textfiles/sf/bladeru1

Article 16611 of rec.arts.movies:
Xref: utu.fi alt.cult-movies:1462 rec.arts.movies:16611 rec.arts.sf-lovers:20264
Path: utu.fi!tut!sunic!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!xavier!hirai
From: hirai@cs.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies,rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Blade Runner discrepancies
Summary: long repost of Blade Runner posts
Message-ID: <HTWJCNJ@xavier.swarthmore.edu>
Date: 13 May 90 04:19:21 GMT
References: <29512@cup.portal.com> <1243900018@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> <22122@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Sender: news@xavier.swarthmore.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Miskatonic University, Arkham, MA
Lines: 2566


	The debate on whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant comes up in
rec.arts.movies and alt.cult-movies every few months or so.  I've been
saving postings on this subject since 1988.  I've gotten to the point where
I don't see any new information in the recent postings.  My last addition
was in October of last year.

	So for the interest of those who want to know what was debated
before and to give fuel to those who argue that the original script heavily
implied that Deckard was a replicant, here it is!  It's an edited
compilation of past postings that runs up to 128K!

	The compilation also has postings which aren't directly related
to the Deckard==replicant debate but which I thought were interesting.

	Clip and save.

	"Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell.
	'More human than human' is our motto."

--
Eiji Hirai @ Mathematics Dept., Swarthmore College, Swarthmore,  PA 19081-1397
hirai@cs.swarthmore.edu | hirai@swarthmr.bitnet | uunet!hirai%cs.swarthmore.edu

---------- cut here -------------------- snip snip ----------

From: tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner micro-trivia
Date: 15 Apr 88 21:51:33 GMT
Organization: Suction and Pressure Lab, California Institute of Lawsonomy

cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist) writes:
< Please, *someone* must know of this film's existance! Maybe only pirate
< copies exist.

These other versions of Blade Runner you are thinking of are potential
versions.  That is, they were things that were in the script at one
point but were removed.

Find someone who has a LaserDisc player, and get the Criterion Collection
release of Blade Runner.  At the end of this, there is all kinds of neat
BR info.

First, there is a Syd Mead gallery.  Syd Mead is a "visual futurist" who
designed the sets for BR.  The Syd Mead gallery consists of a bunch of
still frames of his artwork showing the development of various sets and
props ( such as the cars ), along with notes by Syd Mead talking about
them.  He also talks some about the special effects and some of the
interesting problems they had with some of his stuff.

For instance, the cars did not have steering wheels in his first
design.  They had steering knobs, or something like that.  The
actors had a hard time driving them.  He says he thinks someone
drove one into a wall, at which point they put regular steering
wheels in.

Next is a section of text called "A Fan's Notes".  It was written
by some guy who saw a pre-release screening of the movie, and had
access to early versions of the scripts.

The notes go through the movie from start to finish pointing out
interesting stuff.  The glow in the eyes of replicants is pointed
out.  The glow in Deckard's ( damn, I've forgotten how it's spelled! )
eye's is pointed out.

The notes talk about the Unicorn dream sequence.  This was in the
script, but was removed.  It occured when Deckard was getting drunk
and playing the piano.  He has a vision of a Unicorn running through
a forrest.  Near the end of the movie, when Gaff (sp?) leaves the
Unicorn, he is telling Deckard that he knows about the Unicorn
vision, which he could only know if Deckard was a replicant and
the Unicorn was an implanted memory.

The original final version of BR ended with Deckard and Rachael
getting in the elevator and the doors closing.  Preview audiences
found this ending too ambiguous and bleak ( I think these audiences
were in Dallas and Detroit, but I don't remember ), so the extra
scenes were stuck on the end.  The countryside they are driving
through are alleged to be outtakes from _The Shinning_.

The disc also contains an extensive bibliography listing huge
numbers of articles and reviews of BR, with summaries of some
of them ( for instance, when Philip K. Dick saw the script at
one point, he said he thought he had died and been send to
eternal torment )

After the bibliography is the BR Trivia Quiz.

Oh, this release of BR is in the correct aspect ratio and has digital
sound.

While I'm typing, I might as well mention some of the other endings
they had in the script at various times.

One has Rachael telling Deckard that the only way she can be free is
for him to retire her, so he does ( or something like that, I am
doing this from memory, so may be wrong in many details ).

Another had Deckard refusing to retire Rachael, so she jumps off
the roof.  That one ended with Deckard going out into the desert
to be alone.  He comes across a tortise in the sand.  He turns it
over on it's back, and just sits there watching it struggle for
several hours.  The movie ends with him still watching it.

Oh, remember when Gaff said to Deckard, "You've done a man's job"?
Originally, that was supposed to be, "You've done a man's job.
But are you a man?".  Another hint that Deckard might be a replicant.

Another ending had Deckard and Rachael flying away, with Gaff in
pursuit.

-- 
Tim Smith				tim@ism780c.isc.com

--------------------

From: cwp@otter.hple.hp.com (Chris Preist)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner micro-trivia
Date: 14 Apr 88 17:21:08 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.

No, I definitely meant Bladerunner, R.E.  the unicorns.  I wouldn't
touch 'Legend' with a bargepole. 

No, there definitely is another version of Bladerunner around. 

It finishes with the elevator doors shutting - I have been told the bits
after this are actually outtakes from 'The Shining'.  It doesn't have
the Harrison Ford voiceovers explaining what's going on. 

Supposedly the producer was asked to make it more 'upbeat', etc. 

Have you ever wondered why HF picks up an Origami Unicorn in the last
scene? Well.... 

**** ORIGINAL BLADERUNNER SPOILER ********

... HF is actually an android, designed specifically to catch the
others! There are other references to this in the dialogue, such as his
chief hinting that 'it takes one to catch one' or some other such
phrase. 

Please, *someone* must know of this film's existance! Maybe only pirate
copies exist. 

Yours dejectedly, Chris

--------------------

From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner/Electric Sheep
Date: 26 Sep 88 21:20:32 GMT
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco

There are some spoilers here, but if you haven't seen BLADE RUNNER by now, are
you ever likely to?

da1n+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel K. Appelquist) writes:
>Blade Runner has always been one of my favorite Science Fiction movies.  Now
>just recently, I've been getting into Philip K. Dick's books (I read and
>throughly enjoyed _A Scanner Darkly_ ) so I decided to read Philip K. Dick's
>original novel _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_.  My expectations were
>that the novel would be even better a novel than the movie was a movie.  To my
>amazement, I was dissapointed.  The novel had none of the symbolism or allegory
>that made the movie such a masterpice.

BLADE RUNNER is also one of my favorite SF movies.  However, my opinions on
the relative quality of book and movie are opposite to yours.  The movie
played down the main theme of the book -- the illusory nature of individual
identity -- and completely omitted the secondary theme, the mechanical
nature of human consciousness.  In place of these themes we got a skillful
rehash of film noir cynicism and an exciting adventure.

It is true that, for the careful watcher, there were a wealth of allusions
to the possible android nature of the Harrison Ford character.  But these
would have gone by a casual watcher, and few are likely to take the trouble
to pull meaning from an adventure story.  These confusions -- am I an android,
am I a human, does it matter, am I just as mechanical one way as the other --
were the main subject of DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP.

The tertiary theme, the destruction of Earth's non-human animal life, was also
missing from the movie.  Overall, I would say that they had so little in
common that a comparison is difficult.  As one who has always tended to the
view that significant art not only entertains but illuminates, I would have
to judge the book far superior.

>For instance, in the movie the androids' relationship to their creator is
>constantly compared to the relationship of man to God.  This relationship
>climaxes in the scene where the android Roy kills his creator.  This is a scene
>of staggering power, and it is precisely this sort of power that is _Electric
>Sheep_ is lacking.

Oh yeah.  Really stunning.  It's only been in a hundred hack versions of
FRANKENSTEIN, after all; how could it have lost its power to move the modern
movie-goer?  Perhaps having the basic props of reality knocked out from
under you is less powerful than seeing the monster squeeze poor Vic's head
to death, but this says more about your own level of critical sophistication
than about the relative merits of the book and the movie.  Dick's books do
not resort, or need to resort, to such cheap tricks.

Far more powerful to me is the android's final scene, as the antagonist faces
life and death in their wholeness, in the last moment of his own.  All the
hair on my arms is lifting as that bird appears again before my mind's eye.
This is something which has relevance to my own experience, unlike confronting
my creator in his lair and making him pay for all my suffering.

>The closest it gets is in scenes dealing with the bizarre
>semi-deity Mercer, which is left out of the meeting, and I can see why.  Never
>in the novel is it explained what Mercer is, even in the vaguest sense.

Perhaps that is the explanation in itself?  That if consciousness is
mechanical, a truly superior organism is beyond our comprehension?  That it
is past time we stop thinking of ourselves as nature's finest creation?
Non-action is a form of action, and non-explanation a form of explanation.

>I enjoyed reading _Electric Sheep_ if only for Philip K. Dick's superlative
>writing style, but I think it was the first book I've read where I have
>actually prefered the movie version.  Any thoughts on this, people?

Nah, no thoughts, just half-baked emotional first takes.  I wouldn't want to
violate the USENET style, after all....

-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim

--------------------

From: donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner/Electric Sheep
Date: 29 Sep 88 05:46:21 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

[Since we haven't learned much in the last two years, I thought I
would re-post my earlier contribution; my apologies if this seems
overly familiar... -- Donn]

From donn Thu Sep 18 02:24:25 1986
To: sf-lovers@red.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re:  Blade Runner vs Do Androids...

'Silas Snake' (if that's a real name, it's an interesting one!) saw the
movie BLADERUNNER and then read Phil Dick's novel DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF
ELECTRIC SHEEP? and was disappointed.  I personally think that DO
ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? is one of Dick's better novels, and I
certainly liked it more than Silas apparently did.  I'll try to give a
few reasons here why I think he might be missing some interesting
features of ANDROIDS.  (Beware -- some spoilers will unavoidably be
introduced in the discussion.)

Silas says that the purpose of ANDROIDS is to create a society with a
unique religion, Mercerism, and ask 'What if?' I think the purpose is
much deeper -- the book is trying to answer the question, 'What is the
authentic human being?' Dick has invented creatures (androids) which
are almost exactly like human beings but lack one essential human
trait, empathy; this lack informs all of the action and all of the
characterization in the book.  Mercerism isn't important for its dogma,
it's important because it is inaccessible to androids.  The plot of the
novel is only superficially concerned with Deckard's detective work --
the real point is Deckard's slow appreciation of the quality of the
difference between androids and human beings.  Notice how subtle this
difference is: it requires a complicated and tedious test to identify
an android, and humans are constantly confusing androids for humans.
The most chilling aspect of this is the realization that so many human
beings don't use their capacity for empathy, with the result that the
planet is being taken over by androids and the humans have barely
noticed.

By saying that the plot is only 'superficially' about the detective
story, I don't want to imply that the detective story is superficial.
As a bounty hunter, Deckard is placed squarely in the middle of Dick's
dilemma, since he must be able to distinguish androids from humans in
order to survive.  The plot events are organized to show Deckard's
increasing confusion about his job and his approach to his final
epiphany, not to highlight some spectacularly violent climax like
BLADERUNNER's.  For example, the sequence with the detective who fears
that he may be an android is not just meant to provide suspense, it's
there to illustrate the difficulty humans have in appreciating what
makes them human.  (Witness the detective's behavior with the singer
android after her snide comments about humans being a superior life
form, and Deckard's reaction to it: 'Do you think androids have
souls?')

I think the film copped out in giving 'replicants' the ability to
acquire empathy.  The novel's Deckard is able to empathize with the
android Rachael even though Rachael is incapable of empathy in return;
the movie's Deckard has a much easier task.  There are some great
images in the film and some memorable lines and I really did like it,
but the movie lacks the book's intellectual adventurousness.  If
ANDROIDS disappointed Silas, he'll really hate other works of Dick's
like VALIS or THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE...

Philip K Dick is dead, alas,

Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    donn@utah-cs.arpa
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    (801) 581-5668    decvax!utah-cs!donn

--------------------

From: cquenel@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (88 more school days)
Subject: Re: Question about the film "Bladerunner"
Keywords: Did the photograph really move?
Date: 2 Feb 89 20:12:50 GMT
Organization: Blue Blaze Irregulars

>	[notices the moving picture of "Rachel and Mom"]
>
>	At first I thought, "Ah ha! This is actually the background lighting"
>	(all those lights shining/flashing through the apartment's windows).
>	but closer examinations showed that the picture actually moved.
>
>	So, can someone with a quality recording look at this? If it does
>	actually move, why?

	I have no idea WHY it is like that (all the theories
	you gave would be good ones), but the photo
	definately does cut to a live-action scene.

