Fun Fact: Steven Spielberg was so convinced that he had annoyed the crew on Jaws, and they were going to throw him into the ocean, that he left as soon as the last shot was finished and immediately got on a plane
If you walk into a room and you're the one the cast and crew wish to leave in the ocean, you're probably an asshole...that's how that saying does right?
I find it hilarious that Ridley Scott directed Alien in London, then had trouble with the American crew on Blade Runner. While James Cameron made Terminator in the US and then hated the London crew on Aliens. Scott wasn't allowed to operate the camera for BR, while the English Aliens crew supposedly didn't like Cameron trying to get involved with every process. Finding out that directors weren't allowed to operate the camera back then sounds nuts.
Came here to say this. To the English crew working on Aliens, Cameron was also an upstart nobody from across the pond. They wanted to do things their established way (including taking tea breaks, for example) when Cameron knew he was working on a tight budget and a tight schedule. Cameron was used to (and demanded, often extremely bluntly) full commitment from his cast and crew on his (admittedly much smaller) previous projects.
I mean, you have to also take into account people just might be being truthful in order to not burn bridge or to keep tensions low. It's a crucial part of the show biz. Ford could just be different, maybe he didn't care, he definitely had the star power to shrug it off. Not to say Scott was inherently in any wrong, just saying that people's positive statements especially in publicity settings can't be blindly taken to heart
I think it's slightly unfair to say the whole cast disliked Ridley - it was really just Harrison. There are numerous interviews out there from Daryl Hannah, Rutger Hauer, Joanna Cassidy and Sean Young all saying how much they loved working on Blade Runner and enjoyed working with him.
In the original story, Deckard was worried all throughout, that he was a replicant. It was never revealed if he was or not. That was a theme in all of Phillip K Dick’s writing; what is real, is what we experience real or simply fantasy, is reality really reality?
In the original novel, Deckard is definitely human. But you are right that the consistent theme of Dick's writing is "what is reality...and does it matter?"
@@kirkdarling4120 Nah it was way more punk than that. DADOES wasn't so much 'why does it matter' and more like, 'look what we will let them do to us, given time.' It was a critique of people without empathy and a society that forces empathy out of us, making us, 'androids'. It was a metaphor for where society was headed in 1968 and he wasn't wrong.
Not what I remember. Deckard was always human. The real key themes were, "What makes a human a human?" The book answers the question with, "the ability to empathize is what makes us human". The book briefly mentions a replicant, who became an opera singer. The book asks, what does it mean when a robot gains the abilty to empathize? Does that make the robot a human? When Rachael finds out that the only reason why Deckard goes around killing replicants, is to be able to afford a real life sheep, she takes his sheep and throws it off a skyscraper ( the world is post-apocalyptic, and real life animals are ultra rare, which is why most people have cheap animatronic versions ). With regards to Deckard: What does it mean when a human loses their empathy? Does that make the human a robot? With regards to Rachael, and the society that we live in: What does it mean when a robot becomes "more human" than human? I actually find it quite sad that you got 47 upvotes, because you completely missed the point of the book. The meaning of the book is in the title, which is why he did not want the title changed...
I read the novel recently. Although the book clearly establishes that Deckard is human, there is ambiguity about whether one of Deckard's associates is a machine. The film---at least its later versions---surely presents this idea as a composite, managing to keep one of the book's themes intact. Indeed, the novel helped me better appreciate the movie. The film is a genuinely outstanding adaptation, one that I feel is stronger than its source material.
@@matteframe I don’t understand how you could act properly on that stuff though, based on the excessive obnoxiousness it brings out in those that do it…
@@gruphenio6787 Tolerance levels plus it depends on the person. With some people it's like having a coffee. They're so used to it they can function at work while high on it.
@@mkultra2456 it definitely doesn’t bring out the best in people’s personalities from what I’ve seen…it’s for people that need excess false confidence from having a numb face, whilst spangling around in a buzz during an arrogant/ narcissistic cloud dream….
@@gruphenio6787 you gotta stop believing everything you see on movies. its just an upper. you dont have to do fat lines to "do coke". its like saying "idk how people behave on alcohol! it just makes you spin and throw up!" a glass of wine and a handle of vodka are 2 completely different people. a bump and a fat line are 2 completely different people. coke doesnt mean scar face final scene.
Leaving Deckard's nature ambiguous worked way better than trying to say he was definitely human or definitely an android. The book leaves you with more questions than answers, especially with that mysterious cult that seems to have taken over the world, and how everyone seems to have forgotten the world before the war.
i could NEVER for the life of me understand this utter nonsense about 'replicants' being 'androids'; REPLICANTS are "bio-engineered" HUMANS, the result of extremely hi-tech gene splicing, editing etc. an 'android' is a MACHINE with a highly sophisticated 'AI' cognition system but a MACHINE all the same. as in 'BISHOP' from the first "ALIEN" movie? when damaged, what did we see come spurting out of his mouth? blood or the equivalent of hydraulic fluid? and when RUTGER HAUER'S character (ROY BATTY) is wounded, what do we see on his face? BLOOD. why does this weird but fairly obvious fallacy continue to obtain? in point of fact, one would think that anyone who has seen the sequel (BR:2049) would have had the question COMPLETELY sorted & settled once & for all time: ANDROIDS, DO NOT give BIRTH to OTHER ANDROIDS. derp. 🤖👶👀😹😳😬
unfortunately somewhere along the way ridley scott turned into a hack fraud who can't write his way out of a paper bag. Every movie after black hawk down, maybe gladiator if you're generous, has just been god awful. And of course he couldn't keep his hands off blade runner, shoving that stupid unicorn scene into it.
It depends on which version, in the original version it's unclear, or for most viewers wouldn't even get the idea he could be a replicant himself.. in the directors cut he definitely is, and no I don't care what Harrison says about it, since it's not the actor that defines what the movie is. That Harrison believes that Deckard is human is perfect, because Deckard believes it too.
@@frenchfriedbagel7035 if you decide to ignore things that dont fit what you want to see, and frame it "smart people do it", you are right. If you take the movie at face value, in the directors cut he is made a replicant no doubt.
Try watching Star Wars and when they're in the cockpit of the Falcon, keep an eye on Carrie Fisher's hands and try and spot her single massive fingernail / coke spoon
To be honest I'm not sure he did. Fisher, sure, but Ford is talking like a man who just took a whole bottle of antidepressants there. Like the inverse reaction.
It feels more like Ford is the issue. Haven't heard anyone say anything good about working with him. Negativity seems to follow him around, acting like he was forced to be an actor.
He hates Josh Harnett in Hollywood Homicide, he hates Shia Labouf in Indiana Jones 4 and who knows if there are more than I can mentioned. I sense a pattern he hates his co-star younger than him.
I honestly want to know if there’s ever been a role that he said he loved playing. I know that he has problems with being associated with Han Solo so much that he only agreed to play him again if the character was killed off and apparently he had issues with Bladerunner too. Don’t know if he had the same issues with Indiana Jones though. I can understand him having issues with not having a private life because of the roles he played but I’m sure there’s plenty of other actors in the same boat who still seem grateful for the opportunities they had so why is he the exception?
True to a certain degree. Even a director can be a complete moron with their work. So it's good to have people to remind you when something is stupid and won't work. Sometimes you can also have a situation with a director where they're a complete megalomaniac with their work and go completely off-script from the book they're making a movie of.
Ridley Scott is a great director but whatever happened on the set of this movie elevated it high above everything else he has done, including Alien. There will never be another movie like this.
Visually? Sure. But, and I say this as a fan of the film, many of the plot beats and especially the acting weren't anything particularly special. I think the pacing and tone fall apart when things get to JF Sebastian's apartment with his weird living sex dolls.
The trouble with working with people who all consider themselves the expert and not prepared to concede they are not the director. I am glad Ridley stuck to his guns and the comment above about F Sebastian’s sex dolls I cannot say that I ever considered thats what they were 😳lol. For me Bladerunner is one of the all time greats.
Harrison Ford's reasoning for why he resisted Deckard being a replicant only reinforces how strong Ridley Scott's idea was. An audience sympathizing with a character who exists just as a human does with all their thoughts, feelings, instincts, and actions yet not realize they aren't "real" until it's revealed to them is thought-provoking. Because then in what sense would Deckard's humanity be any less substantial than before we discovered his artificial origins? This is especially evident in Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty- a villain who we learn was actually just trying to fight for his right to exist on his own terms. That's the beauty of Blade Runner.
By Deckard being human, we as the audience can directly sympathize with Roy just as Deckard did in the end. Because he, like us, is human (and therefore a spectator of injustice) - if it was ultimately explicitly revealed that Deckard was a replicant, it would take us out of our seats and make it so we are only able to sympathize with Deckard on a superficial level since it would make him a victim of the same injustice endured by Roy, and cheapen the purpose of Roy saving Deckard from falling as well as his monologue (where he explains to Deckard and us spectators by extension, that he has seen and experienced incredible things that we could never believe). The reason 2049 worked where I'm sure the OG would have failed, is they revealed that K was a replicant in the middle of the movie (edit: Re-iterating this point thanks to RuniqFrost - K went through an emotional rollercoaster that had him doubting his replicant status that was established from the start - this doubt is explored well with K leading to a satisfying payoff, it was not explored in such depth with Deckard so I still end with my original conclusion.) , leaving the rest to explore him coming to grips with this realization - we see his anger, frustrations, and discovery of a newfound purpose. If the ending of the OG was that Deckard was also a replicant hunting his own kind, the experience falls flat because we won't ever see how Deckard deals with this realization nor how it affects his direction going forward, not even an extended ending would do that monumental task justice.
