both ebert and siskel trash blade runner. a couple of dummies.
The Sun Tribe
Bill Anderson
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNeN1c&feature=related
Siskel didn't much like it, but Ebert gave it the 1982 version of
"thumbs up." Ten years later Gene had mellowed; he liked the director's
cut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu9Dbe4soXQ&feature=related
I've liked every version, especially the most recent. It's so obvious
we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant -- I don't understand
why anybody questions that.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
JD@royston.com Mark JD
news:74Sdne0Sjr7eBffURVn_vwA@
> It's so obvious we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant
No it isn't.
> -- I don't understand why anybody questions that.
Because it neither adds anything to the film, nor explains or deepens
anything in it.
M.
mimus
> The Sun Tribe wrote:
>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNeN1c&feature=related
>
> Siskel didn't much like it, but Ebert gave it the 1982 version of
> "thumbs up." Ten years later Gene had mellowed; he liked the director's
> cut:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu9Dbe4soXQ&feature=related
>
> I've liked every version, especially the most recent.
Did they ever finally get the number of rogue replicants right?
Eight were supposed to have pirated a ship and headed for Earth, but the
original theatrical release only accounted for seven.
> It's so obvious we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant -- I
> don't understand why anybody questions that.
_Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was so damned confused or confusing
there was a whole police-station composed of rogue androids . . . .
But, yeah, there's a suggestion of that in _Blade Runner_, at least in the
original theatrical release, basically just Rachel asking Deckard-- who
had fallen asleep-- if he'd ever taken the test (and still no more than
that in the second release); was it made explicit in the most recent?
--
It's too bad she won't live.
But then again, who does?
< _Blade Runner_
Alie...@gmail.com
Because it's silly. If Blase Runner (or the novel DADOES) has a
"point", it's that "natural" humans and replicants are in much the
same boat; as much as the replicants complain about having limited
opportunity for experience in their artificially-shortened lives, the
same actually applies to "natural" humans- our opportunities for
experience are also time-limited. The only significant difference is
that we don't know a priori what the limit is.
Mark L. Fergerson
Flas...@live.com
>
> _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was so damned confused or confusing
> there was a whole police-station composed of rogue androids . . . .
>
> But, yeah, there's a suggestion of that in _Blade Runner_, at least in the
> original theatrical release, basically just Rachel asking Deckard-- who
> had fallen asleep-- if he'd ever taken the test (and still no more than
> that in the second release); was it made explicit in the most recent?
Not to mention Dick and the "academical polemics" -- where he's
garnered some reputability for 'dealing in ideological complexities
with a singular disregard of literacy, evidently because he's
imminently so simplistically capable.' Hope I've paraphrased that
right from memory. Personally, after also having read it, I did not
find the work as much challenging as lacking, stylistically,
distinctiveness (I may working on rectifying that, and yet assay Dick
for further compositions);- nor do I see anything more to it that
would suggest, as do you, a belief supportive that he would indeed be
a Replicant. What blows me away is simply the film, an entirety of
mood and wonder Ridley Scott grandly took upon to transpose, from a
somewhat difficult written rendition, into so stunning of a futuresque
medium. Which I'd like to have seen more developed (from whatever
restrictions filming imposed upon Ridley) occur along JF Sebastian
setting. A mentally impared "chickenhead" of Dick's coinage, living in
castes at an outside perimeter of what's left of semi-abandonment to
an extant on-world society comprises. The Ray Badbury museum, an
esoteric structure of architecture modernity, in San Franciso,
comprised the scenery of JF's habitat, though dark and dankly treated,
(again, within limits of restrictions during the actual filming),
which may have added an added resonance to Dick's depictions, were it
fleshed-in for a refuge point and shift Pris takes the movie, along
with developing a more faithful rendition of relegated aversion she
defers, past sitting in the doorway across from the Roxio, upon
befriending JF, who, also by Dick's treatment, is near imbecilic for a
character entity.
Mike Schilling
Bill Anderson
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:09:22 -0500, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
>> The Sun Tribe wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNeN1c&feature=related
>> Siskel didn't much like it, but Ebert gave it the 1982 version of
>> "thumbs up." Ten years later Gene had mellowed; he liked the director's
>> cut:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu9Dbe4soXQ&feature=related
>>
>> I've liked every version, especially the most recent.
>
> Did they ever finally get the number of rogue replicants right?
Yep, they got it right.
>
> Eight were supposed to have pirated a ship and headed for Earth, but the
> original theatrical release only accounted for seven.
>
>> It's so obvious we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant -- I
>> don't understand why anybody questions that.
>
> _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was so damned confused or confusing
> there was a whole police-station composed of rogue androids . . . .
>
> But, yeah, there's a suggestion of that in _Blade Runner_, at least in the
> original theatrical release, basically just Rachel asking Deckard-- who
> had fallen asleep-- if he'd ever taken the test (and still no more than
> that in the second release); was it made explicit in the most recent?
>
It's always been implicit -- and that's part of the movie's spell.
There's also the fact that Edward James Olmos knows what Deckerd is
dreaming. And Deckerd's eyes glow. And he keeps all those photographs
around for reassurance. And don't forget the whole point of Blade
Runner is whether there really is a difference between humans and
Cylons, I mean replicants. (Oh look! Edward James Olmos!) Anybody who
thinks it's an open question whether Deckerd is a replicant probably
hasn't yet grasped that Tony Soprano got whacked.
mimus
> On Jan 11, 8:28 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was so damned confused or confusing
>> there was a whole police-station composed of rogue androids . . . .
>>
>> But, yeah, there's a suggestion of that in _Blade Runner_, at least in the
>> original theatrical release, basically just Rachel asking Deckard-- who
>> had fallen asleep-- if he'd ever taken the test (and still no more than
>> that in the second release); was it made explicit in the most recent?
>
> Not to mention Dick and the "academical polemics" -- where he's
> garnered some reputability for 'dealing in ideological complexities
> with a singular disregard of literacy, evidently because he's
> imminently so simplistically capable.' Hope I've paraphrased that
> right from memory.
It probably makes as much sense as the original . . . .
> Personally, after also having read it, I did not
> find the work as much challenging as lacking, stylistically,
> distinctiveness (I may working on rectifying that, and yet assay Dick
> for further compositions);- nor do I see anything more to it that
> would suggest, as do you, a belief supportive that he would indeed be
> a Replicant.
Leaving it hanging may well've been a deliberate tease.
> What blows me away is simply the film, an entirety of
> mood and wonder Ridley Scott grandly took upon to transpose, from a
> somewhat difficult written rendition, into so stunning of a futuresque
> medium. Which I'd like to have seen more developed (from whatever
> restrictions filming imposed upon Ridley) occur along JF Sebastian
> setting. A mentally impared "chickenhead" of Dick's coinage, living in
> castes at an outside perimeter of what's left of semi-abandonment to
> an extant on-world society comprises. The Ray Badbury museum, an
> esoteric structure of architecture modernity, in San Franciso,
> comprised the scenery of JF's habitat, though dark and dankly treated,
> (again, within limits of restrictions during the actual filming),
> which may have added an added resonance to Dick's depictions, were it
> fleshed-in for a refuge point and shift Pris takes the movie, along
> with developing a more faithful rendition of relegated aversion she
> defers, past sitting in the doorway across from the Roxio, upon
> befriending JF, who, also by Dick's treatment, is near imbecilic for a
> character entity.
<blink>
Um . . . well, J. F. was an accomplished genetic designer, albeit
physically-impaired, and combining that with a no doubt severe case of
"geekdom" emotionally-stunted, and easy prey for that chilling if
lovely bitch Pris acting under Roy's Machiavellian orders, as he played
his "chess game" moving up the ladder to "meet his maker", from Chu to J.
F., and from J. F to Tyrell . . . .
And I think the words spoken by one of J. F.'s "nice toys" really serve as
epitome to the movie (see .sig).
Resonance!
--
Good evening, J. F.
< _Blade Runner_
mimus
> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:09:22 -0500, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> The Sun Tribe wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNeN1c&feature=related
>>>
>>> Siskel didn't much like it, but Ebert gave it the 1982 version of
>>> "thumbs up." Ten years later Gene had mellowed; he liked the director's
>>> cut:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu9Dbe4soXQ&feature=related
>>>
>>> I've liked every version, especially the most recent.
>>
>> Did they ever finally get the number of rogue replicants right?
>
> Yep, they got it right.
Did the final one of the eight actually show up as a character, or was he
or she just an "info-dump", like the one who got fried trying to break
into the Tyrell Corporation's headquarters?
>> Eight were supposed to have pirated a ship and headed for Earth, but
>> the original theatrical release only accounted for seven.
>>
>>> It's so obvious we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant -- I
>>> don't understand why anybody questions that.
>>
>> _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was so damned confused or
>> confusing there was a whole police-station composed of rogue androids .
>> . . .
>>
>> But, yeah, there's a suggestion of that in _Blade Runner_, at least in
>> the original theatrical release, basically just Rachel asking Deckard--
>> who had fallen asleep-- if he'd ever taken the test (and still no more
>> than that in the second release); was it made explicit in the most
>> recent?
>
> It's always been implicit -- and that's part of the movie's spell.
> There's also the fact that Edward James Olmos knows what Deckerd is
> dreaming.
? Don't remember that.
> And Deckerd's eyes glow.
? Don't remember that. Or for that matter the replicants' eyes glowing,
although now that I think about it I have a vague impression that there
was at one point or another the infamous photographic "red eye" effect
deliberately played up.
I guess I need to re-watch, hardly an onerous duty (I have the second
edition, the major differences in which seem to be some fairly ghastly
extensions of the death-scenes of Zhora and Pris).
> And he keeps all those photographs around for reassurance.
I definitely remember that, and it's a startling point to me.
> And don't forget the whole point of Blade
> Runner is whether there really is a difference between humans and
> Cylons, I mean replicants. (Oh look! Edward James Olmos!) Anybody who
> thinks it's an open question whether Deckerd is a replicant probably
> hasn't yet grasped that Tony Soprano got whacked.
It's an open question. Then again, I never even watched _The Sopranos_.
--
How do you like our owl?
< _Blade Runner_
mimus
It adds irony, or, as it is, a tantalizing ironic possibility.
--
You sure have some nice toys here.
< _Blade Runner_
mimus
That would make the ambiguity in Rachel's (to her, at least) and maybe
Deckard's cases all that more poignant and telling, wouldn't it?
--
The facts of life.
< _Blade Runner_
Bill Anderson
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:53:34 -0500, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:09:22 -0500, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Sun Tribe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNeN1c&feature=related
>>>> Siskel didn't much like it, but Ebert gave it the 1982 version of
>>>> "thumbs up." Ten years later Gene had mellowed; he liked the director's
>>>> cut:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu9Dbe4soXQ&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> I've liked every version, especially the most recent.
>>> Did they ever finally get the number of rogue replicants right?
>> Yep, they got it right.
>
> Did the final one of the eight actually show up as a character, or was he
> or she just an "info-dump", like the one who got fried trying to break
> into the Tyrell Corporation's headquarters?
It was just a line of dialogue -- no new character.
>
>>> Eight were supposed to have pirated a ship and headed for Earth, but
>>> the original theatrical release only accounted for seven.
>>>
>>>> It's so obvious we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant -- I
>>>> don't understand why anybody questions that.
>>> _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_ was so damned confused or
>>> confusing there was a whole police-station composed of rogue androids .
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> But, yeah, there's a suggestion of that in _Blade Runner_, at least in
>>> the original theatrical release, basically just Rachel asking Deckard--
>>> who had fallen asleep-- if he'd ever taken the test (and still no more
>>> than that in the second release); was it made explicit in the most
>>> recent?
>> It's always been implicit -- and that's part of the movie's spell.
>> There's also the fact that Edward James Olmos knows what Deckerd is
>> dreaming.
>
> ? Don't remember that.
Deckerd dreamed of a unicorn. EJO very carefully folded an origami
unicorn and dropped it where Deckerd could see -- a clear statement to
Deckerd and the audience that EJO knew how Deckerd's mind had been
programmed.
>
>> And Deckerd's eyes glow.
>
> ? Don't remember that. Or for that matter the replicants' eyes glowing,
> although now that I think about it I have a vague impression that there
> was at one point or another the infamous photographic "red eye" effect
> deliberately played up.
The glowing eyes were featured as part of the "are you a replicant?"
test. (Voight-Kampff test. I just Googled it.) Later, when Deckerd was
walking across a dark room, we saw his eyes glow.
>
> I guess I need to re-watch, hardly an onerous duty (I have the second
> edition, the major differences in which seem to be some fairly ghastly
> extensions of the death-scenes of Zhora and Pris).
>
>> And he keeps all those photographs around for reassurance.
>
> I definitely remember that, and it's a startling point to me.
>
>> And don't forget the whole point of Blade
>> Runner is whether there really is a difference between humans and
>> Cylons, I mean replicants. (Oh look! Edward James Olmos!) Anybody who
>> thinks it's an open question whether Deckerd is a replicant probably
>> hasn't yet grasped that Tony Soprano got whacked.
>
> It's an open question. Then again, I never even watched _The Sopranos_.
>
To some, it's an open question where exactly Charlton Heston really is
at the end of Planet of the Apes. Sigh.
Bill Patterson
I think the astonishing resurgence of Dick's popularity has someting
to do with the growth of postmodernism;sheer coincidence that dick
used so many tropes that Baudrillard incorporated into postmodern
theory.
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> It's always been implicit -- and that's part of the movie's spell.
> There's also the fact that Edward James Olmos knows what Deckerd is
> dreaming. And Deckerd's eyes glow. And he keeps all those photographs
> around for reassurance. And don't forget the whole point of Blade
> Runner is whether there really is a difference between humans and
> Cylons, I mean replicants. (Oh look! Edward James Olmos!) Anybody who
> thinks it's an open question whether Deckerd is a replicant probably
> hasn't yet grasped that Tony Soprano got whacked.
Harrison Ford doesn't think Deckard is a replicant.
--
“You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can
hear it you can have it." - Dizzy Gillespie
htn963
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNeN1c&feature=related
>
> Siskel didn't much like it,
Neither did Leonard Maltin. It was also panned by many major
magazines like Time -- main reason being that the villain (Rutger
Hauer) was much more powerful and compelling than the "hero" (Harrison
Ford).
>but Ebert gave it the 1982 version of
> "thumbs up." Ten years later Gene had mellowed; he liked the director's
> cut:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu9Dbe4soXQ&feature=related
>
> I've liked every version, especially the most recent.
I prefer any version without Ford's narrative. The guy has always been
one of my favorite actors but dramatic narration is not his strong
point.
> It's so obvious
> we're supposed to conclude Deckerd is a replicant -- I don't understand
> why anybody questions that.
It's not that obvious in the pre-director cut's version (esp. without
the unicorn dream sequence) AND when you consider that Ford's
character is much less smart and strong than the other replicants --
even somewhat of a wimp by normal human standards. And if happens to
be a defective model, he would have been long discarded.
--
Ht
Wayne Throop
:: anything in it.
: Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net>
: That's true. But it doesn't deepen it any if he's human.
Well, as you say earlier, the symmetry. Maybe that doesn't
count as "deeper", but it seems a more... elegant way to go.
Of course the reverse has the "ooooooh, spooky, what's real,
maybe *every*thing's fake, dude" thing going for it.
Which doesn't appeal to me.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
fake-name
The first time I settled down to watch "the director's cut" was a
showing on TV, not long after that version first appeared.
The station announcer emphasised: "The Director's Cut of Blade Runner".
I saw no difference from the original release.
Later I realised.
Despite the announcer's claim - it wasn't the "the director's cut".
So, in that case, everything really was fake...
The Lunar Clan
wrote:
> This has nothing to do with written SF.
mooies must first be written. there is a thing called screenplay.
Abrigon Gusiq
Or about what is human? Much like how some groups see other groups as
non-human, even if they are human, or proved to be human.
Much of the wars of the 19th century, was about Europeans seeing non-
Europeans as not quite or almost human, or close. Even those of the
same "Race" but not quite the same.. Or if you was really us, you
would be not living in one of the colonies?
Or just about how DNA can be misused?
Sorry, trying to find some ways to explain how Terminator and its
world, came about, but also how it could go, or Matrix.. And other
like movies/books, such as I'Robot..
But also how the ideals and views of the authors time period and the
fears and realities of things effected the books they wrote.
Just its interesting to note some shows on TV, book and movies do
well, and some do not, but what is a reflect of what? Movies showing
what people think and or fear, or it helps bring about the fear? or
just fears.
Blade Runner, an expression or it just tied into a deep hidden needs,
angers, fears and such of the US and where else, it came out at and
was popular?
Mike
mimus
> Just its interesting to note some shows on TV, book and movies do
> well, and some do not, but what is a reflect of what? Movies showing
> what people think and or fear, or it helps bring about the fear? or
> just fears.
>
> Blade Runner, an expression or it just tied into a deep hidden needs,
> angers, fears and such of the US and where else, it came out at and
> was popular?
Don't forget spectacle, action, several love stories (all but one ending
tragically), a fine sound-track and a star actor . . . .
--
Time to die.
< _Blade Runner_
JD@royston.com Mark JD
> unicorn and dropped it where Deckerd could see -- a clear statement to
> Deckerd and the audience that EJO knew how Deckerd's mind had been
> programmed.
The unicorn sequence (footage from 'Legend') wasn't even filmed when the
first 'Blade Runner' was made.
MJD
mimus
I certainly don't remember it, having seen the first two versions but not
the final.
It sounds cheesy, which is to say, I can't really see the character
"Deckard"-- retired "blade runner", "retirer" of "replicants"-- dreaming
of unicorns . . . .
I think I'll stick with the "Director's Cut".
--
Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.
mimus
> --
>
> Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.
Tennis-group .sig alert.
mimus is posting 'way too early with 'way too little coffee down again.
--
Where am I, Dove?
< _The Einstein Intersection_
Flas...@live.com
>
> Leaving it hanging may well've been a deliberate tease.
That's the way I'm reading it from a Ripley angle to his fanbase.
> Um . . . well, J. F. was an accomplished genetic designer, albeit
> physically-impaired, and combining that with a no doubt severe case of
> "geekdom" emotionally-stunted, and easy prey for that chilling if
> lovely bitch Pris acting under Roy's Machiavellian orders, as he played
> his "chess game" moving up the ladder to "meet his maker", from Chu to J.
> F., and from J. F to Tyrell . . . .
Differences from the book -- Ripley plays him in the movie according
to that profile, facets among fractures of a wisdom incapable of
overriding limitations of emotional debilitation. Dick as I recall
would have him more severely stunted, taking first person narrative a
step further to a demeaning capacity for reasoning, well below Pris's
outright manifest contempt for most anything JF is capable of
expressing. She, or her android-unique consciousness, eventually
breaks JF down, one step at a time, utterly, as Dick has it, pulling
the legs out, one by one, from the spider JF finds, in turn reverently
to present to her. Dick's effective destruction of JF, like a cat's
daintily laying a bird upon her doorstep after a sufficient mauling.
Among entire shifts of significance and foci Ripley couldn't be
expected to translate, ownership of artificially contrived genetic
Replicants for placebo mechanisms, possibly to mollify over an errant
consequence of human warfaring;- rightly enough, from Dick's
perspective, into a Repleyesque Machiavellian construct of Roy's "more
human than human" brooding latency, an unnamed spectre of evolutionary
consequence, if not within some potential left to mull over. Another,
the play between two channels of futuristic television, one elevated
artificially through mood enhancement means of allusions to drugs, for
spiritual supplicants, as was a lesser divergence of a precinct-within-
precincts of Replicants, which wouldn't have made it through the movie
transition. Pretty radical contrivances, in any event, from the "big
one," duck-and-cover indoctrination and basement shelters, for a sci-
fi writer to meander off for new directions, although he did carry its
added weight, as well, to an ultimate price.
mimus
> On Jan 11, 10:57 pm, mimus <tinmimu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Leaving it hanging may well've been a deliberate tease.
>
> That's the way I'm reading it from a Ripley angle to his fanbase.
You mean "Ridley", I reckon.
>> Um . . . well, J. F. was an accomplished genetic designer, albeit
>> physically-impaired, and combining that with a no doubt severe case of
>> "geekdom" emotionally-stunted, and easy prey for that chilling if
>> lovely bitch Pris acting under Roy's Machiavellian orders, as he played
>> his "chess game" moving up the ladder to "meet his maker", from Chu to J.
>> F., and from J. F to Tyrell . . . .
>
> Differences from the book -- Ripley plays him in the movie according
> to that profile, facets among fractures of a wisdom incapable of
> overriding limitations of emotional debilitation. Dick as I recall
> would have him more severely stunted, taking first person narrative a
> step further to a demeaning capacity for reasoning, well below Pris's
> outright manifest contempt for most anything JF is capable of
> expressing. She, or her android-unique consciousness, eventually
> breaks JF down, one step at a time, utterly, as Dick has it, pulling
> the legs out, one by one, from the spider JF finds, in turn reverently
> to present to her.
He is-- ironically (again)-- just a tool in the movie.
And Pris is simpler, too, a "pleasure-model" retrained as a political
assassin, although what need the "outer colonies" had-- or Earth,
operating among the "outer colonies"-- for humanoid political assassins is
never explained . . . .
Come to think of it, you'd think that would make Pris the natural planner
of the strategems involved, Roy being military, and "military" not exactly
being synonymous with "subtle".
