Conference noted::sf

    I really enjoyed both Blade Runner the movie and Blade Runner the book.
  I was assigned the book in a Sci Fi literature course at RPI (It's nice
  to see that some people do recognize Sci Fi as literature).  Several
  aspects of the novel came out in class.  Basically though we talked 
  about the issue of "humanity" and what makes men different from conventional
  machines.  Ultimately, as this story expresses, it is emotions.  Emotions
  defy rationality.  Several times throughout this movie, especially near the
  end, the Androids act irrationally.  It is this that seems to make them
  more than machines.  When you consider the society that is depicted in the
  movie/book, the Androids almost look more "human" than the humans.  I'd be 
  interested to hear if others got this same feeling at the end of the
  movie/book.  

    One aspect of the book which was hardly touched in the movie was the
  humans fascination with animals.  Being rare they were very valuable.
  In the book the main character owned a robot sheep I believe.  He was
  afraid that it would break down and his neighbors would know that he
  had an electric sheep.  It has been a while so correct me if I'm wrong
  but I think I remember getting the impression that he loved the sheep.
  
  _Blade Runner_ itself is a nice title but I think Dick's original one
  is much more significant (i.e. "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep?").


  just my opinions,


  Steve McAfee

The movie had a split personality--very dumb dialogue (a la "Maltese
Falcon" bad imitation) and corny (post-climax) ending vs. stunning visual
creation of the future world and excruciating suspense in the climax.

Also missing from the movie (in addition to the ersatz animal angle) was
the general tone of the book, especially the humor.  Philip K. Dick books
are ALWAYS humorous, even when they're grim and angry.  But his type of
humor probably wouldn't translate too well to the screen (and get people
into the theaters too).

Multinational corporations (usually of German origin in Dick's books)
were high on Dick's worry list, judging by the role they play in his books
(e.g., in "The Simulacra", a coup d'etat gets triggered by the government's
shifting of a vital contract from a conglomerate to a smaller firm).

BTW, Gibson's "Neuromancer" imagines a world where there is so much worry
about company-created artificial intelligences (called AIs in the book)
running amuck that there is a special police force called the Turing
Police (!) that is chartered to smash any that look like they're getting
out of hand.

Re .2:

>Also missing from the movie (in addition to the ersatz animal angle) was
>the general tone of the book, especially the humor.

I would be willing to postulate (as a rule of thumb) that someone who has
read (and liked) a book will nearly always be "disappointed" by the movie
made from it. One common criticizm is that there are things in the book
which are "missing" from the movie. Another is that the movie "didn't follow
the story" and that character x "was completely different" than they were
in the book. This is less true for books made from movie scripts, for
obvious reasons. These are all perfectly valid statements and undoubtedly
true, but they are not valid criticizms of the movie. One can criticize
painting, one can criticize sculpture, but if one cannot say painting is
inferior because it isn't three-dimensional, even if it's a painting OF
a sculpture.

Anyone who has read a book has ALREADY seen the "movie made from the book"
in their MIND. Any real movie of the book will be vastly different, but
the differences do not constitute failings- in fact, it is more likely
that movies which are "faithful" to the book (ala Dune) that are faulty.
I would love to get into a protracted monologue about this, but I don't
have the time, fortunately.

John O.

    I have ruled off my own thumb (in scruples) and have concluded that
    a movie corresponds to a short story or at most a novelette, in
    terms of plot length.  Novelizations of movies always "pad."  If
    the author is good, the padding is interesting new stuff.  Alas,
    it is not easy or common to fit your own interesting new stuff around
    someone else's plot.  Vonda MacIntyre (I think it was) did a pretty
    good job with her novelizations of Star Trek II and III, mostly
    by telling you more about Lt. Saavik.
    
    Contrarywise, a successful cinemizer should either work from a short
    story (so as not to leave things out from necessity), do a mini-series
    (ditto), or be extreemly artful in what he leaves out and what small
    thing he substitutes fro the replaced big thing.  This is hardest,
    but unfortunately it is the thing most often attempted.  The result
    is things like Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" which not only "left
    out all my favorite bits," but was badly paced and (because of the
    deleted material) confusing.  A good example, I would say, would
    be the "Return to Oz" movie, where the second and third Oz books
    (two children's novels) were pretty successfully combined into a
    single movie.  The screenwriter had the courage to fashion his own
    new plot, retaining elements from the sources.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

The love for animals was important in the Dick novel because it was one
of the differences between androids and humans.  Androids lacked empathy,
and so could not love animals.  There's a horrific scene in the book 
where an android picks off the legs of one of the few remaining spiders.
None of that made it into the movie.  In fact, in the movie the 
androids displayed more feeling for each other than the people did.  
Makes you wonder if Ridley Scott missed the point altogether.  The 
book tried to address what makes someone human, and the movie seemed 
to be mainly about what a hole LA was going to be.
/jlr

    Oddly enough, Norman Spinrad said he liked Blade Runner (having
    been taken to see it kicking and screaming) because Scott captured
    that point exactly -- what makes a human, and used exactly that
    counterpoint, that the androids had more feelings than the people,
    despite what the press releases said.
    
