How Harrison Ford's Blade Runner Confession Changes 41 Years Of Debate
BY PADRAIG COTTER PUBLISHED 21 HOURS AGO
After 41 years of denying that Blade Runner's Deckard was a
replicant, Harrison Ford has finally admitted he was. This changes
the movie in key ways.
Harrison Ford has finally confessed that Blade Runner's Deckard
IS a replicant, settling a debate that probably should never
have been settled. ------

read the full story at:
https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-movie-rick-deckard-replicant-confirmed-story-changes/

In article <749fM.291879$qpNc.106558@fx03.iad>,
a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How Harrison Ford's Blade Runner Confession Changes 41 Years Of Debate
>BY PADRAIG COTTER PUBLISHED 21 HOURS AGO
>After 41 years of denying that Blade Runner's Deckard was a
>replicant, Harrison Ford has finally admitted he was. This changes
>the movie in key ways.
>Harrison Ford has finally confessed that Blade Runner's Deckard
>IS a replicant, settling a debate that probably should never
>have been settled. ------
>
>read the full story at:
>https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-movie-rick-deckard-replicant-confirmed-story-changes/

What an awful site! Jumps all over the place, never settles down and then
greys out.

But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott. If it's
ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote:

>What an awful site! Jumps all over the place, never settles down and
>then greys out.

If your browser supports Reader View, that helps tremendously.

>But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott.
>If it's ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.

That was my thought. How would Ford know?

Brian

On 6/4/2023 6:44 PM, Default User wrote:
> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote:
>
>> What an awful site! Jumps all over the place, never settles down and
>> then greys out.
>
> If your browser supports Reader View, that helps tremendously.
>
>> But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott.
>> If it's ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.
>
> That was my thought. How would Ford know?
>
It would just be how he envisioned and acted the character in his own mind.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:33:37 PM UTC-6, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott. If it's
> ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.

I thought the movie was based on the novel "Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep". Of course, there were enough differences between the
movie and the novel that, I suppose, one can't draw the conclusion that
would seem to be obvious to me: whether or not Deckard was a replicant
himself would be determined not by how Harrison Ford saw his role, but
by what Deckard was in the novel!

John Savard

On Monday, 5 June 2023 at 05:33:00 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 5:33:37 PM UTC-6, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
> > But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott. If it's
> > ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.
> I thought the movie was based on the novel "Do Androids Dream of
> Electric Sheep". Of course, there were enough differences between the
> movie and the novel that, I suppose, one can't draw the conclusion that
> would seem to be obvious to me: whether or not Deckard was a replicant
> himself would be determined not by how Harrison Ford saw his role, but
> by what Deckard was in the novel!

Philip K. Dick wrote other stories where the protagonist
was a synthetic being, an android: he has lots of them.
I think the point of the novel and the film is not to
suggest that Deckard really is an android, but to
propose that synthetic personhood is valid personhood,
even though Deckard has been hired to kill synthetic
persons who aren't allowed on Earth. Dick's androids
tend to be very difficult to distinguish from persons
whose origin is, for the sake of argument, completely
natural. (I think the android company is doing this on
purpose in the film.) Own up, you just like the vatgirls.

Or, and especially in the film, you can read the whole
thing to be about race.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 20:36:06 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/4/2023 6:44 PM, Default User wrote:
>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote:
>>
>>> What an awful site! Jumps all over the place, never settles down and
>>> then greys out.
>>
>> If your browser supports Reader View, that helps tremendously.
>>
>>> But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott.
>>> If it's ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.
>>
>> That was my thought. How would Ford know?
>>
>It would just be how he envisioned and acted the character in his own mind.

Unless there was a note in the treatment or script that indicated
this. /Not/ a part of the dialog, clearly.

Personally, I think he's confused.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6/5/2023 9:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 20:36:06 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/2023 6:44 PM, Default User wrote:
>>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan wrote:
>>>
>>>> What an awful site! Jumps all over the place, never settles down and
>>>> then greys out.
>>>
>>> If your browser supports Reader View, that helps tremendously.
>>>
>>>> But, what difference does it make what Ford thinks, or even Scott.
>>>> If it's ambiguous on-screen, it's ambiguous.
>>>
>>> That was my thought. How would Ford know?
>>>
>> It would just be how he envisioned and acted the character in his own mind.
>
> Unless there was a note in the treatment or script that indicated
> this. /Not/ a part of the dialog, clearly.
>
> Personally, I think he's confused.