	I knew I should have posted earlier, I've been
	putting off posting this to the net.  :-)
	It definately is there, I've got a fairly good
	copy of the video-tape.

	Another bit of trivia:

	In the part where Dekard is giving Rachel the VK test,
	there are some interjected words between them in the background
	that give the impression of "Time passing", and other
	questions being asked.  A "phase-forward", I guess.

	But anyway, if you listen carefully (I did :-), you can hear
	that these over-dubbed words are :

	... on the bush outside your window ...
	... orange body, green legs ...

	These are the same words (and as far as I can tell,
	the same recording) from the scence of Dekard
	memory revelation to Rachel.

	Another bit of trivia.

	I guess at edit-time, they wanted to add the effect, but 
	didn't have enough/(any) dialogue between the two
	that would be more appropriate.

	Anyone else notice these two little tid-bits ?

	--chris

Chris Quenelle (The First Lab Rat) cquenel@polyslo.calpoly.edu

--------------------

From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Subject: Re: Question about the film "Bladerunner"
Keywords: Did the photograph really move?
Date: 4 Feb 89 06:18:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ

Well, as long as we're posting our favorite Bladerunner trivia, how about
the recording from Dave Holden's initial meeting with Leon.  Each time it
gets played, it gets slightly faster (I haven't actually tested this) and
the words change slightly too.  A very nice effect, I think.  That is, if
I'm not just going nuts and misremembering.  But I think I checked once.
The words change from "...let me tell you about my mother..." to "I'll tell
you about my mother..."

                                            -Dan

--------------------

From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner -- fates of the replicants
Date: 4 Feb 89 19:40:32 GMT
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco

><Am I mistaken, or is there a replicant not accounted for in Bladerunner?  It's
><my impression that there were six Deckard was supposed to kill.  One got
>
>You're right! Bryant says that "There was an escape from the off-world 
>colonies two weeks ago.  Six replicants: three male, three female."  He later
>goes on to say that one was "fried" trying to break into Tyrell Corporation.
>Four who are killed still later are Pris, Roy Batty, Leon, and Zhora.  Where's
>the sixth replicant?

I noticed this too.  Since the Harrison Ford character is a replicant
himself, I'm tempted to say that it's him.  A friend who has read the
original draft of the BLADE RUNNER screenplay says that it was even
more explicit that Ford's character was a replicant earlier on.

-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim

--------------------

From: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner -- fates of the replicants
Summary: It's Rachel!
Date: 5 Feb 89 10:29:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

>You're right! Bryant says that "There was an escape from the off-world 
>colonies two weeks ago.  Six replicants: three male, three female."  He later
>goes on to say that one was "fried" trying to break into Tyrell Corporation.
>Four who are killed still later are Pris, Roy Batty, Leon, and Zhora.  Where's
>the sixth replicant?

My turn for a stupid theory!  Rachel (who we know is a replicant) is the
sixth replicant.  She escaped from the Off World Colony and made into the
Tyrell Corporation and now Tyrell is lying to protect her.

Douglas Krause           "You can't legislate morality" -George Bush
University of California, Irvine   ARPANET: dkrause@orion.cf.uci.edu
"Irvine?  Where's Irvine?"         BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsa

--------------------

From: MCDOWELL@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (James K. McDowell)
Subject: Re: Re: ... fate of the replicants
Date: 7 Feb 89 05:53:25 GMT
Organization: Ohio State University

	The source of all this talk about the sixth replicant seems to
	be due to some unfortunate editting in 'Bladerunner". I have
	viewed the movie recently (twice) and this seems to be the
	sequence:

		1) Deck. enters Bryant's office. Bryant says "I've
			got 4 skin-jobs walking the streets."

		2) during a briefing, Bryant says " six replicants
			jumped a shuttle and ... one got fried "

		[so that leaves 5 ?]

			they are viewing the Leon tape and then review
			info on Zora, Roy and Pris.

		[now we have 4 again.]

		3) Deck. retires Zora. Bryant is overjoyed and says

			"4 to go"

			Deck. argues "no... 3"

			Bryant fills him in that Rachel has skipped
			out, upset about memories that were not hers.

		4) Rachel retires Leon.

		5) Deck. retires Pris.

		6) Roy's time expires...


	there is no 6th replicant.

	Rachel is not part of the 6.  She joins the retirement list
	after VK.  She does not know Zora, Leon, Pris or Roy...

	Deck. is not the missing sixth replicant ( even if he is a replicant).
	He was a retired Bladerunner at the beginning of the film.  I also
	seriously doubt that he was a replicant.  The proof that people
	identify could also be interpretted as showing that replicants
	were people afterall and retirement was murder.  The pictures:
	Everyone has pictures of places, events and people long forgotten.
	The VK test: Leon failed the test with a few questions , Rachel 100 or
	so, the issue is open as to how many questions before a human would
	fail, maybe 1000 ? The movie closes with something like:

		" ...all they wanted were answers to the questions
		everyone has:

			who am I ?

			where did I come from ?

			how long have I got ? "

	well nuff said...
	please no flames for spelling or grammer.
	standard disclaimers apply.

	>>> Jim.

--------------------

From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Subject: Re: Deckard is a replicant... (SPOILERS for DADOES)
Date: 7 Feb 89 15:30:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ

>	Let me set the record straight. In the book, it is clearly
>	shown that Decker is a human. He encounters an "alternate
>	police force" operating in the same area as himself and
>	realizes that it's made up of replicants. One of the other
>	replicant officers enlists with him (not realizing that
>	he's a replicant), and they administer the test to each
>	other. Decker is definitely human, and the other policeman
>	kills himself.

Um.  This isn't what I remember.  I've read the book fairly recently.
Deckard is certainly human (i.e. not manufactured by the Tyrell/Rosen
Corp.).  But so is Phil Resch.  This is what gets Deckard all upset.  He
wanted to believe that Resch's coldness with replicants was due to Resch's
lack of empathy, typical of androids.  Resch suggested that he begin framing
an alternate philosophy to account for him (Resch).  Deckard finds that
Resch is human, and then has Resch measure his V-K readings for questions
he asks himself, and he finds out that he is the one who is anomalous in
being able to feel for androids.

>		Earlier in the book, when Decker kills the opera
>	singer replicant

Didn't Resch do it?  I can't remember the scene exactly, they were in an
elevator, but I remember Deckard later reminding Resch that he wouldn't be
able to get credit for it.  Maybe that was someone else, though.

>	This is
>	simply a comment on his lack of humanity. Sure, that's the
>	theme of the movie, and a major theme of the book: Decker
>	is less "human" than the replicants he's killing.

Um, I sure didn't read it this way.  Deckard is the one who is able to
empathize with the androids.  It's Resch and the rest of society who can't.
This is why Deckard initially thinks that Resch is the one who is inhuman,
but then realizes that that is normal with respect to androids, and that
he (Deckard) is the one who is abnormal.  When Resch tests out human, Resch
identifies the problem for Deckard almost instantly.  I'd say rather that
the relevant point of the movie isn't that Deckard is less human than the
replicants (have to keep switching between "replicants" and "androids"),
but that people are as inhuman as the replicants.  Remember, in the book,
despite the Mercer is a fraud thing, it's pretty clear that androids do
not feel any empathy.  Inspector Garland states this bitterly before Resch
retires him.  But humans can only feel empathy for other humans.  The fact
that only Deckard feels any empathy for the androids shows that other people
are inhuman.  I guess, given the Mercer thing, it's open to some extent.

                                                     -Dan

--------------------

From: colazar@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Fred Harris)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner -- fates of the replicants
Date: 9 Feb 89 01:11:37 GMT
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.

(Earl Mellott) writes:
>You're right! Bryant says that "There was an escape from the off-world 
>colonies two weeks ago.  Six replicants: three male, three female."  He later
>goes on to say that one was "fried" trying to break into Tyrell Corporation.
>Four who are killed still later are Pris, Roy Batty, Leon, and Zhora.  Where's
>the sixth replicant?

	I saw the annotated version of this on laser disk, and they mentioned 
there that the original script called for the sixth replicant to appear in the
movie, but cost considerations made them edit that out--but by that time they'd
already shot that scene and forgot about that line in editting.

--------------------

From: greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman)
Subject: Re: DECKARD IS A REPLICANT... (fairly long)
Summary: No, he isn't, and here's why.
Date: 8 Feb 89 00:47:57 GMT
Reply-To: greg%sentry@spar.slb.com (Greg Wageman)
Organization: Schlumberger ATE, San Jose, CA

>>	I JUST READ FROM A PREVIOUS POSTING THAT DECKARD WAS A REPLICANT.
>>	IF THIS TRUE ( DECK. IS A SKIN-JOB ) I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK...
>>	NO SUCH THING IS IMPLIED IN 'DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP'
>
>Surely you jest.  It was some years ago that I read the book, but as I
>recall at least of a third of the book was spent in exploring the
>question of whether the protagonist was real or artificial and whether
>it made a difference, the usual Dickian reality-bending stuff.  This is
>certainly in line with the original theme of the emotional organ, where
>Dick says that consciousness is mechanical by nature.

It has been years since I read the book.  I won't comment on it until
I reread it.

>As for the movie BLADE RUNNER, there are a number of hints scattered
>throughout the movie that the Ford character is a Replicant.  I'll only
>mention one; you can rent the tape and look for the rest yourself.
>Remember when he's asked if he's ever run the test on himself?

*I* need not rent the tape, sir, I own a copy of the film on disk and
have seen it many, many times.  Quite probably more than you have.
On this I can (and will) comment.

Certainly there are a number of suggestions that Deckard is more
machine than man, because of his supposed emotionless character (a
hallmark of Replicantness).  It was just such emotional reactions that
the Voight-Kompf Test (VK for short) was designed to measure.  Deckard
himself, in a voice-over, tells us that his ex-wife's nickname for him
was "Sushi.  Cold fish."  Deckard himself is surprised when he feels
an emotional reaction after killing Zhora.

However, this certainly doesn't *prove* that Deckard is a Replicant;
rather, it is just another allusion to Deckard's coldness.  It is
meant to provoke the central question of the film, which is: Is a
Replicant which develops emotions (i. e. a soul) more "human" than a
passionless man?  "More human *than* human" is the slogan of the
Tyrell Corp., after all; simply another restatement of this theme.

Further, if we assume Deckard to be a Replicant for argument's sake,
this raises more questions than it resolves.  The Replicants were
not suffered to be at-large on earth.  Rachel was tolerated while
under the control of the Tyrell Corp., but became instantly a fugitive
when she ran away.  Why would a Deckard Replicant be tolerated?  And
why would he even stick around to be found and "re-hired" as a
Bladerunner, knowing what he knows about how Replicants are treated?

Deckard couldn't have been like Rachel, because we are told explicitly
that Rachel was the first of a new line, with memories.  If he *were*
like Rachel, that too would be a contradiction because he would have
emotional responses, like her.  Therefore, Deckard the Replicant had a
built-in lifespan, and would have known he was a Replicant.  He
certainly wouldn't outlive Rachel, making the ending scene pointless.

Also, if Deckard's boss had known he was a Replicant, he would have
been treated far worse than he was.  "If you ain't one of us, you're
little people." he is told.  "Little *people*", not "skin-job".

Deckard was *scared* when he was facing Leon; he had none of the
reflexes, strength nor immunity to pain that the Replicants
demonstrated.  He was putty in Leon's hands, and they both knew it.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't hold water: Deckard was no Replicant.  He
was a man who was more like a machine, forced to destroy constructs
which were more like men than himself.

>My source who read the original screenplay, which stated explicitly
>that Ford was a replicant, is extremely reliable, a film professional
>who writes successful screenplays himself and writes on the medium for
>a major publishing trade magazine.

That may well be.  However, screenplays evolve in the same ways as
novels.  Ideas are conceived, evaluated, and sometimes discarded.  Are
we to base our opinions of authors' worlds and characters on what they
might have been in first drafts, or in the final, finished work?  It
isn't what's on paper, but what's on film that counts here.

If Deckard is a Replicant, Bladerunner loses its entire meaning and
becomes just another shoot-em-up detective story with an SF setting,
an early Robocop, and not even a good one at that (given all the
plot holes mentioned above).  With Deckard a human being, discovering
his own humanity at the same time he is required to terminate the
existance of creatures just beginning to discover theirs, the film is
deep, tragic and poignant.

--
Greg Wageman			ARPA:  uunet.uu.net!sjsca4!greg (Temporarily)
Schlumberger Technologies	UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg
San Jose, CA
Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
And the author wouldn't have it any other way.

--------------------

From: jim@bilpin.UUCP (jim)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner --- the book???
Summary: Bladerunner publications
Date: 7 Feb 89 14:00:13 GMT
Organization: SRL, London, England

    		... and still I dream he treads the lawn,
		    walking ghostly in the dew,
		    pierced by my glad singing through.

d85-per@nada.kth.se (Per Hammarlund) WRITES :
>   I remember having seen a book on the film Bladerunner quite some time
>   ago!?! Is there a book? Does anybody know the name, publisher and
>   perhaps even an ISBN number?

