Talk:Blade Runner
I reverted the conversion of year links to [[1982 in film|1982]], for example -- please see the Manual of Style, plus Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards for the discussions that led to this policy. Catherine - talk 04:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bradbury Building
I've added a link to the Bradbury Building as many people familiar with Blade Runner will be interested in the location. ...but there are a couple of problems. After rewriting the article on the architect George Wyman, most of the meat of the story (and its a good story) has ended up there. The Bradbury Building article could do with expanding using some of this material without too much direct repetition. There is also a good photo from pdphoto.org at [1], which I uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons before noticing that this isn't actually a public domain photo. If someone can sort out the copyright status, it would be a good addition to the article. -- Solipsist 20:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The photo's licence bars use on Wikipedia, unfortunately. The catch is the "no commercial use" stipulation - although Wikipedia is not itself a commercial wossname, its own license allows for the possibility that parts of it may be used in commercial wossnames in future. --Paul A 03:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't clear - I've already marked the image for deletion on the WikiCommons. However, if you dig a little deeper on the Pdphoto.org site, it looks like it is only marked with a non-commercial license due to concerns that the building's interior may be copyright. From what I can determine, it is fairly clear that copyright on this building would have expired, although there may be other reasons in US law which would still prevent a free license. I've left a note to that effect on the image page Pdphoto in the hope that Jon might alter the license, but so far there is no sign that he has noticed it. The other way to go would be to find an alternative free image. -- Solipsist 08:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's all about eyes
I could probably go find some old Usenet postings of mine and use those as references, but I thought I'd ask first if anyone has seen anyone other than me talking about how the movie is so obsessed with eyes? The V-K test focusses on the subject's eye. The owl's eyes flash. Closeups of everyone's eyes (though this is camouflaged by decades of overuse of the shot by moviemakers). "I just do eyes." And the kicker is that you can tell that Tyrell is the king of this world because he's wearing trifocals: he has eight eyes. And then, how does Roy kill him? By pushing his thumbs through his eyes.
I'll figure a way to work something about this into the article some day. Blair P. Houghton 02:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
NPOV Debate over whether Deckard is Human or a Replicant
Well, first of all, I'll improve my paragraph by putting back its meaning, because somehow you got that by "nobody tells you" that I meant "sitting with you in the theater" rather than "in the movie" and by "you" I mean "Deckard". So when you changed it to imply that I was saying the audience needs the plot explained to them, it just went from dumb to dumberer. Having to have the plot explained isn't Dickian; having to be told you're not human is. I'm mulling whether to use mind-fuck rather than mind-bend, because Phil would have wanted it that way. Mulling, mind you.
And I'm going to remove the idiotic statement in one of the upper sections that "Deckard" is pronouced like "Descartes." It isn't in the movie, and not even an Austrian with a head cold would rhyme the two. It's either the dumberest part of the article, or the subtlest troll I've seen in months. Blair P. Houghton 17:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for the compliment. I actually have a very strong opinion on the subject (i.e., it's Ridley Scott's film, not Dick's, not Ford's, not Fancher's, and Scott even changed it to make the issue crystal clear, and the question is much deeper and involves the audience much more using the device of recasting the entire story through a final revelation), but I also believe that NPOV is the soul of wikipedia, so I make sure my side and the other side get the same level of rhetorical emphasis and let the reader decide which makes logical sense. Your scientific method at work. Blair P. Houghton 23:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Reasons for replicant:
- I think that Deckard being a replicant makes the film MORE interesting, as the audience is led into an emotional relationship with Deckard on the presumption that he's human. To find that he is a replicant, points up the poignancy of the film's core ethical position : the problem established by Frankenstein of the position of artificial sentience in the circle of empathy (per Lanier). In terms of the story itself, Decakard's staus as a "skinjob" makes him more orthoganal to the beings he kills, but it problematises the most important relationship: that with the audience. Hwarwick - To emphasize Deckard's struggle to find his own identity, and to cause the audience to feel as he does in their own struggle to understand Deckard's identity, and ultimately to question their own understanding of how we can know our own humanity is different, and how we can know anything (cf. epistemology). If the audience does not know the answer until the end, and the characters do not know it either, then the story makes the audience and the characters ask again what is the difference between me and something un-human if I can be either human or un-human and I need someone else to tell me which? This interpretation would also fit the mind-bending quality of a work by Philip K. Dick. Tension in his books often relies on the false paranoia of characters whose identities are being manipulated, impressed on them, or hidden from them. His style is to misdirect the reader—brainwashing the reader as the character is—before allowing the mystery to be solved, sometimes leaving open the identity crisis as well as the philosophical questions of identity and knowability.