    Dave W.

    I also read _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_ in Sci. Fi. Probes
    at RPI. One note that I thought was amusing is the significance
    of the title "Blade Runner" - it has none whatsoever.
     
    Roy

    RE:  .7
    
    The term "Blade Runner" was explained in the movie, but it has been
    awhile since I have seen it and I'm a little fuzzy on the details.  I
    believe the title came from the nickname given to the cops who disposed
    of the androids. 

    re .8
    
    The point is that whatever meaning was attached to the title was
    purely made up for the purpose of making the movie more appealing
    to the younger set. The term does not appear in the book.
    
    Roy

    I once heard that "Blade Runner" was the title of an SF novel about
    a man who smuggled scalpels to doctors, but this is a thrid- or
    fourth-hand piece of rumor.  I have no idea how it got attached
    to the movie.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Re .10:
    
    Alan Nourse wrote "Blade Runner".  In his world, all medical treatment
    must be approved by the state, with eugenic restrictions if I remember
    correctly.  In any case, black-market medicine flourished.  Blade
    runners supplied the doctors.
    
    Rich

    The simple fact is that someone along the line, whether it was
    Ridley Scott or the producers or the financiers or whoever, did
    not think that "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was a
    marketable title for a movie. The term "blade runner" sounded
    catchy, and so they bought the rights (or possibly just got
    permission without exchanges of money) to the title from Alan
    Nourse. They also acknowledged William Burroughs as a source,
    since (from what I understand) Burroughs had done a script adap-
    tation of Nourse's novel with the idea of making a short film.
    
    Nourse's book came out about 10 years ago from Ballantine/Del Rey
    books.
    
    --- jerry

    
      I for one, totally enjoyed the movie. I've never read the book
    that it was based on, maybe that's why I didn't pick out flaws.
    
       The enivronment of the city was incredible, I loved the effects
    in the movie. I've seen it so many times however, that I've gotten
    tired of it for the most part but it was without doubt on of the
    best SF movies I've seen.
    
                                     Pete

    Best bet is to not compare the book with the movie; treat 'em like
    separate works.  (That way you can enjoy both THING movies too.:-))
    
    						Don
    
    

Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!columbia!caip!daemon
Subject: Re:  Blade Runner vs Do Androids...
Posted: 18 Sep 86 08:29:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
 
From: donn@utah-cs.ARPA (Donn Seeley)
 
'Silas Snake' (if that's a real name, it's an interesting one!) saw the
movie BLADERUNNER and then read Phil Dick's novel DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF
ELECTRIC SHEEP? and was disappointed.  I personally think that DO
ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? is one of Dick's better novels, and I
certainly liked it more than Silas apparently did.  I'll try to give a
few reasons here why I think he might be missing some interesting
features of ANDROIDS.  (Beware -- some spoilers will unavoidably be
introduced in the discussion.)
 
Silas says that the purpose of ANDROIDS is to create a society with a
unique religion, Mercerism, and ask 'What if?' I think the purpose is
much deeper -- the book is trying to answer the question, 'What is the
authentic human being?' Dick has invented creatures (androids) which
are almost exactly like human beings but lack one essential human
trait, empathy; this lack informs all of the action and all of the
characterization in the book.  Mercerism isn't important for its dogma,
it's important because it is inaccessible to androids.  The plot of the
novel is only superficially concerned with Deckard's detective work --
the real point is Deckard's slow appreciation of the quality of the
difference between androids and human beings.  Notice how subtle this
difference is: it requires a complicated and tedious test to identify
an android, and humans are constantly confusing androids for humans.
The most chilling aspect of this is the realization that so many human
beings don't use their capacity for empathy, with the result that the
planet is being taken over by androids and the humans have barely
noticed.
 
By saying that the plot is only 'superficially' about the detective
story, I don't want to imply that the detective story is superficial.
As a bounty hunter, Deckard is placed squarely in the middle of Dick's
dilemma, since he must be able to distinguish androids from humans in
order to survive.  The plot events are organized to show Deckard's
increasing confusion about his job and his approach to his final
epiphany, not to highlight some spectacularly violent climax like
BLADERUNNER's.  For example, the sequence with the detective who fears
that he may be an android is not just meant to provide suspense, it's
there to illustrate the difficulty humans have in appreciating what
makes them human.  (Witness the detective's behavior with the singer
android after her snide comments about humans being a superior life
form, and Deckard's reaction to it: 'Do you think androids have
souls?')
 
I think the film copped out in giving 'replicants' the ability to
acquire empathy.  The novel's Deckard is able to empathize with the
android Rachael even though Rachael is incapable of empathy in return;
the movie's Deckard has a much easier task.  There are some great
images in the film and some memorable lines and I really did like it,
but the movie lacks the book's intellectual adventurousness.  If
ANDROIDS disappointed Silas, he'll really hate other works of Dick's
like VALIS or THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE...
 