I've listened to enough commentaries on movie and TV show discs to have
learned that the actors tend to make up their own backgrounds and
personalities for characters they play because the scripts generally
don't get into much detail about those things. A lot of the actor doing
something and the director thinking "that's cool/good/interesting, we'll
go with that". Its a part of why the movie or episode you see often is
very different than what the script originally was.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:06:07 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> I think the point of the novel and the film is not to
> suggest that Deckard really is an android, but to
> propose that synthetic personhood is valid personhood,

> Or, and especially in the film, you can read the whole
> thing to be about race.

Is there a distinction?

Well, I suppose there is, in that one could write a work about
discrimination against androids without believing that androids
could ever exist, simply to have a way to talk about racial
discrimination in an abstract way instead of an explicit one.

But in the case where the novel was principally about the validity
of synthetic personhood, it would still have been also a condemnation
of all forms of inequality and discrimination as well, almost automatically,
since they're all unfair and wrong for the same basic reason.

John Savard

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:28:04 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:06:07 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > I think the point of the novel and the film is not to
> > suggest that Deckard really is an android, but to
> > propose that synthetic personhood is valid personhood,
> > Or, and especially in the film, you can read the whole
> > thing to be about race.
>
> But in the case where the novel was principally about the validity
> of synthetic personhood, it would still have been also a condemnation
> of all forms of inequality and discrimination as well, almost automatically,
> since they're all unfair and wrong for the same basic reason.

Houyhnhnm rights! Now!

--
-Jack

On 06/06/2023 21:44, Jack Bohn wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:28:04 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:06:07 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> I think the point of the novel and the film is not to
>>> suggest that Deckard really is an android, but to
>>> propose that synthetic personhood is valid personhood,
>>> Or, and especially in the film, you can read the whole
>>> thing to be about race.
>>
>> But in the case where the novel was principally about the validity
>> of synthetic personhood, it would still have been also a condemnation
>> of all forms of inequality and discrimination as well, almost automatically,
>> since they're all unfair and wrong for the same basic reason.
>
> Houyhnhnm rights! Now!
>
Neigh!!!

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 12:28:04 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 9:06:07 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > I think the point of the novel and the film is not to
> > suggest that Deckard really is an android, but to
> > propose that synthetic personhood is valid personhood,
> > Or, and especially in the film, you can read the whole
> > thing to be about race.
> Is there a distinction?
>
> Well, I suppose there is, in that one could write a work about
> discrimination against androids without believing that androids
> could ever exist, simply to have a way to talk about racial
> discrimination in an abstract way instead of an explicit one.
>
> But in the case where the novel was principally about the validity
> of synthetic personhood, it would still have been also a condemnation
> of all forms of inequality and discrimination as well, almost automatically,
> since they're all unfair and wrong for the same basic reason.

On reflection, I think I gave you the wrong explanation -
Dick isn't a champion of android personhood, he is
a critic of human personhood. We congratulate ourselves,
we thinking pieces of meat, but are were only a phenomenon
of nature that can be duplicated, re-created, modified,
mass produced? Like your vat girls. Does that devalue us?
I would say that not being unique doesn't make us less than
we are otherwise, because it doesn't change what we are.
But it contradicts what we think we are.

And to create vatgirl females as rewards for discontented
males is ridiculous. Did we decide already that the proper
use is just to have a society of vatgirls and not to bother
having any males? Or just a few to keep the vatgirls
happy, but that is making the same mistake.

My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
about the situation of androids in society can be read
as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
about Jews.

Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
> about the situation of androids in society can be read
> as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
> ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
> matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
> it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
> in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
> as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
> difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
> not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
> about Jews.

His androids, particularly the androids in _Sheep_, are definitely and scientifically different from humans, as detected by an empathy test. In some publicity interview leading up to "Blade Runner" he seemed to be putting that up as his concern, touched off by reading a diary of a Nazi who was complaining that the children were too loud when he was trying to sleep -- these being the children in his concentration camp; there can be things that look human but are not. His comment about Sean Young's portrayal of Rachel (who thought she was human, but Deckard and we know is not) was that she was "la belle dame sans merci" he had written about. Haven't seen the revisiting of Blade Runner, the revisiting of Alien kind of put me off those, but even the suggestion that she and Deckard are sort of human by the end strikes me as a weak "love conquers all" justification.

--
-Jack

In article <e53bdc64-767b-45fe-9c00-7ba45277342cn@googlegroups.com>,
Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
>> about the situation of androids in society can be read
>> as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
>> ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
>> matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
>> it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
>> in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
>> as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
>> difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
>> not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
>> about Jews.
>
>His androids, particularly the androids in _Sheep_, are definitely and
>scientifically different from humans, as detected by an empathy test.
>In some publicity interview leading up to "Blade Runner" he seemed to
>be putting that up as his concern, touched off by reading a diary of a
>Nazi who was complaining that the children were too loud when he was
>trying to sleep -- these being the children in his concentration camp;
>there can be things that look human but are not. His comment about
>Sean Young's portrayal of Rachel (who thought she was human, but
>Deckard and we know is not) was that she was "la belle dame sans merci"
>he had written about. Haven't seen the revisiting of Blade Runner, the
>revisiting of Alien kind of put me off those, but even the suggestion
>that she and Deckard are sort of human by the end strikes me as a weak
>"love conquers all" justification.

It's been a long time since I read Sheep but I recall that the android
and human capacities for empathy overlapped, and that it was pretty
likely some beings being retired as androids were actually humans lacking
empathy.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:

>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
>> about the situation of androids in society can be read
>> as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
>> ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
>> matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
>> it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
>> in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
>> as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
>> difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
>> not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
>> about Jews.
>
>His androids, particularly the androids in _Sheep_, are definitely and scientifically different from humans, as detected by an empathy test. In some publicity interview leading up to "Blade Runner" he seemed to be putting that up as his concern, touched off by reading a diary of a Nazi who was complaining that the children were too loud when he was trying to sleep -- these being the children in his concentration camp; there can be things that look human but are not. His comment about Sean Young's portrayal of Rachel (who thought she was human, but Deckard and we know is not) was that she was "la belle dame sans merci" he had written about. Haven't seen the revisiting of Blade Runner, the revisiting of Alien kind of put me off those, but even the suggestion that she and Deckard are sort of human by the end strikes me as a weak "love conquers all" justification.

If you watch the sequel (/not/ recommended, BTW), you will find that
love /did/ conquer all.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6/7/2023 8:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
> <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>
>>> My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
>>> about the situation of androids in society can be read
>>> as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
>>> ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
>>> matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
>>> it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
>>> in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
>>> as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
>>> difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
>>> not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
>>> about Jews.
>>
>> His androids, particularly the androids in _Sheep_, are definitely and scientifically different from humans, as detected by an empathy test. In some publicity interview leading up to "Blade Runner" he seemed to be putting that up as his concern, touched off by reading a diary of a Nazi who was complaining that the children were too loud when he was trying to sleep -- these being the children in his concentration camp; there can be things that look human but are not. His comment about Sean Young's portrayal of Rachel (who thought she was human, but Deckard and we know is not) was that she was "la belle dame sans merci" he had written about. Haven't seen the revisiting of Blade Runner, the revisiting of Alien kind of put me off those, but even the suggestion that she and Deckard are sort of human by the end strikes me as a weak "love conquers all" justification.
>
> If you watch the sequel (/not/ recommended, BTW), you will find that
> love /did/ conquer all.

I'm going to counter that "not recommended" with a "recommended". :) I
think '2049' captured the feel of the original very well and Hollyweird
apparently agrees as a third movie (Blade Runner 2099) is in development.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:06:06 AM UTC+10, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 6/7/2023 8:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > If you watch the sequel (/not/ recommended, BTW), you will find that
> > love /did/ conquer all.
> I'm going to counter that "not recommended" with a "recommended". :) I
> think '2049' captured the feel of the original very well and Hollyweird
> apparently agrees as a third movie (Blade Runner 2099) is in development.

The pacing of 2049 was pretty idiosyncratic
Once you adjust to that it's reasonable

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 14:08:55 UTC+1, Jack Bohn wrote:
> Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> > My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
> > about the situation of androids in society can be read
> > as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
> > ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
> > matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
> > it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
> > in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
> > as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
> > difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
> > not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
> > about Jews.
> His androids, particularly the androids in _Sheep_, are definitely and scientifically different from humans, as detected by an empathy test. In some publicity interview leading up to "Blade Runner" he seemed to be putting that up as his concern, touched off by reading a diary of a Nazi who was complaining that the children were too loud when he was trying to sleep -- these being the children in his concentration camp; there can be things that look human but are not. His comment about Sean Young's portrayal of Rachel (who thought she was human, but Deckard and we know is not) was that she was "la belle dame sans merci" he had written about. Haven't seen the revisiting of Blade Runner, the revisiting of Alien kind of put me off those, but even the suggestion that she and Deckard are sort of human by the end strikes me as a weak "love conquers all" justification.

