it leaves me speechless every time. Particularly Heywood Floyd’s trip to the moon, what a sequence.
I find Blade Runner also technically and visually a masterpiece, and the narrative is far more accessible (and meaty) than 2001. Vangelis’s score is good, but not IMO as good as the classical selections from 2001.
Both are movies that you can mull over for years after you’ve watched them. Both films do a great job of taking you to the “near” future. The execution of special effects in both flicks give results that are light-years ahead of contemporary films (particularly 2001) and that frankly look a lot better than most of today’s CGI craze.
For general viewing, I think Blade Runner may be best. For the hardcore science fiction afficionados, as well as students of film or mythology, I think 2001 may take the lead. Either way i have always found both extremely pleasant and rewarding.
On the sci-fi/fantasy debate, it’s interesting to note that at least one language uses a term that encompasses both fantasy and sci-fi: Italian, with fantascienza. In German IIRC the term is Zukunfstroman, or “novel of the future”, which would seem to leave a certain man in a high and dry castle.
I don’t know if I would class Star Wars as a fantasy rather than sci-fi; if pressed I would use the term “space opera”, which I would consider a subset of sci-fi. Alien (the first) always struck me as being at least as much of a horror film as sci-fi, with its sequels expanding on the sci-fi elements while cutting down on the horror.
Someone mentioned Total Recall, which was a great little movie, but flawed. If you look closely, you can tell how cheap and flimsy the set design is, and how limited in scope and breadth most of the shots are. Acting potential, well Schwarzennegger is what is he is, an action star. And the flick is mired deep in the '80s – witness the fashion and hairstyles of the future, which have that very early '90s feel, back before we shook off the decade of questionable style (yes, I know about the funky furniture on the orbital station in 2001, but overall the film is much more successful at being futuristic --particularly under the technological aspects – than Total Recall). What saves Recall for me are some nice visuals (often of mutants) scattered here and there, as well as the constantly twisting sense of what is real and what is an implanted memory/hallucination. The incessant swearing, slaughter, and gore were… refreshing, if not the pinnacle of science fiction achievement.
urg, that would be Zukunftsroman (not Zukunfstroman).