> "Murray Chapman" wrote in message > news:movies/bladerunner-faq_1013942203@rtfm.mit.edu... > > BLADE RUNNER > > Frequently Asked Questions > > Copyright (C) 1992-1995 Murray Chapman > Brilliant stuff. Please keep up the good work! I thought the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant or not had ended when Blade Runner director Ridley Scott came out and said he (Deckard) was indeed a replicant. But your case for Deckard as a human seems pretty strong also. However, I must comment some of your points: i.e. >"Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police >trust Deckard?" If it is assumed that a replicant has some sort of empathy deficiency then why not? It all boils down to empathy: In the VOIGHT-KAMPFF test blade runners determine if a suspect is truly human by measuring the degree of his empathic response through carefully worded questions and statements. But if you accept that replicants will fail here and Deckard is a replicant - he will have no quarrels about going out on this kill mission. But still it is funny - as humans over the centuries has shown lack of empathy or screwed up sense of empathy a million times. So, half the human race would probably fail the VK test anyhow. So, I would think there is some logic to give the kill job to someone who would fail the VK test. You couldn't trust a human that passed the VK test with flying colors either? Simply, the job must be given to someone with a low sense of empathy? Regardless of whether he is replicant or a human. > "- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant > would have an ex-wife." Still, there are obviously other replicants running around - and I can't see why a replicant can't have a wife. That it is an ex-wife makes even better sense - again returning to the VK test and the problem with empathy. Still in the final analysis, Rachels "Have you ever taken that test yourself?" is hanging there. And all of these black and white photos in Deckards apartment - the poor guy is struggling with memories! In short - he is a replicant - but a very human one. -Simon NB. Again quoting the FAQ: Blade Runner is LOOSELY based on a Philip K. Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (DADoES). A recurring theme in Dick's work is the question of personal and human identity. So the doubts about Deckards identity seems to follow the authors intentions. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Follow-up postings : XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:55:45 +0100, "Simon Laub" wrote: >"Murray Chapman" wrote in message >news:movies/bladerunner-faq_1013942203@rtfm.mit.edu... >> BLADE RUNNER >> Frequently Asked Questions >> Copyright (C) 1992-1995 Murray Chapman > >Brilliant stuff. Please keep up the good work! > >I thought the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant >or not had ended when Blade Runner director Ridley Scott >came out and said he (Deckard) was indeed a replicant. > >But your case for Deckard as a human seems pretty strong also. >However, I must comment some of your points: > >i.e. >>"Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police >>trust Deckard?" > >If it is assumed that a replicant has some sort of empathy deficiency >then why not? > >It all boils down to empathy: In the VOIGHT-KAMPFF test >blade runners determine if a suspect is truly human >by measuring the degree of his empathic response through carefully worded >questions and statements. >But if you accept that replicants will fail here and Deckard >is a replicant - he will have no quarrels about going out on this kill >mission. > >But still it is funny - as humans over the centuries has shown >lack of empathy or screwed up sense of empathy a million times. >So, half the human race would probably fail the VK test anyhow. > >So, I would think there is some logic to give the kill job to someone who >would >fail the VK test. >You couldn't trust a human that passed the VK test with flying colors >either? >Simply, the job must be given to someone with a low sense of empathy? >Regardless of whether he is replicant or a human. > >"- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant > would have an ex-wife." > W e don't know that Deckard has an ex-wife, we know that he remembers having one. Rachel has many memories of things that actually belonged to someone else, so too may Deckard. >Still, there are obviously other replicants running around - and >I can't see why a replicant can't have a wife. That it is an ex-wife >makes even better sense - again returning to the VK test and >the problem with empathy. > >Still in the final analysis, Rachels "Have you ever taken that test >yourself?" is hanging >there. And all of these black and white photos in Deckards apartment - the >poor guy >is struggling with memories! > >In short - he is a replicant - but a very human one. >-Simon >NB. Again quoting the FAQ: Blade Runner is LOOSELY based on a Philip K. Dick >novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (DADoES). A recurring theme in >Dick's work is the question of personal and human identity. So the doubts >about Deckards identity seems to follow the authors intentions. > > > -- Margaret ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the faint smell of cat pee. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-- > "Margaret Young" wrote in message news:rbv67u0r868f1qncn5gosf1harmtjavp24@4ax.com... > W e don't know that Deckard has an ex-wife, we know that he > remembers having one. Rachel has many memories of things that > actually belonged to someone else, so too may Deckard. After hearing Scott's admission of Deckard's true nature, I assumed that Deckard may have been "activated" a few minutes before he appeared in the film; everything beforehand, including his career, was an implanted memory. I wouldn't be surprised if Gaff had dropped him off, waited a minute, then walked back onto the scene. "A.C." wrote: > > "Margaret Young" wrote in message > news:rbv67u0r868f1qncn5gosf1harmtjavp24@4ax.com... > > W e don't know that Deckard has an ex-wife, we know that he > > remembers having one. Rachel has many memories of things that > > actually belonged to someone else, so too may Deckard. > > After hearing Scott's admission of Deckard's true nature, Since Scott first publicly stated his view of Deckard's nature, Harrison Ford has said in interviews that he thinks it's crap. Ford claims that he and Scott discussed things during filming and agreed that Deckard was human. Whether that makes Scott's interpretation any less definitive is an exercise best left to the individual. -- Sean O'Hara Now an unemployed college graduate! "Bring back Janet Reno. Let's return to killing people in Texas, please!" -- Get Your Enr On (http://www.mnftiu.net) On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:34:49 GMT, "A.C." wrote: > >"Margaret Young" wrote in message >news:rbv67u0r868f1qncn5gosf1harmtjavp24@4ax.com... >> W e don't know that Deckard has an ex-wife, we know that he >> remembers having one. Rachel has many memories of things that >> actually belonged to someone else, so too may Deckard. > >After hearing Scott's admission of Deckard's true nature, I assumed that >Deckard may have been "activated" a few minutes before he appeared in the >film; everything beforehand, including his career, was an implanted memory. >I wouldn't be surprised if Gaff had dropped him off, waited a minute, then >walked back onto the scene. > Oh, I like. Gives me chills. Do we ever see Deckard interacting with someone from his past who is not an "official". Not that I remember. -- Margaret ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Come the apocalypse there will be cockroaches, Keith Richards and the faint smell of cat pee. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==----- "Vandevere" wrote in message news:<8d0484db.0202201610.45917c9f@posting.google.com>... > TakLoufer@aol.com (takloufer) wrote in message news:... > > Throughout the movie there were several scenes where the replicants > > showed glowing eyes, much like that of a cat or other nocturnal > > animal. These glowing eyes were not *real*, in that characters in the > > movie could not see them, but were a film effect to show the audience > > who was human and who was not. > > > > You'd have to pretty much know to look for them to notice, but once > > you start looking you'll can't stop noticing them. At one point, when > > Rachal and Decker are up in his apartment, and he's spitting up > > blood(after being beat up by Leon), you'll see Rachal's eyes glowing a > > slight red....then Decker leaves the kitchen and enters the > > room....and for a brief moment his eyes glow too. It's right when he > > says "But somebody would"...and the sound track emphasizes it to. > > > > And there's the oragami unicorn at the end. He had the dream of the > > unicorn, but Gaff(?) knew about this. The only way he could know > > about Deckers dream was if Decker was a Replicant with implanted > > memories/dreams. > > > > I'd say he's a replicant. > > > > -ur pal > > -tak L > > Speaking of wierd-looking eyes, Gaff had pretty strange-looking eyes > too. They were a light blue, almost purple, color. And this was in > an actor-Edward James Olmos-of Latino descent. Blue eyes just didn't > look...natural...on him. > > It kinda makes me wonder if Gaff was a replicant too. He certainly > seemed to be lacking in the empathy department... > > Vandevere > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Simon Laub" wrote in message news:<3c7364d2$0$312$edfadb0f@dspool01.news.tele.dk>... > > > "Murray Chapman" wrote in message > > > news:movies/bladerunner-faq_1013942203@rtfm.mit.edu... > > > > BLADE RUNNER > > > > Frequently Asked Questions > > > > Copyright (C) 1992-1995 Murray Chapman > > > > > > Brilliant stuff. Please keep up the good work! > > > > > > I thought the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant > > > or not had ended when Blade Runner director Ridley Scott > > > came out and said he (Deckard) was indeed a replicant. > > > > > > But your case for Deckard as a human seems pretty strong also. > > > However, I must comment some of your points: > > > > > > i.e. > > > >"Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police > > > >trust Deckard?" > > > > > > If it is assumed that a replicant has some sort of empathy deficiency > > > then why not? > > > > > > It all boils down to empathy: In the VOIGHT-KAMPFF test > > > blade runners determine if a suspect is truly human > > > by measuring the degree of his empathic response through carefully worded > > > questions and statements. > > > But if you accept that replicants will fail here and Deckard > > > is a replicant - he will have no quarrels about going out on this