> Dick's effective destruction of JF, like a cat's
> daintily laying a bird upon her doorstep after a sufficient mauling.
> Among entire shifts of significance and foci Ripley couldn't be
> expected to translate, ownership of artificially contrived genetic
> Replicants for placebo mechanisms, possibly to mollify over an errant
> consequence of human warfaring;- rightly enough, from Dick's
> perspective, into a Repleyesque Machiavellian construct of Roy's "more
> human than human" brooding latency, an unnamed spectre of evolutionary
> consequence, if not within some potential left to mull over. Another,
> the play between two channels of futuristic television, one elevated
> artificially through mood enhancement means of allusions to drugs, for
> spiritual supplicants, as was a lesser divergence of a precinct-within-
> precincts of Replicants, which wouldn't have made it through the movie
> transition.
Dick's novels should generally need some simplification to make sense as
movies; they often are pretty confusing even as novels-- _Ubik_? _The
Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch_? WTF? even _Solar Lottery_ didn't make
a helluva lot of sense, as far as that colonization scheme and surrounding
paraphernalia went, if nothing else.
It's a shame no-one has gone for _Clans of the Alphane Moon_ as a movie,
which is plenty confusing, too, alright, at least for the characters, but
more or less normally so, and full of juicy and often hilarious stuff: a
psychiatric hospital on a moon in the alpha Centauri system is abandoned
during interstellar war, and when it's re-investigated years later it's
found that the previous patients have established a social order with
castes based on diagnosis, and look out for the "Manses"-- manics-- and
"Pares"-- paranoid schizophrenics-- is about all you can say about that.
Not to mention the telepathic slime-molds from Jupiter . . . .
My favorite of his novels by far, and the only one I make sure to keep a
copy around of.
--
You're Dep, aren't you? I can tell by the way
you stare at the floor.
< _Clans of the Alphane Moon_
alien8er
That was my take-home from book and movie. One thing I liked about
PKD was that he seldom tried to whack people over the head with his
points.
Mark L. Fergerson
Wayne Throop
: Other than that stupid way you couched it to make it sound dumb, it
: does make it deeper, the nature of reality, and memory itself.
Well, the reason I couched it that way, is that to me it's
not so much "deep" as "sophomoric". Rather like people going all
shocked-and-awed about the Matrix, and taking it as saying deep,
philosophical things... which to me don't seem all that deep.
But maybe I'm just jaded.
dgates
wrote:
I think there's going to be a permanent standoff on this topic.
In my camp, there are the people who think it DOESN'T add to the movie
at all, and in fact, makes NO sense, for a twist in which Deckard is a
replicant.
In the other camp are people who feel it DOES make sense, and DOES add
to the movie. AND they are now supported by the director himself,
even if his official decision came belatedly.
To further confuse the issue, both camps tend to reject the original
version of the film -- the one with the voiceover. So neither camp
can fall back on simply saying "That's how it was in the theater; I
don't care how the filmmakers have mucked it up by second-guessing
themselves in the years since."
I wonder if there are now two "camps" regarding Lucas's changes to the
original Star Wars. After all, now that Episode 3 now claims that
Darth thinks his child died during birth, Lucas had to go add some
dialogue to Episode 5 in which Darth finds out that his son is
actually alive.
Are there any "two camps" regarding that? Or does George Lucas stand
all by himself in the "Let's change the dialogue in Empire Strikes
Back" camp?
Bill Anderson
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:31 -0000, "Mark JD" <Mark J...@royston.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> Deckerd dreamed of a unicorn. EJO very carefully folded an origami
>>> unicorn and dropped it where Deckerd could see -- a clear statement to
>>> Deckerd and the audience that EJO knew how Deckerd's mind had been
>>> programmed.
>> The unicorn sequence (footage from 'Legend') wasn't even filmed when the
>> first 'Blade Runner' was made.
>
>
> I think there's going to be a permanent standoff on this topic.
>
> In my camp, there are the people who think it DOESN'T add to the movie
> at all, and in fact, makes NO sense, for a twist in which Deckard is a
> replicant.
>
> In the other camp are people who feel it DOES make sense, and DOES add
> to the movie. AND they are now supported by the director himself,
> even if his official decision came belatedly.
>
>
> To further confuse the issue, both camps tend to reject the original
> version of the film -- the one with the voiceover. So neither camp
> can fall back on simply saying "That's how it was in the theater; I
> don't care how the filmmakers have mucked it up by second-guessing
> themselves in the years since."
If the question is "Which way makes a better story?" then I think I'm in
your camp -- I like the idea of the human falling in love with the
replicant. That's plenty of fodder for chewing over what it takes to
qualify as human.
But if we're asking "Is Deckerd supposed to be a replicant?" then the
answer is, "yes." At least it's "yes" with regard to the most recent
version of the movie which I caught on one of the Hi-Def channels a few
weeks ago. Like it or not, the new version leaves no room for doubt.
It had been a long time since I'd seen any version of "Blade Runner,"
and I thoroughly enjoyed sitting through it again. There they were:
Sci-Fi and Noir, two of my favorite genres brilliantly blended. I knew
there had been a controversy regarding whether we're supposed to
conclude Deckerd is a replicant, but if I had ever understood the
details I'd forgotten them. That's why, after viewing the most recent
version, I was confused about how there could possibly be a controversy.
This thread has been helpful -- I get it now. Guess I need to go back
and watch the original to see if I believe the "Deckerd is a replicant"
implication is there too.
>
>
> I wonder if there are now two "camps" regarding Lucas's changes to the
> original Star Wars. After all, now that Episode 3 now claims that
> Darth thinks his child died during birth, Lucas had to go add some
> dialogue to Episode 5 in which Darth finds out that his son is
> actually alive.
>
> Are there any "two camps" regarding that? Or does George Lucas stand
> all by himself in the "Let's change the dialogue in Empire Strikes
> Back" camp?
I think few care anymore. Seriously -- the ardent Star Wars fans I've
known over the years just don't want to talk about it. Funny how the
three elaborate, gorgeously, meticulously produced prequels somehow just
let the air out of the Star Wars magic.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:31 -0000, "Mark JD" <Mark J...@royston.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> Deckerd dreamed of a unicorn. EJO very carefully folded an origami
>>> unicorn and dropped it where Deckerd could see -- a clear statement to
>>> Deckerd and the audience that EJO knew how Deckerd's mind had been
>>> programmed.
>> The unicorn sequence (footage from 'Legend') wasn't even filmed when the
>> first 'Blade Runner' was made.
>
>
> I think there's going to be a permanent standoff on this topic.
Of course there is. Just like on the question of whether Sylia Stingray
is a boomer.
>
> In my camp, there are the people who think it DOESN'T add to the movie
> at all, and in fact, makes NO sense, for a twist in which Deckard is a
> replicant.
>
> In the other camp are people who feel it DOES make sense, and DOES add
> to the movie. AND they are now supported by the director himself,
> even if his official decision came belatedly.
>
>
> To further confuse the issue, both camps tend to reject the original
> version of the film -- the one with the voiceover.
That's the one I prefer to watch, if I must watch BR, which in general
I'd rather not. So I suppose I'm not in any camp.
> I wonder if there are now two "camps" regarding Lucas's changes to the
> original Star Wars. After all, now that Episode 3 now claims that
> Darth thinks his child died during birth, Lucas had to go add some
> dialogue to Episode 5 in which Darth finds out that his son is
> actually alive.
>
> Are there any "two camps" regarding that? Or does George Lucas stand
> all by himself in the "Let's change the dialogue in Empire Strikes
> Back" camp?
No sensible person accepts any of the creations of Lucas' Neck. There
were three Star Wars films made.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> I think few care anymore. Seriously -- the ardent Star Wars fans I've
> known over the years just don't want to talk about it. Funny how the
> three elaborate, gorgeously, meticulously produced prequels somehow just
> let the air out of the Star Wars magic.
>
Nothing let the air out of the Star Wars magic. I still get the same
chill down my back every time I hear that fanfare.
But what are these "prequels" you speak of? George Lucas wouldn't have
been so stupid as to waste time on doing prequels, when we already knew
what had to happen and thus they'd end on a downer note; clearly, IF he
were to make any more movies, they'd be sequels, showing how the
Rebellion has to solidify its power, fight off the many remnants of the
Empire, etc.
Anim8rFSK
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To some, it's an open question where exactly Charlton Heston really is
> at the end of Planet of the Apes. Sigh.
I'm gonna say Las Vegas. It's a lot closer to Lake Powell than
Manhattan is. Might be an argument to be made for Disneyworld too.
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
Anim8rFSK
mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Which one doesn't end tragically?
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
> Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net>
>
>> Other than that stupid way you couched it to make it sound dumb,
>> it does make it deeper, the nature of reality, and memory itself.
>
> Well, the reason I couched it that way, is that to me it's not so
> much "deep" as "sophomoric". Rather like people going all
> shocked-and-awed about the Matrix, and taking it as saying deep,
> philosophical things... which to me don't seem all that deep. But
> maybe I'm just jaded.
s/The Matrix/the works that made Philip K. Dick's reputation/ ?
-- wds
William December Starr
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> said:
> The glowing eyes were featured as part of the "are you a
> replicant?" test. (Voight-Kampff test. I just Googled it.)
> Later, when Deckerd was walking across a dark room, we saw his
> eyes glow.
??? If there was a physical feature that could be tested for, what
would have been the point of all the psychological questions?
-- wds
Wayne Throop
: ??? If there was a physical feature that could be tested for, what
: would have been the point of all the psychological questions?
Um, I don't think you're supposed to notice the glaring inconsistencies
and implausibilities of the plot. Or at least, not polite to point
and laugh.
William December Starr
"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> said:
> Because it's silly. If Blase Runner (or the novel DADOES) has a
> "point", it's that "natural" humans and replicants are in much the
> same boat; as much as the replicants complain about having limited
> opportunity for experience in their artificially-shortened lives,
> the same actually applies to "natural" humans- our opportunities
> for experience are also time-limited. The only significant
> difference is that we don't know a priori what the limit is.
Well, that and we also mostly aren't slaves.
-- wds
Bill Anderson
Yep. But there it is anyway.
mimus
> In article <qNOdnUWm37ChlvbU...@giganews.com>,
> mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:20:53 -0800, Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
>>
>>> Just its interesting to note some shows on TV, book and movies do
>>> well, and some do not, but what is a reflect of what? Movies showing
>>> what people think and or fear, or it helps bring about the fear? or
>>> just fears.
>>>
>>> Blade Runner, an expression or it just tied into a deep hidden needs,
>>> angers, fears and such of the US and where else, it came out at and
>>> was popular?
>>
>> Don't forget spectacle, action, several love stories (all but one ending
>> tragically), a fine sound-track and a star actor . . . .
>
> Which one doesn't end tragically?
Deckard and Rachael. After Rachael was found at Deckard's but quietly
spared by wotsisname, the origami d00d, as a gift to Deckard, since he was
under the impression she was a standard four-year model.
--
It's too bad she won't live.
But then again, who does?
< _Blade Runner_
mimus
> William December Starr wrote:
>
>> In article <HsKdncU8KuG...@giganews.com>,
>> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>>> The glowing eyes were featured as part of the "are you a
>>> replicant?" test. (Voight-Kampff test. I just Googled it.)
>>> Later, when Deckerd was walking across a dark room, we saw his
>>> eyes glow.
>>
>> ??? If there was a physical feature that could be tested for, what
>> would have been the point of all the psychological questions?
>
> Yep. But there it is anyway.
That's what I was wondering--the major point of the VK test with the
eyeball-monitor and all that was to test for emotional reactions.
--
My mother? I'll tell you about my mother.
< _Blade Runner_
Bill Anderson
It takes effort on somebody's part, cinematographer or special effects
artist, to make an actor's eyes glow for the camera. How often do you
see the effect happen accidentally in movies? Answer -- probably never
and certainly not too often. It's not like wagon wheels turning
backwards -- when the actors' eyes glowed in Blade Runner it was because
Ridley Scott wanted them to glow. And whose eyes glowed? Just
replicants' -- and Deckard's. (I've been misspelling it "Deckerd" all
day. Dang.) So if all it takes to detect a replicant is to look for
glowing eyes, then what was the point of the VK test? I dunno. Doesn't
make sense, does it? But there it is anyway.
mimus
> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:51:14 -0500, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <HsKdncU8KuG...@giganews.com>,
>>>> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> The glowing eyes were featured as part of the "are you a
>>>>> replicant?" test. (Voight-Kampff test. I just Googled it.)
>>>>> Later, when Deckerd was walking across a dark room, we saw his
>>>>> eyes glow.
>>>>
>>>> ??? If there was a physical feature that could be tested for, what
>>>> would have been the point of all the psychological questions?
>>>
>>> Yep. But there it is anyway.
>>
>> That's what I was wondering--the major point of the VK test with the
>> eyeball-monitor and all that was to test for emotional reactions.
>
> It takes effort on somebody's part, cinematographer or special effects
> artist, to make an actor's eyes glow for the camera. How often do you
> see the effect happen accidentally in movies? Answer -- probably never
> and certainly not too often.
Well, there's a definite effort to prevent it.
> It's not like wagon wheels turning backwards -- when the actors' eyes
> glowed in Blade Runner it was because Ridley Scott wanted them to glow.
> And whose eyes glowed? Just replicants' -- and Deckard's. (I've been
> misspelling it "Deckerd" all day. Dang.)
I got caught out with the Rachel/Rachael thing. Inshallah. We know what
we think we're talking about.
> So if all it takes to detect a replicant is to look for
> glowing eyes, then what was the point of the VK test? I dunno. Doesn't
> make sense, does it? But there it is anyway.
Agreed. Just flash a damned light in their eyes like the police do, and
bang.
I'm calling Deckard-as-human and Deckard-as-replicant permanently
ambiguous, and am happy to leave it at that, and even if Scott
(finally) disagrees, well, what the Hell does he know about it?
--
Ooh, that's no way to treat an old friend.
< _Blade Runner_
htn963
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> There were three Star Wars films made.
If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
"Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all the
sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best Star Wars
film of all.
--
Ht
Mike Schilling
The original, simply called "Star Wars", was a fun, silly bit of
fluff, complete with aumsingly wooden acting and a cheesy idiot plot
nostalgically reminiscent of 1930s serials. Making a sequel was
pandering to a juvenile audience that refused to put away childish
things.
atlas bugged
news:PfXal.17592$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
is admirable, but as sci-fi, it was irrelevant. At best, it heralded some
technical advances in special effects.
