STS: Blade Runner 1982 (STS Class X4 mid year 2017)

Good Day!

After watching the film Blade Runner. Briefly and straight to the point the following three questions via commenting on this post. Note all comments are moderated and will not appear immeidately, so no need comment repeatedly. Here are the questions:

1. What made the film a cult classic?
2. How was the future portrayed?
3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?
4. What is your answer to that question?

This entry was posted in Stories and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

119 Responses to STS: Blade Runner 1982 (STS Class X4 mid year 2017)

  1. Veronica Eugenio says:

    1.. What made the film a cult classic?
    What made this film a cult classic is the “neo-noir” genre and the digital feats which the film acquired from being a Sci-fi film. The costumes and the music were innovations which mark the 1980s.
    2. How was the future portrayed?
    The future is portayed as android and GMO dependent. All the necessities to life such as food, and even body parts create a world where the line between human and robot is blurred.
    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?
    Who is more human, the replicant or the maker?
    4. What is your answer to that question?
    Being human gives us the freedom of free will, as seen as the ability for technology to progress as a sign of human success, however, it also gives us the responsibility to face the consequences of creating a being which has the similar capacity to free will. I believe that the replicants should have a right to life, because indeed they are made by human components, and are therefore worthy of the same respect we would give to a human. The Tyrell corp however, dismisses this right in that effect loses the humanity which he has been born with.

  2. Patricia Mc Combs says:

    1. What made the film a cult classic?

    I believe what set this film apart to turn it into a cult classic was how despite the science fiction of it all, there were underlying questions about humanity, moreover, mortality. Everything was set in the far future and was purely imagined. It tried to incorporate the fictional creations of the director into “normal” human life. It revolved around the retirement of the replicants, but even these robots showed signs of humanity through emotions, even if these were manufactured.

    2. How was the future portrayed?

    The future was portrayed as very gloomy, with the streets heavily crowded and nearly everything being robotic, including animals and toys. It showed how the advancements of technology slowly melts away the vibrance of actual life, being that the only form of it left were the humans themselves; there were no plants or the like.

    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?

    I think the predominant question in this movie is how do we hold onto our humanity despite the advancing technology? Do we still have power over it or is it slowly having power over us?

    4. What is your answer to that question?

    The thing that separated replicants and humans was emotion; I believe that is how we still hold onto our humanity at the end of the day. Despite there being a sort of trend in being “heartless”, it is all too natural for humans to feel. Technology is advancing and getting smarter and smarter, but its uses are hardly ever for heavily emotional purposes.

  3. 1.) I think what made the movie a cult classic is the fact that it became a hit for a certain group in society, particularly the science fiction and technology fanatics. It was able to pull an audience and actually make a name for it. Blade Runner was released in the 1980s, and though technology was not yet that advanced back then, the movie still caught the attention of a lot of people with the way it depicted the future, and handled the man-to-man and man-to-robot interactions.

    2.) The future was portrayed as a much more accessible and convenient platform for everyone to live in and flourish, but also as a dark and dangerous era for people to be a part of.

    3.) Upon watching the film, I think what stayed with me throughout was the question of what sets us aside from these “replicants”. What do humans have that they do not? What puts us above or below them?

    4.) For one, I honestly believe that there is no answer YET. In an ever-evolving world of technology and science, it is with no doubt that I conclude that sooner enough, robots and replicants will reach the level of humans. However, I do hope that technology would evolve for the better. Science indeed is a double-edged sword. Its rules can be used either for good or bad, boon or bane.

  4. Alia Arellano says:

    1. What made the film a cult classic was its futuristic theme and how it portrayed the future. It offered a take on sci-fi films that was new and unique at a time when advancements on technology was still on the rise. More than that, what made the film a cult classic was how it tackled issues that could actually be seen in today’s reality. It showed us the far-reaching implications of the advancement of technology on us, humans, if we continue to disregard the consequences of our actions.
    2. The movie portrayed the future as a technologically advanced world, but with that, it had unpleasant living conditions – one that was polluted, dirty and dark. Humans were also portrayed as completely reliant on technology, compromising their morals in the process.
    3. The predominant question being asked in the movie was what makes one human?
    4. In my opinion, what makes one human is their conscience and their ability to feel emotions. More than that, morality and empathy are also fundamentals of humanity.

  5. Gretel Delos Martirez says:

    1.) What made the film a cult classic?
    It poses a lot of interesting question which can lead to audience participation.

    2. How was the future portrayed?
    The “replicants” are likely human except they don’t have emotions.

    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?
    What is the role of technology in our everyday lives?

    4. What is your answer to that question?
    Nowadays, technology the the main source of our everyday needs. That we need to preserve.

  6. Dawn Albert Z. Uy says:

    1. I think what made the film a cult classic is the fact that creating a human-like robot who not only thinks but feels is one of the interesting advancements in technology that most people are anticipating.

    2. In the future, robots or replicants are very similar to humans even having memories and emotions. The world is technologically very advanced and dark and dangerous.

    3. Can replicants be on the same level or even surpass humans?

    4. I don’t think robots or replicants can ever be on the same level as humans because they will never have the set of emotions developed only through time from birth til maturity.

  7. Mika Ramirez says:

    1. There are a lot of elements in play that altogether contribute to the timelessness of Blade runner. The audience is presented with a dystopian society which, in my opinion, made viewers highly uncomfortable since this dystopian society, though exagerrated, mirrored our realities. that gives us a good look into not only our future but also our present. It reflects reality in multiple aspects, including but not limited to problems on mortality, technology, being, consciousness, oppression, and (corporate) power. Blade runner delivered a story that seemed so distant and farfetched but still highly relatable at the same time. It may have its weaknesses, but it pushed beyond the borders of imagination during its time. Back then, blade runner was a film that went against the norm. The film was a vision that left an impact, not only to the audience but also the film industry at large. It became a stepping stone for an entire genre to thrive.

    2. As mentioned earlier, the film portrayed a dystopian society that housed replicants who could do everything humans could, except feel. The future embodied the concept of technicism as well.

    3. Replicants are juxtaposed with humans who are indifferent and unfeeling. This poses a question of identity. how do we definitively separate and distinguish ourselves from the rest. Without a “test” that differentiates humans and machines, would the replicants categorically become humans?

    4. On a biological standpoint, it would be easy to distinguish humans from replicants, but I think it takes more than genetics to define humanity. Being human means having weaknesses. It is being free and having the privilege to decide who you are and what your future will be. Being human is having the ability to empathize even with those you don’t know. The question of being is not dichotomous. It cannot be described by a single binary. Being human is wide spectrum, and the film geniusly highlights the fact that we cannot easily create a border to separate what it is and what it isn’t to become human.

  8. Jared Tan says:

    1. What made the film a cult classic?

    The movie did not perform well during its box office and slowly grew in popularity. The film was based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was written by Philip Dick during the 1950’s he had a cult following. This is probably why the film even if it did not perform well during its box office slowly grew in popularity over the years and became a cult classic. The film was praised for the actor performances, cinematography and lighting, as well as its science fiction plot.

    2. How was the future portrayed?

    As mentioned earlier the film was based on a novel. The novel and the film both foresaw the real future though not accurately with regards to the date. The point is the film foresaw things that happened in the future.

    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?

    The predominant film asked in the movie is “What does it mean to be human?”

    4. What is your answer to that question?

    Well technology is developing very fast these past few years, soon the impossible now will be possible in the future. For example, perfect cloning of humans might be possible in the future by then how will humans be defined? Will the original and the clone be considered to be a human or only the original? If so what are clones classified as?

  9. Danielle Dominique Saylongo says:

    1. What made the film a cult classic?

    The movie Blade Runner is a very good movie and raises many interesting questions concerning human questions of personhood to the viewers, which I think made the film a cult classic.

    2. How was the future portrayed?

    The future portrayed that we can produce human creation out of science and with the help of technology and replicate it as many as we can.

    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movies?

    Would it be possible that this will happen in the future?

    4. What is your answer to that question?

    Well, maybe? It would be possible because we can see how science and technology plays in our lives now a days.

  10. Alyssa Soriano says:

    1. What made the film a cult classic?

    What made leaves the film a cult classic is because I think that the film leaves the viewer many philosophical questions that hooks the viewers interest.

    2. How was the future portrayed?

    The future portrayed the advancement of the technologies with a very gloomy ambiance.

    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?

    What is human?

    4. What is your answer to that question?

    As a human, we have our own ability to think for what is right and wrong.

  11. Marianne Reyeg says:

    1. Perhaps what made the film Blade Runner a cult classic was that it delved into the question of humanity in the backdrop of this futuristic age wherein, despite the shown technological advancements, humans continue to face challenges to their morality.

    2. I believe the invention of replicants portrays a future where humanity has crossed the proverbial line. It is not an ideal future because despite the technological advancements achieved, it was done in the backdrop of a grim society that seemed to have barely improved at all.

    3. I believe the primary question in the film is the question of what separates humans from replicants.

    4. To ask what separates replicants from humans is to define what to a human is. The only difference I find is their biological make-up, or the replicants’ lack of one rather, but their wish to live is not so different from humans and with the idea that they were made in the image of humans, they might not be different from us at all.

  12. 1. Perhaps what made the film Blade Runner a cult classic was that it delved into the question of humanity in the backdrop of this futuristic age wherein, despite the shown technological advancements, humans continue to face challenges to their morality.

    2. I believe the invention of replicants portrays a future where humanity has crossed the proverbial line. It is not an ideal future because despite the technological advancements achieved, it was done in the backdrop of a grim society that seemed to have barely improved at all.

    3. I believe the primary question in the film is the question of what separates humans from replicants.

    4. To ask what separates replicants from humans is to define what to a human is. The only difference I find is their biological make-up, or the replicants’ lack of one rather, but their wish to live is not so different from humans and with the idea that they were made in the image of humans, they might not be different from us at all.

  13. Nelle Alison Gacutan says:

    1. I think that it is considered a cut classic since it entailed a very rare, unique and distinguishable facade that eventually the cause why the movie gained so much popularity
    2. In the movie, it was shown that the environment eventually because dark and polluted. Even with the advancement of technology that was supposed to be an advantage to humans, the surrounding that was affected by technology became detrimental as much as it should be helpful.
    3. What is in store for human’s future?
    4. Personally, I think that the future has so much in store for us individuals. It’s just that we aren’t sure if it will benefit us or will be detrimental to us. Will it be the kind of place we would like to live and perpetuate life in? Or would it be a place that we would all like to migrate from?

  14. Jayjam Ganang Isidro says:

    1.) The movie featured not only science fiction but also questioned the definition of humanity.
    2.) The future portrayed was advanced in terms of technology, yet still chaotic.
    3.) What makes a creature human?
    4.) I believe that there is no answer to the question above.

  15. Kathrina Veronica M. Inciong says:

    1. According to the Oxford dictionary, a cult classic is a, “something, typically a film or book, that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.” In my opinion, Blade Runner can be classified as a cult classic mostly by those in the science and technology area, or by those who appreciate and are interested in the field, for it portrays an “unimaginable” and innovative invention– a replicant. Taking into account the time considerations in the film, 2017 is only two years away from the setting, yet science has yet to come up with an invention indistinguishable from human beings. Because of this, one can say Blade Runner remains as an epitome portrayal of the near-to-impossible invention.

    2. The future was portrayed as a dystopian world where what seemingly technologically impossible things such as replicants exist.

    3. What makes humans humans?

    4. Whatt makes humans humans is their potential to improve the quality of life and live the way they want to. This involves their being rational, creative, and emotional beings. Humans can think for themselves and do not need a Tyrell Corporation to do it for them.

  16. Laurence Christian Benig says:

    1. Blade Runner is considered a cult classic due to the fact that the theatrical cut is different from the director’s cut. According to some accounts, the final cut is superior to the theatrical cut. Apart from this, the scenery in the movie itself is incredible, considering the movie was first released in 1982

    2. The future is portrayed with cynicism and moral ambiguity with makes the movie a classic noir.

    3. What makes us humans?

    4. What makes us humans is our ability to make deliberate choices. The ability to take moral responsibility.

  17. Stephanie Levita says:

    The first thing that I always notice when I watch movies is its computer graphics because a bad CG does not really inspire me to continue watching it. The film, despite being a classic has an excellent CG and the story line is interesting. Creating a thinking machine or robot is a dream that many of us in the engineering track have, but the repercussions and growing worry that sometime in the future those very machines will oppose us, humans, and rule over us is a very valid concern. What made the film such a great movie is it took the idea and put its very own twist to it.

