Comments on: Class Notes Week 3

By: Nasser Cortez

Nasser Cortez — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:00:39 +0000

I think that the eyes specifically in “Blade Runner” are meant as a means to distinguish the human from the mechanical, which is interesting because it illustrates how thin the distinction is. If anything, having to look at someones eyes to distinguish real from artificial seems like a last resort. Normally one assume that personality traits, or even a broader physical appearance would make the differences clear; however, that’s not exactly the case. Additionally, going along with the idea of the eyes functioning as a means to distinguish the soulless from those with souls, if following that rationale than it’s logical to assume that the difference between a robot and human is the lack of a soul. However, that all really depends on perspective. What is a soul? Who creates the criteria? So, essentially, if anything, the difference between the artificial and the authentic is all really based on perspective; therefore, the differences between humans and robots are all ambiguous.

By: Anabelle Frausto

Anabelle Frausto — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:40:04 +0000

I find it very interesting that in most of our readings the writers mention the eyes. I see the eyes, as mentioned in class, “the window to one’s soul”. This makes sense in our readings because many of the “robotic” characters don’t posses a soul. For example in the story of The Sand Man they mention how Olympia is a beautiful girl but has a blank stare. She seems to have an emptiness in her soul, that is because she doesn’t posses a soul. I think the authors of the stories, by mentioning the eyes, are giving is a sign that that specific character with the blank gaze has no soul.

By: Kyndra Douglass

Kyndra Douglass — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:00:01 +0000

i wasn’t really sure where to post this…
but i didn’t find the story of the Borg, Hugh, transitioning into something less “borg-like” was very believable (but what in Star trek is?) Aren’t there basic program boundaries that a computer can’t cross without gonig beserk? fors instance, they spoke about collapsing the Borg community by sending them a paradoxial puzzle. their mind wouldn’t be able to comprehend it, so i would believe that the concept of an individual or “I” would be inconceivable. i guess it could be attributed to the Borgs’ learning capabilites (do they have those?) and the fact that the puzzle had no answer. it was interesting but unrealistic.
also, what was Whoopi Goldberg’s character’s role on the ship?

By: lauren ferguson

lauren ferguson — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:47:10 +0000

i think it is odd that the concept of eyes is so apparent in most of the texts we are discussing. what i noticed was the resemblence of the animal eye to the replicant’s eye toward the end of “Blade Runner.” does that mean that the replicants were more like animals rather than humans? that definitely correlates with the fact that both Priss and Roy had animal like characteristics, like the howling, that would also explain why their eyes, at some points, were like that of an animal’s.

By: Arina

Arina — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:29:49 +0000

Eyes are such a big deal to us humans in so many different ways. Some claim to read a person by the eyes, a form of first impression and reaction to experiencing emotion. Nathaniel apparently cannot feel or physically see that Olympia is something besides human, but I wonder how many of us would. How perceptive or preoccupied are we to notice a foreigness? And would it be by physical means or an intuition? In Blade Runner, the “business” was so good that a VK test was necessary, but Deckard never killed a human by mistake… and conversely in “Sandman”, Olympia was portrayed as obviously nonhuman and Nathaniel could not recognize it. So does it depend on the person? From where does this recognition come- mental, physical, intuitive?

By: amy moffatt

amy moffatt — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:17:41 +0000

It was very interesting that someone in class noted the role of the eyes in Bladerunner and the difference between the appearance of the eyes of the replicants and those of humans. In my discussion question on “The Sand-Man”, I focused mainly on the role of the eyes. Throughout the story the eyes symbolize a point of view. The weather glass vender Coppola, who ends of being the same man as Copelius the evil Sand-Man, sells glasses to Nathaniel. In the end of the story Nathaniel jumps to his death after looking through the glasses at Clara and at Copelius. Olimpia’s eyes play a major role in the story as well. Most people see in her perfection without heart; they cannot see anything in her eyes but a blank stare. Nathaniel, however, sees this blank canvas in her eyes and projects his desires onto her, believing that she feels some deep passion for him. When Nathaniel finally sees Olimpia without her eyes he realizes her for the lifeless doll she really is.

By: carlo parseghian

carlo parseghian — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:57:19 +0000

I believe Roy killed his creator for a different reason. While some replicants were there only to cause harm to humans (Leon), Roy and Pris were trying to stay alive. Ween Roy met with Tyrell, his comanding and intimidating presence was only to gain information about his life, and how he can continue it. When Tyrell told him there was no way he could be rescued, Roy finally succumbed to his inner rage. I find it ironic how Roy kills his creator, but saves the man who hunts him.

By: alex hogan

alex hogan — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:28:55 +0000

We talked about the many different symbolic meanings that the recurring theme of eyes in science fiction might hold yesterday. One more thought on that is that eyes have much to do with memory, and memories help define identity. Just like the photographs in “Bladerunner,” our memories are often images that we hold dear. When Roy killed his creator by squeezing out his eyes, it’s like he is expressing his anger, disappointment, bitterness at not having his own eyes, his own memories, or his own true identity.