BLADERUNNER | REACTION | First Time Watching!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ค. 2023
- Join Maple as she dives into the dystopian world of "Blade Runner." Experience her reactions to the thrilling developments, including the intense confrontation between Rick Deckard and the Replicant Roy Batty, and the underlying philosophical questions about humanity and artificial intelligence.
The intrigue intensifies when Deckard is given the task of retiring Rachael, a Replicant who has implanted memories and is unaware of her own nature. However, his mission is complicated when he finds himself developing feelings for her, leading to unexpected consequences for Deckard and the narrative's larger framework.
Maple's journey takes a thrilling turn when she examines the iconic "Tears in Rain" monologue, exploring its implications about empathy, mortality, and the blurred lines between humans and Replicants. Witness Maple's analysis of these plot twists, and her predictions for what these could mean in a potential future.
Experience the entire reaction video on Patreon: / diegesischad .
Follow Maple as she continues to delve into the mysteries of "Blade Runner." Her unique insights and fresh perspectives make each movie breakdown a gripping journey!
Stay connected with Maple for more reaction videos and analyses of trending films. Follow Maple at / mapledivine .
If you love immersive and thoughtful video reactions, like, comment, and subscribe to the channel for more. Don't miss out on Maple's journey through "Blade Runner" and an array of other captivating films. - บันเทิง
Roy wanted to live so badly, that at the end he saved Deckard's life.
He realized that "life", not just his, but ALL life is sacred
I also believe he saved Deckard's life for that same reason. But I also think he wanted him to witness his final thoughts as he died.
31:25 *Roy* drives the nail through his hand because he's starting to feel himself shut down.
Yep, just like me pinching myself or pointing my pen something to my plam to keep myself awake during a long, boring meeting. 😂
Also echoes Jesus - sacrifice, savior, etc.
And his dying hand was the one used to grab Deckard, symbolizing his triumph over death.
He refused to go gentle into that good night.
@@CleverMonkeyArt And he is literally "dying for our sins" (4 year life span so we can continue to use them as slaves/for our pleasure).
12:20 I could be wrong but I think the replicants aren't robots or anything like that, but rather lab grown humans that have been genetically engineered.
Correct.
Yea a replica mean a clone but clone can’t produce….for now lol
I think they're technically robots/androids. But they're so advanced that they're basically indistinguishable from humans. Like they've advanced robotics so far that their moving parts are like ours: blood, nerves, muscle, etc. Kinda like the synthetics in the Alien franchise, but even more advanced.
You see all the animals in the movie are referred to as "artificial" and designed. Like robotics and genetics have both gone so far as to be one discipline now.
I dunno, that's how it always seemed to me.
@@wilder11 Sure, but why would they need "robotics" when the same "machinery" is built from human cells.
The entire point of the replicants is that they're indistinguishable from "natural" humans except for a few specific intentional demarcations, and the fact that they're treated as objects.
Correct. I think the initial scrawl confuses people. It should have informed that it moved from robotics to genetics to avoid confusion. They're robots in the way the cylons are in BSG. Because they aren't born they don't see them as human and use the robot terminology to dehumanize them, so they can justify murdering them and using them as slaves.
The reason it looks the way it does is both Blade Runner movies are Hard Boiled Detective movies. They're capturing the feel of the old B&W Film Noir movies. Like Third Man or The Maltese Falcon. It's a beautiful style. Everything today kind of looks the same tonally. Harder to get satisfying blacks on digital, so they avoid it. Digital lacks the subtle noise that makes the black more palpable. More real. Like the noise our own eyes add in low light.
True! I always noticed the visual noise.
It's not impossible to get it looking right with digital as long as you are recording in a RAW or ultra low compression format.
Especially with the advent of ML based image filtering it would surprise me if they cannot add film type noise in post production based on a given film stock.
@@mnomadvfx They at least have grains for types like 8mm, 35mm, & 70mm with coarse and fine. I don't know if they would have it for a particular year of Kodak 35mm, for example.
The Tears in the Rain monologue destroys me every time. One of the best moments in any movie I’ve seen
Plus it's very cool that it was the actor, Rutger Hauer, who wrote the monologue in a fit of inspiration the night before filming and brought it to Ridley Scott who thought it was better than the script and agreed to film it..
interesting how americans only consider american movies to be some of the best made ever, there's a lot of movies out there guys, always good to get out of the bubble
yeah, only surpassed by kevin spaceys rant in the back of the cop car in 7.
@@donrichards271 Also, the movie is set in 2019 - the same year that Rutger Hauer died.
Pedro sounds like pedo.
Roy was a mere moments from death when he fought Deckard, toyed with him. In the beginning and at the end of the movie you saw him stare at his hand and it tightened up-The death signs. He stuck the nail in his hand feel the pain, the adrenaline helped him live a bit longer.
"Is that a lighting thing or is that intentional?"
Yes.
Ridley Scott said he filmed with low lighting and put a lot of smoke to hide flaws in the sets, as he didn't have enough money to make the sets look good.
@@johnwong8146he's referring specifically to Maple's comment about the 'replicant eye' effect, not the lighting in general.
@@johnwong8146 Not just low light.
There are a whole bag of tricks for hiding low set detail by overlapping it with something else - including adding the rain, and the mist/fog that is about all the time too.
At the end of this movie, I'm thinking Roy is hoping to prove a point to himself: That a real live human would fight desperately, ferociously to survive, as he has.
