It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
I completely fail to remember any unicorn in the movie other than the 
origami. Was that really there?
-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.

There's also a brief moment where Decker's eyes glow as well, which is 
another pretty good indication of what he is.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
> I completely fail to remember any unicorn in the movie other than the
> origami. Was that really there?

Depends which cut you watch.

Also, the way I originally heard it, at the start the police mention 6
replicants escaping and returning to earth; one got fried on a security gate,
and Deckard retires another four, leaving one unaccounted for *gasp*. Confusing.
But apparently that was a continuity error, unconnected to Deckard's
ambiguous(?) human/replicant nature. :)

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:31:51 +0100, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake thusly:

> It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
> I completely fail to remember any unicorn in the movie other than the  
> origami. Was that really there?

As Bill said it depends on the cut you've seen. IIRC they took all that  
out of the original USA release on the grounds it confused the audience oh  
and added the voice-over.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2010 3:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
> It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
> I completely fail to remember any unicorn in the movie other than the
> origami. Was that really there?

I thought the movie was based on a novel by Phillip K. Dick?

-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> On 6/7/2010 3:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
>> I completely fail to remember any unicorn in the movie other than the
>> origami. Was that really there?
> 
> I thought the movie was based on a novel by Phillip K. Dick?

Yes. I don't remember if Decker was a replicant in PKD's story.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> SharkD wrote:
> > On 6/7/2010 3:31 PM, Darren New wrote:
> >> It never made sense to me before why anyone would say that.
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
> >> I completely fail to remember any unicorn in the movie other than the
> >> origami. Was that really there?
> >
> > I thought the movie was based on a novel by Phillip K. Dick?
>
> Yes. I don't remember if Decker was a replicant in PKD's story.
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>     Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
>     that the code does what you think it does, even if
>     it doesn't do what you wanted.

'Do androids dream of electric sheep?' was not much more than a short story in
which Deckard was definitely NOT a replicant. No resemblanc at all to the film
plot.

I was aware of Scott's saying that Deckard was a replicant, but he shouldn't be
for at least two reasons:

1) Rachael was tricked out as well as the technology could to be a 'human'. If
Deckard was a replicant, using the same technology, he should not have been able
to to detect she was a replicant (See Tarski's theorem - Rachael's status
'should' be undecidable using equivalent technology.)

2) Forgot the Hauer replicant's name, but he breaks one of Deckard's fingers for
each of his companion's dying at Deckard's hands. This is a gesture of infinite
humanity and irony from a replicant. Makes no sense unless the Hauer replicant
believed Deckard was human, echoing human belief that the life of a replicant
isn't worth the little finger of a human.

So I think Scott is wrong, even if it is his film.

Post a reply to this message

JimT wrote:
> 1) Rachael was tricked out as well as the technology could to be a 'human'. If
> Deckard was a replicant, using the same technology, he should not have been able
> to to detect she was a replicant 

No, it means that if Deckard ran the tests on himself, he should have 
discovered he was a replicant.

 > (See Tarski's theorem - Rachael's status
> 'should' be undecidable using equivalent technology.)

That only applies to math, i.e., formal logic.

You could think of it like an NP problem - it's hard to make human-ness, but 
it's easy to check. And the closer to human-ness you create, the longer it 
takes to check.  I mean, if you want silly math comparisons. ;-)

> 2) Forgot the Hauer replicant's name, but he breaks one of Deckard's fingers for
> each of his companion's dying at Deckard's hands. This is a gesture of infinite
> humanity and irony from a replicant. Makes no sense unless the Hauer replicant
> believed Deckard was human, echoing human belief that the life of a replicant
> isn't worth the little finger of a human.

Everybody believed Deckard was a human, including the cops. Why wouldn't the 
other replicants?

What I can't figure out is why anyone would create a replicant for this 
purpose, and where did the Decker prototype come from with the memories of 
how to hunt replicants?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> JimT wrote:
> > 1) Rachael was tricked out as well as the technology could to be a 'human'. If
> > Deckard was a replicant, using the same technology, he should not have been able
> > to to detect she was a replicant
>
> No, it means that if Deckard ran the tests on himself, he should have
> discovered he was a replicant.
>
>  > (See Tarski's theorem - Rachael's status
> > 'should' be undecidable using equivalent technology.)
>
> That only applies to math, i.e., formal logic.
>
> You could think of it like an NP problem - it's hard to make human-ness, but
> it's easy to check. And the closer to human-ness you create, the longer it
> takes to check.  I mean, if you want silly math comparisons. ;-)
>
Busted, at least as far as silly math comparisons go.

As far as the internal logic of a sci-fi film, I would accept that EITHER
Deckard would be able to realise he was a replicant OR he wouldn't be able to
realise Rachael was. I don't think Deckard ever realised he was a replicant. I
don't think that depends on the cut you see.