@@mistermorphescarnoe2898 One small correction: we knew K was a replicant from the start. We got told in the middle of the movie that he might not be as he could have been born.
the movie only works if Deckard is a human, we need to see that the replicants (such as Roy) have more humanity than Deckard, an actual human, so he killing them just for living is way more messed up. also Deckard is a human in 2049, they said Rachel had a daughter with a human, and well she and deckard were a couple so there you go lol also deckard is old and weak in the new movie
@@FinalFantasyIVagreed. If the movie comes down to 2 replicants fighting, who cares? But if Roy proves that he’s the better man - more human than human - then the film is saying something
Ford was also pissed because he had signed onto this art film just before becoming a box office success, and he was obligated to do it in place of other films that would have made him much richer.
It sounds like he actually read the book and didn’t want the movie to stray too much from the underlying message of the story. Ultimately, he just made an action film that was vaguely based on a Dickey but missed the mark.
I really like the work of a lot actors like Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise, let you forget that they are often massive divas and dickheads - maybe people like Viggo Mortensen are the minority in the acting buisness.
Let us all be reminded that Harrison Ford is a notorious sourpuss with an overall negative outlook on everything. Look at his view of Han Solo, one of the most beloved characters in sci-fi cinematic history.
@@chamoo232 He came back for all this legacy movies like Indiana Jones and Star Wars and he openly admitted that he don't care a bit he's only there for the money. An attitude that I would understand if he depended on the money, which he doesn't - he's filthy rich. Why doesn't he do something he enjoys?
@alilaro 90% of his roles have been either cavalier cowboy or action superhero. He had maybe 2 romantic comedies. I'll look to see if he's done any theatrical performances of MacBeth , but I don't think he has since maybe he went to acting school.
the voice over was an add on because the american test audiences were STUPID and confused by the movie; that is literally what happened. so then they went back and added the narration to help the idjit galoots.
So Blade Runner is one of those that the director’s and “final” cut are more widely distributed than the theatrical version at this point due to it embodying the artistic spirit of the film far better, and at this point everyone knows that it’s one of those films that ya gotta pay attention to to, or in this age, look up an explanation and/or rewatch. And it’s better that way overall. Makes the experience better for fans who have either taken time to process it, or looked up an explanation, as well as for the type of cinephile or genre lover that actually can keep up with more dense films.
@@JustinTK416so there’s another version of Blade Runner without Harrison’s voice over? I may give that one a chance as I saw the other one and I was so disappointed when I first saw it
@@ComaLies225 I want to say it's "The Final Cut" I watched, and I don't remember it having any kind of voice over. Haven't watched it in a bit though, so I'm kinda just hoping I'm not mistaken.
Being an actor at that level is a very privileged position that pays more than most people will ever see in their lifetimes, sometimes for just one movie. But it is still a job, so why expect it to be a cakewalk, that just shows that you're not so interested in your craft as you'd like people to think. Ridley Scott had the right idea, he didn't just want to make another product.
So refreshing watching making of old 90's and 80's movies, today the "extras" and "behind the scenes" is just studio advertisiment of how great everything and everyone is so you really should invest.
@@jmlkhan5153 IIRC, Donner picked the Alan Parsons Project mostly because Lauren liked them...which is sort of a sweet love story in itself. I'll tolerate the synth to get to the love theme and the absolute glory that is the plot and characters.
Not even close lol. Cool visuals, but terribly paced, way too long, and with a "deep" meaning that fits on a post-it note. It's arguably the most pretentious "art-house" sci-fi movie of all time 👍
Harrison ford definetely didnt get it , it doesnt matter whether he was a robot or a human, if he feels and love, how can you question hes humanity? , no matter what his flesh was made of.
I agree, but I think Scott also missed the point in his own movie by introducing the heavy handed hints towards a definitive answer. The writers had the better grasp of how to portray that question along with the theme.
@@Evil_Peter ridley was forced by the producers to put that, to make the stoey more direct , because for the CEOs Deckard real nature was too vague 🤦♂️
One Friday I was feeling alone and down because my Fiance' was hundreds of miles away and it was one of those grey, dreary, rainy mornings in June. I figured, okay, fine, I'll go to see this new sci-fi movie. That'll cheer me up. (ʘ_ʘ) Yeah. Right. IN the movie, it rains just about the ENTIRE time. It is shot visibly dark. My favorite characters all die, and then the movie ends with an uncertainty as to what would happen or what the point was after 117 minutes. I left the theater feeling WORSE than when I went in. I go outside and it is STILL raining and NOW it's night-time! I wanted to open a vein. For years, I described Blade Runner as the best movie I ever hated. I grew to like it upon re-watching later. Ridley Scott is the maestro, after all.
@@VideoManSir good and evil is not always black and white, sometimes evil is done with good intentions. The trail of destruction left behind by the androids was caused because they wanted their own freedom and peace. The trail of bodies left behind by Deckard was done to keep the peace. The duality of both characters committing evil to achieve their goals, allowed me to sympathize and realize that sometimes evil is only perceived by those who are affected by it, and that the ones who perpetrate it, do not necessarily perceive their actions as evil.
I first saw the movie when I was just 10 yrs. old and I loved it. The voice over appealed to me because it made it seem like one of the old black & white private detective films from the 1940’s. I like the idea of Deckard being human over being a Replicant. I also like this video showing the flying car pass by the Coke sign right after suggesting Ford was using Cocaine during the film. 😅
I disagree; the voice-over in blade runner wasn’t all that bad. When I saw it originally in a theater in ‘82, it didn’t bother me. It actually reminded me of the old film noir pictures of the 1940’s that had narration.
I agree. I also don't get what the fuss is all about. It's not brilliant, but it is _functional,_ and I truly doubt that many people bitching about the "condescending narration" in the theatrical cut would have _understood_ the story without it. If you have the _knowledge_ of the voice-over, it is easy to say it was unnecessary. Show the director's cut to someone who does not know anything about the movie or its story and ask them to find out how much they understood _without_ the narration.
i like the narration too. i do wish ford had been a little more invested in his narration performance. even so, if i get a say i'm usually voting for narration. maybe it's because the first time i saw it was the original release in theaters, i don't know.
@@youareivan Agree, except about his lack of enthusiasm. It adds to the reality because Deckard would in fact sound EXACTLY that way, he wasn't doing this by choice. He was forced into this job and also probably found it uninteresting, he was just doing it because he had to. Which is exactly how Ford's the narration sounds (probably not coincidental).
@@wavertone You could argue the same thing for the music, the sets, the special effects. I like the voiceover for the same reason OP mentioned, Blade Runner is essentially a noir crime film set in the future, the VO is stylistically in line with film noir. Just because you'd understand the plot without it, is not enough reason to remove it if it fulfills an aesthetic function.
@@peterswires8439 yes, the studio execs added it after a terrible test screening in Texas. It is Harrison’s voice though, there are recordings of him deriding it as he’s doing it.
@peterswires8439 The narration was in the original script. So the writers who thought up Blade Runner (adapting the Philip K. Dick novella) clearly thought it added something of value, either aesthetically, stylistically, or factually.
Makes you wonder how much the tension and Scott's refusal to do things the same way as everyone else were responsible for this being such a masterpiece.
If I was a professional actor, one of the first questions I'd ask my director is "Do you want my professional input?" If the answer is yes, I'd give it. If not, I'd shut up except when I spoke my lines. Why be a dick about it? Film is a collaborative effort; a team effort.
Correct. If the film bombs they blame the director. If I was directing and going to take the responsibility I'd at least want to be blamed for something that was actually mine....
@@KnoseDogeteam effort doesn't mean everyone has a different opinion on what to do, if that was the case no movie would be done. Most jobs just require you to do what you're told. If everytime you hire someone you are forced to listen to their ideas nothing would get done
Correct, it's a team effort. A director knows how to direct and the actor how to act. Many iconic scenes in movie history are born out of improv or actors giving unsolicited advise about the proposed script. Roy's "tears in rain" monologue was partially cut short, partially improvised. In Indiana Jones the "Bring a sword to a gunfight" scene was pitched by Harrison Ford as he got tired of doing the original choreography. Just to name a few related ones. Contesting each others ideas about a joint vision is a good thing on set if done in good faith - unless it's due to arrogance, unprofessional overconfidence or ... cocaine. Harrison sure was a dick about it in this case lol.
Ridley Scott can carry an entire motion picture from beginning to end. It’s a huge undertaking and the pressure to deliver is massive. I respect him tremendously.
Final complaint about this whole thing: The narration was PUT BACK IN because the AUDIENCE were too stupid to follow the plot and NEEDED clarification. It certainly wasn't Ridley's fault in any way.
Doesn't matter how badly they hated him. Scott drew some iconic performances out of his cast and the cinematography combined to make this an iconic movie.
Being a 65 year old movie fanatic and reading all about the making of, I have noticed that strangely enough the most brilliant movies are invariably those that challenged the makers the most. From environmental factors to diva feuds, they somehow charge the performance to unbelievable highs.
In retrospect, the voiceovers are reminiscent of the hardboiled detective/noir tradition. But some of it was ham-handed. Still, a masterpiece emerged from all the tension.
Part of it , to me , was Ford's inflectionless delivery of the voice-over material. I submit it was his lackluster reading that made it painful. We've all heard great actors add convincing authority to otherwise awkward material and knock it out of the park.
