Uh, okay, but you can't "break" surface tension. Water that is rippling from the splash of the hammer still has surface tension, just as much as before. The surface tension is "broken" briefly when the hammer passes through, but then it's the same ol' water. You could try holding onto to something that will precede you into the water, but then the force of the surface tension would still be transmitted to you (so it'd have to be some special diving apparatus designed to absorb the shock, highly unlikely that you'd have around if you accidentally fell from a bridge).
Maybe if you did something that actually affected the attraction of the water molecules, like throw a big bucket of dish soap down, that would actually disrupt the water's self-attraction at the surface long enough for you to hit without going splat.
So if the robot is 15x the weight of a strider, they might as well just take off the legs and put the rest on a real strider.
Yeah, that's why I said the robot clearly weights a lot more than 15x a water strider. Look at it, it's a block of metal. It's much more dense and vastly larger than a water strider -- not surprising given the state of robotics. There's no possible way a water strider could hold up that robotic body, it's not even within an order of magnitude of being capable.
Demand far exceeds supply, so the MSRP is an artificial price ceiling.
In other words, why the hostility towards the trade?
Because if they didn't buy the Wiis for the sole purpose of re-selling them at a higher price, that'd be one more Wii available to someone who actually wants one at MSRP! The Wii-flippers are in part why there's a shortage and you can only buy Wiis from the flippers!
This is why I like games like Rainbow Six or (maybe obscure personal favorite) Navy Seals for Q3, where the two sides are, say, "urban camouflage" and "slightly different urban camouflage". Not only then does neither team enjoy an advantage in spotting the enemy, they also have no advantage in separating friend from foe!
Note that you might speciate even without losing the ability to cross breed. There are plenty of animals that can cross breed; one might even wonder if the surge in nonspecific infertility in 1st world nations is not the result, to some degree, of speciation effects.
Cross breed and produce viable offspring, i.e. offspring which can themselves breed? I thought the inability to do that was the classic definition of species -- though I realize the definition has gotten more complicated as our knowledge of genetics improves.
And wild speculation it may be, but that's still an interesting theory.:)
You can bet that humans will eventually evolve into different species, perhaps sooner than expected.
Probably not, as long as barriers to interbreeding aren't erected, and traits are instead spread among the population. Much like the study, which is looking at genetic changes that occur in 20-80% of the population. Mutations that show up in one part of the world get spread across most of it in short order, so a buildup of mutations that could prevent two sub-populations from cross-breeding is unlikely.
Humans didn't speciate even back when we were separated by large natural barriers to interbreeding, and populations remained separate for tens of thousands of years. Of course the observation of this study is that humans are changing faster than we were back then so a span of ten thousand years may be sufficient; presumably the conditions that allow this to be so would cease to exist if conditions also changed such that long distances, oceans, and deserts once again became significant barriers to interbreeding.
And even then, when I think about the colonization of the Pacific islands, it's hard for me to imagine a barrier large and dangerous enough that humans won't cross it, find any other humans that happen to be living there, and hump them. As long as that keeps happening, it seems unlikely that humans will diverge into separate species.
I don't know if it's so much about avoiding hype as it's good business sense. The primary purpose of advertising is to generate demand for your product. If the demand exceeds the supply, then why pay for more demand?
Well yeah, that's obvious. Also, if they advertise the heck out of the wii, and people go to try to buy one and can't, they're likely to be pissed. Especially when they learn that Nintendo knew they'd probably be unable to get one, but convinced them to go buy one anyway. Turning someone who could be convinced to buy a wii into someone who's bitter and won't buy your console ever is a bad idea.
The alternative theory, that Nintendo is artificially limiting supply to create "hype" (that, due to the shortage, cannot be converted into sales), would instead require that Nintendo continue to advertise so as to build as much "hype" as possible (again, for unknown benefit). But that theory has always been retarded. This is just more evidence of why.
This alleged murderer may be a low-functioning individual, or he just may be crazy, but nevertheless our society has reinforced his paranoia and justified it. The real tragedy about all of this is that we have allowed our "modern" society to behave like some medieval village.
It may be convenient to think that this guy is somehow mentally handicaped, but that's a dangerous assumption because it implies that this kind of behavior is only possible from other low-functioning individuals. The quotes you have of him talking about the guy molesting children even after being told that the victim was not a child molester make no rational sense -- but that's because it's the alleged perp's emotional justification for his actions. It's not (necessarily) that he was stupid so he couldn't think straight, it's that he was overwhelmed with emotions (fear for his son, hate for sex offenders), and that continues even after he committed his crime. Everyone, regardless of their intellect, can find their reason overwhelmed by emotion.
So the societal pressure you're talking about is spot on, and even more threatening. The discussion about sex offenders going on in the news, television, in politics, and everywhere else is completely dominated by the emotions of fear and hate. Reason is rarely even welcome in the debate. It's an environment where things like this will happen, and happen often, much more than simply crazy people going off the handle, because crazy isn't a requirement.
But the second is *competition* among that diversity - and this is where humanity now falls flat on it's face. Technology has progressed to the state that, given equal access to technology, no one person on the planet really has a genetic advantage over another.
That's only the case so long as there are no selective pressures, and only true in so far as you're talking about evolution of the entire species. New, positive traits can arrive, they just won't dominate in the population and become a defining characteristic of the species as a whole so long as the trait has no large positive advantage. Yet at the same time this diversity is itself a survival advantage for the species as a whole, because when a strong selective pressure arrives (say a deadly pandemic) there's more chances for there to be people with resistant genes. So our evolution towards biodiversity is in fact a form of evolution itself.
Also, the absence of the selective pressures of the past may make room for new genes that would never be viable before. A good gene is always in the context of the existing environment. So in the past genes that, say, kept you from getting eaten by a jaguar were good, while in modern society genes that protect you from communicable diseases are better.
Let me put it this way: Let's say that in the past a gene showed up that allowed for bending space-time, but it came with a side effect of poor vision. The person with this gene may not have been able to survive long enough to develop their ability because of their poor vision, thus making what seems like a great mutation a liability. Now, in modern society, bad-eyesight genes aren't that big a deal, so simply by putting on glasses the negative effects of the gene are now moot, and the positive aspects have their chance to shine.
Oh, they didn't say equal, they just said comparable, and surely you can compare $130 to $0.
If the MS office software or open office cost $NaN, then that'd raise an exception because the values aren't comparable. But they arent! So MS is telling the truth, as always!
People have had dreams of unicorns for years without them being replicants. The point is not that Deckard dreams of unicorns, it is that he has a memory of encountering a unicorn which he recalls in his dreams. A voice-over narration could have established that as an actual memory surfacing in his dreams instead of being just a dream while preserving the "never told anyone" aspect to give concrete meaning to how Gaff knew.
Interesting theory. I'm not convinced there's a meaningful difference between an implanted memory, an implanted memory that's only recalled during dreams, an implanted dream, or an implanted memory of a dream. It's all programming; Gaff would know about any of these in the same way.
In any case, you have Deckard dreaming about a unicorn, and Gaff leaving an origami unicorn outside Deckard's door as his final farewell. You can take it as either showing that Gaff knows Deckard's dreams (or memories or memories of dreams or whatever), or it's just a coincidence. If it could be a coincidence because non-replicants have dreams of unicorns too, and Gaff just randomly picked a unicorn not knowing Deckard dreamed of them, well that could be true even if it was an implanted memory/dream.
Of course a voiceover could make it more obvious what was intended. If done like the other voiceovers, it would be something like "When I wake from the dream I remember having actually seen a unicorn. The dream to me is like a record of the past that I cling to, like the pictures Leon and Rachael carry..." or something else to make it painfully obvious the connection between the dream and the implanted memories other replicants have. Which is exactly why I hate the voiceover, making things that are already self-explanatory (even if perhaps ambiguous) painfully obvious.
But that's all moot, because in the version with the voiceover, there's no dream sequence, so it's not even a coincidence that it's a unicorn, it means nothing. It's only significant that he left an origami animal at all, showing that he was there, but chose not to "retire" Rachel... Which of course the voiceover has to spell out explicitly in case you couldn't figure it out. They removed all the deeper meaning, and still felt the need to bludgeon the audience over the head with obvious things that remain.
As to the Director's Cut, I'm more offended that it has been the only version available for years and that the theatrical version has been kept out of print until the final cut editions that include it coming out in 8 days.
Yeah, I'll agree that kinda sucks. Those who for some reason actually like the theatrical version should be able to get it. If it's not some licensing issue where they couldn't include it with the Director's Cut, then its especially crappy (though I don't assume that there aren't legal reasons anymore).
Of course it's fucking science, even if it isn't exactly what you hoped it would be. What makes this "not science"?!
The "robot" spreads its weight out using the whole length of its legs in contact with the water. That is nothing like a water strider.
So? So our robots aren't nearly as light as a water strider (I guarantee you the robot pictured weights a lot more than 15x a water strider), and require much greater surface area to stay afloat. Also we can't create legs with the tiny micro-hairs that allow the strider to stay afloat and jump on water so easily. What do you know, nature still wins, and we still have a lot of work to do to duplicate it.
If that's the standard, pretty much all science is bullshit.
The only similarity is that they both use surface tension.
Well according to your link water striders don't even rely on surface tension.
Nevertheless: Water-walking robot. Some people would think that's cool. But that would be those of us who appreciate advancements in the state of the art, not those who think anything less than the end goal is a 'crock of shit'.
I can't remember -- does the voiceover explain this is aggravating detail, or do they actually let the audience figure out that much?
Haha... Found a script, and yeah, the voiceover actually says "Gaff had been there, and let her live." in a voiceover after he picks up the unicorn. Man, were they willing to let the audience figure out -anything-? I mean, everyone is welcome to their opinion, I just find it hard to imagine why anyone would enjoy being coddled that much.
And if you remove the voiceover, is it still a noir detective story?
I think so. When I saw the Director's Cut first (and not knowing that the other version had the voiceover) I thought it was noir-styled or noir-influenced without feeling the need to parrot the standards of the genre.
No, I mean the line containing the much more subtle observation that, while we all know we're eventually going to die, we don't know when. And the fact that we don't know if Rachel's limited to 4 years or not, makes her as human as we are.
Yes, that subtle observation is included in Gaff's line, which also carries other meanings besides (such as that even with a 4 year life time, the replicants and us are bound together by our mortality), which is why it's more interesting and the better line. The one in the tacked-on ending is 100% redundant, and less meaningful. But that's exactly the problem with the voiceover -- it beats you over the head with direct references to ideas that are covered more completely and subtly outside of the voiceover.
And we do know that Rachel isn't limited to 4 years (in that version), because the second to last line makes it explicit: "Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date." Shoe-horning in that fact is the entire purpose for that tacked-on ending to exist in the first place, because apparently test audiences didn't think 4 years was long enough for a "happily ever after" ending.
Which again limits the meaning of the film to a narrower one, one that is a subset of what the film without the stupid ending suggests -- which is that even in a life that is known to be limited to 4 years, it is still life and just as human of one, one that deserves to be remembered. The wide gray zone is even wider in director's cut.
I'm sorry, but even WITH the 'dream sequence' the origami unicorn does simply mean that Gaff's been there. I know some people interpret this as showing Deckard to be a replicant (using the same mechanism that Deckard does to determine Rachel's heritage) but, to me, the origami unicorn just shows Gaff's mercy toward Rachel - a known replicant gone AWOL.
Why yes, some people DO find it significant that Gaff leaves an origami unicorn when Deckard had previously dreamt of a unicorn, something he presumably hadn't told anyone. Certainly it's possible that this doesn't mean Deckard is a replicant, but my point is that in the theatrical release with the dream sequence excised, that potential meaning doesn't exist at all. It wasn't a coincidence that Ridley Scott put in the dream sequence and the origami unicorn, at the very least. But in the theatrical version, 'unicorn' is just a random shape for Gaff's calling card.
And yeah, Gaff's mercy towards the escaped replicant or replicants is an obvious implication of him having been there -- he could have "retired" both of them, instead he lets them go, and let them know it. I can't remember -- does the voiceover explain this is aggravating detail, or do they actually let the audience figure out that much?
The point is that in the director's cut, there's additional meaning.
As usual with adaptations, the truth is probably that the screenplay was re-written in such a way as to break the plot badly, and the re-edits made after the fact are just an attempt to try and pretend that the inferences some had made from the broken plot were the intended all along.
Uh, the plot wasn't broken at all in the director's cut, and it was the intended version because it's the version Ridley Scott had filmed originally. The only "interference" was from the underwriters who got hold of the movie when it went over-budget and decided to re-work the entire film based on test screenings, adding the stupid voiceover and the ludicrous happy ending, neither of which were part of the original screenplay. But yeah, it's Ridley Scott who's trying to pretend that his edits were originally intended, not the money men.
Sorry, but I think you're missing the point: Rachel's different, and may or may not die at a certain date.
No, you're just reading into my statement more than I intended. I just meant she's not going to die in 4 years like the other replicants, a limited lifespan. I'm assuming she'll die eventually, just like Deckard (who in this version they do whatever they can to avoid implying he's a replicant).
As in the last words of the wonderful voice-over: "But then again, who knows". Which is the point of the whole movie.
You mean the wimpy version of the much better line "It's a shame she won't live. But then again, who does?" -- containing both the meaning of the voiceover line, and the observation that the one thing we do know is that death comes for us all. But yeah, the needless repetition of themes was another terribly annoying thing about the voiceover.
I hate to use an "All or Every", but every single person I have heard claim people should be able to follow the no voice-over version, without a single exception so far, has read quite a bit of serious SF. Not watched Star Trek, not seen other SF films, not read Tolkien or Steven King, but read real SF, and specifically hard SF by people such as A. C. Clarke, Larry Niven, or Alfred Bester.
I'm still waiting for someone to say they had no real SF fluency, saw the film first in the no voice-over version, and either liked it or understood it.
Glad to be of service! When I saw Blade Runner for the first time in my teens, the only sci-fi books I had read were The Hitchhiker's Guide series. Other than that, my only sci-fi was the Star Trek, Star Wars, Aliens and Predator movies which as you understandably say don't count as "SF fluency".
I had zero problems following the Director's Cut, absolutely loved it, and when years later I saw the theatrical version I found the voice over annoying and insulting.
So there ya go. I'm not going to claim statistical normalcy or anything, but the idea that the Director's Cut could only possibly make sense if had a background in hard sci-fi doesn't hold water. My opinion? You just need some exposure to sci-fi so you don't get hung up on some random piece of techno-babble, and a willingness to figure things out without having your hand held. But on the other hand, I thought the movie was practically beating me over the head with Decker's replicant-hood when they repeated Gaff's line "It's a shame she won't live. But then again who does?" while Decker was holding up the origami unicorn.
Horse poop. You've already seen the version with the voice over, so you know what is going on in the director's cut. If you watch the director's cut for the first time ever, you have absolutely no clue WTF is going on. Only after watching the original, do you know what was going on in the director's cut.
Yeah, whatever. I saw the director's cut first, and I had no problems figuring out what was happening. When I watched the theatrical release, I thought the unnecessary explanation of everything was distracting at best, insulting at worst.
And speaking of no clue WTF is going on, in the theatrical version sans dream sequence, the origami unicorn at the end means nothing except that Gaff had been there. The deeper implications are gone.
But then again, the same people who made the decision to add the voice over were the same ones who decided to shoe horn in a deus ex machina happy ending (Surprise! Rachel is special and won't die! And what do you mean, "what about Decker"?) because they didn't think the audience could handle the protagonists getting away, but still being subject to a shortened lifespan.
IMO, the voice over gives the movie the right character. Someday soon, when the technology is there, we the fans will do our own version with Harrison's voice in a fan voice over cut.
And that version will suck even more. Please don't try to pull a Lucas and go back to something twenty years old and try to "improve" it, and at least he was the guy who came up with it in the first place. Ridley Scott can easily be forgiven for the Director's Cut since it was in fact the version of the movie that he wanted to release originally. It remains to be seen if the "Final Cut" is a cut too far.
But unless this hypothetical tech can not just reproduce Ford's voice but also his acting ability (so, a time in the future when actors are obsolete) you're pretty much guaranteed to be polishing a turd with more turd, ignoring what these voice-over-loving fans do with the script. You might as well use the voice of Jar Jar, at least then it'd be amusing.
Wouldnt it be smart to say such a thing, just to get all those undecided people to go out and buy a WII now? If theres plenty around, you might hold off on your purchase and maybe, just maybe buy something else entirely?
Uh... no... Why would you decide to buy something else if what you want is in plentiful supply?
It is being repeatedly told, by message board posts, news articles, and even the company that makes them itself that they are in short supply and unless you show up at the store on the day the shipment arrives that you will not get one... THAT is what makes you say "screw it" and go buy something else.
This is why all these conspiracy theories are retarded -- they basically involve Nintendo trying to reduce actual sales in order to somehow build "hype"... Hype being useless if it is not converted into sales. It'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Nintendo would love nothing more than to be able to say "Wiis a plenty, go buy one!"
Slashdot Mirror
Sad that the flash didn't fire as I expected. Would have been a great shot.
:)
I dunno, you can make out him flipping you the bird as he sails out the back of the plane, so I'd say it was good enough.
Uh, okay, but you can't "break" surface tension. Water that is rippling from the splash of the hammer still has surface tension, just as much as before. The surface tension is "broken" briefly when the hammer passes through, but then it's the same ol' water. You could try holding onto to something that will precede you into the water, but then the force of the surface tension would still be transmitted to you (so it'd have to be some special diving apparatus designed to absorb the shock, highly unlikely that you'd have around if you accidentally fell from a bridge).
Maybe if you did something that actually affected the attraction of the water molecules, like throw a big bucket of dish soap down, that would actually disrupt the water's self-attraction at the surface long enough for you to hit without going splat.
So if the robot is 15x the weight of a strider, they might as well just take off the legs and put the rest on a real strider.
Yeah, that's why I said the robot clearly weights a lot more than 15x a water strider. Look at it, it's a block of metal. It's much more dense and vastly larger than a water strider -- not surprising given the state of robotics. There's no possible way a water strider could hold up that robotic body, it's not even within an order of magnitude of being capable.
Demand far exceeds supply, so the MSRP is an artificial price ceiling.
In other words, why the hostility towards the trade?
Because if they didn't buy the Wiis for the sole purpose of re-selling them at a higher price, that'd be one more Wii available to someone who actually wants one at MSRP! The Wii-flippers are in part why there's a shortage and you can only buy Wiis from the flippers!
Duh!
This is why I like games like Rainbow Six or (maybe obscure personal favorite) Navy Seals for Q3, where the two sides are, say, "urban camouflage" and "slightly different urban camouflage". Not only then does neither team enjoy an advantage in spotting the enemy, they also have no advantage in separating friend from foe!
Accidental team-kills: the great equalizer.
Note that you might speciate even without losing the ability to cross breed. There are plenty of animals that can cross breed; one might even wonder if the surge in nonspecific infertility in 1st world nations is not the result, to some degree, of speciation effects.
:)
Cross breed and produce viable offspring, i.e. offspring which can themselves breed? I thought the inability to do that was the classic definition of species -- though I realize the definition has gotten more complicated as our knowledge of genetics improves.
And wild speculation it may be, but that's still an interesting theory.
You can bet that humans will eventually evolve into different species, perhaps sooner than expected.
Probably not, as long as barriers to interbreeding aren't erected, and traits are instead spread among the population. Much like the study, which is looking at genetic changes that occur in 20-80% of the population. Mutations that show up in one part of the world get spread across most of it in short order, so a buildup of mutations that could prevent two sub-populations from cross-breeding is unlikely.
Humans didn't speciate even back when we were separated by large natural barriers to interbreeding, and populations remained separate for tens of thousands of years. Of course the observation of this study is that humans are changing faster than we were back then so a span of ten thousand years may be sufficient; presumably the conditions that allow this to be so would cease to exist if conditions also changed such that long distances, oceans, and deserts once again became significant barriers to interbreeding.
And even then, when I think about the colonization of the Pacific islands, it's hard for me to imagine a barrier large and dangerous enough that humans won't cross it, find any other humans that happen to be living there, and hump them. As long as that keeps happening, it seems unlikely that humans will diverge into separate species.
But who knows? Anything could happen.
I don't know if it's so much about avoiding hype as it's good business sense. The primary purpose of advertising is to generate demand for your product. If the demand exceeds the supply, then why pay for more demand?
Well yeah, that's obvious. Also, if they advertise the heck out of the wii, and people go to try to buy one and can't, they're likely to be pissed. Especially when they learn that Nintendo knew they'd probably be unable to get one, but convinced them to go buy one anyway. Turning someone who could be convinced to buy a wii into someone who's bitter and won't buy your console ever is a bad idea.
The alternative theory, that Nintendo is artificially limiting supply to create "hype" (that, due to the shortage, cannot be converted into sales), would instead require that Nintendo continue to advertise so as to build as much "hype" as possible (again, for unknown benefit). But that theory has always been retarded. This is just more evidence of why.
This alleged murderer may be a low-functioning individual, or he just may be crazy, but nevertheless our society has reinforced his paranoia and justified it. The real tragedy about all of this is that we have allowed our "modern" society to behave like some medieval village.
It may be convenient to think that this guy is somehow mentally handicaped, but that's a dangerous assumption because it implies that this kind of behavior is only possible from other low-functioning individuals. The quotes you have of him talking about the guy molesting children even after being told that the victim was not a child molester make no rational sense -- but that's because it's the alleged perp's emotional justification for his actions. It's not (necessarily) that he was stupid so he couldn't think straight, it's that he was overwhelmed with emotions (fear for his son, hate for sex offenders), and that continues even after he committed his crime. Everyone, regardless of their intellect, can find their reason overwhelmed by emotion.
So the societal pressure you're talking about is spot on, and even more threatening. The discussion about sex offenders going on in the news, television, in politics, and everywhere else is completely dominated by the emotions of fear and hate. Reason is rarely even welcome in the debate. It's an environment where things like this will happen, and happen often, much more than simply crazy people going off the handle, because crazy isn't a requirement.
Why does every single time someone mention 'sample size', they get modded up?
Because neither they nor the moderators understand statistical sampling methods. It's really that simple.
But the second is *competition* among that diversity - and this is where humanity now falls flat on it's face. Technology has progressed to the state that, given equal access to technology, no one person on the planet really has a genetic advantage over another.
That's only the case so long as there are no selective pressures, and only true in so far as you're talking about evolution of the entire species. New, positive traits can arrive, they just won't dominate in the population and become a defining characteristic of the species as a whole so long as the trait has no large positive advantage. Yet at the same time this diversity is itself a survival advantage for the species as a whole, because when a strong selective pressure arrives (say a deadly pandemic) there's more chances for there to be people with resistant genes. So our evolution towards biodiversity is in fact a form of evolution itself.
Also, the absence of the selective pressures of the past may make room for new genes that would never be viable before. A good gene is always in the context of the existing environment. So in the past genes that, say, kept you from getting eaten by a jaguar were good, while in modern society genes that protect you from communicable diseases are better.
Let me put it this way: Let's say that in the past a gene showed up that allowed for bending space-time, but it came with a side effect of poor vision. The person with this gene may not have been able to survive long enough to develop their ability because of their poor vision, thus making what seems like a great mutation a liability. Now, in modern society, bad-eyesight genes aren't that big a deal, so simply by putting on glasses the negative effects of the gene are now moot, and the positive aspects have their chance to shine.
We had to write the program, then IMAGINE how it would run!
You had imagination?! Spoiled brat!
Haha, we could go on all day. I think the best part of this thread is the "informative" mod on my first post.
Oh, they didn't say equal, they just said comparable, and surely you can compare $130 to $0.
If the MS office software or open office cost $NaN, then that'd raise an exception because the values aren't comparable. But they arent! So MS is telling the truth, as always!
People have had dreams of unicorns for years without them being replicants. The point is not that Deckard dreams of unicorns, it is that he has a memory of encountering a unicorn which he recalls in his dreams. A voice-over narration could have established that as an actual memory surfacing in his dreams instead of being just a dream while preserving the "never told anyone" aspect to give concrete meaning to how Gaff knew.
Interesting theory. I'm not convinced there's a meaningful difference between an implanted memory, an implanted memory that's only recalled during dreams, an implanted dream, or an implanted memory of a dream. It's all programming; Gaff would know about any of these in the same way.
In any case, you have Deckard dreaming about a unicorn, and Gaff leaving an origami unicorn outside Deckard's door as his final farewell. You can take it as either showing that Gaff knows Deckard's dreams (or memories or memories of dreams or whatever), or it's just a coincidence. If it could be a coincidence because non-replicants have dreams of unicorns too, and Gaff just randomly picked a unicorn not knowing Deckard dreamed of them, well that could be true even if it was an implanted memory/dream.
Of course a voiceover could make it more obvious what was intended. If done like the other voiceovers, it would be something like "When I wake from the dream I remember having actually seen a unicorn. The dream to me is like a record of the past that I cling to, like the pictures Leon and Rachael carry..." or something else to make it painfully obvious the connection between the dream and the implanted memories other replicants have. Which is exactly why I hate the voiceover, making things that are already self-explanatory (even if perhaps ambiguous) painfully obvious.
But that's all moot, because in the version with the voiceover, there's no dream sequence, so it's not even a coincidence that it's a unicorn, it means nothing. It's only significant that he left an origami animal at all, showing that he was there, but chose not to "retire" Rachel... Which of course the voiceover has to spell out explicitly in case you couldn't figure it out. They removed all the deeper meaning, and still felt the need to bludgeon the audience over the head with obvious things that remain.
As to the Director's Cut, I'm more offended that it has been the only version available for years and that the theatrical version has been kept out of print until the final cut editions that include it coming out in 8 days.
Yeah, I'll agree that kinda sucks. Those who for some reason actually like the theatrical version should be able to get it. If it's not some licensing issue where they couldn't include it with the Director's Cut, then its especially crappy (though I don't assume that there aren't legal reasons anymore).
This is not science. This is bullshit.
Of course it's fucking science, even if it isn't exactly what you hoped it would be. What makes this "not science"?!
The "robot" spreads its weight out using the whole length of its legs in contact with the water. That is nothing like a water strider.
So? So our robots aren't nearly as light as a water strider (I guarantee you the robot pictured weights a lot more than 15x a water strider), and require much greater surface area to stay afloat. Also we can't create legs with the tiny micro-hairs that allow the strider to stay afloat and jump on water so easily. What do you know, nature still wins, and we still have a lot of work to do to duplicate it.
If that's the standard, pretty much all science is bullshit.
The only similarity is that they both use surface tension.
Well according to your link water striders don't even rely on surface tension.
Nevertheless: Water-walking robot. Some people would think that's cool. But that would be those of us who appreciate advancements in the state of the art, not those who think anything less than the end goal is a 'crock of shit'.
Mr Babbage? Is that you? :-P
Babbage is a upstart whipper-snapper who needs to stop building his machines on my lawn!
It was all so very long ago, those neurons are getting a little rusty. :-P
Why back in my day, boy, we measured frequency in seconds per cycle and we liked it!
I can't remember -- does the voiceover explain this is aggravating detail, or do they actually let the audience figure out that much?
Haha... Found a script, and yeah, the voiceover actually says "Gaff had been there, and let her live." in a voiceover after he picks up the unicorn. Man, were they willing to let the audience figure out -anything-? I mean, everyone is welcome to their opinion, I just find it hard to imagine why anyone would enjoy being coddled that much.
And if you remove the voiceover, is it still a noir detective story?
I think so. When I saw the Director's Cut first (and not knowing that the other version had the voiceover) I thought it was noir-styled or noir-influenced without feeling the need to parrot the standards of the genre.
No, I mean the line containing the much more subtle observation that, while we all know we're eventually going to die, we don't know when. And the fact that we don't know if Rachel's limited to 4 years or not, makes her as human as we are.
Yes, that subtle observation is included in Gaff's line, which also carries other meanings besides (such as that even with a 4 year life time, the replicants and us are bound together by our mortality), which is why it's more interesting and the better line. The one in the tacked-on ending is 100% redundant, and less meaningful. But that's exactly the problem with the voiceover -- it beats you over the head with direct references to ideas that are covered more completely and subtly outside of the voiceover.
And we do know that Rachel isn't limited to 4 years (in that version), because the second to last line makes it explicit: "Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date." Shoe-horning in that fact is the entire purpose for that tacked-on ending to exist in the first place, because apparently test audiences didn't think 4 years was long enough for a "happily ever after" ending.
Which again limits the meaning of the film to a narrower one, one that is a subset of what the film without the stupid ending suggests -- which is that even in a life that is known to be limited to 4 years, it is still life and just as human of one, one that deserves to be remembered. The wide gray zone is even wider in director's cut.
I'm sorry, but even WITH the 'dream sequence' the origami unicorn does simply mean that Gaff's been there. I know some people interpret this as showing Deckard to be a replicant (using the same mechanism that Deckard does to determine Rachel's heritage) but, to me, the origami unicorn just shows Gaff's mercy toward Rachel - a known replicant gone AWOL.
Why yes, some people DO find it significant that Gaff leaves an origami unicorn when Deckard had previously dreamt of a unicorn, something he presumably hadn't told anyone. Certainly it's possible that this doesn't mean Deckard is a replicant, but my point is that in the theatrical release with the dream sequence excised, that potential meaning doesn't exist at all. It wasn't a coincidence that Ridley Scott put in the dream sequence and the origami unicorn, at the very least. But in the theatrical version, 'unicorn' is just a random shape for Gaff's calling card.
And yeah, Gaff's mercy towards the escaped replicant or replicants is an obvious implication of him having been there -- he could have "retired" both of them, instead he lets them go, and let them know it. I can't remember -- does the voiceover explain this is aggravating detail, or do they actually let the audience figure out that much?
The point is that in the director's cut, there's additional meaning.
As usual with adaptations, the truth is probably that the screenplay was re-written in such a way as to break the plot badly, and the re-edits made after the fact are just an attempt to try and pretend that the inferences some had made from the broken plot were the intended all along.
Uh, the plot wasn't broken at all in the director's cut, and it was the intended version because it's the version Ridley Scott had filmed originally. The only "interference" was from the underwriters who got hold of the movie when it went over-budget and decided to re-work the entire film based on test screenings, adding the stupid voiceover and the ludicrous happy ending, neither of which were part of the original screenplay. But yeah, it's Ridley Scott who's trying to pretend that his edits were originally intended, not the money men.
Sorry, but I think you're missing the point: Rachel's different, and may or may not die at a certain date.
No, you're just reading into my statement more than I intended. I just meant she's not going to die in 4 years like the other replicants, a limited lifespan. I'm assuming she'll die eventually, just like Deckard (who in this version they do whatever they can to avoid implying he's a replicant).
As in the last words of the wonderful voice-over: "But then again, who knows". Which is the point of the whole movie.
You mean the wimpy version of the much better line "It's a shame she won't live. But then again, who does?" -- containing both the meaning of the voiceover line, and the observation that the one thing we do know is that death comes for us all. But yeah, the needless repetition of themes was another terribly annoying thing about the voiceover.
I hate to use an "All or Every", but every single person I have heard claim people should be able to follow the no voice-over version, without a single exception so far, has read quite a bit of serious SF. Not watched Star Trek, not seen other SF films, not read Tolkien or Steven King, but read real SF, and specifically hard SF by people such as A. C. Clarke, Larry Niven, or Alfred Bester.
I'm still waiting for someone to say they had no real SF fluency, saw the film first in the no voice-over version, and either liked it or understood it.
Glad to be of service! When I saw Blade Runner for the first time in my teens, the only sci-fi books I had read were The Hitchhiker's Guide series. Other than that, my only sci-fi was the Star Trek, Star Wars, Aliens and Predator movies which as you understandably say don't count as "SF fluency".
I had zero problems following the Director's Cut, absolutely loved it, and when years later I saw the theatrical version I found the voice over annoying and insulting.
So there ya go. I'm not going to claim statistical normalcy or anything, but the idea that the Director's Cut could only possibly make sense if had a background in hard sci-fi doesn't hold water. My opinion? You just need some exposure to sci-fi so you don't get hung up on some random piece of techno-babble, and a willingness to figure things out without having your hand held. But on the other hand, I thought the movie was practically beating me over the head with Decker's replicant-hood when they repeated Gaff's line "It's a shame she won't live. But then again who does?" while Decker was holding up the origami unicorn.
Horse poop. You've already seen the version with the voice over, so you know what is going on in the director's cut. If you watch the director's cut for the first time ever, you have absolutely no clue WTF is going on. Only after watching the original, do you know what was going on in the director's cut.
Yeah, whatever. I saw the director's cut first, and I had no problems figuring out what was happening. When I watched the theatrical release, I thought the unnecessary explanation of everything was distracting at best, insulting at worst.
And speaking of no clue WTF is going on, in the theatrical version sans dream sequence, the origami unicorn at the end means nothing except that Gaff had been there. The deeper implications are gone.
But then again, the same people who made the decision to add the voice over were the same ones who decided to shoe horn in a deus ex machina happy ending (Surprise! Rachel is special and won't die! And what do you mean, "what about Decker"?) because they didn't think the audience could handle the protagonists getting away, but still being subject to a shortened lifespan.
IMO, the voice over gives the movie the right character. Someday soon, when the technology is there, we the fans will do our own version with Harrison's voice in a fan voice over cut.
And that version will suck even more. Please don't try to pull a Lucas and go back to something twenty years old and try to "improve" it, and at least he was the guy who came up with it in the first place. Ridley Scott can easily be forgiven for the Director's Cut since it was in fact the version of the movie that he wanted to release originally. It remains to be seen if the "Final Cut" is a cut too far.
But unless this hypothetical tech can not just reproduce Ford's voice but also his acting ability (so, a time in the future when actors are obsolete) you're pretty much guaranteed to be polishing a turd with more turd, ignoring what these voice-over-loving fans do with the script. You might as well use the voice of Jar Jar, at least then it'd be amusing.
Wouldnt it be smart to say such a thing, just to get all those undecided people to go out and buy a WII now? If theres plenty around, you might hold off on your purchase and maybe, just maybe buy something else entirely?
Uh... no... Why would you decide to buy something else if what you want is in plentiful supply?
It is being repeatedly told, by message board posts, news articles, and even the company that makes them itself that they are in short supply and unless you show up at the store on the day the shipment arrives that you will not get one... THAT is what makes you say "screw it" and go buy something else.
This is why all these conspiracy theories are retarded -- they basically involve Nintendo trying to reduce actual sales in order to somehow build "hype"... Hype being useless if it is not converted into sales. It'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
Nintendo would love nothing more than to be able to say "Wiis a plenty, go buy one!"