As he comes to terms with his own death, he wants to know that he is doing what a real living thing would do and, in a way, validating his terrible actions up to now. Deckard's desperate attempts to survive against Roy, to try to kill him before he's killed, prove to Roy how much he himself truly has real life. At the end, sitting next to the fragile, weak man he could have so easily killed with his bare hands, Roy allows Deckard to live, and himself to die.
Deckard's fight for his life was a mirror image of Roy's own, and in the end, he could not allow himself to kill Deckard for simply doing what he has done: Desired with all his being to survive.
Nicely put.
Yeah agree, for me this is Roy's real life VK test. Deckard is the tortoise on its back belly baking in the sun. Roy chooses to help and proves he is human.
"More human than human."
33:22 -> The *white dove* the replicant is holding before he dies represents the soul. When he dies the dove flies away to the sky, implying that the replicant is not just a tool but has a soul.
The dove wasn't in the script. It was an idea by Rutger Hauer, who also famously improvised his "tears in rain" monologue.
RIP, Rutger! 😢😢
Your excellent performance is NOT lost like tears in the rain!
little correction..... he did not improvise the monologue, he did write it though
Everyone ALWAYS wonders where Roy got the white dove right after he walks out of a building full of genetically engineered creatures. 😂
The composer for this movie, Greek synth magician Vangelis (RIP, 1943-2022), is my favorite composer of all time. His music is magical, and though some of the movies he was involved with - 1492: Conquest of Paradise, Alexander, etc. - weren't the best, the music on the other hand was on point! In my view the finest synth musician of all time. I recommend checking out his music.
he wrote everything from memory, as he never learned to read or write sheet music! The dude was a legend
i found a vinyl for his album Spiral at a shop right next to my apartment for less than 5 bucks a couple months ago, very happy that day. hopefully i can also find a Blade Runner ost vinyl one of these days
Check out our post discussion here: th-cam.com/video/8-L3DSDXiJ8/w-d-xo.html
and check out her reaction to Bladerunner 2049 Watch along Here: Patreon: www.patreon.com/diegesischad.
Hopefully you read this before Maple watches 2049.
There are a couple animated works that happen between Blade runner and 2049.
Here they are in chronological order.
1. Blade Runner. The original Ridley Scott movie. set in the year 2019
2. Blade Runner Blackout 2022. Short film that sets up Blade Runner 2049.
3. Blade Runner: Black Lotus. A new animated television series on Adult Swim set 10 years after Blackout in the year 2032.
4. 2036: Nexus Dawn. Short film that sets up Blade Runner 2049.
5. Soldier. A side-quel stand alone movie that has little to do with the rest of the movies but is set in the same universe in the year 2039
6. 2048: Nowhere to Run. Short film that sets up Blade Runner 2049.
7. Blade Runner 2049. The Denis Villeneuve sequel to the original film.
If you skip 3 and 5 she will still have the gist of the franchise story ark.
It would also be super interesting to see Maple play Cyberpunk 2077. Even if it would just be her driving around Nightcity to see the sights.
Replicants are made of flesh and blood, so no computer chips.
Deckard dreamed about a unicorn so to make him a unicorn you have to know about his dreams.
What makes this film special is the combination of visuals and music. The sparkling synth chimes perfectly describe the glowing neon lights in the rainy night. The world looks real, lived in, grungy and messy and the set designs have so much detail. The sequel lacks most of this, but it's a good continuation of the story.
Vangelis + Scott/Cronenweth/Mead is trippy as fcuk, and I love it to bits! 😎
I do think that BR2049 is a good continuation of the story for the most part, but the end is very unsatisfying to me.
Also like basically almost everything Harrison Ford has been in for the last 10-15 years his performance feels very phoned in but for one significant scene which they probably filmed first to get him at his least grumpy.
Ford really does just need to retire - he's basically just coming across as a grumpy old fart that doesn't even want to be on set, but can't think of a better way to spend his time than making films.
@@mnomadvfx Ugh gimme a CS-80 right now.
Ridley Scott reinvented the science fiction genre twice with Alien and Blade Runner. There has been a decades long debate about whether Harrison Ford is a replicant or not. What do you think?
I think the directors cut with the unicorn dream makes it clear that he is.
Ridley Scott gets too much credit, he didn't write the book this is based on. He just directed the movie.
@@mrg0th1er83official canon of the movies is that Decard is human
The aesthetic is designed to be both futuristic but also a throwback to the detective movies of the late 40s and early 1950s
Deckard isn't a replicant, because that would undermine the entire theme of the movie.
In short: The replicants are inhuman beings acting upon very human emotions and fear of death, while Deckard is a human who has become hardened, emotionless, and has lost his humanity because of the grind of modern (future) life and his terrible, soul-crushing, job. In the end, his humanity is restored to him because one artificial being needs his love and shows him love in return, while the other shows him mercy and respect for life.
You can see why those themes are completely lost if Ford's character is also artificial, just like them. NO ONE who worked on the film had any intention of Deckard being a replicant but, after that rumor got started, Ridley Scott started playing it up, because that's who he is. He goes off the rails with kooky ideas very easily, and it's usually up to a coworker to bring him back down to earth and make something coherent.
The thing with the eyes just happens if you reflect a light off of someone's retinas in the right way (that's why people end up with red-eye in photos). With Rachael, it was intentional, but Ford was close enough in that one scene that his eyes picked up the light they had on Sean Young.