Philip K Dick is dead, alas,
 
Donn Seeley    University of Utah CS Dept    donn@utah-cs.arpa
40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W    (801) 581-5668    decvax!utah-cs!donn

    I agree that both the novel and the movie stand by themselves as
    works.  All of our detailed nit-picking is just that.  It is, however,
    fun to pick some nits.  For instance:
    
    >>  The ONLY point in the movie where the term "blade runner" is
    explained (or even used, I believe) is in the introduction which
    appears in text at the beginning. After describing the bounty hunters,
    it informs us that "..such men were called Bladed Runners."  This
    tends to give credence to the Alan Nourse scenario. 
    
    >>  Several small traces of the animal theme do survive in the film.
     When Deckard meets Rachael for the first time, their initial
    conversation goes something like this:
    	R:  Do you like our owl?
        D:  It's artificial, of course..
    	R:  Of course.
    Deckard has a similar conversation with the replicant "snake dancer"
    about her python being artificial.
    	

    I took two courses on SF while at UMASS/Amherst, and in one of them
    we were required to read "DADoES" and see"Bladerunner."  They don't
    really seem like the same story, do they?
    
    The scene where Rutger Hauer dies is one of my all-time favorites.
    
    Supposedly they filmed 3 different endings for Blade Runner:
    
    1) The one we see.
    2) Deckard kills Rachel.
    3) The elevator closes.  We see the cigarette paper unicorn.  Roll
    credits.
    
    We had major fights in class over which would have been more effective.
    
    BTW, does anyone know where I can get a copy of the soundrack by
    Vangelis, *not* the Sympony Orchestra one?
    
    helen

    	Pardon me, but did you have Professor Ernest Gallo teach that
    class?                                            
    
    	He is a great teacher, and I learned a heck of a lot about SF
    and literature (as well as how to interpret it) in his classes.
    I took both semesters; this was the year before BLADE RUNNER came
    out.  
    
    	If anyone has children going to UMASS, or is planning on returning
    to college and chooses UMASS/Amherst, I HIGHLY recommend taking
    Gallo's SF courses.
    
    	Larry
    

    In a related question, I'm looking for the *original* (not the shooting
    script) script of BLADERUNNER, which was written by a person named Hampton
    Fancher. If anyone has any ideas about how I can find a copy of
    this script, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
    
    Fred

    re:.17
    
    As I understand it, Ridley Scott's original intention was to
    end the film with Deckard finding the origami. It was someone
    higher up that wanted the "happily ever after" ending tacked
    on. I hadn't heard anything about an alternate ending in which
    Deckard kills Rachel.
    
    The real honest-to-God Vangelis soundtrack was never released
    as a recording, because he didn't want it released as such. I
    don't know whether this was because he had differences with the
    producers or something else.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .17 & .20
    
    This is excerpted from an interview with William Gibson (which prompted
    my request for the original Hampton Fancher BR script). I don't
    know whether the ending that Gibson cites as being in the original
    screenplay was ever filmed ...
    
    From SCIENCE FICTION EYE (Interview with William Gibson):
    
    Gibson: ... You know at the end where they take you to the country
    and you live happily ever after? Well, the screenplay takes you
    to the country. But in this final scene, he takes her out in the
    car, and they're sitting there and they kiss and he hands her the
    gun and walks away from the car. She shoots herself and it ends
    with the shot echoing, and the only voiceover that had been written
    into it is the guy saying: "I don't know, she said she wanted to
    see some flowers and I want to go back to San Francisco ..." and
    it just sort of fades out. It's heavy. It's really fine stuff.
    
    Hampton Fancher the guy's (the screenwriter's) name was, he can
    write like a m*****f*****. We tried to get him to do the *Neuromancer*
    script but he ran off to Paris. This guy's something. I'd really
    like to meet him.

    	Didn't they mean that Deckard wanted to go back to Los Angeles?
    
    	Also, I find that ending TOO depressing, and more importantly,
    pointless.  Why would Rachel end her life, when Replicants obviously
    wanted to live as long as possible (and she presumably could live
    longer than most) - and she had Deckard now too - and why would
    Deckard want to have Rachel die; she was the only bright point in
    his life, and she took him literally and metaphorically away from
    the grimy gloom of future Los Angeles, where there was nothing anyway
    for him except bad memories and emptiness.
    
    	They might have left it where the two enter the elevator and
    embrace, after finding that Gav did not kill her - it would have
    been hopeful, but not so melodramatic.  Still, one of the finest
    SF movies in recent years, and there should be more.
    
    	Larry
    

    re .22;
    
    The only place Rachel's long life is mentioned is in the final
    voice-over.  
    

    The Coolidge Corner Moviehouse (290 Harvard St., Brookline) will
    show "Blade Runner" on Wednesday and Thursda y July 22 & 23. 70
    mm print, Dolby Stereo, on the Big, BIG Screen at CC. If you haven't
    seen it this way, you haven't seen it at all.
    
    Double bill with "The Road Warrior" (which looks almost tame in
    comparison).
    
