HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aberigan@nde.unl.edu (A. Berigan)
Subject: Re: T1000
Organization: Ord High School, Ord, NE
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:38:44 GMT

<U59849@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>Did anyone else noticed in the chase scene between Arnold and the T1000.  While
>driving down the expressway in the SWAT Teams truck, the T1000 had to reload
>and while doing so he controled the helicoper with his both hands while reloadi
>ng with a third.  It a quick scene, but if you have slow motion with your VCR
>you can notice it, then again if you pay strict attention I think it's noticabl
>e.

Technically though, he had to have four hands, since you need one on the
stick, one on the collective, and two hands to reload a gun.  Indeed,
the hands shown were 2 on the gun, 1 on the stick, not two on the
chopper and him reloading a gun using only one hand (I'd like to see
that trick).

This has been observed before, with better spelling and grammar. :-)

--     o
      /\_         (10/3)  1/      (11/3)
  ---P\--~\_    WF      + /(10-WF)
__P")=/-'_(`)__
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aberigan@nde.unl.edu (Greg Berigan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of the Unicorn
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:22:54 GMT

gdg019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:
>pete writes:
>>Well, Holden's eyes glow too ... but assuming that Holden is human, and given
>>the obvious similiarities in dress and mannerism between him and Ford (the 
>>name! what a giveaway) we could speculate that Deckard's implants are Holden's
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Explain please?

Ah, cultural bias, please excuse. In oz there have been two major local makes 
of car for a long time. Ford, which you probably have heard of, and Holden,
which was bought out about fifteen years ago by General Motors. Holden is still
used as a trademark by GM down here. I don't know whether that would have
actually had any bearing on Scott's choice of names, of course ... 

"Football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars" - GMH jingle.
-- 
Internet: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au   UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!cssc-syd!pete
Snail: 1/18-20 Orion Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia    Phone: +61 2 911 3130
The game is afoot!
From: brigid@geovax.ed.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Bladerunner=>Logan's Run
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:46:47 GMT
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Geography Department.

In article <1992Sep28.125255.542@walter.bellcore.com>, mdl@phelixsalt (Michael Lynch) writes:
 
> Perhaps I can steer the 
> discussion of Bladerunner (will it NEVER end??!!) to Logan's Run.

A few years ago at a screening of Blade Runner in a art cinema in
Cardiff a woman sitting in front of me leant over to her companion
and said "They made this into a TV series called Logan's Run, didn't
they?"
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7659 rec.arts.movies:29326 alt.cult-movies:8606
From: haley@unixg.ubc.ca (Ross MacGregor)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:03:52 GMT

In <1992Oct2.042745.22390@socrates.umd.edu> caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso) writes:

>*Sigh*.  It's disspiriting to read through these arguments about Deckard
>not being a replicant...and then come to the unicorn part.

**Sigh**. It's disspiriting to read such authoritative opinions presented
with such a lack of substance.

>  Here's where
>people hem and haw, talk about "coincidences" and ESP, and basically just
>show that they can't explain it at all.  Please, I beg of you, stop the
>ingenuous handwaving.

I beg you, stop the pseudo-logic babble (see below also).  
Factual statments: 
1-a.1 Movies do not always explain every detail
7-b.3 "Coincidences" do happen, so cannot be discounted 
2-c   Failure to explain the unicorn does not prove Deckard
      a replicant.   

>  There are only a few explanations:
>     1) Deckard told Gaff about his dream.
>     2) Gaff found out about Deckard's dream in some other way. 

3) How about this one (from a previous poster)?
         The unicorn was actually Rachel's dream.  Does anyone else
find it odd that Deckard would dream of a unicorn?  Even as a replicant...
Hmm this begs a greater question. I'll get to that later.

> The only
>        one of these that's hinted at by the film is that he knows about
                             ^^^^^^^
>        it the same way that Deckard knows about Rachel's memories, i.e.,
>        Deckard is a replicant.

Not very *concrete*.

> Please, unless
>you have something *concrete* to say about other possible explanations for
>the unicorn, don't expect anyone to believe that it was just a coincidence,

Well I dont expect people too, but I will add that unless you have something
*concrete* to explain that Deckard is a replicant, *I* will go on beliving
that Deckard is human.

As for what David Leibow said, I agree with him 100%.  The story just doesnt
seem to work for me if Deckard is a replicant.

Now to the big question. I think I'll start a new thread for this one.

-- 
Ross MacGregor           |  These views are my own and can be considered 
haley@unixg.ubc.ca       |  absolute truth.
From: edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Deckard is NOT a Republican
Date: 30 Sep 1992 11:11:14 -0400
Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math.
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu


Sorry.  I couldn't resist.

