Yes, this was a classic case of the war being won, so to speak, in casting. It is hard to imagine of another actor who'd have handled this role quite as adroitly as Rutger Hauer managed to. Roy is nothing if not sympathetic and believable. Thank you for your note.
Clearly, Roy puts the nail into his hand because his systems are shutting down and he is trying to stimulate his body to keep going. He knows he is on the way out: "Not... yet". I agree with what else you say about that scene. It is a magnificent scene. Roy has the intelligence to quickly adapt his last few minutes of life simply because he knows they are his last few minutes and everything he wanted has failed. But he doesn't sit in the corner and cry. Instead, he tries to get the last experiences he can out of the time he has left. Perhaps he saves Deckard in order to rebel against his 'programming', to show himself that he can be more than what he was created to be, or simply to do something unexpected. At the end, perhaps he values all life, no matter what. Now that he knows there is no chance for him to extend his life, perhaps he thinks that saving and helping is the best way to 'live on'. Roy is the most interesting character in the film, like Data or Spock in Star Trek. It is through these 'alien' evolving and growing characters and well written stories and production that we get to examine aspects of ourselves. Adults think it 'childish' to watch films with child characters, but these are exactly what these are. How useful and interesting it is to do so.
One of the most memorable philosophical movie treatise I've seen in recent years. I'm feeling privileged to have found this channel, considering the devious ways youtube's suggestion algorithm works. Looking forward to your future works - until then, I'll keep rewatching at least this one from time to time.
Good vid man. Good work. I always thought that roys smile when being complimented by Tyrell was a don't try to shmooz you're way out of this one with being nicey nicey smile.
Thanks for your kind words and for watching the video. It means a lot to me. I can absolutely see your point and it is a well made, though I am of two minds on Eldon Tyrell. It seems to me that it is equally possible that he might really and truly be proud, not so much of Roy himself, but of the amount of time, effort, engineering, outsourcing and coordination that went into creating such a being. He might see Roy as the realization of his life’s work: creating beings “more human than human.” Roy may have started out life as a blank slate, like everyone else, but he has evolved. Consider: he has led an off-world colony rebellion, hijacked a shuttle, traveled billions of miles back to Earth, attracted followers and found a way (despite not knowing a single soul on the planet) to meet his maker. Roy is quite extraordinary in many ways. He has a sense of purpose burning within him that can overcome nearly any obstacle. He sees himself as unique and wishes to preserve his life, yet he also has regrets about the ‘questionable’ things he has done. Tyrell might see Roy asking for “more life” as a moment of convergence: by the looks of it, Roy experiences the full gamut of emotions that Captain Bryant described: hate, love, fear, anger and envy. Nothing could be more human. He experiences regret about his own life and wishes that things could have been different, somehow. Approaching the end, people frequently feel this way and Roy is no different. He is tortured by regret as he goes out, which is why I think he wanted to do one last thing that mattered. Saving Deckard is remarkable and unexpectedly generous and it certainly blows Deckard’s mind. Mercy is another thing that humans do well. It is always remarkable and always kind of stunning, yet Roy shows that replicants can be equally capable of generosity and kindness. One word on Eldon Tyrell. Though there weren’t too many tech billionaires when they were writing this script, somehow Joe Turkel (who passed away about a year ago) managed to capture something of that essence of a visionary corporate leader who needs to “put a dent in the universe,” who wants and needs his vision to be realized. He isn’t on screen too much, but he really creates an indelible impression of someone you don’t meet everyday…the kind of man you might expect would create the Tyrell corporation and accomplish exceptional things that everyone else thought couldn’t be done. Thanks again for watching. Viewers like you make it all worthwhile. 😊
Please continue to do such insightful analysis of films. You offer an unique perspective. Both Being There and Blade Runner seem to have a Messianic layer among many other layers, IMO, although Blade Runner seems to be the Anti Creator version. In Blade Runner, the Prodigal Son returns to the house of the Father but only to, in the end, destroy his Creator. Four years seems like a short span for a Replicant but a span of under 100 years for humans may be seen as relatively short as well. We could infer a metaphor for humans, rebelling against the Father for creating them imperfect, limited, and subject to disease and demise, as if for a capricious reason. After erasing the Father, the rebellious sons and daughters may have wanted to show that they are better than the Father's agents, and they choose to succumb on their own terms, even at the cost of disarray for the whole established order, as was planned and manifested by the Father and his Agents.
Good video, thank you. But you didn't include the premise that Deckard may also be a replicant, and as the film progresses he begins to question his own human identity, history, and "memories" -- Gaff (Edward James Olmos) seems to confirm Deckard is a replicant by leaving the tiny origami unicorns for Deckard, like a calling card indicating he knows what Deckard has been doing and dreaming (of the unicorn), and near the end of film Gaff tells Deckard about Rachael "“it's too bad that she won't live” (alluding to the Nexus-6 limited 4-year lifespan). Gaff and others at LAPD could know Deckard is a replicant if it's in his employee file. Deckard also finds "childhood" photos in the effects of dead Nexus-6's, and the pics are identical/very similar to his own "childhood" photos; he also shares their similar "implanted" childhood memories. If Deckard is a replicant, he's of a different model that's not as physically strong and "perfect" as the Nexus-6, yet he seems able to age and apparently has a longer lifespan. It would be fun to see you do a follow-up Blade Runner video exploring this perspective. If Deckard is a replicant, it makes his job as a Blade Runner even more awful -- in effect hunting-down and exterminating "himself". I've seen the film many times, "Director's Cut" is my fav version. And prefer the film over the book, the changes made in the film are an improvement (I have the book "Do Androids Dream..."). But I didn't understand PKDick's premise as to why it was necessary to exterminate replicants who didn't seem to pose a threat to society any more or less than anyone else, and they just wanted to live and love as anyone else. Also considering the Nexus-6 only live 4 years, why not just let them be until they time-out?
Possibly. An earlier version. It might explain why he's crap at being a blade runner. How else could he be as indestructible as he is? It's not just all the other references in some of the cuts that indicate it (photos, unicorn dream). Why does Gaff say, "You've done a man's job, Sir" and seem to always be around as if checking up on his progress? Overall, to me, it doesn't really matter that much and it was never the intention for the film to say definitely one way or the other. One aim of the film, and what it does very well, is make the viewer question what it is to be human and point out idiotic and unfair prejudices mirrored in our society between races, religions, castes, etc, as well as the dehumanising of society perhaps implied through increasing technology/corporate power. However, when resources become really tight, it is not surprising that arbitrary differences in a population are created by those with the power to do so, and immigrants (off world replicants being the extreme example of this) are not allowed. It is rules based competition.
Minor detail: The replicants that he is hunting, killed an entire ship full of people. They are murderers. They are not innocents. You seem to have obscured this ever so slightly important fact. He is not a remorseless killer. He is trying to kill some remorseless killers. And he is doing it with great hesitation, his hand being forced by his former boss. I think you do Deckerd a disservice.
I don't find Roy sympathetic and I don't identify with him. In case you didn't notice, he kills everyone he meets. He has no empathy. One of the problems with the film is that there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Some of them understood the concept of empathy as a distinguishing characteristic, and some didn't. Scott didn't; he saw the ego-driven replicants as superior to humans, and he threw the moral balance of the story askew. As a result, the film is riddled with errors of logic and continuity that cripple the story.
Roy Batty is one of the greatest characters of all time
Yes, this was a classic case of the war being won, so to speak, in casting. It is hard to imagine of another actor who'd have handled this role quite as adroitly as Rutger Hauer managed to. Roy is nothing if not sympathetic and believable. Thank you for your note.
Roy is my favorite movie villain of all time. Terrifying but so relatable in the end.
Clearly, Roy puts the nail into his hand because his systems are shutting down and he is trying to stimulate his body to keep going. He knows he is on the way out: "Not... yet". I agree with what else you say about that scene. It is a magnificent scene. Roy has the intelligence to quickly adapt his last few minutes of life simply because he knows they are his last few minutes and everything he wanted has failed. But he doesn't sit in the corner and cry. Instead, he tries to get the last experiences he can out of the time he has left. Perhaps he saves Deckard in order to rebel against his 'programming', to show himself that he can be more than what he was created to be, or simply to do something unexpected. At the end, perhaps he values all life, no matter what. Now that he knows there is no chance for him to extend his life, perhaps he thinks that saving and helping is the best way to 'live on'. Roy is the most interesting character in the film, like Data or Spock in Star Trek. It is through these 'alien' evolving and growing characters and well written stories and production that we get to examine aspects of ourselves. Adults think it 'childish' to watch films with child characters, but these are exactly what these are. How useful and interesting it is to do so.
I’m not sure I’m ever going to be able to see Rutger Hauer in quite the same light again after seeing Turkish Delight, one of his earlier movies..😮
One of the most memorable philosophical movie treatise I've seen in recent years. I'm feeling privileged to have found this channel, considering the devious ways youtube's suggestion algorithm works. Looking forward to your future works - until then, I'll keep rewatching at least this one from time to time.
Good vid man. Good work. I always thought that roys smile when being complimented by Tyrell was a don't try to shmooz you're way out of this one with being nicey nicey smile.
Thanks for your kind words and for watching the video. It means a lot to me.
I can absolutely see your point and it is a well made, though I am of two minds on Eldon Tyrell. It seems to me that it is equally possible that he might really and truly be proud, not so much of Roy himself, but of the amount of time, effort, engineering, outsourcing and coordination that went into creating such a being. He might see Roy as the realization of his life’s work: creating beings “more human than human.” Roy may have started out life as a blank slate, like everyone else, but he has evolved. Consider: he has led an off-world colony rebellion, hijacked a shuttle, traveled billions of miles back to Earth, attracted followers and found a way (despite not knowing a single soul on the planet) to meet his maker. Roy is quite extraordinary in many ways. He has a sense of purpose burning within him that can overcome nearly any obstacle. He sees himself as unique and wishes to preserve his life, yet he also has regrets about the ‘questionable’ things he has done. Tyrell might see Roy asking for “more life” as a moment of convergence: by the looks of it, Roy experiences the full gamut of emotions that Captain Bryant described: hate, love, fear, anger and envy. Nothing could be more human. He experiences regret about his own life and wishes that things could have been different, somehow. Approaching the end, people frequently feel this way and Roy is no different. He is tortured by regret as he goes out, which is why I think he wanted to do one last thing that mattered. Saving Deckard is remarkable and unexpectedly generous and it certainly blows Deckard’s mind. Mercy is another thing that humans do well. It is always remarkable and always kind of stunning, yet Roy shows that replicants can be equally capable of generosity and kindness.
One word on Eldon Tyrell. Though there weren’t too many tech billionaires when they were writing this script, somehow Joe Turkel (who passed away about a year ago) managed to capture something of that essence of a visionary corporate leader who needs to “put a dent in the universe,” who wants and needs his vision to be realized. He isn’t on screen too much, but he really creates an indelible impression of someone you don’t meet everyday…the kind of man you might expect would create the Tyrell corporation and accomplish exceptional things that everyone else thought couldn’t be done.
Thanks again for watching. Viewers like you make it all worthwhile. 😊
An excellent analysis. High marks for your thoughts on Roy's motivations. Subbed!
Please continue to do such insightful analysis of films. You offer an unique perspective.
Both Being There and Blade Runner seem to have a Messianic layer among many other layers, IMO, although Blade Runner seems to be the Anti Creator version. In Blade Runner, the Prodigal Son returns to the house of the Father but only to, in the end, destroy his Creator. Four years seems like a short span for a Replicant but a span of under 100 years for humans may be seen as relatively short as well. We could infer a metaphor for humans, rebelling against the Father for creating them imperfect, limited, and subject to disease and demise, as if for a capricious reason. After erasing the Father, the rebellious sons and daughters may have wanted to show that they are better than the Father's agents, and they choose to succumb on their own terms, even at the cost of disarray for the whole established order, as was planned and manifested by the Father and his Agents.
Good video, thank you. But you didn't include the premise that Deckard may also be a replicant, and as the film progresses he begins to question his own human identity, history, and "memories" -- Gaff (Edward James Olmos) seems to confirm Deckard is a replicant by leaving the tiny origami unicorns for Deckard, like a calling card indicating he knows what Deckard has been doing and dreaming (of the unicorn), and near the end of film Gaff tells Deckard about Rachael "“it's too bad that she won't live” (alluding to the Nexus-6 limited 4-year lifespan). Gaff and others at LAPD could know Deckard is a replicant if it's in his employee file. Deckard also finds "childhood" photos in the effects of dead Nexus-6's, and the pics are identical/very similar to his own "childhood" photos; he also shares their similar "implanted" childhood memories. If Deckard is a replicant, he's of a different model that's not as physically strong and "perfect" as the Nexus-6, yet he seems able to age and apparently has a longer lifespan. It would be fun to see you do a follow-up Blade Runner video exploring this perspective. If Deckard is a replicant, it makes his job as a Blade Runner even more awful -- in effect hunting-down and exterminating "himself". I've seen the film many times, "Director's Cut" is my fav version. And prefer the film over the book, the changes made in the film are an improvement (I have the book "Do Androids Dream..."). But I didn't understand PKDick's premise as to why it was necessary to exterminate replicants who didn't seem to pose a threat to society any more or less than anyone else, and they just wanted to live and love as anyone else. Also considering the Nexus-6 only live 4 years, why not just let them be until they time-out?
Isn’t Dekard a replicant too?
Possibly. An earlier version. It might explain why he's crap at being a blade runner. How else could he be as indestructible as he is? It's not just all the other references in some of the cuts that indicate it (photos, unicorn dream). Why does Gaff say, "You've done a man's job, Sir" and seem to always be around as if checking up on his progress? Overall, to me, it doesn't really matter that much and it was never the intention for the film to say definitely one way or the other. One aim of the film, and what it does very well, is make the viewer question what it is to be human and point out idiotic and unfair prejudices mirrored in our society between races, religions, castes, etc, as well as the dehumanising of society perhaps implied through increasing technology/corporate power. However, when resources become really tight, it is not surprising that arbitrary differences in a population are created by those with the power to do so, and immigrants (off world replicants being the extreme example of this) are not allowed. It is rules based competition.
Minor detail: The replicants that he is hunting, killed an entire ship full of people. They are murderers. They are not innocents. You seem to have obscured this ever so slightly important fact. He is not a remorseless killer. He is trying to kill some remorseless killers. And he is doing it with great hesitation, his hand being forced by his former boss. I think you do Deckerd a disservice.
yeh.. Roy was a real paragon of liberal compassion when he was popping them eyeballs.
I don't find Roy sympathetic and I don't identify with him. In case you didn't notice, he kills everyone he meets. He has no empathy. One of the problems with the film is that there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Some of them understood the concept of empathy as a distinguishing characteristic, and some didn't. Scott didn't; he saw the ego-driven replicants as superior to humans, and he threw the moral balance of the story askew. As a result, the film is riddled with errors of logic and continuity that cripple the story.