       Show  times: "The Road Warrior"  6:00, 9:50
                       "Blade Runner" 7:40
    
    -Rich

    Now *that's* something. The two best sf movies of 1982 on one
    double-bill. I have both on tape, but yes, I *would* like to
    see BLADE RUNNER again in 70mm.
    
    --- jerry

Path: muscat!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!husc6!rutgers!daemon
From: ENU2856@CYBER1.CENTRAL.BRADFORD.AC.UK
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, by Philip K. Dick.
Message-ID: <3505@rutgers.rutgers.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 87 00:13:20 GMT
Sender: daemon@rutgers.rutgers.edu
Lines: 71
 
From: Slithey_Tove <ENU2856@cyber1.central.bradford.ac.uk>
 
From: seismo!uunet!garfield!sean1@RUTGERS.EDU

>jerryk@sfsup.UUCP (J.Keselman) writes:
>>Well, there's always the book that the film BLADE RUNNER was based
>>on, Philip K. Dick's DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP?  A
>>subject that was entirely ignored in the movie was that in this
>>future world animals are such a scarcity that people have to yearn
>>for android-type animals as pets.  The protagonist was quite
>>interested in procuring some pets of his own.  I do believe that
>>owning real animals in this world was against the law.
[...]
>
>The point about the animals was that it wasn't just illegal to own a
>*real* animal, but that no *real* animals existed anymore.
>
>Remember (What the heck was the main character's name?) when he
>found, at the end, a frog out in the wilderness and marveled that he
>had found a *real* animal?
>
>He picked it up, and turned it over, and there was a battery plate
>on the bottom. So much for the possibility of finding a real REAL
>animal.
 
    No, the point was that there *were* real animals, but that they
were extremely rare (and thus expensive), prompting most people to get
electric models of animals.  Owning an animal had become a social
necessity. 
 
    Certain species had died out altogether, amongst which were toads
(which is what Deckard thinks he finds near the end of the book) and
owls.  The animals have died out as a result of World War Terminus,
although what sort of war it actually is is not made at all clear. 
 
    Quoting from the film (as Eugene Miya does) is not terribly
useful, as the film and the book are light years apart.  The
mentioning of artificial animals in the film is merely background to a
very strong story (Deckard killing the androids).  Pieces of dialogue
like the one about the snake and the one about the owl, primarily
serve to emphasize the use of artificial life forms of all kinds, not
just humanoids.  They are merely there to help you build up a view of
the world in which the characters live (The fluorescent tube umbrellas
we see do the same sort of thing). 
 
    In the book, however, the idea about the rarity of the animals,
and the social effects that this has on humanity (including a whole
new religion based on consciousness-sharing and empathy with all
animal life-forms) is *the entire point of the book*.  The bit about
Deckard going after the Nexus-6 androids is merely a (poorly executed,
in my opinion) plot, around which this society can be depicted. 
 
    By the way, when I say that the book and the film are different, I
do not mean this to denigrate the film.  Actually, I believe that the
book in its original form is absolutely unfilmable.  To make a film of
the book, they threw away the background (which can be told, but not
really *shown*), and improved the plot immeasurably.  Obviously the
film does have a distinctly different slant on the idea, and it even
makes you feel for the androids as they try to put off the inevitable
(Death).  In the book, however, the androids are depicted as totally
callous, and you don't really get inside them as characters (The
four-year lifespan is a side detail, and not something that they seem
over-worried by).  Some people will no doubt contradict this
statement, by saying that you are made to feel for the androids, as
Deckard himself is an android, but I personally have never read that
idea into it at all. 
 
Slithey_Tove
<ENU2856%UK.AC.Bradford.Central.Cyber1@ucl-cs.arpa>
 

Path: muscat!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!uwvax!gumby!g-willia
From: g-willia@gumby.WISC.EDU (Karen Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, by Philip K. Dick.
Message-ID: <1020@gumby.WISC.EDU>
Date: 10 Sep 87 16:22:03 GMT
References: <3505@rutgers.rutgers.edu>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 27
 
    In article <3505@rutgers.rutgers.edu>,ENU2856@CYBER1.CENTRAL.BRADFORD.
AC.UK writes: 
 
>        In the book, however, the idea about the rarity of the animals, and
>     the  social  effects  that this has on humanity (including a whole new
>     religion based on consciousness-sharing and empathy  with  all  animal
>     life-forms)  is  *the entire point of the book.* The bit about Deckard
>     going after the Nexus-6 androids is merely a (poorly executed,  in  my
>     opinion) plot, around which this society can be depicted.
 
    The point of both the book and the movie, primarily, was "what is
the difference between humans and androids?"  In this future, we have
mechanical men *who look exactly like human men*, except they are
smarter, stronger, etc, and the only test to distinguish the two is
based on empathy/emotions (BTW, the dangerous mechanical men who look
just like us but want to hurt us is a classic example of Dick
paranoia).  Then we have Deckard, a human, sent out to kill these
mechanical men.  While doing so he uses brutal - dare I say it? -
*inhuman* methods to kill these creatures who many times (e.g. the
opera singer in the book, Rutger Hauer's character (Roy Batty) at the
end of the movie) engage our emotions and seem like
sympathetic...er...humans.  The question being raised in both book and
movie is whether Deckard is human (would *he* fail the empathy test?).
He acts no more nor less human than the androids. 
 