-- 
  Gerald A. Edgar                Internet:  edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu
  Department of Mathematics      Bitnet:    EDGAR@OHSTPY
  The Ohio State University      telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office)
  Columbus, OH 43210             -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7602 rec.arts.movies:29151 alt.cult-movies:8505
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 14:58:53 NZDST
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10-155, Auckland, New Zealand

> Considering the way Deckard was being tossed around by the replicants through
> the movie, I would say that he couldn't have been a replicant himself.  The
> 
> --Brian

I would suggest the fact that he SURVIVED being tossed around would say 
that he couldn't have not been a replicant himself.

Cheers,

Wayne McDougall
From: kati@glnserv.UUCP (Lady Dragon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dark Star was crap, or was it?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 21:32:24 CDT
Organization: Vermi-net, Houston, Tx. 77098

johnh@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John Holeman) writes:

> In article <12881@ecs.soton.ac.uk> ajl@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Andy Lewis) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep22.190853.13013@phillip.edu.au> ,
> >t9014201@phillip.edu.au writes:
> >>Its deep... the idea of these guys floating around in space for YEARS as
> >their
> >>spaceship and minds fall apart.  They don't give a damn about
> >discovering new
> >>life forms anymore,  they just get their kicks blowing up planets.
> >>
> >>Its a great contrast the efficient, controlled astronauts in 2001.
> >>These guys leave their sleeping quarters a mess, they play dumb jokes on
> >each
> >>other with rubber chickens, they sulk, they look out at the stars and
> >dream.
> >>Theres so much in this movie if you care to look.
> >>(It made a good book too)
> >
> >I don't know about deep, and it was probably made for about $40 given the
>                                                              ^^^
> Actually it was $60000.  Still not much as far as movies go.

I have walked out on the movie (fortunately only at science fiction
conventions) 5 times. I could never get past the stupidity of it all.

* * email address: nuchat!xcluud!glnserv!kati * Houston, Texas, USA, Earth * *
From: oneill@almach.caltech.edu (TOM O)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 5 Oct 1992 12:34 PST
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.215.139.108
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Hi,

I thought you all might like to know what Ridley Scott intendeded
us to think about whether or not Deckard was a replicant.  The
following quote is from the 9/13/92 issue of the Los Angeles Times
(Magazine section):

   Scott had...decided he wanted to leave the viewer with a hint
   that Deckard himself was a replicant.  So he had Deckard notice
   a small origami unicorn on the floor, a unicorn that would hark
   back to a unicorn dream that he had earlier in the film, making
   him realize that his very thoughts were programmed...

   "Is he or isn't he a replicant?  You can't cheat an audience
   that way.  It's anoter confusing moment," Yorkin [one of the
   executives involved with the film] says.  And so the unicorn
   dream was never used, and a new, more positive ending line--
   revealing that Rachal was a replicant without a termination
   date--was written.

The first version released was contrary to Scott's intent.  This
is demonstrated by Deckard's reaction when Rachal asks if he's
seen her termination date--IMHO, his reaction shows that he
clearly has and doesn't want to tell her because it's so soon.

Also, in the LA Times Calender section of 10/4/92, Scott says
he'd like to make a sequel to Blade Runner:

  "I'd really like to do that, I think 'Blade Runner' makes some
  very interesting suggestions to the origins of Harison Ford's
  character, addressing the idea of immortality."

(You can see that LA is so movie-oriented that the behind the
scenes stuff is treated as news.  I also think we can probably
assume that the above spellings are correct.)

Admittedly the movie's evidence for thinking Deckard is a
replicant is pretty slim, but Scott's interpretation is that
he just might be.

Tom O'Neill
Caltech Grad Student
oneill@almach.caltech.edu
From: kfason@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Kevin Fason)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: LawnMower Man
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:52:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

>The video release is COMPLETELY diffrent.  I would guess (and I'm sure
>someone will correct me :)  ) that there is at least and extra 30 min
>of footage.  There are also more scenes involving his wife, and I felt
>that the movie as a whole was much more coherent and belivable (ie
>they filled many plot holes)

Will this extra footage be in the laserdisc version?  I am about to tell
my parents to order it for me...  I might get the VHS just for the extra
footage if the Laser does not have it...but I want the laser as that was a
great movie...
thanx
-KF
From: wes1574@zeus.tamu.edu (Bill)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Raiders of the Lost Ark: R2D2 & C3P0
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:27:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep27.001620.14086@allegro.com>, sieler@allegro.com (Stan Sieler) writes...
>Sorry if this is a FAQ, but can anyone confirm whether or not Raiders
>of the Lost Ark has a cameo appearance of R2D2 and C3P0 (etched on a wall?)?
>If so, in what scene?  We just got the wide-screen laser disc, and have been
>trying to find them.
> 
>thanks,
>stan sieler
>sieler@allegro.com
> 
>
I'm not sure about Raiders, but I do know that in _IJ and the Temple of Doom_
the club at the beginning of the movie is named Club Obi-Wan.
Bill
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7693 rec.arts.movies:29428 alt.cult-movies:8674
From: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: BR: was the U.S. defeated by Japan in a war?
Date: 5 Oct 1992 04:26:53 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


For your consideration - two datum from the film:

1. The police I.D. badges display information in both English and
Japanese.

2. Near the beginning of the film, the aerial billboard advertising the
offworld colonies - the "badyear blimp" if you like :-) or don't like -
is sponsored by
"[Japanese-sounding-company] - helping America into the NEW ORDER".

