Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers)

On 19 Aug 2004 11:16:54 -0700, lensman1955.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (lensman1955)
wrote:

 >John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<a135i09bn9l4p8o5coi3rppcgpis2mhrr4.DeleteThis@4ax.com>...
  >> On 17 Aug 2004 11:47:41 -0700, DaLoveRhino.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (Love Rhino)
  >> wrote:
  >>
   >> >John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<1272i0telj3tn6tk7352cgsbcrlmkjc45h.DeleteThis@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 gave up trying to "explain" anything in Blade Runner years ago.
  >>
  >> And the director's cut doesn't make anything clearer, except that
  >> Ridley Scott likes to tinker with his films as long as they'll let
  >> him. (Try and follow the narrative without the voiceover in the
  >> Director's Cut -- it's almost impossible.)
  >>
  >> Nobody ever brought up the "Deckard is a replicant" idea until Scott
  >> unleashed this idea YEARS after the fact.
  >>
  >> 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.
  >>
  >> John Harkness
 >
 >Is it possible that Scott thought he'd given enough clues about
 >Deckerd being a replicant without beating us over the heads with it.
 >And when we didn't get it, he decided to make an announcement out of
 >it?
 >

You're giving Ridley Scott -- who didn't write the film -- way too
much credit. You used the word "thought" in a sentence that included
his name. Scott's not a thinker -- he's a technician with an
extraordinary eye.

He's not really a subtle director, you know -- look at Hannibal or
Black Hawk Down. It's not that hard to figure out what he's trying to
tell us.

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

Love Rhino wrote:
>
> > >, Jordan Lund <lundj DeleteThis @earthlink.net> writes

> > > 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....
>

IIRC, the replicants he was up against were top-of-the-line models
designed to work in outer-space conditions. As well, they were
probably newer models.

C.
**
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

colonel_hack.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
 >
 > I understand WIlliam Gibson almost quit working on _Neuromancer_
 > when _Bladerunner_ came out because is captured the dark near future
 > image he was working for.

Really? What made Gibson decide to continue?

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

lensman1955 wrote:
 >
 > Doesn't matter to me, I didn't like the film in either version.

I'll co-sign that. It, MANHUNTER, and THE SHINING are three movies
whose reputations are decidedly not justified by their artistic
execution.

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

deering24.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com wrote in message news:<41251F29.5C3A4D6D.TakeThisOut@mindspring.com>...

> IIRC, the replicants he was up against were top-of-the-line models
> designed to work in outer-space conditions. As well, they were
> probably newer models.

The thing is, if you're going to have a replicant hunt other
replicants and he's not able to keep up with them physically then he's
going to need more tools than a handgun and cool photo-analyzing
computer. Heck, Deckard didn't even have his own car IIRC. He was
always being driven around.

- Jordan
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

In article <a135i09bn9l4p8o5coi3rppcgpis2mhrr4.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, John Harkness
<jhXaYrknessZ.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote:


 > Nobody ever brought up the "Deckard is a replicant" idea until Scott
 > unleashed this idea YEARS after the fact.
 >
 > 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.

The earliest example of the phrase "deckard is a replicant" from Google
Groups is from early 1989
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=16197%40cos.com" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=16197%40cos.com</a>
but that is a limitation of the Google database. It is obvious from
the post (the only one surviving in an ongoing thread) that it was a
longstanding argument at the time.

I remember the argument, and remember how long it had gone on when
Ridley Scott finally weighed in with his opinion (on the wrong side of
course, Ford says that he wasn't).

--
David M. Palmer dmpalmer.DeleteThis@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

lundj DeleteThis @earthlink.net (Jordan Lund) wrote in message news:<92dbefbe.0408201457.67616119 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
> The thing is, if you're going to have a replicant hunt other
> replicants and he's not able to keep up with them physically then he's
> going to need more tools than a handgun and cool photo-analyzing
> computer. Heck, Deckard didn't even have his own car IIRC. He was
> always being driven around.
>
> - Jordan

I'm not quite sure I understand your position or reasoning here.

Deckard can't be a replicant because if you're gonna hunt a
newer replicant with an older model, you'll need better equipment.
But you can give a gun and a photo analyzer to a human, because
humans like Deckard are far inferior to replicants, so they'll
succeed?

Deckard must be human, because of the newer/older model reasoning
just doesn't make any sense.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

"Bill Snyder" <bsnyder.RemoveThis@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:p0p7i0dtsoacu0u3tb65uj4strk76oep3d@4ax.com...
> On 18 Aug 2004 00:12:44 -0700, DaLoveRhino.RemoveThis@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.
>
I don't suppose anybody here knows the title and author? Sounds like an
interesting read.

--
"I don't understand how poor people think."
-- George W. Bush, New York Times, 2003-08-26
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

"james_anatidae" wrote:

> I don't suppose anybody here knows the title and author? Sounds >like an
interesting read.

I recognize the story- I *think* it may be by Saki, aka H.H. Munro, but I
wouldn't swear to it.
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers) 

On 17 Aug 2004 17:37:03 -0700, lundj.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net (Jordan Lund)
wrote:

 >DaLoveRhino@hotmail.com (Love Rhino) wrote in message news:<84c8d9dc.0408171047.73da6b8d.TakeThisOut@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. 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?).

Deckard might be a replicant, but if he is, the movie's much more
stupid.

 >
 >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.

I believe it is safe to assume that even though we didn't see them
eat, they did. After all, they need some way to refuel and appear
to have gooey stuff in their insides.<!-- ~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:

 >John Harkness <jhXaYrknessZ DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<a135i09bn9l4p8o5coi3rppcgpis2mhrr4 DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
  >> On 17 Aug 2004 11:47:41 -0700, DaLoveRhino DeleteThis @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.
  >>
 >
 >And the story ends.
 >
 >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.
 >
 >
 >
 >Now, something similar to this wouldn't work in a movie at all?

There's no ambiguity there, though. It would be more analogous
if, say, the other guy says in a depressed voice, "Yeah. Great.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Question about Susan Calvin in _I, Robot_ (Spoilers)