I started out with Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's comics circa 1961, I was six.
When I saw Star Wars, I felt it was less sophisticated than Lee-Kirby's work
which I appreciated - when I was six.
Then came the execrable TV imitation, "Battlestar Galactica" TOS.
Ron Moore's current creation shares the original's name and basic outline,
in my view, because the "brand name," and its link with the profitable Lucas
franchise, gave the new show a far better chance of folks tuning in than a
new and completely original concept might otherwise have.
It was a bad means to a good end. But this is show biz, not war and peace,
so whatever....
I rarely discuss my view of Star Wars, since I consider it unworthy of
discussion, and because views such as ours are so vastly in the minority.
--
Atlas Bugged, 5:17 am, Tuesday, January 13, 2009
SERENITY/FIREFLY FAQ
http://FF-FAQ.notlong.com "One page, all you need to know, referenced."
WHO IS ATLAS BUGGED?
http://bugged4.notlong.com "Attorney, Sci-Fi-O-Phile, and some other stuff."
fake-name
"Star Wars" is like a dream - it makes sense when being experienced.
On waking up, the dreamer realises just how much did *not* make sense.
Attempting to add additional dreams that make sense and are consistent
with the original is always going to be difficult...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, Jedi was considerably better than Empire, the weakest of the three.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
There's a C.S. Lewis quote that is very apropos to this sad opinion.
William December Starr
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> The original, simply called "Star Wars", was a fun, silly bit of
>> fluff, complete with aumsingly wooden acting and a cheesy idiot
>> plot nostalgically reminiscent of 1930s serials. Making a sequel
>> was pandering to a juvenile audience that refused to put away
>> childish things.
>
> There's a C.S. Lewis quote that is very apropos to this sad opinion.
"Fuck you?" (No, wait, that's David Mamet. Never mind.)
-- wds
dgates
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:41:27 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
>wrote:
>
>>: Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net>
>>: Other than that stupid way you couched it to make it sound dumb, it
>>: does make it deeper, the nature of reality, and memory itself.
>>
>>Well, the reason I couched it that way, is that to me it's
>>not so much "deep" as "sophomoric". Rather like people going all
>>shocked-and-awed about the Matrix, and taking it as saying deep,
>>philosophical things... which to me don't seem all that deep.
>>But maybe I'm just jaded.
>
>But the human-vs-robot thing -- THAT'S not "sophomoric"? I liked the
>DC because it switches the whole thing up. You can ask the same
>questions, but from a different perspective.
Well, instead of asking "Who is truly more 'human' -- the replicants,
with all their zest for life, or this cold human that's hunting
them?", you're now asking, "Who is truly more 'human' -- the
replicants or this other replicant?"
dgates
IGG-zactly!
Although I still make the case that the prequels did NOT have to end
on a downer note.
"Episode 4" didn't have to end on a downer note, even though, during
the course of the film, the major changes from the state at the
beginning were that Obi Wan Kenobi and Luke's step-parents were dead
(and that some guy named "The Emperor" disbanded the "Imperial
Senate"). Instead, the film introduced a "Death Star," whose
desctruction was satisfying enough that we walked away satisfied.
The first trilogy could have introduced some "threat" (or set of
threats) that would have completely destroyed any rebellion. The
films could have even shown how Anakin turned, and that the Jedi were
wiped out, but still focused enough of its attention on the rebellion
that at the end, we care about whether it lives or dies.
Instead of a throwaway moment where Jimmy Smits and one clunker
spaceship seem to be all that's left of the rebellion, it could have
been shown as something worth fighting for.
I love George Lucas as a producer, creating the amazing worlds he
creates, but he should have left the screenwriting to someone who
could have done better, created something more.
There's no reason we should have been able to predict the ending of
Episode 3 as far back as 1982!
Wayne Throop
::: much "deep" as "sophomoric".
:: But the human-vs-robot thing -- THAT'S not "sophomoric"?
IMO, not so much. The human-vs-robot thing isn't really an issue
of philosophy (ontology and epistemology) but sociodynamics/morals.
Which *can* get sophomoric, but (to me) usually doesn't much, and
when it does, it does so in a far less annoying way.
mimus
And it takes away from the human-replicant love-story.
--
Is it real?
< _Blade Runner_
dgates
wrote:
I feel like I've seen a few trilogies where the middle episode
introduced all sorts of complexity, and then the final episode
dispensed with much of that complexity, and ended up resolving only a
couple of the bigger, simpler problems.
Empire Strikes Back introduced Jabba the Hutt as a threat, and then
ROTJ quickly dispensed with him.
The second Matrix introduced all sorts of stuff, about an Architect,
and Neo being dead or trapped somewhere, and a human version of Smith,
but the third film wrapped those threads up pretty quickly and got
back to the main, simple story -- They're coming, and we've gotta
fight em!
(I liked the third more than the second, BTW.)
Back to the Future 2 was also all over the place, full of info. I
remember back in the 80s, I was going to see BTTF 3 with some people
who hadn't seen #2, and I was telling them all about it -- about
Needles, and clues, and limps, and multiple versions of present day.
Then I discovered that the third was just the first one again, but set
in the Old West instead of the '50s.
I'm also noticing something similar as I watch entire seasons of TV
shows. New threads will come up -- major deviations to the show's
format, but when they wrap up, the show is pretty much back where it
was before the deviation.
I think I could have safely skipped all of the New Caprica episodes on
Battlestar Galactica and missed very little. And the Lost episodes
with the Swan Hatch seem to be mostly forgotten, even though pushing
the button, and the effects of not pushing it, once seemed like the
most important thing on the show.
Wayne Throop
the same way as this Family Guy incident is deep:
"Man, looking up at the sky just makes you feel so small."
"Yeah. I mean, if God created all this, who created God?"
"Maybe he created himself."
"Or herself. Think about that."
"This guy's deep, Carter. Where'd you find him?"
--- Family Guy, "Screwed the Pooch"
( OK, so that's unfair, but still, it just doesn't strike me as deep )
( And neither did the Matrix... sorry, just didn't )
Gene
news:m2jpm4dda72oorl9f...@4ax.com:
> Man, I can't believe you have the balls to say that, but thanks. I
> saw the first three in theaters, because of the spectacle, but I was
> always plum bored by the end of every one of them. But I liked
> science fiction and it was less frequent in those days to see a
> science fiction movie, so I grabbed at anything that came down the
> chute.
Star Wars was science fiction?? Dang!
Gene
> Rather like people going all
> shocked-and-awed about the Matrix, and taking it as saying deep,
> philosophical things... which to me don't seem all that deep.
Whet could be more philosophic than showing that the proper response to the
news that an army is coming to kill everyone and insure the slavery of the
human race than throwing a rave party and dancing all night?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Not only was, but still is.
Gene
$393$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>> Star Wars was science fiction?? Dang!
>
> Not only was, but still is.
Only if you can explain why giant space worms living in asteroids isn't
fantasy.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Because we're talking about a universe with spaceships that are powered
by the appropriate shiny-gadget technobabble and not by magic circles,
etc., which use different imagery and different words.
htn963
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> htn963 wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 4:17 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >> There were three Star Wars films made.
>
> > If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
> > "Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all the
> > sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best Star Wars
> > film of all.
>
> No, Jedi was considerably better than Empire, the weakest of the three.
Buwahahaha! Then you must also think that Godfather 3 was
considerably better than Godfather 2, and Spider Man 3 considerably
better than Spider Man 2.
--
Ht
Derek Janssen
> Gene wrote:
>
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> rote in
>> news:gkj9ru
>> $393$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>>
>>>> Star Wars was science fiction?? Dang!
>>>
>>> Not only was, but still is.
>>
>> Only if you can explain why giant space worms living in asteroids
>> isn't fantasy.
>
>
> Because we're talking about a universe with spaceships that are
> powered by the appropriate shiny-gadget technobabble and not by magic
> circles, etc., which use different imagery and different words.
And where the world is fueled by Midichlorians, instead of ancient
spiritually-invoked powers... ;)
Derek Janssen (may the mitochondria be with you)
eja...@verizon.net
htn963
wrote:
Heh, that still doesn't change what I said.
--
Ht
htn963
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:19:02 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
Schilling and I like to bait each other from time to time, so I would
take this with a grain of salt. But you need no one's approval to
dislike anything.
--
Ht
Wayne Throop
: And where the world is fueled by Midichlorians, instead of ancient
: spiritually-invoked powers... ;)
"Look, if you're not gonna take this seriously, I'm outta here!"
--- Luke Skywalker, in Robot Chicken
Gene
$393$7...@news.motzarella.org:
>> Only if you can explain why giant space worms living in asteroids isn't
>> fantasy.
>
> Because we're talking about a universe with spaceships that are
powered
> by the appropriate shiny-gadget technobabble and not by magic circles,
> etc., which use different imagery and different words.
Foes gravitation still work in this world? Because it doesn't seem to.
Wayne Throop
: Foes gravitation still work in this world? Because it doesn't seem to.
I thought their foes had working gravitation. The Death Star was large
enough to have a noticeable field, wasn't it? Or was that just the
tractor beam? Anyways, whatever their foes used to make people stick to
(or rather fall towards) the oddly arranged decks of the Star Destroyers,
and the non-radial-oriented decks of the Death Star, seemed to "work" fine.
ANYways, it's reasonable, based on the space-filled-with-fluid dynamics,
the banking/swooping fighters, etc, etc, etc, to just classify it as *bad*
science fiction (or if not "bad" at least "silly"), as opposed to resorting
to calling it "fantasy". IMO.
Ian Galbraith
> In article <HsKdncU8KuG...@giganews.com>,
> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> The glowing eyes were featured as part of the "are you a
>> replicant?" test. (Voight-Kampff test. I just Googled it.)
>> Later, when Deckerd was walking across a dark room, we saw his
>> eyes glow.
>
> ??? If there was a physical feature that could be tested for, what
> would have been the point of all the psychological questions?
So thats where Ron Moore got the idea for the human cylons for. And its
even more stupid in nuBSG.
--
"Mm, I wouldn't dream of interfering." Mark made for the door. "Though
I'm not at all sure I'd choose to structure my most intimate relationship
as a war. Is she the enemy, then?" - A Civil Campaign - Lois McMaster
Bujold
Ian Galbraith
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:20:48 -0800, dgates wrote:
[snip]
>> Well, instead of asking "Who is truly more 'human' -- the replicants,
>> with all their zest for life, or this cold human that's hunting
>> them?", you're now asking, "Who is truly more 'human' -- the
>> replicants or this other replicant?"
>
> And it takes away from the human-replicant love-story.
All of which betray the fact that the script wasn't written with the idea
that he's a replicant. The whole thing is in Ridley Scott's head and he's
inserted other footage to support it. I do seem to recall that David Webb
Peoples (the script writer) agreed with Harrison Ford that Deckard wasn't
a replicant.
--
"Everybody lies" - House
Ian Galbraith
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:54:50 -0500, mimus <tinmi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
[snip]
>>I'm calling Deckard-as-human and Deckard-as-replicant permanently
>>ambiguous, and am happy to leave it at that, and even if Scott
>>(finally) disagrees, well, what the Hell does he know about it?
I'm happy with that as well.
> But it's really not. Not in the DC and not in the FC.
It is in the DC, otherwise I wouldn't regard it as the best version of
the film.
--
"Journeys! Intrigues! Sword fights! Young persons having adventures!
Beloved older characters having adventures too! Quests! Battles! Romance!
Snappy dialogue! Extravagant food! And the missing heir to the imperial
throne!" - Steven Brust - Lord of Castle Black
Mike Schilling
Are you enough of a Star Wars fans that this really bothers you? I hadn't
thought so. Anyway, no salt required: that is my honest opinion.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I have no opinion on the Godfather movies at all, not having watched
them nor having any desire to do so.
> and Spider Man 3 considerably
> better than Spider Man 2.
I haven't watched SM3, but from what I've heard, no, in considerable
part for reasons similar to why I didn't like Empire as much as the
other two.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I presume my foes' gravitation works as well as my allies', unless the
plot says otherwise.
Note that the contention is not that Star Wars is good, HARD science
fiction, just that it's science fiction.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Note that the contention is not that Star Wars is good, HARD science
>fiction, just that it's science fiction.
Back in 1979 or so, before his brain fell out, George Lucas, when
asked whether "Star Wars" was science fiction, said it was space
fantasy.
I think he had it right.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
htn963
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> htn963 wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 5:40 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> > <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> htn963 wrote:
> >>> On Jan 12, 4:17 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> >>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>> There were three Star Wars films made.
> >>> If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
> >>> "Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all the
> >>> sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best Star Wars
> >>> film of all.
> >> No, Jedi was considerably better than Empire, the weakest of the three.
>
> > Buwahahaha! Then you must also think that Godfather 3 was
> > considerably better than Godfather 2,
>
> I have no opinion on the Godfather movies at all, not having watched
> them nor having any desire to do so.
Why ever not?
> > and Spider Man 3 considerably
> > better than Spider Man 2.
>
> I haven't watched SM3,
Then you've at least shown good judgment here. Spiderman 3 not only
killed the movie franchise for me, it also killed Spiderman period.
Hard to believe the same crew that made the previous one made this
one.
> but from what I've heard, no, in considerable
> part for reasons similar to why I didn't like Empire as much as the
> other two.
Er, no. The very worst Star Wars film is still better than Spiderman
3.
--
Ht
htn963
wrote:
> htn963 wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 9:26 am, Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:19:02 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
>
> >> <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> htn963 wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 12, 4:17 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> >>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> There were three Star Wars films made.
>
> >>>> If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
> >>>> "Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all
> >>>> the sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best
> >>>> Star Wars
> >>>> film of all.
>
> >>> The original, simply called "Star Wars", was a fun, silly bit of
> >>> fluff, complete with aumsingly wooden acting and a cheesy idiot plot
> >>> nostalgically reminiscent of 1930s serials. Making a sequel was
> >>> pandering to a juvenile audience that refused to put away childish
> >>> things.
>
> >> Man, I can't believe you have the balls to say that, but thanks.
>
> > Schilling and I like to bait each other from time to time, so I would
> > take this with a grain of salt.
>
> Are you enough of a Star Wars fans that this really bothers you? I hadn't
> thought so.