I agree the information is presented earlier in the article, but I think at the point where the scene is presented as evidence it's important to point out the purposefulness of Scott's director's cut revision. I'll leave it as-is, and if you agree, you can add it back in. I'm just going to nudge a typo I noticed. When I've got some more time (right now I'm kind of procrastinating on something else) I'll read all the stuff you've pasted here and see if there are things that are missing in the article. Blair P. Houghton 00:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the end of the movie, he clearly feels empathy for Roy and the other replicants. He has, I think, learned, that the replicants are just as human and just as deserving of life as any "real" human. And, through Deckard, we learn this too. We, too, are challenged by the notion that humanity cannot be assigned, that it is not an inherent trait as much as the label we assign to a very deep, colorful, and complex interplay of thoughts and emotions. And regardless of their origins, the replicants, by virtue of their emotions, needs, and desires, had become just as human as us. If Deckard had been a replicant, much of the movie's relevance to us, the real humans, would have been lost. What would Deckard have learned provided he was an N6? That he too was a "skin job"? That he was being used by humans to do the dirty work agains his own kind? That his memories lied to him and so how can anyone trust their memories? Except for the memory question (which is still valid if we hold Deckard to be a human) all of these are internal conflicts--ones he must struggle with himself, and ones that we may be titillated by, but not ones that have much relevance to the viewers. On the other hand, if we consider Deckard to be a "real" human, his gradual insight into the humanity of the replicants and into the tragedy of their situation becomes a lot more personal. Deckard becomes our "Watson", our personal probe into the movie's world, and his struggles and discoveries are also ours. I don't think we can have him be a replicant AND have his personal dilemmas and ponderings on life be directly relevant to us at the same time. For those who say that we could just as easily learn from a machine, I suggest that then Deckard's central role in the movie was superfluous--after all, we could learn a lot from Roy or Pris too, couldn't we? To learn MORE though, Deckard has to be human.
My take on it was always that Deckard is human, but the deliberate confusion about possibly being a replicant is primarily there (as part of Dick's way of thinking) to raise the issue of what it means to be human. What exactly is the difference between human and replicant in the end? - surely the basic theme. Scott's just taking things a bit too literally; or, if you like, giving an answer when the point is in having the question. Rd232 15:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well put Rd232... and I would like the comment on the last point of "The final speech of Roy Batty turns from poethic to pathetic if Deckard is a Replicant." That and the analysis that follows is POV. I could easily argue that having a Replicant empathizing for Roy and the others shows that Replicants *are* more human than human and that Man messing around with "God's" creation had unexpected concequences which were both good and bad.
- Actually I have half a mind to add at the end of that debate my thesis on the Deckard issue. Which is essentially this, whether Deckard is human or a replicant is a reflection of ourselves. If we are pessimistic about the human condition Deckard is a Replicant, if we are optimistic he is human, and if we are neutral or unsure... then we sit on the fence. Deckard's nature becomes a reflection of our philosophical position on humanity. On the other hand this is just a long way of saying the question should remain open to interpretation.
- Keep in mind that when Scott voiced his opinion he smiled knowingly; which is to suggest he knew it would/should not put an end to the debate. The debate section should be kept to the essentials, if it got to large it would need to be moved to a sub article. Because I intend to add more stuff to other sections, specifically BR and todays issues.
- Actually I'm undecided if the paragraph I added about the Unicorn representing Rachael should be moved down to human section. I'll move it for now. - RoyBoy [∞] 20:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Unrelated question: are replicants Philosophical zombies? Rd232 15:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RoyBoy, Blair and I were trying to agree on an NPOV version in the talk page before publishing. Do you want to join our efforts? As there are strong feelings on this I won't make any more changes to your version until we agree on this. vaceituno 15:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hiya. While I agree Deckard having bad memories appears to be a problem; it can be explained if we are to assume Deckard is a replicant with transferred memories/experience from a Blade Runner. To assume this is a problem for the Deck-a-Rep theory is POV as well.
