HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jk87377@cc.tut.fi (Juhana Kouhia)
Subject: Re: Deckard as replicant??
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 22:06:06 GMT


In article <1992Sep24.002850.5249@exu.ericsson.se>
exurobv@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>
>REASONS DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT:
>-----------------------------------
>
>Roy says something to Pris like "There's just two of us now."

They don't know that Deckard is a replicant?
So, Roy doesn't count Deckard as 'us'.

>If Deckard was the sixth, the other replicants would know exactly who he
>was, but Roy and Leon refer to him as a "man... police-man".

Yep.

>His lack of amazing physical strength, agility or endurance, which is 
>continually contrasted with the abilities of the replicants.

Deckard is different replicant; more human like.


>Not to confuse the book with the movie :), but in DADES, it is quite clear
>that Deckard is human.  In fact, the argument is whether he is less "human" 
>than the replicants.

Yes, the movie is then different than the book.


>Same with the unicorn.  It can work as a symbol, without having to be quite
>so cause-effecty (Deckard dreams of unicorn, Gaf folds unicorn, Gaf knows
>Deckards dreams).  I just don't buy it at that level.

When I saw this film I picked immediately the cause-effecty (Deckard
dreams of unicorn, Gaf folds unicorn, Gaf knows Deckards dreams),
but didn't thought about symbolism.

Maybe you have read too much rec.arts.movies* groups before
seeing the director's version?

The movie lasts about two hour and it is quite strange
why there's unicorn dream and unicorn folding at the same movie
and gives hint that Deckard could be a replicant.

It could be that unicorn is folded at the beginning of the film and
we could understand that Deckard just dreamed about unicorn Gaf folded
earlier -- it could be that way too, but maybe screenplayer
wanted give us a problem by making as it is now.


Juhana Kouhia
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: dbrod@eng.clemson.edu (Douglas Brod)
Subject: Re: ED-209
Reply-To: dbrod@eng.clemson.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Clemson Univ.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:30:32 GMT

In article 00cp@acheron.amigans.gen.nz, alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>Does anybody out there in Net-land know who provided the voice for
>ED-209 in 'Robocop'? There's no mention in the credits, but to me it
>sounds suspiciously like Michael Dorn.
>
>
>--
>....... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
>           "Reasonable thought can only go so far. Beyond that,
>     you must either be unreasonable or stop thinking." (A. Brilliant)
>
I heard somewhere that it was Jon Davidson (sp?).  He was the producer or executive producer or something.  They taped his voice, then slowed it down.  It's not Michael Dorn.


Doug Brod 
dbrod@eng.clemson.edu



Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: mspace@netcom.com (Brian Hall)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:32:12 GMT

The most compelling reason I see to consider Deckard as a replicant is
only in the directors cut.  That version has a dream sequence in which
he sees a unicorn.  I think that the origami unicorn at the end of the
movie (taken with the earlier dream sequence) is meant to lead us to
question Deckards humanity.  You could call it a coincidence, or evidence
that the other cop knew his dreams/memories, much as Decakrd was able
to recount the dreams of Tyrells Niece.
.

-- 

 \ | /   | Brian Hall                 mspace@netcom.com
 - : -   | Mark/Space Softworks       Applelink: markspace
  /|\    |                            America Online: MarkSpace
 |-+-|   |
/-\|/-\  | The tornado ate my powerbook.
From: gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of the Unicorn
Organization: Ironpig Arcadia, Coventry, UK
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:04:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.212254.8300@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>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.

Oh, I get it, so if there was a dog called Rover in the film, too, this would
also be a giveaway 8*).

I just read somewhere in one of my lecture notes that this kind of speculation
is bad for ANY movie, as it means we can make up any bullshit after seeing a
film a million times (my mother told me a million times not to exaggerate) and
still be able to corroborate it. My Film Studies lecturer warns me from this
path by saying that "if it ain't IN the film, it ain't MEANT to be in the film"
and I lost marks for my old BR essay (I still got an A) for mentioning the
cut unicorn scene. I would have gained those marks back and suitably impressed
my lecturer if I could explain the moving vehicles in between the scene changes
through the first two-thirds of the film, but that's another post. Now that's
something IN the film, a bit like the glowing eyes, but it's already been
explained by Scott that these were created to draw attention to the eyes in
certain otherwise dark shots.

Now, I don't want to start a flame war, but why do so many of my friends
think that ALIEN is boring?...
-- 
        	 **Ridley McIntyre - Ronin Ironpig**			
		     gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk
		 -----------------------------------
     	     "He's in a wibbly-wobbly world of his own."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: gre253@mis.csiro.au (Steven Green)
Subject: Re: MAD MAX...best of the series
Organization: CSIRO ITS
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 03:16:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.214805.9049@vax.oxford.ac.uk> warda@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>> Talking about Mad Max, which of the 3 do you think are the best
>> MMI
>> MMII (Road Warrior in the US)
>> MMIII Thunderdome
>> 
>> * I think II is probably the best, but One did well on such a low budget.
>> * III is inferior-many people say it had too much American influence.
>> * What do you think???
>> 
>
>Well, for what it's worth, I preferred MMI by far.  II was certainly more
>spectacular, and III was, to me, a good example of what can go wrong when you
>get a substantial budget increase, and your backers have high expectations of
>commercial success.  I liked the Gothic minimalism of the first one - it felt
>like a good Western.  Also the smaller touches - weird characters and

< stuff deleted >

I agree 100% ! The original is a classic movie! II sucked, and III ( well
what can I say ) It REALLY sucked. Classic example of taking a good theme,
moving it to another country ( the U.S of A ), hiring some "name" actors
( Tina Turner et al ), spending LOTS of money and ending up with - CRAP!

I WANT that black Falcon from the 1st movie !!!!
-- 
* Steve Green     *  "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit outa my hat!"    *
* Comms Group     *  "That trick never works"                            *
* ITS Branch      *  "Nothin' up my sleeve - PRESTO"                     *
* CSIRO Australia *  "No doubt about it - I gotta get another hat"       *
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Organization: AOTC - CSSC
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:45:38 GMT

bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey) writes:
> pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) says:
>>mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>
>>>> b) This is supposition on your part - there's nothing in the film to support
>>>>    you.
>>
>>>No, Tyrell explicitly mentions that the purpose of memory implants is
>>>to *inhibit* the development of emotions after a replicant is released
>>>into the real world.
>>
>>Go find me a quote. In the version I have on tape, nothing that Tyrell says 
>>indicates that implants CANNOT be retrofitted.

>This is akin to saying, "prove to me that UFOs do not exist!"

"or don't assert that they can't". UFO's might exist. Deckard might be human. 
Markus bases his human Deckard argument on a supposition, and I point that out.
What's the problem?

>You are not arguing logically.

Prove that. Flames directed to email.

-- 
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
"Nothing is pulling it. Nothing is pushing it. It must be devil's work!"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: thssapk@iitmax.iit.edu (([<{\_/}>]))
Subject: Re: Deckard as replicant??
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 18:56:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.015615.4717@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>exurobv@exu.ericsson.se (Robert Virden) writes:
>>REASONS DECKARD IS NOT A REPLICANT:
>
[here WERE some reasons....but they're gone now.]

>>Roy gives him a lesson about life as a replicant at the end of the file ("This 
>>is what it's like to live in fear").
>
>Ignoring the misquote, I agree that Roy is transmitting his philosophy to
>Deckard. However that doesn't mean that he hasn't met Deckard before or that
>Deckard is human.
>
Uh, why would a replicant tell another replicant about life as a replicant?
Would the replicant care?

>>His lack of amazing physical strength, agility or endurance, which is 
>>continually contrasted with the abilities of the replicants.
>
>Dealt with in earlier threads. Soft limits, failsafes, part of the implant
>conditioning ...
>
...Intricate, complex rationalizations for what you WANT to see......8)

If you are going to made a replicant that kills other replicants,
would you make the replicant a) stronger in intelligence, strength, etc...
b) at least equal in strenght, itelligence, etc.  to the highest-level
replicant you might face (although there is no basis whatsoever in the
movie of giving renegade replicants such a fighting chance)?

or
c)  make him worse in all areas than replicants, and hope he gets lucky?

That's right, there is NO SENSE to making him such a weak 'replicant'.
Would you use a Yugo for a 4x4 road race? 8)

>>Not to confuse the book with the movie :), but in DADES, it is quite clear
>>that Deckard is human.  In fact, the argument is whether he is less "human" 
>>than the replicants.
>
>In the book the replicants are plainly machines and/or sociopaths - they have 
>zero empathy for living creatures of any sort. In the book, Deckard is 
>explicitly human. I think that the film is in a way Scott's reply to the book.
>
I agree with you on that.  IMO, though, Scott's reply was pretty weak.
Dick tried to DEFINE what was human; he tried to answer the question:
What really is the difference between humans and replicants?  Scott took
the human vs. replicant question, and gave it the cinematic equivalent
of a shrug.  Beats Ridley if he can tell the difference,
so why should you? 8) 

What would the point of the movie be if Deckard was a replicant?  
That you can't tell a human from an android?
Big deal! 8)

Later!!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I shall return....."                               \ Al Kwiatkowski
                         - Gen. D. A. Macarthur     \
"I'll be back......."                               - thssapk@iitmax.iit.edu
                         - A. Swartzenegger         / Illinois Inst. of Tech.
                                                    / Chicago, IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: meg5184@hertz.njit.edu (Starman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: * Where to find "Retrofitting Balde Runner"?
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:45:42 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

Several people here have mentioned the book 'Retrofitting Blade Runner'.
Can someone tell me where I can get it. I'm assuming it's out of print
so maybe a dealer's name or something would be nice as a reference.

=============================== Mike Gaines ============================
= WHAT is your name?............................Captain Jean-Luc Picard=
= WHAT is your quest?.............................I seek the Holy Grail=
= WHAT is the average velocity of a Bird of Prey?...Romulan or Klingon?=
=                        I.....I don't know AAAAAHHHHH!                =
========================== meg5184@hertz.njit.edu ======================
                            AOL: Graphix@AOL.COM
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
From: dave@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu (David Milner)
Subject: Re: GODZILLA NEWS
Keywords: Godzilla Comic Majin
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:11:56 GMT

Dark Horse Comics recently released its GODZILLA COLOR SPECIAL in which
Godzilla battles a creature very similar to Majin, a huge stone samurai
warrior that appeared in three films during the 1960s.

The story frankly leaves something to be desired, but this is the best 
looking Godzilla comic ever published in the United States.

Speaking of Majin, a winner in the Majin story contest has been
announced. Although no specific details have been released, the story
is set in feudal times, just like the previous Majin films. 

Again, the new Majin film will be released in Japan in December, 1993.






David Milner  Columbia University
inet:   dave@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu
usenet: ...rutgers!columbia!blackbox!dave
        ...rutgers!columbia!blackbox.cc.columbia.edu!dave
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7571 rec.arts.movies:29073 alt.cult-movies:8473
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Deckard as 6th Replicant doesn't hold water
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:57:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewse.1992Sep29.185731.23274
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep29.003651.20393@usl.edu> cgc2646@usl.edu (Cech Claude G) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.151915.18082@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>>In article <BvA2GF.IBo@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>
>>
>>3) Rachel has no termination date.  Due to what Tyrell said about the
>>lifespan of Roy, etc., this might have something to do with the
>>termination date -- stronger/smarter replicants may live for shorter
>>durations.
>>
>From what I remember, the claim that Rachel has no termination date occurs
>in the voice-over ending in the earlier versions of the film.  There is no
>indication of this in the Director's cut.

I'm pretty sure you're right.  But Tyrell says Rachel is "special".
And the reason for the "four-year safeguard" is said to be the
fact that the strong, non-implanted replicants are dangerous.
Then there's Tyrell's reasoning for the short lifespan.

GMS
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.movies:7494 alt.cult-movies:8408
From: dave@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu (David Milner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: GODZILLA NEWS
Keywords: Godzilla Mothra Battra
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:41:18 GMT
Organization: Columbia University

GOJIRA VS MOSURA got its first screening at the Tokyo International
Film Festival today. It was shown with English subtitles, and only
specially selected industry and media representatives were invited.

The film will be released to the public in Japan on December 12th.




David Milner  Columbia University
inet:   dave@blackbox.cc.columbia.edu
usenet: ...rutgers!columbia!blackbox!dave
        ...rutgers!columbia!blackbox.cc.columbia.edu!dave
From: wakesm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Steve Wake)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Ridley Scott
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:04:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University

Does anybody have a complete list of Ridley Scott films?

I think that I have seen them all, but I'm not quite sure.

1492 is only 8 days away!!!!!

Steve
From: caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso)
Subject: Re: Deckard is NOT a Replicant
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:09:51 GMT

In article <5983@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>caruso@socrates.umd.edu (John Caruso):
> 
>> Crucial to your argument is the assumption that when Deckard was created,
>> the full capabilities of Roy-style Nexus 6 replicants were known and would
>> have disqualified Deckard from consideration as a blade runner. 
>
>Which is the natural thing to assume, since if memory implants are not
>recent, the whole Rachel subplot makes no sense.

Huh?  Why does assuming that Deckard may have been spawned slightly
before the development of Nexus 6 technology mean that the situation
with Rachel makes no sense?

>I NEVER said Deckard has to be
>as powerful as a Nexus-6, I just said he has to be better than he is
>portrayed.  Since he is armed, as was pointed out, it would be
>sufficient to give him senses and reflexes adequate to deal with them.