					    Karen Williams
                                            g-willia@gumby.wisc.edu
 
   "Everyone is entitled to an *informed* opinion." -- Harlan Ellison

Path: muscat!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!uvacs!dam
From: dam@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU (Dave Montuori)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, by Philip K. Dick.
Message-ID: <1964@uvacs.CS.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Date: 11 Sep 87 20:05:21 GMT
References: <3505@rutgers.rutgers.edu> <1020@gumby.WISC.EDU>
Reply-To: dam@uvacs.UUCP (Dave Montuori)
Organization: U.Va. CS dept.  Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 41
 
    In article <1020@gumby.WISC.EDU> g-willia@gumby.WISC.EDU (Karen
Williams) writes: 

>  The point of both the book and the movie, primarily, was "what is the
>difference between humans and androids"? In this future, we have mechanical
>men *who look exactly like human men* except they are smarter, stronger,
>whatever, and the only test to distinguish the two is based on
>empathy/emotions. 
 
    A portion of Henlein's novel, FRIDAY, deals with this question:
Friday seems to believe that the living artifacts (including cyborgs
and, I would think, androids) would eventually go crazy over the fact
that they weren't human, couldn't *be* human, and yet had to do things
*for* humans.  This, Friday speculates, would lead artifacts to "toy"
with the lives of humans.  In DADoES and BLADE RUNNER, this seems to
have already happened - only in a nastier, much more extreme vein than
Friday (a sensitive human for all her toughness) would probably care
to think (Dick tends towards emotional extremes much more than
Heinlein, so this is not surprising to me). 
 
>... [Deckard] uses brutal, dare I say it?
>*inhuman* methods to kill these creatures who many times (e.g. the opera singer
>in the book, Rutger Hauer's character at the end of the movie) engage our 
>emotions and seem like sympathetic...er....humans. The question being raised
>in both book and movie is whether Deckard is human (would *he* fail the
>empathy test?). He acts no more nor less human than the androids.
 
    The situation is a sad commentary on what the increasing
automation of our surroundings might eventually do to *us*
(de-humanization).  Try reading DADoES or seeing BR, and then
listening to Police records (esp. GHOST IN THE MACHINE). 
 
    I think the film did well in capturing the *spirit* of the book -
Spinrad's commentary in ISAAC ASIMOV'S SF Magazine on how to/how *not*
to make SF movies based on books was on target here. 
 
    Musings:  The chess game in the film was an exact repeat of the
"Immortal Game," Anderssen-Kieseritzky London 1851.  
    Why is it that "serious" films starring Harrison Ford always seem
to end up feeling like film noir? 

From the University of Virginia at Boar's Head, C.S. Department-in-Exile:
Dave Montuori (Dr. ZRFQ)
dam@uvacs.cs.virginia.EDU
I am usually at the College of William and Mary. Email: #damont@wmmvs.BITNET

        The following is quoted from page 12 of the Friday, March 4,
    1988 edition of THE DAILY COLLEGIAN, the official newspaper of the
    University of Massachusetts at Amherst: 

        From "Friday Film Follies" by Jim Cole - 

        "There was an expanded version of BLADE RUNNER with [a]
    different ending that the public never saw.  Fellow officer Gaff let
    Rachel go not out of the goodness of his heart, but to test a theory.
    The Tyrell company wanted to know if Replicants could *reproduce*.
    Yes, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) was a Replicant too!  In the scene
    where Deckard plays piano in his apartment, that theme was titled
    'Field of Green'.  In the first cut of that scene, his memory as a boy
    running through a field was added, and he later learned that memory
    was *not* his, but someone else's.  Director Ridley Scott recut the
    film, dropping the memory sequence and all clues to Deckard's true
    identity, with one exception:  In Rachel's first visit to Deckard's
    place, the characterisitic yellow glow in the pupils of a Replicant is
    seen as she turns away.  Though out of focus in the background, the
    glow appears in Ford's eyes as well!  If you don't believe me, look
    for yourself.  Somehow, I wish we'd seen the original cut.  The ending
    would have been quite a shocker." 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcvlx!everett
Subject: LOCUS #329, June 1988
Posted: 19 Jul 88 21:15:18 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA
 
    Well, the new issue of LOCUS came, but it's taken me three weeks
to get around to going through the previous issue for brief tidbits of
interest; and yes, YOU should also be subscribing to LOCUS.  It's
worth the cost.  LOCUS, The Newspaper of the Science Fiction Field, is
published monthly by LOCUS PUBLICATIONS.  Editorial address:  34
Ridgewood Lane, Oakland, CA 94611; send all mail to LOCUS
PUBLICATIONS, PO Box 13305, Oakland, CA 94661. 
 
    "The Hollywood Reported" notes that Bakshi Productions holds the
  rights to BLADE RUNNER and "hopes to make this into an animated
  primetime television series under Viacom". 
                       