Having the audience feel for/resonate with a character they THINK is human is like...the whole point. It's not just a movie about a cool cop who hunts down robots. It's asking questions about what it is to be alive. Or whether or not machines can think and feel and love. Pretty sure people could've handled that.
First saw Blade Runner about 20 years ago, and I still prefer Deckard to be human even after everything that has come out saying he isn't. I don't think it dilutes the ideas in the film at all, as there are already enough replicants to go around. Ultimately, PKD's story and Hampton's screenplay are about what it means to be human, and those ideas work either way with whatever Deckard's identity is. My personal preference is that he's human because that's what I first saw him as. I'm glad they left it somewhat ambiguous in BR 2049.
i think thematically it works better if deckard is human because the contrast of a human lacking empathy and a replicant that has gained empathy is fantastic
Huh. I never knew that the narration was added because of some test audience response. I saw it that way when I was younger, and that was just how I knew the movie. When I bought it many years later, I was surprised to find that the narration was missing. I hadn't heard the voiceover since my childhood, until watching this video. Good choice pulling it.
That movie had a lasting impression on me. I think it was the best movie I’ve ever seen. The sequence where the bicyclists ride through the rain soaked streets was visual poetry. When Harrison proves to Shaun that she isn’t human with such cruelty demonstrating just how much of an “it” she was, yet with a full pallet of infused human emotions was incredibly powerful. Watching this basically innocent “manufactured” creatures entire foundation ripped away spoke deeply of the meaning of a soul. And so much of modern life is reflected there. By tearing people down, reducing us to a point we can be used: just like a machine or a slave. As far as Deckard being human, there’s no way he could have taken the beatings he did and survive as a human. Plus, as he had no idea he was a replicant (were that the case) it reenforced the metaphysical insanity of creating such beings and either giving them a four year lifespan or deliberately manipulating them with the omission of “Hey, you’re not even human.”
Human beings can take that beating. And him being a replicant not only is against the point of the book and the script, it also undermines the issue that there isn’t really a difference between them.
@@defenstrator4660 did you see BR2049? Opening scene my man gets smashed through a wall by an OG blade Runner replicant, I am not sure a human can take that beating, and instantly bounce back. Maybe they had humans chase replicants for the first few escapes but it seems they wised up fast when humans got totally wrecked and sent replicants to do ‘a man’s job’. And it doesn’t undermine the meaning or point of the story if Deckard is a replicant. It merely reminds me of when they’d send former slaves to hunt and retrieve runaway slaves.
Backing Ridley Scott 💯% on this one. Prima donna actors and smug department heads unused to a hard day's work. Ridley is from the North of England. Nuff said.
Also, it's just the usual mild antagonism between Brits and Yanks, James Cameron experienced exactly the same when filming Aliens in England. Although James Cameron does have a reputation for being a bit of a cunt on set.
I wish we could get a faithful adaptation of the book. The visuals and soundtrack were great, the story not so much. I agree with Ford regarding the nature of his character.
There was a time when Harrison cared about the movies he appeared in. Nowadays he will do whatever the studios ask even if it means destroying Indiana Jones and Han Solo. When he was interviewed for Blade Runner 2049 and asked about the Deckard being a replicant he replied, "I don't care." Additionally when people complained about the lore destroying Disney changes to Star Wars he replied, "F-- the lore."
Yeah, actors are just actors don't get why people care so much about their opinions..... Yes actors do have SOME artistic control over their characters and how they act them, but beyond that let the director do his job.... Most actors don't give a FCK about whatever they are in, they just want money.
Its no surprise to me whatsoever, that Ford (and the rest of the crew) were difficult to work with. I agree with Scott that the British crews were more compliant and willing to follow the director's vision to its (intended) and natural end. Ford himself is - obviously - an egomaniac. Just listen to him speak in any interview he's ever given. And Scott's portrayal of this story was SPOT ON and accurate, and turned out to be one of the best sci-fi flicks of all time. Actors are just way too entitled (they're almost a species of people unto themselves) so bringing out the best in their acting requires a firm hand and a superior vision like Ridley Scott's. SO GLAD that Scott persisted and made the incredible Blade Runner. A film like this and a vision like his is almost certainly never to made again. Studios would never allow the cost overruns to complete a vision this spectacular again.
no, he's a delusional pretentious arrogant narcissist with no idea what makes good directing, he should have stuck to being a DP and found someone with a better sense of directing
You're spot on about Ford's conceit. Very well documented. I'll take Ridley's vision (and firm direction) over Harrison's or anyone else's ego every damn time, ALL the time.
Sounds like to me, Ridley Scott was only pushing for the correct dynamic between actors & crew and a director, that was how it's supposed to be in the first place, while the cast and crew were just being difficult, lazy and entitled.
Harrison was definitely being entitled. He wanted to collaborate? The guy's an actor. He wasn't hired for his artistic insight. Actors get way too full of themselves. What if every actor on set wanted to collaborate? Oh no, that'd be ridiculous. Harrison's just special because he's more famous, so his ideas are better (despite completely missing the point of the story)
He saved the character. As someone who has read do androids dream of electric sheep, I think it would have gone against the point of his character to make him robotic.
@@Toughmittens not really. Both Ridley & Harrison have both confirmed Deckard was a replicant all along. Also it was based on the book, not a straight adaptation
@@colonelcrackerz2320in the sequal he's still alive, which kind of negates that theory. In the original it was implied that he was a replicant with the unicorn stuff, but seems like they changed their minds for the sequal.
@@Xanaduum Why would him existing negate the theory when the plot of the last one goes to such pains to point out that the generation he would have been from were so close to human as to be indistinguishable? It's the entire reason the new MC think's he's the replicant born kid
I'm glad my first viewing of this movie was early this year and of the modern extended version without the awkward commentary so that ending moment really did hit like it was meant to.
Actually makes perfect sense if you know anything about film production. Directors are responsible for the transition of a motion picture from a screenplay. They oversee all aspects of a film production at a high level-working most closely with the actors. While a director describes what the images of the scenes should look like, they are almost never the ones actually capturing them-it’s the director of photography’s job to construct the aesthetic space that will be captured by the camera through lighting and cinematography, and that is done utilizing teams of ACs, camera operators, gaffers, grips, and electricians. These departments are very siloed, and there’s a good reason for that: film is heavily unionized. This prevents a director from firing a cinematographer and just jumping on the camera themselves or trying to have an AC do all the photography directing. And these are protections people in the industry fight for the better part of a century to achieve.
@@tekkaman65535 I didn't know any of this. Thank you for the information. I just assumed that a director would already have made short films when they were younger, with little cameras that they would have bought themselves or received as a present etc. So to go from having a hands on approach as a youngster to not even being able to physically touch a camera when it's your actual job as a director on a movie just didn't even cross my mind.
Just like 9-5s and those who work places for necessities, never make workers hate their job. Some don’t even want be there, so you’re just creating an even worse experience. Which could leave them to give minimum effort.
Having seen both the theatrical and the ultimate 2007 cut, I must support the minority audience who think the voice-over was entirely alright. It's hard to detest Blade Runner in any shape or form, you know :D.
I honestly don’t like this movie much and I think Deckard is a boring unlikable protagonist. But Roy’s death at the end is so bloody good that it makes everything worth it and elevates this movie to a stunning classic. You talked about Harrison Ford and the crew, but I wonder what Rutger Hauer thought about the shoot.
@@wavertone Yeah, I feel like that at the end. But for the whole rest of the movie, I think Deckard is the guy, you know? Honestly, when I say the end makes it worth it, I really mean the end makes every second of watching the earlier parts worth it.
@@MsLuckoftheDraw I think the spectacle of it plays better in a larger context. Some movies are meant for a big screen and this is one definitely of them.
I love bladerunner and I enjoy some of Ridley Scott's movies; I think he's a great visual director, but his last few movies have really been lacking in the writing department
I disagree with so many people and agree with Harrison Ford. I had watched Blade Runner so many times and when someone told me that Deckard is a replicant, it disappointed me because Roy Batty saved his life because he valued everyone's life during his last moment, including the enemy (humans) who was determined to kill him.
In the original Phillip K. Dick novel, Deckard is definitely human. The point of the story is that ultimately there is no discernible difference between humans and replicants...the point is lost if Deckard is also a replicant.
ummmmmmm, does an enemy of a replicant have to be a human? irrelevant. a replicant killing another replicant....is an enemy. that isn't why he saved deckard. The point isn’t lost since the point is acting like a human not human provenance.
It doesn't ruin anything IMO because there is no way Roy would have known if Deckard is a replicant or not. That's the whole point of a Blade Runner to begin with, if not even a Blade Runner realizes he is a replicant then Roy wouldn't have either. So for all intents and purposes it doesn't change anything, Roy still saved his "enemy" which shows his capacity for kindness and mercy/humanity.
@@hhjhj393 THANK YOU. Exactly. Roy is saving his enemy. It doesn’t matter if deckard is human or a replicant, the only thing that matters is how conducts themselves not what they are under the hood.
It's actually extremely funny how the voice over adds *literally* nothing to the film that can't already be picked up on from context. The mantra is show don't tell, guys!
EXACTLY. you have the greatest visualist of our lifetimes showing you the grandest visions and then you have the stupidest, clunkiest, coarse narration telling you what you are seeing.
@@peterswires8439 exactly. A character gives a beautiful soliloquy about the transient nature of life and then it’s destroyed by some witless narration for the lowest common denominator.
