Blade Runner & the missing Replicant...
Sally Smith
In article <38...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> ter...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM writes:
>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!sa...@antares.Tymnet.COM
Assist. Manager, Sailor Hardware (my phone 'droid is "Uncle Mike")
My opinions sometimes don't even reflect what *I'm* thinking...
Zap Savage
>In article <38...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> ter...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM writes:
>>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 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.
>Sally Smith (415)790-0608 | {ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!antares!doctor!sally
>Stephen J. Cannell Fan Club | Internet: doctor!sa...@antares.Tymnet.COM
>Assist. Manager, Sailor Hardware (my phone 'droid is "Uncle Mike")
>My opinions sometimes don't even reflect what *I'm* thinking...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Bielawski
<In article <1...@tardis.Tymnet.COM> sa...@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Sally Smith) writes:
<>In article <38...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> ter...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM writes:
<>>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: jbiel...@ucsd.edu
Bitnet: jbiel...@ucsd.bitnet
Dept. of Math UUCP: jbiel...@ucsd.uucp
UCSD ( {ucsd,sdcsvax}!sdcc6!ix496 )
Colleen Wirth @prodigal
> In article <1...@tardis.Tymnet.COM> sa...@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Sally Smith) writes:
> >In article <38...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM> ter...@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM writes:
> >>a couple of VERY subtle hints, and along with that, some of the original
> >>script almost implied that Deckerd WAS a Replicant....
> 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 ...")
I just saw this double feature a few nights ago at the Ken. You must
be from San Diego.
Who was Deckard? Was that the Harrison Ford character? This was the
first time I'd seen the movie, and after Brazil (first time also), I
was pretty tired. I don't remember anyone's name.
> 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 didn't notice their eyes glowing. Wouldn't that have made it too easy
for the Blade Runners to know which ones were aliens?
> 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.
Also, has anyone out ther read the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep"? I thought the movie was pretty good, but the ending was
terrible. I was sure Sean Young was going to get blown away by the
guy from Miami Vice when she left the apartment with Harrison Ford.
I must have been the only person who thought so, though, cause I was
the only one who screemed.
> >Sally Smith (415)790-0608 | {ames,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!antares!doctor!sally
> >Stephen J. Cannell Fan Club | Internet: doctor!sa...@antares.Tymnet.COM
> Zap Savage
Colleen
Jim Elliott
> 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.
>
producer added the "film noir" voice over and the happy
ending against the wishes of the director. Your experience
backs up the story.
The producer thought that the film would not be understood by
"the public" in its original form. Whether Deckard was a
replicant or not was intended to be ambiguous.
Having heard the above, and seeing the film again, I think the
film as originally conceived would have been much better. It
would have demanded more thought on the part of the viewer -
without the voice over the story would have been much harder
to follow; but the overall atmosphere would be much improved.
I think it would be worth someones while to put together a
version nearer the original - I would go see it!
Jim Elliott.
"I haven't got a quote to finish with"
John Lorch
> 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.
That's interesting - I didn't interpret it that way at all. I thought they
were headed off to have their last few days being happy together (or at least
her last few days). I didn't get the impression that she was going to live
forever.
--
John Lorch UUCP: ecf...@jhunix.UUCP
Johns Hopkins University ARPA: ecf...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
Homewood Computing Facilities BITNET: ecf...@jhunix.BITNET
Scott Gibson
This discussion has been going on for quite some time. Just thought I
would add my own two cents.
Most of the speculation about whether Deckard is a replicant seems to
stem from the disparity between the stated number of replicants in the
film (6?) and the number actually depicted ( 1 less ). However, at
least one poster mentioned that editting from the original script/cut
eliminated 1 replicant (the mother-figure?). So bad script continuity
would explain the difference.
Remember that the police were unwilling to allow even 1 replicant, a
"prototype" maintained by the manufacturer, to live. It seems unlikely
they would have tolerated a replicant bladerunner (unless they didn't
know?).
In the absence of conclusive evidence for either argument, I would
have to defer to the book. In PKD's _Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_
Sheep_, Deckard is not a replicant (or the book equivalent thereof).
Scott
William Shipley
hey...
On the end of the Criterion laser disc version of the movie, there are a bunch of
scene by scene notes about its making. One of the things that kept reappearing
is hints that Deckerd isn't really human. Unfortunately, most of these got cut
from the final print.
An example is when Mr. Miami Vice picks up Deckerd after the last replicant saved
him. In the original he says "You have done a man's job. But are you a man?" I
don't recall how much of this got cut. I think only the first sentence is still
present.
Also, a bunch of different endings were tried out, including one where Rachel tells
Deckerd she loves him, then steps backwards off a building. I'm sure ya'll would
have loved that. In the end, tho, they went with the spliced-in footage from
"The Shining". (They were pretty low on bucks by that time, I guess.)
In the book Deckerd questions his own humanity after discovering a phony police
station that's actually full of replicants. However, by the end he's sure he's
human.
The most interesting disparity I found between the book and the movie is that the
book concludes androids are different because they cannot feel compassion. The
movie concludes they can feel compassion, and aren't different. Kind of strange
to change the whole theme, no?
-william "Ridley Scott == hazy atmosphere" shipley
Joe Horowitz
>creatures in the film. In the book (_Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep_),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
C'mon guy, get with it! It's _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_.
^^^^^^^^
"This land is made of mountains! This land is made of mud!
This land has lots of everything for me and Elmer Fudd!
This land has lots of trousers! This land has lots of mausers,
And pussycats to eat them when the SU-UN--GO-OES--DOWWWWWWNNNNN!!!"
