There’s no evidence that others, more common, replicants are capable of such feats. It is emphasized that the replicants Deckard is chasing are exceptionnally sophisticated and dangerous.
(This thread tempts me into watching again the movie, one of my all-times favourites, or playing again the IMO excellent comuter game)
Sorry for the hijack, but I need to make a confession here.
For years I believed that I’d seen Blade Runner and I was really confused during conversations about the movie. I wondered why I didn’t remember all sorts of details that others discussed.
(deep breath) Okay.
I’ll say it. I say Logan’s Run years ago. I finally saw Blade Runner this year.
:smack: And that neatly answers the “why makes them indistinguishable from humans” question : because we can.
You mean, stick a guy in a freezer for a day, if he dies of hypothermia he was no replicant ? 
The important question is, did you see Logan’s Run more than 30 years ago? Because if so, it’s time to Renew.
“We’ll use my largest scales.”
Stranger
So. . . Replicants are just humans? Or are “genetically engineered clones” somehow different? Confused, here (and an identical twin This Close to being ever-so-slightly almost offended)
Right. They would be based on human DNA, changed only to produce specific characteristics desired by the designers. If there is no particular reason to eliminate the tear ducts, they would be left in.
They are what could best be described as “synthetic humans.” While they no doubt share many genetic similarities with humans, their DNA has been altered so much as to make them a different species. They’re a “clone” in the sense that they’re an artificial creation.
Well, if your skin is immune to boiling water, it must be made of a different substance than human skin. There ya go, instant test.
I think those were mistakes, tho, clearly the replicant must be androids of the same material as humans- not robots or even cyborgs.
Or boil him.
They are more like the humanoid Cylons from Battlestar Galactica than Terminators. Basically genetically enhanced artificial humans made from material close enough to what humans are made of to be more or less indistingusihable. That material would have to be chemically different from actual celular material though. Different heat and cold tolerances, higher strength, etc. Whether they are born in vitro, grown in a vat, or manufactured by some sort of 3D printer (like Leelooo in The 5th Element), I couldn’t tell you.
The only reason you would make artificial humans is to have them do something humans have to do in our human environment, only better or safer. And it’s probably less disconcerting working with a robot indistinguishable from a human.
I’m trying to figure out if you’re serious about this, or just yanking everybody’s chain. Did you not see any other scenes in the movie? As you noted, Rachel has to be told she’s a replicant; she’s indististinguishable from human. How would that work without at least the appearance of normal human emotional responses?
Hmm, well then (I’d never thought hard about the nature of replicants before) it makes the humans in the movie much more ethically iffy in my mind-- to create these, essentially, humans, but who serve as, basically, slaves, with an expiration date. It makes Roy’s soliloquy at the end even more tearjerking.
Well, and to fill out the kick-murder squads, whatever those are.
That’s a good idea; we’ll call it the DrDeth test. Except that’s a bit negative… maybe not. It might make people might think pouring boiling water on them is bad or something.
If you’d included the whole of my post you quoted, it would be quite apparent*. And, if you are happy in the knowledge that the androids in Bladerunner have a “Get emotional. Shed tear.” command written into their programming, who am I to try and spoil your fun? ( I take it they were programmed, bearing in mind the references to memory implants? )
Okay, let’s look at it:
No, it’s still not apparent. Could be an attempt at humor, could be genuine cognitive density. Your posting history supports either hypothesis.
I haven’t seen the movie in a while, but I remember at the time I couldn’t figure out from the available evidence exactly how the replicants were created. Genetically engineered zygotes grown to term in artificial wombs? With a four-year lifespan, did they spend part of it as rapidly-growing children? I don’t remember whether it made any more sense in Dick’s novel, which I read about 35 years ago.
If we’re going to try and figure out stuff in Blade Runner – what the heck is Decker doing when he’s examining that photo? I’ve never really figured that scene out. It seems like all he gets from it is an image of Zhora’s face, which he already had. (There’s probably an old thread on this very subject somewhere.)
I’ll put your mind at rest, Baldwin. It was an attempt at humour; sorry it didn’t meet your exacting standards. I’ll try and up my game if I know you will be appearing in a thread, in the future.
Actually, I too was a little vague on how exactly the replicants were made, but when Rachel turns up at Deckhard’s( correct spelling this time. sorry, Bladerunner purists!) flat, the audience already knows Rachel is a replicant. Were the audience meant to think, “Awww…poor robot. It’s upset!”, followed by, “Hmmm…is this more than a machine?”? If that was the aim, I’ve got no right to complain and I’ll retract my quibble and exit this thread shamefaced.
Hopefully, that’ll get you off my back, Mr Baldwin.
There are several suggestions in the movie that replicants (and other artificial life forms) are assembled from parts. Chew: “I design your eyes.” With floating eyeballs sitting around. The code number on the snake scale. Stuff like that. So I’m thinking no embryos. Not bad for 2019 tech.
I don’t consider DADoES to be in any way useful in resolving BR issues.
Yes, replicants are genetically engineered beings, not mechanical robots.
This is explicitly said in the opening screen shot with the text:
So this tells you that (a) replicants are “more advanced” than robots (the evoluationary “next step” beyond the limits of mechanical robots – biological creations), (b) are in fact virtually identical to a human, and © are killed like humans.
And in another key scene, Roy Battie literally “meets his maker” (the whole purpose of their illegal trip to Earth) to demand more life, and has even got counterarguments as to how his DNA, pre-programmed to have him die in 5 years’ time, could potentially be changed to have a longer or normal human life-span.
Well, not necessarily, since this would imply a truly ridiculous amount of assembly-line surgery. Chew could easily be a genetic engineer who contributes ideas to DNA strands that eventually result in “better-than-human” eyes, and in his research, he grows isolated eyes in his lab (current scientists are using stem-cell-like research to explore the idea of growing other organs in isolation, like livers) and examines them.
I figure the snake and Tyrell’s owl could be extremely lifelike robots assembled from parts, but this tech proved unsuitable for producing realistic humans that are more human than humans, hence replicants.