kill > > > mission. > > > > > > But still it is funny - as humans over the centuries has shown > > > lack of empathy or screwed up sense of empathy a million times. > > > So, half the human race would probably fail the VK test anyhow. > > > > > > So, I would think there is some logic to give the kill job to someone who > > > would > > > fail the VK test. > > > You couldn't trust a human that passed the VK test with flying colors > > > either? > > > Simply, the job must be given to someone with a low sense of empathy? > > > Regardless of whether he is replicant or a human. > > > > > > "- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant > > > would have an ex-wife." > > > > > > Still, there are obviously other replicants running around - and > > > I can't see why a replicant can't have a wife. That it is an ex-wife > > > makes even better sense - again returning to the VK test and > > > the problem with empathy. > > > > > > Still in the final analysis, Rachels "Have you ever taken that test > > > yourself?" is hanging > > > there. And all of these black and white photos in Deckards apartment - the > > > poor guy > > > is struggling with memories! > > > > > > In short - he is a replicant - but a very human one. > > > -Simon > > > NB. Again quoting the FAQ: Blade Runner is LOOSELY based on a Philip K. Dick > > > novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (DADoES). A recurring theme in > > > Dick's work is the question of personal and human identity. So the doubts > > > about Deckards identity seems to follow the authors intentions. On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 15:33:08 -0500, walterlane wrote: :I agree with the points you made. Deckard as a replicant just doesn't :add up in the context of the film even if the creators of the film say :so. Just a minor point. It is only Scott who says so. The screenwriter David Webb Peoples says that he isn't a replicant, and so does Ford. And in DADOES he isn't a replicant. "Matthew Austern" wrote in message news:... > "Simon Laub" writes: > > > I thought the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant > > or not had ended when Blade Runner director Ridley Scott > > came out and said he (Deckard) was indeed a replicant. > > Why would you think that? It really depends on what the meaning of > "really" is. > > By the literal definition, the question is meaningless. Deckard > doesn't exist and replicants don't exist, so there is no "really" > there to argue about. What can you sensibly ask about what "really" > happened in a work of fiction? > > One definition: what "really" happened is what the work says. What > can you infer from what the work says? If you can make various > different inferences, then there's an (intentional or unintentional) > ambiguity, and you can discuss with interpretation is the more > sensible or interesting. > > An alternative definition: what "really" happened is what the author > thinks happened. That's not a straighforward definition either, > though: do you mean what the author thought during the time the work > was written, or what the author says long afterward in retrospect? > And what does "the author" mean when you're talking about a > collaborative work? I don't think it makes sense to talk about a > movie's director as its sole creative force; it's silly to ignore the > fact that film is inherently a collaborative medium. So if you're > relying on a character's creator to say what that creator is "really" > like, I'm not sure who you pick for that creator---the director, the > actor, the scriptwriter(s), the author(s) of the work(s) that the > script was based on, and so on. > > The real reason for not discussing this much more, I think, is that > it's not an interesting question. In Dick's novel _Do Androids Dream > of Electric Sheep?_, ambiguous humanity (more in a metaphorical > sense than a literal) is one of the main things the book is about. In > the movie _Blade Runner_, this sort of question seems pretty facile > and arbitrary. > > "Dave B." wrote in message news:<20020221223739.19308.00000116@mb-fr.aol.com>... > >Weren't Blade Runner's supposed to be stronger, more perfect, with all kinds > >of physical advantages. > >Deckard didn't seem to have any physical advantage over the other male > >replicants. > >You guys do bring up good points. Just wanted to throw that argument in. > > I wondered about that a bit myself. The key is that the people who created > Deckard to hunt down the replicants wanted to think he was human so that he > wouldn't have an incentive to join up with his targets. > > Deckard may not have had super strength but he did have something (instinct, > detective skill, etc.) which allowed him to find and eliminate 2 out of 4 of > the replicants. If you count Rachael as being programmed to assist him in some > way, they managed to account for almost all of the replicants without > endangering any "human" policemen in the process. > > Plus, by making him another Roy, they run the risk of creating a situation just > as bad as the one they have now. At the end, it appeared that Deckard and > Rachael had caught wise to their existence and were going to turn rogue > themselves. However, now the cops don't have to try to stop super strong, super > tactical military replicants. They just have to gun down a couple of poor > stiffs with all too human reflexes.