Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers)

Love Rhino (DaLoveRhino@hotmail.com) wrote:
: John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<a135i09bn9l4p8o5coi3rppcgpis2mhrr4 RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
: > On 17 Aug 2004 11:47:41 -0700, DaLoveRhino RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Love Rhino)
: > wrote:
: >
: > I gave up trying to "explain" anything in Blade Runner years ago.
: >
:
: Well, okay... I'll take your word for it, that Deckard is not a
: replicant, but you have to expand on this curious statement:
:
: > The thing about the idea of Deckard being a replicant is that if he
: > were it would have been revealed in the film. It's too huge a
: > revelation not to be.
: >
:
: So, I'm not really talking about Blade Runner, but more in general...
:
: So why should a too huge a revelation *have to be* put into a movie,
: if the clues are all there to come up with a surprising, but logical
: conclusion, even if that conclusion isn't the main story of the movie?
:
: For instance (incorrect example, but just for arguments sake)
: BladeRunner is a cat and mouse chase set in the future, that Deckard
: is a replicant is a surprising conclusion that isn't so much the main
: story of 'the chase of the replicants that came from outer space.'

I don't see why there's anything wrong with, in a movie, putting in an
'easter egg' for the audiences who are paying attention to the smaller
details, or who are watching it for the Nth time. Directors probably
consider themselves 'artists', so it makes perfect sense for an artist
to do such things.

There's also a separate class of 'you could interpret it that way...'
type hidden clues. I've noticed this seems to be a trend in movies based
on Philip K. Dick.

Spoilers for other PKD-story based movies, including Minority Report and
Total Recall below...
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

In Total Recall, they never make it explicit, but there's a valid
interpretation that the whole story takes place inside Quaid's head -

They have someone advance that idea in the movie itself, but Quaid assumes
it's a 'trick', and probably the audience does too. But in the beginning,
while the people at Rekall are setting up his fantasy vacation, there are
all sorts of clues... his 'perfect woman' matches the one he later meets,
they talk about adding things like alien artifacts, he's a secret agent,
and there's even the phrase 'Blue sky on mars, that's a new one...'...
which is how the movie ends. So, yep, you could either interpret it as a
straightforward action adventure set on Mars, or a story of memory
implantation gone wrong forcing someone to live in his own fantasy world
and never knowing.

Then of course, Minority Report. When people convicted of Pre-Crime get
put into storage, they have the 'hat' on their head that keeps them
docile, and people earlier in the story say it's like having all your
dreams come true. So, finally, after Andersen is captured and the hat's
put on him, what happens next? His wife figures out the conspiracy,
rescues him, they make the bad guys pay, Pre-Crime is shut down, the
telepaths get a nice quiet life off to themselves where they're not being
abused, and he and his wife get back together and live happily ever after.
Gee, that seems like it's worked out almost _too_ perfectly. Maybe all
that stuff never happened at all, and Andersen is stuck in a little box.

Personally, I really love things like this. In my mind, Deckard is a
replicant, Quaid's suffering a schizoid embolism or whatever it was, and
Andersen's failed and is stuck in a box.

But then, I'm an optomist.

Peter Dimitriadis
The Unreachable Star - http://www.unreachablestar.net
Comics & Speculative Fiction News, Reviews, Opinions, and Discussion
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

On 17 Aug 2004 11:47:41 -0700, DaLoveRhino RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Love Rhino)
wrote:

 >John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<1272i0telj3tn6tk7352cgsbcrlmkjc45h RemoveThis @4ax.com>...
  >> You're overthinking this.
  >>
  >> Hollywood filmmakers rarely put little secret things in their films
  >> just to puzzle the fanboys. If Susan had been a robot, at some point,
  >> she would have been revealed as a robot.
  >>
  >> (And sorry, Ridley, but Deckard ain't a replicant, either)
  >>
 >
 >How you do figure that Deckard is not a replicant? The director's cut
 >makes it more obvious that he is. My guess is that Deckard is a
 >replicant. How else would you explain the buggy eyed detective
 >putting an Origami of a unicorn in Deckard's apartment? Could it
 >have been mere chance that Deckard dreams of unicorns and ol' buggy
 >eyes made a Unicorn out of a gazillion objects he could have made?
 >
 >Anyways, let me know... haven't seen the movie a long time, so my
 >memory is spotty.


I think the issue here is: What if Ridley Scott went back and added
one more scene -- one in which Deckard says to the woman, "Every
single cop on the force is a replicant, and Tyrell is too."

Would you then accept that? Or would you say "Ridley?? That doesn't
make any sense within the context of the movie you just created! Get
outta here with that stupid extra scene!" ?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

Misc. little questions...


On 18 Aug 2004 00:12:44 -0700, DaLoveRhino RemoveThis @hotmail.com (Love Rhino)
wrote:

 >John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<a135i09bn9l4p8o5coi3rppcgpis2mhrr4 RemoveThis @4ax.com>...