Roy put the nail through his hand because his body was shutting down and he was trying to shock or stimulate his hand into working properly.
Fans of the terribad "Deckard is a replicant" theory interpret the unicorn dream as somehow meaning that Deckard is a replicant... for some weird reason, and that the origami unicorn Gaff leaves at his apartment means he knows Deckard is one.
A much more reasonable interpretation is that Rachel is represented by the unicorn. Unicorns are pure, beautiful, unique creatures. The word is often used to mean something too good to be true, so good that it's hard to believe it could exist. Deckard dreams of one because he desperately needs beauty and purity in his ugly life. Rachel is that beauty and purity and is unique among replicants (firstly, because she was made to believe she was human, to behave in such a human way that she could hopefully even fool the Voight-Kampff test, secondly, in some versions of the movie they reveal she has no expiration date, unlike all other replicants).
The origami unicorn is left behind by Gaff so that Deckard knows that he had been at the apartment. It ramps up the tension of whether Rachael is dead, which has been mounting ever since Gaff mentioned her after Batty's death scene. Even after Deckard uncovers her, there's a moment we don't know whether she's alive, until she moves and speaks, letting us know that, for whatever reason, Gaff chose to spare Rachael's life.
Why did Gaff choose a unicorn? Maybe he sees in Rachael what Deckard does, or simply recognizes how rare she is. At the end of the day, though, it's weird that people think the unicorn is all about Deckard and that he's a replicant, when the line they play as it is picked up is a direct reference to Rachael.
No. CGI. All Models. Amazing time in Hollywood when you had to be very creative and still be able to capture the viewers, Mind, Bodyand Soul🔥💯
It's the future with the 1930s '40s backdrop, You see that in the buildings, The police station and the clothing.
You need to buy the soundtrack. It's freaking Amazing! (Vangelis, Greek Composer)
fun fact: Vangelis, the composer of the phenomenal soundtrack for the film, did not read sheet music or wrote any of his compositions in the traditional style. He is most famous for the Chariots of Fire soundtrack
"Vangelis developed an interest in music at age four, composing on the family piano and experimenting with sounds by placing nails and kitchen pans inside it and with radio interference. When he was six his parents enrolled him for music lessons, but Vangelis later said that his attempts to study "failed" as he preferred to develop technique on his own. He considered himself fortunate to have not attended music school, as he believed that it would have impeded his creativity. He never learned to read or write music, instead played from memory. "When the teachers asked me to play something, I would pretend that I was reading it and play from memory. I didn't fool them, but I didn't care."
edit: another fun fact! As you mentioned the amazing set design at 15:39, the same set designer would go on to create the sets for the Koopa Underworld in The Super Mario Bros. Movie (the one with Bob Hoskins)
Thematically, the film needs Deckard to be human. He is the baseline you measure the replicants against. When Roy saves Deckard he becomes more human than the human.
Actually he is human after all, but an replicant too
@@darealtreegardner6165 he's a replicant in that he's a slave to the system too, but no, he is not a genetic replicant and the sequel proves that. The writer of the original movie said he isn't as well.
My absolute favorite film; of any genre'. Many have surmised that Deckard is a replicant. He's not. This film is based on the book, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"
Here are some mainstream film and Television series based on his works.
The Man in the High Castle (TV Series)
Electric Dreams (TV Series)
The Adjustment Bureau
A Scanner Darkly
Paycheck
Minority Report
Total Recall
Blade Runner and by relation Blade Runner 2049.
The music is entirely the work of Vangelis. Pronounced "Van - jealous"
As we say in Texas; y'all be safe.
3:50 Fun fact, the other Bladerunner, Gaff is played by Mexican actor James Edward Olmos, who also played Commander Adama in the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, which was just full of Bladerunner references
2049 is massively under appreciated
Honestly, one of the best performances from Ryan gosling
@@juliusperseus8612 That would certainly be an improvement.
Agree. Pacing is better. The first was more groundbreaking, especially the visuals, but as a movie i actually like the new one more. And i also liked the evil robot chick, she was a great killerbot.
@@juliusperseus8612 Well, they have a copy of the Tears in rain tune at the end, when K is lying on the stairs in the snow.
@@kevindorn2508 hah Luv was straight terrifying yea
Decker was never intended originally to be seen as a replicant but when the theory hit the some reviews they sort of went along with it and kept it ambiguous as a way of feed the hype (According to Scott)
Deckard not Decker, by the way.
It wasn't that ambiguous in the film.
The unicorn dream that Deckard has combined with Gaff leaving a unicorn origami figure outside his apartment is enough to give a solid foundation for believing that he was a replicant.
Add in the shot where he is out of focus behind Rachel with the weird eye effect + Rachel asking if he ever took the VK test and it all fits together pretty well.
The whole "it was ambiguous" messaging started after BR2049 came out.
@@mnomadvfx The unicorn dream was added 10 years after the release of the film because Scott wanted to hint that Deckard is a replicant. A childish idea that ruins the narrative. The people who actually wrote it say that he's definitely human and they should know. Harrison Ford also vehemently states that he played Deckard as human as the writers intended.
Ridley Scott made 2 good films Alien and Blade Runner and then later went on to ruin both at a later stage. He's an idiot.
Scott recently admitted that he is a replicant.
