After watching the film, we discussed some aspects of the film.

​

Q1: The use of technology in human engineering to make our lives easier/more productive. Is it not the same as our smartphones/portable electronics that do things like navigate for us, or "remember" for us?

​

Well, yes. We haven't lost our ability to remember phone numbers or directions, we have invented a way to not need to remember them. Eventually, we will invent a way to avoid transportation or communication. We will get to a point where this is irreversible and at point, we will be at the mercy of technology.

​

Q2: Why do few feel the need to use human aesthetics when creating new AI/Robots? What complications and/or benefits does it bring up?

 

If you're making a robot to build car doors or to shine a specific type of light at a specific place, then why would it need to look like a human? Robotics and AI don't benefit from the aesthetics of mankind, only from the processing power we have in our head. If we want to build a robot for sex, then it might be necessary, but I imagine that the type of person that is happy to have sex with a robot probably doesn't care what it looks like.

​

Q3: As an imagined World, how important is the use of reality (or potentiality) in depicting the future? And to what effect?

​

In the case of Blade Runner, it is the potentiality that is important. This is because it is based on the real world. Had it been based on Omicron Persei 8, then it wouldn't matter to us what the future looks like. We are emotionally linked to this Earth, its landscape and our architecture are united. Our history and the Earth's history unfolds at the same time. While the future of the Earth is always fictional, its fiction is important to us because it's where we are.

 

Q4: In creating technology, is it fair to say that it is our child? As such, are we related to technology in similar ways we are related genetically? i.e showing similar traits, etc. And if so, do we and technology evolve together?

​

I jump to say "OF COURSE!" The hammer evolved with us. So did the technologies to farm and build houses. We always create technology. I don't know if it's just me, but technology is just a tool. Money is technology. Deodorant is technology, a pixel is a tool. The only complicated thing is that we have created tools that only other tools can use. In some cases, we have created tools that only the tools of other tools can use. Our only true technological child is the brain. 

​

Q5: Looking at the powers of the media today, or the questioning of the powers of the media today, what can we say about the take that Blade Runner offers us? is it correct?

​

I'm not sure how to answer this. Not trying to be obtuse, I just don't know about the powers of the media today. I find it incredibly hard to differentiate between what is the news and what is just trying to get my attention. I watch football, often. I like to read about it and get caught up in some of the gossip and stories that come out of it. But it isn't news. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't actually affect my life. It's just a distraction. What does media even mean anymore? Everything is media. 

​

Q6: As technology increases (in terms of power and cost) does it lead to the disruption/breakdown of civilised society? Or is this the demonisation of tech?

​

The power of technology increases because we want it to. We  - ha! again with the we... - clever people put brave people on the moon in 1969, using less than a tenth of the processing power in the average smartphone today. The cost increases because more resources are used to make the technology. We are currently in the midst of a silicone crisis. We are physically running out of sand on this planet because of the demand for technologies that need it in order to be manufactured. check this out: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand

​

Q7: Given that they are writing the future, what responsibility do science fiction and speculative fiction writers and filmmakers have to avoid stereotyping, misogyny, "othering" in society?

​

The future is fiction. Maybe, the future is tangible fiction. I'm not a fan of misogyny, in fact, I will go as far as to say that I dislike it. The issue with misogyny is that it is so deeply rooted in every single culture worldwide, that ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I was a science fiction writer, I would include aspects of misogyny in everything I write and make it so disgusting that nobody would want to have a part in it. Writers do have a responsibility, not to avoid, but to address. That scene in Blade Runner where Rick Deckard seems to attack Rachael was disgusting.

​

Q8:  Any looking into the future acknowledges looking into the past and there is a huge amount of nostalgia in Blade Runner. It can be read as a Film Noir with a shiny new representation. What are the problems with being nostalgic when representing the future?

​

If we currently look to the past while going forward, I would imagine that it is fairly normal to do so in a film. I can't think of a problem. It makes the film relatable to the audience. There will always be a link to the time that the piece was made - it is the nature of simulacra. Something that is made, is made through the sight of a certain lens or collection of lenses. We can't travel to the future to find out what the popular lens is then, so we have to look at the future through the crystal ball that we currently have, not the one that we will have.

​

Q9: What is your response to Tears in Rain:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

​

Poetic gives some backstory - shame it's at the end of the film. "tears in rain" provides a nice image of invisible emotions - but that's all I got from that. Cool quote and release the dove.

​

Q10: In terms of landscape and its link to mood or psychological states, how does this work in the creation of imagined worlds? What is the link between weather and states of mind?

​

Seasonal depression, right? Not so much in modern LA, but in London and in countries where there is little to no sun for long parts of the year it gets a bit depressive. When you add the opacity of large amounts of brick and mortar to block out even more warmth and light, it can only get worse. When creating an imagined world, we have to use pathetic fallacies to push the agenda of that world. Dark is bad. Light is good.

​

Q11:  In terms of film fluidity, how does the release of multiple cuts affect the meaning, integrity or impact of the film?

​

Sure, the integrity gets reduced to absolute zero. When you make a film, it's not just your vision, there is usually at least a handful of other people that make it with you. When the film is based on a book - Blade Runner was based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K Dick - the vision belongs to more than one person. It belongs to everybody that has read the book and even more so to the author. There is nothing stopping Ridley Scott from refilling it and addressing what he wanted to address. Regardless, the films still have a devoted following, so that makes my argument null.