Now I'm not sure if all the information I present in (2) is correct,
but I'm DAMNED sure about the "new order" bit.  This was something
like eight years before George Bush, trusting his speechwriters, 
uttered his "new world order" line.  the "New Order" line in Blade
Runner was undoubtably inspired by the use of that phrase by the
Axis powers (Germany and Japan) in World War II.


Are we to gather, based on what we see in the film, that there has
been a non-nuclear war between the United States and Japan, which
Japan won?

Noodles and sushi for thought.


-- 
Whom first, whom later         No one is fool enough to choose war instead of
did you kill in battle,        peace - in peace sons bury fathers, but in war
Patroklos, when the gods       fathers bury sons.  It must have been heaven's
were calling deathward? HOMER  will that this should happen...      HERODOTUS
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Raiders of the Lost Ark: R2D2 & C3P0
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:47:45 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

A souvenir book sold in theaters when RLA was first released
shows R2 and 3PO carved into a wall (possibly a pillar?)
somewhere in the Well of Souls. I've never found them in
the movie itself; like their appearance in CE3K they're
either invisibly small or not in any used shot.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: haley@unixg.ubc.ca (Ross MacGregor)
Subject: Re: BR: was the U.S. defeated by Japan in a war?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:00:53 GMT

In <1aog6dINNcjj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:


>For your consideration - two datum from the film:
...
>is sponsored by
>"[Japanese-sounding-company] - helping America into the NEW ORDER".

>Are we to gather, based on what we see in the film, that there has
>been a non-nuclear war between the United States and Japan, which
>Japan won?

Yes and no.  The war has begun, havn't you noticed?  You don't even have
to look further than the theater.  I dont know about your theaters, but
here lately we get the "Tin Toy" animation sponsored in no uncertain
terms by TA DA              
                          ASUNA
                       (ah-sooon-ah)

to which the whole audience chants in low tones.  Gives me more chills
than the THX crap :^).

Was this film a SONY Pictures release?

>Noodles and sushi for thought.

-- 
Ross MacGregor           |  These views are my own and can be considered 
haley@unixg.ubc.ca       |  absolute truth.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:44:00 GMT

In article <1aof4hINNc5m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
>
>WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT????
>

Actually, he was an android.  It is not clear why the word replicant was used
in the film.  Perhaps, because the term has been misused so much in sci fi
(aka sf lite) that most people think of an android as a mechanism, a robot
in human form like Data of the new Star Trek, or Bishop in Alien II and III.

The replicants are flesh and blood creations constructed by humans, rather
than being the product of reproduction.  While this is a concept that was 
common in the literature, it seems that BR is about the only example where
it has made it to film.  

For example, see "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Phillip K. Dick.
In the novel, the humans are referred to as androids, and are clearly flesh
and blood--the only way to tell a dead android from a dead human was through
a rather esoteric chmical test.  On the other hand, the animals, which were
referred to as electronic, were also referred to as robots.

>
>Roy *IS* human!
>

In almost every way except for name.  This is crucial to the point of the film,
and I don't think it is really lost on any one.

>
>Do you think he's a robot or something?
>

No, see above.

>
>He is a genetically engineered HUMAN slave.
>

Not quite, see above.
Also, consider the analogies between the replicant rebellion in BR, and the
Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia.

>
>YOU'VE MISSED THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE!

You've missed a few things too, but not the point of the film.

>
>As Roy himself said:
>
>"We're not computers... we're physical."
>

Right.

>
>Now back to our regularly scheduled "is he or isn't he" argument.  :-)
>
>
>Sorry if I've come across as a prick, but I have *STRONG* feelings about
>people (genetically engineered) being labeled as androids (which,
>according to the OED, they are), turned into slaves, and sold to people
                  ^^^
Er, what does this stand for?

>who think "android = robot."  Even if it IS just a movie...

Indeed, I dislike this also.  Blame Star Trek for fostering this notion.


Within SF, android has traditionally been defined as a 'synthetic human'.
I.e. a 'man made' as opposed to 'man + woman made' human. (:-)


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: dleibow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David E Leibow)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:45:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.042745.22390@socrates.umd.edu> caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.215705.20802@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dleibow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David E Leibow) writes:

>>If it seems a bit like too much of a coincidence that its 
>>a unicorn, well, many directors have taken much more artistic license 
>>than that to symbolially emphasize a thematic point.  If this wasn't 
>>SF nobody would have given it a second thought...
>
>*Sigh*.  It's disspiriting to read through these arguments about Deckard
>not being a replicant...and then come to the unicorn part.  Here's where
>people hem and haw, talk about "coincidences" and ESP, and basically just
>show that they can't explain it at all.  Please, I beg of you, stop the
>ingenuous handwaving.  There are only a few explanations:

Of course you've totally missed my point and I'm not sure if I can make
it any more plain without just repeating myself.  I'm not trying to
"explain" it at all.  The whole point is that it is absolutely
unnecessary to "explain" it one way or the other.  ESP, memory implants,
and all the rest are extremely strained speculation on the part of people
who obviously have too much time on their hands.  The simplest
"explanation" is, as I said, that this "coincidence" is simply artistic
license used to symbolically emphasize a thematic point.  This is done in
film and other forms of fiction all the time.  There is no need to
"explain" it.  Why go to such ridiculous extremes to "prove" something
which is entirely irrelevant to what the movie is about?


Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: mycroft@dorsai.com (Keith Kushner)
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:28:21 GMT

des@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Desmond Irvine) writes:
: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia) writes:
: : 
: : In article <1992Sep24.211015.12811@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
: : des@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Desmond Irvine) writes: 
: : >I just wanted to raise a simple point as to why I think Deckard is not a 
: : >replicant. The point is why would someone create a replicant that is supposed
: : >to hunt other replicants down and terminate them (a "BladeRunner" replicant)
: : >and make it weaker than them.
: : 
: : (Because BR is not Terminator movie. :-)
: : 
: : Why you think that it is not possible to make weaker replicant?
: : How weak Rachel was? She wasn't like Pris or such.
: : 
: : 
: It's not that it wouldn't be possible to make a weaker replicant, but rather
: what sense would there be in making one weaker when its sole purpose is to
: destroy other replicants.  You would want to make it stronger so that it
: would always be capable of performing its task wouldn't you?
: -- 
 Ah, but strength per se isn't a requirement for his job; intelligence, good
aim, and the desire to destroy replicants are. And given enough intelligence
to do the job, wouldn't he begin to wonder, had he replicant-class strength,
about its source? And, if he figured out that he was, indeed, a replicant
with implanted memories, would he be able to continue at his job of
destroying other replicants? I think not...
From: dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (DICKENJD)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Halcyon ALIEN kits?
Date: 5 Oct 92 01:24:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct4.184537.1393@abo.fi>, MLINDROOS@finabo.abo.fi (Marcus Lindroos INF) writes...
>I was wondering how many Alien plastic kits there are? Halcyon manufacture
>them, they are very well made although a bit more expensive than ordinary kits.
>So far, I've heard of these:
> 
>-Alien figure & egg (1/9 scale)
>-Alien Face Hugger (1/1?)
>-Alien dog-bursting "embryo" from Alien3 (NEW)
>-Alien figure from Alien3 (NEW, 1/9 scale)
>-Fossilized (biomechanoid) alien life form from Alien movie
>-Ripley w. Power Loader (Aliens movie)
>-US Space Marines Dropship (Aliens, 1/72 scale)
>-Narcissus Rescue Vehicle Spaceship (Alien, 1/144 scale)
>-USS Nostromo (at last! 1/960 scale, 16" long!!!) 
	There are also (expensive) kits floating around of 
	
1) The Alien Queen from  Aliens
2) 1/1 scale Pulse Rifle kit (!)

J. David Dickens . . . dickenjd@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu 
>---
>All in all, there should be at least eleven kits on the market. According to
>TAMIYA NEWS, more model spacecraft, vehicles and Aliens will be released in the
>future.
>  
>MARCU$
> 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>.. . . Fififinlandssvensk
>     
>Marcus Lindroos                             Internet:     mlindroos@abo.fi
>Computer Science
>Abo Akademi University
>Finland
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Alien director's cut
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 05:25:56 GMT
Organization: Mr. Lazlo's Temple Of The Mighty Rude-Boy Skank

daf31428@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David A. Fleming) writes:

> The last time I was up in an store specializing in LDs in suburban
> Chicago, they had a notice put up for the director's cut of Alien (no,
> NOT plural :-). 

The term "director's cut" is really getting overused.  The new special-
edition box of _Alien_ includes some previously-unseen footage in the
supplements, but the film itself hasn't been recut to include it.

The forthcoming (17 December) special edition laserdisc box of _The
Abyss,_ on the other hand, has been re-edited by Cameron to include over
half an hour of material that didn't make it to the theatrical release
version.  

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)