**********************************************************************
jhor...@bbn.com / Joe N. Horowitz /
**********************************************************************
Paul T.S. Lee
> [stuff from Zap Savage and Sally Smith deleted]
>
> 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.
> Jan Bielawski Internet: jbiel...@ucsd.edu
> Bitnet: jbiel...@ucsd.bitnet
> Dept. of Math UUCP: jbiel...@ucsd.uucp
> UCSD ( {ucsd,sdcsvax}!sdcc6!ix496 )
****************************************************************************
Paul Tien-Shih Lee |cth...@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)
****************************************************************************
Joel Upchurch
> >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.
>
I can't swear that Disney didn't make a new mockup for the tour though.
--
Joel Upchurch/Concurrent Computer Corp/2486 Sand Lake Rd/Orlando, FL 32809
jo...@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel
Telephone: (407) 850-1040 Fax: (407) 857-0713
Joe Horowitz
>
>In article <39...@bbn.COM> jhor...@bbn.com write:
>>C'mon guy, get with it! It's _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_.
>
>(OK, OK, it's ungraciously stolen. I don't remember from who)
>
>I personally feel that he is NOT a replicant, and this
[more stuff about Deckard deleted]
Great, but I still fail to see what any of this has to do with my posting? I
was simply pointing out that the book's title is _Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep?_ (DADOES), not _Do Robots Dream of Electric Sheep_ (DRDOES) as you
listed it. I never expressed any opinion whatsoever about Deckard being a
replicant or not a replicant, and I have no desire to contribute to a
resurrection of *that* worn-out thread.
"For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism."
ter...@tekcrl.labs.tek.com
>In article <44...@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> ix...@sdcc6.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Jan Bielawski) writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>
>That's interesting - I didn't interpret it that way at all. I thought they
>were headed off to have their last few days being happy together (or at least
>her last few days). I didn't get the impression that she was going to live
>forever.
Well, you interpreted it wrong. Deckard definitely says that "Rachel is
special; no four year life span", unlike the other replicants. However, good
ol` Deckard says that "no one really knows how much time one has", or some such
drivel.
So Jan's commentary is essentially correct. (Not to mention the fact that
the commentary at the end of the movie on the Criterion Laser Disk basically
said so, after initial responses from audiences....).
Help
Stamp
Out
Fascist
News
Software
!!!!
!!!!
Jon W{tte
-Do sheep dream of Philip K Dick?
(OK, OK, it's ungraciously stolen. I don't remember from who)
I personally feel that he is NOT a replicant, and this
discussion has been going for SOME time, to and fro, among
other places in rec.art.sf-lovers
About the book: read it, it's there.
About the movie: There's no way to say for sure.
So go on with it and keep this group possible to
follow. (Oh, yeah, the film has Rutger Hauer in
it. I suppose that's why it's so good :-)
>jhor...@bbn.com / Joe N. Horowitz /
--
h...@nada.kth.se <>,, "Hmm. What's this green fish called? I think I will
Jon W{tte (:))))=- call it Lunch. Hi, Lunch!" -- A fish called Wanda
Oh NO! A bug! <>'' -Say Kids, what time is it? -It's Time For A House.
Dizco me to XtaC! -OH LA LAAA! -- Jack to the sound of the underground
Brian McClendon
>
> This discussion has been going on for quite some time. Just thought I
> would add my own two cents.
>
> Most of the speculation about whether Deckard is a replicant seems to
> stem from the disparity between the stated number of replicants in the
> film (6?) and the number actually depicted ( 1 less ). However, at
> least one poster mentioned that editting from the original script/cut
> eliminated 1 replicant (the mother-figure?). So bad script continuity
> would explain the difference.
>
> Scott
My two cents: Bad continuity, yes, but that's _really_ bad. I noticed
it the first time watching the movie. I make no claims about know who/what
the 6th Replicant is/was, but it seems that they could easily have dubbed
over the one place where the number "6" was mentioned since it was when
the chief (slimeball) was voicing over the computer displays of the 4
known replicants.
A new point: Why did Deckard go to all the trouble of getting a hardcopy
of Leon's photo of Zora when her picture was on record at the station at
much higher resolution... The only reason I can guess is that the station
photo was obviously a special one (maybe a known _replicant_ mug shot).
--
- brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian McClendon b...@rudedog.SGI.COM ...!uunet!sgi!rudedog!bam 415-335-1110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fuse Exxon" - me
John Reece
>Most of the speculation about whether Deckard is a replicant seems to
>stem from the disparity between the stated number of replicants in the
>film (6?) and the number actually depicted ( 1 less ). However, at
There is one other indication that Deckard might be a replicant.
Replicants were described as obssessive about their "family" pictures,
and Deckard had quite a collection of family pictures prominently displayed in
his apartment.
--
John Reece
jre...@delphi.intel.com
Dick Fong
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: fo...@csusac.csus.edu
Bob Niland
> 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..
Be advised that this material exists on only one of the three current laser
editions of BladeRunner: Criterion Collection catalog number CC1120L, a
two-disc set in CAV, pressed by 3M. List price $90 (was $80 last year,
and you may find one at that price).
Criterion has announced a less expensive CLV version, which will not contain
the still-frame supplementary material. It will still be 2.25:1 letterboxed
Super Panavision and have both digital and analog CX stereo sound. I have
not seen a copy of this yet, but expect it will be a Pioneer pressing.
List price $50.
There is also an older CLV edition from Embassy (now Nelson). It is catalog
number 13806, is cropped (panned and scanned), has only CX analog stereo
sound and is pressed by Pioneer. List price $35.
Regards, Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland rjn%hpf...@hplabs.HP.COM 3404 East Harmony Road
[hplabs|hpu...!hpfcse]!rjn Ft Collins CO 80525-9599