This is one of my favorite movies. Ironically, I do like the voiceover. It provides the insight that goes over many people's heads. It provides context. Decker's voiceover comment about his police boss calling replicants "skin jobs" is very pertinent and establishes context. Maybe the last line mentioned in the above clip could be deleted, but most of the voiceover was good. OTOH, Decker wasn't a replicant. That makes no sense. The whole movie was about Decker's internal conflict and realization that replicants had human rights. I do not care what people say, I will not believe it.
Synopsis of this whole video... Brillian director in charge of his own project has to listen to whinning employees thinking they have major things to make the film better... News flash, blade runner is one of the absolute best scifi films ever! So in the end they are all upset the director did know best.
If had gone well, there is also the notion the film would not be what we got and the acting the same. Scott is a perfectionist, and he notices everything on set. There was a scene in the Tyrell office (big stone pillars) where the crew fitted the pillars and just put them how they saw best because they looked the same either way. Scott walks in and says, "Those are upside down; turn them the right way." They lost the days shooting over just that. This is one of the reasons his films always look so good; he has a very good eye for detail.
Me, too. It provided more detail to suggest what the character was about. Plus - there are a lot of sounds in the movie that are abrupt and make you feel uneasy.
I have always noticed it's the rich who scream the loudest. Whenever the rich have to do ANYTHING they scream and cry and make this big issue, yet if the working class ask to not be treated like complete dirt they scream, "you're just LAZY". It's ALWAYS the rich who scream the loudest while doing nothing. They have hungry personalities they always want more.
some of the most miserable people have more money than they know what to do with… I dont understand why people think being wealthy means never having real problems
Any actually excellent piece is the result of terribly difficult arduous work, and is made to seem easy accessible and fun. It is at times joyous to grind and grind until it's fucking perfect. But the reward is AFTER production, of whatever great thing you are working on.
I agree about the ending, but I like some of the earlier voiceover. It is actually crucial to the film noir aspect of the film. I would prefer a version where you have it at the beginning, then wean off of it, finally having none in the last act of the film.
Really glad to hear you're enjoying the videos. The next one will be on the shorter side (8-12 mins), but it's possible I'll make some lengthier stuff after that. Let's see how things go.
The more I look into RS and the experience of actors having to perform for absolutely insane amounts of time, the more it comes across as a brute force method of filming; why frame and prepare, when you can just roll for hour after hour and hope for 'magic' to happen. It makes me recall Herzog saying "When you hear that young filmmakers are shooting 550 hours of footage, my heart sinks. They don't know what they are doing." unnecessary edit: when you're 'the man in charge', and you make someone perform the same task over and over to the point that an employee screams at you "I am not an animal" and refuses to go on, you are the problem.
I recently read that on Napoleon, Scott had four cameras running all the time and gave the actors very little direction. He was going for volume of footage, not nuance.
It's a visual masterpiece with unforgettable characters and an other-worldly story. The fact that the lead character is afraid he's a replicant keeps the tension front and center!
@agrumpymonkey5800 it's like a frog in a well while you are believing in dogmatic terms. The moment you escape to the surface, the whole world opens up and blossoms wildly in every direction.
Edward Witten eluded to some kind of higher being in a video about mathematics I watched recently. If someone with that level of intellect questions it then I think we should as well.
First off, im not saying directors cant be dicks and that actors can't bring anything creatively to the story and their characters byond just acting. But lets be real too often they push their power around too much. They get most of the money and fame so they think they can undermine the directors and writers vision. But when directors dont respect actors they whine. But when actors dont respect directors they act like these underdog heroes sticking it to the man. When they literally have more power than 99% of directors and 99.999999999% of writers.
The bored and tired attitude by Ford ultimately served the dystopian setting well.
Baked
Baked
Agreed
...unfortunately an attitude shared by too many in the audience, why it tanked at the box office
@@robertmaybeth3434its a cult classic so he achieved his vision regardless.
Fun Fact: Steven Spielberg was so convinced that he had annoyed the crew on Jaws, and they were going to throw him into the ocean, that he left as soon as the last shot was finished and immediately got on a plane
He's lucky Ford wasn't flying it.
Sounds like an action of shame tbh
If you ever need to ask yourself "are these people plotting my demise" you need to take a hard look at your behaviour.
@@christophermccutcheon2143exactly!
If you walk into a room and you're the one the cast and crew wish to leave in the ocean, you're probably an asshole...that's how that saying does right?
Ford refusing to accept he a replicant is the most replicant part of his role 😂
And the most Human as well 😭
Exactly 😂
"I'm NOT a replicant!"
"Hah, that's what a replicant would say!"
@@couchpotatoe91 Only the Lisan al Gaib would be so Humble!
"I know what's real" from 2049 is such a good line.. and that they never resolve it is great
I find it hilarious that Ridley Scott directed Alien in London, then had trouble with the American crew on Blade Runner. While James Cameron made Terminator in the US and then hated the London crew on Aliens. Scott wasn't allowed to operate the camera for BR, while the English Aliens crew supposedly didn't like Cameron trying to get involved with every process. Finding out that directors weren't allowed to operate the camera back then sounds nuts.
Came here to say this. To the English crew working on Aliens, Cameron was also an upstart nobody from across the pond. They wanted to do things their established way (including taking tea breaks, for example) when Cameron knew he was working on a tight budget and a tight schedule. Cameron was used to (and demanded, often extremely bluntly) full commitment from his cast and crew on his (admittedly much smaller) previous projects.
I mean, you have to also take into account people just might be being truthful in order to not burn bridge or to keep tensions low. It's a crucial part of the show biz. Ford could just be different, maybe he didn't care, he definitely had the star power to shrug it off.
Not to say Scott was inherently in any wrong, just saying that people's positive statements especially in publicity settings can't be blindly taken to heart
Union rules. lol gotta protect that job.
Don't forget that the Canadian crew on Titanic hated James Cameron.
The stories about the passive-aggressive "T-shirt wars" worn by the crew then Ridley is hilarious.
Two things that will always ruin a movie:
1. Using exposition like a hammer
2. Executives micromanaging directors and writers.
I mean, thats what ruins all life as well
Not the case here, we would not get the masterpiece that is blade runner if ridley did not stood his ground
@@phaodaimotnguoi-1manfortressI think you misread their comment
2. Why movies are so terrible now.
@@stackhat8624 movies aren’t terrible now, you’re just lazy and nostalgic
I’m glad Ridley Scott stood his ground, this movie is a visual masterpiece with a unique story that is more relevant today more than ever.
This & Brazil by Terry Gilliam
Same❤
Deckard is human. He was human in the book, and he's human in the film. Any other way doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Ford is right.
Meh the story is awful everything else is great
@@Bloodynine606Have you read Dick’s book?
I think it's slightly unfair to say the whole cast disliked Ridley - it was really just Harrison.
There are numerous interviews out there from Daryl Hannah, Rutger Hauer, Joanna Cassidy and Sean Young all saying how much they loved working on Blade Runner and enjoyed working with him.
Yeah most people just said, ‘working in constant smoke and rain was a drag, but we loved doing the movie.’
Most of these essays are a bunch of horseshi
Huh. Clickbait I guess. I’m going to unsubscribe.
@@slartibartfast7921 yea im unsubbing too wtf lmao i dont even like scott but this title is just clickbait then
@@anti-mate407 Be the change you wish to see brother 👊🏻
In the original story, Deckard was worried all throughout, that he was a replicant. It was never revealed if he was or not. That was a theme in all of Phillip K Dick’s writing; what is real, is what we experience real or simply fantasy, is reality really reality?
In the original novel, Deckard is definitely human. But you are right that the consistent theme of Dick's writing is "what is reality...and does it matter?"
@@kirkdarling4120 Nah it was way more punk than that. DADOES wasn't so much 'why does it matter' and more like, 'look what we will let them do to us, given time.' It was a critique of people without empathy and a society that forces empathy out of us, making us, 'androids'. It was a metaphor for where society was headed in 1968 and he wasn't wrong.
Not what I remember. Deckard was always human. The real key themes were, "What makes a human a human?" The book answers the question with, "the ability to empathize is what makes us human". The book briefly mentions a replicant, who became an opera singer. The book asks, what does it mean when a robot gains the abilty to empathize? Does that make the robot a human? When Rachael finds out that the only reason why Deckard goes around killing replicants, is to be able to afford a real life sheep, she takes his sheep and throws it off a skyscraper ( the world is post-apocalyptic, and real life animals are ultra rare, which is why most people have cheap animatronic versions ). With regards to Deckard: What does it mean when a human loses their empathy? Does that make the human a robot? With regards to Rachael, and the society that we live in: What does it mean when a robot becomes "more human" than human?
I actually find it quite sad that you got 47 upvotes, because you completely missed the point of the book. The meaning of the book is in the title, which is why he did not want the title changed...
I read the novel recently. Although the book clearly establishes that Deckard is human, there is ambiguity about whether one of Deckard's associates is a machine. The film---at least its later versions---surely presents this idea as a composite, managing to keep one of the book's themes intact. Indeed, the novel helped me better appreciate the movie. The film is a genuinely outstanding adaptation, one that I feel is stronger than its source material.
@@bcarr1122 the film is 100% garbage and after reading the book, 150% garbage.
Filmed for 36 hrs straight? Goddamn, no wonder everyone hated working on it.
No wonder they were on coke.
@@matteframe I don’t understand how you could act properly on that stuff though, based on the excessive obnoxiousness it brings out in those that do it…
@@gruphenio6787 Tolerance levels plus it depends on the person. With some people it's like having a coffee. They're so used to it they can function at work while high on it.