Do people mind that in _Pinocchio_?
Or in (the version I read of the religious comedy)
_Journey to the West_? Or maybe I'm thinking
of the Japanese TV show, translated to English
possibly with less than absolute fidelity, where
it seemed to be explicit that characters described
as "demons" were often humans who had been
overwhelmed by sinful urges... and got super
magic powers apparently. Whereas the goal of life
was to become a Buddha, which is better than human -
demons and Tripitaka's animal companions being
inferior to humans, but with a hope of promotion.

Returning to _Sheep_, content that I'm remembering
may have been added for a recent-ish radio play
adaptation: another bounty hunter argues that
some natural-born humans won't pass the current
or updated "not an android" test. Ruthless killers
I.e. bounty hunters were the subjects in question, but
another suggestion or maybe my own thought was
about the autistic spectrum, and other categories
of mental issues.

According to reviews of an alarming book,
_Asperger's Children_ (2018), when Nazis discovered
autism, they dealt with it like Deckard deals with
the androids.

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 09:06:03 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/7/2023 8:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 06:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
>> <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My point about race is to wonder whether Dick writing
>>>> about the situation of androids in society can be read
>>>> as a commentary on disagreements amongst actual
>>>> ordinary people, then or now, that are considered to be
>>>> matters of race. Whether it's applicable. I do not think
>>>> it is meant to be applicable. Particularly, Dick's androids
>>>> in different, unrelated stories tend to "pass", to be perceived
>>>> as "real" humans although by arbitrary distinction or by
>>>> difference of origin, they're not. And once you know they're
>>>> not, you see them differently. So in that case it could be
>>>> about Jews.
>>>
>>> His androids, particularly the androids in _Sheep_, are definitely and scientifically different from humans, as detected by an empathy test. In some publicity interview leading up to "Blade Runner" he seemed to be putting that up as his concern, touched off by reading a diary of a Nazi who was complaining that the children were too loud when he was trying to sleep -- these being the children in his concentration camp; there can be things that look human but are not. His comment about Sean Young's portrayal of Rachel (who thought she was human, but Deckard and we know is not) was that she was "la belle dame sans merci" he had written about. Haven't seen the revisiting of Blade Runner, the revisiting of Alien kind of put me off those, but even the suggestion that she and Deckard are sort of human by the end strikes me as a weak "love conquers all" justification.
>>
>> If you watch the sequel (/not/ recommended, BTW), you will find that
>> love /did/ conquer all.
>
>I'm going to counter that "not recommended" with a "recommended". :) I
>think '2049' captured the feel of the original very well and Hollyweird
>apparently agrees as a third movie (Blade Runner 2099) is in development.

De gustibus non est desputatum (or whatever).

I won't be seeing it. If it ever actually appears.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 6:55:51 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> According to reviews of an alarming book,
> _Asperger's Children_ (2018), when Nazis discovered
> autism, they dealt with it like Deckard deals with
> the androids.

That's hardly surprising. They warmed up the population for the Final
Solution through "euthanizing" the mentally handicapped, so one would
expect them to treat other severe mental disabilities the same way.

The surprise is that this was when and where autism was discovered.

John Savard

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 8:10:27 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 6:55:51 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > According to reviews of an alarming book,
> > _Asperger's Children_ (2018), when Nazis discovered
> > autism, they dealt with it like Deckard deals with
> > the androids.
> That's hardly surprising. They warmed up the population for the Final
> Solution through "euthanizing" the mentally handicapped, so one would
> expect them to treat other severe mental disabilities the same way.
>
> The surprise is that this was when and where autism was discovered.
>
It's not
There had been multiple papers describing people who would be classified as autistic going back to at least 1877, possible back to Martin Luthor in the 1500s
The terms have changed but the classification criteria match pretty closely to some of John Down's classifications for Develpmental Retardation in 1877, Eugen Bleuler's definition of Schizophrenia included Autism