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