And in 1 take early in the morning on the roof of a sound stage at Pinewood Studios on the last day. Ridley Scott and his crew had to be out of the studio later that day
This movie takes place in 2019 and Rutger Hauer who plays Roy Batty also died in 2019 like his character. “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. Time to die."
"They're just people, then." And that was the whole point of the original story the movie is based off of: if you were to create a being that is otherwise indistinguishable from a human, would that being be any less than a human that was created naturally? Would that being's life not be as worthy as anyone else's?
@@SeanHendy To be fair, the story of an automaton indistinguishable from a man is story that's been around since ancient Greece.Talos, the brass man, the stories of whom raise the very same philosophical questions. ^_^
@@tucci06 Which one? There are hundreds to choose from. There's no need to include a literal god (it is hinted at though by the very core point of the story/book) in this story since this is about mankind creating sentient beings very similar to ourselves... ie. mankind created a humanlike being in his own image through genetic editing and bioengineering. Perhaps it's an allegory, perhaps it just means that Phillip K Dick felt he/we don't need gods.
"It's too bad she won't live...but then again, who does?" is a line that has stayed with me for years. It's the whole essence of this masterwork of a movie - who lives? Who is alive? What is humanity? Really glad you watched this one. I can't fault your reaction at any point.
Dutch actor Rutger Hauer's performance as the Replicant sweeps all before it. His final dying speech is regarded by some as the greatest piece of cinema ever.
If you think a 40 year old film looks good today, imagine those of us who first saw it in the 80's, the style, effects and the thought provoking story. One of my top 10 movies of all time.
Eu assisti este filme na época do seu lançamento aqui no Brasil. Dentro do cinema tinha duas dúzias de pessoas, no máximo.... naquela semana eu retornei ao cinema em todas as sessões que pude....assisti umas dez vezes ou mais...😊😊
I saw it in 1991 when I was 7 and watched it dozens of times since, and yeah, even almost 10 years after it was released, it was still the most beautiful and amazing looking film I'd ever seen and that's why it has stuck with me all these years.
Glad you mentioned Sean Young's performance. Everyone is on top form here but Young's physical performance as something visibly human and yet not was outstanding. I also like Daryl Hannah's ability to switch from innocent to sinister on a dime
Young was great in this, and so beautiful. It's a shame she didn't become a bigger star after the '80s (she would've been a perfect Catwoman in her heyday), but it seemed like she developed some mental health issues and effectively sabotaged her career.
AND one of THE nicest and most down to Earth people you will ever be so lucky to meet (and still text now and then)....I sent her a copy of my avatar I drew for her to have, and to sign one to return back to me...(along with a few other things).. Came with a hand-written note that instantly became my prize possession. And STILL gorgeous.
I absolutely love the fact that Roy, a combat replicant created to kill, uses his last moments to save a life, it's his ultimate expression of defiance. This and the soundtrack peaking at his monologue, hits me in the feels like a kick in the nuts, absolute perfection.
the choosing of Vangelis to do the soundtrack was inspired. The blend of the music and the visuals, I just think is as close to perfect as it is possible to get.
Paraphrasing a line from another sci-fi franchise: what makes us human is the ability to grow beyond our innate programming. That sounds quite appropriate here.
FYI: Actor Rutger Hauer came up with his final monologue himself and director Ridley Scott approved it because he liked it much better than what was in the script.
This is the crown jewel of Cyberpunk in cinema. The ending is a complex series of ideas. One element from the book that was demonstrated and not fully explained was people's relationship with animals. Empathy was the single emotion that most demonstrated humanity. This was demonstrated by keeping pets. Roy, at the end was wrestling a lot with his own humanity. In a final act of defiance he demonstrated empathy by saving Decard, proving he was more than base emotions and could express empathy.
If you notice each of the Replicants is associated with an animal, Leon get asked the question about the Tortoise, Pris makes herself up to look like a Racoon, Zhora has the Snake, Rachel has the Owl, Deckard dreams about the Unicorn and Batty howls like a Wolf.
@@hettbeans It's never confirmed on screen but the question is certainly raised in the film - it's part of the whole point - and while we can't say he is, nor can we say he isn't. But, since Ridley Scott has said that Deckard IS a replicant, it's understandable that plenty of people now think that he is.
Yes, it was partly written before and he changed it quite a bit. I read an account of the filming of that scene and it said that many of the crew were in tears and applauded after this take. I'd love to see a behind-the-scenes of that.
Not an ad-lib. According to an interview with Ridley Scott, Rutger wrote his own version of the final monologue and brought it to Ridley the day of filming. Ridley liked it so much he let Rutger do it without telling anyone about the change from the original script.
It's a strange thing sharing someone's last minutes of life. In the case they've made peace with it, they're still scared at the moment everything starts to turn dark. I don't think it's a fear of what's to come. I think it's a final angst over what will soon vanish. The Tears in Rain scene always had that weight for me.
This is how I feel about it. What’s next is unknown and exciting (if you’ve made peace with death) but there’s still a sadness that soon you’ll no longer be in a world with the things and people you love, you have to say goodbye, and at the end of the day goodbyes are always bittersweet.
@@barbarusbloodshed6347 But you don’t actually know. That’s just what you *think*. No one will ever know what happens to consciousness when someone dies, no one really knows how it came to be and where it comes from, so to say you know what happens is a little odd. You could be right, but there is no way of knowing, so what I mean by unknown and exciting is just that. Discovering what happens because it IS unknown, and diving into the unknown is exciting.
I see it also as him having the realization that, even as his experiences will slip away into nothing, so too will Decker's if he kills him. He achieves empathy.
@@CChissel I completely disagree that we will ever know. I can't say for certain that we will but we have come a long way in knowing how things work. Unless you're talking about in the philosophical sense, and in that case we can't "know for certain" of anything. I could be a brain in vat thinking I am communicating to people when you're all in my head.
Philip K. Dick wrote a book in the late 60's called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" This novel is the building blocks for Blade Runner and much later Blade Runner 2049. Philip is regarded in many circles as the Grandfather of Cyberpunk, with the billing of Father being bestowed upon William Gibson for his Neuromancer series. Both of these are must-reads, remembering at all times when they were written and that they started it all.
@@istvangranicz5082 210 pages. Certainly not much of a book by today's standards, but it was considered a book nonetheless. Certainly too long to be called a short story. But a novel usually runs 200 to 500 pages. 100 to 200 is a novella, anything shorter is a short story. In any case, whether it's a novella or a novel, it's still a book.
To answer Simone's question, JF Sebastian's apartment block was shot at the Bradbury Building in LA, which is a late 19th century famous for its beautiful Renaissance style architecture and huge Atrium. To take such an iconic building and transform it into what we see on screen is an absolute marvel of production design.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradbury_Building I was looking to see if anyone answered her question. My high school photography class took a field trip to downtown L.A. in the late 70's, and the Bradbury Building was one of the places we visited. I don't remember if I made took many pics, as the lighting was difficult to figure out with a hand-held light meter :-D I do remember taking a pic of the Bonaventure Hotel with a sculpture in the foreground.... for the late 70's it looked as much like the future as the Bradbury looked like the past en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westin_Bonaventure_Hotel
Rutger Haur's 'I've seen things' monologue is truly iconic and completely adds another layer to the complexity of the replicants. It spotlights the ambiguity of their nature, hence the decades of debating this film. And can we take a moment so note that Ridley went from Alien to this. One of the greatest and most emulated film visionaries of all time for me. And that camera & lighting technique used on the eyes was legit. No special effects here...
My interpretation of the last scene with Deckard finding the unicorn in his apartment is Gaff found Rachel but decided not to kill her since she was going to eventually die anyway.
That’s a very interesting interpretation. I have no idea if I am right or not but the unicorn to me meant that either Rachel is that magical replicant who does not die, or Decker is the magical replicant who doesn’t know he is one. The unicorn being that unique, mystical creature. But your interpretation is far more parsimonious so it’s probably right and mine is wrong.
@@matthewkirkhart2401 I think it's a bit of both. In the theatrical cut voice over he states Rachel is different and has no incept? date. But it shows Deckard that Gaff has been there and let Rachel live. I still refuse to believe Deckard IS a replicant because for me, that would ruin the whole point of the movie. more Human than Human. The fake humans who have no empathy care for each othe and just want to live and try to live their lives to their fullest, while the actual human is "Cold Fish", emotionless and justplodding along following orders. Philip K Dick's work is often about what it is to be human and the amiguity over whether or not Deckard could be a replicant is what makes it work so well.
Deckard dreams of a unicorn. Gaff leaves a unicorn for him. How does he know about Deckards dream? Because Deckard memories are artificial, like Rachel's. The only way Gaff would know about the unicorn is if he had access to Deckards memories. And the only way that would be possible is if Deckards was a replicant. The assumption then is that Deckard IS a replicant but doesn't know it himself.
In the original version with Deckard’s voice over is clearly stated that Tyrell told Deckard that Rachel was special and had no expiration date. In other words she will live forever…
@@davidcorujo1 That's true, but the original version's voice over and ending were studio forced and terrible. Scott's original idea was indeed that Gaff was there but did not kill Rachel. His unicorn origami WAS to throw you off and make you question Deckard's humanity, likewise there was a scene where his eyes catch the light the same as the replicants, and of course the other Blade Runner at the beginning of the film looks eerily like Harrison Ford, as if they are the same model. Of course, the sequel goes a different, more definite direction anyway.
Edward James Olmos wrote the other most quotable line in the film. The "It's to bad she wont live, but then again who does" line, much like "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain" was written by Rutger Hauers the two most popular lines in the film were written by the actors.
That secene with Roy and Tyrell was powerful, like a son confronting his father in a Shakespearean tragedy. I think Roy genuinely regretted having to kill Sebastian, he and Priss did like him and appreciated his help, but he was a witness to his murdering of Tyrell, and couldn't risk him alerting the authorities. Roy is a combat model, after all, and so very pragmatic.
@@stevev2492 I think like a real human Roy became desensitized to killing. Like idk if you saw the mini series chernobyl. Where the kid is tasked with killing dogs and other radioactive pets. At first it was really hard for him. Then in a later scene he is just doing it automatically after his first kill. Roy was combat model so obviously hes killed alot in war. And probably wasn't treated in anyway but violence. That probably became his whole world and personality.
between alien and blade runner, the "lived-in" look george mentions was one of ridley scott's huge gifts to science fiction films. blade runner was the among the first sci-fi movies to mimic the way the real world operates, where old buildings and clothes and technologies and etc don't just disappear overnight, and the futuristic stuff coexists with all the existing junk that's just around.
Moebius did all the designs for the human tech in "Alien" and then Ridley Scott told his design team to make 2019 LA look like "The Long Tomorrow" by Moebius and "Alien" writer Dan O'Bannon.
@@chrisleebowersvery true, and sure katsuhiro otomo was riffing on moebius too (among other things), but while the metal hurlant guys (not just moebius, but also bilal and to a lesser extent druillet) paved the way, it seems pretty safe to say millions more people have seen (and been influenced by) blade runner and akira than have read any of their stories. also it's been years since i read the long tomorrow, but i feel like the noir lighting and neon, the extremity of the dirtiness, and the busted weather are all more scott.
The dove, I think, is more a symbol of "the spirit", so holding it till his death caused him to release release is a physical manifestation of him "giving up the ghost".
-A malfunctioning machine, to be "retired" is not supposed to have a "soul." Roy has shown he has as much of one as any human does. -The dove is obviously not his literal soul; but at the moment of his death, his fascination with the only animal in the movie that *isn't a replicant,* without harming it indicated a deeper "humanity" than any human in the movie demonstrated. -Tyrell's hubris is "playing God," then Roy is a Christ figure. He sticks a nail through his hand right before picking up the dove.
Straight up masterpiece that stands the test of time. This thing inspired soooo many artists, writers, filmmakers. My dad had me watch it when I was like 5. I had no idea what was going on, I just knew it looked cool as shit. Wicked work of art.
Fun fact: Rutger Hauer ad-libbed the "tears in rain" line. This film was based (loosely) on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick. It's a pretty good read. This is one of the first cyberpunk films (do you consider Soylent Green to be cyberpunk?). It is also a noir film. The American theatrical release included a voice over by Harrison Ford narrating his actions. I actually like the voice over because it makes it feel more noir. The American theatrical release also had a lame happy ending in which Deckard and Rachel move out of the city and Ford's voice over states that Rachel, unlike the other Nexus 6 replicants, was not limited to a 4-year life span. The actress playing Rachel is Sean Young. I liked her in David Lynch's "Dune" (1984) in which she played Chani. The question of whether or not Deckard is a replicant has been discussed ever since the movie came out. Harrison Ford has said the he played the role as a human, but recantly, Ridley Scott said that Dekard was a replicant. I think this might be some George Lucas type revisionism or a J.K. Rowling type "Dumbledore is gay" tweet. The movie is better if it is left ambiguous. See also, John Carpenter's "The Thing." The movie inspired a loosely based 8-episode anime OVA titled "Bubblegum Crisis." It was more popular in the West than in Japan. It is a fun watch, but make sure you get the OVA released from '87 to '91. Skip the later TV series reboot.
Would you consider Metropolis (1927) as cyberpunk? German expressionism greatly influenced Film Noir, which greatly influenced cyberpunk. I liked the voice over in the original release purely because it made it feel a bit more Film Noir. Unfortunately, it makes Deckard out to be a complete idiot and it sounds like Ford was forced to read the lines at gunpoint! As for the "Is Deckard a replicant" question, like all media it is up to the individual "reader" to decide for themselves. Various versions of the movie lean either one way or the other, with the Final Cut leaning more heavily towards "yes", but in my opinion it is the wrong question to ask. It misses the point of the film, which is that it doesn't matter. Humans and replicants are so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other without a complicated test designed to elicit an emotional response (especially when we see every replicant express emotion). It's a great discussion to have though!
I love the Tears in Rain scene. Just a perfect summary of what Roy was trying to do the whole movie. From word go, he wanted to defy his maker, initially by trying to literally extend his life, then by killing his maker, then finally, in his final moments, defying the purpose for which he was made by saving a life instead of taking it. Excellent acting from Rutger Howard, top notch!
As a European, Rutger Hauer was surely aware of the early Progressive Rock band that Vangelis was in, Aphrodite's Child. Their first two albums sold 20 million copies, worldwide. One of their songs was titled, "Tears In Rain". Another was "I Want to Live". This is not to take away anything from Hauer's beautifully lyrical contribution to the script, just to give it historical context.
@@OronOfMontreal What are you talking about? Vangelis is _one_ man, not a band, and I'd even argue that his compositions are unique and can't be put into any category like Progressive Rock.
@@Wolf-ln1ml there might have been a misunderstanding on your side regarding OronOfMontreal's comment: Vangelis contributed as "one man" to this movie (pursuing solo projects since the 1970s). OronOfMontreal referred to an earlier projects of him, whis is the 1960 progressive rock band Aphrodite's Child with Demis Roussos and Lucas Sideras with songls like "Tears and Rain" as well as "Let Me Love, Let Me Live"
Legit can't wait for you guys to watch Blade Runner 2049. It expands on all of the ideas in this one and plays as a direct sequel/mystery. But yeah there's a fierce debate even between Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford on whether Deckard is a replicant, but what I love about answering that question is "does it even matter if he feels and can change?" If you rewatch it with him being a replicant in mind, it does totally change how you see his chief, his partner, and Tyrell in his scenes with them. Roy Batty's last act was to save his oppressor, so that someone, anyone, could carry on his memories. So that his death would mean something. It's such a heartbreaking, beautiful scene, and totally sells why Deckard would finally quit the whole game at the end. Genuine cyberpunk classic, and is one of the first to solidify the genre aesthetics visually.
If you want to see the whole blade runner world you can watch the following: Blade runner 1982(Original movie) Blade runner black out 2022 ( Short 15min anime - Humans vs Replicants, Explains Blackout mentioned in 2049 and Replicant prohibition) Blade runner Black lotus (13 episode anime - Explains the Tyrell corp bought by Wallace corp. Young Niander Wallace and how he gains control of Wallce corp. Also DOC Badger from 2049, as a teen) Blade runner 2036 Nexus Dawn (Short film Niander Wallace) Blade Runner 2048 Nowhere to run (Short film about Sapper Morton, Dave Bautistas character) Blade Runner 2049 (Second Movie)
The flames in the opening are what's called "flare stacks": exhaust pipes that light their flammable gas effluents on fire to control explosion hazard. You absolutely used to see these on the LA skyline in the 1970s. Most of LA is built on an active oil field and there are still thousands of oil pumps and settling tanks scattered throughout the area, often within feet of people's houses.
I'm sure that Tyrell doesn't see himself as evil. But think about this: he creates slaves that are so indistinguishable from humans that they may as well be human. They are not machines -- they were given feelings as if they were human. He is a slave merchant. The main distinction between a human and a replicant is how they came about having their memories, and that small distinction makes it possible to tell the difference through a psych test (ie. Voigt-Kampf). BTW, making Replicants is not illegal, but they are prohibited on Earth. They are manufactured to be laborers, soldiers, prostitutes, and so on, and meant to operate elsewhere in the solar system. Also, the author of the screenplay said that although it was written to be ambiguous, that Deckard is not a Replicant. Ridley Scott said years later that he definitely is one.
If you think about it objectively, replicants were NOT given emotions, but they "developed" them after 4 years. To a biomechanical geneticist only interested in their functional ability, that could be considered a bug. Similar to children, who begin to understand and codify emotional self-awareness after 3 years old. Hence the formation of emotions and subsequent rebellioun against their unfair and unjust treatment. "Babies begin exploring their world with little concept of social cues or situations, but by the time they are just 3 years old, they can correctly label and recognize emotions, as well as identify them in situations."
I'm sure others will mention, this was based off the story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick (who also inspired "Total Recall")... His work consistently explores what is real abs what makes us human. Always enjoyed reading his work bc i can never predict where its going, unlike most fiction i see
Some other films inspired by Dick were Minority Report, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, and Impostor (an underrated fave of mine) . There's also a series based on "The Man in the High Castle" though I haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
Yes. And Dick's premise was that empathy was the measure of humanity -- that if Replicants had it, then arguably they were human, and humans who lacked it were inhumane.
Hats off to the amazing, the fantastic, the memorable Rutger Hauer. He passed in 2019... 2019 in the real world, odd coincidence that one. He was always incredible to watch in any role, hope you get to see more of his work!
Very late comment, but here it goes. At the end, Roy knew he was dying. To live or die wasn't a choice he could make. He realized the only choice he could make (really, the only choice any of us can make) was how to live with the time he had. And he chose to live in a way that protected life instead of caused death. In his final moments, Roy was one of the most human and humane characters in the film, and that was his free choice.
I also feel that Deckard spitting just before he slips is important - Roy sees defiance in the face of inevitable death, and in that he recognizes that Deckard is the same as him (as we all are the same): desperately seeking meaning in the face of inevitable death.
I remember the 1983 World Science Fiction Convention when Bladerunner was nominated for the Hugo award. It was up against Star Trek II, E.T., and Road Warrior, an Australian film starring some unknown actor named Mel Gibson. The movie people weren't expecting to win so, instead of sending a producer or director, they sent a production assistant who happened to be an SF fan. Bladerunner won the Hugo. I can still picture a dazed young man -- he must have been 23 or 24 -- wandering around to all the room parties that evening, getting given free drinks, being congratulated, and clutching that Hugo award. He and I had a nice conversation, sitting next to a Shiner Bock beer keg.
The story was interesting, but for me what makes Blade Runner so memorable is our immersion in the bizarre world plus the amazingly great score by Vangelis. (I bought the cd of the soundtrack & still listen to it 40 years later.)
The soudtrack is amazing. Also, the song "Intergalactic Radio Station" from his album Direct has some dialogue that always felt to me like it was referencing Roy Baty's lines from the end of the movie. "I've seen things... so many things that you can't believe. Past designs, future designs. Cables in the bend..." Direct was the first CD I ever owned... I haven't listened to it in ages. I'm going to have to go on a Vangelis binge for a while I think.
@@andrewcharles459 It was all we could get, though I'm very fond of that album now. Mind you, Vangelis did release an album called 'Themes' which featured two or three tracks from Blade Runner in their original synthesized versions. Even so, I still remember the buzz when the proper release came out in 1994...
The synth score by Vangelis is perfect for this world. He made a 3x anniversary CD you should get and now there is a 4x version here on UA-cam. It's so futuristic and emotional at the same time. Too bad they didn't use Vangelis for the sequel 2049.
Still one of the greatest Sci Fi movies ever made. Jack Nicholson, Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Dustin Hoffman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds and Sean Connery were almost cast as the lead. This movie had a lot of production problems , as neither the cast nor crew liked working for Ridley Scott. The crew had shirts made that read: "Kiss my ass, Guv'nor." "Xenophobia sucks." "I survived BLADE RUNNER." There are 7 different cuts of the movie made to see which one Scott liked the most Film critic Roger Ebert called the Director's Cut and Final Cut as the superior versions of what Ridley Scott has wanted. The film is now part of the National Film Registry and The Library Of Congress.
I'd argue one of the greatest films ever made, let alone sci fi. Given the era it was made in, the panning scenes are just so vast. If ever able to see it on a big screen, your eyes just flick to different parts of the vista trying to take it all in. It's epic and I love it.
Pris was the pleasure model, Zhora was the assassin model, Leon was a grunt laborer, and Roy was the military/strategist model. Leon was played by Brion James (yes, Brion); he's done a lot of character roles, support roles, over the years. He does 'weird' & mentally-deficient really well. But his most human, approachable, intelligent sympathetic role was in "The 5th Element" as the military official who oversees Leelu's recovery & is sent to reactivate Korban Dallas's govt service. Pris is played by Daryl Hannah, who starred in "Splash" with Tom Hanks, Annelle in "Steel Magnolias", and "Elle" the one-eyed killer in "Kill Bill". Zhora was played by Joanna Cassidy; I can't begin to enumerate the roles covered in her acting career; you should check out her IMDb acting list. I will mention, if Zhora was the assassin model, she had to have DECIDED against killing Deckerd, because she had the advantage in their fight. She didn't carry through to the kill. You have to ask why she stopped. You asked why Pris didn't kill Deckerd. One explanation a viewer extended was that she's a pleasure model; killing isn't in her programming and likely she's counter-programmed for human death. Or, Zhora, Pris and Roy are close enough to their 'expiration' that all life is revered. The white pigeon was not intentional; it happened to be present during that take and Rutger grabbed it by chance. Happy accident; many view its release as symbolic of Roy's spirit being released and flying heavenward. "Blade Runner" was pulled from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"; do Replicants have souls? Tyrell obviously doesn't; the company just views them as product, but maybe they do. Love your reaction & analysis! Good observations, and I don't think I've EVER seen a better critique of the layered, grimey, realistic world Ridley Scott built for this film. It does feel real enough that you can almost SMELL the environment. It's not the very first of this type of world, but I think it's the best done and no film has done better. I think this film set the bar for the genre going forth from this point. Also love your attention to how it lays a basis for forcing the hand of Replicants trapped in their circumstances but created self-aware enough to have no choice but try to change the inevitable. It makes them all the more 'human', I think. Really, the only murderous Replicant was Leon, and he was created with intellectual deficits; he's aware enough to be upset & feel it's unfair, but not to process it. Pris was given more smarts, but still had her limits; still, she was better able to process and respond more thoughtfully. Yeah; really intelligent reactions to films on this channel, and clever. Really like being here for this.
I'll always remember Brion as one of the two bullying brothers in the movie The Wrong Guys, since that was the first thing I'd seen him in. A lesser known movie that starred Louie Anderson, Richard Belzer, Richard Lewis, and John Goodman.
One of the greatest movies ever made. Movie originally had no rain. But the wires used to make the cars "fly" were very visible. They decided to use the rain and the dark to hide them and hold continuity.
This IS the beginning of Cyberpunk. Early 1900's Noire mixed with science fiction. Many acclaimed anime works from Japan were influenced by this film. Getting inspired is how art works. Two way street. Give and take. For me "Ghost In The Shell" the 1995 animated feature surpasses this film in dread. How technology can make our very souls seem like just organic signals in grey matter. Deconstructing what is human. Very deep shit. man!
@@ColumbiaBeet There was earlier work. PK Dick, most obviously, although most of his work was more proto-Cyberpunk than the more fully developed later stuff. But the key link between the eras of Dick and Gibson was John Brunner: Shockwave Rider and The Sheep Look Up. Shockwave is the reason why we use biological metaphors for computer malware. Sheep is the most currently prescient of any of the Cyberpunk genre.
As a note, yeah, watch the sequel, long, like 3 hours or something but so worth it, same director who went on to do Dune and also did Sicario and Arrival. It didn't do all that well at the box office, but was lauded as a masterpiece critically and I think will go on to be nearly as respected as the original...
Just a case of history repeating itself. This movie I believe was done the same on release. even more so due to the forced noir narration ruining it for the first set of audiences. I took a friend to watch 2049 on release and despite me telling him that it wasn't going to be a Hollywood high action movie and even got him to watch the first before, he just said it was boring. Which is a shame that most people just want crazy action for the sake of it now.
@@joegreene7619 Big budget movies like Blade Runner 2049 need to make at least three times their production budget to break even, so 70% is a monumentally bad performance, yes.
@@joegreene7619 marketing alone usually costs as much as the production budget, so made a loss at $250 million. The estimate is that the studio lost £80 million as a result of this movie. I'm just glad they still let the director make Dune. Both are excellent movies and the final returns did not reflect the quality of the film making
-Cyberpunk as a genre didn't solidify until after this movie in the mid 80's, but Blade Runner did play a significant role in influencing the popular image of Cyberpunk so is often retroactively considered to be in the genre. It's more of a Sci-Fi Noir. -The replicants are in fact not machines but artificial humans. Genetically engineered for different tasks, mostly commercial or military use. -In the famous Cyberpunk anime Bubblegum Crisis, one of the lead characters is named Priss, she is the singer in a band called The Replicants -Blade Runner and Alien unofficially share the same universe. Peter Wayland of the Wayland-Yutani Corporation makes reference to a former mentor of his who "Sits high above a great city in a pyramid built by his gift to the world, his biological abominations." They had a falling out because of Wayland's insistence of creating a truly perfect artificial being, his Synthetics. Dallas, captain of the Nostromo was a former employee of the Tyrell Corporation.
The actress playing Rachael is Sean Young. She was a big deal in the 80s and after that she's became a little kooky. She's extremely striking in this movie, but isn't everyone? Rutger Hauer looks like a fallen angel in this and it's beautiful.
29:16 -- #George & #Simone -- The "narration" version is the one I grew up with and it does lend a bit of insight into the characters and story.. Instead of sitting there in silence, Deckard's narration is as follows :. "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die."
I really think the voice-over version is better for many viewers, as it fills in some detail of the world to get viewers up to speed. I've seem a few reactors confused by this version, where the cinematic release would have filled in some small detail.
This is, hands down, one of the best pieces of sci-fi/tech noir out there. So glad you got to react to it. Now you understand why it has such a massive following. Considering when it was filmed, and what they were able to achieve with mostly practical effects, it's freaking phenomenal. One of my favorites. Hope you make time to do Blade Runner 2049. It'll help with that, "What!?!? I need more movie, please!!" problem.
I didn't like the 2049 one at all... It has _so_ little to do with this, it's almost ridiculous. The whole mood and message are very different, and even the story is so loosely connected that it feels far too much like an attempt to take advantage of the fame and following of the original. Hell, in some regards, it actively spits on the original's worldbuilding 🤮
@@Wolf-ln1ml what do you mean? I think it's the perfect sequel of all time, and it perfectly captures the feel of bladerunner. And of course is different, there were a lot of things that happenned between the two movies, and actually there are 3 shorts in youtube that tell the events between them. I feel like 2049 is not so much of a sequel but a different glimpse of what is happenning in that world. I hope you give 2049 a second chance, and if not, well everyone has their own opinions.
This movie ran way over budget, and was s box office bomb. Nobody knew what to make of it. Nobody knew how to market it. It has since grown to b a phenomenon. Uniquely it's own.
For George: I do believe that Bladerunner was pretty much the first movie to introduce cyberpunk - and all the influence it brought. It's lovely to know that Philip K. Dick loved Ridley Scott's translation of his story. He did get to see some footage before he passed away and was reportedly blown away that the set designers managed to get in his head. For Simone - I believe JF's place was an actual working hotel. They literally took over the place after hours, made all the mess, all the water, did all the lighting, filmed and cleaned up. If you liked the movie enough to watch the making of I highly recommend it. "DANGEROUS DAYS - The Making of Bladerunner" is about three hours long, but it's surprising how easy it is to rip through it and it's very comprehensive as you can imagine. All your answers, ideas and more are in there. What is REALLY great about this movie speaks exactly to your point George, that the protagonist/antagonist morality is very grey on all sides.. it's a delight to have a movie like this that poses questions. The implications gifted through Roy's character, and Rutger's performance, are wonderfully complex. That pinnacle of forgiveness in his nature after all their actions and efforts, the whole chase between them and Deckard.. a fusion masterpiece of character creation, visuals, theme.. wonderful. Looking forward to your viewing of Bladerunner 2049. **^^**
Hi Gavin ... J.F.'s apartment hotel was filmed in the Bradbury Building, which was renovated a short time later. You can see it in its daytime glory in the Jack Nicholson / Michelle Pfeiffer thriller, "Wolf". Nicholson's character works there, and it is a gorgeous place.
"WHAT!" Love that reaction. It is a great movie. The world created created a standard for all science fiction films that followed. Time for Blade Runner 2049.
The building where J.F. Sebastian's apartment is located in is the Bradbury building, quite a well known landmark in downtown LA. This building was actually in use at the time of filming, so during the day it was a regular office building and they had to transform it into the set you see every night and clean it all up after every night of shooting for the office workers the next day.
Rutger Hauer's character as a replicant dies at the end of this movie which is set in 2019. Rutger Hauer the actor, died 37 years after the movie...in 2019.
The soundtrack by Vangelis (most famous due to Chariots of Fire) is fantastic here. I've listed to all of it several times. edit add: the death running through glass with the music is one of the best cyberpunk scenes ever
I often postulate that Sebastian had to have known Priss was a replicant from the beginning. He's only a super genius who plays chess with Tyrell, the most powerful man in the world. That's the level of brilliance we are dealing with here. He calls his creations "my friends". His creations are his only friends since every else has left earth and he can't. To him the replicants are essentially human, but even more perfect.
I knew you'd both love this film - it's a masterpiece - Ridley Scott is a genius filmmaker and creates such lived in worlds - you both caught that naturally - and always spot on with production design, cinematography (the late grate Jordan Cronenweth), synth music (Vangelis who did CHARIOTS OF FIRE) and of course casting. Ford's 3rd iconic role is perfectly cast with his world-weary anti-hero (and again this is a blend of sci-fi tech w/noir and as you so nailed it George cyberpunk - pretty sure this is the 1st film to capture that live action - the 1981 animated HEAVY METAL (another you s/seek) has elements there too) - as well as the ethereal Sean Young as Rachel (the heart of the movie), the late Brion James as the lethal Leon, Joanna Cassidy as Zhora - fun fact she re-shot her death scene for the film's re-release and they replaced the face of the stunt man with her own), Daryl Hannah as the sexy and sinister Pris, William Sanderson as the doomed JK Sebastian, the great character actor Joe Turkel (who played Lloyd the bartender in THE SHINING among dozens of films) as Tyrell and last but not least the late, great Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. His final soliloquy was completely improvised and shows how even a replicant can be human (yep Simone the dove symbolizes that - oh and re: the ever present night scenes I couldn't tell from this viewing if they showed the dove fly into a blue sky or not - Scott changed it to reflect the Director's Cut since that was the only 'day scene' suggested). Also noteworthy the film was released June 25, 1982 - the same day as John Carpenter's THE THING - both box office disappointments and mixed reviews upon their releases only to gain true appreciation with the advent of home video. One of my fave films of all-time. And yes make an appointment to see the recent sequel.
I was never able to see this in the theater but found it later in the 80s and was blown away by the visuals and music. I had a 5-Disc DVD set at one point which had several cuts of this film included with one having an extended ending. Also, the Theatrical Cut had narration from Deckard giving it a "Film Noir" feel.
I'm afraid that was not Richard (James Remar). The actual actor's name was Morgan Paull. But you can see Remar in other genre classics, including The Warriors. He also notoriously got cut out of Aliens and replaced with Michael Biehn because he had a drug problem at the time. He got clean as a result. He also appears in...well...I won't spoil the surprise. But it's sort of a funny coincidence, if you ever get there.
Also, this is a great movie and unquestionably a massively influential piece of sci-fi, but having re-watched it recently after watching some reaction videos, I think I agree with anyone who says 2049 is actually even better. This is the one with the larger stylistic influence -- the sequel is gorgeous but isn't groundbreaking, especially when so much of how it looks is templated on this, but the sequel is the better movie dramatically, weaving all of its threads and the threads it inherits from this into a stunning story.
@@tylerfoster6267 Couldn't have said it better. The finale of the sequel is incredible. Villeneuve always knows how to end his films. Same with Nolan. Speaking of the former, watch Incendies.
@@tylerfoster6267 If they want more explanations , theatrical cut has it , the nice time period , when US studio dubbed Mad Max , when they did not think Americans would understand that weird Aussie language they speak down under .
@@pete_lind Haha, I've never been able to watch the theatrical cut. I hate the fakey hard-boiled voice-over sooooo much. I love good noir dialogue, but whoever wrote the Blade Runner stuff did such a bad job.
Such a great film. The worldbuilding, the themes, the cinematography, the lighting, the acting... It defined the cyberpunk visual for decades, but the depth is what makes it such an epic.
"What if everyone is a replicant and there's just those who know and those who don't know?" Just had to pause here and comment that I love when reactors come up with this profound stuff. My first though was The Matrix.. Love your stuff btw. Especially when watching awesome movies like this..
2 роки тому
My first thought to your comments was "Philip K. Dick". Because that's a theme in all his work. And he wrote "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep", the story this movie is based on.
In an earlier version of the movie there was a voice over with Harrison Ford explaining a lot of details; the language Edward James Olmos spoke, his feelings after shooting Zora, and the significance of the origami outside his apartment at the end.
Glad you enjoyed it. It's one of my favourite movies. Simone wanted to know why there were manikins. Well, the film is about what is and what is not human. Manikins look human, but aren't. The replicants look human, but they're supposed to be not human. Deckard is human, but is he? And the replicant woman who was shot in the street, the one you felt for, lies lifeless among manikins. Then there's the question of what makes someone human. I think it's implying that it's our memories. Memories are implanted to make replicants more emotionally human. Death is when our memories are lost "like tears in the rain." You've also got the religious side to the film. Roy wants to "meet his maker" to ask why he wasn't made better. I think many of us would like to confront God about the existence of evil and of pain, so Roy stands for us. He goes through nihilism when God is dead and recovers his connection to humanity by forgiving Deckard. There is just SO MUCH to this movie.
Sebastian has always been one of my favorite characters in the “Blade Runner” universe. What a sad juxtaposition Sebastian has found himself in. He has such heart, surrounded by beings that lack heart. All the rest are fakes. Even the humans.
I can see that. I always wonder if there's a reason why Roy seems to kill JF when Priss isn't around. Could be she actually cared about JF and would have objected or been saddened, could be Roy thought maybe she cared and was sparing her, in which case nobody really knows even inside the film. Which seems very on-theme.
So, the building simone liked is called the Bradbury Building, its one the last art deco buildings of the era. And this movie is a visual feast as well as a philosophical one... Trust me, you'll get something new everytime you watch it. And the reason they were so direct is because they only have four years of life and they didn't have the memory implants either. Roy and Leon were combat models, Zora was an infiltration model and Pris was made as a pleasure slave. They didn't have time to go about this the sneaky way, Roy was dying when they arrived, and its a good bet so was Leon. None of them knew about the four year lifespan, but the plan was to get them healed and on their way. They haven't had the time to really master tact or sublety, and as such I am always amazed their plan came off as well as it did, when they found out four years and thats it, Roy thanked his father properly.. He didn't hate Tyrell, I think he killed him mainly because he didn't want this for anyone else and.. someone in the afterlife to be waiting for him. Unfortunately, well.. you're going to have to watch the sequel :)
Well, "there's no reason to torment him", you have to consider that the replicants don't necessarily grow up like normal people. They were designed to fulfill a role (soldier, heavy lifting, whatever) and might only know what was needed to do their job optimally. In that context and in a 4 years period, "they started to develop emotions" but it's not something you just do from scratch, or quickly. Our emotional reactions are influenced by the surrounding environment as we develop. Who knows what they were exposed to and what's their idea of "right and wrong". It's like as if a fully grown "George" clone gets activated tomorrow. He may be an exact copy George, but it's not the same person, unless you also found a way to implant George's memories into it (him?). This without even considering clones that might not receive memories to begin with, like the ones created as "spare" (gross) parts for transplants and the like. The whole idea is disgusting. If I was a replicant in that context I would hate my creator as well.
They're essentially 3-yr olds. They're as "evil" as any toddlers would be if they were super-intelligent, had superhuman adult bodies, were never shown any love, and were *hunted fugitives.*
You also have to consider that the replicants are in a situation where neither their lives nor their desire to live are considered important by humans. Therefore, some of their actions may come down to a "two can play at that game" mentality. "Oh, it's so easy to just accept dying, is it? Okay, human, if that's the game we're playing, then let's see how gracefully you accept your powerlessness in the face of the whims of a greater power as I crush your skull."
"Tears in rain" is so iconic that I've seen it used in philosophy and in a Joe Satriani track. Blade Runner was a hugely influential movie (the book was too).
To me, this is Ridleys masterpiece. You should definitely do the sequel from a few years ago. Its one of the few continuations of an 80's classic to live up to the original, thanks in large part to the expert direction of Dennis Villeneuve.
I really liked the umbrellas with the glowing handle sticks. I really though about making my own version. And then seeing the faces of people and instantly see who knows exactly where this idea comes from. 😁
According to my uncle ( which is basically my big bro ) this was my Granpa favorite Sci-fi movie. He passed away on 2017 from Cancer , we never got it to see it together but is nice to know he had a good taste on sci fi .
Some people just like scifi. I remember when I was a boy we used to visit my great grandmother in the retirement home on weekends and she'd have Star Trek TOS on tv. It's one of the few things I can remember about her. That was about 30 years ago.
The "pistol" Decker uses is an interesting Frankenstein of a pistol, including parts from a Steyr Mannlicher .222 Model SL bolt action rifle and a Charter Arms Bulldog revolver with a couple of LEDs hot glued onto it. There are four props used in the movie and each has pretty big differences. None of them were functional firearms. As one could expect this has spawned an avid prop replication community and is quite the rabbit hole.
There’s a making of doco and it is intense how much effort went into this movie. Incredible. Yes you are correct - CYBERPUNK this is the beginning. The visual feel of this movie has inspired a million movies since and once you’ve been Bladerunner’d you can see it in so many movies since. An absolute masterpiece. I loved how you both were lost for words after the movie. I’ve seen it at least 50 times and it never fails to deliver. The OG and the best.
Did you notice the name of the building that Sebastian lived in? The "Bradbury" building. This is a tribute to one of the greatest syfy writers of all time - Ray Bradbury. This whole movie was inspired/based on the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" a dystopian science fiction novel by American writer Philip K. Dick, first published in 1968.
It's an actual building in downtown Los Angeles, named after gold-mining millionaire Lewis L. Bradbury (erected in 1893). Fantastic coincidence, though!
@@harveybojangle475 It’s such a beautiful building. As a big architecture/historic preservation geek (historic preservation was my major in college), this movie is at the top of my ‘architecture porn’ list.
Its the real name of the building where it was filmed. It's a classic building, and had working offices at the time of filming, so the cast and crew had to be out and all cleaned up by 9AM each day, after filming all night. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradbury_Building
I so enjoyed your reaction to this amazing film. I saw it opening weekend at a drive-in in Plattsburgh, NY. I cried when Zhora was killed. They just wanted to live and to be free. Like every sentient being wishes to.
"They're not photos, they're holograms" is my mantra during the enhance sequence. It's what I came up with when the first of the seven cuts was released, and I'm sticking to it. "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." Now for bonus points tie this in from Genesis: "22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life." This movie, from script to soundtrack is a treasure trove of humanism and transhumanism.
@@ianburns1167 Yeah, when they said it's just science magic, they were joking, but they were really right. It kind of is because it's more high tech than a photo as we know it.
You understood the film perfectly. It’s an angry rant at a Christian god and proponent of transhumanism and humanism which is just by way of a philosophy that is based on a belief in god and subsequent rejection of his wisdom. Roy the battle bot is Jesus and has his hand pierced by a nail and recites from America a Prophecy by William Blake. It’s always night time because mankind is cast from the garden of Eden and the grace of light, living in squalid sinfulness. Sebastian is an angel and creates simple life for company. The replicants are fallen angels seeking revenge for being cast out of heaven. Also representing man and his ultimate fate of death. They are childlike and vengeful as a person might be who is separated from the wisdom and humility of God.
@@iwanttocomplain Have you not read the bible? God is pretty vengeful himself, so it must mean he was separated from wisdom and humility and acts as a child - only he called on others to do his killing for him. What a guy!
Your commentary on this is remarkably perceptive. I think you picked out all the main themes, points and open questions, which is impressive for a first-time viewing. Blade Runner is one of the greatest films ever made. The sets, the story, the lighting, the concepts, the performances are all superb. This was the first sci-fi movie I'm aware of that made the future look old and worn-out. I also love how it leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions. What are Rachel's feelings? Is Deckard a replicant? Why did Roy save Deckard? Does Tyrell figure out straight away that the chess move came from Roy?
I love that you loved it. "Blade Runner" was the starting point of the cyberpunk genre (OK, Alfred Bester's novel "The Stars My Destination" from 1956 introduced several tropes that became central in cyberpunk a generation later), and is still massively influential. You commented on the video pay phones - back then, the emergence of powerful mobile phones wasn't on the map. Even in William Gibson's novel "Neuromancer" (another extremely important early work which influenced the cyberpunk genre), there are no mobile phones; pay phones are what you use. Science Fiction isn't ultimately about technology per se, but ideas and the impact of technology on society.