    Perhaps the following may be of use :

    An official souvenir magazine was produced by Ira Friedman Inc, 16 West
    61 Street, New York, NY 10023 ( American quarto, 66 pp ). This includes
    lots of design drawings, set photographs ( about half in colour ), 1-2
    page extracts from interviews with Philip K Dick, Ridley Scott, Doug
    Trumbull, Harrison Ford, lots of background info on design and
    production, and a full cast and crew credits list at the end. Apart from
    the bonus 'color centerfold' (sic), which is pretty bleeuch, this is well
    worth searching out.

    Blue Dolphin Enterprises, 4887 Ronson Ct, San Diego, CA 92111 produced
    three books at the time ( the following descriptions are from the cover
    blurb ) - I only have an ISBN for The Illustrated Blade Runner, which is
    0-943128-01-3. ( Multiply all dimensions by 2.4 for cm. )

    Blade Runner Sketchbook
    This book compiles the highlights of the tremendous design work that
    went into creating the urban life of the year 2019. Spotlighted are the
    costumes, vehicles, street fixtures, weaponry, and much much more. The
    artwork is executed in black & white, including work by Syd Mead,
    Mentor Huebner, David Snyder, and even a few by director Ridley Scott.
    Quality trade paperback - 11"x8.5" - 96pp.

    The Illustrated Blade Runner
    The complete script to the blockbuster film, containing the dialogue and
    stage directions just as they were handed to the stars. This fascinating
    presentation is profusely and magnificently illustrated with specially
    selected storyboards used in the production.
    Quality trade paperback - 8.5"x11" - 128pp.
    ( Also recommended - JG ).

    The Blade Runner Portfolio
    Twelve high-gloss action photos of Harrison Ford and cast in prime
    moments from the film. Full-colour, sharp images for instant display.
    Produced on high-quality stock, all twelve reproductions capture the
    action and suspense of Blade Runner. Each plate is approximately
    9.25"x12.25" and is packaged in a handsome illustrated folder.

    Marvel Comics also produced an illustrated comic version of the film.

    Hope the above is of interest. All these items were published in 1982,
    so it is likely that you will have some(!) difficulty in tracking down
    copies of them now. ( Your mission, Per, should you decide to accept it
    ... )

    PS
    The quote at the start is from a poem by William Butler Yeats, and
    appears after the dedication at the start of Do Androids Dream of
    Electric Sheep? Can anyone identify the poem, please?

-- 
Path	: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!bilpin!jim	*    Being paranoid doesn't mean that
Who	: Jim G, Hatfield, England	*    everybody ISN'T out to get you.

--------------------

From: png@cup.portal.com (Peter Nicholas Glaskowsky)
Subject: Re: Question about the film "Bladerunner"
Date: 9 Feb 89 04:22:48 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

> .	In one of the scenes where Decker is examining the photograph
> .	of Rachel as a young girl and her mother, there is a brief
> .	full screen closeup of the picture. It only lasts for a couple
> .	of seconds. I SWEAR that the scene moves briefly. The shadows
> .	of the trees appear to move across the girl's and woman's faces.
> 
> I looked at this very carefully over the weekend and (... drum roll ...)
> You are right, [ ... ]

I spotted this the first time I saw the film (boast, boast) but perhaps it
was easier for me, since I saw it in 70mm in one of London's finer
theatres-- one of those amazing palaces, with plush armchairs, a huge, clean
screen, and special features before each main attraction.

But I didn't post this just to boast, or promote London cinemas. I am of
the opinion that this effect was originally intended to be used in several
other places. In fact, I think that all of the "photographs" with the black
borders and the red logo I can't read :-( were supposed to be holographs,
with depth and possibly motion.

Several times, these photos were moved past the camera as if to permit the
viewer to see the depth, an effect which presumably should have been added
in post-production. This happens as Deckard flips through Leon's and
Rachel's photographs, and as he removes a photo from his piano, and maybe
other places.

Also, as Deckard is examining one of Leon's "precious photos" in his Sony
wondergizmo, there is a clear and unambiguous 3-D effect-- objects which
are obscured from one view become visible as Deckard zooms and pans around
on the image. This _must_ have been a holograph.

Now, it's also possible that the very brief film clip in the sequence Austin
Yeats mentions above could have had only a symbolic effect, perhaps intended
to evoke a subconscious emotional response :-). If I ever meet Ridley Scott,
I'll be sure to ask.

.               png     |  Sysop, the John Galt Line TBBS, 817-244-4258.
                        |  png@cup.portal.com, pglask%umbio@umigw.miami.edu

--------------------

From: SANDY@cs.umass.EDU ("Erskine -> Arcsine -> Arxin")
Subject: RE: Bladerunner
Date: 10 Feb 89 03:02:00 GMT

I have heard this discussion before.  I asked my film-major friend who
indicated that the original film script *DID* indicate that Decker was a
replicant.  In addition to a number of subtle hints in the film which have
been mentioned by other people, the "piano scene" supposedly had a memory
sequence in it in which we discover that Decker has "not his" memories.
Of course, this makes him Nexus-6 and he has been around too long for that
(unless his memories of being a bladerunner are forged :-)).

From a strict, film interpretation therefore, Decker cannot be a replicant.

As a note, also, the way I interpreted DADOES was that Decker was even less
human than the replicants.

[ On Rachel as "different" ]

There is some indication that Rachel is "new" in her use of memories.  If
this is true, why is one of the kick squad members so upset when Decker
gets into his apartment and gets the photos?  I infered that ALL Nexus-6
replicants had memories.

[ On the missing replicant ]

Only one thing, SHE is female:
	"Three male and Three female"
Pris and the dancer are the only females to be retired.

Bitnet: ARXIN@UMASS                 |                CSnet : SANDY@CS.UMASS.EDU 
MILnet: SANDY@CS.UMASS.EDU          |   MILnet: SANDY%CS.UMASS.EDU@RELAY.CS.NET
      Usenet: ...!harvard or seismo!SANDY%CS.UMASS.EDU@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

--------------------

From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner -- fates of the replicants
Date: 10 Feb 89 08:14:54 GMT
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco

When I posted my original message on this, I didn't know that my source
was going to go into print with his information.  Since he is, I can
name him and refer you to his article dealing with the subject.  His
name is Frank Robinson, and he writes on movies for LOCUS, the SF trade
magazine.

In the next issue of LOCUS (i.e., the one we'll be mailing at the end
of this month) Frank says that he had noticed several implications in
the movie BLADE RUNNER that the Ford character was a replicant during
its first release, and that these suspicions were recently confirmed
when he got a chance to read the first draft of the screenplay, which
made it clear the character was a replicant.

I didn't get the idea from Frank.  I have a copy of the videotape, I've
watched it a number of times, and I became aware of these implications
on my third or fourth viewing in 1988, several months before I knew of
his opinion.  I suggest rather than arguing about it, anyone interested
should simply watch the tape and look for the clues.  ("The tape" in
the abstract, that is; I'm afraid I don't have seating space for all of
you in my SoMa digs.)

-- 
Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim

--------------------

From: jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Bladerunner -- the sixth replicant
Summary: Continuity problem. Sorry.
Date: 9 Feb 89 14:31:59 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

     My theory on the famous Sixth Replicant is that it's
a continuity problem with the scripting of the film.  This
is perhaps a bit disappointing, but that's the way things
go sometimes.

     To get things straight here, Deckard is told by Bryant in
his *initial* briefing in the screening room that there are six
replicants, and that one got fried.  *After* he kills Zorah,
Bryant visits him on the street and tells him that there are
four more.  Deckard acts surprised (indicating that even *he*
thought there should be only three) and Bryant *then* tells him
that Rachael has escaped.

     Now, it often happens in movies, especially ones with the
complexity of _BR_, that somewhere along the line there are
problems with making the script consistent.  There are famous
examples of this in _Star Wars_ -- I believe Luke once refers
to some character who was originally part of the movie, but all
other references to him had been edited out by the time it was
released, and they just missed one.

     In our case, who knows what had happened?  Maybe at
one point in the scripting, there were six, and by the time
of filming one was completely cut out except for that one
reference.  (The line appears as is, inconsistency and all, in
the script in the _Illustrated Blade Runner_ -- although the
script was changed considerably during filming.)  Afterwards,
with the confusion of the later reference to "four more", the
few people who had the entire plot in mind during the making of
the movie didn't notice the inconsistency.

     BTW I think the initial failure of the movie was due to
poor marketing -- it was presented as yet another Good Humans
vs. Bad Androids movie, and I remember Siskel & Ebert saying
"Who wants a movie where you sympathize almost as much with
the bad guys as the good guys?"  Obviously the marketers had
never really *watched* the movie, and S&E were taken in by the
publicity.

--Jamie.
  jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
"Men?...  Police Men?"

--------------------

From: db@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Dave Berry)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner -- the sixth replicant
Date: 9 Feb 89 22:55:12 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

>- although the script was changed considerably during filming.

And even more during editing.  The hacks made to this film to make it
acceptable to the public, if the story can be believed, were criminal.

The story goes like this:

The Ladd Corporation got a sample audience to come and see their new
science fiction film.  The audience knew what SF was - it's all that stuff
with spaceships and lasers.  They wanted Star Wars, or BattleStar Galactica.

What they got was serious science fiction.  Someone had produced a film with
the background *and themes* of a Philip K. Dick book.  A film which dealt
with the nature of reality, with paranoia, with uncertainty.

They hated it.  They threw popcorn at the screen.  They jeered.

So The producers hastily re-edited it.  They added a voice-over to explain
what was going on in words of one syllable.  In the process they both
changed the introspective atmosphere of the film and actually changed what was
going on (since it couldn't be explained simply without simplifying it).

They tacked on a happy ending, using (in part) out-takes from The Shining.

They removed a crucial scene where Deckert remembered a unicorn while
sitting at the piano.  That was the big clue that he was a replicant -
the Police Chief leaves an origami unicorn outside his door at the end
of the film, telling Deckert that he (the Police Chief) knows about
something Deckert should only know himself.

They turned what would have been far and away the best SF film ever made into
a mere contender for the title.


I've heard this story from a number of sources, including a course on film
studies given by the extra-mural department of Edinburgh University.  Is it
real?  How can we tell?  Even if someone admitted to starting it as a hoax,
would we believe him or her?

There are clues to the possibility of Deckert being a replicant left in the
film.  When he first meets the Police Chief(s), he's asked if he's man enough
for the job.  When the Police Chief arrives at the end, he congratulates
Deckert on doing a real man's job.  If Deckert could be a replicant, these
take on a double meaning.  And there are others.  Try ignoring the voice-over
when you watch the film; it changes what you see.

Certainly Deckert *should* have been a replicant.  It adds wonderful depths
of Dickian irony to the film.

To the person who pointed out that Deckert had a history as a bladerunner,
yes.  But Rachel had a history too - it just wasn't real.  Deckert has no
friends, no contacts, no colleagues.  Only the two policemen.


I agree that he wasn't the sixth replicant.  That's a separate issue.


If anyone has definite information on the above story, please post it.
Not that I'll know if you're telling the truth or not ...

Dave Berry,	Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh.
		db%lfcs.ed.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
		<Atlantic Ocean>!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!db

--------------------

From: dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg)
Subject: Re: Deckard is a replicant... (SPOILERS for DADOES)
Date: 11 Feb 89 18:53:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ

>	book's a little ambiguous on this point; Deckard could be
>	lying when he tells Resch he tests out human, because he doesn't
>	want Resch to kill himself.

Right, but he also has Resch do the V-K on himself (and he mentions that
he used to get regular tests when he was still with the force).  All of
this isn't remarkably conclusive, of course - he could lie about the V-K
results, and/or have false memories, etc.  But the fact that he tests out
his V-K with respect to androids, I think, shows that Dick was interested
in showing us that just as normal humans do not show empathy for androids,
humans other than Deckard do not show empathy for androids.  Deckard
admits (to address your later point about which androids Deckard likes) that 
he's only able to feel empathy for certain androids.  The line is "'I'm
capable of feeling empathy for at least specific, certain androids.  Not all
of them but - one or two.'  For Luba Luft, as an example, he said to himself.
So I was wrong.  There's nothing wrong with Phil Resch's reactions; *It's me.*"
Italics [*'s] are Dick's.  If Dick was trying to make some sort of point about
the lack of substantial difference between humans and machines (androids),
it would have been very silly of him to make his main character an android.
What would that show?  Just that yet another android is without empathy.  But
he gives us (in my view) a human who is unable to show empathy except in
rare circumstances.

>	[description of the Luba Luft retirement scene in the elevator]
>		What's happening here? Deckard is completely ruthless --
>	his purchase is sheer manipulation. Gee, Dick must
>	have been trying to show us how empathic Deckard is towards
>	androids.

The purchase isn't manipulation.  She was coming along either way.  It's
pure caprice on Deckard's part.  And contrary to the way you described the
scene, it was Resch, not Deckard, who retired her.  The relevant line:
"The beam missed its mark but, as Resch lowered it, burrowed a narrow hole,
silently, into her stomach."  I lost what you wrote, but I think you had
it wrong.  Either way, Deckard starts arguing with Resch as soon as he
sees that Resch is going to retire Luft out of annoyance.

>> Um, I sure didn't read it this way.  Deckard is the one who is able to
>> empathize with the androids.  It's Resch and the rest of society who can't.
>		Deckard's "empathy" extends about as far as Rachael
>	Rosen. He certainly doesn't extend much compassion to Roy Baty,
>	whereas John Isidore (the "kipple guy") does. He blows away
>	Pris and Mrs. Baty pretty quickly. "Sorry, Mrs. Baty"  Deckard
>	isn't particularly unique, just human.

Okay, I shouldn't have said "androids" but should have quoted the line
instead.  In any case, I can't see any good reason to believe that Deckard
was an android.  Dick could not possibly have made the point as well that
humans are in many ways like machines, if he hadn't had a human like Deckard
available to show us.

                                              -Dan

--------------------

From: jhorowit@bbn.com (Joe Horowit)
Subject: Re: Bladerunner
Date: 14 Feb 89 00:54:00 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

>Only one thing, SHE is female:
>	"Three male and Three female"
>Pris and the dancer are the only females to be retired.

This is spurious reasoning.  We are told that there were six replicants, "Three
male  and  three female".  We are then told that "one of them got fried running
through an energy field" or something to this effect, but I  don't  recall  any
mention  of  whether  it was male or female.  We are left with four replicants,
two male and two female, and one missing replicant.  From  the  information  we
are  given,  it  is impossible to know what sex the missing replicant is.  Yes,
Pris and the Zhora are the only females to be retired, but then  Leon  and  Roy
are the only *males* to be retired, so where do you arrive at your conclusion?

BTW,  while we're on the subject of logical inconsistencies and/or questionable
plot elements in _Blade Runner_ ("Where's the missing replicant?" "Is Deckard a
replicant",  etc.),  there are several things about the movie that I personally
find questionable.  Before going into them, let  me  first  state  that  _Blade
Runner_  is  one  of  my  all-time favorite SF movies, primarily because of its
visual magnificence; so I am not attempting to trash the movie, just point  out
some of its weaker aspects.

My  recollection  is  that  this whole thing is supposed to take place in 2019,
which is only thirty years from now.  In this time, we  are  supposed  to  have
colonized  not just the planets, but apparently the stars as well.  Considering
our current situation as regards space travel, to call this optimistic would be
charitable,  to  say  the  least.   We  are  also asked to believe that genetic
engineering and artificial intelligence technology have advanced to  the  point
where  we  are  capable  of  constructing  artificial humans that are virtually
indistinguishable from real people.  Even granted the dizzying  pace  at  which
technological advances occur, this is wildly improbable.  I think it might have
been slightly more plausible to bump it forward a century and call it 2119.

One other thing; why does Deckard have to retire the replicants at all?  As the
film's  climax  makes  obvious,  Roy's termination date is literally only a few
days away when Deckard is put on his trail.   And  from  what  Roy  says,  it's
apparent  that  Pris's termination can't be far behind.  Granted, we don't know
Zhora's termination date, and Leon at  one  point  says  his  incept  date  was
sometime  in  2017, which would indicate that he was not near termination.  But
when Deckard (with Rachel's help) takes care of them, he  should  be  finished.
Instead,  he is ordered to pursue, at great personal risk to life and limb, and
then kill two replicants who are going to die in a couple of days anyway.

I have never read DADOES, so I can't make comparisons, but from what I've heard
the  adaptation  was extremely loose, and the movie is radically different from
the book.  I can't help but feel that, as much as I like this movie,  it  could
have  been  much, much better with a storyline that hung together a little more
consistently, and particularly if it had better (meaning, in  this  case,  more
naturalistic)  dialogue.  Perhaps retaining a little more of the original novel
would have helped; from what I know of Dick's writing, I can't imagine it would
have would have *hurt*.

						--Joe Horowitz

--------------------

From: shimrod@rhialto.SGI.COM (the Imagician)
Subject: Re: Deckard is a replicant... (SPOILERS for DADOES)
Date: 14 Feb 89 01:00:27 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

> >	book's a little ambiguous on this point; Deckard could be
> >	lying when he tells Resch he tests out human, because he doesn't
> >	want Resch to kill himself.
> Right, but he also has Resch do the V-K on himself (and he mentions that
> he used to get regular tests when he was still with the force).  All of

	I think you're suffering from a misconception. I have been
	arguing all along that Dick was not an android. It was
	Tim Maroney who invented that little falsity, and I who
	initially attmepted to debunk it (at least on my net.timeline).

> this isn't remarkably conclusive, of course - he could lie about the V-K
> results, and/or have false memories, etc.  But the fact that he tests out
> his V-K with respect to androids, I think, shows that Dick was interested
> in showing us that just as normal humans do not show empathy for androids,
> humans other than Deckard do not show empathy for androids.  Deckard
> admits (to address your later point about which androids Deckard likes) that 
> he's only able to feel empathy for certain androids.  The line is "'I'm
> capable of feeling empathy for at least specific, certain androids.  Not all
> of them but - one or two.'  For Luba Luft, as an example, he said to himself.
> So I was wrong.  There's nothing wrong with Phil Resch's reactions; *It's me.*"
> Italics [*'s] are Dick's.  If Dick was trying to make some sort of point about
> the lack of substantial difference between humans and machines (androids),
> it would have been very silly of him to make his main character an android.
> What would that show?  Just that yet another android is without empathy.  But
> he gives us (in my view) a human who is unable to show empathy except in
> rare circumstances.

	Right. I completely agree with you. What we were discussing
	was whether Deckard is particularly unique in his empathy for
	androids. My point was that Deckard exhibits empathy for Rachael,
	but not really for any other androids. You seemed to be
	claiming that Deckard was truly special in this way. As I
	point out later, other humans show empathy for androids,
	even more than Deckard does.

	Sure, Deckard *thinks* he's unique, but I feel that the end
	of the book explains what's going on his mind, showing that 
	he isn't that unique. His religious experience, culminating
	in finding a live toad, turns out to all be a fake at one
	level or another. Deckard is merely human, and he realizes
	and returns to his humanity at the end of the book. He's not
	really unique; he just thinks he during his final encounter
	with Resch.

	The other point we were arguing, and one which I don't
	feel you've addressed in your article (you have excised the
	portions of my previous article dealing with it), was whether
	Resch was an android or not. You pointed out that Deckard
	gave Resch the V-K test and said he passed. I asserted that
	it was ambiguous; that Deckard could quite easily have been
	lying, and that in fact it made terrific sense within the
	greater context.

> 
> >	[description of the Luba Luft retirement scene in the elevator]
> >		What's happening here? Deckard is completely ruthless --
> >	his purchase is sheer manipulation. Gee, Dick must
> >	have been trying to show us how empathic Deckard is towards
> >	androids.
> 
> The purchase isn't manipulation.  She was coming along either way.  It's
> pure caprice on Deckard's part.  And contrary to the way you described the
> scene, it was Resch, not Deckard, who retired her.  The relevant line:
> "The beam missed its mark but, as Resch lowered it, burrowed a narrow hole,
> silently, into her stomach."  I lost what you wrote, but I think you had
> it wrong.  Either way, Deckard starts arguing with Resch as soon as he
> sees that Resch is going to retire Luft out of annoyance.

	Resch burns Luba Luft out of annoyance; Deckard is the one who
	kills her. The stomach shot you described was non-fatal. Yes,
	it is a mercy killing, in a sense, but then Deckard is
	never portrayed as sadistic.
	
		I feel that Deckard manipulated her into passively
	accepting her execution. Resch tortured her out of annoyance,
	but Deckard was really the controlling force.  Luba Luft was
	Deckard's target, originally, and he was the one who killed her.

> >> Um, I sure didn't read it this way.  Deckard is the one who is able to
> >> empathize with the androids.  It's Resch and the rest of society who can't.
> >		Deckard's "empathy" extends about as far as Rachael
> >	Rosen. He certainly doesn't extend much compassion to Roy Baty,
> >	whereas John Isidore (the "kipple guy") does. He blows away
> >	Pris and Mrs. Baty pretty quickly. "Sorry, Mrs. Baty"  Deckard
> >	isn't particularly unique, just human.
> 
> Okay, I shouldn't have said "androids" but should have quoted the line
> instead.  In any case, I can't see any good reason to believe that Deckard
> was an android.  Dick could not possibly have made the point as well that
> humans are in many ways like machines, if he hadn't had a human like Deckard
> available to show us.

	I fully agree with you on this point, and always have.
	Deckard is human in all incarnations. We're just quibbling
	over the all-important details.

-shimrod

--------------------

From: chen@anubis.gatech.edu (Ray Chen)
Subject: Re: Re: ... fate of the replicants
Date: 13 Feb 89 06:44:14 GMT
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech

>		2) during a briefing, Bryant says " six replicants
>			jumped a shuttle and ... one got fried "

This jibes with what I heard.  A friend of mine who was very interested
in Bladerunner was complaining to me about all the ways the film was
butchered.  One of the things he mentioned was that a critical scene
was edited out.

Apparently during the shuttle ride to Earth, the sixth replicant's
time ran out.  The first symptom was a loss of control over the hand
muscles.  Uncontrollable clenching, I think.  Shortly after the
problem with the hands, the replicants then saw the sixth replicant
die right in front their eyes.

I think this would have been the first scene shown in the movie but
I'm not sure.

You may notice that Roy Batty clenches and unclenches his hands a
lot.  That gesture takes on a whole new meaning (and adds to the
depth of the film) when interpreted with the missing scene in mind.

The other thing he was most upset about was the voice-over that
the movie execs forced on the film.  And I agree.  Try watching
the film and pretending that the voice-over isn't there.  All
of a sudden, the emphasis of the film changes from a 1940's-style
detective story to a film exploring what it means to be "human"
in the largest sense of the word.

In my opinion, without the voice-over and with that extra scene,
Bladrunner would be far and away the best science-fiction film
I've ever seen.

<End of speil>

	Ray Chen
	chen@gatech.edu

--------------------

From: GUNTHAR%MKVAX1@MSUS1.BITNET
Subject: RE: SF-LOVERS Digest   V14 #36
Date: 17 Feb 89 21:44:00 GMT

I ran home yesterday and got out my copy of BLADERUNNER and sat down with a
pencil in hand to make note of anything strange. Here's my findings:

Leon's V.K. test

This is what was originally said:
Holden: "Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your
         mind...about...your mother?
Leon  : "My mother?"
Holden: "Yeah."
Leon  : "Let me tell you about my mother..."
        <BLAM>
Dekker runs this diolouge through his mind twice while going somewhere in a car.
   The second time he thinks it, Leon's last line is changed to "I'll tell ya ab
   outmy mother!". Also, if you listen carefully to the second time Dekker runs
   it
through his mind, you'll notice Holden places emphasis on different words. It
seems like the lines were said three different ways, rather than just a simple
playback of the original lines. When you think about it,it's more realistic that
   way. People edit their memories to their convinence. Which explains why the
sceen takes less time to play though when Dekker is thinking. Why would he
pay attention to the informationless pauses between each line?

Rachel's photo

The shadows DO move, but it's not because the director cuts to a live sceen.
The images are still distorted because Dekker is holding the photo at an angle.
Also, look at the girls hands. Before and after the "shadow" scene her hands
are flat againsts the mother's knees. In the "shadow" close-up, the girl's
left hand is makeing an "OK" gesture. Significant?

Dekker's photo enhancer

Notice the thing changes the veiw once without Dekker telling it to? And what
do those numbers on the bottom of the screen mean? They flip a bit, but always
come back to this display: "ZM 3841  NS 0197  EW 0334".
(Oops, the display does change once. The ZM number becomes 3852)

Replicant eye-glow

During Rachel's V.K test and in de
kkers apartment after she kills Leon, Rachel'seyes glow. In J.F Sebastion's plac
   e, just after she sprays her eyes, Pris's eyesglow. In Tyrell's apartment, wh
   en Roy comes to visit, Roy's and the Owl's eyes
glow. Intentional? Is this a sneaky way of telling an android from a human?
You might also notice the V.K has a kind of glowing "eye".

Zhora-gets-blown-away scene

Watch the scene where Dekker starts shooting.
Dekker: "Move! Get outta the way!"
<BLAM>
<BLAM>
<CRASH> Zhora goes though glass.
<BLAM>  Zhora gets wounded in the shoulder.
<CRASH> Zhora goes though glass.
        Zhora falls to the ground.
        You can see two wounds.
        Zhora gets up. bullet exits her chest.
<BLAM>  Zhora gets chest wound.
<CRASH> Glass again.
<CRASH> And Zhora finally falls to the ground with TWO wounds.

Definite time distortion.

Other bits of triva

The Neon Schlitz sign on the wall where Zhora runs out of the club is the same
one in the background when Dekker buys a bottle after killing Zhora.
Evidence for mythical sixth replicant: Who was the woman in the picture Dekker
got from his photo-enhancer? It wasn't Zhora. She had diferent facial features.
Zhora has a sort of hook nose and the woman's nose in the photo had a smooth
slope. I don't think it's Pris either, but I didn't check as thourghly.
More confusion on the number of repicants: When Roy was breaking Dekker's
fingers, he broke one for Zhora and one for Priss. Leon apparently doesn't
rate a finger and neither does the other hypothetical replicants.

One last thing

Who can tell me how many people were gratuitously knocked down or shoved aside
while Dekker was chasign Zhora.

--
Guy Bock
Mankato State Univ.
Minnesota

--------------------

From: ewan@june.cs.washington.edu (Ewan Tempero)
Subject: Re: Deckard a replicant? -- finally the "TRUTH"
Date: 18 Feb 89 04:36:44 GMT
Reply-To: ewan@uw-june.UUCP (Ewan Tempero)
Organization: U of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle

Ok we've been hearing how people have been told by their best friend's
mother who current lover had read the script which said DECKARD WAS A
REPLICANT.....

I have the script in front of me and here are (I believe) the relevant
parts (last page and a half). (and no I don't know where to get it)

(Copyright: Brighton Prods., Inc. Sunset Gower Studios LA)

<context: Deckard has just "retired" Racheal -- at her request. It's
his job afterall...>
[Deckard voice over]

It was too late now. They wouldn't give me papers for the colonies even if 
I wanted them. It made me wonder more than ever what they do up there...I 
wondered who designs the ones like me...what choices we have...and which 
ones we think we have.

[Deckard glances down and to his right. The picture of his wife and son is 
there on a chunk of cement by his wallet]
I wondered if I had really loved her. I wondered which of my memories were
real and which belonged to someone else.

The great Tyrell hadn't designed me, but whoever had, hadn't done so
much better. 'You're programmed too,' she told me and she was right.
In my own modest way, I was a combat model. Roy Batty was my late
brother.

-----
Beyond reasonable doubt? I don't think so. Why would he talk about going
to the colonies if he was a replicant? "The great Tyrell hadn't designed
me,..." He could be referring to "the creator" here..this whole paragraph
could be read this way. The only thing that really suggests he is a replicant
is the line "I wondered which of my memories..."

You decide :-)

--ewan

--------------------

From: maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox)
Subject: Who is an android?
Date: 22 Feb 89 07:58:29 GMT
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

	Unless you have been hitting the 'n' button lately with fair 
regularity when reading sf-lovers, you have read parts of a discussion 
concerning whether Deckard, the protagonist of _Blade Runner_ is an 
android.  In these discussions, reference has been made to _Do 
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_, the novel from which the film was 
derived, and to various published and unpublished versions of the film's 
script.  

	As a way of providing a coda to this discussion (or perhaps of 
sending it off on another tangent), let me give you the following remarks 
on the difference between "android" and "human," written as the opening of 
an address Philip Dick intended to give at a conference in England in 
March, 1975.  He was ill and could not attend; his text was published in 
the collection, _Science Fiction at Large_, which also includes Thomas 
Disch's brilliant and infamous "The Embarrassments of Science Fiction."  
(Edited by Peter Nicholls, the collection was published by Harper and 
Row in the United States in 1976; so far as I know, it is out of print.)

	As Dick makes clear, the distinction between "human" and "android"
is not simple and does not simply refer to a being's manner of origin.

----------

			Man, Android and Machine

			    Philip K. Dick

Within the universe there exist fierce cold things, which I have given the
name "machines" to.  Their behavior frightens me, especially when it imi-
tates human behavior so well that I get the uncomfortable sense that these
things are trying to pass themselves off as humans but are not.  I call
them "androids," which is my own way of using that word.  By "android" I do
not mean a sincere attempt to create in the laboratory a human being . . .
I mean a thing somehow generated to deceive us in a cruel way, to cause us
to think it to be one of ourselves.  Made in a laboratory--that aspect is not
meaningful to me; the entire universe is one vast laboratory, and out of it
come sly and cruel entities which smile as they reach out to shake hands.  
But their handshake is the grip of death, and their smile has the coldness
of the grave.

These creatures are among us, although morphologically they do not differ
from us; we must not posit a difference of essence, but a difference of
behavior.  In my science fiction I write about them constantly.  Sometimes
they themselves do not know they are androids.  Like Rachel Rosen, they can
be pretty but somehow lack something; or like Pris in _We Can Build You_,
they can be absolutely born of a human womb and even design androids . . .
and themselves be without warmth; they then fall within the clinical entity
"schizoid," which means lacking proper feeling. . . . A human being without
the proper empathy or feeling is the same as an android built so as to lack
it, either by design or mistake.  We mean, basically, someone who does not 
care about the fate which his fellow living creatures fall victim to; he
stands detached, a spectator, acting out by his indifference John Donne's
theorem that "No man is an island," but giving that theorem a twist; that
which is a mental and moral island is _not a man_.

The greatest change growing across our world these days is probably the 
momentum of the living towards reification, and at the same time a reciprocal
entry into animation by the mechanical.  We hold now no pure categories of
the living versus the non-living . . . one day we will have millions of 
hybrid entities which have a foot in both worlds at once.  To define them
as "man" versus "machine" will give us verbal puzzle-games to play with. . . .
"Man" or "human being" are terms which we must understand correctly and apply,
but they apply not to origin or to any ontology but to a way of being in the
world; if a mechanical construct halts in its customary operation to lend you
assistance, then you will posit to it, gratefully, a humanity which no
analysis of its transistors and relay-systems can elucidate. . . . As soul
is to man, man is to machine:  it is the added dimension . . .  As one of us 
_acts_ godlike (gives his cloak to a stranger), a machine _acts_ human when 
it pauses in its programmed cycle to defer to it by reason of a decision.  

[The remainder of Dick's essay concerns troubling ontological speculations
that received full, extraordinary treatment in the last novels:  _Valis_,
_Radio Free Albemuth_, et alia.]

----------

	As Dick poses the matter, to ask of anyone, "Is he or she human?" 
becomes a *judgment about that person's behavior*, not a banal question about
laboratory origins.  (I think that we all are human *sometimes*, are not 
sometimes.)  
	Rachel, Deckard, Roy Baty--whether in the book or in the film, they 
are human to the extent they display human attributes.  Roy becomes human at 
the moment he reaches out ("lends assistance") to Deckard when he hangs off the 
building ledge, still more human when he spares Deckard's life.
	Compassion, forebearance, empathy--those are the marks of humanity.
Where _Blade Runner_ abandoned much of Dick's novel, it did stay close to 
that fundamental insight.  
	However, for exploration of that ambiguous terrain where humanity 
trails off into inhumanity or surpasses itself ("becomes godlike"), the
film cannot compare in complexity to Dick's lifework:  from at least _Man 
in the High Castle_ onward, science fiction's most imaginative and humane set 
of dramas about the difficulty of being human.  The film aside, if you find 
yourself interested in these issues, read the master.

--
Tom Maddox 
UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt

--------------------

From: terryl@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM
Subject: Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Date: 24 Apr 89 23:31:06 GMT

     I was watching the Criterion Laserdisk Edition of "Blade Runner" last
weekend, and I'd thought I'd share some info that was tacked onto the end
of the movie (well, actually it wasn't part of movie), specifically "What
happened to the sixth Replicant mentioned in the dialogue, but never shown
in the movie"; well, the whole upshot of this was that in the original
script, there were six Replicants, but after numerous rewrites, the sixth
Replicant was written out (but not totally; they left in one reference to
it). BTW, just for your info, the sixth Replicant was to be a female named
"Mary", who was supposed to be a "mother figure" (their words, not mine!!!),
and she was to be shot by Deckerd right after he killed Pris in JF Sebastian's
apartment....

     BTW*2, some more info tacked onto the end was a viewer's VERY detailed
analysis of the movie, and some of the more subtle hints the movie made, e.g
was Deckerd the sixth Replicant??? Well, according to this viewer, there were
a couple of VERY subtle hints, and along with that, some of the original
script almost implied that Deckerd WAS a Replicant....

     BTW*3, in the fight scene between Deckerd and Leon (right after Deckerd
kills Zhora the snake lady), there was a VERY noticable glitch, and since the
Laserdisk was CAV, I was able to step through the scene, and was able to dis-
cern that the fight scene might have been edited together from two separate
takes of the fight. If you look VERY closely, you'll see things sort of jump
in position (like the steam in the background, or Deckerd's tie). It's a VERY
clean edit, but still noticeable nonetheless; it almost looks like there were
a few frames missing from the scene, it was that close.....

     BTW*4, there were quite a few scenes cut from the script that were never
filmed, `cause it was deemed that they would be too expensive to build a set
for. For example, there was to be a scene later in the movie where Deckerd
goes to visit Holden in the hospital(he's the first Blade Runner who was shot
by Leon at the beginning of the movie), and another scene cut was showing
Zhora doing her show with the snake.

     If you have a chance, and are a real "Blade Runner" fan, I'd recommend
that you watch the Criterion Edition of the movie. The sound track was really
wonderful, and there's actually gobs & gobs of information on the movie tacked
onto the end, including quite a few drawings of some of the sets, and drawings
of some of the vehicles. Very impressive.

--
Terry Laskodi
Tektronix

--------------------

From: sally@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Sally Smith)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Date: 2 May 89 00:09:27 GMT
Organization: Dead Dog...uh, Shakala...uh, Radiance Records

>was Deckerd the sixth Replicant??? Well, according to this viewer, there were
>a couple of VERY subtle hints, and along with that, some of the original
>script almost implied that Deckerd WAS a Replicant....

Yup, it was implied in earlier drafts. And I saw some interview with
Harrison Ford where he said he thought Deckard was a replicant.


>by Leon at the beginning of the movie), and another scene cut was showing
>Zhora doing her show with the snake.

I may be hallucinating but I remember seeing this. To explain:

I first saw "Blade Runner" several months before it was released, at a
sneak in Denver. It was the first time it had been all in one piece, and
the sound and picture were on separate reels (it had reportedly just been
printed up or edited together or whatever that morning in NYC).
Anyway, the opening credits consisted only of "Harrison Ford" and "BLADE
RUNNER", there was no background music, only one voiceover (at the end
where Roy dies, and it was slightly different from the one that's in it
now), and a lot of stuff that they later cut out. Like most of Deckard's
character development, grrmph. They put most of the violence back into
the videotape version. Also, the sneak version did not have the happy
ending--it ended with them getting into the elevator.

IMHO, this version was loads better than what came out. I thought it was
more effective w/o music, some of Ford's best stuff got cut, and (altho
I normally *beg* for happy endings to movies), I thought the end was
totally at odds with the rest of the film, stylistically, artistically,
morally,etc. etc. I was real disappointed when it came out "finished".
That's what happens when the studio execs get hold of it. Still a darn
neat movie, though. End of soapbox.

BTW, I saw the spinner at the '81 Worldcon (Denver) and that's what
first drew my attention to the movie. Super neat vehicle!

Just thought I'd blather a bit...

Sally

-- 
Sally Smith (415)790-0608   | {ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!antares!doctor!sally
Stephen J. Cannell Fan Club | Internet: doctor!sally@antares.Tymnet.COM
Assist. Manager, Sailor Hardware     (my phone 'droid is "Uncle Mike")
My opinions sometimes don't even reflect what *I'm* thinking...

--------------------

From: ix496@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Jan Bielawski)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Date: 7 May 89 03:28:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

<>>was Deckerd the sixth Replicant??? Well, according to this viewer, there were
<>>a couple of VERY subtle hints, 
[---]
<I just saw Blade Runner last night (with Brazil, a great double feature).

	Me too!  Yeah, it's a great idea to see them together.

<I was watching for any hints that he was a replicant and here's what _I_
<thought.  (BTW, I've been told that he WAS a replicant in the book.  Not sure
<which book she meant.  I don't remember that from the original "Do Androids
<Dream ...")
<
<Positive:
<I believe that only the replicants, the owl and Deckard had eyes that glowed.
<I'm not sure if this was a hint or not.

	I thought so too but then why would anyone bother administering
these looooong tests (questions and answers) instead of looking into
the eyes for 5 seconds?  Or are we -- the theater audience -- the only ones
that can see the glow?

	BTW, I thought the ending was just hopeless, a happy ride into the
sunset and, to make the point perfectly clear, no she's not going to die
because "she is a special model"!
Gosh, it's such an obvious add-on by some cretin studio executive.

--
Jan Bielawski		Internet:	jbielawski@ucsd.edu
			Bitnet:		jbielawski@ucsd.bitnet
Dept. of Math		UUCP:		jbielawski@ucsd.uucp
UCSD			  ( {ucsd,sdcsvax}!sdcc6!ix496 )

--------------------

From: tim@jetprod.UUCP (Zap Savage)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Date: 5 May 89 18:32:12 GMT
Organization: Savage Research

>>was Deckerd the sixth Replicant??? Well, according to this viewer, there were
>>a couple of VERY subtle hints, and along with that, some of the original
>>script almost implied that Deckerd WAS a Replicant....

I just saw Blade Runner last night (with Brazil, a great double feature).
I was watching for any hints that he was a replicant and here's what _I_
thought.  (BTW, I've been told that he WAS a replicant in the book.  Not sure
which book she meant.  I don't remember that from the original "Do Androids
Dream ...")

Positive:
I believe that only the replicants, the owl and Deckard had eyes that glowed.
I'm not sure if this was a hint or not.

Negative:
Deckard had a history as a Blade Runner.  He was trusted by his boss who called
replicants "skin jobs" (equivalent to nigger as pointed out in the movie).  If
his boss didn't know he was a replicant and he was, then he was an illegal one
or his boss' (M. Emmet Walsh, I don't remember the char's name) bosses didn't
trust him.  Kind of doubtful IMHO.

>BTW, I saw the spinner at the '81 Worldcon (Denver) and that's what
>first drew my attention to the movie. Super neat vehicle!

The Spinner is either in Hollywood right now or about 10 minutes from my
house, in San Marcos, CA.  I'm not sure where they're keeping it right now.
Looks great from the outside, not even "mocked-up" on the inside.

| Zap Savage                                                                  |
| Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun"              |
| Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any responsibility for the contents of anyone |
| else's disclaimer.                                                          |

--------------------

From: cthulhu@claris.com (Paul T.S. Lee)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Date: 8 May 89 23:26:37 GMT
Organization: Claris Corporation, Santa Clara CA

> 	I thought so too but then why would anyone bother administering
> these looooong tests (questions and answers) instead of looking into
> the eyes for 5 seconds?  Or are we -- the theater audience -- the only ones
> that can see the glow?

I hate to dissappoint you, but most animals have reflecting irises.  The human
eye usually does not reflect light in the same way, but the same effect can
occur under certain lighting conditions (such as being photographed with a
flash).  I think the Scott may have used the effect to further blurred the
line between what is and is not real (organic).  Unfortunately the
currently available cut de-emphasizes the artificiality of the non-human
creatures in the film.  In the book (_Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep_),
there is a lot more discussion of owning an animal, even if it is
artficial, as well as the ethics of killing animals.  These are points
which are all but glossed over in the film.

> 	BTW, I thought the ending was just hopeless, a happy ride into the
> sunset and, to make the point perfectly clear, no she's not going to die
> because "she is a special model"!
> Gosh, it's such an obvious add-on by some cretin studio executive.

No, I don't think that's the point at all.  The point about her being a
special model is in the fact that her cells are not programmed to terminate
after only 4 years of life.  That is not to say that she will or even can
live forever.  All we know about the Nexus 6 series is that they are
physically tougher than the average human and that they are above average
in intellegence WHERE THESE CHARACTERISTICS ARE PREPROGRAMMED INTO THE
REPLICANT.  Leon was was obviously not a mental giant, and Rachel never
exhibited any signs of superhuman or even above average physical strength
(as opposed to Zhora or Pris).  The real point about the ending was that
Rachel was no different from Deckard.  Neither one had any guarantee about
how long they would live.  The best they (and by projection, any living
being) could do is to live for the moment.  Savor each instant of life as
though it could be their last, and renew their joy when it is not.  Pretty
heady stuff, I think.

--
Paul Tien-Shih Lee              |cthulhu@claris.com
Claris Corporation, SQA Division|{ames,apple,sun,portal,voder}claris!cthulhu
Disclaimer: Dis is my claimer.  |AppleLink PE:Paul Lee
If Claris wants one, it can get |AppleLink: D0667
its own.  All hail Discordia!   |(coming soon to a network near you)

--------------------

From: anw1@ukc.ac.uk (A.N.Walkeden)
Subject: Blade Runner & Missing Replicant
Date: 13 May 89 09:32:28 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

   I am not sure as to whether or not this point has been mentioned in this
discussion, so apologies if it has been read before.

  Near the end of the film Deckard leaves his appartment, with Rachel, and
as she is crossing the hallway she treads on an origami unicorn. This unicorn
has great significance to the question of Deckard being a replicant.

   It is a direct reference to a series of recurring dreams that deckard has
had regarding a unicorn running through a forest. It would seem Gaff (that
miami vice guy) has somehow found out about these dreams, and realises that
they are implants, or memories given to Deckard, as a replicant.

   Unfortunately, the scenes of Deckard's dreams were cut from the final
version of the film and hence you are left at the end of the film wondering 
what the unicorn meant.

  All in all though I still think Blade Runner is one of the best films I
have ever seen, along with Brazil.

Adrian


-- 
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
 shoulder of Orion, I watched C beams glitter near the Tan-Hauser gate."
"All these, memories will be lost; like tears in rain."
"Time to die."		Roy Baty : 

--------------------

From: fongd@csusac.uucp (Dick Fong)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Summary: details and fan notes
Date: 16 May 89 06:50:25 GMT
Organization: California State University, Sacramento

There is a lot of interesting information about _Blade Runner_
at the end of the laserdisc from Criterion Collection..  
They have a whole section dedicated to fan notes and other goodies..
There is even a trivia quiz...   Like: Is Holden armed when he is shot?
(I wonder if it's ok to post the quiz..)

The also talked about several endings...  and some discrepancies...

In one version, the sixth replicant is a replicant called Mary...
etc...   ... a very good disk and movie.  

For those who like the movie you should see this disk!
-- 

Dick Fong <*:*>              UUCP:     {ucdavis|lll-crg}!csusac!fongd
                             Internet: fongd@csusac.csus.edu

--------------------

From: neff@pitstop.West.Sun.COM (Mike Neff)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner, the eternal question
Date: 17 May 89 06:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: neff@pitstop.UUCP (Mike Neff)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, CA.

>We know Rachael was a replicant. Deckard may have been one (I'm not going
>to rehash that one!).
>
>So how come Gaff didn't kill Rachael and maybe Deckard? That was his job,
>right? He certainly had the chance.

Perhaps for the same reason that Deckard (replicant or no) didn't kill
Rachael (it was his job too)... he found some compassion.  Then again Gaff
might be the sadistic type that would let them go so he could have fun tracking
them down again rather than ending his "game" right there.  There are many
possible explanations which only a remake or sequel could address ( which
unfortunately doesn't seem likely at the moment ).

Although Rutger Hauer was rather ruthless throughout the movie, even he
as a replicant was capable of discovering compassion ( or as Deckard put it,
loving life and wanting to save it even if it wasn't his own ).  This was
where the movie departed from Dick's concept of differentiating androids
(as he called them in the book, not replicants) from humans by their capacity
for empathic response.  The movie started off setting this as the prevailing
mindset in running Voight-Kampf tests to test for replicants empathic response.
However, I felt that the movie tried to show through various characters'
discoveries during the movie that this concept was becoming dated.  The message
was that the replicants ( either through the ability to more closely mimic
humanity through technologic progress in the replicant's manufacture, or
through some self-discovery on the part of the replicants themselves ) were
in effect becoming indistinguishable from humans.

The ambiguity of Deckard's identity as a replicant is used in the movie as
a device which enforces the question which we, the viewer, will likely face
in the future if and when our technology gets to this level.  If replicants
become indistinguishable from humans, then moral issues of basic human rights
and human feelings towards other humans which we take for granted as things we
can only ascribe to ourselves become big dilemnas when faced with the "human"
replicant.

Perhaps there will be a point when man has to acknowledge himself as a creator
of something that is a superset of himself, stronger and possibly immortal
given the ability to duplicate a replicant should he be damaged or destroyed.
Tyrell seems to have this understanding before Roy kills him.  I think what
he didn't understand was that Roy was still questioning whether his "spirit"
was something that could be restored since it was something he built through
a period of his own experiences.  Perhaps he didn't contemplate that Roy's
spirit could be an equivalent to his own or that at least he didn't comprehend
Roy's ability to "feel" this way.

Then humans will ask, "What makes me distinct or different from a replicant?
What makes me count anymore."  The metaphysical questions of what composes
the spirit of a replicant or human and whether they are the same or not will
haunt us since we won't be able to answer them clearly.  Will our religious
beliefs allow us to accept replicants as spiritual equals?  Or will the
similarities make us question our own spiritual identities and make us
question whether in fact we are closer to being equals in the sense that
we are both manufacturable machines.  I don't want to go on too long on a
subject that might be better discussed in talk.religion, or alt.cyberpunk,
etc. but would like to repeat that I believe that leaving Deckard's humanity
in question worked in provoking these questions, and could have been the
intention of Ridley Scott or others making this film, which despite some of
its continuity flaws, was still a fantastic film.

Mike Neff
mneff@sun.com

"Don't blame me, I voted for Bill'n Opus"

--------------------

From: hirai@cs.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner
Summary: useless trivia
Date: 18 May 89 02:37:43 GMT
Organization: Visual Geometry Project, Swarthmore College

	Useless BladeRunner trivia follows:

	Rewind your memory back to the scene where Gaff is taking in
Deckard under the chief's orders.  Rewind to where the car starts to
float up.  You can make out two chinese characters written in white
letters on the side of the car saying "keisatsu" in Japanese.  The word
means "police."  Police cars in Japan have the same words on their cars.

	Also, various neon signs that line the streets are written in
real Japanese.  One example is a neon sign saying "golufu yoohin" or
"golf equipments."

	Spoken Japanese is another matter.  The noodle shop owner who
appears at the beginning of the movie just says "irasshai, irrasshai,"
"nani shimashooka?" and "futatsu de jyuubun desu yo." In order, the
words mean "come on in, come on in" (a sort of welcoming phrase for shop
owners), "what shall it be?" (or "what would you like?"), and "two is
enough for you" (after Deckard says he wants four servings). 

	The accent was passable but the actor could've just memorized
those three phrases and not known any Japanese at all.  However, this is
much more than what can be said of other movies. 

	Also, the mysterious nasalish woman's ad voice that we hear when
Gaff's car passes by the Coca Cola neon sign is hard to understand.  I'm
not sure if it's even Japanese.

	I don't know any Chinese so I might be just writing off parts of
the movie as undecipherable in my ignorance. 

	Other analysis/trivia: there's a trememdous emphasis on eyes.  I
went over this in detail in a past posting. 

	That's all for now.  Please post any trivia you might have on
the movie!  Trivia is worthless but it's fun, so there, nyah!

	"Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell.
	 'More human than human' is our motto."

-- 
Eiji Hirai @ Visual Geometry Project, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081
Internet:               hirai@cs.swarthmore.edu |  "All Cretans are liars."
Bitnet:                   hirai@swarthmr.bitnet |         - Epimenides
UUCP:          {rutgers, att}!bpa!swatsun!hirai |         of Cnossus, Crete

--------------------

From: cspencer@spdcc.COM (Cliff Spencer)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner <==> Do Androids...
Date: 17 May 89 11:54:13 GMT
Reply-To: cspencer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Cliff Spencer)
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

>loving life and wanting to save it even if it wasn't his own ).  This was
>where the movie departed from Dick's concept of differentiating androids
>(as he called them in the book, not replicants) from humans by their capacity

Wouldn't you say that the movie actually has very little in common with the
book other than the names?. There is no reference to Mercerism, I don't
have my copy anymore, but didn't Rachel and Priss come from the same mold 
and look identical in the book? Deckard(sp?) had no wife.  I wish that the 
movie had retained more of the book's... charm.

--
cliff

--------------------

From: neff@pitstop.West.Sun.COM (Mike Neff)
Subject: Re: Deckard IS a Replicant
Date: 23 May 89 03:56:56 GMT
Reply-To: neff@pitstop.UUCP (Mike Neff)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, CA.