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!gatech!anubis!chen
Subject: Re: Re: ... fate of the replicants
Posted: 13 Feb 89 06:44:14 GMT
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech
 
    In article <1704@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> MCDOWELL@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.
edu (James K. McDowell) writes: 

>		2) during a briefing, Bryant says " six replicants
>			jumped a shuttle and ... one got fried "
 
    This jibes with what I heard.  A friend of mine who was very
interested in Bladerunner was complaining to me about all the ways the
film was butchered.  One of the things he mentioned was that a
critical scene was edited out. 
 
    Apparently during the shuttle ride to Earth, the sixth replicant's
time ran out.  The first symptom was a loss of control over the hand
muscles.  Uncontrollable clenching, I think.  Shortly after the
problem with the hands, the replicants then saw the sixth replicant
die right in front their eyes. I think this would have been the first
scene shown in the movie but I'm not sure. 
 
    You may notice that Roy Batty clenches and unclenches his hands a
lot.  That gesture takes on a whole new meaning (and adds to the depth
of the film) when interpreted with the missing scene in mind. 
 
    The other thing he was most upset about was the voice-over that
the movie execs forced on the film.  And I agree.  Try watching the
film and pretending that the voice-over isn't there.  All of a sudden,
the emphasis of the film changes from a 1940's-style detective story
to a film exploring what it means to be "human" in the largest sense
of the word. 
 
    In my opinion, without the voice-over and with that extra scene,
Bladrunner would be far and away the best science-fiction film I've
ever seen. 
 
	Ray Chen
	chen@gatech.edu

       "The conversation never became heated, which would have been
    difficult in any argument where there is a built-in cooling-down
    period between any remark and its answer." - Hal Clement, STAR LIGHT 

    
    
    -1 is absolutely right...
    
    You watch that movie, and you can see the parts that were cut.
    It was a crime. I hope it haunts the people that made the movie
    	as it haunts me. Class A story, Class A acting, Class C editing.
    

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!sunkisd!uunet!mcvax!
Subject: Bladerunner Replicants and Deckard
Posted: 14 Feb 89 16:06:19 GMT
Organization: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot. UK.
  
    Replicant Data Update:
 
   Subject		Code		Insept Date
 
   Leon			N6MAC41717	10 April 2017
   Roy Batty		N6MAA10816	 8 Jan   2016
   Zhora		N6FAB61216	12 June  2016
   Pris			N6FAB21416   	14 Feb   2016
 
    To decode the Code:
   <type><sex><physical ability><mental ability><insept month><day><year>
 
    I got this from pausing the tape when the complete data screens
are shown for each replicant, its nice to see that it all ties
together and is consistant. N6 nexus 6 etc and not just made up for
the hell of it. 
 
    Now as to Deckard being a replicant:
 
    1) Member of "special" police squad , if reps are banned of Earth why
       have special squad (surely theres not a constant invasion of them
       requiring each city to have its own unit?).
       Deckard did not seem a member of Earth's only rep squad, just a local
       cop with a licence to kill reps.
 
    2) "Replicants don't have families" - we see no physical evidence of
        Deckard's family ( photos on the piano dont count ).
 
    3) "Replicants weren't suppose to have feelings, neither were
        Bladerunners"  Again the parallel of the two subjects.
 
    4) "Did you get your precious photos" - Roy asks Leon, thus
        Leon had memories, but Rachael had photos and so did 
        Deckard clearly on his piano. Again the common factor being
        brought together.
 
    5) Finally at the end Gaff said "You did a 'man's' job" to Deckard?
       Why say that to a man, unless that man is less than a man , 
       i.e., a replicant! Gaff could be congratulating a replicant on a 
       good job.

    [Other evidence:  Deckard takes quite a pounding from the
  Replicants who attack him, and he not only survives but keeps moving.
  Now I know that in films most often the hero/ine can withstand fights,
  explosions, etc. which a normal mortal would be long dead from, but
  still....; also, note how Deckard reacts to Rachel, particularly in
  the beginning.  Not exactly a mature emotional response. - LK] 
 
*************************************************************************
Brian W. Henderson		*	UK JANET: bwh@uk.ac.rl.inf
Unix Sub-Section		*	UUCP:	  ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!pyr-a!bwh
Infrastructure Group,		*
Informatics Division,		 **********************************************
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0QX,	Tel : (0235) 21900 ext. 6151
_______________________________________________________________________________ 
========================================================================
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA12530; Tue, 14 Feb 89 20:19:36 PST

    "Without duty, life is soft and boneless." - Joseph Joubert

    And, as I recall, Rachel asked Deckard if "he'd" ever taken the
    test.   The response was either negative or (more significantly)
    silence.  It also seemed to me replicants could more easily recognize
    one another, just as the young-old guy & his boss (names escape
    me at the moment) recognize them.
    
    At any rate, there seemed to be excessive references to Deckard's
    humanity (or lack of it).
    
    							Don

    
    
    	It was a tool to make the replicants seem more human,
    	not Deckard less.
    