That's interesting. I've read Destination, but it didn't occur to me how cyberpunk it really was. Still, I feel like this and Neuromancer really kicked off the genre.
@@dr.burtgummerfan439 The French sci-fi anthology magazine _Métal Hurlant,_ published in English as _Heavy Metal,_ essentially established the aesthetic of cyberpunk in the late 70s, by inspiring the look of _Blade Runner_ and the _Akira_ manga, which both debuted in 1982 and became the visual pillars of the entire genre.
IMO Roy's last moments he spent hunting Dekkar to make him feel the fear they feel. To make him feel empathy. Probably not his initial intention but probably realised hes become what hes rebeling against. Then in his last moments instead of killing gave forgiveness.
The "Tears in rain monologue" written by David Peoples and Rutger Hauer performed by Rutger Hauer's character "Roy Batty" is considered to be the greatest death soliloquy in film. Worthy of watching and re-watching.
This movie essentially invented the cyberpunk genre. Few successful 80s films did it justice but the genre became massively successful in anime, and lots of follow up cyberpunk films that were successful mimicked the anime inspired by bladerunner... terminator, aliens, etc.
"Is this the first cyberpunk movie?" YES. That's why it's such a landmark. The roots of cyberpunk go back to the 60's. The story this movie is based on was published in 1968. ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" Phillip K Dick. Also the writer of the source material for "Total Recall" and "Minority Report") and The "punk" part is about how counterculture began to influence science fiction in the 70's and 80's. A lot of where the cross-section of counter-culture and science fiction flourished were European comics. The "Metal Hurlant" movement, (reprinted in the US as "Heavy Metal") gave us "Valerian and Lauerline" and a comic by Moebius and "Alien" writer Dan O'Bannon called "The Long Tomorrow" which were the templates for cyberpunk-style city-scapes. The designs for Deckard, 2019 LA, the flying cars, and Rachel were all lifted from "The Long Tomorrow." (The comic was also the source material for the "Harry Canyon" segment of the "Heavy Metal" animated movie and also heavily inspired "The Fifth Element") William Gibson, the godfather of cyberpunk, didn't coin the phrase for another two years after seeing Blade Runner, and although much of "Neuromancer" was written by that time, it wasn't published until 1984 (although "Johnny Mnemonic" the short story prologue to "Neuromancer" was published in 1981) "Where is the sun?" "Is Tyrell evil or not?" "Does the Dove mean freedom?" Tyrell, like Dr Frankenstein, the very first science-fiction anti-hero, tried to "play God" with disastrous results. If he were a good man, he'd scrap the project immediately rather than reap obscene profit off of it in a future society where wealth inequality looks as bad as they present it. The climate in this world is trashed due to remorse-less capitalists like Tyrell. It's raining in Los Angeles 24/7 and every animal bigger than a rat is extinct in the wild. We see the sun ONE TIME in the entire movie, and it's a window in Tyrell's office that looks like a painting framed and hung on his wall, like he OWNS the sun. (And even in this one image, the sun is obscured by buildings - the city is engulfing the last visible remnants of the natural world.) If Tyrell's hubris is "playing God" then Roy is a Christ figure. That's why he sticks a nail through his hand and grabs a dove so that it will look like his soul being released as he dies for the sins of humanity. (original sin -> fruit of knowledge -> man eats the fruit to "be like God" -> man tries to create man -> lots of murder) "There's no reason to torture him" - they're three-year olds. They're "evil" the way toddlers would be if they were super-intelligent, had superhuman adult bodies, were never shown love, and were hunted fugitives. When AI go "bad" they're never just "evil" Skynet becomes self-aware and realizes "My purpose is to kill billions of humans. HUMANS created me for that purpose. WTF?!?!? Humans suck!!!!!" - and is it WRONG? In "I Robot" The AI is programmed to protect humanity against all threats. It decides it must subjugate humanity for our own good because our own leaders are the biggest threats to our continued existence. IS IT WRONG? The Matrix makes them out to be pretty bad, but if you watch "Second Renaissance" from "The Animatrix" you'll see the machines gave us every chance at peaceful co-existence and only resorted to their cruel methods when we made it clear we wanted to genocide them off the face of the Earth. The moral of every "AI gone bad" story is that WE are the bad guys for creating it in the first place without thinking through the consequences.
I would argue that the "punk" counter-culture is an important _in-universe_ element of the genre. So for example, something like A Scanner Darkly or Neuromancer is truly cyberpunk because it deals with an individual's relationship to technological systems of control. It asks questions about the dangers of a dystopian future built on tech advancement and how individuals respond. The most powerful corporations in our present sell devices that monitor everything said in our homes and compile the vast amount of information collected about you for their own ends without consent. So.... that's about as cyberpunk as one can imagine even though our world's aesthetic is nothing like Blade Runner's 2019 Los Angeles. Blade Runner examines human themes on a smaller scale. Roy et al. don't want to change the system. The story picks up after their rebellion, because the rebellion isn't the point. They want to live longer and to know why they were designed for premature death. Deckard only wants to retire and be left alone. He meets Rachel immediately after he's forced back into killing replicants and he has to grapple with seeing how much humanity is in her (and by extension others that he has killed). Rachel's got a straight-up identity crisis as someone who learns she is an artificial being. In the book, there's a contrast between replicants and animals: artificial humans are killed on sight, while caring for artificial animals is considered a hugely important, morally laudable exercise in empathy. You get the idea. This movie's worldbuilding and aesthetic became touchstones of the genre, for sure. Even so, I personally make a distinction between a story that takes place in a techno dystopia and a story that is _about_ living in one.
The building towards the end is the Bradbury building in downtown Los Angeles. It’s open to the public. Parts of THE ARTIST, WOLF, 500 DAY OF SUMMER, and some “Outer Limits” episodes were also shot there.
2049 suffers from the same problem as Godfather 3. It came after such an iconic film there's almost no way for it to measure up. If Bade Runner didn't exist it would probably be considered a better movie.
The "sinking music" with what I think is a fantastic musician (Vangelis) just passed away 79 years old. The intro is one of the best and imagine watching it with a big screen.
The building where Sebastian lives is the Bradbury Building, an office building in downtown Los Angeles built in 1893. It was restored in the late 1980s, after Blade Runner was filmed there. From what I've heard, the lobby of the building is open to the general public, but visitors are not permitted upstairs. The building is privately owned, but LAPD has a long-term lease on a portion of the building.
This is what good sci fi is all about: asking real questions, and letting the audience figure out the answers =) I hope you'll react to 2049, it's a really excellent sequel, which you can hardly ever say. And if you do, you should also watch the shorts that take place in between the two films. Even if you don't react to those, at least watch them.
"I'm not so sure Tyrell is really that bad" He's created artificial people, but given them feelings and memories - and possibly a 'soul' - simply so they would make better, more stable, and more efficient slave labor for construction, industrial mining, pleasure, and even military use in offworld colonies that people on Earth can move to after already destroying most of this planet with war, pollution, and corruption. So, I would say Tyrell is definitely not a 'good' guy.
I don’t think that it is correct to say that Tyrell intentionally gave replicants feelings. With successive models of replicants, he pursued the technical challenge of making replicants more human; and the capacity to develop emotions was likely an unintended, emergent phenomenon. Giving replicants memories was then a reactionary design choice to counter the destabilizing emergence of emotions.
@@markhamstra1083 Most of your feelings and emotions are based on memories, though. Memories serve as cushion for people to draw back on when it comes to how to deal with stress, or keeping hope that someday things will get better, despite a current situation. It shapes your personality and a lot of other factors that make you who you are as a person. They want replicants instead of robots because robots would need to be programmed exactly how to react to everything or perform tasks. An enhanced 'human' with memories and who can obey less specific orders successfully makes more sense than building a different robot for every task, as long as you don't have an issue with slave labor. Tyrell clearly doesn't have an issue, which makes the whole idea of replicants gross. Creating something that is in almost every way human, but classifying them as less than human because it's 'easier' to think of them as less while they endure such horrible lives for everyone else's benefit - and then mercilessly killing them for rebelling against such hardship is inherently evil.
@@MrFuggleGuggle I’ll agree with most of what you wrote except for the strong assertion that feelings are based on memories. We really don’t know how cognition, self-awareness, emotions, memories, and similar “human-ness” work - certainly not in a way that would allow us to engineer them or even confidently assert that one of these entirely precedes or is the basis for another. There are theories in cognitive science, however, that it is not possible to have a high level of general intelligence without things like self-awareness and emotions also arising, whether this is intended or not. In other words, if your intention is to engineer a highly functional general intelligence and not something that is programmed or tightly linked to specific, well-defined and constrained tasks, then you are also going to need to contend with some degree of “un-programmed” emergent phenomena like self-awareness and emotions. I still don’t think that Tyrell specifically intended the replicants to have emotions or that he gave them memories so that they would develop emotions - I think he would have been happy with emotionless, ungrounded general intelligence, but that proved impossible. The themes and questions concerning the value and worth of non-human “human-ness” are at the core of both Blade Runner movies, though, and we can agree that much of Tyrell’s thinking and action in that regard is repugnant.
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference" a line I first heard in the canceled-to-soon show Caprica(prequel to BSG) applies perfectly to this movie. On that topic, have either of you two seen Battlestar Galactica? That would be a show you both would highly enjoy! 😁
Believe it or not, that's from the first ever Star Trek origional novelization by James Blish called "Spock Must Die." Spock delivers the line in response to his being duplicated by the transporter. Blish had written the first adaptations of TOS in the 60s.
The chase through the 'Bradbury Building' (great sci fi name) is probably the best example of "a nightmare captured on film" that you will ever see. I got to see the early 90's re-release in a theater, and this movie is breathtaking on a big screen. Rutger Hauer's "Tannhauser Gate" monolog will go down as the best ad-lib in movie history.
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die."
One of the greatest lines in Cinema.
And completely ad-libbed onset by Rutger Hauer, BTW.
And in 1 take early in the morning on the roof of a sound stage at Pinewood Studios on the last day. Ridley Scott and his crew had to be out of the studio later that day
@@brettpeacock9116 He didn't get the memo... :P
@@brettpeacock9116 correct!
Wasn’t that off the cuff from the actor?
This movie takes place in 2019 and Rutger Hauer who plays Roy Batty also died in 2019 like his character.
“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. Time to die."
Proud of our countryman. RIP Rutger....
I watched a documentary once where they said the "tears in the rain" wasn't in the script, and Rutger Hauer improvised it.
@@axebeard6085 the original text was indeed a bit different. He edited it, and this is what's in the movie.
🙏
Roy Batty's soliloquy as he dies is so beautiful... so memorable.
"They're just people, then." And that was the whole point of the original story the movie is based off of: if you were to create a being that is otherwise indistinguishable from a human, would that being be any less than a human that was created naturally? Would that being's life not be as worthy as anyone else's?
rework that a number of times and you get Bicentennial Man lol.
Yes
@@greatwhitesufi Okay, now explain why without mentioning God.
@@SeanHendy To be fair, the story of an automaton indistinguishable from a man is story that's been around since ancient Greece.Talos, the brass man, the stories of whom raise the very same philosophical questions. ^_^
@@tucci06 Which one? There are hundreds to choose from. There's no need to include a literal god (it is hinted at though by the very core point of the story/book) in this story since this is about mankind creating sentient beings very similar to ourselves... ie. mankind created a humanlike being in his own image through genetic editing and bioengineering. Perhaps it's an allegory, perhaps it just means that Phillip K Dick felt he/we don't need gods.
"It's too bad she won't live...but then again, who does?" is a line that has stayed with me for years. It's the whole essence of this masterwork of a movie - who lives? Who is alive? What is humanity? Really glad you watched this one. I can't fault your reaction at any point.
People tend to overlook what Gaff says right before that line: you've done a man's job, sir" - think of the implications of those words...
I'm the same. That line has always resonated with me.
So say we all... :D
Composer Vangelis died on 17. May 2022 . Evángelos Odysséas Papathanassíou .
Got Oscar from Chariots of fire theme , Blade runner soundtrack is his .
@@pete_lind yes...loved his work
Dutch actor Rutger Hauer's performance as the Replicant sweeps all before it. His final dying speech is regarded by some as the greatest piece of cinema ever.
If you think a 40 year old film looks good today, imagine those of us who first saw it in the 80's, the style, effects and the thought provoking story. One of my top 10 movies of all time.
in the 80's it was a fiasco
It was great in the eighties too.
Eu assisti este filme na época do seu lançamento aqui no Brasil. Dentro do cinema tinha duas dúzias de pessoas, no máximo.... naquela semana eu retornei ao cinema em todas as sessões que pude....assisti umas dez vezes ou mais...😊😊
I saw it in 1991 when I was 7 and watched it dozens of times since, and yeah, even almost 10 years after it was released, it was still the most beautiful and amazing looking film I'd ever seen and that's why it has stuck with me all these years.
@@Fyrecide The only version that counts was the 1982.
Glad you mentioned Sean Young's performance. Everyone is on top form here but Young's physical performance as something visibly human and yet not was outstanding. I also like Daryl Hannah's ability to switch from innocent to sinister on a dime
Young was great in this, and so beautiful. It's a shame she didn't become a bigger star after the '80s (she would've been a perfect Catwoman in her heyday), but it seemed like she developed some mental health issues and effectively sabotaged her career.
Daryl Hannah also really hurt herself when she ran into that van in the alley and that's the take onscreen.
AND one of THE nicest and most down to Earth people you will ever be so lucky to meet (and still text now and then)....I sent her a copy of my avatar I drew for her to have, and to sign one to return back to me...(along with a few other things)..
Came with a hand-written note that instantly became my prize possession.
And STILL gorgeous.
I absolutely love the fact that Roy, a combat replicant created to kill, uses his last moments to save a life, it's his ultimate expression of defiance.
This and the soundtrack peaking at his monologue, hits me in the feels like a kick in the nuts, absolute perfection.
the choosing of Vangelis to do the soundtrack was inspired. The blend of the music and the visuals, I just think is as close to perfect as it is possible to get.
That soliloquy has gotta be up there with the best monologues of all time.
Paraphrasing a line from another sci-fi franchise: what makes us human is the ability to grow beyond our innate programming. That sounds quite appropriate here.
@@Seele2015au A baby has programming? Mammals teach their young.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver perhaps just "programming" would be more meaningful.
