As far as DNA testing goes, this was before DNA testing became prevelant.

And Decker was a replicant...

It just seems silly that they made them however they made them and now they cant tell them from humans. Why not give them all the same fingerprint or something.

It just seems natural that a corporation would put a serial number on everything (like the scales on the snake) or like some movies where the clones have a 'mole' tattoo or some feature on them that indicates what they are.

Just looking back it kinda is a big plot hole in the movie for me.

So, the replicants are like humans in every way but they're machines. BUT why the test? Is there NO metal or plastic in their skulls that would show up on a handheld cat scan/xray device. They cant be exactly like us on the INSIDE, especially if some have superior strength etc..

They are organic androids, not metal.

They have human brains? They could break walls and metal too. Are they essentially clones?

Same thing as Cylons, basically. don't think about it too much


-Doc

Well, the opening text does say the Nexus 6 replicants are virtually identical to humans. So the test would be the only way to know. Or just looking at their eyes.

but the eyes glow! they have an LED behind them :\

I would think if they're chemically identical to humans--made of flesh--then its completely normal to expect them to act irrational.

They are like Bishop in Aliens.

It's not an LED, it's more like an extreme version of what happens to us when a flash goes off and we get red-eye. They're not Predator or Terminator or something where they can flash 'em whenever they want.


-Doc

They're organic, but tweeked, that's why they're stronger and have a better threshold for pain.

For that matter if you want to believe Deckard's a Replicant it makes sense that he's weaker as a Nexus 7/8. Tyrell was trying to perfect them, and them being too strong is a problem. He admited that he made Rachel to be easier to control, who is clearly weaker, it stands to reason he would make Deckard similarly. Of course it's up for interpretation.

Stolen from Wikipedia.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Andr...ctric_Sheep%3F

"Earlier models of android were easily detectable by their lack of intelligence. With successive improvements, bounty hunters are required to apply tests such as the Voigt-Kampff empathy test to differentiate humans from androids. The test measures facial reaction ("blushing") and involuntary tension of the eye muscles in response to emotional triggers, most of which involve harm to animals. Because androids cannot feel empathy, their responses are either missing or, when faked, measurably slower than those of human beings. The simpler Boneli test measures the speed of the reflex-arc response which takes place in the upper ganglia of the spinal column."

This is from the book and is not well explained in the movie.

To expand on this, both the Cylon spine flashing during "dirty dancing", and the replicant eyeflashes are supposed to be cinematic conceits for the viewer, and not recognizable "in-universe"

So that tingle in my spine everytime Jennifer Grey does the "Loverboy" scene means I'm a frakkin' Cylon?!


-Doc

In Aliens they had artificial blood--it was not red which made sense because they didnt need red blood cells to remove infections. If theres nothing physically different about their organs (emotional brain areas missing, no appendix or tailbone, nipples or belly button) then they're not androids or 'machines' any more than humans are. The snake scale had a serial number on it--why wouldnt the replicant have a serial no. on a hair or tooth?

sorry to read too much into it, i know its fiction but its always in the back of my mind when watching this film.

The movie "sets up its rules" pretty plainly from the start. Those rules are simplistic, sure, but we have to abide be 'em.

yes it doesnt harm the movie in any way. just always wondered.

Androids don't have to be mechanical. The definition is very loose. Ridley was against using the word Android in the film because it was becoming common for people to use it to mean a mechanical robot. He wanted a term with no preconceived notions.

since the replicants were made, there wasn't the opportunity to grow up, develop a sense of morals or have control over emotions

so you make a test that takes advantage of these weaknesses to find out who is a replicant

Unfortunately, in the future they still have lawyers too and you can't just go around plucking hairs or pulling teeth from random people to look for serial numbers.

.....for the second time. Upon first viewing, it was a good film. I really enjoyed the story, cinematography, the environment, and just the whole future-noir theme. I liked the ending, etc. It was a good movie. But I felt like I was missing something.

Now, upon seeing it for the second time, my eyes were opened up to it. This truly is one of the best films I have ever seen. I am not exaggerating. The movie has so many layers to it, and the second time felt like a completely different viewing. From the whole Deckard human/replicant argument throughout the movie, to the idea of a 'dystopian society', to the little things like the nail driven into Batty's hand. Just awesome.

The movie moved so much quicker this time, and it all felt more complete. As much as I think Harrison Ford seems wooden throughout the movie, I love watching him. He is really being tormented throughout the movie, both internally and externally. I never picked up on so much before, such as the photographs around his room and what they mean.

To sum it up, the movie was truly awesome, and Ridley Scott crafted one of the finest character studies on film.

In regards to the whole Deckard is a replicant/human argument, I noticed something in my second viewing I never noticed the first time. When Deckard looks at the photo on his image enhancer, before he pans over to see Zhora, the image clearly shows a bottle of whiskey on the chest of drawers in front of a mirror, and it is obviously the exact same whiskey Deckard drinks. Is there a connection or I am just imagining something?


Anyway, perfect movie. I loved it, and look forward to watching it again on Blu-Ray. I also looked at some of the other cuts, and the Final Cut's ending is, by far, the best. I finally 'get it,' and see what all the fuss was about for so long. And I really see facets of Scott's masterpiece in most every science fiction film I have seen since. Feel free to discuss thoughts on this movie, or movies that had similar effects on you (better the second time).

You're a little late to the party I guess.

But yes it's a great movie.

I'm looking forward to watching the 'work print' version that's included in the bluray deluxe edition.

I'm not by any means a Harrison Ford fan, so it was always on the back burner for me. I guess it was 2007's DVD/BD/HD release that really made me feel I should see it.

Glad I did.

You know I don't think I ever watched my work print version that came with the briefcase I bought.

Thanks for reminding me I'm gonna check it out.