@@eugenegrewing2587 Scott's opinion is of no consequence. The writers wrote him as human and their opinion is all that matters. There was no question about it until Scott added that stupid unicorn dream ten years after the film came out.
Why no one remember the whole "virtually identical to a human" line in the opening crawl?
I think the use of the term "Robot" misleads many people who watch the movie the first time. They are genetically engineered human slaves but since the big leap in genetics took place in the 90s I'm not sure how familiar people where with the terminology in the early 80s.
@@nur418777 I know. They mention the term Robot once in the opening crawl, but several times they use terms like "genetic designer" and "god of bio-mechanics". It does seem to confuse people.
1:53 Vangelis = Genius
One of my favourite movies, the mixture between a gumshoe 40's detective movie with sci-fi is just brilliant, the original had too much narration from Ford, added because the studio thought Americans were too dumb to understand the movie, no, really. There's recording of Harrison doing the voiceover and complaining that it's dumb. The narration is kind of like the narration you get in old detective movies though.
6:57 It's pretty much corduroy, no?
13:05 The fact everyone knows about the movie, Daryl Hannah wasn't meant to put her arm through that window, she slipped and cut herself up pretty bad and still finished the scene.
20:03 Yes, Very quick Maple ! Well done !
35:30 It is and written by Rutger Hauer himself
Well, so far, you are the only reactor who picked up on deckard's eyes in that scene.
Definitely.
Not only that, but the unicorn origami suggests that Gaff knows of Deckard's unicorn dream. How would Gaff know?
@@Micah_4D That unicorn scene was added to the film 10 years after its release.
Yeah, as I understand it the unicorn scene (and the suggestion that Deckard had Gaff's memories) was planned but dropped as part of the producer interference that gave us the (unjustly?) maligned voiceover.
The unicorn insert in the Final Cut is from Legend (I think)
Love how the CC always writes it as "Welcome to Diet Jesus".
You're not overthinking it. Blade Runner is one of the defining works in the Cyberpunk genre, major themes of which are examining and questioning what it means to be human. In Blade Runner they're genetically designing, body parts and assembling them into a product, but it's very much a Ship of Thesious situation. If you put together a human mind, a human heart, human eyes, etc etc. You've manufactured a human. Is it less human for being manufactured? Does it deserve the same rights as a human born?
First film I saw Rutger Hauer in was Lady Hawk with Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Broderick! One of my favourite medieval themed movies! The other is Excalibur!
Sean Young is a gorgeous woman!❤
The rich and dense set dressing of this movie (especially in the outdoor city streets) is because a writers strike hit when the movie was in pre-production. They had all the staff already hired, so the set dressers just kept making props and costumes until the strike was resolved. The movie had a much longer period of constructing props and sets than intended and it shows.
@34:00 - I"ve seen this movie a million times... I have never noticed a religious connection with the white dove and nail in hand. thank you for this review! Wow!
You were quite right about the question if it's warranted to kill them or not. However, this movie only asks questions, it doesn't answer them. The answers are up to you.
What does it mean to be human? What if something is more human than human? When is murder warranted? The replicants are slaves. Is it right for them to kill to gain their freedom? Is it warranted to kill them? They begin as children at best and slowly learn emotions and with that can come compassion, of which they have little to begin with. However, we don't kill children, just because they act up. And so on.
I think the street scenes were all filmed in a very old studio lot for generic street scenes from the 50s.
They just added neon lights and some mechanical bits, and then added lots of rain while filming at night.
The takeaway you need from this movie going into the sequel, is people disagree whether Deckard is a replicant or not. There’s an interview with the two directors of the two respective movies, in which they too disagree on the subject. I’ll leave it at that, to avoid spoiling anything. But keep it in mind going into the next movie.
One of my favorite films. We used to use that Vangelis soundtrack for ambient music in the theater I worked at, for me it makes the whole movie. You had great insights about the filming, lighting and such. The directory Ridley Scott is known for his style with lighting and framing, he makes ethereal, beautiful movies even when it is something more mundane. Roy Batty is such a great portrayal and a lot of that lies with Rutger Hauer skill as an actor; RIP.
Stoked to see you watch 2049. To me it is as good, if not better than this one and Denis Villeneuve does justice to this film. Bladerunner had a big impact on many filmmakers and lots of folks have tried to emulate the "Bladerunner" look to will various results.
The most influential sci fi movie
Ridley Scott bought the rights to the book "The Blade Runner" by Alan Nourse just because he wanted the name. The book was about underground medical services and smuggling so there the name Blade Runner made much more sense than it does for this film.
Shout out to James Hong (eye man) who was recently the dad in Everything Everywhere all at Once
I liked your comments about the lighting. Why it worked for me is that it gave you the impression of a large, bustling city, but at the same time made every single room seem isolated and claustrophobic. Even the outdoor scenes were shot in a way where either the architecture or the dense crowds made them tiny and cut off. You rarely see from one room into another, you never see casual activity through a background window, but you do see the swinging halo lights reminding you that the world is happening in the background.
I saw it in ‘82. I was 12. The future seemed, tech wise, a plausible one.
Example: we flew to visit my grandparents the year of the bicentennial (1976). He picked us up from the airport.
I remember him saying, with a mix of awe and nostalgia, that he saw the Wright Brothers flyer (the first airplane) fly as a boy…and lived to pick up his grandchildren who just flew into an airport on a “Jumbo jet”.