I was the one who pointed this out.  His senses and reflexes WERE adequate
to deal with replicants up to the events of the movie...and he handled
Zhora pretty well, when he was able to get off a shot.  If, as I've been
saying, he was a slightly earlier and/or not so souped up model as Roy
and company, then the fact that he's been successful in the past but has
trouble against Nexus 6's isn't difficult to reconcile at all.

>> But Deckard could have been brewed before Roy and company
>
>But then Rachel could not be an experimental model, and Tyrell would
>not show any special interest in either her or Deckard.  

Again, huh?  Sure she could.  Deckard was made earlier, or at the same
time as the Nexus 6's but without the new miracle ingredient.  Rachel
was made then or later.  What's the problem?  You seem to be assuming
that if Deckard is a replicant, he and Rachel must have been made at
the same time.

>> Again I say, the problem with substantiating any claim about Deckard's
>> nature is Ridley Scott's desire to make it UNCLEAR.
>
>Sorry, but it has been explicitly stated before (not by me, so I can't
>prove it) that Scott wanted to make it clear at the end and the
>unicorn obviously was his tool for the job.  And I don't like that.
>It shows that Scott is willing to throw away the discussable qualities
>of his film and the consistency of it's plot just so he can have a
>nice spectacular plot twist at the end.  Still, why then did he allow
>them to take the scene out?

Popping your arguments off, just like a stack:

3) If you read the interview with him that was posted previously, you'd
   see that he fought to keep it in but was overriden by the powers that be.

2) He obviously didn't make the film any less discussable.

1) Sure, he wanted to make it clear.  He also wanted to make it unclear.
   The plethora of contradictory points that people are making is ample
   evidence of this.  Basically, he wanted to have his replicant and eat
   it too.

- John
From: kati@glnserv.UUCP (Lady Dragon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Alien^3?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 21:26:35 CDT
Organization: Vermi-net, Houston, Tx. 77098

boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (Two days and a wake-up...) writes:

> In article <1992Aug21.005658.25530@socrates.umd.edu>, caruso@socrates.umd.edu
>
> } But to even talk about Alien^3 in these terms is to give it far more
> } credit than it deserves; I've gone right past the complete incoherence
> } and rampant idiocy of the plot itself. Ripley goes to find the alien
> } so it can end her life, but she's already fully aware--has had it
> } graphically demonstrated to her--that it won't kill her because she's
> } a host.
>
> Which only goes to demonstrate that the filmmakers couldn't see what was
> right in front of their nose. If I was Ripley, my train of thought would
> be:
>
> (1) The Alien doesn't want to kill or hurt me because I'm carrying a
>     queen embryo.
> (2) I hate this Alien, and I want to kill it.
> (3) Because of (1), if I try to kill it, it won't fight back.
> (4) If I get doused with acid trying to kill it, I'll die, but I'll die
>     anyway when the embryo "hatches", so who cares?  If I die this way,
>     I might kill the embryo in the process.
>
> At that point, I'd pick up a heavy iron bar, go down into the tunnels,
> find the Alien, and whack the living shit out of it.
>
> This would've been the logical end to Ripley's story. If they'd done it
> this way, I don't think it could've salvaged the film as a whole, but
> it would've resulted in a better film than what we got.
>
> --
The main reason Alien 3 failed as a movie is that nobody in the audience
cared about anybody in the movie, including Ripley. They killed off anyone
in Alien 2 that we might have cared about, and when we might have cared
about the doctor, they killed him too. They kept us at a distance from
possibly liking anyone else, and made Ripley not even care about herself.
It's true that having a bad plot line didn't help either.

* * email address: nuchat!xcluud!glnserv!kati * Houston, Texas, USA, Earth * *
From: rjk@iastate.edu (Russell J Kraemer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: LawnMower Man
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:48:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Sep29.184800.15100
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <1992Sep29.090028.6000@usl.edu> drmres27@ucs.usl.edu (Mejia Pablo) writes:
>  Okay folks, the 20 million dollar question is:
>
>  Is the video release of "Lawnmower Man" the same cut as the theatrical
>  release??  I only saw it in the theater, but my roomates (who saw both)
>  insist that the intro sequence with the hyper-monkey is completely
>  different in the 2 different versions.
>
>  Any comments??
>
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)
>  Specifically, they say that the hyper-monkey meets the Lawnmower Man in
>  the vid release.  I remember the hyper-monkey dying in the lab in the 
>  theatrical release.  Anyone else seen both????
>
>                       drmres27 the curious. 
One to check out.


-- 
rjk@iastate.edu                 

I think therefore I.......shoot, was I saying something?
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies