Jay is joined by Colin from Canada to discuss the Ridley Scott sci-fi classic Blade Runner, a movie Colin (and pretty much everyone else) loves and Jay finds kinda boring. Controversy!
Suddenly I crave awfully written Harrison Ford narrations for every movie he's been in, they are a comedy gold mine: "I was about to be frozen in carbonite, even for a guy like Darth Vader, that was just cold."
"The 'Na-zis' opened the ark of the covenant, I did 'not-zee' that coming, so I closed my eyes.. not wanting to see what was about to come. I turned a blind eye to what followed and they were all dead within a blink of an eye."
"I shot Greedo in the face and paid the barkeep for the mess. What followed was a downward spiral of alcoholism and sleepless nightmares about his purple eyes leaking out of his green head. I cried each time I visited his grave, wishing I could just tell him how sorry I am for being such a scoundrel. Years later I have found out that he shot first, but the damage was already done - I continued drowning my sorrows by sleeping with Luke's sister."
The biggest crime with this review is the complete absence of any mention of the score and sound design. Vangelis delivered something quite remarkable in this film.
They misunderstood the missing "chemistry" of the relationship. The scene where Deckard has sex with the girl is supposed to be cringy, even worse: it's supposed to be rapey. You see, Deckard lived a life of killing these machines, these "replicants". His life is a mess, he's an alcoholic. The one thing that helps him sleep at night is the knowledge that these replicants are NOT sentient, human beings. They are subhuman. They are machines. No different than a toaster. Then comes this robot chick and throws it all upside down. She has feelings, she emotionally breaks down when faced with the reality of being a robot. But worse of all: he starts caring for her. BUT, if she has all these human characteristics, then all those replicants he killed may have had human characteristics too. And then, he becomes a murderer. So he's raw. He doesn't care. He tries to be as cold and distant as possible. Because he's fucking a toaster. And moreso, because he's the best toaster killer ever. And after giving in to his impulses, and after all is said and done, they still fall in love with each other because of a very simple reason: they're both lonely. And that's all it takes.
Dick pole Exactly. But it is really interesting, because Deckard dehumanizes her as a coping mechanism. When the combat replicant spares him near the end, he finally realizes that they have feelings, that they can understand life in a similar way that we do, that their lives and memories DO matter. With this new understanding, he's free to love a replicant. But also, he retroactively becomes a killer. There's a reason why they don't use the word "kill" or "murder" when dealing with replicants. Deckard can no longer be an effective Blade Runner, because he's realized that the replicants "die" and suffer from all the fears and pains we do when dying.
So true. I'm always extremely confused that so many people don't get the point of their whole relationship. Most people who critsize the movie are saying they can't connect to the protagonist or their love story while the thing that is shown here is how ugly Deckard behaves towards replicants until he changes. This is a sci-fi noir flick and not some rom com where you should feel happy for the love of our protagonists. This movie is about humanity, science and life and not about two people who are happily in love with each other. The themes of the movie should make you connect to it and not that you root for Deckard.
You're in Milwaukee walking along in the streets when all of a sudden you see Rich Evans walking towards you. You reach over and you flip Rich Evans on his back. Rich Evans lays on his back, belly freezing in the Milwaukee weather, beating his legs trying to turn himself over but he can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Because I'd rub his exposed belly and he would start laughing and I'd be immediately cured of my anxiety, panic, cancer, AIDS, and ebola thanks to those angelic sounds.
I treat the “is deckard a replicant” question as just that. Nothing conclusive, just bringing up the point that there’s not much difference between replicants and humans. Just like replicants we also have a time limit. “It’s too bad she won’t live but who does”
For me he’s always been *probably* human, and the whole thing is how the people left on this dystopian, future Earth of 2019 are miserable and coping, somewhat removed from what it means to be human. Meaning the replicants and humans are so stuck in the same situation, the smallest signs (such as the origami) can make a man doubt if he’s “real”… There’s no real proof he isn’t a replicant for himself or the viewer of the film since it’s established memories can be implanted. The police department could have easily pressured the Tyrell Corp. to fix their problem by creating Harrison Ford shaped Nexus 7 with memories of being “the best of the best” Blade Runner and activated him at the beginning of the story to do the dirty work. He has no family or friends, lives alone in a shitty apartment, and only the police chief would have to be in on it… Still, like I said: I like the “Is he…? Nah!” and choose to believe he’s human. Ridley chooses otherwise.
Maybe I’m misremembering, it’s been a while since I read the novel, but doesn’t Dick end the story on the same note? It’s made unclear if he’s a replicant.
I agree. It’s like Inception, where the fact that there is a question at all is truer to the theme than any answer could be. If he was a replicant, you’d just pick apart the movie and point out the difference between his character and a normal human. If he wasn’t, you’d just have to take the movie as exactly what it presented and side with the idea that humans and replicants are different.
you know hes not a real boy right? the audio is piped in post effect. you can tell because his face never moves as much as his laugh should indicate it should. the animators got lazy again.
11:10-11:39 "He's just broken, cynical... a sad person, very lonely..." "Y'know, he probably drinks way too much..."" "Kind of [a] sadness, I think, about his character..." Are we talking about Deckard here, or Mike Stoklasa?
Deckard kill human like creature as a job, and hes so good at his job that his boss call him back from retirement "mean he had kill so many replicants before" so its understandable why hes acting like that
The "they have no chemistry" thing, it really is like a relationship born from loneliness and fits in the movie for me, it also makes him begin to empathise with replicants
There's also the attraction of a man of action, a strong man -- and a simple man who isn't trying to pretend he is something that he isn't. She of course is desirable by being beautiful, intelligent, and cool -- someone else who is very on-the-surface/uncomplicated.
My take on the Tears in Rain sequence makes it a little more tragic. Whilst saving Deckard demonstrates Roy's humanity, I think a motivating factor for the latter's actions is that he doesn't want to die alone.
It's Red Letter Media. They rarely mention film scores and soundtracks. Checkout the Plinkett's Star Wars Reviews. He only mentions John Williams in the Force Awakens, I think.
Roman Emperor Constantine IX Gotta disagree with you there. Could you imagine Jaws without the John Willimas score? Music is just as important as acting, camera work, editing, etc.
I think the "Deckard is a replicant" thing in the Final Cut works best as an insinuation. The point isn't that he is a replicant, it's that we can't tell what separates man from machine anymore. That one doubt in the audience's and Deckard's own mind as to his true origins is a final note to think on; we've fallen so low as a species that we've made slave labor and assassinated beings with as many rights to live freely as we do. Good science fiction should challenge us philosophically and question the human condition, and that ambiguity hanging in the air is why it works for me...which they'll probably fuck up in the new movie with explicit plot information.
I think if there is a problem with it - I certainly don't see it like RLM does - it's that the movie doesn't actually ask the question, but it answers it definitively. If the question is going to be ambiguous, the unicorn scene has to go, and if the unicorn scene stays, the movie should ask the question. The book actually addresses it head on, with Deckard blundering into another bounty hunter. The two become suspicious of each other and use their best techniques to prove that the other is not a replicant. I'm not really saying the scene would work in the movie, but the movie provides a definitive answer to a question it never really asks and that might be why Jay is put off so heavily. To him it just gets in the way because it's not just an insinuation. That said, I don't understand why Deckard being a replicant robs the movie of any dramatic weight. There are plenty of other movies where you're meant to sympathize with a robot and it works (Bicentennial Man, A.I. come to mind). I feel for Rachel when she learns the truth, because the distinction between real and artificial has become so blurred that she (and the other Nexus 6es) are essentially just nonhuman people.
I would agree, but I'll also add that it's less about humanity having "fallen low" and more at what point does the thing we once saw as an object (because that is what robots, computers and other pieces of technology are to us today) becomes a 'person', or one to value as such anyhow. The matter is really interesting because it opens up the question of what makes humanity special, as in, what defines an individual and what makes it so that they should be defended by means of rights and so on. I'm a bit baffled as to why this wouldn't be interesting.
The first time I saw Blade Runner it was the "Director's Cut" with the unicorn and all the insinuation, I love it and I think it makes for the best version and take on the film. What you are saying about all of it "having no meaning if that is the case" is one perspective for sure but, the way I always took it is; There WAS a Deckard at some point, and like what's her face, Deckard was implanted with the memories of the previous Deckard because of him being such a pro blade runner. Look at everyone else in this movie aside from the replicants; everyone is shitty or fucked up in someway, because anyone with money, and who was able to survive the trip moved off world. So only the feeble and shitty types are left on Earth. I like the idea of Roy saving Deckard because of his new found love of human life and experiences, but he also could have saved him because he is essentially helping a bro out, he knows he's got a thing with Tyrell's new replicant niece and basically just spent the last encounter trying to make the alcoholic pessimistic replicant Deckard take the opportunities he has and use them to their fullest... I dunno, I am not disagreeing with what you say but this is just always the way I have seen the movie and I loved it for it. I am excited but nervous as all hell for the sequel...
I love how Ridley Scott just casually makes some of the greatest movies ever, and then when it hits the editing room, he just goes a little too hard with the alcohol and either enhances whatever it is or just royally fucks it up in every conceivable way.
I demand a Mr. Plinkett voiceover for the final cut version of Blade Runner! "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe he got the pizza rolls I sent him by e-mail."
I can totally understand why some people don't like 'Blade Runner' and it's interesting to hear a critique. It's just a shame that half of the criticism springs out of the "urban myth" that the unicorn footage is an outtake from 'Legend'. It was filmed on the 15th October 1981 (at 96 fps) during photography for Blade Runner (2.5 years before 'Legend'), as evidenced by the clapper board you can see in behind the scenes materials, which says "Blade Runner". Also, Scott is far from George Lucas in this case. Being like George Lucas is changing your films and then preventing everybody from seeing the unchanged version. Scott put all the versions in a nice box-set for everybody to enjoy.
Yeah, it's a pity to see them promoting a known falsehood. I doubt they'll update the video though because doing so undermines a lot of what they're saying.
TM2YC where? I can't find a boxset that is either in print or a reasonable price! I ordered a set on Amazon, but it went out of stock and was never sent. And there is no cheap alternative.
TM2YC No I ordered a booklet thing which has all 3 cuts for $14 before being out of stock and never being sent. and this one I ordered now is over $50 used (sold by 3rd parties).
I don’t mind Deckard being a replicant, but I do mind Ridley Scott trying to shove it down our throats. Thankfully, 2049 didn’t even touch the subject.
I agree. Nevertheless, 2049 played with the ambiguity: Leto just sort of asks if Deckard was designed to fall for Rachael, but the answer lingers in the air….
@@peachmelba1000 it definitely didn’t confirm it. K asks Deckard if the dog is real or a replicant and Deckard just responds “I don’t know. Ask it.” Clearly stating to the audience the Deckard question won’t be answered because no one will believe the answer and people will interpret what they want.
@@luciferfernandez7094the guy didnt even know what eye colour Rebecca had, and they show in the original movie that that is one of the information easiest to access as its on the Police records
How can one not love those slow scenes, especially the Esper machine scene? The darkness, the sound… I feel like I am sitting with him in this dark future and I want to stay there!
@@slow17motion so your example for Jays knowledge of obscure low budget movies being bullshit is when Colin got something wrong about the well known and budgeted Blade Runner?
@@slow17motion To my knowledge, the notion that Ford deliberately read the voice over narration badly in order for it not to be used, is just an internet rumor as well. I might be wrong though.
@@Alexander_Snowden There's also a circa-1980 trailer for "The Empire Strikes Back" in which Harrison Ford provides narration in that way that Harrison Ford does when he clearly has contempt for what he's being asked to perform.
i always took the weird scene with harrison using the goofy voice as him trying to come across to her like a stupid, relatively harmless perv. "you'd be surprised what a guy would go through to get a glimpse of a beautiful body!" she's to think that's exactly what he's doing; he certainly doesn't want her to believe for a moment he's someone to take seriously. because if she takes him seriously, she may see him as a threat.
That would be a good plan, except his voice is so comical that nobody in the movie world could possibly believe it's real. Instead of "This guy seems like a harmless perv.", she's thinking "Why is this guy putting on on an obviously fake voice?"
he's putting on the obviously fake voice because he's an idiot. or rather, he wants her to believe he's an idiot, a man stupid enough to believe that voice/story would fool anyone. if she believes he's that stupid, then she'll assume he's harmless.
They're not really crazy ramblings, though. He's just claming that it was his idea that Deckard was a replicant and his experience as a director allowed him the confidence to argue for that despite harrison and the studio disagreeing with him. the beavis and butthead thing is just an old man joke, he's referring to people who are confused by the twist at the end and saying "duh, it's not that difficult to undersand." i don't like deckard being a replicant but it's not as convoluted as they're making out.
This. in my opinion it's 50% of the movie, even if it may sound overblown, i remember as a kid listening to my dad's cassette of the soundtrack on a loop and just the music itself lays down the atmosphere so well.
I think I've only seen Bladerunner once and I remember it looked and sounded great but not much else about it. So yes, the music deserved a mention but otherwise this was a great episode.
I always hated the idea of Deckard as a replicant. The bones of the film for me lie in the idea of emotion = humanity. Most of the human characters, Tyrell, the lieutenant, Deckard and Edward Olmos character are all kind of soulless jerks. But the replicants care about each other, they have strong feeling about survival and living. Roy batty on the other hand howls like a wounded mammal. In that sense, they truly are more human than human. Deckard finds his own humanity in the nobility of the replicant who allowed him to live. So yeah, if Deckard's a replicant it kind of ruins the most poignant point of the film.
Exactly. The message I've always taken away is "The replicants are more human than the humans." They don't live long enough to become emotionally dulled shells that the people of that world all become.
i don't see why that makes it contradicting... the value of his insight is the same regardless of his "true nature" - the idea of the "other" and realizing its delusion is such a core human insight that this interpretation makes perfect sense identity and epistemology are scifi/phil bedrocks
I think it is worth noting that in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the inspiration/novel depending on the person asked, there is a scene in the middle where Deckard is taken into an police station run by Replicants. They trick Deckard into thinking that he himself is a Replicant. The nature of identity is a theme that Philip K Dick loved. Deckard is later confirmed human in a test. Deckard is a Human by the author's own admission. It's just that a central religious figure who preaches Empathy is actually a Replicant. Humans are also dependent on machines where they program their own mood and they also use machines to emulate the feeling of empathy. The novel is rather detached and it helps. Phillip K Dick described his book as being about a police officer who gives up his humanity so that he can hunt Replicants. Phillip K. Dick also loved the movie, but he did not see the theatrical release. Blade Runner 2049 is amazing and everyone should play the Blade Runner adventure game from the 90s. It is a mixture of the book and the movie.
The Ganglia Arc Reflex Test, if I recall correctly. The other bounty hunter is more like a replicant than Deckard, who explains how he resolves the dilemma of being sexually attracted to a replicant. The fact that the whole alternative police station made no sense, well what can I say, but Philip. K. Dick.
I saw Blade Runner a few times and it didn't click for me. But then, one night when it was raining outside, I decided to watch it in the complete darkness with the sound cranked up with the rain outside and it was fucking amazing. Definitely the closest thing to an Art Film/Sci Fi hybrid. I'm not even sure if it was intentional or a happy accident. An atmospheric masterpiece. I think I disliked it at first because my expectation of what the film would be compared to what it was was wildly different *Director's Cut
I watched Bladerunner for the first time when I was twelve. My father sat me down on the couch and had me watch it with him. I have to say that, while I get why others find the film boring, I never have. From the first time I saw it I just fell in love - it's one of the movies that got me into the craft of film making.
It’s a beautiful film that exists in a world unlike anything else, before or since. The expanse and Andor come close at times, but the rainy noir future in this movie is my favorite setting for anything. It’s the most important character.
Same. In hindsight I think I was very lucky to have watched it when I was 13 or so, same with 2001: A Space Odyssey, cuz watching it at that age it just clicked, and its stuck in that perfect time-capsule. And when I watched 2049 I got to experience that all over again. I 100% would understand ppl watching this and being bored, especially if they grew up constantly hearing people sing its praise and waxing lyrical, building up the hype way too high, and then being disappointed by it at an older age
Perhaps the fact we can identify people who find this film boring, means we can retire them. Ironically we could use the movie as a Voight Kampff empathy test.
Fun apocryphal I've heard about the visual effects/set design: Production was halted during the writers strike of 1981. To keep as much of the production team as possible employed, Ridley Scott had them work on the sets, models, and props. True or not, one of the most believable and 'lived in' movie worlds on film.
The scene in the dressing room is an homage to "The Big Sleep" where Humphrey Bogart puts on glasses and a silly voice and pretends to be a nerdy book collector.
alphabobcat Still doesn't make sense in the story but I guess this gives another layer to it. I remember myself asking "Why'd he do that?" when I first watched it.
20:33 I just had to look up this Jerry Lewis interview and its THE most awkward interview I've ever seen. He stonewalled every single question and gave no craps whatsoever. It's hilarious
If there's one thing I took away from this review, it's that Elderly Filmmaker Ridley Scott needs to direct a live-action theatrical version of Beavis and Butthead.
"huh-huh, hey Beavis, check it out. I'm... More Human than Human." "heh-heh-heh-heh! BWEEEOW-WAH" * both begin to imitate White Zombie's 'More Human than Human' *. Ridley Scott, redeem yourself and make this happen.
To me the greatness of Blade Runner isn't about "themes" or any kind of moral quandries. It's the visual language (combined with the glorious score from Vangelis) that attracts me. Right from the opening scene above LA it just sucks me into this world and I love it. It doesn't really matter what it's about. I just want to linger.
The footage from the unicorn scene is not from Legend, it was shot during the production of Blade Runner and it wasn't used because the producers didn't want to. Ridley Scott didn't even had rights to edit the film, according to the documentary Dangerous Days, he was fired the day after shooting wraped
Evil Dead is too campy, too some weird freaks... fuck em'. Jokes aside, Blade Runner wasn't necessarily slow too me, just boring. The plot is awesome, but the acting ( except Hauer ) seemed very stale too me and things like Fords love interest seemed very contrived. It's a very gorgeous movie though.
I saw the movie last month without knowing this whole replicant theory so I honestly didn't make the connection between the unicorn dream and the origami which meant that the dream sequence was just random and had no payoff. I was just like: oh that guy took pity on Deckard and Rachael and decided to leave them alone. If anything the Unicorn symbolism could just mean letting Rachael live freely with dignity rather than containing and exploiting her but that's just a random thought.
The funny voice scene with Zhora is lifted from The Big Sleep-- Bogart's character similarly puts on a voice, playing himself off as a nerdy, unthreatening book collector, in order to seem less like a hard-nosed gumshoe and provide a plausible reason for snooping around. I don't think it works as well with Ford as it does with Bogart, but that's probably what they were going for, anyway. I agree that Scott takes the point too far when he claims that Ford *literally* is a replicant. But on the other hand, I think it's equally important that the movie refuses to say he's not a replicant, either-- the question should be raised, but never answered. Because in that world, where lifelike androids are given false memories, *no one* would have any way of knowing if they were a replicant or not, not ever. The movie's dwelling in shadows, meandering pace, and overall sense of malaise contribute to this sense of philosophical uncertainty, yet it ends on a hopeful note-- in the modern world, we may be losing our ability to distinguish between what is "real" and what is "fake," but ultimately, life is life, and has inherent value. I do think even in Scott's various director's cuts, the movie remains suitably ambiguous; a single, dreamlike shot of a Unicorn doesn't definitively prove anything; but it does raise the question, which is important. So I think Jay is getting too caught up in the behind-the-scenes trivia of what the director says in interviews decades-after-the-fact; if you just look at the film on its own terms, the crucial ambiguity holds up, IMO. And for what it's worth, IIRC in past interviews Scott remained playfully ambiguous about the question, not definitively saying Deckard was a replicant. That's much more in keeping with the spirit of the movie. It's only more recently that Scott has gone off the deep end-- and so have his films, unfortunately.
It was a great nod to The Big Sleep. Stood out to me the first time I saw Blade Runner, as The Big Sleep is my all-time favorite noir, and that scene is Bogart at his playful best.
Yes it was a total nod to Noir. Guess this just isn't a RLM darling as they go into detail about some movies but not this one at all. Can't believe these guys who are so much into classic cinema didn't get this Bogart reference. They seem to regard Blade Runner in the same way I think of Star Trek, now that is yawn.
Okay, I really love these discussions. Jay and Colin have conflicting opinions, but they respectfully agree to disagree and understand ones points on why they feel a certain way. Why can't the rest of society do that? Hostility is overrated.
I mean you would be kind of idiotic to get heated over a movie. I do think politics affects the future of the country so it makes sense for people to get heated on occasion.
12:00 "it takes a replicant for him to rediscover his humanity. but i dont understand why she brings this out of him" -- it wasnt rachael. it was roy that helps him discover his tenderness
You can throw all the "why"s and whatnots of the world at these old movies, but this ambiguous and "even the creators don't really know" way makes them such lasting, haunting even, experiences. Today's movies are mostly extremely polished and engineered down to the tiniest detail, and they just come and go.
I actually think Harrison Ford did a really good job in this film- I read something which said that 'Bladerunner' comes from the fact that every one of the Bladerunners is on the brink of death because their job is so risky, or they're all running 'on a knifes edge', hence the name. I think that he plays Decker like he's just trying to survive- he's not a hero, he's scared and 'on the knifes edge', clinging to life.
The term "blade runner" referred to a smuggler of medical supplies, e.g. scalpels - in a totally unrelated scifi story. They just liked the name so they lifted it.
notforglory perhaps, but a blade runner is a term for a amputee that utilizes a prosthetic leg that resembles a blade made from alloys or polymers that acts like spring steel. Thus a mechanical body extension. I'm sure that played a role as well. After all he is chasing replicant/synthetics so to speak.
lunarmoon1959 Pretty sure those kind of prosthetic legs didn't exist in the 80s and that they only became known as blade runners in reference to the movie (not necessarily because of any thematic link, just because it's catchy and fits, though perhaps both). notforglory is right. They just used the title because it sounds cool and the source material title was cumbersome. Ridley's a pro at doing things that look cool and don't make much sense under scrutiny.
I'm firmly in the "Deckard is Human" camp, because it's the more powerful narrative. I mostly disregard the unicorn scene as anything truly significant (except perhaps a metaphorical perception of Rachel - which makes more sense now given the events of the sequel). The film itself is the most beautiful work of audio-visual art that I've ever seen. I'll stand by that.
Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies, so I had my doubts when I started watching this. What can be said that hasn't already been said? However this made me realise that too often we elevate classics to a point that they are untouchable, which is wrong. Art should never be beyond analysis and criticism. There are some strange choices in this movie, it's not flawless, and you revealed details and trivia that I hadn't even heard before.
Of course, there's flaws in this movie, but the atmosphere they created in cinema it's something glorious and unique no one ever will be able to replicate. I'ts great!
@@Marlowe10100 The music is AMAZING, really makes the movie and even elevates the scenes where there is no music and something "boring" is happening, because it makes everything feel big and important. It really feels like the world is somehow different at the end of the movie from the beginning. Which I can't say for a lot of other movies and that's why it's one of the all time great science-fiction classics.
True. But I think considering the shit this movie got, its not undue to elevate it to classic status. I think also becuz it leaves such an impact on pop-culture, the fact that everyone recognises it and references it. The problem is that if you don’t watch this from a young age, you’ll go through life with increasingly higher expectations becuz of what you hear or read. Its not becuz of the quality of the film but becuz if you keep hearing how amazing a film is, how no one could dislike it, how its perfect, you could begin to think its overhyped and when you watch it it’ll never live up to those stellar and impossible expectations. Films are way better with no expectations ahead of it but with films like these thats hard.
I don't make a habit of commenting on TH-cam videos but this is so badly-researched I feel I have to. Hampton Fancher did not write the final draft of the Blade Runner script, that responsibility fell to David Peoples. The ending of People's draft, the final shooting script, had Deckard realising he was a replicant - even describing Roy Batty as his brother. The Deckard-as-replicant twist was planned before production even started. Further, the unicorn footage is not from Legend and has been confirmed by multiple sources to have been shot specifically for Blade Runner and then cut from the theatrical version. Also, the original script featured noir-style narration, some of which survives in deleted scenes and the workprint cut, that was eventually scrapped during production. It was significantly better-written and acted than the extremely awkward narration the studio had written and inserted into the theatrical release.
Funny you should mention that, the unedited line in the workprint is actually "you've done a man's job sir! But are you sure you are a man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here"...
I kinda thought the part where Deckard puts on the funny voice was a reference to Bogey in The Big Sleep (a detective-noir classic). In the film (from memory), there's a part where the main character (portrayed by Humphrey Bogart) goes into a bookstore and disguises himself by putting on dark sunglasses, flipping up the brim of his fedora at the front, and putting on an odd voice. It's a little wacky, just because Bogart plays such a serious and straight character throughout. Least that's what I figured.
Hate to be "that guy" but I gotta point out that Ridley Scott had intended a unicorn memory be in the original film, and did indeed shoot footage specifically for Bladerunner. This is all discussed in the great book Future Noir The Making of Bladerunner. Pages 355 -359. In summary the head honchos felt the unicorn memory made no sense, was to vague, so they insisted it be cut. Unfortunately by the time Ridley did the first directors cut the negatives of this scene were lost.
THIS! Its even mentioned in the book Colin cites, Future Noir: The Making of Blade runner, on pg 366. The unicorn dream was filmed specifically for and intended to be used in the original cut. But as is the case with that original release, the studio intervened, with some mention of them thinking it was "too arty" and removed it. When putting together the Director's cut, what footage that could be found from shooting the unicorn dream was cleaned up and included.
On the topic of the goofy voice scene, I actually kinda liked it, because it makes him seem like a horrible detective. For me, the rest of the movie supports this idea that he isn't the best detective, but he'll do whatever it takes to get the job done. Like he blasts the lady in public as she's running through these glass panels, kinda just blowing the crap out of everything. I always kinda assumed that his prior "successes" involved cooking the books and paying people off to some degree.
You get the impression that before the latest batch came out, replicants weren't all that bright. So this kind of shit probably worked on them. But Nexus 6 replicants are too smart.
I believe it is a reference to the character of Philip Marlowe, a hardboiled detective in such noir films as The Big Sleep in which he does a similar goofy voice thing as a disguise to avoid being recognized.
As Jay points out, my biggest problem with the Decker/replicant theory: they build a replicant to hunt replicants, but he is slower, weaker, and also has no real self awareness? And as a replicant he can also be subject to revolting, so what then? A replicant, who hunts replicant, who hunts replicants? 😩
Well, they aren’t allowed to let loose a replicant in the streets, so IF the police ordered Tyrell Corp. to build a replicant for emergencies such as these 4 “skinjobs” coming to Earth, he’d have to fit in with society yet have the cognitive abilities to track them down and the skill to retire them (which he largely does). There’s no signs Rachael has increased speed, power and stamina either. But still, I don’t see him as a replicant personally
@@TofumanFC3S interesting point, but I would also say, why not just use a team of humans? Why build a basically human powered replicant at all? As for Rachael, she is interesting, like you said no signs of extraordinary powers. And she would appear to be designed as a companion, the only problem is, she does kill Leon. I just find it interesting that she can kill. I wonder if she could kill a human? And I agree with you, I don't feel like Deckard is a replicant.
@@darksiderulz52 Let’s say the movie WAS written and directed to have Deck be a replicant, then the answer is easy: To make the movie happen. In universe it’s harder to explain, you’re right. I’d point to maybe not wanting to risk human lives and MAKE Tyrell fix his faults. Or Tyrell, in order to maybe get a second chance of offering replicants, did everything they could to convince the authorities to give the chance to fix their mistakes? Or lastly, maybe it’s easier to just program a replicant to “intuitively” know how replicants think and operate, and therefor track them down way quicker than humans could, minimizing damage to lives and property. Again, this is just me going along with the possibility, not me trying to convince anyone. For me the fact that opinions vary so much shows it’s mission as a movie was successful, regardless of wether Ridley sees himself firmly in one camp
@@TofumanFC3S yes it is a movie that is great for just what you said, you can have a diverse range of interpretations. I have always enjoyed it, and it definitely makes it very rewatch able. I've enjoyed hearing your's, it is always fun to hear a different perspective. 👍
Hate to break it to you guys but the unicorn footage was shot for Blade Runner. Not trying to bust your hack fraud balls, but it was originally supposed to be included in the film, but was prevented from being included by the Studio.
No mention of Rutger Hauer' character's post speech scene? After he gives that speech and dies, while being a complete and powerful killer android, he doesn't harm the bird with his strength as it flies off. As it does, it almost signifies a soul flying off to the heavens, implying that robots do have a soul.
You mean the extremely ham-fisted imagery? Yeah that's worth leaving out honestly. Almost as on-the-nose as the nail in his hand. Dreadfully obvious and kitsch, all of it.
@@GuyInAHotdogSuit69 Yeah, maybe remove all his dialogue too. And the rain. And the saving Deckard part. Now that would be subtle and smart so only I could get the movie.
I also wanted to point out that the Unicorn scene was shot for the theatrical cut and was never used until the Directors cut. And the voice over narration was in the script, but it was only gonna be used in certain scenes. Which was evident in the Workprint that was released a few months before the theatrical cut. But the Workprint wasn't well received, so the studio made Harrison Ford do more voice over narration.
We don't know how old Decker is. We meet him eating noodles, and he later has to be told about replicants. For all we know, he could be newer than Rachel.
but he is known to be an experienced Blade Runner though. I love this movie because of the crafting and how it made me appreciate cinema. Vangelis´s score, visuals,etc. But I don´t think the movie would be even good without this. Sadly what hangs on to this movie is the score and visuals.
@@DZ-bj3yx He is "known" to be that by whom exactly? By himself - and he wouldn't know that he is a Replicant - and the people who contract him - who wont tell him. I dont think any other person outside of this circle is like "yup, that's a famous Blade Runner, has been Blade Running for years". I agree with the OP, Deckard is probably the newest model of them all, he could be as young as just a couple of days. The origami dude is the REAL Blade Runner, Deckard is just one of his tools.
I would say that Deckard being robot like or wooden is very much in line with his character. I don't see it as a detriment to the story that he doesn't have chemistry with Rachael or acts generally awkward. Deckard and every other character, besides the rogue replicants, don't share chemistry with anyone full stop. Isolation was a major theme of the book as well as movie. The people of this future are depicted to be distant and jaded and only through contact with some changed replicants do they themselves change. I think it works.
The unicorn was a test for his upcoming movie legend, as he knew he was going to need unicorn shots on that movie. It was a way of getting the blade runner producers to foot the bill for Legend research. It wasn't deleted footage from the actual film though.
Though I have similar issues with the unicorn being added back into the film, I think you guys fell for a rumor that claimed that the unicorn was from Legend, it wasn't. Ridley Scott always liked the idea that Deckard was a replicant though studio execs didnt get the point it was for and wanted it cut. The unicorn footage was specifically made for Blade Runner, its easy to make the assumption that it was from Legend since they are both films made around the span of a few years and both are by Scott but it was a rumor, nothing more.
You call it boring, but I'd take these slow scenes that get a chance to breathe, and let you soak in the atmosphere and world building, over the Michael Bay ADD movies we get 10 times over.
The movie is dripping in atmosphere but it's easy for the mind to wander when nothing is happening. I recognize that the scene of him examining the photo is supposed to be a glimpse of him "doing real detective work" but it just goes on for longer than necessary. Three *enhance* movements would have sufficed to convey what he was doing.
@@Laocoon283 Jay has criticized movies that are too fast several times. Just because he thinks this movie is slower than it needs to be doesnt mean he likes "FAST" movies or "ADD MICHEAL BAY." I disagree with his criticism but that doesnt mean its invalid.
Different people value different things, who knew? You are free to disagree with someone's opinion but to resort to name-calling whilst simultaneously calling somebody childish is a little counterproductive. Jay's dislike of the movie is not a personal attack on anyone who enjoys it, so I'd argue that if there is any childishness on display here, it's in your comment.
"I don't mean to make you a fussy little baby". Proceeds to do so extensively. Oof my feelings. I don't particularly care about this film and my comment was not half as much a temper tantrum as yours, so I'm not sure where you got the idea I was "visibly and autistically upset" from. There's a case for projection here but it'd be just one of a number of logical fallacies on display. Anyway, since reasonable, level-headed debate is obviously not something you are willing to participate in, I'm going to check out here. Feel free to respond with some more devastatingly witty insults while I sob into my stuffed animals or whatever it is you think I do. Whatever makes you feel better.
I think the opposite, Jay shifted Scott onto his way of thinking and by the end I forgot that Scott liked Blade Runner at all. I've noticed something about a lot of these panel discussions, no matter how many people are present eventually they all share the same brain and nothing new comes up in the conversation when peer conformity takes over. More people should mean more information and more points highlighted, not less. :\
Coming here right after rewatching your Escape From New York re:View, I'm suddenly struck by the fact that you liked that movie for being atmospheric and not a fast-paced action movie with more goofiness but Blade Runner is boring? Gonna watch the other 29 minutes of the video now but that just struck me as odd.
Yeah idk i guess don’t think too hard about it, opinions are inconsistent and not objective, and i think in large part its to do with what Jay grew up with. John Carpenter imo i find quite boring, but he gets quite high praise from RLM. Assault on Precinct 13 is apparently exciting from what they say, but idk i’d personally say Blade Runner is a lot more exciting.
The unicorn scene was in the original cut but when it came time to restore it for the directors cut, the original footage was gone, so the scene had to be recreated with whatever they had. This turned out to be a single out-take which was cleaned up and added to the directors cut. That sequence was shot in 1982 for "Blade Runner". Not "Legend". Clearly both these guys are replicants or have had memory implants. I can understand Jay not knowing this but Colin claims to be a big "Blade Runner" fan.
Indeed. The worst thing is, they hang a lot of criticism on something, they're actually wrong about. www.mybladerunner.com/faqs/4-9-1-the-unicorn-footage-is-from-the-movie-legend-right-no-it-is-not/
It was in the original submitted footage. The studio took it out, as well as added the voiceover. The whole origami unicorn doesn't make any sense without that dream sequence.
I love the final cut. Outstanding editing job, very subtle, very coherent... Not because of the ending per se, but the rhythm of the images and how make sense at the dream sequence from the beginning
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
Suddenly I crave awfully written Harrison Ford narrations for every movie he's been in, they are a comedy gold mine:
"I was about to be frozen in carbonite, even for a guy like Darth Vader, that was just cold."
This deserves more attention.
"The 'Na-zis' opened the ark of the covenant, I did 'not-zee' that coming, so I closed my eyes.. not wanting to see what was about to come. I turned a blind eye to what followed and they were all dead within a blink of an eye."
"I'd quit because I'd had a belly full of killing - everyday ended with a tums festival." (Blade Runner US theatrical cut)
Sushi. That's what Leia called me after I had been frozen in carbonite; cold fish.
"I shot Greedo in the face and paid the barkeep for the mess. What followed was a downward spiral of alcoholism and sleepless nightmares about his purple eyes leaking out of his green head. I cried each time I visited his grave, wishing I could just tell him how sorry I am for being such a scoundrel. Years later I have found out that he shot first, but the damage was already done - I continued drowning my sorrows by sleeping with Luke's sister."
The biggest crime with this review is the complete absence of any mention of the score and sound design. Vangelis delivered something quite remarkable in this film.
RLM never discusses music, which is a big part of film.
The Vangelis score, apart from 3 tracks, is dull and overrated. Orchestra >>>>>>>>>> easy synth.
FranticAnimations
I'll pray for you because those angry mobs you just stirred will show no mercy.
Cut for time, unfortunately. The score and visuals are almost inseperable in my opinion.
Strip that from the movie and it doesn't hold up. Which is what the criticism here is all about.
That quote from Ridley Scott perfectly embodies what Ridley Scott has become and 100% explains how Alien: Covenant came to be.
Oh, that definitely explains Napoleon too **slide whistle**
@@hannibalburgers477 100%
I personally loved alien covenant a lot and the direction.
Q: Is Rich Evans artificial?
A: Of course he is.
Q: It must be very expensive.
A: Not really.
They misunderstood the missing "chemistry" of the relationship. The scene where Deckard has sex with the girl is supposed to be cringy, even worse: it's supposed to be rapey. You see, Deckard lived a life of killing these machines, these "replicants". His life is a mess, he's an alcoholic. The one thing that helps him sleep at night is the knowledge that these replicants are NOT sentient, human beings. They are subhuman. They are machines. No different than a toaster.
Then comes this robot chick and throws it all upside down. She has feelings, she emotionally breaks down when faced with the reality of being a robot. But worse of all: he starts caring for her. BUT, if she has all these human characteristics, then all those replicants he killed may have had human characteristics too. And then, he becomes a murderer.
So he's raw. He doesn't care. He tries to be as cold and distant as possible. Because he's fucking a toaster. And moreso, because he's the best toaster killer ever. And after giving in to his impulses, and after all is said and done, they still fall in love with each other because of a very simple reason: they're both lonely. And that's all it takes.
Dick pole Exactly. But it is really interesting, because Deckard dehumanizes her as a coping mechanism. When the combat replicant spares him near the end, he finally realizes that they have feelings, that they can understand life in a similar way that we do, that their lives and memories DO matter. With this new understanding, he's free to love a replicant. But also, he retroactively becomes a killer. There's a reason why they don't use the word "kill" or "murder" when dealing with replicants.
Deckard can no longer be an effective Blade Runner, because he's realized that the replicants "die" and suffer from all the fears and pains we do when dying.
So true. I'm always extremely confused that so many people don't get the point of their whole relationship. Most people who critsize the movie are saying they can't connect to the protagonist or their love story while the thing that is shown here is how ugly Deckard behaves towards replicants until he changes. This is a sci-fi noir flick and not some rom com where you should feel happy for the love of our protagonists. This movie is about humanity, science and life and not about two people who are happily in love with each other. The themes of the movie should make you connect to it and not that you root for Deckard.
Huh, that's interesting. Thanks.
I think it's more a metaphor about war or extreme subjugation than science, other than that great comment on their relationship.
This should be the top comment. Not those one liner hacks!
You're in Milwaukee walking along in the streets when all of a sudden you see Rich Evans walking towards you. You reach over and you flip Rich Evans on his back. Rich Evans lays on his back, belly freezing in the Milwaukee weather, beating his legs trying to turn himself over but he can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Because I'd rub his exposed belly and he would start laughing and I'd be immediately cured of my anxiety, panic, cancer, AIDS, and ebola thanks to those angelic sounds.
because he's a Douche.
What's a rich evans? I've never seen one in real life.
@@Noestoysiestoy don't you mean AAAAAAAIIIIIIIDDDDDSSSSSSSS?
:D
I treat the “is deckard a replicant” question as just that. Nothing conclusive, just bringing up the point that there’s not much difference between replicants and humans. Just like replicants we also have a time limit. “It’s too bad she won’t live but who does”
For me he’s always been *probably* human, and the whole thing is how the people left on this dystopian, future Earth of 2019 are miserable and coping, somewhat removed from what it means to be human. Meaning the replicants and humans are so stuck in the same situation, the smallest signs (such as the origami) can make a man doubt if he’s “real”…
There’s no real proof he isn’t a replicant for himself or the viewer of the film since it’s established memories can be implanted. The police department could have easily pressured the Tyrell Corp. to fix their problem by creating Harrison Ford shaped Nexus 7 with memories of being “the best of the best” Blade Runner and activated him at the beginning of the story to do the dirty work. He has no family or friends, lives alone in a shitty apartment, and only the police chief would have to be in on it…
Still, like I said: I like the “Is he…? Nah!” and choose to believe he’s human. Ridley chooses otherwise.
It also doesn’t make sense, what kind of replicant would he be, wouldn’t he be dead by 2049?
Maybe I’m misremembering, it’s been a while since I read the novel, but doesn’t Dick end the story on the same note? It’s made unclear if he’s a replicant.
I agree. It’s like Inception, where the fact that there is a question at all is truer to the theme than any answer could be. If he was a replicant, you’d just pick apart the movie and point out the difference between his character and a normal human. If he wasn’t, you’d just have to take the movie as exactly what it presented and side with the idea that humans and replicants are different.
@@mustansirhalfal774 Exactly.
rich's offscreen laughing during the ridley scott quote is objectively the best rich evans laugh.
you know hes not a real boy right? the audio is piped in post effect. you can tell because his face never moves as much as his laugh should indicate it should. the animators got lazy again.
11:10-11:39
"He's just broken, cynical... a sad person, very lonely..."
"Y'know, he probably drinks way too much...""
"Kind of [a] sadness, I think, about his character..."
Are we talking about Deckard here, or Mike Stoklasa?
Deckard kill human like creature as a job, and hes so good at his job that his boss call him back from retirement
"mean he had kill so many replicants before"
so its understandable why hes acting like that
@@sentryward8744 Goddamn lizard people
LswaN 1 After hearing that letter Mike read,I’d say we’re probably talking about Ridley Scott
@@sentryward8744 *whooosh*
me
i think that ridley scott quote gave me a fucking stroke
Codex Entry too close to see the view perchance
Codex Entry Ridley Scott got swag.
I think he had one as well while saying it.
It's the best when you can hear other people laughing off set
Rich losing his shit off camera made it 100x better
As soon as Colin mentioned Harrison Ford's "rubber face" when getting punched, my perception of decades of his movies have been forever changed....
The "they have no chemistry" thing, it really is like a relationship born from loneliness and fits in the movie for me, it also makes him begin to empathise with replicants
There's also the attraction of a man of action, a strong man -- and a simple man who isn't trying to pretend he is something that he isn't. She of course is desirable by being beautiful, intelligent, and cool -- someone else who is very on-the-surface/uncomplicated.
And he kisses her like he’s a replicant.
exactly
@Socucius Ergalla "She can't offer him everything that a real woman could- a child," 2049: im gonna stop you right there
@@caseypardue6548 True per that film, but he wouldn't have known it at the time.
Rich Evans laughing in the background after Jay reads the interview with Ridley Scott had me crying.
Rich laughing at just about anything is gold.
Approx 15min mark
I went to the comments as he was laughing to say this.
I knew it
That sounds like Josh's imitation rich laugh
"Beavis and Butthead are replicants." -Ridley Scott
_"Ridley Scott is a replicant"_ -- The internet
Now I have a mental image of Beavis re-enacting Roy Batty's death scene from Blade Runner.
Like tears in hhehehehehhehehheh rain.
My take on the Tears in Rain sequence makes it a little more tragic. Whilst saving Deckard demonstrates Roy's humanity, I think a motivating factor for the latter's actions is that he doesn't want to die alone.
that's awesome, reminds me of HAL in 2001, how he tries to comfort himself while dying
R.I.P. Rutger Hauer. You will not be lost in time like tears in rain 😔😥😭
That's gonna be a tough and even more powerful scene to watch from now on.
I loved him too. He seemed to always have fun with his roles.
Yes he will that's the whole point
holy fuck, you didn't once mention the soundtrack, which for me is at least half the appeal
The sound is AMAZING
A major part indeed
vangelis is the best!
It's Red Letter Media. They rarely mention film scores and soundtracks. Checkout the Plinkett's Star Wars Reviews. He only mentions John Williams in the Force Awakens, I think.
Roman Emperor Constantine IX Gotta disagree with you there. Could you imagine Jaws without the John Willimas score? Music is just as important as acting, camera work, editing, etc.
I think the "Deckard is a replicant" thing in the Final Cut works best as an insinuation. The point isn't that he is a replicant, it's that we can't tell what separates man from machine anymore. That one doubt in the audience's and Deckard's own mind as to his true origins is a final note to think on; we've fallen so low as a species that we've made slave labor and assassinated beings with as many rights to live freely as we do. Good science fiction should challenge us philosophically and question the human condition, and that ambiguity hanging in the air is why it works for me...which they'll probably fuck up in the new movie with explicit plot information.
Sams ChanneI you excited to see Spider-Man homecoming? Btw I am local subscriber
I think if there is a problem with it - I certainly don't see it like RLM does - it's that the movie doesn't actually ask the question, but it answers it definitively. If the question is going to be ambiguous, the unicorn scene has to go, and if the unicorn scene stays, the movie should ask the question. The book actually addresses it head on, with Deckard blundering into another bounty hunter. The two become suspicious of each other and use their best techniques to prove that the other is not a replicant. I'm not really saying the scene would work in the movie, but the movie provides a definitive answer to a question it never really asks and that might be why Jay is put off so heavily. To him it just gets in the way because it's not just an insinuation.
That said, I don't understand why Deckard being a replicant robs the movie of any dramatic weight. There are plenty of other movies where you're meant to sympathize with a robot and it works (Bicentennial Man, A.I. come to mind). I feel for Rachel when she learns the truth, because the distinction between real and artificial has become so blurred that she (and the other Nexus 6es) are essentially just nonhuman people.
Sams ChanneI Agreed! 100%!
I would agree, but I'll also add that it's less about humanity having "fallen low" and more at what point does the thing we once saw as an object (because that is what robots, computers and other pieces of technology are to us today) becomes a 'person', or one to value as such anyhow. The matter is really interesting because it opens up the question of what makes humanity special, as in, what defines an individual and what makes it so that they should be defended by means of rights and so on. I'm a bit baffled as to why this wouldn't be interesting.
The first time I saw Blade Runner it was the "Director's Cut" with the unicorn and all the insinuation, I love it and I think it makes for the best version and take on the film.
What you are saying about all of it "having no meaning if that is the case" is one perspective for sure but, the way I always took it is; There WAS a Deckard at some point, and like what's her face, Deckard was implanted with the memories of the previous Deckard because of him being such a pro blade runner. Look at everyone else in this movie aside from the replicants; everyone is shitty or fucked up in someway, because anyone with money, and who was able to survive the trip moved off world. So only the feeble and shitty types are left on Earth. I like the idea of Roy saving Deckard because of his new found love of human life and experiences, but he also could have saved him because he is essentially helping a bro out, he knows he's got a thing with Tyrell's new replicant niece and basically just spent the last encounter trying to make the alcoholic pessimistic replicant Deckard take the opportunities he has and use them to their fullest...
I dunno, I am not disagreeing with what you say but this is just always the way I have seen the movie and I loved it for it. I am excited but nervous as all hell for the sequel...
I love how Ridley Scott just casually makes some of the greatest movies ever, and then when it hits the editing room, he just goes a little too hard with the alcohol and either enhances whatever it is or just royally fucks it up in every conceivable way.
"The Rubber Harrison Ford face". I'm never going to be able to unsee that now!
I demand a Mr. Plinkett voiceover for the final cut version of Blade Runner! "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe he got the pizza rolls I sent him by e-mail."
'I have sex with my replicat'
I can totally understand why some people don't like 'Blade Runner' and it's interesting to hear a critique. It's just a shame that half of the criticism springs out of the "urban myth" that the unicorn footage is an outtake from 'Legend'. It was filmed on the 15th October 1981 (at 96 fps) during photography for Blade Runner (2.5 years before 'Legend'), as evidenced by the clapper board you can see in behind the scenes materials, which says "Blade Runner". Also, Scott is far from George Lucas in this case. Being like George Lucas is changing your films and then preventing everybody from seeing the unchanged version. Scott put all the versions in a nice box-set for everybody to enjoy.
Yeah, it's a pity to see them promoting a known falsehood. I doubt they'll update the video though because doing so undermines a lot of what they're saying.
TM2YC
where? I can't find a boxset that is either in print or a reasonable price! I ordered a set on Amazon, but it went out of stock and was never sent. And there is no cheap alternative.
Oh yeah, seems to be out-of-print now. The box-set was nearly ten years old. Probably there will be re-issues galore when the sequel comes out.
TM2YC
No I ordered a booklet thing which has all 3 cuts for $14 before being out of stock and never being sent.
and this one I ordered now is over $50 used (sold by 3rd parties).
TM2YC I
I don’t mind Deckard being a replicant, but I do mind Ridley Scott trying to shove it down our throats. Thankfully, 2049 didn’t even touch the subject.
I agree. Nevertheless, 2049 played with the ambiguity: Leto just sort of asks if Deckard was designed to fall for Rachael, but the answer lingers in the air….
me, personally, I love this movie
@@peachmelba1000 it definitely didn’t confirm it. K asks Deckard if the dog is real or a replicant and Deckard just responds “I don’t know. Ask it.” Clearly stating to the audience the Deckard question won’t be answered because no one will believe the answer and people will interpret what they want.
@@luciferfernandez7094there is no way Leto's character could know about this as the 90% of the pre-blackout records are destroyed
@@luciferfernandez7094the guy didnt even know what eye colour Rebecca had, and they show in the original movie that that is one of the information easiest to access as its on the Police records
How can one not love those slow scenes, especially the Esper machine scene? The darkness, the sound… I feel like I am sitting with him in this dark future and I want to stay there!
who else skipped ahead to make sure it wasn't a black screen?
100%
Ben Hoffman legit did
I'm almost disappointed. I had to make the Transformer noises myself.
Ben Hoffman meee
Yep
Blade Runner is still the most atmospheric film I've ever seen. Love that urban, cyberpunk, constantly-night feel.
With Apocalypse Now coming in a close second
The soundtrack is one of the strongest points of the film and does not get anywhere near enough credit!
Ridley Scott: "Damn I will never make anything as good as Beavis and Butthead!"
Jay's knowledge of obscure low budget movies is insane.
@@slow17motion so your example for Jays knowledge of obscure low budget movies being bullshit is when Colin got something wrong about the well known and budgeted Blade Runner?
@@slow17motion I bet you're a blast to have at parties.
@@slow17motion To my knowledge, the notion that Ford deliberately read the voice over narration badly in order for it not to be used, is just an internet rumor as well. I might be wrong though.
@@slow17motion Touch grass
@@bjrnhagen4484I agree. Ford’s just reading it as though he’s a tired gumshoe. Whatever his motivation, it works.
The voiceover is unbelievable. Shockingly bad. Holy shit. I love it so much.
if it was "old fashioned" it would be more film noir -esque, dark and gritty. He just read the lines from his bathtub because he didnt care.
GooseGumlizzard he never liked those lines to begin with, despite his complaints they never removed them till directors and final cut
The writing was terrible, the performance was lackluster, yet it reinforced the film noir feel of the movie. I think that's what you miss, John.
Apparently Ford hated the narration and so sabotaged his lines. However, WB still went with them for the theatrical release...
@@Alexander_Snowden There's also a circa-1980 trailer for "The Empire Strikes Back" in which Harrison Ford provides narration in that way that Harrison Ford does when he clearly has contempt for what he's being asked to perform.
i always took the weird scene with harrison using the goofy voice as him trying to come across to her like a stupid, relatively harmless perv. "you'd be surprised what a guy would go through to get a glimpse of a beautiful body!" she's to think that's exactly what he's doing; he certainly doesn't want her to believe for a moment he's someone to take seriously. because if she takes him seriously, she may see him as a threat.
That would be a good plan, except his voice is so comical that nobody in the movie world could possibly believe it's real. Instead of "This guy seems like a harmless perv.", she's thinking "Why is this guy putting on on an obviously fake voice?"
he's putting on the obviously fake voice because he's an idiot. or rather, he wants her to believe he's an idiot, a man stupid enough to believe that voice/story would fool anyone. if she believes he's that stupid, then she'll assume he's harmless.
You're really reaching to make this scene work
*shrug that's just how i always read the scene, but we apparently disagree. :)
It's a throwback to The Big Sleep.
Rich laughter after Jay reading the crazy ramblings of Ridley Scott is the cherry on the top of this episode.
@13:34
They're not really crazy ramblings, though. He's just claming that it was his idea that Deckard was a replicant and his experience as a director allowed him the confidence to argue for that despite harrison and the studio disagreeing with him. the beavis and butthead thing is just an old man joke, he's referring to people who are confused by the twist at the end and saying "duh, it's not that difficult to undersand." i don't like deckard being a replicant but it's not as convoluted as they're making out.
@@bazookajoe9864 Every party needs a pooper and that's why they invited you. Party pooper.........party pooper......
Thanks. But more like 14:30 I would say.
The "rubber face" bit always brings me to tears laughing.
this is like that bit in lord of the rings where gollum talks to himself
Reading between the lines, I think Jay finds Blade Runner boring.
you may be onto something here....
I don't think Rachel acts like a robot. Her reaction when she realizes her memories aren't hers is very human
i too had that very human reaction when I realized I wasn't human.
namesta
"I'm Pistacchio Disguise-y!" XD
It's actually a copy of a scene from The Big Sleep with Humphrey Bogart, where Bogart speeks with a funny voice in a bookstore.
Oh my God... I fucking lost it at "Part time!"
also "cold fish" XD
good, I am not the only one XD
MasterRocking i laughed too and it was very late and i was a little high so it was extra funny.
MasterRocking "Cold fish" got me too!
That line always irks me because Spielberg clearly used the best take in the trailer and then the shittiest take for the film itself.
No mention of the Vangelis score? Damn you guys!
They almost never mention sound or music in their reviews, and as I sound guy that kind of bothers me.
This. in my opinion it's 50% of the movie, even if it may sound overblown, i remember as a kid listening to my dad's cassette of the soundtrack on a loop and just the music itself lays down the atmosphere so well.
Check out Oliver Harper's retrosective
Also check out Sean Mcdougalls' analysis. Great stuff.
I think I've only seen Bladerunner once and I remember it looked and sounded great but not much else about it. So yes, the music deserved a mention but otherwise this was a great episode.
I always hated the idea of Deckard as a replicant. The bones of the film for me lie in the idea of emotion = humanity. Most of the human characters, Tyrell, the lieutenant, Deckard and Edward Olmos character are all kind of soulless jerks. But the replicants care about each other, they have strong feeling about survival and living. Roy batty on the other hand howls like a wounded mammal. In that sense, they truly are more human than human. Deckard finds his own humanity in the nobility of the replicant who allowed him to live. So yeah, if Deckard's a replicant it kind of ruins the most poignant point of the film.
Exactly. The message I've always taken away is "The replicants are more human than the humans." They don't live long enough to become emotionally dulled shells that the people of that world all become.
i don't see why that makes it contradicting... the value of his insight is the same regardless of his "true nature" - the idea of the "other" and realizing its delusion is such a core human insight that this interpretation makes perfect sense
identity and epistemology are scifi/phil bedrocks
Maybe he was just a "part time " replicant....PART TIME
I think it is worth noting that in the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the inspiration/novel depending on the person asked, there is a scene in the middle where Deckard is taken into an police station run by Replicants. They trick Deckard into thinking that he himself is a Replicant. The nature of identity is a theme that Philip K Dick loved. Deckard is later confirmed human in a test. Deckard is a Human by the author's own admission. It's just that a central religious figure who preaches Empathy is actually a Replicant. Humans are also dependent on machines where they program their own mood and they also use machines to emulate the feeling of empathy. The novel is rather detached and it helps. Phillip K Dick described his book as being about a police officer who gives up his humanity so that he can hunt Replicants. Phillip K. Dick also loved the movie, but he did not see the theatrical release. Blade Runner 2049 is amazing and everyone should play the Blade Runner adventure game from the 90s. It is a mixture of the book and the movie.
Blade runner game ???? Nerd
The Ganglia Arc Reflex Test, if I recall correctly. The other bounty hunter is more like a replicant than Deckard, who explains how he resolves the dilemma of being sexually attracted to a replicant. The fact that the whole alternative police station made no sense, well what can I say, but Philip. K. Dick.
I saw Blade Runner a few times and it didn't click for me. But then, one night when it was raining outside, I decided to watch it in the complete darkness with the sound cranked up with the rain outside and it was fucking amazing. Definitely the closest thing to an Art Film/Sci Fi hybrid. I'm not even sure if it was intentional or a happy accident. An atmospheric masterpiece. I think I disliked it at first because my expectation of what the film would be compared to what it was was wildly different *Director's Cut
People watch Blade Runner with the lights on in the middle of the day????
CarbonWaterCalcium its not scary. not even in a pitch black room, not even while on acid...
Dead Space really isn't scary, because every scare is predictably telegraphed or scripted.
You have a unicorn for your icon. You might just be a replicant. ;-]
2001: A Space Odyssey has more art film elements to it than Blade Runner does.
Lost my shit when Jay read the Ridley Scott quote and Rich cracks up in the background. Have to continue later...
'uh I don't know about that', loI, I can just imagine Harrison Ford saying that so bluntly
I want to retroactively edit every sitcom ever made, remove the laughtrack and replace it with Rich Evans laughing in the background
I watched Bladerunner for the first time when I was twelve. My father sat me down on the couch and had me watch it with him. I have to say that, while I get why others find the film boring, I never have. From the first time I saw it I just fell in love - it's one of the movies that got me into the craft of film making.
It’s a beautiful film that exists in a world unlike anything else, before or since. The expanse and Andor come close at times, but the rainy noir future in this movie is my favorite setting for anything. It’s the most important character.
Same. In hindsight I think I was very lucky to have watched it when I was 13 or so, same with 2001: A Space Odyssey, cuz watching it at that age it just clicked, and its stuck in that perfect time-capsule. And when I watched 2049 I got to experience that all over again. I 100% would understand ppl watching this and being bored, especially if they grew up constantly hearing people sing its praise and waxing lyrical, building up the hype way too high, and then being disappointed by it at an older age
Perhaps the fact we can identify people who find this film boring, means we can retire them. Ironically we could use the movie as a Voight Kampff empathy test.
Fun apocryphal I've heard about the visual effects/set design: Production was halted during the writers strike of 1981. To keep as much of the production team as possible employed, Ridley Scott had them work on the sets, models, and props. True or not, one of the most believable and 'lived in' movie worlds on film.
Every single time I watch this movie I leave wanting to spend more time in the world and explore.
>discuss Blade Runner
>never mention soundtrack
0/10
THANK YOU!
Goddamn, the soundtrack almost carries the movie for me.
It's, like, 50% of the film's power.
The scene in the dressing room is an homage to "The Big Sleep" where Humphrey Bogart puts on glasses and a silly voice and pretends to be a nerdy book collector.
alphabobcat Still doesn't make sense in the story but I guess this gives another layer to it. I remember myself asking "Why'd he do that?" when I first watched it.
20:33 I just had to look up this Jerry Lewis interview and its THE most awkward interview I've ever seen. He stonewalled every single question and gave no craps whatsoever. It's hilarious
I love Rich Evan's omnipotent laughing while Jay was reading the interview
Wait a minute Colin's last name is Cunningham? I thought it was "From Canada."
Cunningham is French-Canadian for "From Canada".
I lost it at the "cold fish" during the Ford/Young kiss scene.
Today, Nov 20, 2019 is the day the events of Blade Runner take place ! The future is now !!!
What's not to understand about the snake lady scene? Harrison Ford was looking for the Pepperoni Pizza Pie Peephole.
If there's one thing I took away from this review, it's that Elderly Filmmaker Ridley Scott needs to direct a live-action theatrical version of Beavis and Butthead.
"huh-huh, hey Beavis, check it out. I'm... More Human than Human."
"heh-heh-heh-heh! BWEEEOW-WAH"
* both begin to imitate White Zombie's 'More Human than Human' *.
Ridley Scott, redeem yourself and make this happen.
_PISTACHIO DISGUISEY_
HAHAHA
To me the greatness of Blade Runner isn't about "themes" or any kind of moral quandries. It's the visual language (combined with the glorious score from Vangelis) that attracts me. Right from the opening scene above LA it just sucks me into this world and I love it. It doesn't really matter what it's about. I just want to linger.
You are right. The original is the sci-fi hang out film. It is the Ferris Bueller's day off of Science Fiction films.
The unicorn is Rachael, and Gaff’s origami means nothing more than, “I sympathize.”
The footage from the unicorn scene is not from Legend, it was shot during the production of Blade Runner and it wasn't used because the producers didn't want to. Ridley Scott didn't even had rights to edit the film, according to the documentary Dangerous Days, he was fired the day after shooting wraped
The Book Colin references (Film Noir) also discusses the Unicorn scene and confirms it is not from Legend.
that clears it up a bit.
Faulting Blade Runner for being slow is like complaining Evil Dead is too campy.
RazorbackPT That statement is idiotic.
It's a great movie, but I don't need five minutes of Decard scanning a photo for evidence.
The movie's alright but like a billion times shittier than the book
Jeff I do. Deckard is a cop. He should be doing cop stuff like investigating photos for clues.
Evil Dead is too campy, too some weird freaks... fuck em'.
Jokes aside, Blade Runner wasn't necessarily slow too me, just boring. The plot is awesome, but the acting ( except Hauer ) seemed very stale too me and things like Fords love interest seemed very contrived. It's a very gorgeous movie though.
As soon as Jay said “Thank you, Ridley Scott” my video cut to an ad for Napoleon
I saw the movie last month without knowing this whole replicant theory so I honestly didn't make the connection between the unicorn dream and the origami which meant that the dream sequence was just random and had no payoff. I was just like: oh that guy took pity on Deckard and Rachael and decided to leave them alone. If anything the Unicorn symbolism could just mean letting Rachael live freely with dignity rather than containing and exploiting her but that's just a random thought.