The march of technology in the 20th Century was mind numbing to live through.
We played“pong” on our TV in the 70’s, and I’m typing this response on an iPhone.
It’s the computer equivalent of my grandfather’s experience with seeing the development of air travel advancements.
The world setting of a 2019 Blade Runner seemed a very possible one in 1982.
Enjoy the movie!
I think the Replicants in Blade Runner are actually synthetic biologicals rather than machines, although the ones in the short story it's based on were not.
Parts of the "Tears in th rain" monologue were improvised. Rutger Hauer was a great actor.
"where is the light actually coming from?"
someone asked the late Andrew Lesnie, who shot the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where the light was coming from during Helm's Deep. he replied, "from the same place as the music." it's a movie. if being hyper ultra realistic in everything is the goal of the particular film, that's fine, but it's very specific and limited. for the most part, movies are just movies and they are not trying to accurately represent realistic lighting etc. everything you see or hear in a serious movie is deliberate art.
Showing my age and maybe an unpopular opinion, but I liked the voice over version. It gives the dialog you would read in a book and certain parts are very important like what he says here at 34:00.
Deckard : [narrating] 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.
[last lines]
Deckard : [narrating] Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special. No termination date. I didn't know how long we had together... Who does?
Respect to the editor for making it so we all could hear the dialog at the end.
There is a version narrated by Deckard. It omits the unicorn dream. There was enough existential crisis for both replicants and humans without getting into dreams. It's more of a straight detective noir story, but sci fi. Many do not like the narration version, but it's my favorite.
The biggest problem with it is Harrison Ford hated the narration and thought it was stupid...and you can hear it. :D
@@t1mpani I think Harrison Ford intentionally did a bad job narrating, because he assumed that the studio would never release such a cut. But they did anyway.
Man, I really cant tell how many times Ive watched this movie. Ridley Scott's obsessive eye for detail, Vangelis' awesome score that I own and have listened to hundreds of times itself, the themes and philosophies, the endlessly debated ending, the career defining performances. God, I love it so much.
Yesn't.
You can't highlight the score composer without highlighting the futurist/set and prop designer Syd Mead who basically designed most of the overall visual look of the film - or the cinematographer Jordan Cronenweth responsible for lighting it and camera/lens choices, plus of course Douglas Trumbull's amazing visual effects work
Directors are often over emphasized over visuals while great talents are ignored 😭
The version where Deckerd does voice over, explains things better. Remember Tyrell said she was 1 of a kind...she was made with an indefinite life span!😮😮
The explanation voice over was not intended to be added in by any of the film makers though - including Ford himself who very much disliked recording it.
This was added after the producers fired Ridley to push out the film faster - and producers typically are not the greatest for creative instincts 😏
The producers firing Ridley also left certain shots unfinished until the Final Cut was put together in the mid 2000s.
The statement from Gaff "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" was intended to telegraph that Rachel would die just like the rest of the replicants.
This was something that the producers were just waiting to change after Ridley was gone and add in the happy ending which was basically cut in cheaply with B roll car footage from The Shining intro scene.
The Final Cut from 2007 is as close as possible to the original vision before Ridley was canned from the production - everything else is just bean counters wreaking havoc on artwork.
It's weird that everybody seems to miss that the replicants are completely biological humans - not robots. They are genetically engineered and artificially produced but still organic humans.
They knew as much about cinematography and lighting as we do now. All those choices were deliberate. I'd take a beautiful film like this over nearly any modern release.
Correction: the camera and lighting departments on this film knew waaaaaaayyyyyy more than the average crew today! So many idiots today will use the latest and greatest Red camera and somehow still underexpose!!! Can't tell you how many direct to digital films I've seen in the last 5 years that have crushed Blacks. (Yep, I'm looking at you Game of Thrones.)
Greatest science fiction movie ever for me. So cerebral and dark. The book it's based on is also fantastic
Though it a rather short one, about 100 pages over all. Almost passes off as a short story. The title is "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep".
@@NiersFloater most were back then, also it's 210 pages so there's still plenty of content
The "Blade Runner" films take place in the same universe as the "Alien" films.
Maple is my favorite! Can't believe this channel hadn't done Blade Runner yet.
Most of the architecture, interior decor, and costume are a futuristic re-imagining of the styles of the 1930's and 1940's. It gives the entire production a film noir vibe. Also the styles of that period are among the most elegant and sophisticated ever created. I think it's a major contributor to how well the film has aged visually.
Rutger Hauer is a freaking legend. He improvised the Tears in Rain monologue, and that is what cements this film in cinema/art history. It was so perfect, in all the ways it needed to be. Take those creative chances in the moment, folks. They matter.
No he didn't that's an old myth that need to go away. He had a longer script that he shortened with the director's permission.
@@group-music Gonna need a source for that, my guy. Abundant sources say otherwise.
@@Joshu_Y I heard Rutger Hauer explain it in one of the Making Of Blade Runner documentaries.
It warms my heart that Maple knows about Old Gregg and The Mighty Boosh!
when you were grimacing you missed the moment when sebastian told priss about his genetic disease that causes him to age prematurely, it's ironic and sad because he and the replicants have a limited life span
I first saw this movie after winning tickets to see it on its initial release in 1982. I was eleven years old at the time. It’s important to understand and appreciate how important this film is. When it was released it was considered a financial bomb. The critics didn’t get it, the public at large didn’t get it either. But still the hard core sci-fi fans did.