    Considering that their future is the present for us now, it’s very unrealistic and ambitious and also a bit dark. Whenever I think of 20 years from now, I don’t think of things getting bigger but instead of things getting smaller, as is the trend now. I envision things that serve multipurposes. As is the smart watch, our smart phone, computers and laptops. One click abd everything can be delivered to you. So in that regard I think it’s very different from what I would imagine. For example, the buildings are so congested. I always think that we woyld have had a new way of livibng by then. Also, I think the reason I can’t coincide their version of future is because I can clearly see haw different and off-base it was to how 2017 is, now that I am living it.

    The movie makes us question the humanity, our humanity.

    I don’t have any idea where the term humanity came from. Or why forgiveness, empathy and other such traits are considered humane. If we treat animals ‘unfairly’, that’s inhumane. If we use animals for experiments, it’s also inhumane. If we try it with humans, we’re not just inhumane but also we’re animals, we’re the lowest of lows and for me that kind of ironic thinking can only be perpetuatee by people. We try to make sense of things even if sometimes it’s better if we let things be. If we don’t know anything about someone and they treated us right then we will also treat them right. If from the start we know that person did something inhumane, even if they treat us like royalty we will always have a bad opiniom regarding that person. If they never knew that the replicants are among them then they’ll jist live harmoniously with them. Ignorance is bliss is very real, dating back from before Adam and Eve took a bite out of the forbidden fruit. But history is there to teach us something and I think it would sometimes be better to let things be.

  18. 1. This movie is genre defining and it is way ahead of its time. Its sound effects and cinematography is unique at the time. It spearheaded the movies on science fiction and was successful in drawing the attention of the mass to these kind of films.

    2. Advancements in technology have both advantages and disadvantages. Everything was easy and convenient for everyone, but the complications associated with these advancements in technology proved to be problematic for humans.

    3. What makes us human (compared to reptiles)?

    4. There are lot of ways to answer this question but for one, our emotions are genuine; not artificial, and certainly not implanted. Same goes for memory. Also, the things we learn and discover are part of our being, part of who we really because we do it on our own free will and not because we are programmed or genetically modified to do it. Needless to say, because we have these characteristics, we have the potential to drive change for a better world once we recognize the dynamic social milieu where we exist, which is a context of constant and continuous change.

  19. Remigio De Ungria says:

    1. What made the film a cult classic?

    From what I gather (thanks to Google), a cult classic is loosely defined by:a) the film is not-so-well-received by the mainstream, and b) a film that has gained a cult following, that is, a dedicated fanbase.

    The first condition was satisfied due to its not-so-impressive Box Office performance, especially following Harrison Ford’s performances in The Empire Strikes Back and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Initial (negative) reviews also helped in this regard.

    Following the initial criticism, the film has been the focus of academic and cultural interest. Featuring themes of genetically and bio-engineered (or simply man-made) humans, a dystopian futuristic society and moral and philosophical crises, it quickly gained popularity. It became an influence for many other popular films and television shows, not only due to its themes, but also due to its portrayal of the future.

    In short, it became a cult classic due to its futuristic, very technologically developed, but high disregard for life. The film also only lightly touched on the overall state of society and technology (mostly focusing on one or two aspects), which leaves much to the imagination, thus breeding a passionate fanbase, much like the Star Wars saga.

    2. How was the future portrayed?

    The future was portrayed as a dystopia. The Earth is seemingly overpopulated and commercialized – huge, towering skyscrapers with billboards litter the ground, and the air is no better a view. Slavery has risen again, with replicants as the victims. Social classes are heavily hierarchical (as implied when Deckard is forced back into the police force), and society seems to have caved in to the utility of technology, as little human to human interaction is seen. The line is blurred between products of natural processes versus technological advancement.

    3. What was the predominant question being asked in the movie?

    What does it mean to be human?

    4. What is your answer to that question?

    Humans vary so differently in terms of attitude and ability, the question is getting incredibly hard to answer. For sure, it’s not only dependent on biology, neither on nature or instinct, but surely, it’s also not solely the ability to think. This is a philosophical question that I’ve thought about, but have not reached an answer to.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.