By saving Deckard, Roy both: 1. showed that he truly did value life. Saving a man who was literally desperately holding on life. Much like Roy had been the entire movie. 2. Reject his programming and assert his humanity. He was made for combat and killing and in his last moments shows that he was as human as anyone else 3. allowed himself to live on in Deckard. In some form those moments of Roy's life won't be lost like tears in rain. Not completely
@@CapitalExpression Well, it wouldn't matter to me as a determinant of how I treat them, but I do think it would matter in that world if a test used to identify replicants among humans is no longer capable of doing so.
@@Breggle He would have, if we're correct that empathy is what Replicants lack. Given Roy's life experiences up to the end, he learned the value of life: those he took, those of his fellow Replicants, and the one he just saved. Roy would likely have enough life experiences and REAL memories to have the beginnings & understanding of genuine empathy...unlike many of the "regular" humans he has come across.
Roy killed his Tyrell, the man who brought him to a hellish existence, but he saved Deckard's life, the man who was trying to kill him. In the end, Roy showed compassion for life, more than some humans.
Blade Runner is one of the most influencial movies in human history. Its asthetics can be seen in manga, anime, other sci-fi, drawings and painted arts, litterature. It is one of the main influence in the creation of the sci-fi subgenre named Cyberpunk.
And by default, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, since so much of Blade Runner's look (and theme) was taken directly from that black-and-white masterpiece. But Blade Runner definitely cemented the modern "cyberpunk" look in the eyes of many, inspiring the likes of Trancers, Dark City, The Crow, The Terminator, Tim Burton's Batman, Total Recall, Strange Days, Ghost in the Shell, The Matrix, and many, many more.
Well, certainly the Cyberpunk _aesthetic_ for sure - the genre itself was already up and running by September '82 though (no 'Neuromancer' yet - how excited are we all for _that_ show BTW ? :) - but "Johnny Mnemonic", "Burning Chrome" and the arguable ur-document itself, Bethke's "Cyberpunk", were either already published or at least known about in certain circles). 'Judge Dredd', originating in the mid 70s, is pretty cyberpunk. And a lot of the ideas were born in the new wave. But broadly agreed, it'll definitely still have influenced _many_ cyberpunk writers, just maybe not right at the, y'know, incept date ( :). (Gibson for instance was famously already writing 'Neuromancer' when he saw the opening of 'Blade Runner' and left the movie bereft, thinking it had beat him to it and his book would look like a cheap rip-off)
I would say that Blade Runner had an effect on cyberpunk, but the genre goes back to roots in fiction stories far earlier. All the way back to writers such as J. G. Ballard.
@@GeraldH-ln4dv I would call what is before Blade Runner and the novel Neuromancer proto-cyberpunk. There is no doubt the idea existed before and something has inspired Ridley Scott in his visuals. Just like for example Black Sabbath is called 'the first heavy metal album' (I'd argue for their second btw) but there were artists that definitely gave the legs on which Black Sabbath and Deep Purple stood on: Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Led Zepplin, etc....
I was one of the 12 people in the world who liked the original theatrical cut. It stuck to Philip K. Dick's original premise that Deckard was truly a human, but a human who had lost his human empathy, while the replicants had gained the empathy of humanity to the point that there was no discernible difference between human and replicant. The original premise is not whether Deckard is a replicant...but that Deckard is human _and it doesn't matter._ Ridley Scott is a master director, but he's only so-so a writer compared to Philip K. Dick (probably more movies and television shows have been based on Dick's work than any other science fiction writer). The eyeball maker was James Hong, who probably holds the record for movie appearances. The score by Vangellis is wonderful...it's still one of my favorite pieces of music. What was notable was how ferociously the replicants fought to live, even when fatally shot. By the end, facing death, Roy had achieved a measure of humanity to spare a dove, and then to spare Deckard. Denis Villeneuve's sequel to this movie is not a direct sequel, but it's an amazing movie in itself.
The insane sets happened because there was a writers strike that delayed shooting. While waiting for the strike to end, the production crews continued working on sets for months and months longer than planned. They were able to add tons more detail than would have normally been possible.
@@paulschirf9259 The original monologue was much longer and wordier, but Hauer thought it was "opera talk" that didn't fit the rest of the film, so he drastically shortened it (as well as adding the last few words) just before recording; many members of the crew were allegedly brought to tears upon seeing Hauer deliver the speech we see in the final film
The Eyes guy is James Hong The Father in "Everything Everywhere All At Once" and Mr. Ping (Noodles, Adoptive father to Po). Underrated actor and has been acting in Hollywood for 71 years. Since 1953. That's a crazy career.
Roy was played by Rutger Hauer. He wrote the "Tears in Rain" monologue at the end. Rutger passed away in 2019, the year the film takes place 😯 If you want peak Creepy Rutger, check out the 1986 thriller "The Hitcher" 🤟😎
Speaking of Rutger Hauer (RIP), who plays Roy Batty in this movie and Richard Earle in Batman Begins (2005), I also suggest TWO 1985 medieval age movies, Ladyhawke (1985) & Flesh and Blood (1985). #MoreRutgerHauerForAddieCounts
I'm so happy the visuals have floored you, Addie. It's an arthouse film with a Hollywood budget. And a testament to the timeless nature of practical effects.
The real core theme here is that calling them 'robots' is actually just a kind of euphemism to allow everyone else to ignore the fact that Replicants are mass-produced, genetically engineered humans. Replicants don't get benefits, and they don't form unions. At the point where it becomes possible to give them fake memories, it is no longer possible for anyone to know if they are a Replicant too. This is the ultimate devaluation of human life. The crew of rogue Replicants aren't the villains. They are the victims.
Those are tertiary offshoots of the central theme. They are entirely irrelevant until you settle the core moral dilemma at issue. And that is...just how human-like can something be before you reasonably have to classify it as human.
Also interestingly enough the word robot comes from the Czech word robota which means forced labor and the root word rab, which means slave. It describes the replicants' situation perfectly, manufactured slaves forced to labor on humanity's behalf, robots in every sense of the word.
@@c1ph3rpunk There is a book called "The Modular Man" by Roger MacBride Allen that is, in my opinion, the best exploration of that concept that's ever been done.
They also say that they "retire" replicants instead of killing them. You can retire a product or a ship or an inanimate object(s). You can only kill a person/animal. Once the corporation admits they're alive, it opens up an ethical can of worms & eventually they're out of business.
2:08 That shot is iconic for a reason. It is not CG, it is not redone for later editions, it is entirely produced using optical, practical effects. I'm not one of those people who think CG has no place in movies, it's opened doors to interesting films in the hands of skilled filmmakers, but that shot is a huge argument to use practical effects where you can. They hold up, look fantastic when done well, but are also phenomenally time and labor intensive. I've seen a break down of how many different compositing passes they had to do to make this work, from the model work, to the lights, to the fire effect, to the reflection of the thruster and fire on the passing car... it's so complicated. The end result is a tone setting masterpiece.
@@russelllapua4904 because the theatrical release was a joke, the executive didn't understand the movie so they added a pissed off tonally flat Harison Ford monologue on top of it, the cuts were wierd and the order of the scenes had been messed up or something like that...
@@shorgoth I'm glad this version eliminated the voice overs. I remember being frustraded by Deckard's reaction to Roy saving him: "I don't know why he saved my life..." You idiot, he just told you why.
Even though the ending monologue from Roy is one of the best in movie history, what's still giving me chills down my spine after watching this movie dozens and dozens of times is, "Quite an experience to live in fear, isnt it? That's what it is to be a slave." 🤯❤
"If only you could see what I've seen...with your eyes." ..which basically foreshadows the final monologue. The writing in this is just on another level.
Ridley Scott used practical effects because that was all he had in 1981. This idea that practical effects are somehow always better than CGI just reveals a lack of understanding of how films are actually made. For every example of cheesy CGI, there are hundreds of seamless CGI effects shots that most people have never even noticed, and there are thousands upon thousands of examples of bad practical effects done for decades of film history before Jurassic Park came out, which was the watershed moment for CGI in films.
@@Timmayytoo - I know its limitations, and its triumphs - I saw Jurassic Park in the theater when it came out, a mix of practical and digital f/x. And watched Bab5 when it was airing, which used computer animation to make large space battles possible for a TV show. But, compared to modern digital f/x, you can see where reality ends and digital begins in those early examples. Compare Bab5 with a more modern show, like The Expanse, and it does not hold up - I have games on my PC with better rendered ships. Whereas, and this is my point, Bladerunner maintains its visual clarity - and therefore suspension of disbelieve - even into the 21st century.
@@sword_of_light Babylon 5 was rendered on one of the first 'render farms' available using Lightwave 3D, a package by Newtek and several Commodore Amigas. CGI was VERY expensive back then and the Amiga made desktop video a real thing for the first time. No, it was not the quality work that Lucasfilm was capable of, but keep in mind - this was a TV show. The budget wouldn't allow for ILM-type effects. For TV at the time, it did the job well.
@@dosnostalgic did they? I tried to find some information on that. I know there was "digital clean-up", but I can't seem to find any articles about them redoing the comps. That said, even if they did redo the comps, the original was very well done. A lot of in-camera effects, and I don't ever remember seeing matte lines like many films of the era.
@@dosnostalgic Even recomped, the results are very faithful to the original look. That's still most of the original model and miniature work on display. :)
@@dosnostalgic Fair enough. I think we're basically making the same point. I just was trying to clarify, in case some here didn't understand what "redoing comps" meant.
Making things look cleaner is not the same as completely redoing the effects. The special edition Star Wars is completely redoing things. The effects changes in The Final Cut is just tidying up how it originally looked. Quite a difference in the two scenarios. For example, when the spinner takes off and you can see the cables in the previous versions. Going back and removing the cables digitally but not changing anything else about the shot is what I would consider minor. It already looked pretty good originally. They just tidied things up in this one.
I love how Addie immediately recognized the artistic value of Blade Runner! It has a very special look and sound that inspired generations of artists. As for the ending, I think the movie is ambiguous on purpose. Sometimes filmmakers don't know exactly what direction they want to go in, and leaving mixed signals for the audience is a viable way to go.
A popular meme on "bulletin board systems" was "Deckard was a replicant". This movie came out in 1982. The Internet as we knew it didn't exist yet. But you could dial in with a wired telephone to private "bulletin boards" and post comments, similar to how we can post comments right here. The boards were typically divided by subject. The word "meme" itself was coined only 6 years earlier.
Props to Daryl Hannah for accidentally putting her arm through the plate glass window of the van, and continuing her acting, despite being in a lot of pain. Also despite being very athletic, she literally collapsed as Ridley kept making her do her death seen over and over again, leading a body double to be used. Also props to Rutger Hauer for his acting chops and his briliant ad libs that Ridley Scott just ran with.
Another of one of my all time favourite films. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this, and also listened to the amazing soundtrack too. There are a lot of backstories around the making of this film and I would urge those interested to seek them out. The speech by Rutger Hauer at the end, 'If you could have seen what my eyes have seen....' is a remarkable piece of cinema.
I remember somebody renting Blade Runner when I was 11 or 12 or so. Young for an r-rated film, but still old enough to sit captivated, young enough to believe fully that Roy was all evil right until the end. I was baffled as to why he saved Deckard, and when he explained it in the monologue, it hit me right where it was aiming. For the last 40 years, I've wanted another cinema experience like that. A few times came close since then, but not quite.
The Masterpiece. That unique environment, Vangelis, Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer and perhaps the most famous monologue in the history of cinema
There's been a lot of Famous Monologues in Cinematic History. To call it the Most Famous is weird to me. The Opening to The Godfather, Brothers (The One w/ Tobey Maguire), Good Will Hunting, Robin Williams Dead Poets Society, Memento, 12 Angry Men, Anatomy of A Murder, Breakfast Club, Heat, all had Great Monologues in Cinema History.
Heck even..."Inglorious Basterds" had a great monologue and thats coming from someone who can't stand Quentin Tarantino movies. Christoph Waltz talking about "Rats in the House" was a great scene in cinema.
The scene where Deckard shoots Zhora through the glass windows is simply heartbreaking and seems designed to make you question how it is NOT MURDER to shoot an apparently unarmed woman in the back repeatedly. For the first time, you realize that these replicants aren't just bloodthirsty killers but are also victims. The horror of that scene sticks w/me years later as we approach the age of AI. So many moral questions and human beings are simply not qualified.
The theatrical cut had a different ending, it shows Rachel and Deckard go on the run. They know they'll will be chased by another Blade Runner but they figure if they can hide long enough; they will stop being chased due to Rachel's short life span. However what the police didn't know is that the 4 year time clock wasn't implemented into Rachel
@AddieCounts: Back in the late '80s, maybe 88 or 89, I was left by myself in my uncle's house and saw a VHS tape on the living room table rented from Blockbuster that said Blade Runner on it. I didn't know what to make of it and decided to watch it. It totally blew me away and changed my life forever.
Blade Runner is a master class on world building. A true masterpiece in Sci-Fi and film in general. My all-time favorite… and I’m amazed every time I watch it.
Nope. That's just how the effects look. They hired the best. Any touch-ups to the final cut of the film are so subtle that most people wouldn't even notice. If you get ahold of the original 1982 laserdisc you'll see what I mean. Truly a landmark film.
ngl, I got emotional when Roy died. All he wanted to do was to live. Like the rest of us. Memories are washed away like tears in the rain. Now that you've watched it and know it's not just an action movie, I suggest to watch it again and look for all of the subtle messages and themes throughout that makes this movie so thought provoking. Heck, it may even give you an existential experience. Can't wait for you to watch the next one!!!!!
The theatrical cut is the best one by far. It has some important narration that I believe helps greatly to enjoy the movie. The theatrical version tells you that Rachel was special. She didn’t have the built in life expectancy of only 4 years. Also, the guy that left the origami unicorn, how would he know that Deckard dreams of a unicorn? Think about it. Also “Roy Batty” the “optimum combat model” was Rutger Hauer. You owe it to yourself to see some more of his movies. He is one of my favorite actors of all time. There is one that I can’t remember (correction: The Hitcher) where he plays a menacing stranger that follows a young man all across a desert that is totally unsettling and which I think is one of his premier performances. Lastly, “Pris” was Daryl Hannah, a megastar in her own right.
After this Ridley Scott did "The Black Rain". a great Japan Mafia Thriller with Michael Douglas, total underrated and forgotten just because Blade Runner flopped at the box office. Everyone should check it out.
One of my all time favorite films and 99.99% of the FX were NOT altered for the DC or the FC. It simply looked that good back in 1982 and was truly mind-blowing - still is tbh.
The city scenery was done with a giant model that filled a small warehouse. They spent 10 months shooting all those special effects scenes. While the actors filmed their scenes at a movie studio.
Although not in the original Philip K Dick story, Deckard is human. In the movie, it’s ambiguous, but the origami unicorn implies he knows of Deckard’s dream of a unicorn, and that it was an implanted dream. The screenwriter, Hampton Fancher says he wrote him as human, but wanted it to seem like he could be a replicant. Ridley Scott has stated he’s a replicant, and Harrison Ford has said he always knew the character was, but that Deckard would believe he was human and act that way.
To me that ambiguity made the movie great. Could he be implanted with false memories and made to go after other replicants? Was he like Rachel that didn’t know he was a replicant?
No, I have seen interviews. Anytime Harrison said he felt that Ridley was doing something to make Deckard look like a replicant he would protest. Ford thought that Deckard was a human, otherwise there would be no point in the story.
Deckard _is_ definitely human in the original story. Making Deckard a replicant robs the original story, and the movie, of its most significant poignant question: If the only difference between human and replicant is empathy, and a human has lost his empathy but the replicant has gained it...then is there any difference? All of Philip K. Dick's stories revolve around the question of "what is reality, and does it matter?"
FUN FACT: The speech at the end was improv. He told them to roll the camera, and this is what he came up with. One of the best death scene in any movie.
“All of those moments will be lost… like tears… in rain.” SOOO GOOOOD. Definitely my favorite sci fi film of all time. “To live in fear, that’s what it is to be a slave.” “You’ve done a man’s job, sir.” “If only you could see what I’ve seen with your eyes.” I could go on, I absolutely love this film. The film’s commentary on social hierarchy and modernity, so good. The higher class clean, closest to the sky and predominantly white while the lower class is literally stacked on top of each other in gutters and multicultural. What it means to be human, what it is to have an identity, Deckard’s arc as well as Rachel’s and Roy’s. Deckard watching someone who’s found their identity lose it, having never gained it himself, that feeling in completing the mission and knowing you’ve done the wrong thing in doing so. Identity, lost like tears in rain. Roy representing the solution to modernity only to be killed. God created man, man creates machine, machine kills man, god from machine. I fucking love this movie.
Just for a little clarification. The films effects, everything that you saw were the original effects. They were all practical effects, being miniatures and models that the cinematographer filmed and the flying cars/vehicles were matted in, much like the original Star Wars did. There was no CGI utilized in this film. The remastering that was performed was taking the original prints and striking a new 8K master from the original film elements to then transfer down to a 4K version which you likely watched. It is quite possibly the most spectacular 4K film of it's kind in existence. Great video by the way!
The later B movie Soldier with Kurt Russell is a prequel in the same universe. Kurt plays a soldier selected at birth and subjected to brutal mental and physical training until adulthood when he's used as a weapon before being replaced by a first gen simulant. The effects aren't as good but they're not awful and the script is a little cheesy in places but the basic story's good and Kurt does a fantastic job. A good addition to this grim universe.
WRONG. Ridley Scott actually wasn't the creator of Alien, merely the director Dan O'Bannon, the actual creator/ producer, hired. There is an interview of Ridley here on UA-cam mentioning this. Also Blade Runner was created by Phillip K Dick. So even if Ridley had a fan fiction impulse to say something like this, it really doesn't matter since he created/wrote neither story/ screenplay.
Also, just as a logical point, if Replicants were as pervasive in society decades before Alien, why would Ripley be surprised to find an "android" onboard? Why wouldn't the ENTIRE CREW of the Nostromo replicants? Also why is the technology between the Replicants and Androids is SOOO different. (Replicants are actually a more advanced technology, being based on genetic engineering rather than mechanical technology.) Did any of the Replicants leak white fluid when they were killed?
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 Ok, he was the director of each. The director of the film is the person with creative control over the final product. Do the screenplays explicitly state they are connected? No. Does that really matter when Ridley explicitly states that he used common elements in each film to place them in the same universe? Also no. If you'd care to share the link to the interview where he denies them being connected, I'd love to see it.
@@WaywardSon5 The director is creative head ON-SET. This does not mean they are always the creative lead in a film or a film franchise. This is ESPECIALLY true for a young director, like Ridley on Alien. This was only his SECOND FILM. In these cases, the producers are the actual creative leads, and typically have final approval on the theatrical release. Here is an interview of Ridley mentioning that he WAS THE FIFTH PERSON ASKED TO DIRECT ALIEN: ua-cam.com/video/62wYNUg5ed4/v-deo.htmlsi=A2PyClp1nhT51pDk While a brilliant director, Ridley Scott was not the sole creative behind Alien, which was actually a re-make of writer Dan O'Bannon's film Dark Star from a few years earlier.
the theme of the novel is how deckard regains his humanity after years of retiring replicants when he is saved at the end by a replicant. ridley scott says deckard is a replicant in the movie, (dont ask questions about how he is weaker, slower, and older than the other replicants), essentially destroying the main theme of the original story in which he is a human.
Bingo. Philip K. Dick's theme in all his work is, essentially, "what is reality, how do we know it, and does it matter?" If Deckard is a replicant, that is only a one-dimension conception of Dick's premise. But his premise is actually: If there is no difference between real and replica...does a difference matter?
7:44 That's James Hong, playing the role of the "Eye" creator. He's arguably one of the most prolific actors in Hollywood history. If you are paying attention, he is Grandfather "Gong Gong" in the 7-time Academy Award Winning 2022 film "Everything Everywhere All At Once." At the age of 93!!
Every time you called him creepy I cringed, he starred in a movie years ago called LADYHAWKE, Matthew Broddericks and Michelle Pfieffers first movie, now that is a movie where you wont call him creepy, but will fall in love with him.
The only thing I dislike about this immensely influential masterpiece is that the opening speaks of "robots". Everybody whose reaction I've watched stumbles over that, everybody wonders why there's blood, how Rachel can't know she's a replicant etc. You're the first one ever to *not* get confused. Maybe they didn't use the term "artificial people/persons/etc." because they didn't want to equate replicants and humans too openly too soon, which would be understandable; but I think using the term "robots" is doing the film experience a disservice because so many people waste precious watching time wondering about how what they know about robots contradicts what they're watching.
@@Hiraghm In the original novel, the replicants believed in human religion. It would be an unanswerable question in Christianity as to whether someone who longed for God doesn't have a soul.
13:31 On the collector's edition DVD extras, Joanna Cassidy (Zhora) said that she enjoyed working with the snake in the dressing room scene because it was hers. She brought it from home.
The effects are just that good, the only shot that was changed with VFX was the one of the dove flying away. Originally it flew into daylight but they changed the background to night. The VFX are actually insane
Douglas Trumbull - unsung hero of this and so many culturally important films of the 70s and 80s. Blade Runner, Star Trek TMP, Silent Running, Brainstorm... what a contribution to humanity.
The main difference between the theatrical version and the final cut was that in the theatrical version, Harrison Ford narrates the entire movie. It gave the film kind of a sci-fi "noir" feel to it. It also has a final scene that shows Harrison Ford and Rachel flying off together with no one chasing them, also insinuating because of the unicorn scene, that Deckard "could" also be a replicant.... Personally, I prefer the theatrical version, but love both. I own copies of all the versions.
I'm one of the few, I guess, who liked the voice over. Pretty sure Deckard was a replicant based on his unicorn dream which I don't think was in the original.
In my opinion, the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) has a better ending which leaves things much more ambiguous and leaves you thinking "wait a minute..."
In case you’re wondering what the differences are with the original theatrical release and other versions, it’s mainly the voiceover narration from Harrison Ford’s character, Rick Deckard, and the unicorn dream sequence. I must’ve seen the theatrical version some 4 times when it first came out. It was a life changing piece of S-F cinema. Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), should’ve gotten an Academy Award nomination for his Tears in Rain soliloquy but alas, Hollywood has a certain bias with Science Fiction films, even to this day. Some 40 years later, the visual effects still hold up quite well. Blade Runner is a true cinematic masterpiece.
Greatest movie ever made. Synthesis of plot, dialogue, performances, set design, music, direction - and the concept. What makes us human? If you make a robot, does it become 'human' if it learns to feel, to have emotions?
Roy chooses to save Deckard in a final act of compassion even though he was built to be a slave. They all started to have emotions toward the end of their life cycle. The "Tears in Rain" monologue from Roy (Rutger Hauer) still makes my cry! There was always speculation that Deckard was also a replicant. He has dreams of a unicorn and then in the end when Gaff leaves the origami unicorn outside his apartment door - how did Gaff know Deckard dreamt of unicorns, unless the memory was planted, or complete coincidence?
I think Ridley Scott wanted it to be true, regardless of how little sense it makes: If you build a special replicant dedicated to hunting other replicants, you make him physically capable of fighting them. Deckard loses every fight he's in.
28:16 Since you are going to watch the sequel, might I suggest watching the three shorts that take place between this film and the sequel. They can be found on youtube and they are titled, "Blade Runner: Black Out 2022", "2036: Nexus Dawn", and "2049: Nowhere to Run".
Derek Riggs, artist most famous for his work on Iron Maiden album covers, took a lot of inspiration from Blade Runner when he made the gatefold sleeve (a continuous picture from the back to front) for their album, Somewhere in Time. It also shows something like 40 references to Maiden songs, albums and tours, trivia, etc, but the Blade Runner influence for the atmosphere is clear.
Most probably wouldn't agree but I like to think that when Tyrel said Rachel was an experiment he didn't just mean implanted memories but a human life span.
good insight. rachel is responsible for something else replaicants are not suppose to do... "A miracle." as referenced by other replicants in the sequel movie.
In the theatrical version, Ford narrates: at the end of the film, he says that she's "special", and that in her file, her life expectancy was "indefinite".
17:22 --- And that's the bottom line isn't it... It doesn't matter where you from or how you got to where you are... When someone cares about you, THAT is what matters...
I own the collector's edition of the 25th anniversary DVD set from 2007, it has 5 different cut of the film: US theatrical, international theatrical, '92 director's cut, final cut, and the work print, so many different editions
...as well as the FANTASTIC documentary "Dangerous Days - the making of Blade Runner" which is one of the best and most complete retellings of how the movie was made!
That DVD set felt like such a miracle in 2007. To have all the versions collected, and also such exhaustive behind-the-scenes materials was pretty remarkable. I especially liked hearing the outtakes from Harrison Ford's voiceover recording sessions ("This is bizarre... pretty weird...").
It's the first one I saw so I have a soft spot for it. The narration gives it even more of a noir-ish feel. It's unfortunate that Ford sounds like he is falling asleep in the booth.
@@Renoistiche said he did that on purpose because he and the director didnt want that, so he did that so bad that producers take it out but they didnt 😂
The theatrical cut has a voice over narration. Sounds like an old crime detective novel. I grew up with the theatrical cut and it is by far my favorite. My very favorite movie!! Loved your reaction!!!!
Replicants were androids in the original book, but genetically engineered humans in the film. That's why Chow had eyeballs in his shop--they were grown to be assembled later. The first movie didn't explain that well but they made it very clear in BLADE RUNNER 2049. Gaff's only real concern is Deckard finishing his job so he can take his place. That's why he didn't kill Rachel: he'd rather let Deckard deal with the problem, and killing her might make Deckard come after him. The underlying theme of the movie is that the fake humans appreciate life more than the authentic humans who hate them. That's why Roy saved Deckard--because he showed him more pity than Deckard showed any of them. The movie almost always looked this good. They've tweaked the color timing and they touched up all the composite shots, but most of what you see are opticals, matte paintings, and set design. Absolutely marvelous.
My fav film of all time. Cinematography, the music, the genre it defined. The thing that makes this movie so special to me is it asks the question "what does it mean to be human?". How do you define a soul?
I saw this movie when I was a teenager and I loved it it was 1982 and I do remember the VoiceOver throughout the movie by Harrison Ford I thought that was something they shouldn't have taken out of the movie but I'm only one of the few that liked the VoiceOver
The voice over might have been a mistake. It's a matter of taste. But leaving out the unicorn scene was a good thing. The unicorn was Ridley Scott deciding he wanted to change the original story. Philip K. Dick stated multiple times that Deckard being human was essential to his exploring what it meant to be human in the original story. An idea that apparently went right over Scott's head.
I can take or leave the voice over. The movie works fine without it, but I don't hate it either. However, I would have rather they hadn't changed the rest. The unicorn dream sequence pushes the "Deckard is a replicant" narrative too hard, rather than merely suggesting it's possible (although I admit I think Deckard-as-replicant is a terrible storytelling choice). The original "I want more life, fucker" had much more impact and was a lot less on the nose. And the happy driving scene at the end dovetails nicely with the sequel, where they did indeed escape, and Rachel had no built-in lifespan. Another thing, making the gruesome murder of Tyrell much more graphic than it was originally was pointless and less effective than merely hearing the horrifying crunching sounds while seeing Roy's expression. I have said this elsewhere many times -- Ridley can be a great, great director, but his storytelling instincts as he gets older are more and more ham-fisted.
@@allthingsgumballI too saw this in 1982 and I championed the voiceover for a long time. I felt, and still feel, it adds to the "noir" vibe. But after hearing the VO again, it is pretty terrible in both prose and performance.
While most people seem to think the Directors cut, or the Final Cut are the best I personally perfer the the original theatrical release. It contains a "film noiresque" monologue from Deckard which adds atmosphere to the film which I feel is missing from the later versions. Also in the scene where Batty meets Tyrell the origninal release has Batty say "I want more life - Fucker" which loses it's impact with switch to "father' in the later versions. Rutger Hauer himself said he hated the change. I agree the re-mastered look is higher quality but I regard the original film that left an indellible impresson on my mind over 40 years ago when I saw it in my teens in the theater as being unique and incomperable. I have a degraded pirate copy on DVD. I wish I could find a decent one again.
The original story it is based on is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick. Director Ridley Scott wanted something more catchy so he called it Blade Runner.. this was originally from a story by Alan Nourse where they are suppliers of illegal medical supplies in a dystopian future in the year 2009.. though they got it from a story by William S. Burroughs.. it's complicated.
Theyve made quite a few movies off Dicks stories, but i think Minority Report is the only one they didnt change the title of. We can Remember it for you Wholesale (Total Recall) and The Second Variety (Screamers) are right up there with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep :D
One of the points that people miss is that the replicants are basically children. Priss doesn't know how to fight so she attacks ineffectively, as does Leon. Zora is a infiltrator so she runs when she gets found out, Roy was the only one with actual combat training.
you're nuts. Zora was part of a murder squad off world. She expertly punches Decker in the throat and then tries to strangle him, quiet so as not to call attention. She escapes before any reinforcements can arrive and to warn the others. Leon is just toying with Decker to get information.
Hence why the Replicant motivations of just having memories or someone to call a family might come across as "simple" or "basic" at face value. But to the Replicants, it's very precious, since it helps to anchor them and their individuality in being something more than just a vat-grown artificial human. Batty's confused feelings towards Tyrell, as their "creator" (via his corporation) and him stooping to brutal violence against Tyrell, reflect that, in a really extreme way. On the outside, he's trying to behave like an ordinary, mature adult, but mentally, he's a person that still feels like a confused and scared child (or young person) without the personal support he'd need to grow as an inidividual. Then there's the short lifespan of the Replicants, and the fact that... Batty's also a bit... well, "batty".
Hi Addie, thank you for this reaction! The styling of Blade Runner is in many ways "Film Noir". This is intentional, and most movie critics recognize this even if they didn't like the movie. "Film Noir" movies were usually low budget, "gritty", detective movies from the late 1930s through the mid 1950s. They generally use suspense instead of action, intricate and overly complicated plots, moral ambiguity, mystery and detectives of some kind, and a general inability of the protagonists to affect the larger outcome of the processes that were set in motion before the protagonists became involved. Other modern takes on Film Noir are Chinatown and its sequel The Two Jakes, Mulholland Falls, and L. A. Confidential. These movies are never universally loved, so it's always a big risk for production companies to make them.
So many great comments already. RIP Rutger Hauer. He was a terrifying presence in the 80's! Echoing the others here, the effects were amazing for the time and still hold up today. The video calls that have been pretty common for years now were pretty fantastical for us back then. We still had cords on our telephones! Similarly, "Zoom and enhance" is a meme now, but back then it was pretty incredible, and that seems to be the first cinematic instance of it. The whole creepy dystopian vibe was really masterfully crafted. Sir Ridley Scott, GBE, is honestly just a living legend at this point.
Origami at the end has another implication - then just warning. It's unicorn, and Decard were day-dreaming before of a real life unicorn (as if it was memories - and scene was when he was surrounded with old family photos on piano)
I can't entirely agree. Harrison Ford had just finished "Raiders of the Lost Arc" and already had the "Return of the Jedi" contract signed. For him, "Blade Runner" was an unpretentious low-budget movie, a kind of B-movie; he never understood either the script or his character, hence the reluctance in his acting and especially in the voice-over they had to eliminate. On the contrary, Rutger Hauer understood his character perfectly, he realized how weak the script was in some scenes and added his final improvisation to give brilliance to his character.
☞ So Commander Adama does Origami. ☛ California Mountain Snake is a gymnast. ☞ Finkle/Einhorn is a pianist. ☛ Po's dad is an optometrist. 😢 For Addie, all those characters have been lost in time like tears in rain. 💧 🕊
The main changes from the theatrical release: 1: The theatrical release had a narration by Ford throughout the movie. This was done because in focus groups, people were confused as to what was happening. The narration never bothered me as the movie itself is a futuristic film noir. 2: There were some scenes that were a little clunky. Harrison Ford's mouth didn't match his dialog when he was interviewing the snake merchant and the scene where Deckard kills Zora was a quite obvious stunt double in a bad wig. To fix these, they brought in Ford's son and filmed him mouthing his father's dialog and inserting his chin and mouth over his father's. In the Zora scene, they brought back Joanna Cassidy (BTW, I don't know if you've seen the movie yet or not but she was Valient's girlfriend in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".) had her act out her facial expressions while sitting in a rotating chair, digitally removed the stunt double's head in the scene and replaced it with hers. 3: There was no "Unicorn daydream" which was actually test footage from Scott's next film "Legend". 4: Once again, because of bad focus group reactions, they stuck on a happy ending where Deckard and Rachel moving up north and living happily ever after. And Rachel had no limits on her lifespan and everything was bright and sunny. For that ending, they used un-used B-roll from Kubrick's helicopter fly overs at the beginning of "The Shining".
I absolutely love Bladerunner... ever since I was a kid. It is outstanding! Another one that is good (though no where near as good) and set in the same universe is a Kurt Russel movie called "Soldier". It is a masterclass on non-verbal acting.
Probably the most unique villain I've ever seen. He doesn't want money or to rule the world. He just wants to live, he just wants more time.
If you want to see Baty as the villain. In some ways, Baty is the victim and Deckard is the villain.
@@rdkirk3834 Hero and villain are points of view - and if you're on the other side, you would reverse them.
@@ColinFox Baty is a slave resisting enslavement, Deckard is the slave executioner hired by the slave maker.
And if you want to see baty as a true villian watch the hitcher 1986.
🤔
Rutger Hauer and that last speech... history of cinema. And the OST by Vangelis... one of the bests ever.
And he made it up too!
By saving Deckard, Roy both:
1. showed that he truly did value life. Saving a man who was literally desperately holding on life. Much like Roy had been the entire movie.
2. Reject his programming and assert his humanity. He was made for combat and killing and in his last moments shows that he was as human as anyone else
3. allowed himself to live on in Deckard. In some form those moments of Roy's life won't be lost like tears in rain. Not completely
I like to think Roy would have passed the Voight-Kampff test in his final moments.
@@Breggle The test ultimately doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if emotions are artificial or not. They're still living beings with wants and desires.
@@CapitalExpression Well, it wouldn't matter to me as a determinant of how I treat them, but I do think it would matter in that world if a test used to identify replicants among humans is no longer capable of doing so.
@@Breggle He would have, if we're correct that empathy is what Replicants lack. Given Roy's life experiences up to the end, he learned the value of life: those he took, those of his fellow Replicants, and the one he just saved. Roy would likely have enough life experiences and REAL memories to have the beginnings & understanding of genuine empathy...unlike many of the "regular" humans he has come across.
Yes, it's a masterpiece. And Sean Young is ridiculously beautiful.
Roy killed his Tyrell, the man who brought him to a hellish existence, but he saved Deckard's life, the man who was trying to kill him. In the end, Roy showed compassion for life, more than some humans.
The movie takes place in 2019, when the character Batty died. Rutger Hauer, who played Batty, died in 2019.
poetry
Blade Runner is one of the most influencial movies in human history.
Its asthetics can be seen in manga, anime, other sci-fi, drawings and painted arts, litterature.
It is one of the main influence in the creation of the sci-fi subgenre named Cyberpunk.
And by default, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, since so much of Blade Runner's look (and theme) was taken directly from that black-and-white masterpiece. But Blade Runner definitely cemented the modern "cyberpunk" look in the eyes of many, inspiring the likes of Trancers, Dark City, The Crow, The Terminator, Tim Burton's Batman, Total Recall, Strange Days, Ghost in the Shell, The Matrix, and many, many more.
Well, certainly the Cyberpunk _aesthetic_ for sure - the genre itself was already up and running by September '82 though (no 'Neuromancer' yet - how excited are we all for _that_ show BTW ? :) - but "Johnny Mnemonic", "Burning Chrome" and the arguable ur-document itself, Bethke's "Cyberpunk", were either already published or at least known about in certain circles). 'Judge Dredd', originating in the mid 70s, is pretty cyberpunk. And a lot of the ideas were born in the new wave.
But broadly agreed, it'll definitely still have influenced _many_ cyberpunk writers, just maybe not right at the, y'know, incept date ( :).
(Gibson for instance was famously already writing 'Neuromancer' when he saw the opening of 'Blade Runner' and left the movie bereft, thinking it had beat him to it and his book would look like a cheap rip-off)
I believe the description was "A used future".
I would say that Blade Runner had an effect on cyberpunk, but the genre goes back to roots in fiction stories far earlier. All the way back to writers such as J. G. Ballard.
@@GeraldH-ln4dv
I would call what is before Blade Runner and the novel Neuromancer proto-cyberpunk.
There is no doubt the idea existed before and something has inspired Ridley Scott in his visuals.
Just like for example Black Sabbath is called 'the first heavy metal album' (I'd argue for their second btw) but there were artists that definitely gave the legs on which Black Sabbath and Deep Purple stood on: Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Led Zepplin, etc....
I was one of the 12 people in the world who liked the original theatrical cut. It stuck to Philip K. Dick's original premise that Deckard was truly a human, but a human who had lost his human empathy, while the replicants had gained the empathy of humanity to the point that there was no discernible difference between human and replicant. The original premise is not whether Deckard is a replicant...but that Deckard is human _and it doesn't matter._ Ridley Scott is a master director, but he's only so-so a writer compared to Philip K. Dick (probably more movies and television shows have been based on Dick's work than any other science fiction writer).
The eyeball maker was James Hong, who probably holds the record for movie appearances.
The score by Vangellis is wonderful...it's still one of my favorite pieces of music.
What was notable was how ferociously the replicants fought to live, even when fatally shot. By the end, facing death, Roy had achieved a measure of humanity to spare a dove, and then to spare Deckard.
Denis Villeneuve's sequel to this movie is not a direct sequel, but it's an amazing movie in itself.
The look of this sci-fi movie is the standard that all other sci-fi movies are measured against.
The insane sets happened because there was a writers strike that delayed shooting. While waiting for the strike to end, the production crews continued working on sets for months and months longer than planned. They were able to add tons more detail than would have normally been possible.
The "Tears in Rain" monologue is still one of the greatest in cinema. Always brings a lump to my throat.
And it was improvised by Rutger Hauer.
@@FriendZone75 Just the last four words where improvised... the most impactful words.
@@paulschirf9259 The original monologue was much longer and wordier, but Hauer thought it was "opera talk" that didn't fit the rest of the film, so he drastically shortened it (as well as adding the last few words) just before recording; many members of the crew were allegedly brought to tears upon seeing Hauer deliver the speech we see in the final film
The Eyes guy is James Hong The Father in "Everything Everywhere All At Once" and Mr. Ping (Noodles, Adoptive father to Po). Underrated actor and has been acting in Hollywood for 71 years. Since 1953. That's a crazy career.
James Hong is a treasure.
Not to forget: David Lo Pan in "Big Trouble In Little China"
He also was in one scene of "Airplane"
Also on Big Bang Theory. And many others I can't recall.
Most profilic actor 400-500 movies, tv-series.
Wasn't he also in "China Town" and wasn't he also Lo Pan in "Big Trouble in Little China"?
Roy was played by Rutger Hauer. He wrote the "Tears in Rain" monologue at the end. Rutger passed away in 2019, the year the film takes place 😯
If you want peak Creepy Rutger, check out the 1986 thriller "The Hitcher" 🤟😎
Speaking of Rutger Hauer (RIP), who plays Roy Batty in this movie and Richard Earle in Batman Begins (2005), I also suggest TWO 1985 medieval age movies, Ladyhawke (1985) & Flesh and Blood (1985). #MoreRutgerHauerForAddieCounts
@@alextan1478 He also played King Vortigern in Merlin (1998).
-Where are you from?
-Disneyland.
The Hitcher is great.
If you want peek Cringy Rutger, checkout Hobo with a shotgun. 😁
I'm so happy the visuals have floored you, Addie. It's an arthouse film with a Hollywood budget. And a testament to the timeless nature of practical effects.
The real core theme here is that calling them 'robots' is actually just a kind of euphemism to allow everyone else to ignore the fact that Replicants are mass-produced, genetically engineered humans. Replicants don't get benefits, and they don't form unions. At the point where it becomes possible to give them fake memories, it is no longer possible for anyone to know if they are a Replicant too. This is the ultimate devaluation of human life. The crew of rogue Replicants aren't the villains. They are the victims.
Those are tertiary offshoots of the central theme. They are entirely irrelevant until you settle the core moral dilemma at issue. And that is...just how human-like can something be before you reasonably have to classify it as human.
@@Rowgue51I believe Picard made the best case in “The Measure of a Man”.
Also interestingly enough the word robot comes from the Czech word robota which means forced labor and the root word rab, which means slave. It describes the replicants' situation perfectly, manufactured slaves forced to labor on humanity's behalf, robots in every sense of the word.
@@c1ph3rpunk
There is a book called "The Modular Man" by Roger MacBride Allen that is, in my opinion, the best exploration of that concept that's ever been done.
They also say that they "retire" replicants instead of killing them. You can retire a product or a ship or an inanimate object(s). You can only kill a person/animal. Once the corporation admits they're alive, it opens up an ethical can of worms & eventually they're out of business.
"It's too bad she won't live... but then again who does?"
One of my favorite lines ever... Gaff's entire bit at the end is just so good.
"...but are you sure you ARE a man?"
Played by Edward James Olmos... known by older folks as Captain Castillo in "Miami Vice" and as Adama in the bastard remake of "Battlestar Galactica"
2:08 That shot is iconic for a reason. It is not CG, it is not redone for later editions, it is entirely produced using optical, practical effects. I'm not one of those people who think CG has no place in movies, it's opened doors to interesting films in the hands of skilled filmmakers, but that shot is a huge argument to use practical effects where you can. They hold up, look fantastic when done well, but are also phenomenally time and labor intensive. I've seen a break down of how many different compositing passes they had to do to make this work, from the model work, to the lights, to the fire effect, to the reflection of the thruster and fire on the passing car... it's so complicated. The end result is a tone setting masterpiece.
agree. good practical visuals are immortal and true art. cgi is just a imitation of life and as technology gets improved cgi seems ridiculous
Even in the original film, it was years ahead of its time for effects.
It was also not very well received.
Few great films are well received at first because the mob sucks at its job.
@@russelllapua4904 because the theatrical release was a joke, the executive didn't understand the movie so they added a pissed off tonally flat Harison Ford monologue on top of it, the cuts were wierd and the order of the scenes had been messed up or something like that...
@@shorgoth I'm glad this version eliminated the voice overs. I remember being frustraded by Deckard's reaction to Roy saving him: "I don't know why he saved my life..." You idiot, he just told you why.
@@shorgoth yeah, they smeared inner monologue over many Deckard scenes, and badly.
Even though the ending monologue from Roy is one of the best in movie history, what's still giving me chills down my spine after watching this movie dozens and dozens of times is, "Quite an experience to live in fear, isnt it? That's what it is to be a slave." 🤯❤
"If only you could see what I've seen...with your eyes." ..which basically foreshadows the final monologue.
The writing in this is just on another level.
No. This is what it looked like in the theater. This is the best argument for practical effects there is - decades later, it still holds up.
Ridley Scott used practical effects because that was all he had in 1981. This idea that practical effects are somehow always better than CGI just reveals a lack of understanding of how films are actually made. For every example of cheesy CGI, there are hundreds of seamless CGI effects shots that most people have never even noticed, and there are thousands upon thousands of examples of bad practical effects done for decades of film history before Jurassic Park came out, which was the watershed moment for CGI in films.
@@Timmayytoo - I know its limitations, and its triumphs - I saw Jurassic Park in the theater when it came out, a mix of practical and digital f/x. And watched Bab5 when it was airing, which used computer animation to make large space battles possible for a TV show.
But, compared to modern digital f/x, you can see where reality ends and digital begins in those early examples. Compare Bab5 with a more modern show, like The Expanse, and it does not hold up - I have games on my PC with better rendered ships. Whereas, and this is my point, Bladerunner maintains its visual clarity - and therefore suspension of disbelieve - even into the 21st century.
@@sword_of_light Babylon 5 was rendered on one of the first 'render farms' available using Lightwave 3D, a package by Newtek and several Commodore Amigas. CGI was VERY expensive back then and the Amiga made desktop video a real thing for the first time. No, it was not the quality work that Lucasfilm was capable of, but keep in mind - this was a TV show. The budget wouldn't allow for ILM-type effects.
For TV at the time, it did the job well.
The special effects were THAT good in the original. They did very little on that for the final cut. 😯
@@dosnostalgic did they? I tried to find some information on that. I know there was "digital clean-up", but I can't seem to find any articles about them redoing the comps.
That said, even if they did redo the comps, the original was very well done. A lot of in-camera effects, and I don't ever remember seeing matte lines like many films of the era.
@@dosnostalgic Even recomped, the results are very faithful to the original look. That's still most of the original model and miniature work on display. :)
@@dosnostalgic Fair enough. I think we're basically making the same point. I just was trying to clarify, in case some here didn't understand what "redoing comps" meant.
Making things look cleaner is not the same as completely redoing the effects. The special edition Star Wars is completely redoing things. The effects changes in The Final Cut is just tidying up how it originally looked. Quite a difference in the two scenarios. For example, when the spinner takes off and you can see the cables in the previous versions. Going back and removing the cables digitally but not changing anything else about the shot is what I would consider minor. It already looked pretty good originally. They just tidied things up in this one.
They took out the Noir narration.
This is a milestone in the history of cinematic art
I love how Addie immediately recognized the artistic value of Blade Runner! It has a very special look and sound that inspired generations of artists.
As for the ending, I think the movie is ambiguous on purpose. Sometimes filmmakers don't know exactly what direction they want to go in, and leaving mixed signals for the audience is a viable way to go.
This film is absolutely a masterpiece in every sense of the word. Magnificent
A popular meme on "bulletin board systems" was "Deckard was a replicant".
This movie came out in 1982. The Internet as we knew it didn't exist yet. But you could dial in with a wired telephone to private "bulletin boards" and post comments, similar to how we can post comments right here. The boards were typically divided by subject.
The word "meme" itself was coined only 6 years earlier.
Defying tradition, the sequel they made 30 years later is both good and ties into and expands upon the themes of the original. Highly recommend.
42 years later and the "do you like our owl?" moment still makes the hairs on my arms stand up, and 42 years ago, I didn't even have hairs on them...
it's artificial?
@@colinafobe2152 Of course it is.
Ahhhh, it’s a legendary film for so many reasons.
Wholesome fact: Blade Runner was the first film the archive department of the United States preserved.
Props to Daryl Hannah for accidentally putting her arm through the plate glass window of the van, and continuing her acting, despite being in a lot of pain. Also despite being very athletic, she literally collapsed as Ridley kept making her do her death seen over and over again, leading a body double to be used. Also props to Rutger Hauer for his acting chops and his briliant ad libs that Ridley Scott just ran with.
Another of one of my all time favourite films. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this, and also listened to the amazing soundtrack too. There are a lot of backstories around the making of this film and I would urge those interested to seek them out.
The speech by Rutger Hauer at the end, 'If you could have seen what my eyes have seen....' is a remarkable piece of cinema.
I remember somebody renting Blade Runner when I was 11 or 12 or so. Young for an r-rated film, but still old enough to sit captivated, young enough to believe fully that Roy was all evil right until the end. I was baffled as to why he saved Deckard, and when he explained it in the monologue, it hit me right where it was aiming. For the last 40 years, I've wanted another cinema experience like that. A few times came close since then, but not quite.
The Masterpiece. That unique environment, Vangelis, Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer and perhaps the most famous monologue in the history of cinema
Spot on
There's been a lot of Famous Monologues in Cinematic History. To call it the Most Famous is weird to me. The Opening to The Godfather, Brothers (The One w/ Tobey Maguire), Good Will Hunting, Robin Williams Dead Poets Society, Memento, 12 Angry Men, Anatomy of A Murder, Breakfast Club, Heat, all had Great Monologues in Cinema History.
Heck even..."Inglorious Basterds" had a great monologue and thats coming from someone who can't stand Quentin Tarantino movies. Christoph Waltz talking about "Rats in the House" was a great scene in cinema.
@@aTofuJunkie And Virginia Madsen's Dune monologue!
@JoergWeida Even The Watchmen, Rocky Balboa, Rambo, and The Crying Game all had great moments in cinema.
One of the most beautiful scores of all time.
The scene where Deckard shoots Zhora through the glass windows is simply heartbreaking and seems designed to make you question how it is NOT MURDER to shoot an apparently unarmed woman in the back repeatedly. For the first time, you realize that these replicants aren't just bloodthirsty killers but are also victims. The horror of that scene sticks w/me years later as we approach the age of AI. So many moral questions and human beings are simply not qualified.
The theatrical cut had a different ending, it shows Rachel and Deckard go on the run. They know they'll will be chased by another Blade Runner but they figure if they can hide long enough; they will stop being chased due to Rachel's short life span. However what the police didn't know is that the 4 year time clock wasn't implemented into Rachel
I laughed regarding Addie's first words at the end, "Interesting... I have some questions." Yeah. I've had questions for 40 years.
That's when you know it's a good sci-fi movie...when it ends and you have questions.
@AddieCounts: Back in the late '80s, maybe 88 or 89, I was left by myself in my uncle's house and saw a VHS tape on the living room table rented from Blockbuster that said Blade Runner on it. I didn't know what to make of it and decided to watch it. It totally blew me away and changed my life forever.
Blade Runner is a master class on world building. A true masterpiece in Sci-Fi and film in general. My all-time favorite… and I’m amazed every time I watch it.
Nope. That's just how the effects look. They hired the best. Any touch-ups to the final cut of the film are so subtle that most people wouldn't even notice. If you get ahold of the original 1982 laserdisc you'll see what I mean. Truly a landmark film.
ngl, I got emotional when Roy died. All he wanted to do was to live. Like the rest of us. Memories are washed away like tears in the rain.
Now that you've watched it and know it's not just an action movie, I suggest to watch it again and look for all of the subtle messages and themes throughout that makes this movie so thought provoking. Heck, it may even give you an existential experience.
Can't wait for you to watch the next one!!!!!
The theatrical cut is the best one by far. It has some important narration that I believe helps greatly to enjoy the movie. The theatrical version tells you that Rachel was special. She didn’t have the built in life expectancy of only 4 years. Also, the guy that left the origami unicorn, how would he know that Deckard dreams of a unicorn? Think about it. Also “Roy Batty” the “optimum combat model” was Rutger Hauer. You owe it to yourself to see some more of his movies. He is one of my favorite actors of all time. There is one that I can’t remember (correction: The Hitcher) where he plays a menacing stranger that follows a young man all across a desert that is totally unsettling and which I think is one of his premier performances. Lastly, “Pris” was Daryl Hannah, a megastar in her own right.
A reason for loving Blade Runner so much, is its soundtrack. Perfection!
tales of the future tops it all
After this Ridley Scott did "The Black Rain". a great Japan Mafia Thriller with Michael Douglas, total underrated and forgotten just because Blade Runner flopped at the box office. Everyone should check it out.
One of my favourite films, Hans Zimmer soundtrack too. What's not to like?
The origami Gaff left at the end was
a unicorn
One of my all time favorite films and 99.99% of the FX were NOT altered for the DC or the FC. It simply looked that good back in 1982 and was truly mind-blowing - still is tbh.
The city scenery was done with a giant model that filled a small warehouse. They spent 10 months shooting all those special effects scenes. While the actors filmed their scenes at a movie studio.
Glad you watched this gem. The last scene was them driving north, and Deckard narrates the most iconic line about the basic questions of life.
Although not in the original Philip K Dick story, Deckard is human.
In the movie, it’s ambiguous, but the origami unicorn implies he knows of Deckard’s dream of a unicorn, and that it was an implanted dream.
The screenwriter, Hampton Fancher says he wrote him as human, but wanted it to seem like he could be a replicant. Ridley Scott has stated he’s a replicant, and Harrison Ford has said he always knew the character was, but that Deckard would believe he was human and act that way.
To me that ambiguity made the movie great. Could he be implanted with false memories and made to go after other replicants? Was he like Rachel that didn’t know he was a replicant?
No, I have seen interviews. Anytime Harrison said he felt that Ridley was doing something to make Deckard look like a replicant he would protest. Ford thought that Deckard was a human, otherwise there would be no point in the story.
Deckard _is_ definitely human in the original story. Making Deckard a replicant robs the original story, and the movie, of its most significant poignant question: If the only difference between human and replicant is empathy, and a human has lost his empathy but the replicant has gained it...then is there any difference? All of Philip K. Dick's stories revolve around the question of "what is reality, and does it matter?"
Rutger Hauer (the replicant leader Roy) played another great creepy character in The Hitcher (1986).
Yep. Addie needs to watch this!
A suspense classic!
He’s also in Nighthawks (1981) with Sylvester Stallone.
FUN FACT: The speech at the end was improv. He told them to roll the camera, and this is what he came up with. One of the best death scene in any movie.
Imagine seeing this in a theater at 13 years old. Well, your life is about to change
Did. Changed my view for SF forever.
I did as well. Still my favorite sci-fi.
master piece. you could make thousands of best artistic photos out of this film. great acting, eternal soundtrack and make you thinking story. 10/10
“All of those moments will be lost… like tears… in rain.” SOOO GOOOOD. Definitely my favorite sci fi film of all time.
“To live in fear, that’s what it is to be a slave.”
“You’ve done a man’s job, sir.”
“If only you could see what I’ve seen with your eyes.”
I could go on, I absolutely love this film. The film’s commentary on social hierarchy and modernity, so good. The higher class clean, closest to the sky and predominantly white while the lower class is literally stacked on top of each other in gutters and multicultural. What it means to be human, what it is to have an identity, Deckard’s arc as well as Rachel’s and Roy’s. Deckard watching someone who’s found their identity lose it, having never gained it himself, that feeling in completing the mission and knowing you’ve done the wrong thing in doing so. Identity, lost like tears in rain.
Roy representing the solution to modernity only to be killed. God created man, man creates machine, machine kills man, god from machine. I fucking love this movie.
Just for a little clarification. The films effects, everything that you saw were the original effects. They were all practical effects, being miniatures and models that the cinematographer filmed and the flying cars/vehicles were matted in, much like the original Star Wars did. There was no CGI utilized in this film. The remastering that was performed was taking the original prints and striking a new 8K master from the original film elements to then transfer down to a 4K version which you likely watched. It is quite possibly the most spectacular 4K film of it's kind in existence. Great video by the way!
Fun fact: Ridley Scott confirmed that the world of Blade Runner is the same setting for the Alien movies, just at different points in time.
The later B movie Soldier with Kurt Russell is a prequel in the same universe. Kurt plays a soldier selected at birth and subjected to brutal mental and physical training until adulthood when he's used as a weapon before being replaced by a first gen simulant. The effects aren't as good but they're not awful and the script is a little cheesy in places but the basic story's good and Kurt does a fantastic job. A good addition to this grim universe.
WRONG. Ridley Scott actually wasn't the creator of Alien, merely the director Dan O'Bannon, the actual creator/ producer, hired. There is an interview of Ridley here on UA-cam mentioning this. Also Blade Runner was created by Phillip K Dick. So even if Ridley had a fan fiction impulse to say something like this, it really doesn't matter since he created/wrote neither story/ screenplay.
Also, just as a logical point, if Replicants were as pervasive in society decades before Alien, why would Ripley be surprised to find an "android" onboard? Why wouldn't the ENTIRE CREW of the Nostromo replicants? Also why is the technology between the Replicants and Androids is SOOO different. (Replicants are actually a more advanced technology, being based on genetic engineering rather than mechanical technology.) Did any of the Replicants leak white fluid when they were killed?
@@helifanodobezanozi7689 Ok, he was the director of each. The director of the film is the person with creative control over the final product. Do the screenplays explicitly state they are connected? No. Does that really matter when Ridley explicitly states that he used common elements in each film to place them in the same universe? Also no. If you'd care to share the link to the interview where he denies them being connected, I'd love to see it.
@@WaywardSon5 The director is creative head ON-SET. This does not mean they are always the creative lead in a film or a film franchise. This is ESPECIALLY true for a young director, like Ridley on Alien. This was only his SECOND FILM. In these cases, the producers are the actual creative leads, and typically have final approval on the theatrical release. Here is an interview of Ridley mentioning that he WAS THE FIFTH PERSON ASKED TO DIRECT ALIEN: ua-cam.com/video/62wYNUg5ed4/v-deo.htmlsi=A2PyClp1nhT51pDk
While a brilliant director, Ridley Scott was not the sole creative behind Alien, which was actually a re-make of writer Dan O'Bannon's film Dark Star from a few years earlier.
Fun fact: the director of the two recent Dune movies also directed the sequel Blade Runner:2049
the theme of the novel is how deckard regains his humanity after years of retiring replicants when he is saved at the end by a replicant. ridley scott says deckard is a replicant in the movie, (dont ask questions about how he is weaker, slower, and older than the other replicants), essentially destroying the main theme of the original story in which he is a human.
Bingo. Philip K. Dick's theme in all his work is, essentially, "what is reality, how do we know it, and does it matter?" If Deckard is a replicant, that is only a one-dimension conception of Dick's premise. But his premise is actually: If there is no difference between real and replica...does a difference matter?
7:44 That's James Hong, playing the role of the "Eye" creator. He's arguably one of the most prolific actors in Hollywood history. If you are paying attention, he is Grandfather "Gong Gong" in the 7-time Academy Award Winning 2022 film "Everything Everywhere All At Once." At the age of 93!!
Every time you called him creepy I cringed, he starred in a movie years ago called LADYHAWKE, Matthew Broddericks and Michelle Pfieffers first movie, now that is a movie where you wont call him creepy, but will fall in love with him.
The only thing I dislike about this immensely influential masterpiece is that the opening speaks of "robots". Everybody whose reaction I've watched stumbles over that, everybody wonders why there's blood, how Rachel can't know she's a replicant etc. You're the first one ever to *not* get confused.
Maybe they didn't use the term "artificial people/persons/etc." because they didn't want to equate replicants and humans too openly too soon, which would be understandable; but I think using the term "robots" is doing the film experience a disservice because so many people waste precious watching time wondering about how what they know about robots contradicts what they're watching.
Roy wanted Deckard to live, so he saved him, the way he wanted someone, anyone, to save him, so he could live. He was human.
Life became so precious and finite that even someone else's became priceless.
human... but had no soul.
@@roberttoews2775 Bingo.
@@Hiraghm In the original novel, the replicants believed in human religion. It would be an unanswerable question in Christianity as to whether someone who longed for God doesn't have a soul.
13:31 On the collector's edition DVD extras, Joanna Cassidy (Zhora) said that she enjoyed working with the snake in the dressing room scene because it was hers. She brought it from home.
The effects are just that good, the only shot that was changed with VFX was the one of the dove flying away. Originally it flew into daylight but they changed the background to night. The VFX are actually insane
Douglas Trumbull - unsung hero of this and so many culturally important films of the 70s and 80s. Blade Runner, Star Trek TMP, Silent Running, Brainstorm... what a contribution to humanity.
The main difference between the theatrical version and the final cut was that in the theatrical version, Harrison Ford narrates the entire movie. It gave the film kind of a sci-fi "noir" feel to it. It also has a final scene that shows Harrison Ford and Rachel flying off together with no one chasing them, also insinuating because of the unicorn scene, that Deckard "could" also be a replicant.... Personally, I prefer the theatrical version, but love both. I own copies of all the versions.
I'm one of the few, I guess, who liked the voice over. Pretty sure Deckard was a replicant based on his unicorn dream which I don't think was in the original.
A perfect quote opportunity:
"Snakes? Why'd it have to be snakes?"
In my opinion, the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) has a better ending which leaves things much more ambiguous and leaves you thinking "wait a minute..."
I felt so bad when his wife turned the toad over...
In case you’re wondering what the differences are with the original theatrical release and other versions, it’s mainly the voiceover narration from Harrison Ford’s character, Rick Deckard, and the unicorn dream sequence. I must’ve seen the theatrical version some 4 times when it first came out. It was a life changing piece of S-F cinema. Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), should’ve gotten an Academy Award nomination for his Tears in Rain soliloquy but alas, Hollywood has a certain bias with Science Fiction films, even to this day.
Some 40 years later, the visual effects still hold up quite well. Blade Runner is a true cinematic masterpiece.
Greatest movie ever made. Synthesis of plot, dialogue, performances, set design, music, direction - and the concept. What makes us human? If you make a robot, does it become 'human' if it learns to feel, to have emotions?
Roy chooses to save Deckard in a final act of compassion even though he was built to be a slave. They all started to have emotions toward the end of their life cycle. The "Tears in Rain" monologue from Roy (Rutger Hauer) still makes my cry! There was always speculation that Deckard was also a replicant. He has dreams of a unicorn and then in the end when Gaff leaves the origami unicorn outside his apartment door - how did Gaff know Deckard dreamt of unicorns, unless the memory was planted, or complete coincidence?
Curious how she didn't seem to notice the unicorns.
I think Ridley Scott wanted it to be true, regardless of how little sense it makes: If you build a special replicant dedicated to hunting other replicants, you make him physically capable of fighting them. Deckard loses every fight he's in.
Addie’s hair is always flawless
28:16 Since you are going to watch the sequel, might I suggest watching the three shorts that take place between this film and the sequel. They can be found on youtube and they are titled, "Blade Runner: Black Out 2022", "2036: Nexus Dawn", and "2049: Nowhere to Run".
The building Sebastian lives in is the Bradbury building in LA. It’s been in many movies over the years.
"Wolf" with Jack Nicholson and the Genesis video for "Tonight, Tonight, Tonight".
The music and the visuals make Blade Runner greater than the sum of its parts
Derek Riggs, artist most famous for his work on Iron Maiden album covers, took a lot of inspiration from Blade Runner when he made the gatefold sleeve (a continuous picture from the back to front) for their album, Somewhere in Time. It also shows something like 40 references to Maiden songs, albums and tours, trivia, etc, but the Blade Runner influence for the atmosphere is clear.
As a kid I had Somewhere In Time on vinyl. I'd always focus on the "Bradbury Tower" (JF Sebastion's home) whenever I looked at the back cover. 🤘
@@ortizmo Right, and Icarus falling down the side of it in flames.
@@Billinois78 Flyyyyyyy, on your way....like an eagle.....
It's a masterpiece. Can't say this for the sequel.
Most probably wouldn't agree but I like to think that when Tyrel said Rachel was an experiment he didn't just mean implanted memories but a human life span.
good insight. rachel is responsible for something else replaicants are not suppose to do... "A miracle." as referenced by other replicants in the sequel movie.
In the theatrical version, Ford narrates: at the end of the film, he says that she's "special", and that in her file, her life expectancy was "indefinite".
17:22 --- And that's the bottom line isn't it... It doesn't matter where you from or how you got to where you are... When someone cares about you, THAT is what matters...
I own the collector's edition of the 25th anniversary DVD set from 2007, it has 5 different cut of the film: US theatrical, international theatrical, '92 director's cut, final cut, and the work print, so many different editions
I have that one as well! Mine is in the briefcase with a couple other extras
@@archwayportraits same, it's one of my favorite collectibles ever :)
...as well as the FANTASTIC documentary "Dangerous Days - the making of Blade Runner" which is one of the best and most complete retellings of how the movie was made!
That DVD set felt like such a miracle in 2007. To have all the versions collected, and also such exhaustive behind-the-scenes materials was pretty remarkable. I especially liked hearing the outtakes from Harrison Ford's voiceover recording sessions ("This is bizarre... pretty weird...").
@@Nexus6BT yeah it's literally one of my most prizes possessions.
This movie is an absolute classic. So many good scenes and actors
Long-time Blade Runner fan here, and I actually think the theatrical cut is a bit underrated.
It's the first one I saw so I have a soft spot for it. The narration gives it even more of a noir-ish feel. It's unfortunate that Ford sounds like he is falling asleep in the booth.
The Original Workprint and The International Cut are also very underrated.
@@Renoistiche said he did that on purpose because he and the director didnt want that, so he did that so bad that producers take it out but they didnt 😂
I love that line where Roy says those moments will be lost like tears in the rain. So beautiful after such a creepy moment
The theatrical cut has a voice over narration. Sounds like an old crime detective novel. I grew up with the theatrical cut and it is by far my favorite.
My very favorite movie!!
Loved your reaction!!!!
Replicants were androids in the original book, but genetically engineered humans in the film. That's why Chow had eyeballs in his shop--they were grown to be assembled later. The first movie didn't explain that well but they made it very clear in BLADE RUNNER 2049.
Gaff's only real concern is Deckard finishing his job so he can take his place. That's why he didn't kill Rachel: he'd rather let Deckard deal with the problem, and killing her might make Deckard come after him.
The underlying theme of the movie is that the fake humans appreciate life more than the authentic humans who hate them. That's why Roy saved Deckard--because he showed him more pity than Deckard showed any of them.
The movie almost always looked this good. They've tweaked the color timing and they touched up all the composite shots, but most of what you see are opticals, matte paintings, and set design. Absolutely marvelous.
This is one of the movies that made me fall in love with Sci-Fi! Incredible ethic and moral conversations take place. Watch the sequel!!!❤❤❤
My fav film of all time. Cinematography, the music, the genre it defined.
The thing that makes this movie so special to me is it asks the question "what does it mean to be human?". How do you define a soul?
1982 Theatrical cut (Canada):
Decker voice over throughout
No unicorn dream sequence
"I want more life, fucker"
Happy ending driving scene with Decker
I saw this movie when I was a teenager and I loved it it was 1982 and I do remember the VoiceOver throughout the movie by Harrison Ford I thought that was something they shouldn't have taken out of the movie but I'm only one of the few that liked the VoiceOver
@@allthingsgumball Most importantly, Harrison Ford hated the voiceover. Probably the reason they removed it in some editions.
The voice over might have been a mistake. It's a matter of taste. But leaving out the unicorn scene was a good thing. The unicorn was Ridley Scott deciding he wanted to change the original story. Philip K. Dick stated multiple times that Deckard being human was essential to his exploring what it meant to be human in the original story. An idea that apparently went right over Scott's head.
I can take or leave the voice over. The movie works fine without it, but I don't hate it either. However, I would have rather they hadn't changed the rest. The unicorn dream sequence pushes the "Deckard is a replicant" narrative too hard, rather than merely suggesting it's possible (although I admit I think Deckard-as-replicant is a terrible storytelling choice). The original "I want more life, fucker" had much more impact and was a lot less on the nose. And the happy driving scene at the end dovetails nicely with the sequel, where they did indeed escape, and Rachel had no built-in lifespan. Another thing, making the gruesome murder of Tyrell much more graphic than it was originally was pointless and less effective than merely hearing the horrifying crunching sounds while seeing Roy's expression. I have said this elsewhere many times -- Ridley can be a great, great director, but his storytelling instincts as he gets older are more and more ham-fisted.
@@allthingsgumballI too saw this in 1982 and I championed the voiceover for a long time. I felt, and still feel, it adds to the "noir" vibe. But after hearing the VO again, it is pretty terrible in both prose and performance.
While most people seem to think the Directors cut, or the Final Cut are the best I personally perfer the the original theatrical release. It contains a "film noiresque" monologue from Deckard which adds atmosphere to the film which I feel is missing from the later versions. Also in the scene where Batty meets Tyrell the origninal release has Batty say "I want more life - Fucker" which loses it's impact with switch to "father' in the later versions. Rutger Hauer himself said he hated the change. I agree the re-mastered look is higher quality but I regard the original film that left an indellible impresson on my mind over 40 years ago when I saw it in my teens in the theater as being unique and incomperable. I have a degraded pirate copy on DVD. I wish I could find a decent one again.
The original story it is based on is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick. Director Ridley Scott wanted something more catchy so he called it Blade Runner.. this was originally from a story by Alan Nourse where they are suppliers of illegal medical supplies in a dystopian future in the year 2009.. though they got it from a story by William S. Burroughs.. it's complicated.
Theyve made quite a few movies off Dicks stories, but i think Minority Report is the only one they didnt change the title of.
We can Remember it for you Wholesale (Total Recall) and The Second Variety (Screamers) are right up there with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep :D
“Depends on the personal question” Nice job Addie, it’s a real talent to pull off the smirk like that without overdoing it. Very well done! 😊
One of the points that people miss is that the replicants are basically children. Priss doesn't know how to fight so she attacks ineffectively, as does Leon. Zora is a infiltrator so she runs when she gets found out, Roy was the only one with actual combat training.
you're nuts.
Zora was part of a murder squad off world. She expertly punches Decker in the throat and then tries to strangle him, quiet so as not to call attention. She escapes before any reinforcements can arrive and to warn the others. Leon is just toying with Decker to get information.
Hence why the Replicant motivations of just having memories or someone to call a family might come across as "simple" or "basic" at face value. But to the Replicants, it's very precious, since it helps to anchor them and their individuality in being something more than just a vat-grown artificial human. Batty's confused feelings towards Tyrell, as their "creator" (via his corporation) and him stooping to brutal violence against Tyrell, reflect that, in a really extreme way. On the outside, he's trying to behave like an ordinary, mature adult, but mentally, he's a person that still feels like a confused and scared child (or young person) without the personal support he'd need to grow as an inidividual. Then there's the short lifespan of the Replicants, and the fact that... Batty's also a bit... well, "batty".
And Roy was playing with him...or he would be dead
Priss was a pleasure model so it occurred to her to kill him between her legs. She wasn’t that dumb
Priss
Hi Addie, thank you for this reaction! The styling of Blade Runner is in many ways "Film Noir". This is intentional, and most movie critics recognize this even if they didn't like the movie. "Film Noir" movies were usually low budget, "gritty", detective movies from the late 1930s through the mid 1950s. They generally use suspense instead of action, intricate and overly complicated plots, moral ambiguity, mystery and detectives of some kind, and a general inability of the protagonists to affect the larger outcome of the processes that were set in motion before the protagonists became involved. Other modern takes on Film Noir are Chinatown and its sequel The Two Jakes, Mulholland Falls, and L. A. Confidential. These movies are never universally loved, so it's always a big risk for production companies to make them.
So many great comments already. RIP Rutger Hauer. He was a terrifying presence in the 80's! Echoing the others here, the effects were amazing for the time and still hold up today. The video calls that have been pretty common for years now were pretty fantastical for us back then. We still had cords on our telephones! Similarly, "Zoom and enhance" is a meme now, but back then it was pretty incredible, and that seems to be the first cinematic instance of it. The whole creepy dystopian vibe was really masterfully crafted. Sir Ridley Scott, GBE, is honestly just a living legend at this point.
Origami at the end has another implication - then just warning. It's unicorn, and Decard were day-dreaming before of a real life unicorn (as if it was memories - and scene was when he was surrounded with old family photos on piano)
Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer are both phenomenal in this.
I can't entirely agree. Harrison Ford had just finished "Raiders of the Lost Arc" and already had the "Return of the Jedi" contract signed. For him, "Blade Runner" was an unpretentious low-budget movie, a kind of B-movie; he never understood either the script or his character, hence the reluctance in his acting and especially in the voice-over they had to eliminate.
On the contrary, Rutger Hauer understood his character perfectly, he realized how weak the script was in some scenes and added his final improvisation to give brilliance to his character.
I love it when this classic gets the recognition it deserves.
☞ So Commander Adama does Origami.
☛ California Mountain Snake is a gymnast.
☞ Finkle/Einhorn is a pianist.
☛ Po's dad is an optometrist.
😢 For Addie,
all those characters
have been lost
in time
like
tears
in
rain.
💧
🕊
Oh, well done.
Optometry is the practice of using lenses to correct vision. Opthamology is the practice of medicine on the sight organ itself.
The main changes from the theatrical release:
1: The theatrical release had a narration by Ford throughout the movie. This was done because in focus groups, people were confused as to what was happening. The narration never bothered me as the movie itself is a futuristic film noir.
2: There were some scenes that were a little clunky. Harrison Ford's mouth didn't match his dialog when he was interviewing the snake merchant and the scene where Deckard kills Zora was a quite obvious stunt double in a bad wig. To fix these, they brought in Ford's son and filmed him mouthing his father's dialog and inserting his chin and mouth over his father's. In the Zora scene, they brought back Joanna Cassidy (BTW, I don't know if you've seen the movie yet or not but she was Valient's girlfriend in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".) had her act out her facial expressions while sitting in a rotating chair, digitally removed the stunt double's head in the scene and replaced it with hers.
3: There was no "Unicorn daydream" which was actually test footage from Scott's next film "Legend".
4: Once again, because of bad focus group reactions, they stuck on a happy ending where Deckard and Rachel moving up north and living happily ever after. And Rachel had no limits on her lifespan and everything was bright and sunny. For that ending, they used un-used B-roll from Kubrick's helicopter fly overs at the beginning of "The Shining".
I absolutely love Bladerunner... ever since I was a kid. It is outstanding! Another one that is good (though no where near as good) and set in the same universe is a Kurt Russel movie called "Soldier". It is a masterclass on non-verbal acting.
I love that movie