This movie has always been there. I saw it at a time when I’d seen Star Wars, Planet Of The Apes ( the original 1969 version) and of course the other usual suspects.
But Blade Runner was different. It looked and felt real and back in 1982 the year the movie is set in ( 2019) 2:07 still felt like the far flung future. Everything in the movie felt plausible. The overcrowded cityscape, the pollution and of course the constant rain.
But it was the replicants who stayed with me or I should say the question they needed to be answered.
What does it take to be human? Who am I? What is my purpose? How long have I got?
All they wanted was a longer lifespan, they had experienced what life had to offer them and they just wanted more of it.
That “request” had always seemed undeniably “human” to me.
A four year life span? That’s only a taste and it hardly seemed fair then or now.
A massive influence on me as a child and even to this day.
"What ya doing in my waters?" Never did I ever expect to hear a Mighty Boosh reference on this channel and I am all for it.
Does this mean Maple hasn’t seen 2049 yet?!!
When I left that theater I said to myself “That was the most satisfying movie I’ve ever seen”. So unexpectedly solid.
she has now and loved it
These are the questions we need to be asking NOW. Like in Ex-Machina... some guy builds an AI in his basement, in his mind that is just a machine. It is just parts that he has assembled together. Yet if those parts can feel, can reason, can hurt, can love or hate, do those parts deserve rights ?
After all what are we but biological parts that have been genetically assembled together.
The scenes were filmed in studios or on the Warner Bros studio lot which is why it is all at night, drenched in neon and constant rain. That lot was filmed in thousands of movies.
The score is from Vangelis and is well worth buying.
The scene where Pris (Darryl Hannah) runs from Sebastian and breaks the glass of his van was not scripted. That glass was not safety glass and gave Hannah a nasty gash down her arm, but like a trooper she covered her arm in her coat and finished the scene which is in the final cut.
Both this film and BL:2049 are terrific films.
Roy's 'tears in the rain' monolog at the end was ad libbed by Rutger Hauer. It was so good they kept it in the movie. The debate about Deckard possibly being a replicant has been going for 40 years. I think it takes away from Roy saving him if he is a replicant, so I choose to agree with Harrison Ford that Deckard is human. Your insight in regards to the costumes was very interesting and something I had not appreciated before. Thank you for the review.
Daryl Hannah who plays priss plays such a sweet character after this in Splash with Tom Hanks and John Candy. So different.
not very sweet in kill bill
The main reason they experimented with giving replicants emotions was to keep them from becoming unstable as they aged. The violence and instability aren't an inherent part of what a replicant is. Tyrel wasn't lying when he called them more human than human.
A replicant is a fully grown adult with physical and mental prowess five times or more greater than any human but with the emotions of an infant. Think of any four year old child. How many have any sort of real control over their own emotions or don't have tantrums or outbursts? Add to that being so much more than smart enough to know what's happening to you but have no way to control it. To watch yourself go quite literally psychotic while you can only watch from within.
That's what was going on with Roy throughout the film. He knew he had only a day or two left to live. He drove the nail through his hand to restore function. Using the pain to keep the nerves active for that just a bit longer.
The way Tyrell dresses is taken directly from a film made in the 1920s and set in 'the future'; 'Metropolis' directed by Fritz Lang.
It's difficult for modern audiences to watch, due to being a silent, black and white movie, but much of what is happening in Metropolis complements Blade Runner as well, and it's worth comparing.
In case you didn't catch it in the beginning when Bryan was talking to Deckard, Priss (blonde) was a pleasure model. Leon was the muscle. Zorra, I'm not really sure what exactly her purpose is as a replicant in the Off-World (Alien franchise). Of course, Roy is the leader. Their behavior, their emotional reactions were erratic, not quite the way they should be. Again, it harps back to Bryan's exposition about replicants developing their own emotional responses. Key word being developing. Let that sink in when thinking about Rachel and Deckard's intimacy scene. Gaff's origami animals symbolize his opinions of Deckard. You'll have to review the video again to catch them all. Another "sink in" moment is the unicorn origami AND Deckard's unicorn dream. I think your lightbulb about your head flickered about Deckard. One final thought, yes, Roy's final scene is filled with symbolism. From revenge, to the nail leading to his redemption, to saving Deckard with his weak hand seeing Deckard's life being more precious than his revenge, not to mention the greatest improv monologue in cinematic history, to the dove flying upwards representing his soul. Incredible movie.
Bladerunner was filmed at a Warner Bros. backlot and at The Bradbury Building in LA California.
So much work went into the making of this movie. All the scenes inside Sebastian's apartment building were filmed at the Bradbury Building in L.A. Ridley Scott was only allowed to film at night under the condition that everything was in pristine shape. So the crew set up the sets every night and tore them down every morning. It really took its toll on the people working on the film.
Not sure if it was mentioned yet, but the Alien movies and Blade Runner are in the same universe. The Tyrel corporation owns the mining ship and colonies in the Alien franchise, the cyborgs in the Alien movies are also made by the Tyrel corporation. When they talk about off world mining and exploration in Blade Runner, they are talking about the Alien movies.
Don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but this movie was made before realistic CGI was possible.
That whole city scape you loved in the beginning of the film was hand made models about four feet high.
One of the many, many interesting questions to me involves Deckard's lack of agency, which comes from being under the thumb of the system, compared to the Replicants... We're not so different.
My favorite movie of all time. This movie meets "Trapped on an Island" criteria and is among the greatest true Sci-fi movies of all time.
RIP Rutger Hauer
I understand that you need to talk over the movie in order to make the video, and you have got the subtitles on, but please, please, do yourself a favour and watch it again off-camera when you can really _listen_ to it and _feel_ it. Some of the most beautiful things about this movie are the soundscapes and the atmospheres, the moments and the pauses, and I can't help feeling that you didn't really get a sense of those watching it for a reaction vid and having to comment on everything.
You mentioned that you like the music: it's by Vangelis, and the soundtrack is widely available on CD. It's absolutely beautiful, and yes, you can totally fall asleep to it.
It's funny you saying that it looks "very eighties" because what they were going for in 1982 was a throwback to 1940s film-noire detective stories. Your persepective is, I suspect, the result of Bladerunner being so influential in the intervening decades.
Roy was dying at the end, which is why he stuck the nail through his hand to get the andrenalin boost to keep himself going. I think you're right about it being an allusion to Christ on the cross: that's never struck me before, despite having seen the movie countless times. The dove came from a dovecoat on the roof: you can see it in the background of some shots. You're also right about Deckard being a replicant: he dreamed of a unicorn, the Gaff (fedora man) left him a unicorn origami to let him know that he'd been to his apartment and decided to let Rachel live. That means that Gaff knows what Deckard's dreams are, and he can only know that if he's seen his 'creation notes'.
I saw this multiple times in the theater when it first came out. So much fun watching another generation get so much out of it.
Roy's hand was starting to cramp up on him. He shoved the nail in it, to make it relax.
Stuff
1. Joe Turkel/Tyrell played Lloyd (bartender) in the original Shining.
2. Roy/Rutger Hauer😇 plays in Blind Fury a great first time/share.
3. Leon/ Brion James in Tango and Cash. Much bigger role first time/share also.
4. Deckard/Harrison Ford two overlooked must first time/share "Witness" and "Force 10 from Naverone".
5. In the original Roy tells Tyrell, "I want more life FUCKER" not father.
6. Ford disliked almost everything about this movie (including Sean Young). He mostly disliked the voiceover. He refused to even watch it until it was "fixed".
7. Daryl Hannah cut her elbow when she ran into that van window
8. Philipe K Dick first came up with the idea for his novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
9. You must watch Blade Runner 2049.
Imagine seeing this movie as a boy in a language you didn't understand and knowing that the movie was just... spectacular-my same reaction to Kubrick's 2001, The Thing (1982). Sometimes I miss that simplicity. When a movie impacts you deeply without understanding much of what's happening, it's a sign of greatness!
19:58 the first reactor I've ever seen that noticed Deckard's eyes light up. I thought I was crazy bc I thought it was clearly seeable, but very few other people noticed. Maybe it depends a lot of your display, I dunno 🤷♂
probably monitor related
Times where CGI didn't exist, nothing could be recreated in computers, that's why it's incredible what they achieved in this movie, all you see are scale models of the city and the flying cars filmed, and overprints of one image with another, like the cars filmed on green screen and then printed over the images of the city.
25:50 makes her earlier "It's so DRAMATIC" quip just...yeah. :D
That man with his fedora and his cane as you call him is THE MAN. That's Edward James Olmos.
I believe it was Ridley Scott's orginal intention to question Decker's humanity.
Roy got the dove from the room with all the doves in which, you just saw he and Deckard fighting.
"Guys... Guuuuyyys!" 😅 (This was her reaction to the Deckard's eyes.)
It's a movie about experiances how they affect us no matter how short of a journy/life we have. I look back at all the stories my father told me, they live on in me now. How important experiances, the images we carry inside us are to us. Much like the photos the "replicants" carry with them... We are what we experianced, we live for the experiances no matter good or bad. They shape us, they make us who we are. In the end all we can hope for is peace. They both fought for life, but it changed them. Different perspectives of the same thing.
"I don't know what the unicorn meant, but I know what that means."
LMAO don't worry Maple, NOBODY knows what the damn unicorn means.
lol
Nice to know corduroy made a comeback in 2019.
Not fish scales, guitar picks for midgets.
Human eyes naturally do that, just not as brightly, but they reflect red.
The final fight with Roy in the book is much less exciting, only a couple of paragraphs, but Roy's "retirement" is similar to Pris with the thrashing.
I love this movie, not the hottest take I know. Regarding the problematic sex scene, I think it was actually Sean Young who said that Harrison Ford can only play love scenes two ways, angry or weepy. Of course, back then it was still close to the time of "no means yes", even though that was changing.
Keep in mind, Tyrell flat out said that replicants are not good at dealing with emotion, because they lack experience. Given that I don't see how ANYONE could doubt that there are TWO replicants in the room, neither of which (though they may have memories that make them think they have) have ever had sex, is my take on why the sex scene is intentionally awkward. Like Maple said, "So dramatic" just like a poorly written romance novel. It's the blind coming on to the blind.
@@AndyMatts44 What's your point? I mean, you can pedantically and sarcastically say that human males NEVER have epiphanies about valuing life in the real world, so there's no symbolism to Roy's holding of the dove at the end, but if you did say that, I would say that you're arguing to hear yourself argue. Actually, I can say that now. It probably sounded really clever in your head. Wait...are you having trouble--in the real world--with emotional intimacy, and have concocted an argument just to have contact with someone, even in the fleeting, soul-less confines of the internet? You okay there? Do you dream of electric sheep?! Revel in your time!
Sad fact - Blade Runner is set in 2019, Rutger Hauer passed away in 2019.
Vangelis does the music for this and quite a few other films. Another favorite OST he did was for the film Antarctica.
If you enjoy the Blade Runner films, you might take a look at an early 1960s film 'Creation of the Humanoids' and see the number of similarities. It was made about 5 years before Philip K Dick wrote 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' the story Blade Runner is based on. I don't know if PKD was ever aware of the film but there are a lot of similar ideas. It's on TH-cam, it's very cheesy and slow paced worthy of an MST3K treatment but an interesting curiosity.
Deckard and Rachel, the kiss is like something out of a Raymond Chandler novel, Sam Spade and some femme fatale. I think Rachel doesn't trust her feelings because she is a replicant. She's questioning if what she feels is her real feelings or what she's programmed to feel. She's asking herself are her feelings toward Deckard hers as Rachel or how Tyrell's niece would feel. Deckard is pushing her to get past that self-doubt, also he's just a jerk sometimes.
The police profiles
Pris is a pleasure unit, a sex slave, hence Pris is so cute acting as well as a terrible fighter relatively speaking.
Leon is a weapons loader, an army grunt
Zora is an assassin
Roy is a combat soldier/leader
Great choice to react to, this movie always inspired me alongside Ghost in the Shell, the subject matter of both films cuts right to the heart of what it means to be human. The idea that memories can be falsified and altered in a person just hits so deeply upon the human experience, what if you lived your entire life believing you were one person and then at 30 being told those memories were someone elses... or someone hacked into your brain and altered those memories, how could you ever trust your own experience?
Blade Runner 100% influenced Ghost In The Shell too.
deckard banging on the walls around rachel, then being sensual with her were the final tests. both tested her fight / flight response. replicants have an overdeveloped fight / flight response, so when they are stressed, they do an extreme one or the other. that's what the voight-kampff test was designed to do.
deckard making out with rachel, with his eyes open, was to see what her eyes were doing. he was seeing if her eyes were either constricting, dilating, or entering rapid eye movement stage.
the end fight scene, with deckard and batty: batty's reaching his end of life cycle. his body was beginning to slow down / seize up. he put the nail through his hand, to feel sudden intense pain to stave off the paralysis. so, for the rest of the fight, batty does things that hurt himself AND deckard. batty's literally using pain to function, because he knows he about to die and he wants to take deckard with him.
The reason for the obsession with artificial animals is a philosophical ideal described in the orginal novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
"It's too bad she won't live - but then again, who does?" -- This quote GRIPS me
It's worth reading 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' the book that partially inspired this film.
You won't be disappointed, Philip K Dick was a very imaginative person, and his book is fundamentally different from Ridley Scott's film, as he points out that psychotic fake humans are not needful of our sympathy, the opposite of what Ridley Scott took from it and put in his film.
Roy Baty (the 'mad king' by the way) is faking humanity to escape punishment for his many crimes, which includes leading better people (the other 'andys' or replicants in the film) to their deaths. .
@4:22 "Looks like somewhere you'd have like a dream. Like, if you were dreaming about something..."
Dreaming of Electric Sheep, perhaps? ;)
edit: But this movie, Akira, and the first Ghost in the Shell adaptation basically established the entire visual aesthetic for the cyberpunk genre.
There are also 3 short films between the 2 movies.
When you get further along, the Blade Runner, Aliens, Prometheus franchises, as well as the movie Soldier, all exist in the same universe.
You almost got the question. The real question is not whether replicants have inherent rights but whether humans should have rights. Throughout most of human history, the answer was not what you likely would give.
While your answering these questions and probably thinking the replicants have lives and hopes and memories,, think on if they are different from my car, why they would merit something more than the junkyard at the end of useful life. My car knows where it is. Knows what happening around it. It senses other cars and objects approaching from rear sides and front, and it acts to preserve itself if it calculates that a collision is likely. It knows when it need food and when it need attention to keep it healthy. It knows when I am inside it or nearby. It converses over the Internet with its maker. And with me via Bluetooth connection to my phone. If it senses a violent event and my possible need to be helped, it calls 9-1-1 and reports the incident and its location. It adapts to the environment. What difference between it and a replicant, a manufactured entity. Or, for that matter, a human, another kind of bio-manufactured entity.
It's easy to throw around terms like "sentient." But what does it mean? Consider. You have never directly experienced anything. Anything your senses provide is processed by your non-conscious and the interpretation presented to your conscious, which is an evolved construct. Only your non-conscious ever learns, ever knows anything. You conscious is an illusion. YOU, your self, is an illusion. You can prove this in the laboratory where your mind acts on an observed stimulous before your illusery conscious experiences the stimulus.
There is an alternate ending to this film in which we Deckert narrates that Rachael was created without an end date, and we see them flying above what looks like a forest in the Northwest. This ending actually is a better fit with the sequel.
They established an excuse for the light beams waving all around. Those floating billboards had moving spotlights on them.
4:21 "Looks like somewhere you'd have like a dream, like, if you're dreaming about something, you know..."
Like... dreaming about electric sheep?