2583 lines
118 KiB
Plaintext
2583 lines
118 KiB
Plaintext
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 ----------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|