@@mkultra2456 it definitely doesn’t bring out the best in people’s personalities from what I’ve seen…it’s for people that need excess false confidence from having a numb face, whilst spangling around in a buzz during an arrogant/ narcissistic cloud dream….
@@gruphenio6787 you gotta stop believing everything you see on movies. its just an upper. you dont have to do fat lines to "do coke". its like saying "idk how people behave on alcohol! it just makes you spin and throw up!" a glass of wine and a handle of vodka are 2 completely different people. a bump and a fat line are 2 completely different people. coke doesnt mean scar face final scene.
Bro why does Harrison hate his job so much
He's a boomer they all hate their jobs
Coke
He loves the job... it's the press and press junkets he's not so hot on.
@@disgruntled4627 Genarational generalizations are dumb. At least boomers actually worked. ;)
ever heard of complaining loudly but still get the job done?
Leaving Deckard's nature ambiguous worked way better than trying to say he was definitely human or definitely an android. The book leaves you with more questions than answers, especially with that mysterious cult that seems to have taken over the world, and how everyone seems to have forgotten the world before the war.
i could NEVER for the life of me understand this utter nonsense about 'replicants' being 'androids'; REPLICANTS are "bio-engineered" HUMANS, the result of extremely hi-tech gene splicing, editing etc. an 'android' is a MACHINE with a highly sophisticated 'AI' cognition system but a MACHINE all the same. as in 'BISHOP' from the first "ALIEN" movie? when damaged, what did we see come spurting out of his mouth? blood or the equivalent of hydraulic fluid? and when RUTGER HAUER'S character (ROY BATTY) is wounded, what do we see on his face? BLOOD. why does this weird but fairly obvious fallacy continue to obtain?
in point of fact, one would think that anyone who has seen the sequel (BR:2049) would have had the question COMPLETELY sorted & settled once & for all time: ANDROIDS, DO NOT give BIRTH to OTHER ANDROIDS. derp. 🤖👶👀😹😳😬
unfortunately somewhere along the way ridley scott turned into a hack fraud who can't write his way out of a paper bag. Every movie after black hawk down, maybe gladiator if you're generous, has just been god awful. And of course he couldn't keep his hands off blade runner, shoving that stupid unicorn scene into it.
It depends on which version, in the original version it's unclear, or for most viewers wouldn't even get the idea he could be a replicant himself.. in the directors cut he definitely is, and no I don't care what Harrison says about it, since it's not the actor that defines what the movie is. That Harrison believes that Deckard is human is perfect, because Deckard believes it too.
@@georgelionon9050Smart people ignore the unicorn scene. Because it is literally just unused footage from Legend put into the middle of Blade Runner.
@@frenchfriedbagel7035 if you decide to ignore things that dont fit what you want to see, and frame it "smart people do it", you are right. If you take the movie at face value, in the directors cut he is made a replicant no doubt.
Harrison having a coke habit is a revelation I never thought I would hear. Wow.
Try watching Star Wars and when they're in the cockpit of the Falcon, keep an eye on Carrie Fisher's hands and try and spot her single massive fingernail / coke spoon
I say this with no judgement, fucking loved Carrie Fisher my whole life
To be honest I'm not sure he did. Fisher, sure, but Ford is talking like a man who just took a whole bottle of antidepressants there. Like the inverse reaction.
It was the 80s. Everyone was on blow.
@@CrazyHowie pretty much... if you could afford it.
It feels more like Ford is the issue.
Haven't heard anyone say anything good about working with him.
Negativity seems to follow him around, acting like he was forced to be an actor.
LoL agreed. His cross to bare
He just seems like a really cynical and miserable person. Great actor, but I can’t imagine staying in the same room as him for very long.
He hates his legacy as Rick Deckard, Han Solo and Indiana Jones
3 of his major characters
@@beastmaster6943 He can never forgive them for overshadowing his performance as Bob Falfa.
He hates Josh Harnett in Hollywood Homicide, he hates Shia Labouf in Indiana Jones 4 and who knows if there are more than I can mentioned.
Harrison seems to have been a miserable prick right into his senior years
He hates Josh Harnett in Hollywood Homicide, he hates Shia Labouf in Indiana Jones 4 and who knows if there are more than I can mentioned. I sense a pattern he hates his co-star younger than him.
Always has been. Fames got its drawbacks but you'd think being the most sucessful lead actor of all time would be something to be cheery about.
@@pericles9629or maybe the complete opposite due to having literally no private life
I honestly want to know if there’s ever been a role that he said he loved playing. I know that he has problems with being associated with Han Solo so much that he only agreed to play him again if the character was killed off and apparently he had issues with Bladerunner too. Don’t know if he had the same issues with Indiana Jones though. I can understand him having issues with not having a private life because of the roles he played but I’m sure there’s plenty of other actors in the same boat who still seem grateful for the opportunities they had so why is he the exception?
@@699JBW699You can't accept roles in massive big budget movies over and over again and then say "waaaaahhh muh private liiifffeeeeee"
The director was correct in his approach. You can’t let the Lunatics run the Asylum.
If a movie director can't realize his vision then nobody can.
True to a certain degree. Even a director can be a complete moron with their work. So it's good to have people to remind you when something is stupid and won't work.
Sometimes you can also have a situation with a director where they're a complete megalomaniac with their work and go completely off-script from the book they're making a movie of.
Ridley Scott is a great director but whatever happened on the set of this movie elevated it high above everything else he has done, including Alien. There will never be another movie like this.
Visually? Sure. But, and I say this as a fan of the film, many of the plot beats and especially the acting weren't anything particularly special. I think the pacing and tone fall apart when things get to JF Sebastian's apartment with his weird living sex dolls.
Ridley admits that Blade Runner happened on its own to some degree. It ended being deeper than Ridley made it.
@yuyutubee8435 it's Ford's best performance and Rutger Hauer puts in something that's never been replicated
The trouble with working with people who all consider themselves the expert and not prepared to concede they are not the director. I am glad Ridley stuck to his guns and the comment above about F Sebastian’s sex dolls I cannot say that I ever considered thats what they were 😳lol. For me Bladerunner is one of the all time greats.
@@starwarsroo2448 Replicated? Pun intended, I hope. Lol
Harrison Ford's reasoning for why he resisted Deckard being a replicant only reinforces how strong Ridley Scott's idea was. An audience sympathizing with a character who exists just as a human does with all their thoughts, feelings, instincts, and actions yet not realize they aren't "real" until it's revealed to them is thought-provoking. Because then in what sense would Deckard's humanity be any less substantial than before we discovered his artificial origins? This is especially evident in Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty- a villain who we learn was actually just trying to fight for his right to exist on his own terms. That's the beauty of Blade Runner.
By Deckard being human, we as the audience can directly sympathize with Roy just as Deckard did in the end. Because he, like us, is human (and therefore a spectator of injustice) - if it was ultimately explicitly revealed that Deckard was a replicant, it would take us out of our seats and make it so we are only able to sympathize with Deckard on a superficial level since it would make him a victim of the same injustice endured by Roy, and cheapen the purpose of Roy saving Deckard from falling as well as his monologue (where he explains to Deckard and us spectators by extension, that he has seen and experienced incredible things that we could never believe).
The reason 2049 worked where I'm sure the OG would have failed, is they revealed that K was a replicant in the middle of the movie
(edit: Re-iterating this point thanks to RuniqFrost - K went through an emotional rollercoaster that had him doubting his replicant status that was established from the start - this doubt is explored well with K leading to a satisfying payoff, it was not explored in such depth with Deckard so I still end with my original conclusion.)
, leaving the rest to explore him coming to grips with this realization - we see his anger, frustrations, and discovery of a newfound purpose. If the ending of the OG was that Deckard was also a replicant hunting his own kind, the experience falls flat because we won't ever see how Deckard deals with this realization nor how it affects his direction going forward, not even an extended ending would do that monumental task justice.
@@mistermorphescarnoe2898 One small correction: we knew K was a replicant from the start. We got told in the middle of the movie that he might not be as he could have been born.
They could have just uploaded his memory into a new replicant.
the movie only works if Deckard is a human, we need to see that the replicants (such as Roy) have more humanity than Deckard, an actual human, so he killing them just for living is way more messed up.
also Deckard is a human in 2049, they said Rachel had a daughter with a human, and well she and deckard were a couple so there you go lol
also deckard is old and weak in the new movie
@@FinalFantasyIVagreed. If the movie comes down to 2 replicants fighting, who cares? But if Roy proves that he’s the better man - more human than human - then the film is saying something
Ford was also pissed because he had signed onto this art film just before becoming a box office success, and he was obligated to do it in place of other films that would have made him much richer.
That sounds pretty realistic. Wonder what he would have done if not for Blade Runner?
It sounds like he actually read the book and didn’t want the movie to stray too much from the underlying message of the story. Ultimately, he just made an action film that was vaguely based on a Dickey but missed the mark.
I really like the work of a lot actors like Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise, let you forget that they are often massive divas and dickheads - maybe people like Viggo Mortensen are the minority in the acting buisness.
@@Toughmittens "It sounds like he actually read the book". Thanks; I needed that laugh.
@@Max_KraftIt's because they're American
Let us all be reminded that Harrison Ford is a notorious sourpuss with an overall negative outlook on everything.
Look at his view of Han Solo, one of the most beloved characters in sci-fi cinematic history.
Yeah he comes back for sequels but always has that "do me a favor and kill my character so I never have to do this sh*t again" attitude.
@@chamoo232 He came back for all this legacy movies like Indiana Jones and Star Wars and he openly admitted that he don't care a bit he's only there for the money. An attitude that I would understand if he depended on the money, which he doesn't - he's filthy rich. Why doesn't he do something he enjoys?
At least he genuinely liked playing Indiana Jones
He was right though, they all were overplayed, tired characters from already overhyped films. It feels like pandering more than anything.
@alilaro 90% of his roles have been either cavalier cowboy or action superhero. He had maybe 2 romantic comedies. I'll look to see if he's done any theatrical performances of MacBeth , but I don't think he has since maybe he went to acting school.
The only lessons Harrison Ford should ever be giving Ridley Scott are flying lessons.
And even then he's crashed like twice lol EDIT: 5 times 💀
@@BrB0424 don't forget he also landed on a taxiway lol
Way more than twice haha
@@eatZeppelin oh damn I didn't know about the newer ones
I mean, Ford was totally right about the voiceover though.
5:09 You can hear Ford's eyes rolling.
Lol
Whether or not the voice over was a bad choice, if you end up doing it you should give it everything you got.
Ridley Scott put together some timeless looking visuals.
Absolutely, it's easily among the best-looking films of all time.
Yeah that Hovis commercial was well loved in the UK that's not even a joke really it was.
Agreed Alien and Blade Runner are just visual masterpieces. Alien spinoffs not so much lol, but my god was Alien such a perfect movie.
Frenchman here. I've watched BR maybe 10 times in the last twenty years, and yet it's the first time I hear that godawful voice-over.
the voice over was an add on because the american test audiences were STUPID and confused by the movie; that is literally what happened. so then they went back and added the narration to help the idjit galoots.
Me neither. I’ve only seen the director’s cut. Maybe that’s what you’ve been watching as well.
So Blade Runner is one of those that the director’s and “final” cut are more widely distributed than the theatrical version at this point due to it embodying the artistic spirit of the film far better, and at this point everyone knows that it’s one of those films that ya gotta pay attention to to, or in this age, look up an explanation and/or rewatch.
And it’s better that way overall. Makes the experience better for fans who have either taken time to process it, or looked up an explanation, as well as for the type of cinephile or genre lover that actually can keep up with more dense films.
@@JustinTK416so there’s another version of Blade Runner without Harrison’s voice over?
I may give that one a chance as I saw the other one and I was so disappointed when I first saw it
@@ComaLies225 I want to say it's "The Final Cut" I watched, and I don't remember it having any kind of voice over. Haven't watched it in a bit though, so I'm kinda just hoping I'm not mistaken.
Being an actor at that level is a very privileged position that pays more than most people will ever see in their lifetimes, sometimes for just one movie. But it is still a job, so why expect it to be a cakewalk, that just shows that you're not so interested in your craft as you'd like people to think. Ridley Scott had the right idea, he didn't just want to make another product.
So refreshing watching making of old 90's and 80's movies, today the "extras" and "behind the scenes" is just studio advertisiment of how great everything and everyone is so you really should invest.
Don’t watch the making, watch the movie.
Rutger Hauer out acts Ford the entire time, he’s great.
He was also good in Ladyhawke (with Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Broderick), but the 80’s synth music for a Medieval film gets me everytime.
IKR! And now he’s considered a joke because of his muscle man roles.
@@thenablade858yessir! Ladyhawke would be a timeless classic masterpiece if the soundtrack didnt almost completely ruin it
@@jmlkhan5153ironically some people like and remember the film because it had a different soundtrack.
@@jmlkhan5153 IIRC, Donner picked the Alan Parsons Project mostly because Lauren liked them...which is sort of a sweet love story in itself. I'll tolerate the synth to get to the love theme and the absolute glory that is the plot and characters.
And he arguably made the greatest sci-fi movie of all time👍
First Cyberpunk film.
@@Decoy303hahaha no
Wasn’t there also a Directors cut?
@@chirgwintoo_9991it literally is lmao unless you’re trying to say it’s metropolis which is a big stretch
Not even close lol. Cool visuals, but terribly paced, way too long, and with a "deep" meaning that fits on a post-it note.
It's arguably the most pretentious "art-house" sci-fi movie of all time 👍
1:49 No offense to Harrison Ford, I love the guy, love his work, but… way to miss the point of the movie you’re working on
Funnily enough, that puts him in exactly the same mindset that a replicant with human memories would be in when he choses to believe he is human.
@@Okinawatrip maybe he’s just REALLY getting into character lmao
Harrison ford definetely didnt get it , it doesnt matter whether he was a robot or a human, if he feels and love, how can you question hes humanity? , no matter what his flesh was made of.
I agree, but I think Scott also missed the point in his own movie by introducing the heavy handed hints towards a definitive answer. The writers had the better grasp of how to portray that question along with the theme.
@@Evil_Peter ridley was forced by the producers to put that, to make the stoey more direct , because for the CEOs Deckard real nature was too vague 🤦♂️
the Harrison ford monologue at the end sounds so painfully done hahaha
One Friday I was feeling alone and down because my Fiance' was hundreds of miles away and it was one of those grey, dreary, rainy mornings in June. I figured, okay, fine, I'll go to see this new sci-fi movie. That'll cheer me up. (ʘ_ʘ) Yeah. Right. IN the movie, it rains just about the ENTIRE time. It is shot visibly dark. My favorite characters all die, and then the movie ends with an uncertainty as to what would happen or what the point was after 117 minutes. I left the theater feeling WORSE than when I went in. I go outside and it is STILL raining and NOW it's night-time! I wanted to open a vein. For years, I described Blade Runner as the best movie I ever hated. I grew to like it upon re-watching later. Ridley Scott is the maestro, after all.
Aesthetically the most influential film of 40 years! Everything changed after him!
And that has a price...
Some movies can change your perspective profoundly. Blade runner is one of them.
What perspective of yours was changed?
@@VideoManSir watch the movie, agai if need be, & you come back & tell us.
I dont think this movie is a life changer. Can you describe to us?
nah. It was alright, the book was cool and confusing in equal measure, but life changing? the androids having empathy thing is a common theme by now
@@VideoManSir good and evil is not always black and white, sometimes evil is done with good intentions. The trail of destruction left behind by the androids was caused because they wanted their own freedom and peace. The trail of bodies left behind by Deckard was done to keep the peace. The duality of both characters committing evil to achieve their goals, allowed me to sympathize and realize that sometimes evil is only perceived by those who are affected by it, and that the ones who perpetrate it, do not necessarily perceive their actions as evil.
Amazing film, Ridley was right
He gave the movie depth, when the American producers wanted another shallow action movie!
Sounds like the things the crew and actor resisted are what saved the film
That’s a great resume of the problems that can appear in the production of a movie. It’s brilliantly edited and succinct.
I first saw the movie when I was just 10 yrs. old and I loved it.
The voice over appealed to me because it made it seem like one of the old black & white private detective films from the 1940’s.
I like the idea of Deckard being human over being a Replicant.
I also like this video showing the flying car pass by the Coke sign right after suggesting Ford was using Cocaine during the film. 😅
I disagree; the voice-over in blade runner wasn’t all that bad. When I saw it originally in a theater in ‘82, it didn’t bother me. It actually reminded me of the old film noir pictures of the 1940’s that had narration.
I agree. I also don't get what the fuss is all about. It's not brilliant, but it is _functional,_ and I truly doubt that many people bitching about the "condescending narration" in the theatrical cut would have _understood_ the story without it. If you have the _knowledge_ of the voice-over, it is easy to say it was unnecessary. Show the director's cut to someone who does not know anything about the movie or its story and ask them to find out how much they understood _without_ the narration.
I actually prefer BR with the narration.
i like the narration too. i do wish ford had been a little more invested in his narration performance. even so, if i get a say i'm usually voting for narration. maybe it's because the first time i saw it was the original release in theaters, i don't know.
@@youareivan Agree, except about his lack of enthusiasm. It adds to the reality because Deckard would in fact sound EXACTLY that way, he wasn't doing this by choice. He was forced into this job and also probably found it uninteresting, he was just doing it because he had to. Which is exactly how Ford's the narration sounds (probably not coincidental).
yes its perfect for a tired old cop which has lost all hope for humanity.
You didn't need to include the horse poop
What poop
Oh
Its just for you. Open wide
was eating while watching, i agree
Shit happens.
I love the voiceover from the start its reminiscent of the Philip Marlowe novels
@@gustavomezcala4142 does it need it though? Will the film still work if it’s taken out?
@@wavertone You could argue the same thing for the music, the sets, the special effects. I like the voiceover for the same reason OP mentioned, Blade Runner is essentially a noir crime film set in the future, the VO is stylistically in line with film noir. Just because you'd understand the plot without it, is not enough reason to remove it if it fulfills an aesthetic function.
@@wavertone The voiceover was added at the insistence of the studio execs. It wasn't even Harrison Ford's voice. It was removed in the director's cut.
@@peterswires8439 yes, the studio execs added it after a terrible test screening in Texas. It is Harrison’s voice though, there are recordings of him deriding it as he’s doing it.
@peterswires8439 The narration was in the original script. So the writers who thought up Blade Runner (adapting the Philip K. Dick novella) clearly thought it added something of value, either aesthetically, stylistically, or factually.
Sometimes out of conflict, chaos, and confusion...brilliance arises
Makes you wonder how much the tension and Scott's refusal to do things the same way as everyone else were responsible for this being such a masterpiece.
A piece of art. The headaches were worth it. The film is better than any CGI film today.
it's better.
Not rival, FAR SURPASS
If I was a professional actor, one of the first questions I'd ask my director is "Do you want my professional input?" If the answer is yes, I'd give it. If not, I'd shut up except when I spoke my lines. Why be a dick about it? Film is a collaborative effort; a team effort.
"film is a collaborative effort; a team effort" sounds like an oxymoron to the previous statement in the text...
Correct. If the film bombs they blame the director. If I was directing and going to take the responsibility I'd at least want to be blamed for something that was actually mine....
@@KnoseDogeteam effort doesn't mean everyone has a different opinion on what to do, if that was the case no movie would be done. Most jobs just require you to do what you're told. If everytime you hire someone you are forced to listen to their ideas nothing would get done
Correct, it's a team effort. A director knows how to direct and the actor how to act. Many iconic scenes in movie history are born out of improv or actors giving unsolicited advise about the proposed script. Roy's "tears in rain" monologue was partially cut short, partially improvised. In Indiana Jones the "Bring a sword to a gunfight" scene was pitched by Harrison Ford as he got tired of doing the original choreography. Just to name a few related ones. Contesting each others ideas about a joint vision is a good thing on set if done in good faith - unless it's due to arrogance, unprofessional overconfidence or ... cocaine. Harrison sure was a dick about it in this case lol.
Harrison ford also just seems like a grouchy fuck about everything, even before he got old. I doubt he was fun to work with in anything
From pain is a masterpiece created.
Amen
Ridley Scott can carry an entire motion picture from beginning to end. It’s a huge undertaking and the pressure to deliver is massive. I respect him tremendously.
Final complaint about this whole thing: The narration was PUT BACK IN because the AUDIENCE were too stupid to follow the plot and NEEDED clarification. It certainly wasn't Ridley's fault in any way.
Doesn't matter how badly they hated him. Scott drew some iconic performances out of his cast and the cinematography combined to make this an iconic movie.
This is one of my favorite sci-fi films. I really like knowing the history behind films too, it just makes me appreciate them and enjoy them more
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Do electric sheep dream of being hurdled by electric dogs?
Depends on how much cheese they've been eating. 😊.
@@unkle_Enkil Red pill a sheep today.
Do androids dream of harrison ford?
we wuz replicant n shitte
Totally worth it. It really helped with the gritty, hard life and danger aspects as well as the never safe, on edge vibe.
Being a 65 year old movie fanatic and reading all about the making of, I have noticed that strangely enough the most brilliant movies are invariably those that challenged the makers the most. From environmental factors to diva feuds, they somehow charge the performance to unbelievable highs.
In retrospect, the voiceovers are reminiscent of the hardboiled detective/noir tradition. But some of it was ham-handed. Still, a masterpiece emerged from all the tension.
Part of it , to me , was Ford's inflectionless delivery of the voice-over material. I submit it was his lackluster reading that made it painful. We've all heard great actors add convincing authority to otherwise awkward material and knock it out of the park.
Having the audience feel for/resonate with a character they THINK is human is like...the whole point. It's not just a movie about a cool cop who hunts down robots. It's asking questions about what it is to be alive. Or whether or not machines can think and feel and love. Pretty sure people could've handled that.
First saw Blade Runner about 20 years ago, and I still prefer Deckard to be human even after everything that has come out saying he isn't. I don't think it dilutes the ideas in the film at all, as there are already enough replicants to go around. Ultimately, PKD's story and Hampton's screenplay are about what it means to be human, and those ideas work either way with whatever Deckard's identity is. My personal preference is that he's human because that's what I first saw him as. I'm glad they left it somewhat ambiguous in BR 2049.
i think thematically it works better if deckard is human because the contrast of a human lacking empathy and a replicant that has gained empathy is fantastic
Harrison purposely read the narration lines poorly because he was hoping it wouldn’t be put in the final product.
Huh. I never knew that the narration was added because of some test audience response. I saw it that way when I was younger, and that was just how I knew the movie. When I bought it many years later, I was surprised to find that the narration was missing. I hadn't heard the voiceover since my childhood, until watching this video. Good choice pulling it.
That movie had a lasting impression on me. I think it was the best movie I’ve ever seen. The sequence where the bicyclists ride through the rain soaked streets was visual poetry. When Harrison proves to Shaun that she isn’t human with such cruelty demonstrating just how much of an “it” she was, yet with a full pallet of infused human emotions was incredibly powerful. Watching this basically innocent “manufactured” creatures entire foundation ripped away spoke deeply of the meaning of a soul. And so much of modern life is reflected there. By tearing people down, reducing us to a point we can be used: just like a machine or a slave. As far as Deckard being human, there’s no way he could have taken the beatings he did and survive as a human. Plus, as he had no idea he was a replicant (were that the case) it reenforced the metaphysical insanity of creating such beings and either giving them a four year lifespan or deliberately manipulating them with the omission of “Hey, you’re not even human.”
Same here, I obsessed over that movie for months, even going to the library to look up articles in film review magazines.
This movie clearly could compete for the tiltle of best movie ever
Human beings can take that beating. And him being a replicant not only is against the point of the book and the script, it also undermines the issue that there isn’t really a difference between them.
Agree, and the music is so good. Didn't like 2049 much at all
@@defenstrator4660 did you see BR2049? Opening scene my man gets smashed through a wall by an OG blade Runner replicant, I am not sure a human can take that beating, and instantly bounce back. Maybe they had humans chase replicants for the first few escapes but it seems they wised up fast when humans got totally wrecked and sent replicants to do ‘a man’s job’. And it doesn’t undermine the meaning or point of the story if Deckard is a replicant. It merely reminds me of when they’d send former slaves to hunt and retrieve runaway slaves.
Imagine directing Aliens and then being called a novice.
Alien not Aliens.
Short, to the point. Great work.
Thank you!
Just found this video in my recommended and I was pleasantly surprised. Short, informative and to the point. Loved it, you got a new subscriber!
Backing Ridley Scott 💯% on this one. Prima donna actors and smug department heads unused to a hard day's work. Ridley is from the North of England. Nuff said.
Also, it's just the usual mild antagonism between Brits and Yanks, James Cameron experienced exactly the same when filming Aliens in England. Although James Cameron does have a reputation for being a bit of a cunt on set.
All the circumstances helped to build a unique masterpiece, and all of the people involved in the making of this movie is aware of that.
"very much wanted to collaborate" -to get his own way
You don't think he got his own way being completely left to his own devices, with no direction?
@@Billkwandohe got direction Harrison ford just had no say in what that direction was gonna be
I wish we could get a faithful adaptation of the book. The visuals and soundtrack were great, the story not so much. I agree with Ford regarding the nature of his character.
i massively agree
I massively disagree
There was a time when Harrison cared about the movies he appeared in. Nowadays he will do whatever the studios ask even if it means destroying Indiana Jones and Han Solo. When he was interviewed for Blade Runner 2049 and asked about the Deckard being a replicant he replied, "I don't care." Additionally when people complained about the lore destroying Disney changes to Star Wars he replied, "F-- the lore."
Yeah, actors are just actors don't get why people care so much about their opinions..... Yes actors do have SOME artistic control over their characters and how they act them, but beyond that let the director do his job.... Most actors don't give a FCK about whatever they are in, they just want money.
Ironically I think Harrison Ford's resistance to the replicant idea works because Deckard wouldn't want to accept it either.
Its no surprise to me whatsoever, that Ford (and the rest of the crew) were difficult to work with. I agree with Scott that the British crews were more compliant and willing to follow the director's vision to its (intended) and natural end. Ford himself is - obviously - an egomaniac. Just listen to him speak in any interview he's ever given. And Scott's portrayal of this story was SPOT ON and accurate, and turned out to be one of the best sci-fi flicks of all time. Actors are just way too entitled (they're almost a species of people unto themselves) so bringing out the best in their acting requires a firm hand and a superior vision like Ridley Scott's. SO GLAD that Scott persisted and made the incredible Blade Runner. A film like this and a vision like his is almost certainly never to made again. Studios would never allow the cost overruns to complete a vision this spectacular again.
no, he's a delusional pretentious arrogant narcissist with no idea what makes good directing, he should have stuck to being a DP and found someone with a better sense of directing
You're spot on about Ford's conceit. Very well documented. I'll take Ridley's vision (and firm direction) over Harrison's or anyone else's ego every damn time, ALL the time.
Ridley Scott is an arse.
@@darkknight5227-g7j Ridley is the one with the ego, Ford is quite down-to-earth - ummm, have you heard Ridley talk?
James Cameron had quite the opposite view of British crews whilst doing 'Aliens'...
Sounds like to me, Ridley Scott was only pushing for the correct dynamic between actors & crew and a director, that was how it's supposed to be in the first place, while the cast and crew were just being difficult, lazy and entitled.
Harrison was definitely being entitled. He wanted to collaborate? The guy's an actor. He wasn't hired for his artistic insight. Actors get way too full of themselves. What if every actor on set wanted to collaborate? Oh no, that'd be ridiculous. Harrison's just special because he's more famous, so his ideas are better (despite completely missing the point of the story)
He saved the character. As someone who has read do androids dream of electric sheep, I think it would have gone against the point of his character to make him robotic.
@@Toughmittens not really. Both Ridley & Harrison have both confirmed Deckard was a replicant all along. Also it was based on the book, not a straight adaptation
@@colonelcrackerz2320in the sequal he's still alive, which kind of negates that theory. In the original it was implied that he was a replicant with the unicorn stuff, but seems like they changed their minds for the sequal.
@@Xanaduum Why would him existing negate the theory when the plot of the last one goes to such pains to point out that the generation he would have been from were so close to human as to be indistinguishable? It's the entire reason the new MC think's he's the replicant born kid
Ridley Scott VS the brats
I'm glad my first viewing of this movie was early this year and of the modern extended version without the awkward commentary so that ending moment really did hit like it was meant to.
2:13 Directors couldn't operate the camera?? That makes no sense.
Actually makes perfect sense if you know anything about film production. Directors are responsible for the transition of a motion picture from a screenplay. They oversee all aspects of a film production at a high level-working most closely with the actors.
While a director describes what the images of the scenes should look like, they are almost never the ones actually capturing them-it’s the director of photography’s job to construct the aesthetic space that will be captured by the camera through lighting and cinematography, and that is done utilizing teams of ACs, camera operators, gaffers, grips, and electricians.
These departments are very siloed, and there’s a good reason for that: film is heavily unionized. This prevents a director from firing a cinematographer and just jumping on the camera themselves or trying to have an AC do all the photography directing. And these are protections people in the industry fight for the better part of a century to achieve.
@@tekkaman65535 I didn't know any of this. Thank you for the information. I just assumed that a director would already have made short films when they were younger, with little cameras that they would have bought themselves or received as a present etc. So to go from having a hands on approach as a youngster to not even being able to physically touch a camera when it's your actual job as a director on a movie just didn't even cross my mind.
@@tekkaman65535 thanks, chatgpt
Unions rent seeking.
Just like 9-5s and those who work places for necessities, never make workers hate their job. Some don’t even want be there, so you’re just creating an even worse experience. Which could leave them to give minimum effort.
Nice video, thank you! Keep up the good work👍🏻
Having seen both the theatrical and the ultimate 2007 cut, I must support the minority audience who think the voice-over was entirely alright. It's hard to detest Blade Runner in any shape or form, you know :D.
I cant believe this channel only has 3 videos! These are so well made man, can't wait to see what you cook up next
Thanks man, glad you've enjoyed them!
I honestly don’t like this movie much and I think Deckard is a boring unlikable protagonist. But Roy’s death at the end is so bloody good that it makes everything worth it and elevates this movie to a stunning classic. You talked about Harrison Ford and the crew, but I wonder what Rutger Hauer thought about the shoot.
@@MsLuckoftheDraw Roy is the protagonist, Deckard is supposed to be unlikable.
@@wavertone Yeah, I feel like that at the end. But for the whole rest of the movie, I think Deckard is the guy, you know? Honestly, when I say the end makes it worth it, I really mean the end makes every second of watching the earlier parts worth it.
@@MsLuckoftheDraw May I ask if you saw this movie in a theatre?
@@wavertone I have not.
@@MsLuckoftheDraw I think the spectacle of it plays better in a larger context. Some movies are meant for a big screen and this is one definitely of them.
hard to say Ridley wasn't in the right on this one. An absolute classic and has been for about 30 years.
Ford should have understood that he has no right to dictate the script. He's an actor, just one part of a big machine.
It's one of my favorite movies. Seeing this in my early 20s made a huge impact.
I love bladerunner and I enjoy some of Ridley Scott's movies; I think he's a great visual director, but his last few movies have really been lacking in the writing department
I disagree with so many people and agree with Harrison Ford. I had watched Blade Runner so many times and when someone told me that Deckard is a replicant, it disappointed me because Roy Batty saved his life because he valued everyone's life during his last moment, including the enemy (humans) who was determined to kill him.
In the original Phillip K. Dick novel, Deckard is definitely human. The point of the story is that ultimately there is no discernible difference between humans and replicants...the point is lost if Deckard is also a replicant.
ummmmmmm, does an enemy of a replicant have to be a human? irrelevant. a replicant killing another replicant....is an enemy. that isn't why he saved deckard. The point isn’t lost since the point is acting like a human not human provenance.
It doesn't ruin anything IMO because there is no way Roy would have known if Deckard is a replicant or not. That's the whole point of a Blade Runner to begin with, if not even a Blade Runner realizes he is a replicant then Roy wouldn't have either. So for all intents and purposes it doesn't change anything, Roy still saved his "enemy" which shows his capacity for kindness and mercy/humanity.
@@hhjhj393 THANK YOU. Exactly. Roy is saving his enemy. It doesn’t matter if deckard is human or a replicant, the only thing that matters is how conducts themselves not what they are under the hood.
Back when Harrison Ford cared about the roles he played
It's actually extremely funny how the voice over adds *literally* nothing to the film that can't already be picked up on from context. The mantra is show don't tell, guys!
EXACTLY. you have the greatest visualist of our lifetimes showing you the grandest visions and then you have the stupidest, clunkiest, coarse narration telling you what you are seeing.
And it ruined the 'tears in the rain' scene.
@@peterswires8439 exactly. A character gives a beautiful soliloquy about the transient nature of life and then it’s destroyed by some witless narration for the lowest common denominator.
It was added back in because people weren't getting the story. Yes, that is the actual reason.
@@lunadead an unwise choice for folks who should be uplifted.
Short, sweet and very informative while entertaining to watch and listen to. I'm a fan.
This is one of my favorite movies. Ironically, I do like the voiceover. It provides the insight that goes over many people's heads. It provides context. Decker's voiceover comment about his police boss calling replicants "skin jobs" is very pertinent and establishes context. Maybe the last line mentioned in the above clip could be deleted, but most of the voiceover was good.
OTOH, Decker wasn't a replicant. That makes no sense. The whole movie was about Decker's internal conflict and realization that replicants had human rights. I do not care what people say, I will not believe it.
Synopsis of this whole video... Brillian director in charge of his own project has to listen to whinning employees thinking they have major things to make the film better... News flash, blade runner is one of the absolute best scifi films ever! So in the end they are all upset the director did know best.
I have a book that talks about the symbolism in the film. Really interesting stuff. It's called Studying Blade Runner by Sean Redmond.
This is one of the best fucking movies ever. Not bad... its the best
If had gone well, there is also the notion the film would not be what we got and the acting the same.
Scott is a perfectionist, and he notices everything on set.
There was a scene in the Tyrell office (big stone pillars) where the crew fitted the pillars and just put them how they saw best because they looked the same either way. Scott walks in and says, "Those are upside down; turn them the right way." They lost the days shooting over just that.
This is one of the reasons his films always look so good; he has a very good eye for detail.
I actually enjoy the narration in Bladerunner. But I find things to enjoy with each different version of the film.
Same.
Me, too. It provided more detail to suggest what the character was about. Plus - there are a lot of sounds in the movie that are abrupt and make you feel uneasy.
It adds a film noir nature to it.
All those poor, poor millionaires
Multi*
I have always noticed it's the rich who scream the loudest. Whenever the rich have to do ANYTHING they scream and cry and make this big issue, yet if the working class ask to not be treated like complete dirt they scream, "you're just LAZY".
It's ALWAYS the rich who scream the loudest while doing nothing. They have hungry personalities they always want more.
Awww, nooo, those uber-rich people had to stay up for 36 hours one time... oohh noo, that's soooo bad...
/s
some of the most miserable people have more money than they know what to do with… I dont understand why people think being wealthy means never having real problems
Any actually excellent piece is the result of terribly difficult arduous work, and is made to seem easy accessible and fun. It is at times joyous to grind and grind until it's fucking perfect. But the reward is AFTER production, of whatever great thing you are working on.
I agree about the ending, but I like some of the earlier voiceover. It is actually crucial to the film noir aspect of the film. I would prefer a version where you have it at the beginning, then wean off of it, finally having none in the last act of the film.
Just found your work and I’m loving it. Would love to see some deep dives 15-40 minutes long!
Really glad to hear you're enjoying the videos. The next one will be on the shorter side (8-12 mins), but it's possible I'll make some lengthier stuff after that. Let's see how things go.
The more I look into RS and the experience of actors having to perform for absolutely insane amounts of time, the more it comes across as a brute force method of filming; why frame and prepare, when you can just roll for hour after hour and hope for 'magic' to happen. It makes me recall Herzog saying "When you hear that young filmmakers are shooting 550 hours of footage, my heart sinks. They don't know what they are doing."
unnecessary edit: when you're 'the man in charge', and you make someone perform the same task over and over to the point that an employee screams at you "I am not an animal" and refuses to go on, you are the problem.
I recently read that on Napoleon, Scott had four cameras running all the time and gave the actors very little direction. He was going for volume of footage, not nuance.
Bladerunner is part of the Alien movie timeline.
It's a visual masterpiece with unforgettable characters and an other-worldly story. The fact that the lead character is afraid he's a replicant keeps the tension front and center!
I knew someone, passed on now, who was on the crew. She hated him.
Fighting over fiction. It's like twilight all over
They have done that since the beginning of humanity. It's why we have over 4000 religions and kill each other over lies.
@@citizenVaderin this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God’s blessing, but because, I am enlightened by my own intelligence
@agrumpymonkey5800 it's like a frog in a well while you are believing in dogmatic terms. The moment you escape to the surface, the whole world opens up and blossoms wildly in every direction.
Edward Witten eluded to some kind of higher being in a video about mathematics I watched recently. If someone with that level of intellect questions it then I think we should as well.
@@citizenVader Here, you dropped your fedora kid.
I'm glad Ford stood his ground and didn't play Decker as a replicant. He was super human enough.
First off, im not saying directors cant be dicks and that actors can't bring anything creatively to the story and their characters byond just acting. But lets be real too often they push their power around too much. They get most of the money and fame so they think they can undermine the directors and writers vision. But when directors dont respect actors they whine. But when actors dont respect directors they act like these underdog heroes sticking it to the man. When they literally have more power than 99% of directors and 99.999999999% of writers.