FYI: Actor Rutger Hauer came up with his final monologue himself and director Ridley Scott approved it because he liked it much better than what was in the script.
He added to it he didn't make the whole.thing up
@@HeNnEsSy_HiCcUpS yeah, he actually made it shorter before adding the tears in the rain part
The orig monologue was too ramblingly long .... Rutger edited it down to the visual gist of it and added in the "tears in rain" line ...
This is the crown jewel of Cyberpunk in cinema. The ending is a complex series of ideas. One element from the book that was demonstrated and not fully explained was people's relationship with animals. Empathy was the single emotion that most demonstrated humanity. This was demonstrated by keeping pets. Roy, at the end was wrestling a lot with his own humanity. In a final act of defiance he demonstrated empathy by saving Decard, proving he was more than base emotions and could express empathy.
If you notice each of the Replicants is associated with an animal, Leon get asked the question about the Tortoise, Pris makes herself up to look like a Racoon, Zhora has the Snake, Rachel has the Owl, Deckard dreams about the Unicorn and Batty howls like a Wolf.
Deckard isn't a replicant.
YES! Thank you for noticing. 👌😁
That's a very interesting observation. I know the movie for decades and never noticed it. Thanks.
@@hettbeans Yes he is.
@@hettbeans It's never confirmed on screen but the question is certainly raised in the film - it's part of the whole point - and while we can't say he is, nor can we say he isn't. But, since Ridley Scott has said that Deckard IS a replicant, it's understandable that plenty of people now think that he is.
The entire “Tears in the rain” speech, spoken by Rutger Hauer(Roy Batty), was filmed after he ad-lib it significantly to the final version we see…
Yes, it was partly written before and he changed it quite a bit. I read an account of the filming of that scene and it said that many of the crew were in tears and applauded after this take. I'd love to see a behind-the-scenes of that.
Not an ad-lib. According to an interview with Ridley Scott, Rutger wrote his own version of the final monologue and brought it to Ridley the day of filming. Ridley liked it so much he let Rutger do it without telling anyone about the change from the original script.
It's a strange thing sharing someone's last minutes of life. In the case they've made peace with it, they're still scared at the moment everything starts to turn dark. I don't think it's a fear of what's to come. I think it's a final angst over what will soon vanish. The Tears in Rain scene always had that weight for me.
This is how I feel about it. What’s next is unknown and exciting (if you’ve made peace with death) but there’s still a sadness that soon you’ll no longer be in a world with the things and people you love, you have to say goodbye, and at the end of the day goodbyes are always bittersweet.
@@CChissel except it's not unknown and exciting. It's the same thing that was previous to your birth. Nothing.
@@barbarusbloodshed6347 But you don’t actually know. That’s just what you *think*. No one will ever know what happens to consciousness when someone dies, no one really knows how it came to be and where it comes from, so to say you know what happens is a little odd. You could be right, but there is no way of knowing, so what I mean by unknown and exciting is just that. Discovering what happens because it IS unknown, and diving into the unknown is exciting.
I see it also as him having the realization that, even as his experiences will slip away into nothing, so too will Decker's if he kills him. He achieves empathy.
@@CChissel I completely disagree that we will ever know. I can't say for certain that we will but we have come a long way in knowing how things work. Unless you're talking about in the philosophical sense, and in that case we can't "know for certain" of anything. I could be a brain in vat thinking I am communicating to people when you're all in my head.
Philip K. Dick wrote a book in the late 60's called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" This novel is the building blocks for Blade Runner and much later Blade Runner 2049. Philip is regarded in many circles as the Grandfather of Cyberpunk, with the billing of Father being bestowed upon William Gibson for his Neuromancer series. Both of these are must-reads, remembering at all times when they were written and that they started it all.
Yes, Philip Dick is the grandfather, and Alfred Bester was ground zero with Tiger! Tiger!.
That was not a book but a short novel... as far as I know
@@istvangranicz5082 210 pages. Certainly not much of a book by today's standards, but it was considered a book nonetheless. Certainly too long to be called a short story. But a novel usually runs 200 to 500 pages. 100 to 200 is a novella, anything shorter is a short story. In any case, whether it's a novella or a novel, it's still a book.
@@deano42 yeah, you are right... sorry
PKD has had 12 stories adapted into 15 different films. If you want reality/identity questioning sci fi, PKD is the guy.
I watched this with my son when he was 10. After it ended I asked what he thought of the film;
“It wasn’t their fault. They were made that way.”
"From the mouths of babes, comes wisdom."
Sounds similar to what Jessica Rabbit said...
@@hendrsb33 10-year-old boys always have her in mind. lol
To answer Simone's question, JF Sebastian's apartment block was shot at the Bradbury Building in LA, which is a late 19th century famous for its beautiful Renaissance style architecture and huge Atrium. To take such an iconic building and transform it into what we see on screen is an absolute marvel of production design.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradbury_Building
I was looking to see if anyone answered her question. My high school photography class took a field trip to downtown L.A. in the late 70's, and the Bradbury Building was one of the places we visited. I don't remember if I made took many pics, as the lighting was difficult to figure out with a hand-held light meter :-D I do remember taking a pic of the Bonaventure Hotel with a sculpture in the foreground.... for the late 70's it looked as much like the future as the Bradbury looked like the past
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westin_Bonaventure_Hotel
Yes, the production design is way better than what we get in the sequel.
@@davidpax don't cut yourself on that edge m8
Rutger Haur's 'I've seen things' monologue is truly iconic and completely adds another layer to the complexity of the replicants. It spotlights the ambiguity of their nature, hence the decades of debating this film.
And can we take a moment so note that Ridley went from Alien to this. One of the greatest and most emulated film visionaries of all time for me.
And that camera & lighting technique used on the eyes was legit. No special effects here...
improvised as well, for the most part.
My interpretation of the last scene with Deckard finding the unicorn in his apartment is Gaff found Rachel but decided not to kill her since she was going to eventually die anyway.
That’s a very interesting interpretation. I have no idea if I am right or not but the unicorn to me meant that either Rachel is that magical replicant who does not die, or Decker is the magical replicant who doesn’t know he is one. The unicorn being that unique, mystical creature. But your interpretation is far more parsimonious so it’s probably right and mine is wrong.
@@matthewkirkhart2401 I think it's a bit of both. In the theatrical cut voice over he states Rachel is different and has no incept? date. But it shows Deckard that Gaff has been there and let Rachel live. I still refuse to believe Deckard IS a replicant because for me, that would ruin the whole point of the movie. more Human than Human. The fake humans who have no empathy care for each othe and just want to live and try to live their lives to their fullest, while the actual human is "Cold Fish", emotionless and justplodding along following orders. Philip K Dick's work is often about what it is to be human and the amiguity over whether or not Deckard could be a replicant is what makes it work so well.
Deckard dreams of a unicorn. Gaff leaves a unicorn for him. How does he know about Deckards dream? Because Deckard memories are artificial, like Rachel's. The only way Gaff would know about the unicorn is if he had access to Deckards memories. And the only way that would be possible is if Deckards was a replicant. The assumption then is that Deckard IS a replicant but doesn't know it himself.
In the original version with Deckard’s voice over is clearly stated that Tyrell told Deckard that Rachel was special and had no expiration date. In other words she will live forever…
@@davidcorujo1 That's true, but the original version's voice over and ending were studio forced and terrible. Scott's original idea was indeed that Gaff was there but did not kill Rachel. His unicorn origami WAS to throw you off and make you question Deckard's humanity, likewise there was a scene where his eyes catch the light the same as the replicants, and of course the other Blade Runner at the beginning of the film looks eerily like Harrison Ford, as if they are the same model.
Of course, the sequel goes a different, more definite direction anyway.
Edward James Olmos wrote the other most quotable line in the film. The "It's to bad she wont live, but then again who does" line, much like "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain" was written by Rutger Hauers the two most popular lines in the film were written by the actors.
That secene with Roy and Tyrell was powerful, like a son confronting his father in a Shakespearean tragedy.
I think Roy genuinely regretted having to kill Sebastian, he and Priss did like him and appreciated his help, but he was a witness to his murdering of Tyrell, and couldn't risk him alerting the authorities. Roy is a combat model, after all, and so very pragmatic.
That’s also like Frankestein meeting the creature that he created only to be killed by it’s own creation
The authorities knew it was Roy, so he didn't have to kill either Tyrell or Seb. Maybe Roy isn't evil, he is just programmed that way.
@@stevev2492 I think like a real human Roy became desensitized to killing. Like idk if you saw the mini series chernobyl. Where the kid is tasked with killing dogs and other radioactive pets. At first it was really hard for him. Then in a later scene he is just doing it automatically after his first kill. Roy was combat model so obviously hes killed alot in war. And probably wasn't treated in anyway but violence. That probably became his whole world and personality.
between alien and blade runner, the "lived-in" look george mentions was one of ridley scott's huge gifts to science fiction films. blade runner was the among the first sci-fi movies to mimic the way the real world operates, where old buildings and clothes and technologies and etc don't just disappear overnight, and the futuristic stuff coexists with all the existing junk that's just around.
Moebius did all the designs for the human tech in "Alien" and then Ridley Scott told his design team to make 2019 LA look like "The Long Tomorrow" by Moebius and "Alien" writer Dan O'Bannon.
@@chrisleebowersvery true, and sure katsuhiro otomo was riffing on moebius too (among other things), but while the metal hurlant guys (not just moebius, but also bilal and to a lesser extent druillet) paved the way, it seems pretty safe to say millions more people have seen (and been influenced by) blade runner and akira than have read any of their stories. also it's been years since i read the long tomorrow, but i feel like the noir lighting and neon, the extremity of the dirtiness, and the busted weather are all more scott.
That "used future" look was also what George Lucas wanted for Star Wars, particularly Tatooine.
The dove, I think, is more a symbol of "the spirit", so holding it till his death caused him to release release is a physical manifestation of him "giving up the ghost".
-A malfunctioning machine, to be "retired" is not supposed to have a "soul." Roy has shown he has as much of one as any human does.
-The dove is obviously not his literal soul; but at the moment of his death, his fascination with the only animal in the movie that *isn't a replicant,* without harming it indicated a deeper "humanity" than any human in the movie demonstrated.
-Tyrell's hubris is "playing God," then Roy is a Christ figure. He sticks a nail through his hand right before picking up the dove.
Straight up masterpiece that stands the test of time.
This thing inspired soooo many artists, writers, filmmakers.
My dad had me watch it when I was like 5. I had no idea what was going on, I just knew it looked cool as shit. Wicked work of art.
And two roleplaying games that are still played today...
And it inspired Akira and Ghost In The Shell, probably the two most significant movies that introduced anime to the west.
It does give me a Fifth Element vibe.
The "Tears in the Rain" speech was the defining moment of Rutger Hauer's career.
Fun fact: Rutger Hauer ad-libbed the "tears in rain" line.
This film was based (loosely) on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick. It's a pretty good read.
This is one of the first cyberpunk films (do you consider Soylent Green to be cyberpunk?). It is also a noir film.
The American theatrical release included a voice over by Harrison Ford narrating his actions. I actually like the voice over because it makes it feel more noir. The American theatrical release also had a lame happy ending in which Deckard and Rachel move out of the city and Ford's voice over states that Rachel, unlike the other Nexus 6 replicants, was not limited to a 4-year life span.
The actress playing Rachel is Sean Young. I liked her in David Lynch's "Dune" (1984) in which she played Chani.
The question of whether or not Deckard is a replicant has been discussed ever since the movie came out. Harrison Ford has said the he played the role as a human, but recantly, Ridley Scott said that Dekard was a replicant. I think this might be some George Lucas type revisionism or a J.K. Rowling type "Dumbledore is gay" tweet. The movie is better if it is left ambiguous. See also, John Carpenter's "The Thing."
The movie inspired a loosely based 8-episode anime OVA titled "Bubblegum Crisis." It was more popular in the West than in Japan. It is a fun watch, but make sure you get the OVA released from '87 to '91. Skip the later TV series reboot.
particularly as in Bubblegum Crisis there was a band called Pris and The Replicants
Would you consider Metropolis (1927) as cyberpunk? German expressionism greatly influenced Film Noir, which greatly influenced cyberpunk.
I liked the voice over in the original release purely because it made it feel a bit more Film Noir. Unfortunately, it makes Deckard out to be a complete idiot and it sounds like Ford was forced to read the lines at gunpoint!
As for the "Is Deckard a replicant" question, like all media it is up to the individual "reader" to decide for themselves. Various versions of the movie lean either one way or the other, with the Final Cut leaning more heavily towards "yes", but in my opinion it is the wrong question to ask. It misses the point of the film, which is that it doesn't matter. Humans and replicants are so similar as to be indistinguishable from each other without a complicated test designed to elicit an emotional response (especially when we see every replicant express emotion). It's a great discussion to have though!
I love the Tears in Rain scene. Just a perfect summary of what Roy was trying to do the whole movie. From word go, he wanted to defy his maker, initially by trying to literally extend his life, then by killing his maker, then finally, in his final moments, defying the purpose for which he was made by saving a life instead of taking it. Excellent acting from Rutger Howard, top notch!
And the dove representing his soul leaving his body... iconic scene
@@dromeus21 I see the released dove both as his soul leaving his body and his finally being at peace.
The collaboration between Ridley Scott and Rutger Hauer to get that last monologue across the finish line created something so timeless and beautiful.
As a European, Rutger Hauer was surely aware of the early Progressive Rock band that Vangelis was in, Aphrodite's Child. Their first two albums sold 20 million copies, worldwide. One of their songs was titled, "Tears In Rain". Another was "I Want to Live".
This is not to take away anything from Hauer's beautifully lyrical contribution to the script, just to give it historical context.
@@OronOfMontreal What are you talking about? Vangelis is _one_ man, not a band, and I'd even argue that his compositions are unique and can't be put into any category like Progressive Rock.
@@Wolf-ln1ml there might have been a misunderstanding on your side regarding OronOfMontreal's comment: Vangelis contributed as "one man" to this movie (pursuing solo projects since the 1970s). OronOfMontreal referred to an earlier projects of him, whis is the 1960 progressive rock band Aphrodite's Child with Demis Roussos and Lucas Sideras with songls like "Tears and Rain" as well as "Let Me Love, Let Me Live"
Legit can't wait for you guys to watch Blade Runner 2049. It expands on all of the ideas in this one and plays as a direct sequel/mystery. But yeah there's a fierce debate even between Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford on whether Deckard is a replicant, but what I love about answering that question is "does it even matter if he feels and can change?" If you rewatch it with him being a replicant in mind, it does totally change how you see his chief, his partner, and Tyrell in his scenes with them.