Nope. I only liked the first two movie, and the Knight of the Old
Republic xbox rpg -- the rest of it is mostly cynical merchandising
garbage which I ignore. (Well, I had planned to read the Zahn
trilogy, based on some good reviews, until some fucking idiot here
glibly gaved away the ending in a thread he started without putting
spoilers warning.)
>Anyway, no salt required: that is my honest opinion.
Nothing you say bothers me, but some might find your assertion that
anyone who likes Star Wars sequels is a juvenile who needs to be
pandered to inflammatory. Considering our history, you might want to
consider putting "IMHO" or "I think" in your honest opinions or choose
your words with more care. Just mho.
--
Ht
Gene
@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ I have no opinion on the Godfather movies at all, not hav
> ing watched
>> them nor having any desire to do so.
>
> Why ever not?
They made him an offer he could refuse.
Mike Schilling
>
> Nothing you say bothers me, but some might find your assertion that
> anyone who likes Star Wars sequels is a juvenile who needs to be
> pandered to inflammatory. Considering our history,
???
> you might want to
> consider putting "IMHO" or "I think" in your honest opinions or
> choose
> your words with more care. Just mho.
What I'd really like to see are film version of some the the classics
of SF, like Bujold's Vorkosigan books.
Mad Hamish
Starr) wrote:
>In article <12317...@sheol.org>,
>thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>
>> Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net>
>>
>>> Other than that stupid way you couched it to make it sound dumb,
>>> it does make it deeper, the nature of reality, and memory itself.
>>
>> Well, the reason I couched it that way, is that to me it's not so
>> much "deep" as "sophomoric". Rather like people going all
>> shocked-and-awed about the Matrix, and taking it as saying deep,
>> philosophical things... which to me don't seem all that deep. But
>> maybe I'm just jaded.
>
>s/The Matrix/the works that made Philip K. Dick's reputation/ ?
>
Having watched Blade Runner and read Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep the differences in the two are about as large as between the
Starship Troopers movie and book, in fact Starship Troopers the movie
stays closer to the plot of the book...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Jan 13, 7:54 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> htn963 wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 5:40 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> htn963 wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 12, 4:17 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There were three Star Wars films made.
>>>>> If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
>>>>> "Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all the
>>>>> sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best Star Wars
>>>>> film of all.
>>>> No, Jedi was considerably better than Empire, the weakest of the three.
>>> Buwahahaha! Then you must also think that Godfather 3 was
>>> considerably better than Godfather 2,
>> I have no opinion on the Godfather movies at all, not having watched
>> them nor having any desire to do so.
>
> Why ever not?
Because nothing I've ever heard about them sounds remotely attractive.
>
>
>>> and Spider Man 3 considerably
>>> better than Spider Man 2.
>> I haven't watched SM3,
>
> Then you've at least shown good judgment here. Spiderman 3 not only
> killed the movie franchise for me, it also killed Spiderman period.
This sounds like the same failing that has people who watched "Phantom
Menace" say "it killed Star Wars for me".
Just ignore it and go back to the real stuff.
>
>> but from what I've heard, no, in considerable
>> part for reasons similar to why I didn't like Empire as much as the
>> other two.
>
> Er, no. The very worst Star Wars film is still better than Spiderman
> 3.
Well, I didn't say it would be better or worse than other films; just
that what I had heard indicated it had many basic flaws similar to those
of Empire Strikes Back (e.g., even darker than its predecessors, and
Spider-Man was already cuttting pretty close to my tolerance borders on
that)
Louann Miller
> "Look, if you're not gonna take this seriously, I'm outta here!"
>
> --- Luke Skywalker, in Robot Chicken
Back in junior high school, my first effort at fiction (in pencil in a
spiral notebook) was a Star Wars fanfic. IIRC Leia had had an older sister,
named Mary Sue or some such, who had died heroically fighting the Empire
and that was how Leia had become a rebel.
The way I addressed world-building topics like "why is an incredibly young
woman a senator?" and "where do the rebels GET those expensive high-
maintenance spacecraft they use on the Empire?" turns out to have been more
realistic than George Lucas'. And I was thirteen or fourteen.
Michael Alan Chary
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:56:12 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Note that the contention is not that Star Wars is good, HARD science
>>fiction, just that it's science fiction.
>
>Back in 1979 or so, before his brain fell out, George Lucas, when
>asked whether "Star Wars" was science fiction, said it was space
>fantasy.
I'm sorry, we pick *now* to take Lucas' opinion about his own work
seriously?
>
>I think he had it right.
>
But does that mean it is not science fiction?
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
Michael Alan Chary
>
>> I think few care anymore. Seriously -- the ardent Star Wars fans I've
>> known over the years just don't want to talk about it. Funny how the
>> three elaborate, gorgeously, meticulously produced prequels somehow just
>> let the air out of the Star Wars magic.
>>
>
> Nothing let the air out of the Star Wars magic. I still get the same
>chill down my back every time I hear that fanfare.
>
> But what are these "prequels" you speak of? George Lucas wouldn't have
>been so stupid as to waste time on doing prequels, when we already knew
>what had to happen and thus they'd end on a downer note; clearly, IF he
>were to make any more movies, they'd be sequels, showing how the
>Rebellion has to solidify its power, fight off the many remnants of the
>Empire, etc.
>
But given the existence of such prequels, clearly they would have to be
enjoyed as extend fight scenes and admired for action and special effects
sequences.
Michael Alan Chary
>> htn963 wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 4:17 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There were three Star Wars films made.
>>> If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
>>> "Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all the
>>> sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best Star
>>> Wars
>>> film of all.
>>
>> fluff, complete with aumsingly wooden acting and a cheesy idiot plot
>> nostalgically reminiscent of 1930s serials. Making a sequel was
>> pandering to a juvenile audience that refused to put away childish
>> things.
>>
>>
>
C.S. Lewis said "Mike Schilling is a soulless creature with no sense of
whimsy or fun?"
Michael Alan Chary
>> Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> rote in
>> news:m2jpm4dda72oorl9f...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Man, I can't believe you have the balls to say that, but thanks. I
>>> saw the first three in theaters, because of the spectacle, but I was
>>> always plum bored by the end of every one of them. But I liked
>>> science fiction and it was less frequent in those days to see a
>>> science fiction movie, so I grabbed at anything that came down the
>>> chute.
>>
>> Star Wars was science fiction?? Dang!
>
> Not only was, but still is.
I would take this moment to point out that if we are going to disqualify
Star wars from being science fiction, we set the bar rather high, and get
rid of a *bunch* of things we probably do not wish to get rid of.
Michael Alan Chary
>> On Jan 12, 4:17 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There were three Star Wars films made.
>>
>> If you're going to be hardcore, then there's actually only two.
>> "Return of the Jedi" was a coda travesty that rendered trite all the
>> sublimity raised in "Empire Strikes Back" -- still the best Star Wars
>> film of all.
>
I don't know. I think Jedi made a couple questionable artistic choices.
Carries Fisher should have been naked, not in a bikini. The movie's score
should have included the Teddy's Bears Picnic.
And, oh, the was the whole thing where the movie was a complete betrayal
of Han Solo's character and turned into one gigantic toy ad at the end.
Mike Schilling
I agreed it was fun.
Mike Schilling
And not crediting Piper for the Fuzzy ripoff was ...
completely in character for the entire series. Never mind.