>>I was watching BLADERUNNER last night, and made this amazing discovery:
>> 
>>Remeber the odd way the replicants eyes glowed
>>in certain segments of the movie?
>> 
>>When Rachel asks Deckard if he'll follow her if she goes North,
>>he says "No.  I owe you one.  But somebody else would."
>> 
>>At this point, LOOK AT HIS EYES.
>> 
>>Hope this ends THIS line of discussion.
>
>I would say it does - but that Deckard is *NOT* a replicant - from the
>*MOVIE* _AS IS_ there are no hints as to Deckard being a replicant.

That's right, Deckard has his rights too!  Everyone has the right to
be a human until proven they are a replicant (Voigt-Kampf test)!  And
remember that Rachel asked him if he'd ever taken it and he didn't
respond ( I guess he pleaded the 5th... ;-).

Seriously, I support that the way the movie is in its currently edited
form, there is no way to prove that Deckard is a replicant, but it is
debatable that there are *no* hints of this.  Additionally, there isn't
in my mind any evidence that conclusively disproves the assertion that
Deckard is a replicant either.  The replicants in the story are in almost
every respect indistinguishable from humans, except from looking closely
at their eyes through Voigt-Kampf tests, or ( in some cases, perhaps not
Rachel's or others ) increased strength and tolerance of pain.  You
might argue that Deckard had less tolerance for pain than the replicants.
However, he had a pretty good grip on the edge of that slippery building 
considering he had a freshly broken finger.  With the ability to program
human memories into their brains you can't discount that Deckard could be
a replicant.  Did anyone ever stop and ask why they had Deckard without
a wife in the movie where he had one in the book?  If he had a wife in
the movie, the programmed memory theory for Deckard would have been harder
to support.  Without a wife he seems as vulnerable as Rachel to this plot
twist.

A law against replicants on earth isn't proof either.  A law is just as
good as the paper its written on.  And sometimes the law ( the
authorities ) is above the law, if you get my drift.  Why send a human
being on a job where he might get killed?  Why not a replicant that
thinks he's a human.  If he knows he's a replicant he might turn on his
human management for forcing him to kill one of his own.  And if he
can have superior skills to a human, he would serve as a better match
to the replicants he's following.  Certainly people like the CIA and
Ollie have used the philosophy of the ends justify the means.

I believe that the glowing eyes are motifs, or symbols that a filmmaker
uses to tell the viewer something.  They aren't necessarily
distinguishable features to the characters themselves in their world.
The one scene where Deckard's eyes are glowing is interesting.  Rachel
in the foreground has glowing eyes as well.  It could be an accident
that the lighting hit Deckard's eyes as well in the background as well,
or is it...?  One can't tell.  Again the ambiguity.  And Iiii LIKE it!
It makes people ask these questions...

>STOP USING THE BOOK AS A REFERENCE - THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT STORIES.

The book helps with insight, but you are right that it is different
enough that it cannot be used to prove or disprove things in the movie.

>
>will
>
>decwrl!isldns.dec.com!robinson

Mike Neff
mneff@sun.com

Don't blame me!!  I voted for Bill'n Opus!

--------------------

From: learn@lafcol.UUCP (Dave Learn)
Subject: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Date: 19 May 89 20:08:25 GMT
Organization: Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma

> > ....Deckard(sp?) had no wife.  I wish that the 
> > movie had retained more of the book's... charm.
> 
> Deckard did have a wife in the book.  I don't remember the exact details,
> but she left him around halfway through it.  I remember that she could not
> sleep without wearing a mood induction device.  I also remember her
> complaining to Deckard about getting a better animal.
> 
> As for "charm", I'm not quite sure I ever thought that the book was
> charming.  There were places where it was almost cheerful.  But the general
> tone was very depressive; the mood, gray and bleak.

He not only had a wife, but she hated the induction device and always
used it to make herself miserable.  She did not leave him halfway, it
was his idea to buy a llama (not hers, though she really liked it), and
she was still with him at the end.

Remember he had found an electric toad, and while he fell asleep, she
bought some stuff to keep it healthy.

Can't remember her name, though.


	 	 INRI 		     
    | 		  |	 	|     He came He saw
--\-O-/--     ----+----	    --\-O-/-- He conquered death and Hell.
   \|/		  |            \|/ 
    |		  |	        |     Just a servant of the Most High
    |	  	  |	        |       learn@lafcol.uucp

--------------------

From: greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman)
Subject: Re: Deckard IS a Replicant
Date: 24 May 89 00:43:13 GMT
Reply-To: greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman)
Organization: Schlumberger ATE, San Jose, CA

>>I would say it does - but that Deckard is *NOT* a replicant - from the
>>*MOVIE* _AS IS_ there are no hints as to Deckard being a replicant.

Yes, this *has* been beaten to death on rec.arts.sf-lovers, but I
can't let this go by.  WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF DECKARD IS A
REPLICANT?  He is then simply an artificial creation destroying other
artificial creations.  How could we identify with him?

He says in a voice-over that his wife used to call him "Sushi - Cold
Fish", as in "no emotions, no passion".

Consider the IRONY (you know what that is, right?) if Deckard is
human, yet passionless, and is destroying artificial constructs
created passionless, yet unexpectedly develop human emotions.  You
see?  He's more of a machine than they are, and they more human, yet
he's gunning them down and he's a hero.  A "killing machine" his boss
calls him.

Now, to complicate things, he's starting to have doubts about what
he's doing.  Is he really just retiring machines, or are they people?
Now, along comes Rachel, who is as human as anyone he knows, and has
the same kind of doubts about herself as he does, only from the
OPPOSITE SIDE!  (She thought she was human and discovers she's
artificial.  He's wondering if he isn't less human than they.) Don't
you see the symmetry?  It's *ruined* if Deckard is assumed to be
replicant.

>The replicants in the story are in almost
>every respect indistinguishable from humans, except from looking closely
>at their eyes through Voigt-Kampf tests, or ( in some cases, perhaps not
>Rachel's or others ) increased strength and tolerance of pain.  You
>might argue that Deckard had less tolerance for pain than the replicants.
>However, he had a pretty good grip on the edge of that slippery building 
>considering he had a freshly broken finger.

Damn straight they were stronger and felt almost no pain.  Look what
happens to Roy in that last sequence, and he barely feels it.
Deckard's got a couple of broken fingers, and he can barely function.
Roy graps him by one hand (and a spike, ouch) and with *one arm*, lifts
him up and onto the building.  Deckard could barely hold on with both
arms, and certainly wan't close to pulling himself up.  Roy also had
no problem with the jump that Deckard almost didn't make.

The Voigt-Kompf test measured *emotional* response (blush response,
pupil dilation, perspiration, heart rate).  This is essentially a
lie-detector test.  Lie detectors only work on people who have been
"taught" right from wrong, who have a conscience and feel guilt and
emotions.  The replicants, presumably because they had no conscience,
would *always* pass a lie detector test, even when known to be lying.
Rachel was tougher (but still failed!) because she had the same
memories of growing-up discipline as a human, but it wasn't enough.

>With the ability to program
>human memories into their brains you can't discount that Deckard could be
>a replicant.  Did anyone ever stop and ask why they had Deckard without
>a wife in the movie where he had one in the book?  If he had a wife in
>the movie, the programmed memory theory for Deckard would have been harder
>to support.  Without a wife he seems as vulnerable as Rachel to this plot
>twist.

He had a wife, he mentioned her.  She'd left him, I assume, because he
was "cold fish".  That could *not* have been an implant for reasons I
will get to in a moment.  Much more likely is that it was one less
actor to pay, the film was shorter, and she wasn't essential to the
plot.

This implantation technique was *new*.  Rachel was the first of her
kind.  If this wasn't implicitly stated, it was strongly suggested by
the fact that Deckard himself was surprised that "How could it not
know what it is?".  This was new to him, and to Gaff ("Too bad she
won't live") and his boss, who are supposed to be experts.

Deckard had been a Blade Runner, and then quit.  Would they let a
replicant quit and not retire him?  Slaves can't quit.  If he was a
replicant, he was a much older model, had a 4-year life span, and sure
as hell didn't have any implants.  But if he only had 4 years to live,
then the line about not knowing how much time they'd have is wrong.
Sorry, it doesn't wash.

>A law against replicants on earth isn't proof either.  A law is just as
>good as the paper its written on.  And sometimes the law ( the
>authorities ) is above the law, if you get my drift.  Why send a human
>being on a job where he might get killed?  Why not a replicant that
>thinks he's a human.  If he knows he's a replicant he might turn on his
>human management for forcing him to kill one of his own.  And if he
>can have superior skills to a human, he would serve as a better match
>to the replicants he's following.

The implied rationale behind the death sentence for replicants was
that, since they were nearly undetectable, you couldn't have them
passing as humans, sort of the ultimate racist attitude.  Humans
didn't want to have to wonder if everyone they came in contact with
wasn't a machine, so they were outlawed (the revolt was only an
excuse).  Making exceptions would have been unthinkable.

You heard what Deckard said about his boss, that he despised "skin
jobs".  If Deckard was a "skin job", would the guy have offered him a
drink?  I think not.  The guy also said, "You know the score, pal.  If
you're not cop, you're little people."  This strongly implies that
Deckard is human, not replicant.  Otherwise, a much stronger threat
could easily have been used here.

>I believe that the glowing eyes are motifs, or symbols that a filmmaker
>uses to tell the viewer something.  They aren't necessarily
>distinguishable features to the characters themselves in their world.
>The one scene where Deckard's eyes are glowing is interesting.  Rachel
>in the foreground has glowing eyes as well.  It could be an accident
>that the lighting hit Deckard's eyes as well in the background as well,
>or is it...?  One can't tell.  Again the ambiguity.  And Iiii LIKE it!
>It makes people ask these questions...

Yes, it is an artifact of the lighting and the low camera angles being
used.  It has no symbolic value, only an atmospheric one.  If you look
at all the counter arguments I've stated, honestly and rationally, you
will see that Deckard as replicant doesn't stand up against the film
as a whole.

Of course there are *parallels*, there are supposed to be parallels.
*That's* the point of the film.

--
Greg Wageman			DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies	UUCP:   ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg
1601 Technology Drive		BIX:    gwage
San Jose, CA 95110-1397		CIS:    74016,352
(408) 437-5198			GEnie:  G.WAGEMAN
"Live Free; Die Anyway."
Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.

--------------------

From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Journeyman Millrat)
Subject: Re: Deckard IS a Replicant
Date: 24 May 89 10:20:57 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

} Yes, this *has* been beaten to death on rec.arts.sf-lovers, but I
} can't let this go by.  WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF DECKARD IS A
} REPLICANT?

} Consider the IRONY (you know what that is, right?) if Deckard is
} human, yet passionless, and is destroying artificial constructs
} created passionless, yet unexpectedly develop human emotions.  You
} see?  He's more of a machine than they are, and they more human, yet
} he's gunning them down and he's a hero.

I agree with this. In fact, one of the tv-show reviewers remarked, as
an objection to the film, that the replicants acted more human than
the humans, completely missing the whole *point*.

} Now, to complicate things, he's starting to have doubts about what
} he's doing.  Is he really just retiring machines, or are they people?
} Now, along comes Rachel, who is as human as anyone he knows, and has
} the same kind of doubts about herself as he does, only from the
} OPPOSITE SIDE!  (She thought she was human and discovers she's
} artificial.  He's wondering if he isn't less human than they.) Don't
} you see the symmetry?  It's *ruined* if Deckard is assumed to be
} replicant.

The symmetry may be ruined, but if it wasn't a planned symmetry, then
what's the problem.

If Deckard is indeed a replicant (and all indications seem to be that
that is what Ridley Scott and the screenwriters had in mind all along),
the point of the film becomes even stronger. That is, that *we* think
he's human all along, and when we find out he isn't, we realize that
the borderline between human and not-human is even less distinct. I can
see it as sort of a "double-jeopardy" to help the viewer see the point
via Deckard if not via Roy Batty. Perhaps if, in the final cut, Deckard
*was* shown to be a replicant, then perhaps the above-mentioned reviewer
would not have missed the point.

Your other arguments against Deckard being a replicant are quite
reasonable, though it's quite possible that many of them might have
been explained away in previous versions of the script.

---
jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP:	...!decwrl!ruby.dec.com!boyajian
	or       asabet.dec.com
ARPA:	boyajian%ruby.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM
	or     asabet.DEC

--------------------

From: lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann)
Subject: Re: Deckard IS a Replicant
Date: 25 May 89 01:26:39 GMT

> He had a wife, he mentioned her.  She'd left him, I assume, because he
> was "cold fish".  That could *not* have been an implant for reasons I
> will get to in a moment... This implantation technique was *new*.
> Rachel was the first of her
> kind.  If this wasn't implicitly stated, it was strongly suggested by
> the fact that Deckard himself was surprised that "How could it not
> know what it is?".  This was new to him, and to Gaff ("Too bad she
> won't live") and his boss, who are supposed to be experts.