    	Also establishes Deckard's reasoning, why he above all of
    	humanity can see that life is not just being born and
    	has some understanding how a replicant feels.
    
    	Deckard was human and so were the replicants. Thats the point
    	of the movie.
    

From: john@bilpin.UUCP (John Little)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Blade Runner Soundtrack partially surfaces!
Date: 11 Jul 89 13:01:50 GMT
Organization: SRL, London, England
 
    The wait for the Blade Runner soundtrack is partially over, as
Vangelis has released a new compilation tape, which has 3 tracks from
Blade Runner. These tracks are the love theme and end titles and
memories of green. 
 
    The album is called "THEMES" and is available on the Polydor
label, the code number is VGTVC 1. 
 
    For those interested, the full album listing is as follows:
 
                    Side A.
 
                    END TITLES FROM "BLADERUNNER"
                    Previously Unreleased        
 
                    MAIN THEME FROM "MISSING"
                    Previously Unreleased        
 
                    L'ENFANT
                    From the album "Opera Sauvage"
 
                    HYMN
                    From the album "Opera Sauvage"
 
                    CHUNG KUO
                    From the album "China"
 
                    THE TAO OF LOVE
                    From the album "China"
 
                    THEME FROM "ANTARCTICA"
                    From the album "Antarctica"
  
                    Side B.
 
                    LOVE THEME FROM "BLADERUNNER"
                    Previously Unreleased
 
                    OPENING TITLES FROM "MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY"
                    Previously Unreleased
 
                    CLOSING TITLES FROM "MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY"
                    Previously Unreleased
 
                    MEMORIES OF GREEN
                    From the album "See You Later"
 
                    LA PETITE FILLE DE LA MER
                    From the album "L'Apocalypse Des Animaux"
 
                    CHARIOTS OF FIRE
                    From the album "Chariots of Fire"

	  <Path: mcvax!ukc!icdoc!bilpin!john> <UUCP: john@bilpin.uucp>
			{John L : East Dulwich, England}
			 Life is not a bowl of cherries

    "...it is a precious gift in any universe to be needed for something."
   
               - Joan Slonczewski, A DOOR INTO OCEAN, 1986

>    < Note 355.37 by RENOIR::KLAES "N = R*fgfpneflfifaL" >
>             -< Some of the original soundtrack finally released >-

 
    Hmm. thats strange. I have a cassette of the soundtrack of Blade
    Runner. [OK,I have to be honest, I stole it from my dad :-)]
    
    We/He got it while we were on vacation one year [in Paducah, KY
    (a fairly small town)]  That was the only place I;ve ever seen it.
    
    What's on it?  The love theme (One more kiss kinda 1930's style
    tune), the tune from the ending (as the two of them are going down
    the road), and some more I don't remember off the top of my head.

    re:.38
    
    As has been mentioned by several different people (including me)
    on Usenet, that is an ersatz soundtrack album.
    
    Vangelis wrote and performed the music (on synthesizer) for the
    film. He declined to release a soundtrack album for reasons unknown
    (I've heard several different theories, but nothing concrete), and
    the authorized record label ended up releasing a "soundtrack" album
    that was Vangelis' music performed by a symphony orchestra.
    
    --- jerry

	Back to the original novel- has annyone ever read "We can
Build You" by PKD?  I read Do Androids... when Blade Runner came out
and picked up We Can Build You at a used book sale a few months later.

	Now, my question is, has anyone else read WCBY?  I never
finished it, but the plot, including some of the names (the Rachel
character for example) are identical.  The set-up seemed very similar,
although it has been a long time since I looked at it.  The major
difference was that the "replicants" were androids in the *mechanical*
sense- I never got around to seeing how Dick altered the central theme
from there...

	Sandy

    RE: (around .21)
    
    I *finally* laid my hands on the BLADE RUNNER script by Hampton Fancher, 
    if not the first draft at least a very early draft, and definitely
    not the shooting script. It's very interesting reading. Some points
    related to earlier notes:
    
    1) In this version, Rachel asks Deckard to kill her at the end of
       the movie after saying she's never been happier. He apparently 
       does. While the internal evidence strongly suggests that Deckard
       is human, his closing voice-over could be interpreted that
       he at least *thinks* he might be a replicant. It's nicely ambiguous,
       tying into the overall theme, "What is human?" which is much
       more strongly developed in the script than in the finished movie.
    
    The movie is one of my favorites, and I have little problems with
    it. On the other hand, it's not the movie of Fancher's script, and
    I would have liked to have seen that one, too. Would I have liked
    it better? I don't know, but I suspect I would.
    
    Fred

    RE:-.2
    I have also read We Can Build You. PKD was famous for doing a theme
    a few times until he got it right. Case in point the novels he did
    on schizophrenia, culminating in VALIS, where he is the main character.
    Or the playing with psuedo environments, as in Ubik and The Three
    Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. (One of my favorites.)
    
    I agree that the relationship between Blade Runner and DADOES is
    not a direct one. Various people changed the book in bringing it
    to the screen-- not a criticism. However, wouldn't it have been
    interesting for the plot of the actual book to have been made into
    a movie? Of Dick's books, DADOES seems one of the easiest ones to
    do that. It deals with largely human protagonists. There aren't
    many wierd special effects-- certainly less f/x than there were
    in BR.

Article: 2377
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (VERNON SCOTT, UPI Hollywood Reporter)
Newsgroups: clari.news.movies,clari.news.features,clari.news.interest.people
Subject: 'Blade Runner' chases cult
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:08:08 GMT
	
 _U_P_I _A_r_t_s _&
_E_n_t_e_r_t_a_i_n_m_e_n_t --
_S_c_o_t_t_'_s _W_o_r_l_d 
	
	HOLLYWOOD (UPI) -- The terrible thing about ``Blade Runner,'' a 
rare, big-budget mainstream sci-fi cult movie, is that it's coming true. 

	For that reason and others, Warner Bros. is re-releasing
director Ridley Scott's horrifying future-look at Los Angeles
smothering in filth and pollution, escalating street crime, climatic
deterioration, and bloody anarchy. 

	Starring Harrison Ford as an heroic cop in a losing battle
against terrorist androids (called replicants), ``Blade Runner'' finds
the city mired in mindless, lawless disaster. 

	Advertised as ``The original director's cut, the original cut
of the futuristic adventure,'' it is possible ``Blade Runner'' will
earn as much or more than the $27 million it grossed when first
released in 1982. 

	Why might the picture do better a decade later?

	First, there isn't a worthwhile sci-fi film to be seen this summer.

	Director Scott's reputation has soared considerably since
this, his first Hollywood film. 

	Hitherto unknown Sean Young, a dazzling beauty, plays her
first major role.  And such other cast members as Rutger Hauer, Daryl
Hannah, and Edward James Olmos have since risen to fame.  Bill
Sanderson, too, has become established for his off-beat performances. 

	``Blade Runner'' created a mood and style that set standards
for such later movies as ``Mad Max.''  The picture is a depressing view
of Earth victimized by global heating, ecological disaster, overpopulation, 
the hot-house effect, holes in the atmosphere, and other catastrophies. 

	The tragedy of American society in the 21st century is a
palpable element in the picture, perhaps surpassing the performances
of its top-flight cast. 

	Based on Philip K. Dick's science-fiction novel, ``Do Androids
Dream of Electric Sheep?'' ``Blade Runner'' is more terrifying the
second time around. 

	Said director Scott, ``Normally, once I've finished with a movie 
I don't see it again, because I've looked at it so much for so long. 

	``But when I saw this one (earlier this year), I was rather
pleased.  Many changes in American cities and life over the past decade
have parallelled what we showed on the screen.  It's rather chillingly
accurate in some ways. 

	``I think this dark view of the future was a bit shocking at
the time. Today, it's much less so.'' 

	Scott has re-cut the picture, saying there were elements he
wanted to include at the time of release that were now possible.  He
eliminated the original narration and the chase-and-escape ending,
making the finale even more bleak. 

	Warner Bros. had kept Scott's original cut, which they
exhibited in Los Angeles late last year.  Audience response was more
enthusiastic than it was 10 years ago. 

	Scott said, ``After the studio showed this version to me, I
thought, 'We've gotten so close; why not complete this as I'd like to
see it today, for audiences who appreciate this material and who are
ready to see it in its undiluted form.'' 

	Sanderson, who plays a painfully shy genetic designer
suffering from premature aging, found the revised version stunning. 

	``It was really overpowering,'' he said. ``I think it's a big
improvement on a picture that was terrific to begin with.  Ten years is
a short time span for a movie to be re-released, but this is a special 
case. 

	``It ran in one theater here for five or six weeks not long
ago.  When I went to see it people were sitting in the aisles and lined
up around the block. 

	``The picture is fresher than it was 10 years ago because it
seems to mirror what's happening to our society.  When Ridley first
came here from England he said, 'L.A. is a city on overload.'  His
vision is coming true. 

	``A New York reviewer called it a fascinating failure because
it wasn't a big hit.  But it's had a big cult following.'' 

	The time frame for ``Blade Runner'' is the year 2019.  Millions
of people have been forced to colonize other planets due to ruinous
overpopulation. 

	Lifestyles have changed dramatically.  Genetic engineering has
become a growth industry.  Artificial animals become pets because most
of the world's animals are extinct. 

	The antagonists are androids called Nexus 6, ultimate
replicants with the strength and intelligence of several humans.  They
are indistinguishable from living human beings. 

	Replicants are outlawed on Earth, intended only for work on
other planets, but occasionally a few manage to return and pass as
humans.  The blade runner's job is to find and eliminate them. 

	Best of the blade runners is former detective Rick Deckard (Ford) 
who falls in love with a mysterious beauty (Young) who is, of course, a 
replicant.  Hauer plays the leader of the treacherous replicants. 

	``Blade Runner'' opens later this month in 60 cities nationwide 
and in October Warner Bros. will expand its release.