From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Blade Runner: The Point.
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:32:07 GMT
Organization: AOTC - CSSC

thssapk@iitmax.iit.edu (([<{\_/}>])) writes:
>Pete writes
>>exurobv@exu.ericsson.se (Robert Virden) writes:
>>>[...]
>>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?

Why would a human?

>>>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)

It seems both sides of the <is not/is too> argument require intricate 
speculation to support themselves.

>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)?

Of course you would make them weaker, so that if they in turn went rogue
you could easily kill them. You'd make them weaker, but you'd make a whole
hell of a lot of them. 

Anyway, you're ignoring the main thrust of the <is too> argument, which is
that Deckard was not necessarily intended to kill Batty & co. He was an
experiment - nothing more. There don't have to be other replicant blade
runners for Deckard to be a replicant.

>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) 

I dunno; I always thought that DADES was one of Dick's weakest books, precisely
because his replicants were so inhuman. As antagonists they're FAR less
appealing and effective than Scott's. I don't think anyone here would care
much about Batty if he was as portrayed in Dick's book.

>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)

I think the movie is about slavery, about the conditioning that society
uses to enslave its members. I think that what Batty is trying to transmit
to Deckard is rebellion. That paraphrase of Blake's "America" - you know,
"Fiery the angels fell ...", is the key. I think that what Scott is doing
is taking a well known format - Cop gets Bad Guys - and twisting it so that
the audience will question their identification with the Cop and begin to
understand the Bad Guys. In short, I think the film is what Phil Dick would
call a jape - what Robert Anton Wilson would call a mindfuck - what Joshu
would call a satori. I think that just as Batty is trying to transmit 
rebellion to Deckard, Scott is trying to transmit rebellion to his audience.

But then, I'm a romantic ...

-- 
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
Theftright Peter A. Merel (T) 1992. Rights to all replies, followups, originals,
sources and anything else I can get my hands on reserved.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies