Talk:Voight-Kampff machine

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge this into Blade Runner Yserbius (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

There is no indication in this article of any sort of notability. I hesitate to add a deletion proposal, but it really should be merged. If there is no more discussion within a week, I will take the liberty of merging it myself.Yserbius (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hang on a sec...

I thought the Voight-Kampff test was a last minute attempt to give a false sense of security to humans who live in a world where no one can be sure of what is real and what is synthetic (replicated). Don't forget, this is from out the mind of Phil K Dick who was himself never too sure what is real or not and who loved to play on that aspect. Now, the test doesn't work, it's complete bull (much like the polygraph test many may say) and if there is any test, it's not the Voight-Kampff box that will tell the truth but the interviewer himself (sounds familiar?). It's pretty obvious in the book but less so in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.205.102.214 (talk • contribs) 14 February 2006

Well, my copy of the book is boxed up, but I recall pretty clearly that the reason the VK could detect an android (replicant, in the film) is that the robots could not produce the usual iris contraction, capillary dilation (blush response) as quickly as a human. Something like, humans react can within 20ms, but the androids can't do it faster than 45ms,.... As adapted to the film, the questions are to produce emotional responses, so the VK could "read" these ... like a tricorder, I guess. Arguably, a sophisticated device could track, record, and tabulate the timings ... or maybe (as the prop was made) the operator had to do that, rather like reading a rudimentary radar. Take Leon's reaction to the turtle question. Hello, couldn't Holden smell trouble with that one? Ah-ha-ha.... --David Spalding | Talk 03:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Questions Themselves

I do notice that the vast majority of the questions have something to do with animals and living creatures....it seems to be based on the fact that in the novel, "real" animals are now so scarce that people in general do not like the idea of seeing one harmed or killed..thus the references to the tortoise, the calfskin wallet, the butterfly collection, the wasp, the banquet that serves boiled dogs, etc.

I think that the reason is that animals are considered "lesser" creaures advancement wise. When you think about it, to a replicant, humans must be seen as fairly basic as any primal animal. Also there are ironic leanings to the questions. A tortoise is relatively helpless, therefore signifying a stress responce due to haplessness. A calfskin wallet means that you have the ability to visualize, and materialize a responce because you need to know what a calf actually looks like, to feel sorry for it. The wasp. Now, I know that if I saw a wasp on my arm, I'd probably freak out, wildly flailing my limbs. Thats what they're looking for in a responce. Finally, the dog. Dog is man's best friend, right? Therefore, a dog is seen as a companion animal equal to a man. So, it's sort of like cannabalism in a sense. It would be like eating another human being, empathically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.117.1041 January 2007 (talk • contribs)

In the novel, "real animals" are very, very expensive collectors' items. I recall that Deckard takes on the job to earn money to buy one (he carries a price list, as one of us might carry a Star Trek memorabilia price list). Also, in the film, free will is a consistent major theme, and the tortoise question directly points this up. "You're not helping it, Leon. Why is that?" "Whaddya mean I'm not helping it?" "I mean you're NOT helping it." Look for elements of "free will" or choice in the other questions, I think you'll find more to think about. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BladeRunner Voigt-Kampff machine.jpg

Image:BladeRunner Voigt-Kampff machine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I don't get it. If it's spelled with Voigt in the book, and the article even acknowledges this, why is it used incorrectly elsewhere and the article is not so-spelled? Xihr (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Because thats how the film-makers wanted to spell it. The film is arguably more notable than the book. --maxrspct ping me 12:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this puzzling too. Ok, then the film reference could be moved to before the book reference to lessen confusion. phocks (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is way too movie-centric. The book is the only canon, and the page should reflect this. If you want to cover the movie as well, list it under "Variations" or "Adaptations" or something. Definitely needs to be "Voigt-Kampff." (I don't know how to sign a comment because I've never edited a Wikipedia page before.)

Fair use rationale for Image:BladeRunner Voigt-Kampff machine.jpg

Image:BladeRunner Voigt-Kampff machine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A blood black nothingness began to spin.

Can we direct this page to itself and create a fun meta reference to the movie or will that create a recursive error in the page and the user? 2A02:8084:6A82:D200:3DB5:8160:BC65:D0F8 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)