animal DNA

very interesting article mentioned on brmovie site
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace178.html
about the dangers of losing our humanity, proposes the possibility that the replicants in Blade Runner may have had animal DNA integrated into them

quote: "The first example that comes to my mind is the movie Blade Runner, which was about artificial, genetically engineered humans called replicants. The movie, which is very subtle in many ways, suggests the replicants have animal DNA inserted into them. One is part turtle, one raccoon, one wolf, one snake, and one fish, probably shark."

I'm guessing Leon=turtle, Roy=wolf, Pris=racoon, Zhora=snake, ?=shark

im guessing he's making false assumtions. the rpelicants didnt have animal DNA in them. jsut because they slightly acted like the animal doesnt mean they have animal DNA. zhora owning a snale doesnt mean she is one. i own a dog, i dont have dog DNA in me. from my understanding, the animal reference was symbolism, not literal. am i right? correct me on this.

yes I think it is probably symbolic, whether intentional or not we'll never know. It's interesting though, no incorrect or correct assumptions but it is a rather strange interpretation of "very subtle" suggestions of certain animals associated with each replicant. I never actually thought about it before I read that article... I wonder if anyone else has ever pondered the symbolism.

Pris rummaging around in the garbage like a racoon, the racoon makeup she applies to herself and the way she sniffed a sleeping Sebastian like a racoon would

Roy hunting and stalking Dekard and howling like a wolf

Leon's weird turtle like neck movements after sticking his hand in the liquid nitrogen, and his strange reaction to Holden's turtle question.

Zhora having a pet snake is a bit too obvious of course but the way she struck Dekard in the neck with a perfectly straightened hand was pretty much like a snake's lightning quick attack and she then proceeds to strangle him with his own tie like a boa constrictor.

This is all definately symbolic if at all but still an interesting suggestion from this article don't you think?
(c'mon just humour me, who is the fish or shark?)

Yes, I agree with THX... I think that is carrying things too far away. Never is mentioned something about animal DNA in the reps. Some could say it would make them less human than human, not more. To me, it is just a symbolic thing, too. And a very nicely done one, btw.

Looking at the symbolism, if deckard is a rep, then I think he is the shark.
Make any assumptions you like.

i still think it's symbolism. why would tyrell make something more human than human, and stray away form that by including animal DNA? and just because you have animal DNA, doesnt make you act the way of the animal necesarily.

THX I agree it is symbolic, not to be taken literally.

Yes but why the symbolism???? Turning symbolism into literal reality is often what science fiction(and or fantasy) is all about...The idea of adding animal DNA to human to increase certain abilities is not far fetched and I think it would be Ridley's M.O. to do this and only hint at it rather that say it straight forwardly. Ridley doesn't do things for no reason.

Take for instance the origami unicorn...for a long time everybody wondered what the "symbolism" of it was...untill the DC when ridley's showed it was how he intended to show that deckard was a rep. Plus in the origional shooting script RS intended Tyrell to be shown to be a rep as well with the real tyrell in cybernetic hybernation...and his animal was definately the owl. Also deckards animal being mythalogical showes his delusion of who he thinks he is...adding fire to the "symbolism" side. Gaff is kind of shark like, but not a rep. Not sure what racheal would be...spider???cat???

I still like the animal DNA idea...intended or not..