That detective was most likely a replicant too, thats why the sympathy. Whole movie and book is about androids having humanity.
The funny voice scene with Zhora is lifted from The Big Sleep-- Bogart's character similarly puts on a voice, playing himself off as a nerdy, unthreatening book collector, in order to seem less like a hard-nosed gumshoe and provide a plausible reason for snooping around. I don't think it works as well with Ford as it does with Bogart, but that's probably what they were going for, anyway.
I agree that Scott takes the point too far when he claims that Ford *literally* is a replicant. But on the other hand, I think it's equally important that the movie refuses to say he's not a replicant, either-- the question should be raised, but never answered. Because in that world, where lifelike androids are given false memories, *no one* would have any way of knowing if they were a replicant or not, not ever. The movie's dwelling in shadows, meandering pace, and overall sense of malaise contribute to this sense of philosophical uncertainty, yet it ends on a hopeful note-- in the modern world, we may be losing our ability to distinguish between what is "real" and what is "fake," but ultimately, life is life, and has inherent value.
I do think even in Scott's various director's cuts, the movie remains suitably ambiguous; a single, dreamlike shot of a Unicorn doesn't definitively prove anything; but it does raise the question, which is important. So I think Jay is getting too caught up in the behind-the-scenes trivia of what the director says in interviews decades-after-the-fact; if you just look at the film on its own terms, the crucial ambiguity holds up, IMO.
And for what it's worth, IIRC in past interviews Scott remained playfully ambiguous about the question, not definitively saying Deckard was a replicant. That's much more in keeping with the spirit of the movie. It's only more recently that Scott has gone off the deep end-- and so have his films, unfortunately.
Bogart definitely pulls it off better than Ford.
It was a great nod to The Big Sleep. Stood out to me the first time I saw Blade Runner, as The Big Sleep is my all-time favorite noir, and that scene is Bogart at his playful best.
YES! I'm glad I wasn't the only one who figured that was a reference to The Big Sleep. You definitely put it in better words than I did though.
Greatly put
Yes it was a total nod to Noir. Guess this just isn't a RLM darling as they go into detail about some movies but not this one at all.
Can't believe these guys who are so much into classic cinema didn't get this Bogart reference.
They seem to regard Blade Runner in the same way I think of Star Trek, now that is yawn.
Okay, I really love these discussions. Jay and Colin have conflicting opinions, but they respectfully agree to disagree and understand ones points on why they feel a certain way. Why can't the rest of society do that? Hostility is overrated.
Professional Grimestepper Because anger is the easiest emotion to spread and it clouds judgement
Comfy Cummies first of all lol, second, fu.
le edgy intellectual
I mean you would be kind of idiotic to get heated over a movie. I do think politics affects the future of the country so it makes sense for people to get heated on occasion.
Did you vote for Jack Johnson or John Jackson? Two party politics is so much fun!
12:00 "it takes a replicant for him to rediscover his humanity. but i dont understand why she brings this out of him" -- it wasnt rachael. it was roy that helps him discover his tenderness
You can throw all the "why"s and whatnots of the world at these old movies, but this ambiguous and "even the creators don't really know" way makes them such lasting, haunting even, experiences. Today's movies are mostly extremely polished and engineered down to the tiniest detail, and they just come and go.
You should have Eminem as a guest way more often!
Of course I'm ignored, going on a world tour, divorcin' Harrison Ford in a Ford Taurus under the floorboards.
Even slimmer shady.
Don't insult Collin by comparing him to that scumbag piece of shit.
It's Stan.
@@hoobaguy4311 what did he do?
I actually think Harrison Ford did a really good job in this film- I read something which said that 'Bladerunner' comes from the fact that every one of the Bladerunners is on the brink of death because their job is so risky, or they're all running 'on a knifes edge', hence the name. I think that he plays Decker like he's just trying to survive- he's not a hero, he's scared and 'on the knifes edge', clinging to life.
Dylan Henty g
The term "blade runner" referred to a smuggler of medical supplies, e.g. scalpels - in a totally unrelated scifi story. They just liked the name so they lifted it.
notforglory perhaps, but a blade runner is a term for a amputee that utilizes a prosthetic leg that resembles a blade made from alloys or polymers that acts like spring steel.
Thus a mechanical body extension. I'm sure that played a role as well.
After all he is chasing replicant/synthetics so to speak.
Dylan Henty pretty certain that's from the Marvel comic adaptation
lunarmoon1959 Pretty sure those kind of prosthetic legs didn't exist in the 80s and that they only became known as blade runners in reference to the movie (not necessarily because of any thematic link, just because it's catchy and fits, though perhaps both).
notforglory is right. They just used the title because it sounds cool and the source material title was cumbersome. Ridley's a pro at doing things that look cool and don't make much sense under scrutiny.
I'm firmly in the "Deckard is Human" camp, because it's the more powerful narrative. I mostly disregard the unicorn scene as anything truly significant (except perhaps a metaphorical perception of Rachel - which makes more sense now given the events of the sequel). The film itself is the most beautiful work of audio-visual art that I've ever seen. I'll stand by that.
Rich's over the top laughter om the background: priceless.
Like tears in the rain.
Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies, so I had my doubts when I started watching this. What can be said that hasn't already been said? However this made me realise that too often we elevate classics to a point that they are untouchable, which is wrong. Art should never be beyond analysis and criticism. There are some strange choices in this movie, it's not flawless, and you revealed details and trivia that I hadn't even heard before.
Of course, there's flaws in this movie, but the atmosphere they created in cinema it's something glorious and unique no one ever will be able to replicate. I'ts great!
Exactly.
@@Marlowe10100 indeed
@@Marlowe10100 The music is AMAZING, really makes the movie and even elevates the scenes where there is no music and something "boring" is happening, because it makes everything feel big and important. It really feels like the world is somehow different at the end of the movie from the beginning. Which I can't say for a lot of other movies and that's why it's one of the all time great science-fiction classics.
True. But I think considering the shit this movie got, its not undue to elevate it to classic status. I think also becuz it leaves such an impact on pop-culture, the fact that everyone recognises it and references it. The problem is that if you don’t watch this from a young age, you’ll go through life with increasingly higher expectations becuz of what you hear or read. Its not becuz of the quality of the film but becuz if you keep hearing how amazing a film is, how no one could dislike it, how its perfect, you could begin to think its overhyped and when you watch it it’ll never live up to those stellar and impossible expectations. Films are way better with no expectations ahead of it but with films like these thats hard.
I don't make a habit of commenting on TH-cam videos but this is so badly-researched I feel I have to. Hampton Fancher did not write the final draft of the Blade Runner script, that responsibility fell to David Peoples. The ending of People's draft, the final shooting script, had Deckard realising he was a replicant - even describing Roy Batty as his brother. The Deckard-as-replicant twist was planned before production even started.
Further, the unicorn footage is not from Legend and has been confirmed by multiple sources to have been shot specifically for Blade Runner and then cut from the theatrical version. Also, the original script featured noir-style narration, some of which survives in deleted scenes and the workprint cut, that was eventually scrapped during production. It was significantly better-written and acted than the extremely awkward narration the studio had written and inserted into the theatrical release.
Kanjiman 感人 You've done a man's job, sir!
Funny you should mention that, the unedited line in the workprint is actually "you've done a man's job sir! But are you sure you are a man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here"...
Those facts do not make the movie any better...
You're right.
It would still be a masterpiece either way.
AnHeC But the facts help show Red Letter Media's poor attempt at researching the film. They're basically spreading misinformation.
I kinda thought the part where Deckard puts on the funny voice was a reference to Bogey in The Big Sleep (a detective-noir classic). In the film (from memory), there's a part where the main character (portrayed by Humphrey Bogart) goes into a bookstore and disguises himself by putting on dark sunglasses, flipping up the brim of his fedora at the front, and putting on an odd voice. It's a little wacky, just because Bogart plays such a serious and straight character throughout. Least that's what I figured.
It's true
he also did it in last crusade when they go into the castle
Hate to be "that guy" but I gotta point out that Ridley Scott had intended a unicorn memory be in the original film, and did indeed shoot footage specifically for Bladerunner. This is all discussed in the great book Future Noir The Making of Bladerunner. Pages 355 -359. In summary the head honchos felt the unicorn memory made no sense, was to vague, so they insisted it be cut. Unfortunately by the time Ridley did the first directors cut the negatives of this scene were lost.
The unicorn isn't from fucking legend. Jesus.
THIS! Its even mentioned in the book Colin cites, Future Noir: The Making of Blade runner, on pg 366.
The unicorn dream was filmed specifically for and intended to be used in the original cut. But as is the case with that original release, the studio intervened, with some mention of them thinking it was "too arty" and removed it. When putting together the Director's cut, what footage that could be found from shooting the unicorn dream was cleaned up and included.
The point isn't that it's from Legend. It's that it might as well be.
deckard163 Jesus. Get a fucking life, Deckard. 😂
Jeremy Lee and yet, here you are!
It isn't.
Where's my 25 minutes of blackness?
Just wait 1 month until the next Transformers movie in the series is released.
Yeah. I don't wanna listen to 2 hack frauds talking for 30 fuckin minutes.
You'll always have auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Agostini blacked?
You'd last 25 minutes with Juicy Shaq Meat? Dam Son.
One of the best movies ever made.
This is one of my favorite films. To hear the pair of you honestly and earnestly tear into it was great. Good work fellas
They continued talking for more than 5 minutes AND I CLAPPED
*IT BROKE NEW FUCKING GROUND!!*
I clapped when I saw it, TOO!
John Quinn Blabo approved !
YOU JUST KEEP HITTING THE FUCKING HOME RUNS REDLETTERMEDIA
wait, does anyone remeber any memorable scenes?
On the topic of the goofy voice scene, I actually kinda liked it, because it makes him seem like a horrible detective. For me, the rest of the movie supports this idea that he isn't the best detective, but he'll do whatever it takes to get the job done. Like he blasts the lady in public as she's running through these glass panels, kinda just blowing the crap out of everything. I always kinda assumed that his prior "successes" involved cooking the books and paying people off to some degree.
I thought that Deckard being a horrible detective was kinda of a given. It's so obvious.
Tar Alacrin I
"My name is Pistachio Disguisi"
You get the impression that before the latest batch came out, replicants weren't all that bright. So this kind of shit probably worked on them. But Nexus 6 replicants are too smart.
I believe it is a reference to the character of Philip Marlowe, a hardboiled detective in such noir films as The Big Sleep in which he does a similar goofy voice thing as a disguise to avoid being recognized.
As Jay points out, my biggest problem with the Decker/replicant theory: they build a replicant to hunt replicants, but he is slower, weaker, and also has no real self awareness? And as a replicant he can also be subject to revolting, so what then? A replicant, who hunts replicant, who hunts replicants? 😩
Well, they aren’t allowed to let loose a replicant in the streets, so IF the police ordered Tyrell Corp. to build a replicant for emergencies such as these 4 “skinjobs” coming to Earth, he’d have to fit in with society yet have the cognitive abilities to track them down and the skill to retire them (which he largely does). There’s no signs Rachael has increased speed, power and stamina either. But still, I don’t see him as a replicant personally
@@TofumanFC3S interesting point, but I would also say, why not just use a team of humans? Why build a basically human powered replicant at all? As for Rachael, she is interesting, like you said no signs of extraordinary powers. And she would appear to be designed as a companion, the only problem is, she does kill Leon. I just find it interesting that she can kill. I wonder if she could kill a human? And I agree with you, I don't feel like Deckard is a replicant.
@@darksiderulz52 Let’s say the movie WAS written and directed to have Deck be a replicant, then the answer is easy: To make the movie happen. In universe it’s harder to explain, you’re right. I’d point to maybe not wanting to risk human lives and MAKE Tyrell fix his faults. Or Tyrell, in order to maybe get a second chance of offering replicants, did everything they could to convince the authorities to give the chance to fix their mistakes? Or lastly, maybe it’s easier to just program a replicant to “intuitively” know how replicants think and operate, and therefor track them down way quicker than humans could, minimizing damage to lives and property.
Again, this is just me going along with the possibility, not me trying to convince anyone. For me the fact that opinions vary so much shows it’s mission as a movie was successful, regardless of wether Ridley sees himself firmly in one camp
@@TofumanFC3S yes it is a movie that is great for just what you said, you can have a diverse range of interpretations. I have always enjoyed it, and it definitely makes it very rewatch able. I've enjoyed hearing your's, it is always fun to hear a different perspective. 👍
@@darksiderulz52Very obvious answer: dangerous jobs are for replicants, who are disposable.
R.I.P Rutger Hauer
Hate to break it to you guys but the unicorn footage was shot for Blade Runner. Not trying to bust your hack fraud balls, but it was originally supposed to be included in the film, but was prevented from being included by the Studio.
zachary goodwin yeah came here to say the same thing, you beat me to it!😀
It's even in the book the Guy mentions that it was filmed for BR, but was removed by the studio edit.
Kadayi yeah that's where I read it! 😀😉😉
Right!
So the explanation is that Ridley Scott is obsessed with unicorns
No mention of Rutger Hauer' character's post speech scene? After he gives that speech and dies, while being a complete and powerful killer android, he doesn't harm the bird with his strength as it flies off. As it does, it almost signifies a soul flying off to the heavens, implying that robots do have a soul.
You mean the extremely ham-fisted imagery? Yeah that's worth leaving out honestly. Almost as on-the-nose as the nail in his hand. Dreadfully obvious and kitsch, all of it.
I’d like to think that the “soul” part isn’t there, that’s way too ham-fisted for me and I think this movie is too smart for a symbol that simplistic
@@GuyInAHotdogSuit69 Yeah, maybe remove all his dialogue too. And the rain. And the saving Deckard part. Now that would be subtle and smart so only I could get the movie.
I also wanted to point out that the Unicorn scene was shot for the theatrical cut and was never used until the Directors cut. And the voice over narration was in the script, but it was only gonna be used in certain scenes. Which was evident in the Workprint that was released a few months before the theatrical cut. But the Workprint wasn't well received, so the studio made Harrison Ford do more voice over narration.
We don't know how old Decker is. We meet him eating noodles, and he later has to be told about replicants. For all we know, he could be newer than Rachel.
but he is known to be an experienced Blade Runner though. I love this movie because of the crafting and how it made me appreciate cinema. Vangelis´s score, visuals,etc. But I don´t think the movie would be even good without this. Sadly what hangs on to this movie is the score and visuals.
@@DZ-bj3yx He is "known" to be that by whom exactly? By himself - and he wouldn't know that he is a Replicant - and the people who contract him - who wont tell him. I dont think any other person outside of this circle is like "yup, that's a famous Blade Runner, has been Blade Running for years". I agree with the OP, Deckard is probably the newest model of them all, he could be as young as just a couple of days. The origami dude is the REAL Blade Runner, Deckard is just one of his tools.
@@stefanpieper3757 He is still alive in the new Blade Runner movie. He isn't a replicant.
I came here to watch 30 minutes of black screen and transformers sounds and I get this?! You hacks!
I would say that Deckard being robot like or wooden is very much in line with his character. I don't see it as a detriment to the story that he doesn't have chemistry with Rachael or acts generally awkward. Deckard and every other character, besides the rogue replicants, don't share chemistry with anyone full stop. Isolation was a major theme of the book as well as movie. The people of this future are depicted to be distant and jaded and only through contact with some changed replicants do they themselves change. I think it works.
word.
Michael W Yes! For me that's part of the point. Whether or not it was intentional I don't know, but that's beside the point XD
good point they connect on loneliness! it kind of reminds me of teenage love I dunno why
I came back and watched this again after watching blade runner again.
Missed a really good chance to add "Edited by Ridley Scott" at the end
The unicorn was a test for his upcoming movie legend, as he knew he was going to need unicorn shots on that movie.
It was a way of getting the blade runner producers to foot the bill for Legend research. It wasn't deleted footage from the actual film though.
Good fucking Lord, the "part time" bit killed me. It was pure instance.
Though I have similar issues with the unicorn being added back into the film, I think you guys fell for a rumor that claimed that the unicorn was from Legend, it wasn't. Ridley Scott always liked the idea that Deckard was a replicant though studio execs didnt get the point it was for and wanted it cut. The unicorn footage was specifically made for Blade Runner, its easy to make the assumption that it was from Legend since they are both films made around the span of a few years and both are by Scott but it was a rumor, nothing more.
You call it boring, but I'd take these slow scenes that get a chance to breathe, and let you soak in the atmosphere and world building, over the Michael Bay ADD movies we get 10 times over.
The movie is dripping in atmosphere but it's easy for the mind to wander when nothing is happening. I recognize that the scene of him examining the photo is supposed to be a glimpse of him "doing real detective work" but it just goes on for longer than necessary. Three *enhance* movements would have sufficed to convey what he was doing.
Ik right. He sounds like he has ADHD everytime he says it boring. He prolly loves fast and furious because its, if nothing else, never boring.
@@Laocoon283 Jay has criticized movies that are too fast several times. Just because he thinks this movie is slower than it needs to be doesnt mean he likes "FAST" movies or
"ADD MICHEAL BAY." I disagree with his criticism but that doesnt mean its invalid.
Still the best special effects IN the digital era.
Jay is too hung up on Scott's opinions and statements.
Different people value different things, who knew? You are free to disagree with someone's opinion but to resort to name-calling whilst simultaneously calling somebody childish is a little counterproductive. Jay's dislike of the movie is not a personal attack on anyone who enjoys it, so I'd argue that if there is any childishness on display here, it's in your comment.
"I don't mean to make you a fussy little baby". Proceeds to do so extensively. Oof my feelings. I don't particularly care about this film and my comment was not half as much a temper tantrum as yours, so I'm not sure where you got the idea I was "visibly and autistically upset" from. There's a case for projection here but it'd be just one of a number of logical fallacies on display. Anyway, since reasonable, level-headed debate is obviously not something you are willing to participate in, I'm going to check out here. Feel free to respond with some more devastatingly witty insults while I sob into my stuffed animals or whatever it is you think I do. Whatever makes you feel better.
+misombra chill
I think the opposite, Jay shifted Scott onto his way of thinking and by the end I forgot that Scott liked Blade Runner at all. I've noticed something about a lot of these panel discussions, no matter how many people are present eventually they all share the same brain and nothing new comes up in the conversation when peer conformity takes over. More people should mean more information and more points highlighted, not less. :\
Like George Lucas, you just have to ignore what the director changes after the movie is released.
Jay and Canadian Jay
Coming here right after rewatching your Escape From New York re:View, I'm suddenly struck by the fact that you liked that movie for being atmospheric and not a fast-paced action movie with more goofiness but Blade Runner is boring? Gonna watch the other 29 minutes of the video now but that just struck me as odd.
Yeah idk i guess don’t think too hard about it, opinions are inconsistent and not objective, and i think in large part its to do with what Jay grew up with. John Carpenter imo i find quite boring, but he gets quite high praise from RLM. Assault on Precinct 13 is apparently exciting from what they say, but idk i’d personally say Blade Runner is a lot more exciting.
I had a good chuckle when they edited in "Part time!" from Crystal Skull xD
Sean young is so beautiful.
*Was
*Never
Her look is absolutely perfect in blade runner
And let's not forget she's bonkers. Beautiful and nuts.
. Isn't that usually the case..?
The unicorn scene was in the original cut but when it came time to restore it for the directors cut, the original footage was gone, so the scene had to be recreated with whatever they had. This turned out to be a single out-take which was cleaned up and added to the directors cut. That sequence was shot in 1982 for "Blade Runner". Not "Legend".
Clearly both these guys are replicants or have had memory implants. I can understand Jay not knowing this but Colin claims to be a big "Blade Runner" fan.
Indeed. The worst thing is, they hang a lot of criticism on something, they're actually wrong about.
www.mybladerunner.com/faqs/4-9-1-the-unicorn-footage-is-from-the-movie-legend-right-no-it-is-not/
it's not hung on the legend thing. Even if it was filmed at the time it's still Ridley Scott fucking up his film with ill-advised bullshit
It was in the original submitted footage. The studio took it out, as well as added the voiceover. The whole origami unicorn doesn't make any sense without that dream sequence.
thank you for pointing this out. i hate when people keep repeating that Legend bullshit.
Film Noir says otherwise Noone
Tears in rain. RIP Rutger Hauer.
I love the final cut. Outstanding editing job, very subtle, very coherent... Not because of the ending per se, but the rhythm of the images and how make sense at the dream sequence from the beginning