Actually I just came up with a novel reason to believe Deckard to be human. He screams.(Just remembered Zhora and Pris screamed too... although they seemed to scream in death, not pain, so I still might be onto something there. I'mreplacingdeleting the First/Last name point, because it's wrong; Leon is referred to by his first name, Zhora and Pris only have one name. - RoyBoy [∞] 15:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
RoyBoy, Zhora, Pris, Leon and Roy are first names and Deckar, Gaff, Sebastian, and Tyrell (for example) are last names. During the film, both "sides" are consistently and predominantely called by their first and last names. Am I wrong? vaceituno 00:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, but your original entry was reversed. :'D "All humans are referred to by first name, all replicants are referred to by last name." I've reverted a corrected version. - RoyBoy [∞] 02:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the reasons for wanting Deckard to be human or replicant are very relevant to the debate. Blair's version on that improved the section and made it more informative. As I quit editing the article, Blair or RoyBoy, would you mind putting it back?
- It wasn't removed, I put it in its own section... what I should have done is put it as a sub-section to the debate, so I'll change that now.
I don't think interpretations belong to the article (unicorn interpretation in the Debate section?)
- I will disagree for now. I think without other interpretations there wouldn't be much of a debate.
For other thing, if you look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability article, it would be better to look at the evidence _against_ D being an H or a R. When you think DIR, you tend to dismiss the evidence in the contrary, the same when you think DIH. The opposite position brings you closer to the truth, as finding no contrary evidence is more important than finding evidence that supports your position. That was the reason I frased the evidence section and "evidence against D being H", and not "evidence of D being a", which is less clarifying.
- You've put a bit of thought into this :'p, that's good. The thing is this isn't a scientific theory... its a literary (film) debate, it isn't falsifiable.
If you put you POV aside, it is clear that there is very weak evidence against DIH in the theatrical version, and strong evidence in the Director's Cut version. There is strong evidence against DIR in theatrical version, and some evidence against DIR in the Director's Cut version that are left as plot holes. We should reflect this in the article, but stating just the evidence.
- But to say there are "plot holes" in the Director's Cut is POV; and does not account for alternative interpretations in the debate. However I agree there should be mention of OV (original version) being DIH and DC (Director's Cut) being considered DIR. I've heard it mentioned before so it is important to note.
For example, the good guy is hard bitten but finally fights back in so many hollywood movies I can't remember how many. I wouldn't say Deckard shows a great resilience, as he never gets to fight back Roy effectively, which is remarkable for the fiction of a film. That "evidence" falsifies nothing and should be removed. [User:vaceituno|vaceituno] 08:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- None of the evidence falsifies anything, that's the point. For example Deckard being weaker than the other replicants doesn't mean he's human, he could simply be a model that is type-B physical. Deckard doesn't need to fight back to show resilience, but rather to bounce back after being beaten by Nexus-6 replicants. Because replicants (physical-A type) are stronger than people Deckard's ability to keep working is interesting. I'll edit the article after "The Faculty" is over. - RoyBoy [∞] 03:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The unicorn thing for example is difficult to explain if Deckard is human. Every believer in DIR or DIH just tries to find convoluted explanations for the evidence that doesn't support their positions. Deckard being resilient to being beaten up is compatible both with DIR and DIH, so it falsifies nothing and is not valid evidence.
- I agree, I'll remove it... but I will also move Deckard being weak to misleading; since it is clear Replicants can be weaker than type-A Nexus-6's. As to convoluted, I consider the unicorn = fantasy to be pretty straight forward considering it is an iconic symbol for fantasy; just as a chicken is iconic for cowardice.
Most of the rest of the evidence presented in the article now is not compatible with both options, and that makes it valid evidence.