Roy Batty's last act was to save his oppressor, so that someone, anyone, could carry on his memories. So that his death would mean something. It's such a heartbreaking, beautiful scene, and totally sells why Deckard would finally quit the whole game at the end. Genuine cyberpunk classic, and is one of the first to solidify the genre aesthetics visually.
If you want to see the whole blade runner world you can watch the following:
Blade runner 1982(Original movie)
Blade runner black out 2022 ( Short 15min anime - Humans vs Replicants, Explains Blackout mentioned in 2049 and Replicant prohibition)
Blade runner Black lotus (13 episode anime - Explains the Tyrell corp bought by Wallace corp. Young Niander Wallace and how he gains control of Wallce corp. Also DOC Badger from 2049, as a teen)
Blade runner 2036 Nexus Dawn (Short film Niander Wallace)
Blade Runner 2048 Nowhere to run (Short film about Sapper Morton, Dave Bautistas character)
Blade Runner 2049 (Second Movie)
The flames in the opening are what's called "flare stacks": exhaust pipes that light their flammable gas effluents on fire to control explosion hazard. You absolutely used to see these on the LA skyline in the 1970s. Most of LA is built on an active oil field and there are still thousands of oil pumps and settling tanks scattered throughout the area, often within feet of people's houses.
I'm sure that Tyrell doesn't see himself as evil. But think about this: he creates slaves that are so indistinguishable from humans that they may as well be human. They are not machines -- they were given feelings as if they were human. He is a slave merchant. The main distinction between a human and a replicant is how they came about having their memories, and that small distinction makes it possible to tell the difference through a psych test (ie. Voigt-Kampf).
BTW, making Replicants is not illegal, but they are prohibited on Earth. They are manufactured to be laborers, soldiers, prostitutes, and so on, and meant to operate elsewhere in the solar system.
Also, the author of the screenplay said that although it was written to be ambiguous, that Deckard is not a Replicant. Ridley Scott said years later that he definitely is one.
If you think about it objectively, replicants were NOT given emotions, but they "developed" them after 4 years. To a biomechanical geneticist only interested in their functional ability, that could be considered a bug. Similar to children, who begin to understand and codify emotional self-awareness after 3 years old. Hence the formation of emotions and subsequent rebellioun against their unfair and unjust treatment.
"Babies begin exploring their world with little concept of social cues or situations, but by the time they are just 3 years old, they can correctly label and recognize emotions, as well as identify them in situations."
I'm sure others will mention, this was based off the story "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K Dick (who also inspired "Total Recall")... His work consistently explores what is real abs what makes us human. Always enjoyed reading his work bc i can never predict where its going, unlike most fiction i see
"I don't trust any of them" Phil would have been so happy.
Some other films inspired by Dick were Minority Report, Paycheck, The Adjustment Bureau, and Impostor (an underrated fave of mine) . There's also a series based on "The Man in the High Castle" though I haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
Yes. And Dick's premise was that empathy was the measure of humanity -- that if Replicants had it, then arguably they were human, and humans who lacked it were inhumane.
Hats off to the amazing, the fantastic, the memorable Rutger Hauer. He passed in 2019... 2019 in the real world, odd coincidence that one. He was always incredible to watch in any role, hope you get to see more of his work!
Very late comment, but here it goes. At the end, Roy knew he was dying. To live or die wasn't a choice he could make. He realized the only choice he could make (really, the only choice any of us can make) was how to live with the time he had. And he chose to live in a way that protected life instead of caused death. In his final moments, Roy was one of the most human and humane characters in the film, and that was his free choice.
I also feel that Deckard spitting just before he slips is important - Roy sees defiance in the face of inevitable death, and in that he recognizes that Deckard is the same as him (as we all are the same): desperately seeking meaning in the face of inevitable death.
I remember the 1983 World Science Fiction Convention when Bladerunner was nominated for the Hugo award. It was up against Star Trek II, E.T., and Road Warrior, an Australian film starring some unknown actor named Mel Gibson. The movie people weren't expecting to win so, instead of sending a producer or director, they sent a production assistant who happened to be an SF fan. Bladerunner won the Hugo. I can still picture a dazed young man -- he must have been 23 or 24 -- wandering around to all the room parties that evening, getting given free drinks, being congratulated, and clutching that Hugo award. He and I had a nice conversation, sitting next to a Shiner Bock beer keg.
The story was interesting, but for me what makes Blade Runner so memorable is our immersion in the bizarre world plus the amazingly great score by Vangelis. (I bought the cd of the soundtrack & still listen to it 40 years later.)
Totally agree on the score. I also own it, and several other albums from Vangelis.
The soudtrack is amazing. Also, the song "Intergalactic Radio Station" from his album Direct has some dialogue that always felt to me like it was referencing Roy Baty's lines from the end of the movie. "I've seen things... so many things that you can't believe. Past designs, future designs. Cables in the bend..."
Direct was the first CD I ever owned... I haven't listened to it in ages. I'm going to have to go on a Vangelis binge for a while I think.
@@andrewcharles459 It was all we could get, though I'm very fond of that album now. Mind you, Vangelis did release an album called 'Themes' which featured two or three tracks from Blade Runner in their original synthesized versions. Even so, I still remember the buzz when the proper release came out in 1994...
The synth score by Vangelis is perfect for this world. He made a 3x anniversary CD you should get and now there is a 4x version here on UA-cam. It's so futuristic and emotional at the same time. Too bad they didn't use Vangelis for the sequel 2049.
Still one of the greatest Sci Fi movies ever made.
Jack Nicholson, Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Dustin Hoffman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Burt Reynolds and Sean Connery were almost cast as the lead.
This movie had a lot of production problems , as neither the cast nor crew liked working for Ridley Scott.
The crew had shirts made that read:
"Kiss my ass, Guv'nor."
"Xenophobia sucks."
"I survived BLADE RUNNER."
There are 7 different cuts of the movie made to see which one Scott liked the most
Film critic Roger Ebert called the Director's Cut and Final Cut as the superior versions of what Ridley Scott has wanted.
The film is now part of the National Film Registry and The Library Of Congress.
I'd argue one of the greatest films ever made, let alone sci fi. Given the era it was made in, the panning scenes are just so vast. If ever able to see it on a big screen, your eyes just flick to different parts of the vista trying to take it all in. It's epic and I love it.
Too bad Scott pretended the studio was to blame for the great 1982 version. The 1992 thing is a ruin.
Pris was the pleasure model, Zhora was the assassin model, Leon was a grunt laborer, and Roy was the military/strategist model.
Leon was played by Brion James (yes, Brion); he's done a lot of character roles, support roles, over the years. He does 'weird' & mentally-deficient really well. But his most human, approachable, intelligent sympathetic role was in "The 5th Element" as the military official who oversees Leelu's recovery & is sent to reactivate Korban Dallas's govt service.
Pris is played by Daryl Hannah, who starred in "Splash" with Tom Hanks, Annelle in "Steel Magnolias", and "Elle" the one-eyed killer in "Kill Bill".
Zhora was played by Joanna Cassidy; I can't begin to enumerate the roles covered in her acting career; you should check out her IMDb acting list. I will mention, if Zhora was the assassin model, she had to have DECIDED against killing Deckerd, because she had the advantage in their fight. She didn't carry through to the kill. You have to ask why she stopped.
You asked why Pris didn't kill Deckerd. One explanation a viewer extended was that she's a pleasure model; killing isn't in her programming and likely she's counter-programmed for human death. Or, Zhora, Pris and Roy are close enough to their 'expiration' that all life is revered.
The white pigeon was not intentional; it happened to be present during that take and Rutger grabbed it by chance.
Happy accident; many view its release as symbolic of Roy's spirit being released and flying heavenward. "Blade Runner" was pulled from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"; do Replicants have souls? Tyrell obviously doesn't; the company just views them as product, but maybe they do.
Love your reaction & analysis! Good observations, and I don't think I've EVER seen a better critique of the layered, grimey, realistic world Ridley Scott built for this film. It does feel real enough that you can almost SMELL the environment.
It's not the very first of this type of world, but I think it's the best done and no film has done better. I think this film set the bar for the genre going forth from this point.
Also love your attention to how it lays a basis for forcing the hand of Replicants trapped in their circumstances but created self-aware enough to have no choice but try to change the inevitable. It makes them all the more 'human', I think. Really, the only murderous Replicant was Leon, and he was created with intellectual deficits; he's aware enough to be upset & feel it's unfair, but not to process it. Pris was given more smarts, but still had her limits; still, she was better able to process and respond more thoughtfully.
Yeah; really intelligent reactions to films on this channel, and clever. Really like being here for this.
I'll always remember Brion as one of the two bullying brothers in the movie The Wrong Guys, since that was the first thing I'd seen him in. A lesser known movie that starred Louie Anderson, Richard Belzer, Richard Lewis, and John Goodman.
One of the greatest movies ever made. Movie originally had no rain. But the wires used to make the cars "fly" were very visible. They decided to use the rain and the dark to hide them and hold continuity.
25:11 It is in fact a real building you can visit in Downtown LA! It's the Bradbury Bldg on Broadway
This IS the beginning of Cyberpunk. Early 1900's Noire mixed with science fiction. Many acclaimed anime works from Japan were influenced by this film. Getting inspired is how art works. Two way street. Give and take. For me "Ghost In The Shell" the 1995 animated feature surpasses this film in dread. How technology can make our very souls seem like just organic signals in grey matter. Deconstructing what is human. Very deep shit. man!
This and Gibson's Neuromancer novel were the onus IMHO.
@@ColumbiaBeet There was earlier work.
PK Dick, most obviously, although most of his work was more proto-Cyberpunk than the more fully developed later stuff. But the key link between the eras of Dick and Gibson was John Brunner: Shockwave Rider and The Sheep Look Up.
Shockwave is the reason why we use biological metaphors for computer malware. Sheep is the most currently prescient of any of the Cyberpunk genre.
@@TheWanderfound I forgot to mention , Visually. As in motion picture/sound experience..
As a note, yeah, watch the sequel, long, like 3 hours or something but so worth it, same director who went on to do Dune and also did Sicario and Arrival. It didn't do all that well at the box office, but was lauded as a masterpiece critically and I think will go on to be nearly as respected as the original...
1982 was the year of E.T... Remember it also has the film noir narration in it as well.
@@joegreene7619 Are you kidding? That's worse than bad.
Just a case of history repeating itself. This movie I believe was done the same on release. even more so due to the forced noir narration ruining it for the first set of audiences.
I took a friend to watch 2049 on release and despite me telling him that it wasn't going to be a Hollywood high action movie and even got him to watch the first before, he just said it was boring. Which is a shame that most people just want crazy action for the sake of it now.
@@joegreene7619 Big budget movies like Blade Runner 2049 need to make at least three times their production budget to break even, so 70% is a monumentally bad performance, yes.
@@joegreene7619 marketing alone usually costs as much as the production budget, so made a loss at $250 million. The estimate is that the studio lost £80 million as a result of this movie. I'm just glad they still let the director make Dune. Both are excellent movies and the final returns did not reflect the quality of the film making
-Cyberpunk as a genre didn't solidify until after this movie in the mid 80's, but Blade Runner did play a significant role in influencing the popular image of Cyberpunk so is often retroactively considered to be in the genre. It's more of a Sci-Fi Noir.
-The replicants are in fact not machines but artificial humans. Genetically engineered for different tasks, mostly commercial or military use.
-In the famous Cyberpunk anime Bubblegum Crisis, one of the lead characters is named Priss, she is the singer in a band called The Replicants
-Blade Runner and Alien unofficially share the same universe. Peter Wayland of the Wayland-Yutani Corporation makes reference to a former mentor of his who "Sits high above a great city in a pyramid built by his gift to the world, his biological abominations." They had a falling out because of Wayland's insistence of creating a truly perfect artificial being, his Synthetics. Dallas, captain of the Nostromo was a former employee of the Tyrell Corporation.
Ghost In the Machine
The computer graphic indicating docking is the same in Alien and Blade Runner for an added piece of continuity.
@@mikerodgers7620 You mean ghost in the shell and Akira?
that spark the cyberpunk genre
@@123evilwolf Yes
@@rileyindieman1 Its very possible that Alien, The Predator and Blade Runner are in the same universe.
The actress playing Rachael is Sean Young. She was a big deal in the 80s and after that she's became a little kooky. She's extremely striking in this movie, but isn't everyone? Rutger Hauer looks like a fallen angel in this and it's beautiful.
29:16 -- #George & #Simone -- The "narration" version is the one I grew up with and it does lend a bit of insight into the characters and story.. Instead of sitting there in silence, Deckard's narration is as follows :. "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same
answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die."
I really think the voice-over version is better for many viewers, as it fills in some detail of the world to get viewers up to speed.
I've seem a few reactors confused by this version, where the cinematic release would have filled in some small detail.
This is, hands down, one of the best pieces of sci-fi/tech noir out there. So glad you got to react to it. Now you understand why it has such a massive following. Considering when it was filmed, and what they were able to achieve with mostly practical effects, it's freaking phenomenal. One of my favorites. Hope you make time to do Blade Runner 2049. It'll help with that, "What!?!? I need more movie, please!!" problem.
I didn't like the 2049 one at all... It has _so_ little to do with this, it's almost ridiculous. The whole mood and message are very different, and even the story is so loosely connected that it feels far too much like an attempt to take advantage of the fame and following of the original. Hell, in some regards, it actively spits on the original's worldbuilding 🤮
@@Wolf-ln1ml what do you mean? I think it's the perfect sequel of all time, and it perfectly captures the feel of bladerunner. And of course is different, there were a lot of things that happenned between the two movies, and actually there are 3 shorts in youtube that tell the events between them. I feel like 2049 is not so much of a sequel but a different glimpse of what is happenning in that world. I hope you give 2049 a second chance, and if not, well everyone has their own opinions.
There are also some short animated sequences that fill in some of the time between 2019 and 2049
@@Wolf-ln1ml agreed ... the whole mood is different and the Casting didn't work at all...
This movie ran way over budget, and was s box office bomb. Nobody knew what to make of it. Nobody knew how to market it. It has since grown to b a phenomenon. Uniquely it's own.
For George: I do believe that Bladerunner was pretty much the first movie to introduce cyberpunk - and all the influence it brought. It's lovely to know that Philip K. Dick loved Ridley Scott's translation of his story. He did get to see some footage before he passed away and was reportedly blown away that the set designers managed to get in his head.
For Simone - I believe JF's place was an actual working hotel. They literally took over the place after hours, made all the mess, all the water, did all the lighting, filmed and cleaned up.
If you liked the movie enough to watch the making of I highly recommend it. "DANGEROUS DAYS - The Making of Bladerunner" is about three hours long, but it's surprising how easy it is to rip through it and it's very comprehensive as you can imagine. All your answers, ideas and more are in there. What is REALLY great about this movie speaks exactly to your point George, that the protagonist/antagonist morality is very grey on all sides.. it's a delight to have a movie like this that poses questions. The implications gifted through Roy's character, and Rutger's performance, are wonderfully complex. That pinnacle of forgiveness in his nature after all their actions and efforts, the whole chase between them and Deckard.. a fusion masterpiece of character creation, visuals, theme.. wonderful.
Looking forward to your viewing of Bladerunner 2049. **^^**
Hi Gavin ... J.F.'s apartment hotel was filmed in the Bradbury Building, which was renovated a short time later. You can see it in its daytime glory in the Jack Nicholson / Michelle Pfeiffer thriller, "Wolf". Nicholson's character works there, and it is a gorgeous place.
"WHAT!"
Love that reaction. It is a great movie. The world created created a standard for all science fiction films that followed.
Time for Blade Runner 2049.
The building where J.F. Sebastian's apartment is located in is the Bradbury building, quite a well known landmark in downtown LA. This building was actually in use at the time of filming, so during the day it was a regular office building and they had to transform it into the set you see every night and clean it all up after every night of shooting for the office workers the next day.
Rutger Hauer's character as a replicant dies at the end of this movie which is set in 2019. Rutger Hauer the actor, died 37 years after the movie...in 2019.
Please watch GALAXY QUEST!
The soundtrack by Vangelis (most famous due to Chariots of Fire) is fantastic here. I've listed to all of it several times. edit add: the death running through glass with the music is one of the best cyberpunk scenes ever
great soundtrack. especcialy like the "memories of green" theme
I often postulate that Sebastian had to have known Priss was a replicant from the beginning. He's only a super genius who plays chess with Tyrell, the most powerful man in the world. That's the level of brilliance we are dealing with here.
He calls his creations "my friends". His creations are his only friends since every else has left earth and he can't.
To him the replicants are essentially human, but even more perfect.
Leaving out the fact that by this time, Tyrrell is a repliacant himself.
I knew you'd both love this film - it's a masterpiece - Ridley Scott is a genius filmmaker and creates such lived in worlds - you both caught that naturally - and always spot on with production design, cinematography (the late grate Jordan Cronenweth), synth music (Vangelis who did CHARIOTS OF FIRE) and of course casting. Ford's 3rd iconic role is perfectly cast with his world-weary anti-hero (and again this is a blend of sci-fi tech w/noir and as you so nailed it George cyberpunk - pretty sure this is the 1st film to capture that live action - the 1981 animated HEAVY METAL (another you s/seek) has elements there too) - as well as the ethereal Sean Young as Rachel (the heart of the movie), the late Brion James as the lethal Leon, Joanna Cassidy as Zhora - fun fact she re-shot her death scene for the film's re-release and they replaced the face of the stunt man with her own), Daryl Hannah as the sexy and sinister Pris, William Sanderson as the doomed JK Sebastian, the great character actor Joe Turkel (who played Lloyd the bartender in THE SHINING among dozens of films) as Tyrell and last but not least the late, great Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty. His final soliloquy was completely improvised and shows how even a replicant can be human (yep Simone the dove symbolizes that - oh and re: the ever present night scenes I couldn't tell from this viewing if they showed the dove fly into a blue sky or not - Scott changed it to reflect the Director's Cut since that was the only 'day scene' suggested). Also noteworthy the film was released June 25, 1982 - the same day as John Carpenter's THE THING - both box office disappointments and mixed reviews upon their releases only to gain true appreciation with the advent of home video. One of my fave films of all-time. And yes make an appointment to see the recent sequel.
Yeah. She was amazing in this and I also liked here in Dune.
Too bad how her life turned into.
I was never able to see this in the theater but found it later in the 80s and was blown away by the visuals and music. I had a 5-Disc DVD set at one point which had several cuts of this film included with one having an extended ending. Also, the Theatrical Cut had narration from Deckard giving it a "Film Noir" feel.
I'm afraid that was not Richard (James Remar). The actual actor's name was Morgan Paull. But you can see Remar in other genre classics, including The Warriors. He also notoriously got cut out of Aliens and replaced with Michael Biehn because he had a drug problem at the time. He got clean as a result.
He also appears in...well...I won't spoil the surprise. But it's sort of a funny coincidence, if you ever get there.
Also, this is a great movie and unquestionably a massively influential piece of sci-fi, but having re-watched it recently after watching some reaction videos, I think I agree with anyone who says 2049 is actually even better. This is the one with the larger stylistic influence -- the sequel is gorgeous but isn't groundbreaking, especially when so much of how it looks is templated on this, but the sequel is the better movie dramatically, weaving all of its threads and the threads it inherits from this into a stunning story.
@@tylerfoster6267 Couldn't have said it better. The finale of the sequel is incredible. Villeneuve always knows how to end his films. Same with Nolan. Speaking of the former, watch Incendies.
@@tylerfoster6267 If they want more explanations , theatrical cut has it , the nice time period , when US studio dubbed Mad Max , when they did not think Americans would understand that weird Aussie language they speak down under .
@@pete_lind Haha, I've never been able to watch the theatrical cut. I hate the fakey hard-boiled voice-over sooooo much. I love good noir dialogue, but whoever wrote the Blade Runner stuff did such a bad job.
The ultimate wake up call for drug abuse has to be getting replaced by Michael Biehn.
Such a great film. The worldbuilding, the themes, the cinematography, the lighting, the acting... It defined the cyberpunk visual for decades, but the depth is what makes it such an epic.
"What if everyone is a replicant and there's just those who know and those who don't know?"
Just had to pause here and comment that I love when reactors come up with this profound stuff. My first though was The Matrix..
Love your stuff btw. Especially when watching awesome movies like this..
My first thought to your comments was "Philip K. Dick". Because that's a theme in all his work. And he wrote "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep", the story this movie is based on.
29:25 The dove means peace, but it could mean soul as well.
In an earlier version of the movie there was a voice over with Harrison Ford explaining a lot of details; the language Edward James Olmos spoke, his feelings after shooting Zora, and the significance of the origami outside his apartment at the end.
Glad you enjoyed it. It's one of my favourite movies. Simone wanted to know why there were manikins. Well, the film is about what is and what is not human. Manikins look human, but aren't. The replicants look human, but they're supposed to be not human. Deckard is human, but is he? And the replicant woman who was shot in the street, the one you felt for, lies lifeless among manikins. Then there's the question of what makes someone human. I think it's implying that it's our memories. Memories are implanted to make replicants more emotionally human. Death is when our memories are lost "like tears in the rain." You've also got the religious side to the film. Roy wants to "meet his maker" to ask why he wasn't made better. I think many of us would like to confront God about the existence of evil and of pain, so Roy stands for us. He goes through nihilism when God is dead and recovers his connection to humanity by forgiving Deckard. There is just SO MUCH to this movie.
Sebastian has always been one of my favorite characters in the “Blade Runner” universe. What a sad juxtaposition Sebastian has found himself in. He has such heart, surrounded by beings that lack heart. All the rest are fakes. Even the humans.
I can see that. I always wonder if there's a reason why Roy seems to kill JF when Priss isn't around. Could be she actually cared about JF and would have objected or been saddened, could be Roy thought maybe she cared and was sparing her, in which case nobody really knows even inside the film. Which seems very on-theme.
@@adamwarlock1 Good thought. Priss might have affection for Sebastian, but she knows what needs to be done for replicant kind.
@@adamwarlock1 Maybe Roy just blamed JF the same as Tyrell for their short life span. "There's some of me in you."
"Hi, I'm Larry..."
“Does that mean he’s a replicant”
That’s the question, isn’t it?
It depends on who you ask. The writer says no. Hes not a replicant and shoukd never have been. Ridley Scott yes he's a replicant.
@@russellward4624 Harrison Ford also says no. I recall him & Ridley Scott going back & forth about it.
@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 I find it best left unanswered
@@Anarkitten yes I love that’s it’s left unanswered, just like Total Recall. There have been whole theses written on those questions.
@@russellward4624 That’s not what Hampton Fancher said.
So, the building simone liked is called the Bradbury Building, its one the last art deco buildings of the era. And this movie is a visual feast as well as a philosophical one... Trust me, you'll get something new everytime you watch it. And the reason they were so direct is because they only have four years of life and they didn't have the memory implants either. Roy and Leon were combat models, Zora was an infiltration model and Pris was made as a pleasure slave. They didn't have time to go about this the sneaky way, Roy was dying when they arrived, and its a good bet so was Leon. None of them knew about the four year lifespan, but the plan was to get them healed and on their way. They haven't had the time to really master tact or sublety, and as such I am always amazed their plan came off as well as it did, when they found out four years and thats it, Roy thanked his father properly.. He didn't hate Tyrell, I think he killed him mainly because he didn't want this for anyone else and.. someone in the afterlife to be waiting for him. Unfortunately, well.. you're going to have to watch the sequel :)
The tears in rain speech single-handedly made me invested in poetry as an art form.
Well, "there's no reason to torment him", you have to consider that the replicants don't necessarily grow up like normal people. They were designed to fulfill a role (soldier, heavy lifting, whatever) and might only know what was needed to do their job optimally.
In that context and in a 4 years period, "they started to develop emotions" but it's not something you just do from scratch, or quickly. Our emotional reactions are influenced by the surrounding environment as we develop. Who knows what they were exposed to and what's their idea of "right and wrong".
It's like as if a fully grown "George" clone gets activated tomorrow. He may be an exact copy George, but it's not the same person, unless you also found a way to implant George's memories into it (him?). This without even considering clones that might not receive memories to begin with, like the ones created as "spare" (gross) parts for transplants and the like.
The whole idea is disgusting. If I was a replicant in that context I would hate my creator as well.
I think the replicants killed their creators so that they would no longer create more slaves
They're essentially 3-yr olds. They're as "evil" as any toddlers would be if they were super-intelligent, had superhuman adult bodies, were never shown any love, and were *hunted fugitives.*
You also have to consider that the replicants are in a situation where neither their lives nor their desire to live are considered important by humans. Therefore, some of their actions may come down to a "two can play at that game" mentality. "Oh, it's so easy to just accept dying, is it? Okay, human, if that's the game we're playing, then let's see how gracefully you accept your powerlessness in the face of the whims of a greater power as I crush your skull."
"Tears in rain" is so iconic that I've seen it used in philosophy and in a Joe Satriani track. Blade Runner was a hugely influential movie (the book was too).
To me, this is Ridleys masterpiece. You should definitely do the sequel from a few years ago. Its one of the few continuations of an 80's classic to live up to the original, thanks in large part to the expert direction of Dennis Villeneuve.
I really liked the umbrellas with the glowing handle sticks. I really though about making my own version. And then seeing the faces of people and instantly see who knows exactly where this idea comes from. 😁
This was the last Scifi before digital media. I've watched every version of this film over 200 times. And I fall in love with Sean Young every time.
According to my uncle ( which is basically my big bro ) this was my Granpa favorite Sci-fi movie. He passed away on 2017 from Cancer , we never got it to see it together but is nice to know he had a good taste on sci fi .
Some people just like scifi. I remember when I was a boy we used to visit my great grandmother in the retirement home on weekends and she'd have Star Trek TOS on tv. It's one of the few things I can remember about her. That was about 30 years ago.
The "pistol" Decker uses is an interesting Frankenstein of a pistol, including parts from a Steyr Mannlicher .222 Model SL bolt action rifle and a Charter Arms Bulldog revolver with a couple of LEDs hot glued onto it. There are four props used in the movie and each has pretty big differences. None of them were functional firearms. As one could expect this has spawned an avid prop replication community and is quite the rabbit hole.
The favorite pistol of every Fallout fan, also.
Those guns were remade in Japan for awhile with bullets. Look online. They looked great.
Literally one of my top 10 movies of all time. Masterpiece and the book it was based on is basically the pioneer of cyberpunk. Amazing.
There’s a making of doco and it is intense how much effort went into this movie. Incredible. Yes you are correct - CYBERPUNK this is the beginning. The visual feel of this movie has inspired a million movies since and once you’ve been Bladerunner’d you can see it in so many movies since. An absolute masterpiece. I loved how you both were lost for words after the movie. I’ve seen it at least 50 times and it never fails to deliver. The OG and the best.
Final cut looks great as it was scanned to 4k. Some of Ridley's shots look like a renaissance painting. Fantastic.
Did you notice the name of the building that Sebastian lived in? The "Bradbury" building. This is a tribute to one of the greatest syfy writers of all time - Ray Bradbury. This whole movie was inspired/based on the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" a dystopian science fiction novel by American writer Philip K. Dick, first published in 1968.
It's an actual building in downtown Los Angeles, named after gold-mining millionaire Lewis L. Bradbury (erected in 1893). Fantastic coincidence, though!
@@harveybojangle475 It’s such a beautiful building. As a big architecture/historic preservation geek (historic preservation was my major in college), this movie is at the top of my ‘architecture porn’ list.
@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 Definitely, with all the screen time that the Bradbury building and the Ennis house get.
Its the real name of the building where it was filmed. It's a classic building, and had working offices at the time of filming, so the cast and crew had to be out and all cleaned up by 9AM each day, after filming all night. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradbury_Building
It has also been used in literally dozens of movies.
I so enjoyed your reaction to this amazing film. I saw it opening weekend at a drive-in in Plattsburgh, NY. I cried when Zhora was killed. They just wanted to live and to be free. Like every sentient being wishes to.
"They're not photos, they're holograms" is my mantra during the enhance sequence. It's what I came up with when the first of the seven cuts was released, and I'm sticking to it. "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." Now for bonus points tie this in from Genesis: "22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-” 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life." This movie, from script to soundtrack is a treasure trove of humanism and transhumanism.
Yeah exactly, it's a photo so you have something to hold but it has full holographic data encoded in high res if you have a tool to view it.
@@ianburns1167 Yeah, when they said it's just science magic, they were joking, but they were really right. It kind of is because it's more high tech than a photo as we know it.
You understood the film perfectly. It’s an angry rant at a Christian god and proponent of transhumanism and humanism which is just by way of a philosophy that is based on a belief in god and subsequent rejection of his wisdom.
Roy the battle bot is Jesus and has his hand pierced by a nail and recites from America a Prophecy by William Blake.
It’s always night time because mankind is cast from the garden of Eden and the grace of light, living in squalid sinfulness.
Sebastian is an angel and creates simple life for company.
The replicants are fallen angels seeking revenge for being cast out of heaven. Also representing man and his ultimate fate of death.
They are childlike and vengeful as a person might be who is separated from the wisdom and humility of God.
@@iwanttocomplain Have you not read the bible?
God is pretty vengeful himself, so it must mean he was separated from wisdom and humility and acts as a child - only he called on others to do his killing for him.
What a guy!
@@Cheepchipsable god does a lot of stuff in the Bible. But given he created everything, he might have had his reasons.
Your commentary on this is remarkably perceptive. I think you picked out all the main themes, points and open questions, which is impressive for a first-time viewing.
Blade Runner is one of the greatest films ever made. The sets, the story, the lighting, the concepts, the performances are all superb. This was the first sci-fi movie I'm aware of that made the future look old and worn-out. I also love how it leaves the audience to draw their own conclusions. What are Rachel's feelings? Is Deckard a replicant? Why did Roy save Deckard? Does Tyrell figure out straight away that the chess move came from Roy?
25:18. It's the Bradbury Building in downtown L.A. It was made in 1893. Worth a visit if you're ever in the area.
I love that you loved it. "Blade Runner" was the starting point of the cyberpunk genre (OK, Alfred Bester's novel "The Stars My Destination" from 1956 introduced several tropes that became central in cyberpunk a generation later), and is still massively influential. You commented on the video pay phones - back then, the emergence of powerful mobile phones wasn't on the map. Even in William Gibson's novel "Neuromancer" (another extremely important early work which influenced the cyberpunk genre), there are no mobile phones; pay phones are what you use. Science Fiction isn't ultimately about technology per se, but ideas and the impact of technology on society.
The futuristic New York in the Heavy Metal movie had the same aesthetic.
That's interesting. I've read Destination, but it didn't occur to me how cyberpunk it really was. Still, I feel like this and Neuromancer really kicked off the genre.
@@dr.burtgummerfan439 The French sci-fi anthology magazine _Métal Hurlant,_ published in English as _Heavy Metal,_ essentially established the aesthetic of cyberpunk in the late 70s, by inspiring the look of _Blade Runner_ and the _Akira_ manga, which both debuted in 1982 and became the visual pillars of the entire genre.
@@MysteriousMose You have warring corporations, transhumanism and other features that have a cyberpunk vibe.
IMO Roy's last moments he spent hunting Dekkar to make him feel the fear they feel. To make him feel empathy. Probably not his initial intention but probably realised hes become what hes rebeling against. Then in his last moments instead of killing gave forgiveness.
The book this is very very loosely based on is worth reading. The story is pretty different, but it fleshes out the context of the world a lot more.
Rutger Hauer's Tears in Rain speech... Will always give me chills.
The "Tears in rain monologue" written by David Peoples and Rutger Hauer performed by Rutger Hauer's character "Roy Batty" is considered to be the greatest death soliloquy in film. Worthy of watching and re-watching.
This movie essentially invented the cyberpunk genre. Few successful 80s films did it justice but the genre became massively successful in anime, and lots of follow up cyberpunk films that were successful mimicked the anime inspired by bladerunner... terminator, aliens, etc.
"Is this the first cyberpunk movie?"
YES. That's why it's such a landmark.
The roots of cyberpunk go back to the 60's. The story this movie is based on was published in 1968. ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" Phillip K Dick. Also the writer of the source material for "Total Recall" and "Minority Report") and The "punk" part is about how counterculture began to influence science fiction in the 70's and 80's. A lot of where the cross-section of counter-culture and science fiction flourished were European comics. The "Metal Hurlant" movement, (reprinted in the US as "Heavy Metal") gave us "Valerian and Lauerline" and a comic by Moebius and "Alien" writer Dan O'Bannon called "The Long Tomorrow" which were the templates for cyberpunk-style city-scapes. The designs for Deckard, 2019 LA, the flying cars, and Rachel were all lifted from "The Long Tomorrow." (The comic was also the source material for the "Harry Canyon" segment of the "Heavy Metal" animated movie and also heavily inspired "The Fifth Element")
William Gibson, the godfather of cyberpunk, didn't coin the phrase for another two years after seeing Blade Runner, and although much of "Neuromancer" was written by that time, it wasn't published until 1984 (although "Johnny Mnemonic" the short story prologue to "Neuromancer" was published in 1981)
"Where is the sun?" "Is Tyrell evil or not?" "Does the Dove mean freedom?"
Tyrell, like Dr Frankenstein, the very first science-fiction anti-hero, tried to "play God" with disastrous results. If he were a good man, he'd scrap the project immediately rather than reap obscene profit off of it in a future society where wealth inequality looks as bad as they present it.
The climate in this world is trashed due to remorse-less capitalists like Tyrell. It's raining in Los Angeles 24/7 and every animal bigger than a rat is extinct in the wild. We see the sun ONE TIME in the entire movie, and it's a window in Tyrell's office that looks like a painting framed and hung on his wall, like he OWNS the sun. (And even in this one image, the sun is obscured by buildings - the city is engulfing the last visible remnants of the natural world.)
If Tyrell's hubris is "playing God" then Roy is a Christ figure. That's why he sticks a nail through his hand and grabs a dove so that it will look like his soul being released as he dies for the sins of humanity. (original sin -> fruit of knowledge -> man eats the fruit to "be like God" -> man tries to create man -> lots of murder)
"There's no reason to torture him" - they're three-year olds. They're "evil" the way toddlers would be if they were super-intelligent, had superhuman adult bodies, were never shown love, and were hunted fugitives.
When AI go "bad" they're never just "evil" Skynet becomes self-aware and realizes "My purpose is to kill billions of humans. HUMANS created me for that purpose. WTF?!?!? Humans suck!!!!!" - and is it WRONG?
In "I Robot" The AI is programmed to protect humanity against all threats. It decides it must subjugate humanity for our own good because our own leaders are the biggest threats to our continued existence. IS IT WRONG?
The Matrix makes them out to be pretty bad, but if you watch "Second Renaissance" from "The Animatrix" you'll see the machines gave us every chance at peaceful co-existence and only resorted to their cruel methods when we made it clear we wanted to genocide them off the face of the Earth.
The moral of every "AI gone bad" story is that WE are the bad guys for creating it in the first place without thinking through the consequences.
Akira also help solidified the concept and the manga came at the same time that Blade Runner was release...both are set on 2019 .
I would argue that the "punk" counter-culture is an important _in-universe_ element of the genre. So for example, something like A Scanner Darkly or Neuromancer is truly cyberpunk because it deals with an individual's relationship to technological systems of control. It asks questions about the dangers of a dystopian future built on tech advancement and how individuals respond. The most powerful corporations in our present sell devices that monitor everything said in our homes and compile the vast amount of information collected about you for their own ends without consent. So.... that's about as cyberpunk as one can imagine even though our world's aesthetic is nothing like Blade Runner's 2019 Los Angeles.
Blade Runner examines human themes on a smaller scale. Roy et al. don't want to change the system. The story picks up after their rebellion, because the rebellion isn't the point. They want to live longer and to know why they were designed for premature death. Deckard only wants to retire and be left alone. He meets Rachel immediately after he's forced back into killing replicants and he has to grapple with seeing how much humanity is in her (and by extension others that he has killed). Rachel's got a straight-up identity crisis as someone who learns she is an artificial being. In the book, there's a contrast between replicants and animals: artificial humans are killed on sight, while caring for artificial animals is considered a hugely important, morally laudable exercise in empathy.
You get the idea. This movie's worldbuilding and aesthetic became touchstones of the genre, for sure. Even so, I personally make a distinction between a story that takes place in a techno dystopia and a story that is _about_ living in one.
Now that you've seen this film, really looking forward to Blade Runner 2049, sequel is so good.
Not only is it a great sequel, it's the only role Jared Leto ever had that I think properly captures his essence as a creep.
One of the best film ever made👍👍
The building towards the end is the Bradbury building in downtown Los Angeles. It’s open to the public. Parts of THE ARTIST, WOLF, 500 DAY OF SUMMER, and some “Outer Limits” episodes were also shot there.
Would love to see you do Rutger Hauer's next movie after this, 'The Hitcher', a great psychological thriller.
I second that. Love that movie.
Also, throw in Hauer's other films while you're at it:
Nighthawks
Wanted: Dead or Alive
Blind Fury
and Split Second.
Enthusiastic seconding for Nighthawks, an unjustly neglected urban-action thriller from 1981. 😎
@@XavierXSims I love Blind Fury! Hardly a cinematic masterpiece like Blade Runner, but it is SO much fun. More people should know about it.
The hitcher is the most scary and disgusting movie I ever seen!
@@lisakovanen1975
I've not seen it myself, but out of four stars Roger Ebert gave it none whatever. It must be disgusting, indeed. 🙁 😕
Definitely recommend the sequel too, Blade Runner 2049. It's an excellent movie, nice continuity for this story and a visually stunning film.
2049 suffers from the same problem as Godfather 3. It came after such an iconic film there's almost no way for it to measure up.
If Bade Runner didn't exist it would probably be considered a better movie.
Please watch the STAR TREK movies! 🖖
The "sinking music" with what I think is a fantastic musician (Vangelis) just passed away 79 years old. The intro is one of the best and imagine watching it with a big screen.
The building where Sebastian lives is the Bradbury Building, an office building in downtown Los Angeles built in 1893. It was restored in the late 1980s, after Blade Runner was filmed there. From what I've heard, the lobby of the building is open to the general public, but visitors are not permitted upstairs. The building is privately owned, but LAPD has a long-term lease on a portion of the building.
This is what good sci fi is all about: asking real questions, and letting the audience figure out the answers =)
I hope you'll react to 2049, it's a really excellent sequel, which you can hardly ever say. And if you do, you should also watch the shorts that take place in between the two films. Even if you don't react to those, at least watch them.
"I'm not so sure Tyrell is really that bad"
He's created artificial people, but given them feelings and memories - and possibly a 'soul' - simply so they would make better, more stable, and more efficient slave labor for construction, industrial mining, pleasure, and even military use in offworld colonies that people on Earth can move to after already destroying most of this planet with war, pollution, and corruption.
So, I would say Tyrell is definitely not a 'good' guy.
I don’t think that it is correct to say that Tyrell intentionally gave replicants feelings. With successive models of replicants, he pursued the technical challenge of making replicants more human; and the capacity to develop emotions was likely an unintended, emergent phenomenon. Giving replicants memories was then a reactionary design choice to counter the destabilizing emergence of emotions.
@@markhamstra1083 Most of your feelings and emotions are based on memories, though. Memories serve as cushion for people to draw back on when it comes to how to deal with stress, or keeping hope that someday things will get better, despite a current situation. It shapes your personality and a lot of other factors that make you who you are as a person.
They want replicants instead of robots because robots would need to be programmed exactly how to react to everything or perform tasks. An enhanced 'human' with memories and who can obey less specific orders successfully makes more sense than building a different robot for every task, as long as you don't have an issue with slave labor.
Tyrell clearly doesn't have an issue, which makes the whole idea of replicants gross. Creating something that is in almost every way human, but classifying them as less than human because it's 'easier' to think of them as less while they endure such horrible lives for everyone else's benefit - and then mercilessly killing them for rebelling against such hardship is inherently evil.
@@MrFuggleGuggle I’ll agree with most of what you wrote except for the strong assertion that feelings are based on memories. We really don’t know how cognition, self-awareness, emotions, memories, and similar “human-ness” work - certainly not in a way that would allow us to engineer them or even confidently assert that one of these entirely precedes or is the basis for another. There are theories in cognitive science, however, that it is not possible to have a high level of general intelligence without things like self-awareness and emotions also arising, whether this is intended or not. In other words, if your intention is to engineer a highly functional general intelligence and not something that is programmed or tightly linked to specific, well-defined and constrained tasks, then you are also going to need to contend with some degree of “un-programmed” emergent phenomena like self-awareness and emotions. I still don’t think that Tyrell specifically intended the replicants to have emotions or that he gave them memories so that they would develop emotions - I think he would have been happy with emotionless, ungrounded general intelligence, but that proved impossible. The themes and questions concerning the value and worth of non-human “human-ness” are at the core of both Blade Runner movies, though, and we can agree that much of Tyrell’s thinking and action in that regard is repugnant.
@@markhamstra1083 Isn't the entire point of the death data to keep them from developing full emotions?
@@ianburns1167 Death data?
"A difference that makes no difference is no difference" a line I first heard in the canceled-to-soon show Caprica(prequel to BSG) applies perfectly to this movie. On that topic, have either of you two seen Battlestar Galactica? That would be a show you both would highly enjoy! 😁
Oh yeah. And a young Captain Adama is here from Battlestar Galactica. :)
Believe it or not, that's from the first ever Star Trek origional novelization by James Blish called "Spock Must Die." Spock delivers the line in response to his being duplicated by the transporter. Blish had written the first adaptations of TOS in the 60s.
Simone: I want some more movie please.
Denis Villeneuve: There you go.
The chase through the 'Bradbury Building' (great sci fi name) is probably the best example of "a nightmare captured on film" that you will ever see.
I got to see the early 90's re-release in a theater, and this movie is breathtaking on a big screen.
Rutger Hauer's "Tannhauser Gate" monolog will go down as the best ad-lib in movie history.