Excellent breakdown. I will politely argue the payoff was when Roy Batty in his own dark tragic but tender way proved the Tyrell Corporation's Motto. "More Human than Human." Deckard was saved by the very fugitive her was hunting, and ran off with another. That pay off was Deckard rediscovering his humanity. While he may or may not be a replicant, the point of his arc was that he found out that the new replicants are not "like any other machine". He wanted nothing to do with the Blade Runner job he had, but was pulled in anyway. By the end of the film, he had made a choice and had Roy not saved him, it would have been a darker ending. Roy's gift, his last kind act, was to give someone a chance to enjoy a life that he could no longer participate in. The movie is a slow burn, with world building and such, but I absolutely adore it. It is a great film school for beginners, and truly a watershed in the cyberpunk genre films. Cheers!
If you were familiar with New York City in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and earlier you would know that the levels of steam and smoke depicted in Blade Runner city scenes were entirely realistic: Excess steam was piped underground from local power plants to heat skyscrapers and frequently leaked at street level, smog from traffic, pre-catalytic converters, was incredibly thick, and almost every block had restaurants, diners, small eateries and so-on, each adding their own steam and smoke which winter air made more visible. Many building heating systems ran on oil, and some, such as public schools, even into the early seventies, still ran on coal. All of this, settled in rivers of haze between skyscraper caverns, affected the very character of light in the city. So, to a New Yorker, such an atmosphere during fall and winter was normal, and immediately recognizable. Ridley Scott would have been very familiar with New York during that time period. As for character development, it adequately carries the story with no waste and no unnecessary diversion. This film was ahead of its time, and is nothing short of a masterpiece that still stands up today without any sense of aging.
YES, WHEN IT RAINS, TOO. In such a dense environment, the rains do not magically scrub all particulates and vapor instantly from the air. You grew up in New York City in the 70’s? You actually walked there during every season and every weather condition? No? Have you any idea how many photographs you can find online of that city showing exactly what I’m telling you? How many films show exactly what I described? Perhaps you should LISTEN to the people who actually experienced a place instead of denying someone else’s experience from a far off place with a climate radically different to theirs. Did you actually read my whole comment? If so, why would you sit there, a continent away with a different life in a different environment and time, and basically call me a liar? I made up my own city experience? But perhaps you lecture other people from other places on their experiences, too. Not having lived it directly, surely you must be the one who knows better.
Yes, and in fact, NYC still has utility-supplied steam heating in parts of Manhattan. It still leaks out of the streets in many places... even when it rains.
I hadn't seen this reply. No one is calling you a liar. Blade Runner is set in L.A., but even so, I specifically mentioned smoke, not steam. The steam is obvious, but the smoke in the interior scenes and in the skies is from pollution, which was confirmed by the filmmakers, specifically Jordan Cronenweth. If you notice the wide shots of the skies and the smoke-filled interior shots, that is not logical and consistent with what you get right after it rains. When it rains, the skies clear up, and the smoke should vanish for a day or two. It's certainly true of all the polluted cities I've visited. Maybe after a few hours of heavy rain the skies don't clear up in NYC. Blade Runner takes place over just a few days. The steam is perfectly fine, but not the smoke/smog/haze. Where I live, in Mumbai, the skies are almost always covered by smog caused by pollution, all year. But when it rains, like it did just yesterday, we get clear skies. Even if you assume the pollution is pumped in through numerous sources in great quantities, at the very least you'd get a few hours of clear skies, but that's never the case in Blade Runner, until the end. But this is obviously not possible as well, because the skies do clear in the end. What caused that? Which is why there's no logic to the smog/haze/smoke in the atmosphere. Steam is just water vapor, and will not hang around in the atmosphere as smog/haze. Anyway, it's a fictitious universe, and it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of Blade Runner one bit. @@ononearts
Compared to modern electronica, the soundtrack is very average in my opinion. I make much better soundtracks in my home studio, but these days producers have access to much better sounds and fx …
@QuantumElectricians Ridley blasted the soundtrack on set while filming, so he must have agreed with you. Safe to say a 'better' soundtrack by @ma3stro681 would make a mockery of the film. I mean, what is modern electronica?
Agreed, but the rythm in this movie is so off to me. i tried many times to enjoy this movie but it does not click for me. And i love slow pace movies and the visuals...
if you look closely at a scene in the apartment with 4K you see a a glass top with what look like priceless Chinese ming dynasty porcelain masks. Justs asountding attention to detail
Great review with one glaring omission: the movie has one of the best scores ever composed, thanks to the immense talent of Vangelis, which brings futuristic lyricism and a melancholic tone to the film.
I still have my vinyl LP of the soundtrack. Vangelis did an amazing job at conveying an additional layer of atmosphere to an already atmospheric adventure.
Anyone who says it’s “A faithful adaptation of the book” hasn’t read the book and hasn’t read much about Blade Runner. It’s a brilliant film, one of my top movies… but it ain’t a faithful adaptation of the book at all.
Agreed! Especially the last third of the book. The book also gives more depth to the replicants. What the movie does well, is give a broad spectrum but simpler version of the landscape and character of Deckard. You probably wouldn't have much of a chance of translating a true reflection of the book into a movie. I'm happy we have both.
Somewhere between faithful and er _un-faithful?_ We're a lot closer to the one and not the other. Our Blade Runner has the broad strokes, the atmosphere, reasonable interpretations of the characters? A film can't just _'be'_ a book - some elision/omission and deformation is unavoidable right. Same as the artwork for an album can't be 'faithful' to _everything_ contained there in but still fairly represent the whole.
The original Blade Runner was way ahead of its time. The visuals, cinematography and original score elevated the film but put it outside the expectations and taste of the general sci-fi movie going public. Historically it was the last sci-fi film to use practical effects not CGI and in comparison to movies produced in the decades that followed, up to and including the first two decades of the 21st century, it remains an unparalleled masterpiece of sci-fi cinematography.
A science fiction movie holding up for over forty years is astounding. I can see that happening for something like the Godfather, a period piece, but science fiction is a whole other level of difficulty. Dealing with the future and making it believable 40 years later is just insane and I seriously doubt Ridley Scott had any idea this would happen with BR. I have absolutely no criticism whatsoever and remember how absolutely enthralled I was as the story unfolded.
I think the best scifis are ageless due to them not trying to predict the future but to be about universal human questions. Blade Runner at its core is about "what makes us human?". And I disagree with the reviewer here, I think Roy's death or rather the way he dies is a nice payoff. Deckard despite being human didn't show any empathy or goals. Roy wanted to live and in the end he showed mercy to Deckard. 2049 has a similar payoff: the real "chosen one" human is sealed off in a glass dome, cretaing false memories while K despite being an uninteresting replicant made a real impact on the world. And I think this is why Dune holds up insanely well too. herbert flat out removed AIs and complex computers from his world so it would feel timeless. It's about humans, not technology. And this is why 40k doesn't feel outdated either. It's so far in the future in such a timeless aesthetic it feels timeless and eternal.
@@Special_Agent_NSB I actually considered it pretty ridiculous when it was released. I just never bought into the way they treated space travel the same as flying in an airplane with stewardess, etc. It looked silly then and is just as bad now. The actual guts of the story I liked very much!
I made myself live like Blade Runner through all of November 2019, wearing a trench coat, I modified my car to look like a prop from the movie, eat only processed food (which I don't think I will repeat in 2049), and even bought one of those led rod umbrellas.
About a year before the release of Blade Runner 2049, I asked my girlfriend if she had seen Blade Runner yet, she said no. What? You have to see it then! After the opening sequence she bent over and said: "Wow, how did I miss such a film is coming out? I totally would have watched it in the theatre!" - "Well, It premiered 10 years before you were even born." and her jaw dropped.
I was one of the very few ones who fell hopelessly in love with this movie when it first came out. I went to see it over 10 times, completely fascinated by everything about it, the atmosphere, the story, the feel, the amazing score by Vangelis... to this day, to me, it's still the very best movie ever made.
I remember serving in the Army after this movie came out. When clowning around with friends, I'd get in one buddy's face in particular, and use Roy Batty's line: "I want more life. Fucker." 🤣🤣🤣
I watched it as a 13 year old Star Wars fan kid with my father in a cinema filled with around 15 people. I loved it, even after watching ET. Two remarks on your analysis: no word on the superb soundtrack of Vangelis (OK, it doesn't have to do with cinematography, but still it did a lot to the atmosphere and the shooting) and the other 'failed' box office masterpiece in 1982: The Thing by John Carpenter.
Ridley Scott was going to flesh-out secondary characters with planned scenes, but after spending 40 million he was over budget and behind schedule, so WB shut down filming and told Scott to finish the movie with what he had. I've had arguments with friends over whether Blade Runner is too "simple" or not, over whether it has enough meat on it's bones -- I think it does. The movie is about empathy, what it is and who possesses it. The replicants supposedly don't have any empathy, going by a mere eye-test, yet show more passion, love of life and each other than any natural-born humans including Deckard, who is a disaffected product of a dehumanizing futropolis. And even if unintended by Scott, the shallowness of the human characters works for the movie, makes this high-tech/low-life future look like a smothering nightmare and a corporate triumph that disaffects the soul -- I think we're getting there right now. Deckard cruelly telling Rachel her memories are fake then feeing shitty and taking it back, Batty and Priss, Batty meeting/killing his "father" and subsequent grief-shock/self-revulsion in the elevator, Deckard's fight/flight from nothing left to lose Batty, Batty's soliloquy after empathizing with/saving Deckard -- these "hot" primal scenes are more impactful perhaps because everything else is cold. To me, Blade Runner isn't simple or threadbare in it's story or characters, it's SPARTAN.
Well said. Perhaps the movie is better because of the constraints Ridley Scott was put under. For me at least, a big part of the appeal is that it makes you think and leaves questions unanswered. Of course each cut succeeds at this to varying degrees. It sure has stood the test of time.
Jordan Cronenweth was truly one of the all-time greats. It’s unfortunate how little we got to see of his work. He struggled with Parkinson’s for much of his career, limiting a lot of his work to commercials, music videos, and films with shorter shooting schedules. I’ve heard that he spent most of his time on Blade Runner lying on a cot. His influence on the way films look is immeasurable.
Jordan Croneneweth shot a bi top "BUCKAROO BANZAI" as well before being fired, entirely due to the executive producer being a vengeful tool. You can spot Jordan's scenes a mile away. Total genius.
You are absolutely right about 98% of everything you said. But I hold 1% back for not placing BR in context of the films around it. BR was an art film and rather inaccessible in it's day as compared to its peers. Audiences were expecting some kind of Star Wars. It was too cerebral for the average ticket buyer. I was a kid back then and I distinctly remember not appreciating what I watched...until much much later. The same is true of Citizen Kane. The film was at the tail of the Great Depression and was expected to be a story about a man who went from rags to riches - a beacon of hope to a weary public. The audience simply wasn't expecting what they got. The other 1% is the slap against Wrath of Khan. From a cinematography perspective, sure, nothing ground breaking here. But VERY different from other Star Trek projects.That said WOK's plot line leaves ripples in the ST canon to this day and deserves the accolades and the audience reactions it got. Drama, action, subtle foreshadowing, constant suspense, love and personal sacrifice...all while making a seamless connection in to the original series. Again, I was a kid and remember the feeling of adventure that washed over me while I sat there, mouth agape, popcorn getting cold. Before walking into the theatre, not a Trek fan. After...very much a fan. And let's not forget the animation used in the film was groundbreaking. The original team that created the Genesis simulation went on to form a little company called PIXAR. Not bad for a 2nd film in the series. Back to your essay. I remember at film school, all of us waiting for a classroom to free up, a fellow student remarked that with all the diverse opinions among 60 of us in our year, we probably couldn't find one film that everyone agreed was absolutely amazing. Then, after a thoughtful pause, my friend simply said "Blade Runner" . And slowly we all nodded in agreement.
I wasn't a kid when I saw Blade Runner. I agree that many people were expecting another Star Wars, but BR was exactly the movie that I was waiting for. Among other things, I recognized the scenes in the Bradbury Building and immediately connected the film to another downbeat robot story, the Outer Limits TV show episode, Demon With A Glass Hand. I agree with you that Wrath of Khan is a very good film that has held up well. The knocks against it are not deserved.
I believe the edit that made it into cinemas in 1982 and to VHS shortly afterwards was also fairly different than the edit available now, which is apparently a lot closer to the Ridley Scott director's cut.
You had the star of Star Wars and Raiders, the director of Alien, and the composer of Chariots of Fire -- so I suppose one can forgive audiences for expecting a thrilling "popcorn" actioner with a catchy soundtrack. But it was none of things -- yet so much more.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 there are actually three additional edits that were released with variations from Scott. But basically if there’s an overly dry voice over explaining plot points from Ford, it’s the 1982 version.
Interesting video and I agree with you on nearly everything...Except...sorry, but that last comment: 'The Characters are unremarkable and unmemorable' Whoa...Dude! Roy Batty...Unmemorable? Are you smoking something?! I was lucky enough to see this masterpiece, upon its release in 1982. In my hometown of Swansea, Wales, I had the Odeon Cinema almost to myself, sadly. People wanted lovable aliens and action sequences. To watch this film of=n a 70-foot screen...was mind-blowing. I was 18 and already a film buff but I had never seen a film that looked like this. Even with its flaws...no...BECAUSE Of its Flaws...Its PERFECT. Who today, can make a film that looks like this?
I bought a 4-disc blue ray pack of BR doc and films about 6 years ago. In that, I learned that just before they went to camera there was an actor's strike, which put them back 6 months. But in those months, Scott and Mead took the time to flesh out the entire look and world of the story, and I think that made a huge difference in the final product
The cinematography in Blade Runner set a mood that carried throughout the whole movie. It's a movie unto itself unlike anything else, but to think the cinematographer didn't even get an Academy nomination is a historical miss by the Academy. I have the movie on DVD and watch it every couple years. It's best on a rainy night.
A few things - Some of the architecture of Blade Runner was directly inspired by Metropolis, Deckard's housing complex is a direct lift of one of the main buildings in Metropolis. The film is not faithful at all to the book, 'Do Andoids Dream of Electric Sheep', for lots of reasons. The name Blade Runner actually comes from a book title, 'The Blade Runner', by Alan E. Nourse, that William Burroughs used the name of when he started writing an early screenplay of the film, and the title stuck. As an enjoyable comparison it's worth watching his brother's film 'The Hunger', 1983, made around the same time. The strong contrasts, the soft smokey lighting, the claustrophobic sets are very similar.
Deckard's apartment building is based on the Ennis House, a Frank Lloyd Wright mansion in Los Angeles The exterior scene (when Deckard is driving up to the entrance) was actually shot there. The Mayan-looking square wall panels are based on the bricks that FLW designed for the exterior and interior of the Ennis House.
Excellent comment. Dick's novel is so chaotic and unrelated to the format of a film that it probably took one read before the screenwriting team said "WTF?" Haven't thought of The Hunger in years but the themes mentioned in BR could be equally applied to the triangle of Bowie, Deneuve and Sarandon.
Yes, the dark steamy scenes provide an excellent mix of old and new. This was valid in 1982, the film being set in 2019, but remains valid in 2023. The story is now set 4 years ago.
For me BR is a timeless audio-visual symphony worthy of infinite contemplation, so much so that the story and the plot withers away in the background -- the very opposite effect of the conventional storytelling in movies. It truly ages as a grand cathedral and a rare example of cinema adaptation that outshines the book it's based upon.
Yep. It's definitely not a faithful adaption and it didn't try to be. Which is fine, but it's odd they said otherwise. Also, the teathric version is far inferior to the later version and especially compared to the director's cut with a different ending and editing. When looking back at this 'original' cut it's clear why it was a box office flop.
Blade Runner is my favorite movie to smoke and go to sleep to. Not that it makes me fall asleep or that it's boring by any means! There's just something about how dark it is and how mysteriously tantalizing and lonely and yet longing Vangelis' score is that makes it comforting to sleep to. Like a big, cold, scifi blanket that just warms me in the oddest way.
2049 is an ugly film, in more ways than one: muddled story-telling, set pieces meant as “homage” to original but which detract from the new story, characters who are not only unrealistic but ring false; and an utterly confounding misogyny. 2049 I see as old men with too much money, much too much ego, and far too little good sense and faith to be true to the legacy of the original in a continuum of quality. It appears to me that Ridley Scott himself did not understand what he created with Blade Runner.
@@ononearts stop trolling .... 2049 is very highly acclaim film .. and it has won awards.... Thanks to Roger Deakins cinematography , it is one of the most beautiful looking films ever made
@@michaelhawkins7389Expressing an opinion that is different from yours is not “trolling”; if that were case, perhaps you are the troll for insinuating that I am one, rather than simply stating what you find in the film: I spoke of the film without personally attacking anyone. Do you angrily shout “Troll” at every film critic who offers an opinion different to yours?
Of course it had a great look, created by all the things you mentioned, including the lighting and cinematography. But you give the characters short shrift. I was enthralled with each character -- and when you mentioned "slow pace" I had to think back. I have seen this movie at least a half dozen times and I never once noticed that it had a 'slow pace'. Now that you mention it, I don't care. I love it all.
The reason why it failed commercially is the same reason why 2049 also failed: audiences generally want mindless popcorn blockbusters with a quick "payoff," and this was never going to be that kind of a movie. The "payoff" for this movie's plot is that it makes you think about what it means to be human. No one discusses ET (a great movie also, but nothing more than a product for consumption) on a philosophical level anymore. Thinkers will be discussing the themes and questions provoked by Blade Runner for ages to come.
Really insightful essay. I believe the outdoor “smoke” you cite is actually steam. For those of us from Detroit, plumes of such steam-emanating from tunnels delivering heat to buildings since the early 1909s-regularly punctuate downtown and scenes.
@@wolfcrow I dont know where you live, but i know for a fact its not England. The hospital i work at has pipes pumping out steam permentantly from underground (cooling pipes?). The same is true of a Nuclear power plan i visited back. All you need is a cool and humid atmosphere. Both things are obviously present in the movie. And here in the UK ive seen it rain for days constantly with a permament grey cloud cover. I bloody wish a little rain cleared the sky, lol.
@wolfcrow It's okay to be wrong. Maybe if an entire comment section disagrees with you it would behoove you to double check your presumptions. Enjoyable watch though.
I’ve watched this film 100s of times from cinema, vhs, laserdisk, dvd, TV, Blu-ray, 4k whatever and I am still speechless each time watching it. I would add it wouldn’t be the film it is without the soundtrack by Vangelis which is a masterpiece too. I carnt express with words what amazement and deep introspection on many subjects this film conjures up.
Watched it within the last 6 months and was still just as in awe as I was the first time I watched it all those years ago. It's mesmerizing and still one of my all time favorites.
This is one of the greatest masterpieces of our time. Every time I watch it, I seem to find some detail I hadn't seen before. The themes are what make it so strong. Why are we here? What is real? Is artificial life real sentience, and can they be as human as we are? Can you make your life count, even if it's very short? So much stuff in here.. it's all pure genius.
I've been in love with Blade Runner ever since I first watched it as a kid in the early 90's, the cinematography is first class, it's beautiful, breathtaking and out of this world, I also enjoy the story and characters even though they could of been a bit more fleshed out with like you said in the video a better payoff, but I thoroughly enjoy it and rewatch it all the time and never tire of it. 1982 had so many great sci-fi's including Blade Runner, John Carpenter's The Thing, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Tron, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
I was a very fortunate teenager to be able to see this masterpiece from a giant screen at age of 14 back in 1983. It revolutionized my world. I was astounded. Still am. One of the best movies ever made. Love it till death
I dont know what people mean by "confusing or vague" storyline when they are talking about Blade Runner. Its a hard boiled detective story akin to the films that were popular in the 40s and 50s in Hollywood. I think what turned people off initially is that the 80s was kinda obsessed with funny, family friendly films with giant marketing campaigns. Kinda like how now mostly Disney films and Marvel are the only films most likely to make a profit. Mass market film goers just dont go for cerebral.
My favourite movie! I still remember the first time I watched BladeRunner back in '93. It was and still is an unrepeatable movie experience. To this day, I have never been so awe-struck by a movie's visuals and its production value!
No payoff, what?! Batty makes Deckard feel the same way as He feels, living with the fear of premature death, and that monologue before He dies, the meaninglessness of life! Really good video tho!
There is more care and planning in a 2 second establishing shot in Blade Runner than most entire Marvel movies that are shot against a screen and filled in later in post. Also, after seeing a couple clips here in B&W, watching the entire movie in black and white seems like it would be incredible too.
Yup. That's why I can watch Bladrunner for the 537th time and still enjoy it. By way of comparison, I walked out of Avengers Endgame when I woke up half way through the end battle. Just sayin'.
Please don't mention anything "Marvel" in the same sentence as Blade Runner. Marvel movies are for Saturday morning cartoon time. BR is a masterpiece😉 film!
Blade Runner was so tough to accept into our minds when it was released in the 80s, but after living with it my whole life, it certainly stands out as one of the all time greatest films, a true masterpeice, including the score by Vangelis. Then once it got released on Blue Ray, it became a lot easier to appreciate all these colors and intricacies that largely went unnoticed, unappreciated at it's release date. This film is the definition of labor of love. I wish it was on Netflix where I live
I think the storyline of BR perfectly matches its style. It is very personal, compact, claustrophobic. About several small people, unimportant, lost in the world. Nothinc epic happens - as in the real life. For me, the main problem with the new BR movie is the attempt to make a "large" story - which didn't work.
Well, the CEO of one of the biggest company is killed by one of its creations. That might have some impact in the real world, otherwise it is lost like tears in rain.
I enjoyed 2049 in a lot of ways, but completely agree. BR is not about what is epic, but as Bryant suggests, "little people." And despite his statement, even the cops still living on Earth are little people...
I saw this in 1983 in an art house movie theatre. My then BF was a big sci-fi fan but I had no background. He took me to this as an introduction to the genre. I was completely blown away and became an instant convert. It was the voice-over version and it is still my favourite.
To me it's the sort of painterly quality that Ridley Scott achieved in every frame. The quality of the light combined with the smoke and his own technique of using lenses and framing achieves a kind of oil painting look that hasn't been matched since.
I've seen Blade Runner at least 15 times, read all sorts of articles and books about Blade Runner (Future Noir, the American Cinematographer coverage of Blade Runner, etc.) seen countless interviews with Ridley Scott -- and I still learned a number of things I didn't know about this film from watching your video!
You probably have one of the most genuinely educational film channels on UA-cam. Most film channels are simply 'edutainment', but i actually learn things from your videos.
How can we talk about the beauty of Blade Runner without mentioning Vangelis' music? Vangelis' incredible work is perfectly integrated into the film's atmosphere, adding a layer of emotion that contributes to the overall feeling left in the memory of every viewer. The visual work is grandiose, but the soundtrack is also one of the best; it's part of the film and makes it so unique.
I think what sets Blade Runner apart is that some things in it look futuristic and some things look more contemporary, or even old. Even the lighting reminds me of old movies.The film was influenced by the film noir of the 40's and 50's.
Tell us you never read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Without telling us you never read it: "Apparently it (Blade Runner) is a faithful adaptation of the novel". Come on man, there is a ton of information out there about both the book and movie. And, No, the movie is not a faithful adaptation to the book...however it is a good adaptation of the themes Dick himself presents in Android and his other works.
It never looks dated because the style of it is retro art deco futuristic versus pure futuristic. Retro futuristic will always resonate since it's based in a past reality.
I watched Blade Runner when it came out and I still watch it roughly once a year. It's a masterpiece. My favorite seen is when Deckard is brought in by his boss to get coerced into find the replicants. The office is in a huge building, standing on its own in the middle of the building. When the camera pans back away from the office, you can see cardboard boxes, rubbish and a lot of dust on the top of the office. Creates a brilliant ambience.
Great video, but I recommend you read Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. To say the movie is considered faithful to the book is a stretch. I love both Blade Runner films, but the book is much weirder and Deckard even has a wife. I would say the movie is generally inspired by the concepts and some of the events in the book. Definitely worth a read, I find Philip K. Dick is a specific kind of subgenre. Almost like psychedelic sci-fi. The short "Electric Dreams" TV series made of his stories is also great.
One other thing is that Ridley Scott is also a painter. The high contrast reference to film noir is pretty obvious, but classic painters like Rembrandt and his use of light also comes to mind 😊
"apparently it's a faithful adaptation of the novel", tell us you haven't read the novel without telling us you haven't read the novel. It''s not exactly a faithful adaptation, it's pretty close and it's a wonderful movie that I love very much but it's not a faithful adaptation.
being a R rated adult sci fi drama effected its box office revenue, but it was the most beautiful, plausible , dystopian movies ever made, and lets not forget that memorable, awesome soundtrack
1:10 A little note. Having read the novel, I can tell you that although the film and the novel share some character names and basic plot-point, the characterisation, overall plot, as well as the themes of the two stories differ to a considerable degree. For instance, Dick's story is far less sympathetic towards androids, emphasizing their artifice and portraying them as psychopathic and shallow.
Love this movie. Did not mind the lack of payoff either. The pace and unfinished feel remind me of dark scifi classics. It's not about a story, but about painting a picture, making you feel part of it. People are not heroes, they are trapped in their world, no more important then any other part of the ambience.
@@wolfcrow Noo. The music itself, maybe, as I cannot speak for them. But in the context of the movie, it plays such a big role for the atmosphere and the overall immersiveness and tone. Of course, since this video was about the looks, I wouldn't hold it against you for not mentioning it.
@@wolfcrowThe musical influence can be heard in practically every modern sci-fi game to date. It defined what sci-fi music should sound like ever since.
@@wolfcrow You don't obviously know much about music. Even then talking about that movie without that magnificent music gross negligence if not something else.
I still remember the first time I saw this film - at a pre-release Film Club at my local college. I've watched the film countless times since then and appreciate it more now than ever. Now that I'm involved in cinematography I appreciate the work that went into producing this masterpiece even more, it's a fantastic film.
How many times have true film buffs watched Star Trek movies more than once? I've lost count of how many times I've watched Blade Runner ...... and I'd watch it again if it was on TV right now (despite having the Blue Ray of every version). It's so beautiful and it set the tone for Sci-Fi movies ever after. The perfect shiny future technology of Star Wars and Star Trek was gone, traded for a prophetic dirty, broken future.
I've seen Wrath of Khan about as many times as I've seen Blade Runner. It is a spectacular story about friendship, growing old, and sacrifice. The effects may seem dated to some people now, but these things go in cycles (remember when analog synthesizers were selling for pennies on the dollar because they were no longer cool?). I think the effects work great for the film, as does it's stellar soundtrack and it may be some of the best acting from the original series crew. The script is immaculate. It is a well told Shakespearean drama. There's no need to disparage to highlight Blade Runner. Both have tremendous strengths and are excellent films.
@@nickmonks9563 Yeah, its such a wierd take to think that "film Buffs" dont like Star Trek Movies. We all know they are of variable quality, But Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are every bit as good Blade Runner, and you would struggle to find someone who would rate them very very highly. I need to watch them both again now. For the millionth time each.
THE WRATH OF KHAN IS ONE OF MY FAVOURITES. It looks 100 times better than modern star trek movies. When I was teenager in the late 80's. Bladerunner and Star Trek ii were 2 of about 15 films me and my mate used to watch in a loop for 2 or 3 years.
I've seen ST:2 many more times than _Blade Runner,_ but they're both a little messed up in retrospect. I wasn't interested in the sequel to _Blade Runner._
@@BritneyLaZonga No need to do that without good reason; why tick people off? Sounds like the old thing about you have to like either Star Trek or Star Wars or either Star Trek Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5.
And its shitty box office explains why we’ve been stuck with the Marvel universe and endless Star Wars remakes ever since. Literally hard to find anything worth watching any more.
I’ve always considered it a cinematic masterpiece even before I ever brought cameras or even attempted to shoot anything it’s like noir /futuristic/creepy at the same time and the score was incredible too great breakdown
Everything about the film is beautiful...From the script to the music to the cinematography its all beautiful.... “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
Thank you for making this. You captured so much. However, for me and I think for many, this incredible film wouldn’t be all it is without Vangelis. He put the magical cherry on top.
"But where the film fails is, my opinion, there's no payoff. I'm immersed in this fantastic world. I'm sold. But the story being told doesn't match the production values. And the characters aren't that powerful or memorable." I immensely like the payoff, the story, and the characters. Blade Runner is a good example of a product that hits differently for different people. To change elements of the film to something that works better for some groups, would be to move the film away from things that work so strongly for people like myself. But it's extremely clear that the movie fails to work (on various levels) for a lot of people. To the point that Blade Runner stands out as a movie that many critics (who themselves don't get huge chunks of the film), are also very angry that other people like the film so much. And said critics often make appeals or even attacks that the film doesn't work and should be abandoned as beloved by fans. As a designer, I would be cautious of putting a big budget behind a project like Blade Runner. Notably more so if I was focused mostly on short term pop appeal and short term profits. Blade Runner's short term niche appeal is very high, but that kinda thing often falls short in revenue generation targets needed for big budget projects. Blade Runner has also returned value in how it has had a profound impact across many genres, industries, and ideologies. It also has value as a license that has achieved a standout iconic status. And there's every indication that it will continue to develop and stay relevant as a property over time in the future.
I really loved Blade Runner when it hit theaters, I was stunned by the views, and by the future images, and story. I think many people can't handle more complexity, and prefer more straightforward content and meaning, sadly.
One of the most iconic monologues, storytelling which doesnt spoon feed the audience, visuals that explain the world its set in and finally being left to consider what it means to be human. You might understand most of the technical aspects but i dont think you got the film. Great adaptation of the book by understanding that the theme was the core and using the strengths of the medium, rather than attempting to be accurate to the book (which rarely pays off imo)
After many, many years and many viewings and now no longer feeling the impact of trying to grapple with such a harsh and disturbing reality that BR brought to screen so vividly by Scott, it's a love story at its very core. The replicants show complete loyalty, sacrifice and devotion (love) for each other. Deckard and Rachel's love story is integral. I would say that their love of life and their fierce determination was best demonstrated in Roy Batty's final scene. That's the pay off! I love the line by Tyrell when he states that- 'commerce, that is our goal here at Tyrell, more human than human is our motto'.
I think Sean young Rachael character was very underrated in my view, they way they lit her eyes in some shots is just beautiful. My favorite sci-fi movie of all time
I didn't realise how strong the year was when Blade Runner came out: E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana!), Chariots of Fire, Conan the Barbarian, Tron, Blade Runner.
Yes, Blade Runner is truly a beautiful film that I can watch over and over again. Sometimes I occasionally put movies on in the background just for effect and this is one of them I use. Also, lest we forget, the equally beautiful score from Vangelis. The music in a film can add as much as anything else and Vangelis' work definitely fit the bill for BR.
I think you are being extremely harsh of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, which I would argue doesn't look massively dated and is almost universally acclaimed as being the best Star Trek film. Yes, it might not stand up stylistically to modern Star Trek but in many ways the effect work is still visually stunning, just look at the battle in the Mutara nebula. Yes, you could argue that the lighting in Khan's ships bridge is a little underwhelming, but I suspect that may have been done to differentiate the two ships. Now, I am not suggesting that Khan is visually better than Blade Runner, it certainly isn't and yes, Blade Runners visuals do still stand out today, but I would also suggest that the Wrath of Khan is actually a better film than Blade Runner, which whilst visually stunning, is very slow and plodding, whilst the Wrath of Khan is continuously building up tension, whilst telling a story.
I used to like _Wrath of Khan_ and saw it far more times than Blade Runner. But in retrospect the former was a series of stupidities as well as being sort of a remake of episodes "The Deadly Years" and "Balance of Terror." They undid Spock's sacrifice, and made another Khan movie that in some ways mocks it. They'd have done better doing a film with social commentary like the original series, say about women's equality, since E.R.A. just failed around that time, and look where we are now.
Nah. It looks dated alright. It's one of the reasons I never took the initiative to ever watch it. Although I've heard a lot of praise for it being a great movie, the looks of it inspires to me precisely a schlock action movie from the 70's. Nothing against it, just not the most interesting feat and the looks make that.
Blade Runner is still my all time favourite. The story itself mesmerizing (I didn't have any issues with the voiceover version at all), and it worked perfectly well as a sci-fi noir : the romance between man and machine, the meaning of humanity, what would we do to increase our life span ? The issue of Deckard being a replicant was totally unnecessary, and IMHO it was a mistake for Ridley Scott to add to the confusion. But the glorious visuals ! Outstanding art design and cinematography : the light and shadows didn't make the movie gloomy, but really lifted my heart. The opening jaw dropping flying shot, the giant ads, Rachel's face perfectly lit against the cigarette smoke, Deckard and Rachel in the apartment as they start to fall for each other, the rain against the neon and smoke, up to the final 'tears in rain' shot. Pure genius all of it. And the sound ! Vangelis' soundtrack, initially described as 'jarring' by critics, has now stood the test of time. The characters and the acting were superb all round too. As another @XUKcomic said, it's a timeless piece of art. Forty years old, can you believe it. Love this movie.
I don't agree with everything you said, especially with the "unmemorable characters", but your analysis of the filming technique and the general "ciaro scuro" impression of the film is spot on. I'm sorry that not a single sentence is dedicated to the music, because it is Vangelis' music a masterpiece in its own right, which has continued to live beyond the medium for which it was made. This music complements the plot of the film but also transcends the film itself. I was a high school student when I saw BR in my country. I can freely say that that film defined me and I compare all films since then with the aesthetics of BR. I am one of those rare characters who prefer the original cinema version of the film, with narration, as opposed to the director's cut version. The narration reminds me of film noir, with which BR has many points of contact, in fact, from which, in my opinion, it draws its aesthetic inspiration.
@@wolfcrow Well that's another thing I disagree with you on. "Wasn't ground breaking"...? Instead of me going crazy here, I would ask you to read what Wikipedia says about that masterpiece; "In 2020, The Guardian included it among 10 best film soundtracks."," In 2022, the Future Music magazine placed the soundtrack as 1st among "10 of the most incredible synth film soundtracks from Hollywood history","In 2021, the " Main Titles" was rated as the greatest synth sound of all time out of 40 by Computer Music." Ok, I'm an audiophile and I can't expect everyone to share my understanding of music, but please watch the movie again with a focus on mutual synergy with music. Then, on a good hi-fi system, listen to the Vangelis soundtrack...the film is almost not even necessary! The music outlines the plot so well that it is astonishing. The Rachel song is universally recognizable and the Love theme, in addition to its recognition, is additionally charged with eroticism to the point of pain. With all of the above, you might still want to watch the movie again with the emphasis on the music and revise your rather light-hearted statement.
About your last point that it has a weak story and conclusion, I won't disagree with you, but I think it's motivated by the old pulp noir stories from the past where it was imperfect heros, imperfect situations, broken dreams, and there isn't suppose to be a happy ending. The whole noir aesthetic was a great juxtiposition to the fact it was suppose to be the future, but also felt like the past. This was present in films like Dark City also. I like how Vangelis even included the One more Kiss dear song that was an ode to the music that would play for those old noir beat stories/movies. Layers of obvious art talent in both visuals, sounds, cinemetography but in my mind a story that is on the same level as the rest of it is what makes Bladerunner timeless to me.
It looks awesome because skillful filmmakers, craftspeople and artists made it and NOT a bunch of CGI happy technicians and accountants. It's a timeless piece of art that draws heavily on film history by a writer and director who are very sci-fi literate.
Was 10 when this movie came out and still love it. Bought the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" in 2000 at Gatwick Airport. Beautiful, powerful amazing storytelling and visuals to boot.
I saw the film shortly after it opened and knew it was extraordinary - and certainly different from everything else - within the first few minutes. I was also sitting in a cavernous, largely empty theater. Frankly, it was heartbreaking to realize that such an ambitious, remarkable and utterly original film lacked for an audience. I also knew that audiences would eventually catch up with it - and so they did years later. This experience also made me distrust notions of box office flop and hit, realizing that commerce often has little to do with the true value of a film. And yes, reviewers can certainly get it wrong, too.
Box office numbers definitely don't mean anything about quality. Even just looking at this year, Furiosa did 173m globally and was considered a flop while Deadpool and Wolverine is sitting at 1.3b.
@@mossicely Most of the movies I see would probably be considered box office flops - basically films that were made without thought of box office to start with. So that means I go to an actual movie theater very few times during the year. But I did see Furiosa (!) because I love George Miller's incredibly kinetic sense of direction. He makes beautifully inventive action films with shots you've never seen anywhere else. It's disappointing that audiences didn't show up for this. But I suspect they eventually will.
It's the characters of Blade Runner that have stuck with me. The doomed android. The detective who doesn't realize he is a replicant. The woman he runs off with. It's dark and twisted and leaves you unsettled. It's a work of art and each time I return to the film, I appreciate it more than the last.
I saw that sci-fi trifecta in the theaters in 1982 when they came out. I hated ET, very much liked Wrath of Khan, and loved Blade Runner, and had no issue at the time with the theatrical cut classic noir style narration that was later excised by Scott.
I'm partial to the Final Cut myself, but I think the theatrical cut is underrated; Harrison's bored, "I don't want to do this tone" actually nails it for film noir voiceover...even if he really didn't want to do it.
I never imagined a sequel could do justice to this masterpiece.... but I have to say IMO 2049 is absolutely brilliant .... not only completely immersive in story telling , action sequences, musical dynamics, cinematography .... its ALL there in spades .... At first I didn't get used to Ryan Gosling until I realized the master class directing of Denis Villeneuve behind Gosling's character ....
Blade Runner 2049 it is one of the most beautiful looking films ever made and it won some awards , Thanks to Roger Deakins cinematography. Both BladeRunner (1982) and Bladerrunner2049 are amazing looking films
I Like how you emphasized that classics stand the “test of time” Lots of great movies were lost or buried by the hype of commercialism and “one liners” which became the major selling points of 90’s movies
I was so hopeful that 2049 would capture the atmosphere of the original. Of course it did not. The lighting and overall tone was actually the main character of this film - everything else is secondary. My god, even the sound design carefully underscores the claustrophobic world. My mind was absolutely BLOWN when I saw this in the theatre at 13 years old!!!
2049 was not intended to "capture the atmosphere" of the original. It was meant to stand on it's own merits but be recognizable as part of the same world. 2049 was a different era, different climate even. Things had moved on and Villeneuve wanted it that way. To mirror Blade Runner too closely would have been an insult to Ridley Scott. Denis Villeneuve doesn't need to pander to Scott's vision of Blade Runner. Villeneuve has a very impressive repertoire as a director and has the right to create any piece of film in his own image.
2049 is so much better than the original, it boggles the mind. The original is a technical masterpiece not a movie masterpiece, its story is barely serviceable.
"Apparently it's a faithful adaptation of the novel." As someone who has read the novel several times, I can safely tell you that it's not. In the book: - The future is 1992, not 2019. - Rick Deckard has a wife, Iran. - He has a android sheep (hence the title) - "Replicants" are called androids or "andies" (the term Replicant does not exist) - The setting is San Francisco, not LA - "Blade Runners" are called bounty hunters, the term "Blade Runner" doesn't exist - Deckard is a rookie bounty hunter, not a veteran pulled out of retirement - His targets are all different, except for Roy Baty (one "t") and Pris. Roy has a wife, Irmgard Baty I could go on and on...
Words can't describe the overwhelming feeling of beauty that i felt in the opening "hades landscape" scene of the flim, blade runner will always be my favorite flim of all time 10/10 in all aspects.
Great video, and I totally disagree re: payoff. The payoff is that iconic monologue from Roy on the roof. If you're going to do something this good, this "real" and this honest, ending with a traditional audience friendly happy ending with Dekard front and center would be jarringly out of place. Especially as Dekard has been relatively withdrawn. At the end of the day in reality people and situations are nuanced. Sometimes the cop isn't the most interesting person with the most insightful things to say. That's this film. Roy is ahead of Dekard in every way. I also disagree re memorable strong characters too - there aren't many, but the scenes and character moments you described yourself are powerful and memorable. And character driven. I never thought that was smoke - obvs it's "smoke" in reality but it always seemed like it was supposed to be steam to me - and very fitting for the industrial / US feel. There is smoke too, and dust, in appropriate places especially indoors, but even the food is normally steaming... Anyway, thanks for all the insights 🙏
I was lucky to watch Bladerunner (1982) in the cinema few years ago. It was IMAX, and it was AMAZING!!! Sound & music was also AMAZING! I would gladly watch it again in the cinema
Definitely not a faithful representation of the original story. It contains elements and tropes from that story, but some of the main characters in both only share names. Personalities are very different, and the plot is very different.
Blade Runner is my favorite film of all time. I've watched it 100s of times but I didn't make the connections with the shaft lights following Deckard or the high ceilings for Tyrell Corp people. It wasn't a box-office hit because it's not a typical cookie-cutter Hollywood Blockbuster mold of a movie -- Blade Runner is a cerebral neo noir, and so it's sophistication and appeal was unappreciated and lost to the mundane masses. It is a masterpiece that still holds up today.
The real reason it was so good was due to the artists having an extra year or two in Buenos Aires to add extreme details to the set due to the Hollywood actors strike, which made a HUGE difference in what Ridley Scott originally planned and also goes to show that you can't rush art.
One thing to mention is that Blade Runner came out the same summer as E.T. Movie fans preferred to go back to E.T. for second and third viewings rather than see BR. That's an important point, as this film became one of the first to have a new life on VHS (including rentals), then DVD, etc. The Phillip Dick novel is much less about androids. There's quite a bit of detail about animal replicants as status symbols. In the novel, all animals were dying out, at first keeping real animals as a pet was a status symbol, but in the present of the novel, real animals had become too rare and people were pretending their replicant pets were real. Also described in depth were home pill dispensers that provided mood customization on a daily basis. Not in the film. There was no Asian inflluences in the culture, and the fact most people left on Earth were desperately trying to gather funds to move off-planet... I just can't continue with this video after hearing the "faithful" comment.
Great analysis. This is the type of film that takes several decades to settle in, watching it again every few years. as you change so does your understanding of the characters and who are the heroes, victims and villains.
Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/free-ebook/
Excellent breakdown. I will politely argue the payoff was when Roy Batty in his own dark tragic but tender way proved the Tyrell Corporation's Motto. "More Human than Human." Deckard was saved by the very fugitive her was hunting, and ran off with another. That pay off was Deckard rediscovering his humanity. While he may or may not be a replicant, the point of his arc was that he found out that the new replicants are not "like any other machine". He wanted nothing to do with the Blade Runner job he had, but was pulled in anyway. By the end of the film, he had made a choice and had Roy not saved him, it would have been a darker ending. Roy's gift, his last kind act, was to give someone a chance to enjoy a life that he could no longer participate in. The movie is a slow burn, with world building and such, but I absolutely adore it. It is a great film school for beginners, and truly a watershed in the cyberpunk genre films. Cheers!
You speak too close to the microphone. The rest is perfect.
If you were familiar with New York City in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and earlier you would know that the levels of steam and smoke depicted in Blade Runner city scenes were entirely realistic: Excess steam was piped underground from local power plants to heat skyscrapers and frequently leaked at street level, smog from traffic, pre-catalytic converters, was incredibly thick, and almost every block had restaurants, diners, small eateries and so-on, each adding their own steam and smoke which winter air made more visible. Many building heating systems ran on oil, and some, such as public schools, even into the early seventies, still ran on coal. All of this, settled in rivers of haze between skyscraper caverns, affected the very character of light in the city.
So, to a New Yorker, such an atmosphere during fall and winter was normal, and immediately recognizable. Ridley Scott would have been very familiar with New York during that time period.
As for character development, it adequately carries the story with no waste and no unnecessary diversion. This film was ahead of its time, and is nothing short of a masterpiece that still stands up today without any sense of aging.
Not when it rains.
YES, WHEN IT RAINS, TOO. In such a dense environment, the rains do not magically scrub all particulates and vapor instantly from the air. You grew up in New York City in the 70’s? You actually walked there during every season and every weather condition? No? Have you any idea how many photographs you can find online of that city showing exactly what I’m telling you? How many films show exactly what I described? Perhaps you should LISTEN to the people who actually experienced a place instead of denying someone else’s experience from a far off place with a climate radically different to theirs. Did you actually read my whole comment? If so, why would you sit there, a continent away with a different life in a different environment and time, and basically call me a liar? I made up my own city experience? But perhaps you lecture other people from other places on their experiences, too. Not having lived it directly, surely you must be the one who knows better.
Yes, and in fact, NYC still has utility-supplied steam heating in parts of Manhattan. It still leaks out of the streets in many places... even when it rains.
I hadn't seen this reply. No one is calling you a liar. Blade Runner is set in L.A., but even so, I specifically mentioned smoke, not steam. The steam is obvious, but the smoke in the interior scenes and in the skies is from pollution, which was confirmed by the filmmakers, specifically Jordan Cronenweth. If you notice the wide shots of the skies and the smoke-filled interior shots, that is not logical and consistent with what you get right after it rains.
When it rains, the skies clear up, and the smoke should vanish for a day or two. It's certainly true of all the polluted cities I've visited. Maybe after a few hours of heavy rain the skies don't clear up in NYC.
Blade Runner takes place over just a few days. The steam is perfectly fine, but not the smoke/smog/haze. Where I live, in Mumbai, the skies are almost always covered by smog caused by pollution, all year. But when it rains, like it did just yesterday, we get clear skies.
Even if you assume the pollution is pumped in through numerous sources in great quantities, at the very least you'd get a few hours of clear skies, but that's never the case in Blade Runner, until the end. But this is obviously not possible as well, because the skies do clear in the end. What caused that? Which is why there's no logic to the smog/haze/smoke in the atmosphere. Steam is just water vapor, and will not hang around in the atmosphere as smog/haze.
Anyway, it's a fictitious universe, and it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of Blade Runner one bit.
@@ononearts
correct. it implies an underground aspect to the city.
I know this is about the look of the film but Vangelis' score really matches the style and look and elevates the film to a beautiful dreamstate.
Compared to modern electronica, the soundtrack is very average in my opinion. I make much better soundtracks in my home studio, but these days producers have access to much better sounds and fx …
@@ma3stro681it's a bit silly comparing music from+30yrs ago to what's available now.
It's like comparing Kraftwerk '82 to Kraftwerk now.
@QuantumElectricians Ridley blasted the soundtrack on set while filming, so he must have agreed with you. Safe to say a 'better' soundtrack by @ma3stro681 would make a mockery of the film. I mean, what is modern electronica?
@@ma3stro681 You make much better soundtracks than Vangelis?
Boy are you deluded....
damn you are SO right !!
Blade runner is a timeless piece of art
Agreed, but the rythm in this movie is so off to me.
i tried many times to enjoy this movie but it does not click for me.
And i love slow pace movies and the visuals...
if you look closely at a scene in the apartment with 4K you see a a glass top with what look like priceless Chinese ming dynasty porcelain masks. Justs asountding attention to detail
Shame about the sequel - looked great but had no soul or atmosphere.
True classic! Like someone released an immense fart and you could still smell it 50 year later.
@@frankyyaggabot6222
Impossible . Plus Vangelis ' s music ....masterpiece.
Great review with one glaring omission: the movie has one of the best scores ever composed, thanks to the immense talent of Vangelis, which brings futuristic lyricism and a melancholic tone to the film.
Yes! I bought the CD soundtrack in Japan well before it was available in the U.S. It adds so much to the movie.
I made this same comment too, it is a masterpiece where the two together are greater than their individual parts
Holiday Inn at 2am in parts
I still have my vinyl LP of the soundtrack. Vangelis did an amazing job at conveying an additional layer of atmosphere to an already atmospheric adventure.
Good description.
Anyone who says it’s “A faithful adaptation of the book” hasn’t read the book and hasn’t read much about Blade Runner. It’s a brilliant film, one of my top movies… but it ain’t a faithful adaptation of the book at all.
Glad to know it wasn't just me who thought that!
as soon as the dude said the film is faithful to the book i began scrolling. and then i stopped watching the video.
Agreed! Especially the last third of the book. The book also gives more depth to the replicants. What the movie does well, is give a broad spectrum but simpler version of the landscape and character of Deckard.
You probably wouldn't have much of a chance of translating a true reflection of the book into a movie.
I'm happy we have both.
the book would be a bit to deep for most people , heck Blade Runner is too deep for most people , the books would be mind blowing.
Somewhere between faithful and er _un-faithful?_ We're a lot closer to the one and not the other.
Our Blade Runner has the broad strokes, the atmosphere, reasonable interpretations of the characters?
A film can't just _'be'_ a book - some elision/omission and deformation is unavoidable right.
Same as the artwork for an album can't be 'faithful' to _everything_ contained there in but still fairly represent the whole.
The original Blade Runner was way ahead of its time. The visuals, cinematography and original score elevated the film but put it outside the expectations and taste of the general sci-fi movie going public.
Historically it was the last sci-fi film to use practical effects not CGI and in comparison to movies produced in the decades that followed, up to and including the first two decades of the 21st century, it remains an unparalleled masterpiece of sci-fi cinematography.
Every frame of Blade Runner is art.
To think of all the wonderful frames that ended up on the cutting room floor. 😢
Yes, the work of Moebius was the reason
@@Valkonnen you are confusing him with Syd Mead.. Moebius wasn't in Blade Runner
@@1231ababc No confusion. Ridley Scott has said and it is obvious that the design of the city was inspired by Moebius
A seed.. Starting to grow. who said movies mimic reality? I don't think so...
A science fiction movie holding up for over forty years is astounding. I can see that happening for something like the Godfather, a period piece, but science fiction is a whole other level of difficulty. Dealing with the future and making it believable 40 years later is just insane and I seriously doubt Ridley Scott had any idea this would happen with BR.
I have absolutely no criticism whatsoever and remember how absolutely enthralled I was as the story unfolded.
I think the best scifis are ageless due to them not trying to predict the future but to be about universal human questions. Blade Runner at its core is about "what makes us human?". And I disagree with the reviewer here, I think Roy's death or rather the way he dies is a nice payoff. Deckard despite being human didn't show any empathy or goals. Roy wanted to live and in the end he showed mercy to Deckard. 2049 has a similar payoff: the real "chosen one" human is sealed off in a glass dome, cretaing false memories while K despite being an uninteresting replicant made a real impact on the world.
And I think this is why Dune holds up insanely well too. herbert flat out removed AIs and complex computers from his world so it would feel timeless. It's about humans, not technology. And this is why 40k doesn't feel outdated either. It's so far in the future in such a timeless aesthetic it feels timeless and eternal.
2001: A Space Odyssey is another science fiction film that stands the test of time due to painstaking effort applied to practical effects.
@@Special_Agent_NSB I actually considered it pretty ridiculous when it was released. I just never bought into the way they treated space travel the same as flying in an airplane with stewardess, etc.
It looked silly then and is just as bad now.
The actual guts of the story I liked very much!
in part, it looks current because it CREATED the way others visualised the future, true even now
I made myself live like Blade Runner through all of November 2019, wearing a trench coat, I modified my car to look like a prop from the movie, eat only processed food (which I don't think I will repeat in 2049), and even bought one of those led rod umbrellas.
About a year before the release of Blade Runner 2049, I asked my girlfriend if she had seen Blade Runner yet, she said no. What? You have to see it then! After the opening sequence she bent over and said: "Wow, how did I miss such a film is coming out? I totally would have watched it in the theatre!" - "Well, It premiered 10 years before you were even born." and her jaw dropped.
I thought the story was going to take a different twist when you said "she bent over" lol
This is not a forum for your toilet humor, please consider your words.
@@EastWindCommunity1973 I think the original poster should have considered their words more carefully, it’s “leant “ over not “bent”
Which of your girlfriend was that, DiCaprio?
People actually use the word "premiered" in real life?
I was one of the very few ones who fell hopelessly in love with this movie when it first came out. I went to see it over 10 times, completely fascinated by everything about it, the atmosphere, the story, the feel, the amazing score by Vangelis... to this day, to me, it's still the very best movie ever made.
Quite possibly one of the my favorite scifi films ever. Very few have achieved what this film did on so many levels.
@@faroleiro agreed. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it enjoy the view...
I remember serving in the Army after this movie came out. When clowning around with friends, I'd get in one buddy's face in particular, and use Roy Batty's line: "I want more life. Fucker." 🤣🤣🤣
Boredom only for impatient toddlers.
@@eyuptas6590you're bored by Blade Runner? Maybe comic book movies are a better fit for your mental abilities.
Although a small handful, tell me all the other films that have reached this rare pinnacle?
I watched it as a 13 year old Star Wars fan kid with my father in a cinema filled with around 15 people. I loved it, even after watching ET. Two remarks on your analysis: no word on the superb soundtrack of Vangelis (OK, it doesn't have to do with cinematography, but still it did a lot to the atmosphere and the shooting) and the other 'failed' box office masterpiece in 1982: The Thing by John Carpenter.
People at the time didn't know how good they (we, I was young but still there) had it.
We all knew how good we had it. The movie was boring. It should have been an action movie.
Ridley Scott was going to flesh-out secondary characters with planned scenes, but after spending 40 million he was over budget and behind schedule, so WB shut down filming and told Scott to finish the movie with what he had. I've had arguments with friends over whether Blade Runner is too "simple" or not, over whether it has enough meat on it's bones -- I think it does.
The movie is about empathy, what it is and who possesses it. The replicants supposedly don't have any empathy, going by a mere eye-test, yet show more passion, love of life and each other than any natural-born humans including Deckard, who is a disaffected product of a dehumanizing futropolis. And even if unintended by Scott, the shallowness of the human characters works for the movie, makes this high-tech/low-life future look like a smothering nightmare and a corporate triumph that disaffects the soul -- I think we're getting there right now.
Deckard cruelly telling Rachel her memories are fake then feeing shitty and taking it back, Batty and Priss, Batty meeting/killing his "father" and subsequent grief-shock/self-revulsion in the elevator, Deckard's fight/flight from nothing left to lose Batty, Batty's soliloquy after empathizing with/saving Deckard -- these "hot" primal scenes are more impactful perhaps because everything else is cold. To me, Blade Runner isn't simple or threadbare in it's story or characters, it's SPARTAN.
Great last phrase
Well said. Perhaps the movie is better because of the constraints Ridley Scott was put under. For me at least, a big part of the appeal is that it makes you think and leaves questions unanswered. Of course each cut succeeds at this to varying degrees. It sure has stood the test of time.
Great comment, you nailed it… Blade Runner is spartan!
🖖@@giannapple
Sure has.@@pepstein
Jordan Cronenweth was truly one of the all-time greats. It’s unfortunate how little we got to see of his work. He struggled with Parkinson’s for much of his career, limiting a lot of his work to commercials, music videos, and films with shorter shooting schedules. I’ve heard that he spent most of his time on Blade Runner lying on a cot. His influence on the way films look is immeasurable.
Jordan Croneneweth shot a bi top "BUCKAROO BANZAI" as well before being fired, entirely due to the executive producer being a vengeful tool. You can spot Jordan's scenes a mile away. Total genius.
Drones are a nonissue now. AI is the issue now.
@@dynjarren7523 What does this have to do with Jordan Cronenweth and his struggled with Parkinson's exactly?
His son is magnificent too. He's made more than his share of iconic films now with David Fincher.
You are absolutely right about 98% of everything you said.
But I hold 1% back for not placing BR in context of the films around it. BR was an art film and rather inaccessible in it's day as compared to its peers. Audiences were expecting some kind of Star Wars. It was too cerebral for the average ticket buyer. I was a kid back then and I distinctly remember not appreciating what I watched...until much much later. The same is true of Citizen Kane. The film was at the tail of the Great Depression and was expected to be a story about a man who went from rags to riches - a beacon of hope to a weary public. The audience simply wasn't expecting what they got.
The other 1% is the slap against Wrath of Khan. From a cinematography perspective, sure, nothing ground breaking here. But VERY different from other Star Trek projects.That said WOK's plot line leaves ripples in the ST canon to this day and deserves the accolades and the audience reactions it got. Drama, action, subtle foreshadowing, constant suspense, love and personal sacrifice...all while making a seamless connection in to the original series. Again, I was a kid and remember the feeling of adventure that washed over me while I sat there, mouth agape, popcorn getting cold. Before walking into the theatre, not a Trek fan. After...very much a fan. And let's not forget the animation used in the film was groundbreaking. The original team that created the Genesis simulation went on to form a little company called PIXAR. Not bad for a 2nd film in the series.
Back to your essay.
I remember at film school, all of us waiting for a classroom to free up, a fellow student remarked that with all the diverse opinions among 60 of us in our year, we probably couldn't find one film that everyone agreed was absolutely amazing. Then, after a thoughtful pause, my friend simply said "Blade Runner" . And slowly we all nodded in agreement.
Wrath of Khan is my #2 all time favorite behind Bladerunner
I wasn't a kid when I saw Blade Runner. I agree that many people were expecting another Star Wars, but BR was exactly the movie that I was waiting for. Among other things, I recognized the scenes in the Bradbury Building and immediately connected the film to another downbeat robot story, the Outer Limits TV show episode, Demon With A Glass Hand.
I agree with you that Wrath of Khan is a very good film that has held up well. The knocks against it are not deserved.
I believe the edit that made it into cinemas in 1982 and to VHS shortly afterwards was also fairly different than the edit available now, which is apparently a lot closer to the Ridley Scott director's cut.
You had the star of Star Wars and Raiders, the director of Alien, and the composer of Chariots of Fire -- so I suppose one can forgive audiences for expecting a thrilling "popcorn" actioner with a catchy soundtrack. But it was none of things -- yet so much more.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 there are actually three additional edits that were released with variations from Scott. But basically if there’s an overly dry voice over explaining plot points from Ford, it’s the 1982 version.
Interesting video and I agree with you on nearly everything...Except...sorry, but that last comment: 'The Characters are unremarkable and unmemorable'
Whoa...Dude!
Roy Batty...Unmemorable? Are you smoking something?!
I was lucky enough to see this masterpiece, upon its release in 1982.
In my hometown of Swansea, Wales, I had the Odeon Cinema almost to myself, sadly. People wanted lovable aliens and action sequences.
To watch this film of=n a 70-foot screen...was mind-blowing.
I was 18 and already a film buff but I had never seen a film that looked like this.
Even with its flaws...no...BECAUSE Of its Flaws...Its PERFECT.
Who today, can make a film that looks like this?
I bought a 4-disc blue ray pack of BR doc and films about 6 years ago. In that, I learned that just before they went to camera there was an actor's strike, which put them back 6 months. But in those months, Scott and Mead took the time to flesh out the entire look and world of the story, and I think that made a huge difference in the final product
The cinematography in Blade Runner set a mood that carried throughout the whole movie. It's a movie unto itself unlike anything else, but to think the cinematographer didn't even get an Academy nomination is a historical miss by the Academy. I have the movie on DVD and watch it every couple years. It's best on a rainy night.
A few things -
Some of the architecture of Blade Runner was directly inspired by Metropolis, Deckard's housing complex is a direct lift of one of the main buildings in Metropolis.
The film is not faithful at all to the book, 'Do Andoids Dream of Electric Sheep', for lots of reasons. The name Blade Runner actually comes from a book title, 'The Blade Runner', by Alan E. Nourse, that William Burroughs used the name of when he started writing an early screenplay of the film, and the title stuck.
As an enjoyable comparison it's worth watching his brother's film 'The Hunger', 1983, made around the same time. The strong contrasts, the soft smokey lighting, the claustrophobic sets are very similar.
Deckard's apartment building is based on the Ennis House, a Frank Lloyd Wright mansion in Los Angeles The exterior scene (when Deckard is driving up to the entrance) was actually shot there. The Mayan-looking square wall panels are based on the bricks that FLW designed for the exterior and interior of the Ennis House.
Excellent comment. Dick's novel is so chaotic and unrelated to the format of a film that it probably took one read before the screenwriting team said "WTF?" Haven't thought of The Hunger in years but the themes mentioned in BR could be equally applied to the triangle of Bowie, Deneuve and Sarandon.
Metropolis and Bladerunner are often used as bookends for the history of 20th century science fiction and storytelling on film.
Yes, the dark steamy scenes provide an excellent mix of old and new. This was valid in 1982, the film being set in 2019, but remains valid in 2023. The story is now set 4 years ago.
You are correct. Blade Runner is completely different from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
For me BR is a timeless audio-visual symphony worthy of infinite contemplation, so much so that the story and the plot withers away in the background -- the very opposite effect of the conventional storytelling in movies. It truly ages as a grand cathedral and a rare example of cinema adaptation that outshines the book it's based upon.
the book is super different tho.
The movie is VERY different from the novel. They're both great, but very different.
Yep. It's definitely not a faithful adaption and it didn't try to be. Which is fine, but it's odd they said otherwise. Also, the teathric version is far inferior to the later version and especially compared to the director's cut with a different ending and editing. When looking back at this 'original' cut it's clear why it was a box office flop.
Blade Runner is my favorite movie to smoke and go to sleep to. Not that it makes me fall asleep or that it's boring by any means! There's just something about how dark it is and how mysteriously tantalizing and lonely and yet longing Vangelis' score is that makes it comforting to sleep to. Like a big, cold, scifi blanket that just warms me in the oddest way.
You’ve beautifully described all my emotions about it
The most beautiful looking film ever made, a hill I will happily die on. The cinematography of 2049 comes nowhere near this.
2049 is an ugly film, in more ways than one: muddled story-telling, set pieces meant as “homage” to original but which detract from the new story, characters who are not only unrealistic but ring false; and an utterly confounding misogyny. 2049 I see as old men with too much money, much too much ego, and far too little good sense and faith to be true to the legacy of the original in a continuum of quality. It appears to me that Ridley Scott himself did not understand what he created with Blade Runner.
Totally disagree 2049 is a very, very good looking film lots of wow factor in 4K HDR.
@@ononearts stop trolling .... 2049 is very highly acclaim film .. and it has won awards.... Thanks to Roger Deakins cinematography , it is one of the most beautiful looking films ever made
Fucking chill. 2049 pairs beautifully as a continuation of the original film.
@@michaelhawkins7389Expressing an opinion that is different from yours is not “trolling”; if that were case, perhaps you are the troll for insinuating that I am one, rather than simply stating what you find in the film: I spoke of the film without personally attacking anyone. Do you angrily shout “Troll” at every film critic who offers an opinion different to yours?
Of course it had a great look, created by all the things you mentioned, including the lighting and cinematography. But you give the characters short shrift. I was enthralled with each character -- and when you mentioned "slow pace" I had to think back. I have seen this movie at least a half dozen times and I never once noticed that it had a 'slow pace'. Now that you mention it, I don't care. I love it all.
The reason why it failed commercially is the same reason why 2049 also failed: audiences generally want mindless popcorn blockbusters with a quick "payoff," and this was never going to be that kind of a movie. The "payoff" for this movie's plot is that it makes you think about what it means to be human. No one discusses ET (a great movie also, but nothing more than a product for consumption) on a philosophical level anymore. Thinkers will be discussing the themes and questions provoked by Blade Runner for ages to come.
@@dereksbooks2049 had terrible pacing. The original did not
Really insightful essay. I believe the outdoor “smoke” you cite is actually steam. For those of us from Detroit, plumes of such steam-emanating from tunnels delivering heat to buildings since the early 1909s-regularly punctuate downtown and scenes.
The steam is fine, but the pollution in the atmosphere is not logical. Skies clear up after it rains.
@@wolfcrowthere really isn’t an “after it rains” moment in the film to be fair
@@wolfcrow I dont know where you live, but i know for a fact its not England. The hospital i work at has pipes pumping out steam permentantly from underground (cooling pipes?). The same is true of a Nuclear power plan i visited back. All you need is a cool and humid atmosphere. Both things are obviously present in the movie. And here in the UK ive seen it rain for days constantly with a permament grey cloud cover. I bloody wish a little rain cleared the sky, lol.
@wolfcrow
It's okay to be wrong. Maybe if an entire comment section disagrees with you it would behoove you to double check your presumptions.
Enjoyable watch though.
I’ve watched this film 100s of times from cinema, vhs, laserdisk, dvd, TV, Blu-ray, 4k whatever and I am still speechless each time watching it. I would add it wouldn’t be the film it is without the soundtrack by Vangelis which is a masterpiece too. I carnt express with words what amazement and deep introspection on many subjects this film conjures up.
A cinematic masterpiece.
Watched it within the last 6 months and was still just as in awe as I was the first time I watched it all those years ago. It's mesmerizing and still one of my all time favorites.
A stunning masterpiece visually, sonically and more.
This is one of the greatest masterpieces of our time. Every time I watch it, I seem to find some detail I hadn't seen before. The themes are what make it so strong. Why are we here? What is real? Is artificial life real sentience, and can they be as human as we are? Can you make your life count, even if it's very short? So much stuff in here.. it's all pure genius.
I've been in love with Blade Runner ever since I first watched it as a kid in the early 90's, the cinematography is first class, it's beautiful, breathtaking and out of this world, I also enjoy the story and characters even though they could of been a bit more fleshed out with like you said in the video a better payoff, but I thoroughly enjoy it and rewatch it all the time and never tire of it. 1982 had so many great sci-fi's including Blade Runner, John Carpenter's The Thing, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Tron, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
I was a very fortunate teenager to be able to see this masterpiece from a giant screen at age of 14 back in 1983. It revolutionized my world. I was astounded. Still am.
One of the best movies ever made. Love it till death
Your lucky, I missed it and watched it thanks to my cousin who had the first vhs copy.
I was also in my teens when I saw in a theater, and I couldn’t believe my eyes
I dont know what people mean by "confusing or vague" storyline when they are talking about Blade Runner. Its a hard boiled detective story akin to the films that were popular in the 40s and 50s in Hollywood. I think what turned people off initially is that the 80s was kinda obsessed with funny, family friendly films with giant marketing campaigns. Kinda like how now mostly Disney films and Marvel are the only films most likely to make a profit. Mass market film goers just dont go for cerebral.
My favourite movie! I still remember the first time I watched BladeRunner back in '93. It was and still is an unrepeatable movie experience. To this day, I have never been so awe-struck by a movie's visuals and its production value!
No payoff, what?! Batty makes Deckard feel the same way as He feels, living with the fear of premature death, and that monologue before He dies, the meaninglessness of life! Really good video tho!
Wrath of Kahn is a great film that absolutely holds up, there was no need to dump on it just because Blade Runner has a stronger visual look.
There is more care and planning in a 2 second establishing shot in Blade Runner than most entire Marvel movies that are shot against a screen and filled in later in post. Also, after seeing a couple clips here in B&W, watching the entire movie in black and white seems like it would be incredible too.
You bet!
Yup. That's why I can watch Bladrunner for the 537th time and still enjoy it.
By way of comparison, I walked out of Avengers Endgame when I woke up half way through the end battle. Just sayin'.
Please don't mention anything "Marvel" in the same sentence as Blade Runner. Marvel movies are for Saturday morning cartoon time. BR is a masterpiece😉 film!
Blade Runner was so tough to accept into our minds when it was released in the 80s, but after living with it my whole life, it certainly stands out as one of the all time greatest films, a true masterpeice, including the score by Vangelis. Then once it got released on Blue Ray, it became a lot easier to appreciate all these colors and intricacies that largely went unnoticed, unappreciated at it's release date. This film is the definition of labor of love. I wish it was on Netflix where I live
I think the storyline of BR perfectly matches its style. It is very personal, compact, claustrophobic. About several small people, unimportant, lost in the world. Nothinc epic happens - as in the real life. For me, the main problem with the new BR movie is the attempt to make a "large" story - which didn't work.
agreed
Well, the CEO of one of the biggest company is killed by one of its creations. That might have some impact in the real world, otherwise it is lost like tears in rain.
I enjoyed 2049 in a lot of ways, but completely agree. BR is not about what is epic, but as Bryant suggests, "little people." And despite his statement, even the cops still living on Earth are little people...
I saw this in 1983 in an art house movie theatre. My then BF was a big sci-fi fan but I had no background. He took me to this as an introduction to the genre. I was completely blown away and became an instant convert. It was the voice-over version and it is still my favourite.
To me it's the sort of painterly quality that Ridley Scott achieved in every frame. The quality of the light combined with the smoke and his own technique of using lenses and framing achieves a kind of oil painting look that hasn't been matched since.
I've seen Blade Runner at least 15 times, read all sorts of articles and books about Blade Runner (Future Noir, the American Cinematographer coverage of Blade Runner, etc.) seen countless interviews with Ridley Scott -- and I still learned a number of things I didn't know about this film from watching your video!
You probably have one of the most genuinely educational film channels on UA-cam. Most film channels are simply 'edutainment', but i actually learn things from your videos.
Thank you!
Definitely! What a great channel
How can we talk about the beauty of Blade Runner without mentioning Vangelis' music? Vangelis' incredible work is perfectly integrated into the film's atmosphere, adding a layer of emotion that contributes to the overall feeling left in the memory of every viewer.
The visual work is grandiose, but the soundtrack is also one of the best; it's part of the film and makes it so unique.
I think what sets Blade Runner apart is that some things in it look futuristic and some things look more contemporary, or even old. Even the lighting reminds me of old movies.The film was influenced by the film noir of the 40's and 50's.
Hands down, my favorite movie. I've seen it over 100 times and I still fall in love with Sean Young every time.
I am always torn, Rachel is amazing, but Pris with that makeup does it for me as well.
Tell us you never read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Without telling us you never read it: "Apparently it (Blade Runner) is a faithful adaptation of the novel". Come on man, there is a ton of information out there about both the book and movie. And, No, the movie is not a faithful adaptation to the book...however it is a good adaptation of the themes Dick himself presents in Android and his other works.
It never looks dated because the style of it is retro art deco futuristic versus pure futuristic. Retro futuristic will always resonate since it's based in a past reality.
this movie still blows me away every time I see it. it has got to be my number one favorite sci-fi film
I watched Blade Runner when it came out and I still watch it roughly once a year. It's a masterpiece. My favorite seen is when Deckard is brought in by his boss to get coerced into find the replicants. The office is in a huge building, standing on its own in the middle of the building. When the camera pans back away from the office, you can see cardboard boxes, rubbish and a lot of dust on the top of the office. Creates a brilliant ambience.
Great video, but I recommend you read Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. To say the movie is considered faithful to the book is a stretch. I love both Blade Runner films, but the book is much weirder and Deckard even has a wife. I would say the movie is generally inspired by the concepts and some of the events in the book. Definitely worth a read, I find Philip K. Dick is a specific kind of subgenre. Almost like psychedelic sci-fi. The short "Electric Dreams" TV series made of his stories is also great.
One other thing is that Ridley Scott is also a painter. The high contrast reference to film noir is pretty obvious, but classic painters like Rembrandt and his use of light also comes to mind 😊
I agree!
"Apparently, it is a faithful adaptation of the novel." Lol, not really, they are quite different, but I think I dig the movie more ;)
"apparently it's a faithful adaptation of the novel", tell us you haven't read the novel without telling us you haven't read the novel. It''s not exactly a faithful adaptation, it's pretty close and it's a wonderful movie that I love very much but it's not a faithful adaptation.
Blade Runner, The masterpiece.
being a R rated adult sci fi drama effected its box office revenue, but it was the most beautiful, plausible , dystopian movies ever made, and lets not forget that memorable, awesome soundtrack
1:10
A little note.
Having read the novel, I can tell you that although the film and the novel share some character names and basic plot-point, the characterisation, overall plot, as well as the themes of the two stories differ to a considerable degree. For instance, Dick's story is far less sympathetic towards androids, emphasizing their artifice and portraying them as psychopathic and shallow.
Absolutely.
Hell yeah thats why droids can cum in the first place and he forgot to mention it
Well, the only one we really sympathize with is Rachael. Deckard didn't know why his enemy didn't kill him at the end.
A rare case of the movie being better than the book its based on imo.
@@1183newman Yes, I would agree.
Love this movie. Did not mind the lack of payoff either. The pace and unfinished feel remind me of dark scifi classics. It's not about a story, but about painting a picture, making you feel part of it. People are not heroes, they are trapped in their world, no more important then any other part of the ambience.
Nice video but how can you forget Vangelis wonderful music which is 50% of the magic of this movie?
I love Vangelis but the music is dated to today’s audience.
@@wolfcrow I still like what they did for _Cosmos_ but I can see your point.
@@wolfcrow Noo. The music itself, maybe, as I cannot speak for them. But in the context of the movie, it plays such a big role for the atmosphere and the overall immersiveness and tone. Of course, since this video was about the looks, I wouldn't hold it against you for not mentioning it.
@@wolfcrowThe musical influence can be heard in practically every modern sci-fi game to date. It defined what sci-fi music should sound like ever since.
@@wolfcrow You don't obviously know much about music. Even then talking about that movie without that magnificent music gross negligence if not something else.
I still remember the first time I saw this film - at a pre-release Film Club at my local college. I've watched the film countless times since then and appreciate it more now than ever. Now that I'm involved in cinematography I appreciate the work that went into producing this masterpiece even more, it's a fantastic film.
How many times have true film buffs watched Star Trek movies more than once? I've lost count of how many times I've watched Blade Runner ...... and I'd watch it again if it was on TV right now (despite having the Blue Ray of every version).
It's so beautiful and it set the tone for Sci-Fi movies ever after. The perfect shiny future technology of Star Wars and Star Trek was gone, traded for a prophetic dirty, broken future.
How many "true film buffs" havent watched these films multiple times? And how could you possibly know?
"The perfect shiny future technology of Star Wars"
Have you watched SW? Almost all of it is worn, used, dirty.
I've seen Wrath of Khan about as many times as I've seen Blade Runner. It is a spectacular story about friendship, growing old, and sacrifice. The effects may seem dated to some people now, but these things go in cycles (remember when analog synthesizers were selling for pennies on the dollar because they were no longer cool?). I think the effects work great for the film, as does it's stellar soundtrack and it may be some of the best acting from the original series crew. The script is immaculate. It is a well told Shakespearean drama. There's no need to disparage to highlight Blade Runner. Both have tremendous strengths and are excellent films.
@@nickmonks9563 Yeah, its such a wierd take to think that "film Buffs" dont like Star Trek Movies. We all know they are of variable quality, But Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country are every bit as good Blade Runner, and you would struggle to find someone who would rate them very very highly. I need to watch them both again now. For the millionth time each.
THE WRATH OF KHAN IS ONE OF MY FAVOURITES. It looks 100 times better than modern
star trek movies. When I was teenager in the late 80's. Bladerunner and Star Trek ii were 2 of about 15 films me and my mate used to watch in a loop for 2 or 3 years.
I've seen ST:2 many more times than _Blade Runner,_ but they're both a little messed up in retrospect. I wasn't interested in the sequel to _Blade Runner._
If you are a Star Trek fan (like me), it will bother the heck out of you that this content creator throws shade on it whenever he can...
@@BritneyLaZonga No need to do that without good reason; why tick people off? Sounds like the old thing about you have to like either Star Trek or Star Wars or either Star Trek Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5.
@@sandal_thong8631 Exactly...and ever one of them are favorites of mine, too.
And its shitty box office explains why we’ve been stuck with the Marvel universe and endless Star Wars remakes ever since. Literally hard to find anything worth watching any more.
I’ve always considered it a cinematic masterpiece even before I ever brought cameras or even attempted to shoot anything it’s like noir /futuristic/creepy at the same time and the score was incredible too great breakdown
Everything about the film is beautiful...From the script to the music to the cinematography its all beautiful.... “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
Thank you for making this. You captured so much. However, for me and I think for many, this incredible film wouldn’t be all it is without Vangelis. He put the magical cherry on top.
"But where the film fails is, my opinion, there's no payoff. I'm immersed in this fantastic world. I'm sold. But the story being told doesn't match the production values. And the characters aren't that powerful or memorable."
I immensely like the payoff, the story, and the characters.
Blade Runner is a good example of a product that hits differently for different people.
To change elements of the film to something that works better for some groups, would be to move the film away from things that work so strongly for people like myself.
But it's extremely clear that the movie fails to work (on various levels) for a lot of people. To the point that Blade Runner stands out as a movie that many critics (who themselves don't get huge chunks of the film), are also very angry that other people like the film so much. And said critics often make appeals or even attacks that the film doesn't work and should be abandoned as beloved by fans.
As a designer, I would be cautious of putting a big budget behind a project like Blade Runner. Notably more so if I was focused mostly on short term pop appeal and short term profits. Blade Runner's short term niche appeal is very high, but that kinda thing often falls short in revenue generation targets needed for big budget projects.
Blade Runner has also returned value in how it has had a profound impact across many genres, industries, and ideologies. It also has value as a license that has achieved a standout iconic status. And there's every indication that it will continue to develop and stay relevant as a property over time in the future.
I really loved Blade Runner when it hit theaters, I was stunned by the views, and by the future images, and story. I think many people can't handle more complexity, and prefer more straightforward content and meaning, sadly.
That's why we can not have good things. Same now with Dune, really impressive pictures. But it has problems making a profit.
@@steffenbendel6031 Which is sad too, because they have depth as well.
One of the most iconic monologues, storytelling which doesnt spoon feed the audience, visuals that explain the world its set in and finally being left to consider what it means to be human. You might understand most of the technical aspects but i dont think you got the film. Great adaptation of the book by understanding that the theme was the core and using the strengths of the medium, rather than attempting to be accurate to the book (which rarely pays off imo)
After many, many years and many viewings and now no longer feeling the impact of trying to grapple with such a harsh and disturbing reality that BR brought to screen so vividly by Scott, it's a love story at its very core. The replicants show complete loyalty, sacrifice and devotion (love) for each other. Deckard and Rachel's love story is integral. I would say that their love of life and their fierce determination was best demonstrated in Roy Batty's final scene. That's the pay off! I love the line by Tyrell when he states that- 'commerce, that is our goal here at Tyrell, more human than human is our motto'.
I think Sean young Rachael character was very underrated in my view, they way they lit her eyes in some shots is just beautiful. My favorite sci-fi movie of all time
I didn't realise how strong the year was when Blade Runner came out: E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark (Indiana!), Chariots of Fire, Conan the Barbarian, Tron, Blade Runner.
Yes, Blade Runner is truly a beautiful film that I can watch over and over again. Sometimes I occasionally put movies on in the background just for effect and this is one of them I use. Also, lest we forget, the equally beautiful score from Vangelis. The music in a film can add as much as anything else and Vangelis' work definitely fit the bill for BR.
I think you are being extremely harsh of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, which I would argue doesn't look massively dated and is almost universally acclaimed as being the best Star Trek film. Yes, it might not stand up stylistically to modern Star Trek but in many ways the effect work is still visually stunning, just look at the battle in the Mutara nebula. Yes, you could argue that the lighting in Khan's ships bridge is a little underwhelming, but I suspect that may have been done to differentiate the two ships.
Now, I am not suggesting that Khan is visually better than Blade Runner, it certainly isn't and yes, Blade Runners visuals do still stand out today, but I would also suggest that the Wrath of Khan is actually a better film than Blade Runner, which whilst visually stunning, is very slow and plodding, whilst the Wrath of Khan is continuously building up tension, whilst telling a story.
Exactly! It's an awesome movie and I couldn't even finish watching this video.
We have to ask ourselves if a modern audience will buy these effects. I like The Wrath of Khan too.
I used to like _Wrath of Khan_ and saw it far more times than Blade Runner. But in retrospect the former was a series of stupidities as well as being sort of a remake of episodes "The Deadly Years" and "Balance of Terror." They undid Spock's sacrifice, and made another Khan movie that in some ways mocks it.
They'd have done better doing a film with social commentary like the original series, say about women's equality, since E.R.A. just failed around that time, and look where we are now.
Nah. It looks dated alright. It's one of the reasons I never took the initiative to ever watch it. Although I've heard a lot of praise for it being a great movie, the looks of it inspires to me precisely a schlock action movie from the 70's. Nothing against it, just not the most interesting feat and the looks make that.
Blade Runner is still my all time favourite. The story itself mesmerizing (I didn't have any issues with the voiceover version at all), and it worked perfectly well as a sci-fi noir : the romance between man and machine, the meaning of humanity, what would we do to increase our life span ? The issue of Deckard being a replicant was totally unnecessary, and IMHO it was a mistake for Ridley Scott to add to the confusion.
But the glorious visuals ! Outstanding art design and cinematography : the light and shadows didn't make the movie gloomy, but really lifted my heart. The opening jaw dropping flying shot, the giant ads, Rachel's face perfectly lit against the cigarette smoke, Deckard and Rachel in the apartment as they start to fall for each other, the rain against the neon and smoke, up to the final 'tears in rain' shot. Pure genius all of it. And the sound ! Vangelis' soundtrack, initially described as 'jarring' by critics, has now stood the test of time. The characters and the acting were superb all round too.
As another @XUKcomic said, it's a timeless piece of art. Forty years old, can you believe it. Love this movie.
I don't agree with everything you said, especially with the "unmemorable characters", but your analysis of the filming technique and the general "ciaro scuro" impression of the film is spot on. I'm sorry that not a single sentence is dedicated to the music, because it is Vangelis' music a masterpiece in its own right, which has continued to live beyond the medium for which it was made. This music complements the plot of the film but also transcends the film itself. I was a high school student when I saw BR in my country. I can freely say that that film defined me and I compare all films since then with the aesthetics of BR. I am one of those rare characters who prefer the original cinema version of the film, with narration, as opposed to the director's cut version. The narration reminds me of film noir, with which BR has many points of contact, in fact, from which, in my opinion, it draws its aesthetic inspiration.
The music, though great, was new for the mass audience but wasn't ground breaking.
@@wolfcrow Well that's another thing I disagree with you on. "Wasn't ground breaking"...? Instead of me going crazy here, I would ask you to read what Wikipedia says about that masterpiece; "In 2020, The Guardian included it among 10 best film soundtracks."," In 2022, the Future Music magazine placed the soundtrack as 1st among "10 of the most incredible synth film soundtracks from Hollywood history","In 2021, the " Main Titles" was rated as the greatest synth sound of all time out of 40 by Computer Music." Ok, I'm an audiophile and I can't expect everyone to share my understanding of music, but please watch the movie again with a focus on mutual synergy with music. Then, on a good hi-fi system, listen to the Vangelis soundtrack...the film is almost not even necessary! The music outlines the plot so well that it is astonishing. The Rachel song is universally recognizable and the Love theme, in addition to its recognition, is additionally charged with eroticism to the point of pain. With all of the above, you might still want to watch the movie again with the emphasis on the music and revise your rather light-hearted statement.
About your last point that it has a weak story and conclusion, I won't disagree with you, but I think it's motivated by the old pulp noir stories from the past where it was imperfect heros, imperfect situations, broken dreams, and there isn't suppose to be a happy ending. The whole noir aesthetic was a great juxtiposition to the fact it was suppose to be the future, but also felt like the past. This was present in films like Dark City also. I like how Vangelis even included the One more Kiss dear song that was an ode to the music that would play for those old noir beat stories/movies. Layers of obvious art talent in both visuals, sounds, cinemetography but in my mind a story that is on the same level as the rest of it is what makes Bladerunner timeless to me.
It looks awesome because skillful filmmakers, craftspeople and artists made it and NOT a bunch of CGI happy technicians and accountants. It's a timeless piece of art that draws heavily on film history by a writer and director who are very sci-fi literate.
Was 10 when this movie came out and still love it. Bought the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" in 2000 at Gatwick Airport. Beautiful, powerful amazing storytelling and visuals to boot.
I saw the film shortly after it opened and knew it was extraordinary - and certainly different from everything else - within the first few minutes. I was also sitting in a cavernous, largely empty theater. Frankly, it was heartbreaking to realize that such an ambitious, remarkable and utterly original film lacked for an audience. I also knew that audiences would eventually catch up with it - and so they did years later. This experience also made me distrust notions of box office flop and hit, realizing that commerce often has little to do with the true value of a film. And yes, reviewers can certainly get it wrong, too.
Box office numbers definitely don't mean anything about quality. Even just looking at this year, Furiosa did 173m globally and was considered a flop while Deadpool and Wolverine is sitting at 1.3b.
@@mossicely Most of the movies I see would probably be considered box office flops - basically films that were made without thought of box office to start with. So that means I go to an actual movie theater very few times during the year. But I did see Furiosa (!) because I love George Miller's incredibly kinetic sense of direction. He makes beautifully inventive action films with shots you've never seen anywhere else. It's disappointing that audiences didn't show up for this. But I suspect they eventually will.
It's the characters of Blade Runner that have stuck with me. The doomed android. The detective who doesn't realize he is a replicant. The woman he runs off with. It's dark and twisted and leaves you unsettled. It's a work of art and each time I return to the film, I appreciate it more than the last.
I saw that sci-fi trifecta in the theaters in 1982 when they came out. I hated ET, very much liked Wrath of Khan, and loved Blade Runner, and had no issue at the time with the theatrical cut classic noir style narration that was later excised by Scott.
I'm partial to the Final Cut myself, but I think the theatrical cut is underrated; Harrison's bored, "I don't want to do this tone" actually nails it for film noir voiceover...even if he really didn't want to do it.
I never imagined a sequel could do justice to this masterpiece.... but I have to say IMO 2049 is absolutely brilliant .... not only completely immersive in story telling , action sequences, musical dynamics, cinematography .... its ALL there in spades .... At first I didn't get used to Ryan Gosling until I realized the master class directing of Denis Villeneuve behind Gosling's character ....
Blade Runner 2049 it is one of the most beautiful looking films ever made and it won some awards , Thanks to Roger Deakins cinematography. Both BladeRunner (1982) and Bladerrunner2049 are amazing looking films
2049 was made for the Chinese market and to get through the Chinese censors. It is stilted and sterile.
I Like how you emphasized that classics stand the “test of time” Lots of great movies were lost or buried by the hype of commercialism and “one liners” which became the major selling points of 90’s movies
I was so hopeful that 2049 would capture the atmosphere of the original. Of course it did not. The lighting and overall tone was actually the main character of this film - everything else is secondary. My god, even the sound design carefully underscores the claustrophobic world. My mind was absolutely BLOWN when I saw this in the theatre at 13 years old!!!
2049 was not intended to "capture the atmosphere" of the original. It was meant to stand on it's own merits but be recognizable as part of the same world. 2049 was a different era, different climate even. Things had moved on and Villeneuve wanted it that way. To mirror Blade Runner too closely would have been an insult to Ridley Scott.
Denis Villeneuve doesn't need to pander to Scott's vision of Blade Runner. Villeneuve has a very impressive repertoire as a director and has the right to create any piece of film in his own image.
2049 is so much better than the original, it boggles the mind. The original is a technical masterpiece not a movie masterpiece, its story is barely serviceable.
"Apparently it's a faithful adaptation of the novel."
As someone who has read the novel several times, I can safely tell you that it's not.
In the book:
- The future is 1992, not 2019.
- Rick Deckard has a wife, Iran.
- He has a android sheep (hence the title)
- "Replicants" are called androids or "andies" (the term Replicant does not exist)
- The setting is San Francisco, not LA
- "Blade Runners" are called bounty hunters, the term "Blade Runner" doesn't exist
- Deckard is a rookie bounty hunter, not a veteran pulled out of retirement
- His targets are all different, except for Roy Baty (one "t") and Pris. Roy has a wife, Irmgard Baty
I could go on and on...
Blade Runner is awesome, but it is not a faithful adaptation of the novel.
Words can't describe the overwhelming feeling of beauty that i felt in the opening "hades landscape" scene of the flim, blade runner will always be my favorite flim of all time 10/10 in all aspects.
Great video, and I totally disagree re: payoff. The payoff is that iconic monologue from Roy on the roof. If you're going to do something this good, this "real" and this honest, ending with a traditional audience friendly happy ending with Dekard front and center would be jarringly out of place. Especially as Dekard has been relatively withdrawn. At the end of the day in reality people and situations are nuanced. Sometimes the cop isn't the most interesting person with the most insightful things to say. That's this film. Roy is ahead of Dekard in every way.
I also disagree re memorable strong characters too - there aren't many, but the scenes and character moments you described yourself are powerful and memorable. And character driven.
I never thought that was smoke - obvs it's "smoke" in reality but it always seemed like it was supposed to be steam to me - and very fitting for the industrial / US feel. There is smoke too, and dust, in appropriate places especially indoors, but even the food is normally steaming... Anyway, thanks for all the insights 🙏
I guess it has something to say about finding your humanity, whether you're Racheal, Deckard, Batty, or Gaff.
I was lucky to watch Bladerunner (1982) in the cinema few years ago. It was IMAX, and it was AMAZING!!! Sound & music was also AMAZING! I would gladly watch it again in the cinema
Definitely not a faithful representation of the original story. It contains elements and tropes from that story, but some of the main characters in both only share names. Personalities are very different, and the plot is very different.
Blade Runner is my favorite film of all time. I've watched it 100s of times but I didn't make the connections with the shaft lights following Deckard or the high ceilings for Tyrell Corp people. It wasn't a box-office hit because it's not a typical cookie-cutter Hollywood Blockbuster mold of a movie -- Blade Runner is a cerebral neo noir, and so it's sophistication and appeal was unappreciated and lost to the mundane masses. It is a masterpiece that still holds up today.
I am a simple man. I see Blade Runner I press Like.
The real reason it was so good was due to the artists having an extra year or two in Buenos Aires to add extreme details to the set due to the Hollywood actors strike, which made a HUGE difference in what Ridley Scott originally planned and also goes to show that you can't rush art.
One thing to mention is that Blade Runner came out the same summer as E.T. Movie fans preferred to go back to E.T. for second and third viewings rather than see BR. That's an important point, as this film became one of the first to have a new life on VHS (including rentals), then DVD, etc. The Phillip Dick novel is much less about androids. There's quite a bit of detail about animal replicants as status symbols. In the novel, all animals were dying out, at first keeping real animals as a pet was a status symbol, but in the present of the novel, real animals had become too rare and people were pretending their replicant pets were real. Also described in depth were home pill dispensers that provided mood customization on a daily basis. Not in the film. There was no Asian inflluences in the culture, and the fact most people left on Earth were desperately trying to gather funds to move off-planet... I just can't continue with this video after hearing the "faithful" comment.
Great analysis. This is the type of film that takes several decades to settle in, watching it again every few years. as you change so does your understanding of the characters and who are the heroes, victims and villains.
It failed at the box office because the studio interfered and subverted Ridley Scott's vision.
the whole movie
had a dream like effect
and a feeling of melancholy.