> > 2) Forgot the Hauer replicant's name, but he breaks one of Deckard's fingers for
> > each of his companion's dying at Deckard's hands. This is a gesture of infinite
> > humanity and irony from a replicant. Makes no sense unless the Hauer replicant
> > believed Deckard was human, echoing human belief that the life of a replicant
> > isn't worth the little finger of a human.
>
> Everybody believed Deckard was a human, including the cops. Why wouldn't the
> other replicants?
>
Don't know. I just thought that the Hauer nexus 6 was so superhuman that he
would know. Not very internally consistent.

> What I can't figure out is why anyone would create a replicant for this
> purpose, and where did the Decker prototype come from with the memories of
> how to hunt replicants?
>
I thought you had just provided reason 3, but for the first time since I saw the
film, I thought that the replicant hunters might be afraid to go against the
nexus 6s and set up a replicant to do so.

In the film, I got no sense of how long it took to physically make and mentally
programme a replicant - hours, days or months. If it was short enough, making a
Deckard replicant after the news of the news of the nexus 6 mutiny got to Earth
might be possible.

If Rachael could be programmed to be Rachael, Deckard could be programmed to be
a replicant hunter - maybe one that had got himself killed by replicants.

As for the unicorn at the end, the Olmos character kept making them. I
interpreted the unicorn as 'proof' that Olmos had been there, knew Rachael was a
replicant, but was prepared to allow Deckard and Rachael to go off in love into
the sunset.

Maybe this is reason 3. If Deckard was a replicant created to deal with the
nexus 6s, why wouldn't the Olmos character kill him and Rachael, given the
paranoia about replicants?

If Deckard was human, maybe the Olmos character would have the compassion to
allow Rachael to live, since a human was looking after her.

What I am still confused about is why so much fuss about the nexus 6s coming to
Earth when everyone must have known when their sell by date was? I mean, the
only reason for them to come to Earth was to try to get their date reset.

Post a reply to this message

JimT wrote:
> As far as the internal logic of a sci-fi film, I would accept that EITHER
> Deckard would be able to realise he was a replicant OR he wouldn't be able to
> realise Rachael was. I don't think Deckard ever realised he was a replicant. I
> don't think that depends on the cut you see.

Nah. It took him an hour with specialized equipment and testing to figure 
out she was a replicant.  If he didn't test himself, there's no reason to 
believe he'd figure it out himself, or rachel would have also.

>> Everybody believed Deckard was a human, including the cops. Why wouldn't the
>> other replicants?
>>
> Don't know. I just thought that the Hauer nexus 6 was so superhuman that he
> would know. Not very internally consistent.

Now, a replicant not being able to recognise another replicant without 
special equipment? That I'd believe, given the way to recognise a replicant 
is to see if they have subtle emotional responses.

> I thought you had just provided reason 3, but for the first time since I saw the
> film, I thought that the replicant hunters might be afraid to go against the
> nexus 6s and set up a replicant to do so.

Hmm. Maybe.

> In the film, I got no sense of how long it took to physically make and mentally
> programme a replicant - hours, days or months. If it was short enough, making a
> Deckard replicant after the news of the news of the nexus 6 mutiny got to Earth
> might be possible.

Yeah, hard to say, there.

> If Rachael could be programmed to be Rachael, Deckard could be programmed to be
> a replicant hunter - maybe one that had got himself killed by replicants.

Maybe that too.

> As for the unicorn at the end, the Olmos character kept making them. I
> interpreted the unicorn as 'proof' that Olmos had been there, knew Rachael was a
> replicant, but was prepared to allow Deckard and Rachael to go off in love into
> the sunset.

Yes, that makes much more sense if you realize decker had been dreaming of 
unicorns and hadn't told anyone else.  There's just no reason to understand 
"origami unicorn" == "you are a replicant" without some further connection.

> Maybe this is reason 3. If Deckard was a replicant created to deal with the
> nexus 6s, why wouldn't the Olmos character kill him and Rachael, given the
> paranoia about replicants?

Clearly he was supposed to, which is what the origami in front of Decker's 
door at the end meant.  "I was here, I could have killed Rachel (and you), 
but I didn't, so run away."

> If Deckard was human, maybe the Olmos character would have the compassion to
> allow Rachael to live, since a human was looking after her.

That's what I thought it meant. "I came here to kill Rachel, but you can run 
away with her and live out the next couple of years, because she's going to 
die anyway."

> What I am still confused about is why so much fuss about the nexus 6s coming to
> Earth when everyone must have known when their sell by date was? I mean, the
> only reason for them to come to Earth was to try to get their date reset.

Except they're pretty brutal. And, of course, it's illegal, and could be all 
kinds of bad PR.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message