I don't have strong feelings either way about Deckert.  I know when I first
saw the movie, the notion of him being a replicant never entered my mind.
But I happened to watch the movie again last week.  And taking a character's
words as "truth"  (Rachel is the first of her kind) is silly!

One similarity the replicants appeared to have in common was that
they appeared emotionally muted unless threatened.  So Deckert MAY
have been married, or that memory MAY have been implanted.
Who knows?  There's no evidence in the movie that Deckert's wife
had been an actual person.

Did you notice the photographs on Deckert's piano?  The camera REALLY
lingers over those photographs, particularly after Deckert muses
that replicants "don't collect photographs."

> >A law against replicants on earth isn't proof either.  A law is just as
> >good as the paper its written on.  And sometimes the law ( the
> >authorities ) is above the law, if you get my drift.  Why send a human
> >being on a job where he might get killed?  Why not a replicant that
> >thinks he's a human.  If he knows he's a replicant he might turn on his
> >human management for forcing him to kill one of his own.  And if he
> >can have superior skills to a human, he would serve as a better match
> >to the replicants he's following.
> 
> The implied rationale behind the death sentence for replicants was
> that, since they were nearly undetectable, you couldn't have them
> passing as humans, sort of the ultimate racist attitude.

I thought there were INCREDIBLY racist attitudes expressed towards the
replicants from very early in the movie.  And they WERE passing as humans.
If they weren't passing as humans, HOW could Leon kill the testor as easily
as he did? One important point of the movie was that replicants COULD
pass as humans, and could only be detected by a fairly sophisticated
set of tests.

/*Life is like a roller coaster, but I'm glad to be tall enough to ride*/
Laurie Mann  **  harvard!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** encore!cloud9!jjmhome!lmann
Work:  Stratus Computer			 I log onto the net from Northboro, MA

--------------------

From: yao@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (Chia-Heng Yao)
Subject: Re: Reviewers change of heart (Blade Runner)
Date: 7 Oct 89 05:46:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

boyajian@ruby.dec.com (The Mad Armenian) writes:
> (charles s. geiger, esq.) writes...
>
>} HOWEVER, you still *have to have a story*. And Blade Runner didn't
>} really have a story. I watched it twice; the second time I was even
>} more bored than the first. And that was a real shame: you create an
>} incredibly detailed, wonderfully depressing world, and then you put
>} nothing in it. And the ending! God.
>
>I certainly can't defend the ending, but I thought the rest of the film
>had a perfectly good story. I've seen the film well over a dozen times
>now, and I think I find it more fascinating each time.
>

Why is everybody panning the ending? I thought the whole point of Roy
Batty's death was to give Deckard and Rachel a new future.  Otherwise
(thematically) why does he have to die (and save Deckard before he
died)? Roy is clear the Christ figure: poetic, athletic, intelligent
(the chess scene) - physically and mentally the best among all
characters (seem like Nietzsche's idea of the Christ).  He is the son of
the "demi-god" Tyrell went wayward.  Like Christ, his Death and Ascent
redeemed all people (the flight-of-dove scene underlines the metaphor of
divinity).  Deckard's monologue tells it all: "..  Maybe at the end of
his life, he cherishs life more than ever before.  Not just his life. 
All life.  My life."(sic.) Roy's metamorphosis is the metamorphosis of
the whole film.  Notice that the moment life left him (the little white
dove flies out over the smokestack), the incessant rain that shrouds the
landscape from the very beginning melts away without a trace.  Then
follows the turnaround of Deckard's fellow detective, then the escape. 
If you look carefully the happy ending will seem a lot more developed
and not jarring at all. 

Just as Roy's soul, freed of his earthly (or cybernetic?) burden, soars
high into the sky, Deckard, Rachel and the audience is also pulled
along, up, up and away from the dark and seedy landscape that has
engulfed us through the whole time.  I find that very liberating,
although Ridley could've done better than picking off the leftovers from
_the Shining_ ;-). 

--
Jerry Yao
.sig vetoed

--------------------

From: dougm@isieng.UUCP (The Manic Tinker)
Subject: Re: Reviewers change of heart (Blade Runner)
Date: 9 Oct 89 16:38:50 GMT
Organization: Integrated Solutions, Inc., San Jose, CA

yao@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (Chia-Heng Yao) writes:
>Why is everybody panning the ending?  I thought the whole point of
>Roy Batty's death was to give Deckard and Rachel a new future.
[interesting analysis of the ending deleted]

Except that Roy had no knowledge of Rachel's existence at all.  Which
leaves us back with Deckard's thought:  as death approached, life itself
became precious to Roy.  Since he couldn't save his own, he saved
Deckard's.

The ending has been panned for several reasons:
a) It is totally out of tune with the rest of the film
b) It is not the ending Ridley Scott wanted; it was tacked
   on by the studio later
c) It is totally unnecessary

Think of how the film would be *without* the extra "happy"
ending.  Deckard would know that Gaff wouldn't come after
him, nor would anyone else.  But how long would Rachel live?
Four years was what he could expect.  Bittersweet.  It gives
me the same kind of feeling as my favorite Heinlein story,
The Tale of the Adopted Daughter.  It is better to have loved
and lost, than never to have loved at all.  Even when
the love is doomed to be lost from the start.

Like I say, bittersweet.

-- 
    Doug Moran         |  "I just love songs about extra-terrestrial
 {ames,decwrl,...}!    |   beings, don't you?"
pyramid!isieng!dougm   |  "Not when they're *sung* by extra-terrestrials."

--------------------

From: rgr@cbnewsm.ATT.COM (robert.g.robillard)
Subject: Blade Runner isn't Film Noir?
Date: 10 Oct 89 17:14:45 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) writes:
>I would not classify Blade Runner as a film noir although it captures
>the look of a film noir perfectly. It has a happy ending. Even the
>original ending is a happy ending. 

Boy, I never thought about that before.  He's right.  Even if you
end the film with Harrison and Rachel getting into the elevator,
it's too close to a happy ending for real noir.  

Actually, even if Deckard had found Rachel dead and Graf and
some cops standing over the body, there are problems.
The whole Rachel/Deckard relationship is non-noir.
Look at _The_Maltese_Falcon_ (the canonical film noir).  Spade
is in love with Brigit, and probably vice versa, but that 
doesn't keep them from stabbing each other in the back, over and
over again.  Hmmm..

Suppose Deckard shows up at home after Batty dies.  Rachel is
there with a gun and Graf's body. 

Deckard: (that confused look Ford does so well) What happened?

Rachel:  He knew.  He followed you.  He knew and Tyrell knew.
         And Tyrell's Nexus team.  But they're dead now too.

Deckard: (looks at the gun) You killed....

Rachel:  (raises the gun a little)  They built me different.  No 
        termination date.  And now no one knows.  So that
        means I'm human.

Deckard: (cautiously, responding to the "I'm human" comment) 
        I know... (stops, realizing he sounded as if he was
        saying that he knew, the way Graf and Tyrell's people
        knew...)

Rachel:  (misunderstanding Deckard entirely, raises the gun) 
        That's right, you know. (fires)

    Deckard returns fire, misses, hits some electronics that spark
    in a cool bit of pyrotechnics. Rachel fires again, and 
    Deckard falls and dies.  Rachel stands there a minute. A
    tear runs down her check.  She steps over to Deckard and 
    kisses him, just the way Roy kissed Pris.  She leaves.

    Fade to Black

Now THAT'S noir, baby.

-- 
Duke Robillard
Internet: rgr@m21ux.att.com
UUCP:     {backbone!}att!m21ux!rgr

--------------------

From: greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman)
Subject: Re: Blade Runner voice overs
Date: 24 Oct 89 20:57:26 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger ATE, San Jose, CA

Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author.

bush@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu.UUCP (Darren Bush) writes:
>Jeffrey A. Hallett writes:
>>
>>Come on.  The voice-overs are great.  They add that element of the old
>>detective movies (most of Blade Runner reminded me of those).
>
>Yeah, but if you try to edit the VOs out with your mind, you are left
>with a much different film.  In fact, Blade Runner does not resemble an old
>dectective film at all, in my opinion.

If you edit *anything* out of a film (scenes, music, sound, dialogue),
you are left with a different film, obviously.  The question is, is it
better?

As you say, it's your opinion, but Deckard is playing the hard-nosed
detective through a good part of the film (until the climactic scene
with Batty).  The scene where Deckard finds the photos in the drawer,
the scale in the bathtub (a bathroom scale? Sorry.), its type and
maker, and Zhora's reflection in the mirror all demonstrate good,
solid detective work.

>Maybe (just maybe) if the VOs were less conspicuous and better written,
>e.g.:
>	"Skin jobs is what (BLANK) called replicants.  He's the kind of man
>	who used to call black men 'niggers'..."
>
>  ...then they would be more welcome.  But lines like these are insulting!
>It's like the writers said, "Let's write a line that will tell even the
>most idiotic viewer that (BLANK) is a bigot."  Duh.

[The man's name is "Bryant".  Captain Bryant.]

I disagree.  The audience had no way of knowing that "skin jobs" was a
slur without some sort of exposition.  I feel that this line
succinctly relates the fact that "skin job" is a slur, Bryant is a
biggot, and that since this is a fairly high-ranking police official,
this might actually be socially acceptable.

What would have been insulting is a line like, "Bryant's a red-neck
who, like a lot of people, thinks that replicants are less than
human."  Besides having more flair, the line as spoken is effective at
drawing the parallel between the situation and treatment of the
replicants and that of Negro slaves in the 1800's, without spelling
that out for us.

>I think that if a person with reasonable mental capacities watched Blade
>Runner a few times he or she would pick up the subtleties without the "I
>didn't need an interpreter I knew the lingo every good cop did" lines.  In
>fact, I think most people would like it better that way.  Or do we all want
>it handed to us so our brains don't have to think....  TV has ruined the
>minds of America.  Laugh tracks, infantile scripts with no depth, etc.  No
>wonder they used VOs. 

Without an additional, or altered, scene where Deckard demonstrates he
can speak and understand the "gutter talk", we couldn't deduce that
information.  (In fact, we might infer that Deckard is rather stupid
if he can't speak the local dialect.)  Deckard told us a lot about
himself in the voice-overs that wasn't brought out in the action, and
couldn't have been without many more scenes (e.g. "Sushi").  The film
would lose quite a bit if all the voice-overs were removed and nothing
else was changed to compensate.

>>BTW, Rachael was played by Sean  Young.  Did Sean  also play  Chani in
>>'Dune'?  I'd check the video, but  I don't have access to  it - just a
>>picture from the Dune  soundtrack album jacket  that  looks a LOT like
>>Sean.  Hot chick - scrambled brains. :^)

She sure did!  The Laser Disc jacket has a picture of Chani with Paul
in what was obviously a love scene-- one that never appeared in the
film as released!

		**Blade Runner trivia**

As a bit of interesting trivia, notice the scene where Deckard
confronts Ali Ben Hassan ("The Egyptian", who made the snake).  The
dialogue on the soundtrack is in no way, shape or form what is being
spoken by the actors!

Copyright 1989 Greg Wageman	DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies	UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg
San Jose, CA 95110-1397		BIX: gwage  CIS: 74016,352  GEnie: G.WAGEMAN
        Permission granted for not-for-profit reproduction only.

--------------------

From: greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman)
Subject: Re: Voice overs in Blade Runner
Date: 24 Oct 89 21:33:47 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger ATE, San Jose, CA

Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author.

niall@astro.as.utexas.edu (Niall Ives Gaffney) writes:
>
>It was my understanding that the original version of Blade Runner
>was shown in "selected cities" and was not met with praise.  In this
>version there was no last scene with our hero riding off into the sunset
>with the girl, but rather ended with them getting into the elevator.
>Another point of interest that, though I didn't catch myself but was
>pointed out to me by others, was that there are hints all through the 
>movie hinting that Decker is also replicant.  

I was hoping this was a joke, but I see no smileys, so...

Essentially, what people have been mistaking for suggestions that
Deckard [note spelling] is a replicant are the intentional parallels
between Deckard's stated lack of humanity and the artificiality of the
replicants.  In other words, Ridley Scott wanted us to see that
Deckard was less "human", in the spiritual sense, than the constructs
he was killing.

In fact, Deckard's emotional development, which we witness, parallels
that of the replicants, who, we are told, develop their own emotional
responses within their four-year lifespan.

To take these hints as suggesting Deckard is truly non-human is
misguided at best, and in my opinion misses the basic question of
the film: what makes us human?

Copyright 1989 Greg Wageman	DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies	UUCP:   {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg
San Jose, CA 95110-1397		BIX: gwage  CIS: 74016,352  GEnie: G.WAGEMAN
        Permission granted for not-for-profit reproduction only.

---------- cut here -------------------- snip snip ----------