- Says you! ;') You'll notice many of the "not replicant" evidence has to do with things not being explained in the movie, since when has Blade Runner spelled things out for us? If one is willing to entertain the idea Deckard is a copy of a Blade Runner with his memories, the fact he would have an "ex-wife" or "bad memories" doesn't need to be explained; they are simply a part of his experience that was copied over.
- Every inconsistency in the plot is a "non sequitur". If you go to a small room were someone claims to have burnt loads of paper a few minutes ago, and stay there since, but there is no smoke and no ashes, an explanation should be given for the phenomenon. So the existence of something can be as evident as the absence, and these absences are very important evidence. The logic behind making a replicant to become a blade runner implies to make him as strong and willing as possible to do his job, and signify an important advantage for the aims of the makers. If this logic is not to be followed, it must be explained, as "anything goes" is not a valid explanation for the stringent requirements of a constructed reality. vaceituno 00:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Vaceituno, I'm enjoying our conversation here... but you should keep in mind I've actively debated this issue for around 4 years, and have not come across anything new in the Deckard debate in the last year. Once again you assert there are "inconsistencies", and as good as your analogy is burning paper, it is not applicable here... since it yet again rests on physical (scientific) phenonmenon rather than literary elements, and a dark mysterious and ambiguous film.
- As to your logic argument of Deckard needing to be strong and willing, it doesn't hold up. Willing does not equal good at the job. Perhaps the things that make a blade runner good at their job is no family/friends and experiences that make a blade runner question what they are doing, abuse alcohol, and dislike the job, yet it also makes them most qualified to do it! As to making Deckard as strong as possible, is it a smart idea to make someone stick out? Deckard's boss and fellow blade runner's wouldn't welcome a replicant, would they? If he is as strong as Roy it would be pretty clear he was a replicant and he wouldn't last very long as a result. Besides, as mentioned, Deckard is pretty tough.
I would remove the unicorn interpretations, as they are not relevant to the debate. An article should contain as little interpretation as possible. vaceituno 23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the second part. I will remove the first, more dubious interpretation, but not the second. To leave it out is to imply a different interpretation is wrong or not worth consideration, and that too is inappropriate for an article about a debate. - RoyBoy [∞] 01:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Further references for the opinions:
- Ridley Scott stated in an interview in 2002 that Deckard is a replicant:
Twilight Zone magazine from a 1982 issue: "TZ: one important element of the novel that you did not include in the film is the idea that Deckard begins to suspect that he himself is a replicant. Scott: you've hit on a bone of contention here, because I loved that aspect of it. Blade Runner is a very paranoid film. In fact, I shot that layer of the story and we cut it out. It was a kind of general consensus that the way I had shot it was a bit arty."
- Harrison Ford continues to insist that Deckard is human:
- UK's "Total Film" magazine Harrison Ford said he wouldn't have played the character of Deckard if he had known Ridley Scott was going to insist he was a replicant, which he believes diminishes the emotional impact of the movie.
Further evidence interpretation candidates for DIH or DIR
- Gaff's quip to Deckard: "You've done a man's job, sir!". This is a common expression, that implies nothing.
- True, but given the context it does seem to be designed to raise doubt. Besides Gaff is the one that also makes the Unicorn origami, he's the conduit of commentary on Deckard's character, with the chicken, and the man... Gaff's words and actions are few but obviously carry meaning.
- Deckard's eyes glow: If the glow was real a Voight-Kampf test would not be necessary, it would sufficient to test for glowing eyes.
- I do prefer your wording, its much shorter than my version... I'll combine it with the mention of where it occurs in the film.
- Wouldnt other Blade Runner's be after Deckard if he was a replicant?
- Perhaps they will be. What makes you think they won't?
- After all Rachael still needs to be retired.
- If Deckard learns he is a replicant when seeing he origami unicorn, why is his reaction so low key?
(More possible material to include in the main article) vaceituno 00:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Because he has suspected it for some time, or has begun to suspect it when he finds out from Tyrell, memories, history, can be copied. But as you, I, and Harrison Ford *believe* (not logically conclude) he's acknowledging its metaphorical implications of fantasy, and his future with Rachael on the run. And there is nothing stopping Deckard from being a replicant, and Gaff not knowing. - RoyBoy [∞] 02:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)