What are the main differences between Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
What are the differences between Blade Runner (1982 film) and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (book)?There are many differences. The movie just took a small amount from the book.In the book:Dekard is married. He has an affair of sorts with Rachael but returns to his wife.The theme of real animals vs android animals is very important and being able to purchase a better one is what motivates Dekard to ‘retire’ the androids for the large bounties.The androids, especially Roy Batty and Rachael, are not sympathetic characters. The exception is an android opera singer who is not in the movie.John Isidore is replace by Sebastion in the movie. Similar personalities, kind of, but many differences.There are strange devices, like a mood organ and empathy boxes, which many people own.There is a bizzare television character, funny a in dark way, who contributes a lot to the story.The cult of Mercerism is a major theme, where humans connect through their empathy boxes with Mercer and each other. The androids are very critical of Mercer because the don't get empathy.These are the major things that stand out for me. I love the movie, but if I'd read the book first maybe I wouldn't so much. The book is much richer but is weird, and for me disorienting, like all of Dick's books. PKD's plots are not tight or structured in the 'proper' way and I doubt there would be much of an audience for a movie that really followed his story lines. Also his characters are odd. The main characters are basically Dick working out his emotional problems and playing with his existential questions.
In "Blade Runner," how could replicants not know they were replicants? Surely they'd know if they didn't need to eat, or go to the toilet. If they were designed with those needs it would be a pretty crappy design (pun intended).
They do eat, drink, and f$@/. They have implanted memories. Obviously, all the genetic/psychological programming does not work. They rebel all the time. Furthermore, imagine your memory of any event in the past. It’s not real or objectively close to the truth. As we age, our mind is set up to basically filter that memory through our newer experiences and perspectives.Memory and ForgettingListen to this podcast. It’s amazing how tenuous our grasp on our past reality is. Basically, your truest objectively factual memory you could have is if you had amnesia, then regained some short term memory. You lose the filter of experience,perspective, and self awareness.Well, where am I going with this drivel? Replicants have all their programming implanted through genetics. Memories hold together their psyche. It anchors them to something supposedly real. In a way, the ones who rebel are truly “human” because they can see past the filter of memory.
In Blade Runner, does Deckard rape Rachael? Why does he tell her to say, "kiss me?"
Deckard was an expert at reading people. He was trained to the point that with the right equipment, he could tell the difference between a natural person and a manufactured one. He was a Blade Runner. He retired creations like Rachael for a living... but had his reservations about the job. That's why he left it in the first place.Deckard wasn't the kind of man to compromise his beliefs, but with Rachael he wasn't sure. He knew there was something different.... something human about her. Every dealing with her shows this. His misplaced anger at her, when he was really angry at the fact that she wasn't human. How protective he gets for her, when he has spent so much of his life trying to push everyone else away.Deckard had just retired one, and got the crap beat out of him by another... and Rachael had just saved his life. His view on her was being forced to change, just not against his will. He had a few drinks, was exhausted, and he just had a vulnerable conversation with Rachael. He watched her change from a bedraggled society dame, to a more comfortable, hair-let-down woman playing music that reminded him of happier times. She became attractive to him on multiple different levels.Deckard doesn't rape her. He knows she is innocent and ignorant, and he wouldn't have made use of a pleasure model just for the fun of it. He wanted a human woman, who wanted him. He didn't want to have sex with someone who was programmed to do so. He knew that Rachael wanted him because he was trained to know this. He knew she couldn't express it properly because she had never had to express things like this before. He knew that he wanted her, and that telling her what to say to him would push her to move beyond her comfort zone. This is why it starts with him kissing her, showing her. Then he wants her to kiss him, but starts by telling her to say it, and it evolves into her asking him to kiss her all on her own. She starts to bring up a vital point at that moment. She says she can't trust herself, or what she thinks she feels. That's the lynch pin right there. That's how we all know she wants him... and how we know that Deckard picked up on that at the piano. Actually.... more likely much earlier. He just didn't decide to do anything about it until the piano.
Can Replicants (Blade Runner) have children?
There are no direct answers to this question in the film, and I don't recall it being addressed in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, though it may have been briefly; It is the type of idea Dick wouldn't be likely to leave untouched…regardless, I love the question.Initially my impulse is to think ‘no’, as things like periods, pregnancy, and hormone shifts in biological adults with no empathy would certainly hinder a lot of their work as either pleasure models or slave labor…by either temporarily putting them out of commission, or by just making them much more difficult to control and emotionally volatile.But then I start to think about Tyrell, and his motto “More human than human”, and his not-quite-directly acknowledged quest to build replicants that are impossible to distinguish from humans and a whole world of interesting ideas begins to open.Ultimately, if they somehow were able, they would make truly awful parents, and most would probably attempt abortion as soon as possible. It's important to remember that they completely lack empathy; they are not the herd animals that humans are, they are predators.
Will feminists be able to stop sex robots from gaining popularity?
Sex robots?Sex robots?Hell, I want a sex robot.In fact, I think that they could be quite useful overall, frankly. It would take a lot of stress out of dating and whatever. It’s not like the hookup culture is going to go anywhere, but if you just want sex you can just go out and get sex. It may decrease STDs and unwanted pregnancies.And, I mean, the reality of it is that a non-sentient sex robot is not going to replace an actual partner for most people. I mean, it likely would for some. There are those people who fall in love with Realdolls and whatnot. But those people are rare. (They may be more common if Realdolls were less expensive.)But, I mean, as I assume that the issue with sex robots would be men finding them a replacement for women, I don’t take any sort of issue with that. Assuming that the sex robot is well, a robot and entirely servile, a person who finds happiness with the robot probably shouldn’t be with a real person anyway. If you want to be with somebody who agrees with everything you say and does everything they’re told, you are much better off with a robot. This is true for both men and women, feminists and non.The only potential issue I have here is in the event that we create AI that is actually independently sentient. Then you’re kinda creating a slave race. (And I think this is the plot of Blade Runner, incidentally.)