Like Tears in Rain

Did Rutger Hauer ever say where he got those last lines from? They are so amazingly beautiful that I have a difficult time believing he just came up with them on his own on the spur of the moment. I feel like he must have heard them somewhere before and thought they would be perfect in that scene.

If he actually did come up with that and had never heard it before I'm impressed. They may be some of the most poignant lines in movie history.

Did Rutger Hauer ever say where he got those last lines from? They are so amazingly beautiful that I have a difficult time believing he just came up with them on his own on the spur of the moment. I feel like he must have heard them somewhere before and thought they would be perfect in that scene.

If he actually did come up with that and had never heard it before I'm impressed. They may be some of the most poignant lines in movie history.

They make a lot of sense to( don't worry about the past that haunts you or could torment you in some kind of way,have faith, "all those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain",...) the moment he said that, should have meant something to everyone in some kind of way like ripples in water puddles seen through a window looking out.

It's because Rutger Hauer is a genius and a modern-day Renaissance Man, that's why!

"If I see one more superhero movie I'm going to shoot myself." -- Ridley Scott

Does that include BR??

It depends on when he said that.

It depends on when he said that.

Very recent quote...it was his dig at XMen, Spiderman et al.

It's because Rutger Hauer is a genius and a modern-day Renaissance Man, that's why!

I should really find his book and buy it. I would imagine it's a great read.

It's because Rutger Hauer is a genius and a modern-day Renaissance Man, that's why!

I should really find his book and buy it. I would imagine it's a great read.

I've just ordered it. it has a cool cover too

It's because Rutger Hauer is a genius and a modern-day Renaissance Man, that's why!

I should really find his book and buy it. I would imagine it's a great read.

I've just ordered it. it has a cool cover too

Looks like it's coming out in paper May 6, 2008 (US). I think I'm still going to get the HC edition, though.

"If I see one more superhero movie I'm going to shoot myself." -- Ridley Scott

Does that include BR??

Why would that include Blade Runner? (I'm sorry if that was supposed to be a joke, i just didn't find it remotely funny ).

Yeah and i can sort of see his point. Its not like i totally despise the "Super hero" concept, in fact, quite the contrary, as i am quite the avid comic book fan. However, i have been less than impressed with all these Horrible marvel (mostly) adaption's, particularly: X-men, Incredible Hulk, Fantastic 4, Silver Surfer, Dare Devil, Hellboy, Spiderman 3 and a DC release in Superman (new release). I'm also assuming that the Ghost rider and the Punisher were poor movies as well?

Usually i have some form of support for comic adaptations, but the aforementioned titles are incredibly pathetic. The direction is predictable and tedious, the acting is sub-par and the dialogue is not committed to any specific cause (i.e. its not comic or action based, more like a soap opera).

The only real exception to this trend is brought to us by Christopher Nolan, with Batman Begins. Hallelujah, we have a superhero movie that has some depth and dialogue! (just like the first two Batman films).

There are andro?ds in Spiderman 2, but different from BR:

Android; "An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human"

or

"A man made by other means than the natural mode of reproduction"

So, with this in mind, our good friend Doctor Octavius isn't technically an android.

Firstly, Doc Oc was in fact born through the natural mode of reproduction, thus making him 100% human.

Secondly, the technological metal attachment that fuses to his spine (which consequently conjoins with his nervous system - that is a whole new argument in itself*) does in no way resemble a human (eight large metal ropes connected too huge claw like grabber utilities).

The question does beg though*, if a human is born a human through natural means, can he/she ever become or be classed as an android? i.e. if they were given a metal exoskeleton equipped with increased strength, agility and speed.

Of course this might conflict with my second point. If it is possible to reconstruct a human (born through natural means) into an android (or being classed as one), does that mean Doctor Octavius qualifies?

Not for me. This is purely based on the fact that the attachment, in which he arguably becomes one with, does in no way take on a typical human resemblance.

So, in summary i guess its debatable, but for me he is not an android ; )

For the record: I actually enjoyed the first two Spiderman films, and this is coming from an individual who greatly appreciated the comics (Stan Lee) and the 90's cartoons.

Doc Ock is a Cyborg. Cyborg = cybernetic organism. He's a human with added mech parts.

It's because Rutger Hauer is a genius and a modern-day Renaissance Man, that's why

I was under the impression that the words were all ready scripted but as time was running out on the final shooting of that scene, Rutger condensed and reworked the last bit of dialogue during the take to make it shorter.

Doc Ock is a Cyborg. Cyborg = cybernetic organism. He's a human with added mech parts.

Yeah, thats what i thought, it didn't make sense to call him an android.

One thing still bugs me though, why is a Terminator classed as a cybernetic organism? Sure it fits the description of a cyborg, but what prevents it from being classed as an android? (because for me, it perfectly fits the android criteria).

"An android is a robot designed to resemble a human, usually both in appearance and behavior"

I believe that is the initial purpose of a Terminator (at least the ones that go under cover).

I'm going to go ahead and have a shot myself.

A cybernetic organism, is in a nutshell, half man and half machine. It has a metal (or robot) exoskeleton (or at least spine) that controls the nervous system, whilst having living human tissue (blood, skin etc) as its outer shell.

I'm also assuming that cyborgs can vary in conjunction with the above description.

So, with this in mind, what exactly separates a cyborg from an android? (or more specifically, a Terminator from a Replicant).

Is an android purely a robotic construct, designed to replicate the human body shape, that uses DEAD (or non living) skin, tissue and parts in a bid to resemble a human?

EDIT: So ive done some research. There is a lot of ambiguity on the subject (androids have been interpreted differently throughout time), which of course leads to contradictions. There does tend to be two strains of android. The first strain is as i described above; a robot that is constructed to resemble a human. It appears to look human on appearance (although it does not have any living tissue) but has the internal workings of a mechanical robot. The second strain refers to a wholly organic life form that has been created synthetically to represent a human but perhaps inherits one or two "robotic" or "machine" like characteristics (such as increased strength or decreased human intelligence and emotions).

As we all know Replicants were genetically engineered, and were purposefully built lacking basic human emotions (such as empathy) but given increased strength, speed and agility. Also, they were never directly referred to as androids in Blade Runner (as opposed to DADOAE).

In my opinion, it would be safe to say that Replicants are indeed androids.

However, with all the variations and contradictions out there, some people may argue that an android is in fact a cyborg and vice-versa (depending on the film). Still an interesting discussion nonetheless.