  >> The thing about the idea of Deckard being a replicant is that if he
  >> were it would have been revealed in the film. It's too huge a
  >> revelation not to be.
  >>
 >
 >So, I'm not really talking about Blade Runner, but more in general...
 >
 >So why should a too huge a revelation *have to be* put into a movie,
 >if the clues are all there to come up with a surprising, but logical
 >conclusion, even if that conclusion isn't the main story of the movie?

I have occasionally seen a movie where I wonder "Are we supposed to
believe X or not?"

Godfather 2 comes to mind. A senator wakes up in a family-run
whorehouse with a dead hooker he can't remember killing. The movie
sort of portrays it that he killed her in a blackout, but it seems a
lot more logical that the family killed her and put her there.

Actually, I once made a list of about TEN of these types of
ambiguities in the movie Eyes Wide Shut. Once the list got that long,
I decided that the film intentionally stuck them all in there, so that
no one -- audience included -- could ever get their bearing.


 >Or, take this as another example:
 >
 >I remember this short story I read in junior high, about two feuding
 >families...

SNIP...


 >"It's not hunting dogs that you hear."
 >"What are they?"
 >"Wolves."
 >
 >Now, the conclusion of this story is, they're gonna be eaten, and
 >since they are the only witnesses to the peace pact, the feud will
 >continue.

That doesn't seem ambiguous at all. That seems like a clear cut
statement that the two WILL die and the pact will die with them.

But maybe, if you're looking for two guys trapped in an ambiguous
ending, how about John Carpenter's The Thing?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:07:50 -0700, Dgates <dgates DeleteThis @spamlinkline.com>
wrote:

>
>Misc. little questions...
>
>
>On 18 Aug 2004 00:12:44 -0700, DaLoveRhino DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Love Rhino)
>wrote:
>
>>John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<a135i09bn9l4p8o5coi3rppcgpis2mhrr4 DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
>
>>> The thing about the idea of Deckard being a replicant is that if he
>>> were it would have been revealed in the film. It's too huge a
>>> revelation not to be.
>>>
>>
>>So, I'm not really talking about Blade Runner, but more in general...
>>
>>So why should a too huge a revelation *have to be* put into a movie,
>>if the clues are all there to come up with a surprising, but logical
>>conclusion, even if that conclusion isn't the main story of the movie?
>
>I have occasionally seen a movie where I wonder "Are we supposed to
>believe X or not?"
>
>Godfather 2 comes to mind. A senator wakes up in a family-run
>whorehouse with a dead hooker he can't remember killing. The movie
>sort of portrays it that he killed her in a blackout, but it seems a
>lot more logical that the family killed her and put her there.
>

Good grief.

Most people I know never thought that Senator Geary killed her.

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

In article <20040817141025.K1375-100000.RemoveThis@bunrab.ronnet.moc>,
<colonel_hack.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
 >-Or- changes the story so he is. Sometime multiple storylines
 >are filmed (esp. different endings) and decisions as to which
 >are used are made later. And then there's the extreeme case:
 >Gozilla vs. King Kong -- Ya gotta root for the home-town monster!

Urban legend alert.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/godzilla.htm" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/godzilla.htm</a>
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.rahul.net/arromdee" target="_blank">http://www.rahul.net/arromdee</a>

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright
brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --Carl Sagan<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

:: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at
:: the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
:: --Carl Sagan

: colonel_hack RemoveThis @yahoo.com
: They laughed at Carl "Billyions and Billyions" Sagan too, even if all
: he really said was "Millyions of Billyions".
:
: Which make him a better counter example than Bozo as he was not trying
: to be funny. But since Bozo's -job- was to make people laugh, so he
: was just as sucessful as the others when being laughed at. Names
: associated with cold fusion, n-rays or (snicker) the piltdown man
: would be even be better.

If you focus on "how the laughter was earned", yes.
But if you are just concerned with "was the laughter itself appropriate",
then Bozo makes a good example.

FWIW. Which is not much, granted.


Wayne Throop throopw RemoveThis @sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

In alt.books.isaac-asimov colonel_hack.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
 > Do non-directors cut DVD evist? I know very few people (actually,
 > I don't remember anybody) who liked the directors cut better.

I've seen both versions as they came out IN the cinema, and I _do_ like the
Director's Cut better. The voice-over in the original version is rather
annoying, as if we aren't able to follow the story ourselves.

I don't have got a DVD player, but on video I've got both versions (VHS - PAL).
--
********************************************************************
** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman.TakeThisOut@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
********************************************************************<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:02:25 +0000 (UTC), Eef Hartman
<E.J.M.Hartman.TakeThisOut@math.tudelft.nl> wrote:

 >In alt.books.isaac-asimov colonel_hack.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
  >> Do non-directors cut DVD evist? I know very few people (actually,
  >> I don't remember anybody) who liked the directors cut better.
 >
 >I've seen both versions as they came out IN the cinema, and I _do_ like the
 >Director's Cut better. The voice-over in the original version is rather
 >annoying, as if we aren't able to follow the story ourselves.


Just out of curiosity... When you accept the Director's Cut as your
version of choice, are you also accepting that now Rachael is just a
regular replicant, with the same fixed lifespan as the others?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

On 18 Aug 2004 00:12:44 -0700, DaLoveRhino.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (Love Rhino)
wrote:
 >
 >I remember this short story I read in junior high, about two feuding
 >families. The setting was in the wilderness, perhaps in the colonization
 >of the west. The families had a long bitter history of shooting each
 >other. Then one time, the heads of each household were out hunting
 >and happened to be in the same woods.

That one's actually set in pre-Bolshevik Russia. I remember it as
simply two quarreling nobles rather than a multi-generational feud,
but it's been a while since I read it.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

Danny Sichel <dsichel RemoveThis @canada.com> wrote:
 >james_anatidae wrote:
 >
   >>>>How you do figure that Deckard is not a replicant? The director's cut
   >>>>makes it more obvious that he is.
 >
   >>>Directors are fallible... If Deckard were a replicant he would be the
   >>>only one who 1) is allowed to think he "retired" from his job and
   >>>lives on his own. 2) Uses (abuses?) booze to forget his troubles. 3)
   >>>Is nowhere near strong enough to hunt the replicants he's supposed to
   >>>be killing. 4) Gets hungry (ever see the others eat?).
 >
   >>>I'd think that would be the easiest way to engineer a robot that could
   >>>be easily identified, no VK-test needed. Lock them in a room for two
   >>>weeks with no food or water and see what happens. If they show signs
   >>>of malnutrition and dehydration then you let them out ASAP.
 >
  >> Isn't there a pretty good chance of that killing people?
 >
 >Yeah, well, you have to wreck a lotta eggs before you get an omelet.

You can't make an omelette without killing a few people!

-David<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:31:30 +0000 (UTC), yu239006.DeleteThis@yorku.ca (Peter
Dimitriadis) wrote:

>Dgates (dgates@spamlinkline.com) wrote:
>: On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:37:43 +0000 (UTC), yu239006.DeleteThis@yorku.ca (Peter
>: Dimitriadis) wrote:
>:
>: >I don't see why there's anything wrong with, in a movie, putting in an
>: >'easter egg' for the audiences who are paying attention to the smaller
>: >details, or who are watching it for the Nth time. Directors probably
>: >consider themselves 'artists'...
>:
>: I'm curious about that last bit. Are you saying you *don't* consider
>: directors to be artists? If so, can you give a definition of "a work
>: of art" and of "artist" such that a director isn't an artist?
>
>No, I'm not saying that, but I admit I worded that poorly. I was more
>thinking that there probably are directors who don't consider themselves
>artists, they're just churning out product and don't care if it's 'good'
>or not, but that they're not the majority. I do consider directing an
>art.

Oh, they all care it it's good or not.

You can listen to director's commentaries on hugely mediocre films and
realize that just as much care and attention goes into some middle of
the road piece of product as goes into works of genius. (Listen to
Gary Fleder talking about Don't Say A Word -- he can tell you about
every decision he made, who influenced specific shots in the film, all
that stuff. He's still a mediocrity churning out product. That's the
really frightening thing about bad movies. They're just as hard to
make as good ones.

John Harkness
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

 > I was quite gratified by how well, and accurately, the new film _I,
 > Robot_ evoked the spirit and themes of the original Asimov Robot
 > stories.

I think you entered the wrong theater... Did Will Smith look big, green and
smelly? That would explain<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

  > >, Jordan Lund <lundj DeleteThis @earthlink.net> writes
  > >DaLoveRhino@hotmail.com (Love Rhino) wrote in message news:<84c8
  > >d9dc.0408171047.73da6b8d@posting.google.com>...
  > >
   > >> How you do figure that Deckard is not a replicant? The director's cut
   > >> makes it more obvious that he is.
  > >
  > >Directors are fallible... If Deckard were a replicant he would be the
  > >only one who

  > >1) is allowed to think he "retired" from his job and
  > >lives on his own.

Okay. that's a good point.


  > >2) Uses (abuses?) booze to forget his troubles.

I don't think this is. So what? And other people go to the gym to work
on their troubles, have sex, kill people.

Wasn't the replicant snake dancer smoking a cigarette in her dressing
room? Rachel smoked cigarettes.


  > > 3) Is nowhere near strong enough to hunt the replicants he's supposed to
  > >be killing.

Maybe he wasn't designed to be as strong? He may not have been strong,
but he had much stronger will power than any human. I mean, the guy goes
through alot of finger pain. I would have called it a night and
asked for back up, but Deckard keeps going, and going, and going....


  > > 4) Gets hungry (ever see the others eat?).

I don't know... is that such a big point? And the replicant who gets
shot in the head didn't have a girlfriend, does that make him a
I, Robot instead?



  > >I'd think that would be the easiest way to engineer a robot that could
  > >be easily identified, no VK-test needed. Lock them in a room for two
  > >weeks with no food or water and see what happens. If they show signs
  > >of malnutrition and dehydration then you let them out ASAP.
 >

Well, it's been awhile since I saw the movie, but I thought replicants
were better engineered humans, hence that whole biochemistry babble
with 'The Maker'. So, with any living thing, depriving them of
nutrition, and yes, they will also show signs of starvation and
dehydration.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers)