A new line of questioning :P

Okay, so what do you guys think about this ((although it is similar to another question asked before)) <BR><BR>Given that Ridly Scott's movie was in such contradiction to Dick's novel, do you thik that it shares the same morals and questions. And another thing...... Do you think the contradictions present were intentional ((see the posts about the prequal)) or merely something not ironed out by Peoples and Fancher???<BR><BR><BR>Keep thinking guys!<BR><BR>Paul

Do you want to be more specific - these sort of questions are the stuff of essays - which contradictory 'bits' are you thinking of?<BR><BR>(hey, I'm lazy, okay)...<IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">
[addsig]

Well, things like the replicants hightened emotions, Deckards lack of emotions, the animal aspect, Rachels actions and character in general. The principal behind the Voight Kampf test, the genre, the morals, you name it! There are very few connections, yet when they are there, there seem to be errors.<BR><BR>eg.<BR>If the replcants have emotions, how does the Voight Kampf test catch them out???<BR><BR>Food for thought, or merely an appertiser?<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>--Cooking up a banquet--

If replicants didn't have emotions then the VK machine wouldn't work.<BR><BR>The VK machine measures the <!-- BBCode Start --><B>emotional responses</B><!-- BBCode End --> of the subject against a pre-determined set of questions and the VK operator looks for discrepancies in the 'reaction times' (remember Holden's line to Leon - 'reaction time is a factor in this, so please, pay attention.') of the emotional responses of the subject against expected reaction times of a human. This is referred to as the 'VK scale'.<BR><BR>Hope that clears that point up.
[addsig]

Well, according to Philip K. Dick, the VK machine works upon the idea that Reps do not have the spontaneous emotions and so the VK detects when this happens <BR><BR>This is what I'm talking about <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">

I don't see any difference between what you've just said and what I am saying.
[addsig]

Well, with regard to the animal aspects, it was clearly more defined and explored in DADoES, than BR. Then again, novels have the freedom to explore in greater detail than movies, but it would have been nice for this area to have been fleshed out a little more in BR. You did however get the sense that many animals were extinct, hence the need for a trade in artifical animals. Even Deckard's simple question to Rachel "It's artifical?", and her response, "Of course it is.", speaks volumes. <BR>
[addsig]

Dec:<BR>What I'm saying is that in the book, the reason the test works is because the reps have *no* emotions. There is no discrepancy, they jusgt simply don't feel. (or atleast thats how I understood it).<BR>In the movie however, the reps *do* have emotions, so surly the VK test would not work??? the scale only goes so high, surly hightend emotions, which are different themselves from common human ones, each most probably being a varient in themselves (as discussed before. This is what I am saying.<BR><BR>2nd_hand: I agree with you <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> Movies hardly ever explore the depth that books are able to, but would you say that besides the animal aspect, that the movie and the books themes are both explored into the depth needed???<BR><BR>Paul

I re-read a section of the book recently that described Deckard's VK trial at the Tyrell Building - here Deckard spotted a discernable lag in the emotional response of the Rachel Rosen replicant - an emotional response was detected, but it took longer than was expected in a human subject - how could that be if replicants don't exhibit emotions? <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR>--------------------------------------------<BR><BR>The difference between the impossible and the possible is equal to the difference between today and tomorrow.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2001-10-27 20:24 ]</font>

Hrm... I think I have something that could answer subpoint finaly. Have a look in "Future Noir" in the section on the Voight Kampff. I *think* although cannot be sure as I dont have a copy myself, but in this section, I believe Sammon had an interview with PKD about this very point <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> If someone could look through, it may not be that section, but it is in there, it would be great if you could post hte section up here!!!<BR><BR>Thanks!<BR><BR>Paul

I've got a copy of that book - on page 18 (the section about DADOES) it says:<BR><BR>"Deckard is licensed to kill the organic androids of this future society (or "andys" as they're called in the book), especially if they attempt to blend in with real humans. Limited by a four-year lifespan, <!-- BBCode Start --><B><!-- BBCode Start --><I>equipped with all human emotions except empathy</I><!-- BBCode End --></B><!-- BBCode End -->, these remorseless beings were known as "Synthetic Freedom Fighters" when initially designed as weapons during the prior nuclear conflict."<BR><BR>I think the key point there is the statement that they were originally designed to be killing machines before the nuclear event and now they're slaves for the off-worlders.<BR><BR>It also says that the Replicants have learned to immitate the emphatic emotional responses of humans, but not yet well enough to fool the VK machine - it spots the tiny delay in the emotional response caused by the Reps having to make a concious effort to fake it.<BR><BR>So there's confirmation - in both the book and the movie, Replicants have all the human emotions except empathy which,I guess, gets in the way of a good killing machine...<BR><BR>You must be convinced now, right?<BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR>--------------------------------------------<BR><BR>The difference between the impossible and the possible is equal to the difference between today and tomorrow.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2001-10-27 20:25 ]</font>

Have a look through to the section which has a breakdown of the movie. I think that's where (in the VK section) I am thinking about <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> <BR><BR>Hell, you know me! I'm never convinced <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">]<BR><BR>Paul

You're just playing with me now - right?<BR><BR>I read that section before my last reply and it mentions the discrepancy in Leon's empathy responses - no where does it say that Replicants have <!-- BBCode Start --><B>no</B><!-- BBCode End --> emotions.<BR><BR>It just doesn't get any clearer than that as far as I'm concerned.<BR><BR>You can't say you're not convinced by my previous reply - go and buy, beg, steal or borrow a copy of 'Future Noire' and you tell me where it says that the replicants have <!-- BBCode Start --><B>no</B><!-- BBCode End --> emotions in either the book or the movie or both.<BR><BR>Go on show me...<IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR>--------------------------------------------<BR><BR>The difference between the impossible and the possible is equal to the difference between today and tomorrow.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2001-10-27 20:26 ]</font>

Okay, I'll go look tomorrow and attempt to prove you wrong <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif"><BR><BR>I'll probably post this time tomorrow guys, stay tuned, oh, and feel free to comment on *other* descrepancies listed???<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>I never give up, do I !!!!

What, prove that I can't read? <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif"><BR><BR>The quote I posted is from the book 'Future Noire' which is written by Paul M Sammon, who was on the Blade Runner sets when they were making the film and who spent the following 15 years or so since then, interviewing most of the cast and crew as well as Ridley and Philip K Dick about the movie and book.<BR><BR>So, what you're saying is that:<!-- BBCode ulist Start --><UL><!-- BBCode --><LI>Either Ridley and PKD don't know what their own intentions were in respect of Replicants and emotions and that you're gonna tell us what they really meant.<!-- BBCode --><LI>Or, that Paul mis-represented their views on what their intentions were and that you're gonna tell us what they really meant. (I presume Paul will issue an amendment to his book at this point).<!-- BBCode --><LI>Or, that Paul's book contradicts itself. (Which isn't beyond the realms of possibility and again, I presume Paul will issue an amendment to his book at this point).</UL><!-- BBCode ulist End --><BR>This is gonna be interesting...<IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif"><BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><!-- BBCode Start --><B>The difference between the impossible and the possible is equal to the difference between today and tomorrow.</B><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2001-10-29 09:38 ]</font>