One of the most beautiful looking movies we have ever seen! So much more to explore in this world and we can't wait to watch the sequel to see if any of our predictions come true! Thank you all for the support!
If I remember correctly, he worked on it like 4 in the morning. Such a simple line of dialogue but it is so powerful. When we first saw it, my brother commented, he might be crying in his final moments but we can't tell because of the rain.
@@NeilPower I thought the same thing first time I saw it. Great line, underrated actor, he was in one of my favorite guilty pleasure movies, Blind Fury. A really fun movie IMO! Thanks NP for the comment!
It wasn’t improvised. He thought about it beforehand and then said it during rehearsals and Ridley loved it and let him say it during filming. This is info from the making of documentary.
Roy was played by Rutger Hauer and he was an amazing actor. The "I've seen things" speech he created during the filming. One of my all time favorite movies.
That's not quite accurate. He came up with the "tears in rain" line, and it was during a script read-through with the cast, not on the day of filming. He did do an outstanding job, though.
The ending to me is beautiful. Roy, created to be the pinnacle of humanity, maximum self sufficiency, strategic mind, incredible power. His last moments he realises that he is alone, his "family" dead and his creator, the one man who could understand him, dead by his own hands. Roy realises that all his memories, the one thing that links him with humanity, will be lost with him. Roy refuses to die alone, and his last wish is to be remembered and understood, his goals unmet, his last solace is to be understood. In his last moments he composes a phrase he believes to be beautiful (creates rather than destroy, his "purpose"), he steals the dove to prove to something that he still exists, to take control of something while everything else leaves his control. Roy is feeling emotion, and learning to express it, for the first time. In his last moments he wishes to rebel from the purpose he was created. A combat Bot's last wishes is to create and be remembered for the things he has seen and done, as a real person.
Well put! in some ways more human than human. I feel like he understood in the end how connecting with each other and sharing our experiences and existance is what keeps us alive. alive though others. What an achingly beautiful scene. And now Rutger gone, Vangelist gone, ...We remember them through their incredible work and talent, thus keeping them alive.
it's not exactly that ... the dove and the nail have a very precise symbolic meaning, and make Roy a legendary character in the story of the replicants. Roy doesn't want to revolt but to save his people
Don't forget: In a way his last 'act' isn't to KILL: but to save the life of the man trying to kill him. To value life rather than death. He died human.
"Blade Runner" is one of the most visually influential movies ever. It put the "cyberpunk" aesthetic into the mainstream, and inspired generations of artists worldwide.
It established the cyberpunk look for generations to copy from ... there maybe some earlier works of vaguely similar styles but most film makers, artists, designers quote none other than Blade Runner as their inspiration ...
You definitely see the influence Blade Runner had in a lot of work. Ghost In The Shell, The Matrix, and even the cyberpunk genre as a whole. Christopher Nolan even used Blade Runner as inspiration for his Dark Knight Trilogy in his approach to applying realism to a rather unrealistic world. The animated series Batman Beyond also heavily borrows its sci-fi aesthetic from Blade Runner, even down to the flying Batmobile that has a design quite similar to Blade Runner's flying "Spinner" police cars.
This movie was shocking because the whole film's purpose is "What makes us human" Everyone thought it would be this sci fi shoot em up bang film.....but it is a deep emotional character study that plays on our emotions :)
yup but i think they missed how sad the death of Zhora was. Never seen in any other movie a scene where a character is going from a Dangerous Powerful predator on the verge of killing the hero, to a totally defenseless frightened prey running for her life in seconds.
A lot of Vangelis' music for the movie was composed on the fly -- Vangelis sat, surrounded with his instruments, and as he watched the movie, he improvised the score. That's one reason why it fits so well.
He always works like that, for that reason people loves working with him, that alongside the fact that he is constantly creating (as well as his innovative creations) have made a lot of people say he’s the 20th century’s Beethoven
Now that you have seen "Aliens" and "Blade Runner". I recommend you watch "Outland" starring Sean Connery. It's lesser known sci-fi movie from the early 80's. He plays a US Marshal stationed on a moon around Jupiter (I think) facing off against a drug syndicate and corrupt miners. Although it's not actually said, you get the vibe that Alien, Blade Runner and Outland all take place in the same shared universe.
I haven’t seen that movie in a very long time, but I heard about that implied connection to those other movies recently. So I must watch Outland again! I believe there’s also a deleted scene from Prometheus, where there is a definite link between the Alien and Blade Runner universes established?
Personally my favorite Scifi movie ever. The cinematography along with Vangeli's soundtrack makes you experience this movie different from all other Scifi movies out there.
When i first saw this movie on VHS tape back in the 80's i didn't care for it too much but it grew on me and i liked it more when i got older but the one thing that stuck with me was the soundtrack, i just couldn't get it out of my head.
I first saw it in when I was like 10 years old in the 80's. It was on in the middle of the night and instantly it was one of favorite films and my love for it has only grown.
Blade Runner's based on a great Philip K. Dick novel called "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" Many of hid short stories have been made into other sci fi films like Total Recall, The Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly. Almost everything he wrote about deals with paranoia and existential dilemmas mixed in with technology.
Watching your reaction feels a little like watching this masterpiece for the first time again... Thanks! First saw Blade Runner as a teenager and almost 40 years later I am still in awe of Rutger Hauer's performance. Sadly he passed away in 2019... the same year his character Roy passes.
Loved his little bit in Batman Begins!! He was cast as nod to Blade Runner since Nolan took inspiration from it for the first instalment of The Dark Knight Trilogy.
I always felt like when Roy looked down on Deckard trying to hold on for his life with his grip slipping, he saw himself and his own struggle to stay alive, and felt pity, and the irony, and he decided to do what nobody could or would do for him.
Yes, at that moment Batty shows that he is not only physically superior, but also morally superior. He saves Deckard not only to demonstrate this, but because of his own very real empathy. He has nothing further to prove, and also nothing further to lose. He wants to go out with magnanimity and wisdom, leaving a worthwhile mark on the world, despite its poor treatment of him and his friends.
It's because Deckard spits in Roy's face just before he loses his grasp. He shows the same defiance in the face of death that Roy feels & that causes Roy to empathise with Deckard and save him. A lot of people miss the spitting because of how busy the shot is. All this meaning will be lost in time like saliva in rain.
"Lost in time, like tears in the rain" Chills, every time. An incredibly poignant and harrowing view of what life is. Also, Rutger improvised that line.
It's probably been mentioned but the actor playing the cop Gaff is Edward James Olmos. After Bladerunner, he later went on to famously play the enigmatic Lt. Castillo on Miami Vice. Just like his character Gaff, the Lieutenant was a taciturn sharp dressed man. However, in the early 2000s he played the role of Commander William Adama on the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. The central premise of the show (and the original version which predates the Terminator movie series) is the entire the human race has been decimated by a race of killer robots called Cylons. Olmos's character Adama commands the last remaining space warship that guards a refugee fleet of humans searching for a new home. Within the ranks of Cylons are models that look exactly like humans (i.e. eat, sweat, sleep etc) that are used as infiltration units. In the show the human model Cylons began to be called "skin jobs" as an homage to Blade Runner.
I saw this movie when it first came out when I was 12. The next day I went to camp for a month and it was out of the theater by the time I got back. All I could think about at camp was this movie. I had never seen any Sci-Fi movie that felt so real. Still my favorite movie of all time.
IMO TBR Schmitt is quickly becoming the best movie reaction channel. For example: Brandon Likes Movies and Popcorn in Bed (two other youtubers at a similar level to TBR) have, comparatively, thoughtful and genuine reactions to the movies they watch. All three channels are very good. However, TBR has pulled ahead and is now much more in depth. TBR does a mini-review at the end of the movie that gives you a clear picture of what they think, what they noticed and what the take-away was (if any). Also, TBR's analysis is fairly pragmatic: They talk about the movies in relation to themselves, not what people have said or what they think people want to hear.
Absolutely agree. I watch those other 2 and they are great and fun to watch but I really love this couple, they are awesome. Very enjoyable to watch during the movie and the discussion after really sets them apart.
I liked how it showed Roy Baty, the oldest and most soon to die, struggling with his emotions all the time...he was smart, tactically and strategically knowledgeable, but he wasn't really interested in that...he was grappling, trying to emotionally mature...and he did, to the point that, in the full knowledge of his imminent death, he loved and valued Life so much that he didn't even want Deckard to die.
Everyone who reacts to this movie says, It's Harrison Ford movie! Ford is great in it, but Rutger Hauer is the MVP. He gives the movie heart and soul. Tragically underrated actor, at least in the U.S.
Rutger Hauer does a great job of playing a super-intelligent four year-old. When he tells Sebastian that he has some really nice toys, it's not a joke. When he's telling Pris about how the others are dead, he really plays it like a child.
36:10 Thing to remember about this, Deckard had never faced off against a Nexus 6. They were the newest, and by far, the most advanced replicants made.
Not all Nexus 6 are made the same way like Roy, for example Rachel do not have the strength or agility of Roy ... and each Nexus 6 are made for different purposes, so every replicant could have very different abilities and shortcomings, including different life spans ...
@@Lucklaran umm .. a few things I disagree, pls correct me if I'm wrong : 1) the first movie does not explicitly say Rachel is a Nexus 6 model. What happens is that Capt Bryant asked Deckard to bring the VK machine to test for efficacy on a Nexus 6 model at Tyrell Corp ... when Deckard arrives, Tyrell asked for Rachel to be tested. Throughout, Tyrell merely mentions that Rachel is an "experimental model", never explicitly saying what model she's belongs to ... Its only in the sequel 2049 (which I am disappointed with) do we know that she's actually a Nexus-7 model, NOT Nexus-6 .. 2) Its not mentioned explicitly in the first movie that "all Nexus 6 have 4 year life span". The actual words from Captain Bryant are a lot more ambiguous .. He uses the term "they" instead of "all Nexus-6" when mentioning the 4 year life span. "they" could equally be referring to just the escaped replicants rather than all Nexus 6 .. 3) Also, even if we assume Capt Bryant is referring to "all Nexus 6" when talking about the 4 year life span, he could still be intentionally fed false information by Tyrell going by the fact that both Rachel and Deckard are secret experimental models of unknown model types .. 4) Even Capt Bryant could be a replicant himself, I believe he's likely a replicant too from some visual clues in the movie.... The only one I believe to be human is Gaff ...
@@88feji With regard to the VK test on Rachel, what Tyrell said was that he wanted to see a "negative before I provide you with positive". He was hoping Rachel would pass so he could tell Deckard afterward that they'd made a Replicant that could pass the test, making them "undetectable". He doesn't admit to Rachel being a Replicant until after she fails. As for Rachel being special, Tyrel told him she was "an experiment, nothing more" after the test. He also tells Deckard they(Replicants) have a "strange obsession" because they are "emotionally inexperienced with only a FEW YEARS in which to store up the experiences" which people take for granted. He then goes on to explain the "experiment" with Rachel was to "give them a past" to "create a pillow for their emotions" so they can "control them better". As far as I'm concerned this is Tyrell telling us that all Replicants have this issue. Off screen Tyrell fills Deckard in on the "source" of Rachels memories, which he later relates to Rachel. It's presumably at this time he informs Deckard that Rachel has no "termination date", since they never meet again onscreen. It's true he never assigns her a "model number". But, since the Nexus 6 were the "newest" it would make sense they would be experimenting on them. But, it's entirely possible she was not. As to your second point, I refer you back to were Tyrell mentions they only have a "few years" to "mature. No offense, but it's a stretch that only these 4 would have that specific limit. And again, per the first point Rachel was "special" in not having a 4 year termination date. This implies none of the others had this. Your third point. I already covered the nature of the "experiment" with Rachel, it was about implanted memories. As for Deckard being "experimental", there's nothing in the movie to imply this. However, even if he was, he was "retiring" Replicants before the Nexus 6 came out. That would make him an inferior model, which could track, given that we constantly see them mop the floor with him in physical combat. My issue with this is that obviously, Deckard has a history, a past. He is known, and easily passes for human. Look at his interactions with the people he meets. Even Priss, a "pleasure model" does not have his easy way around people. Their interactions are stiff, compared to him, including Rachel. He has none of the issues the "newer" models have, including the one "experiment" with Rachel. This would imply he was better in at least this respect than a Nexus 6, so why build this issue into the "newest model" when the Tyrell motto is "More human than human"? Tyrell want's his Replicants to be better, not worse, than humans. Your final points, well, those are just opinion, no point arguing them, as there is nothing in the movie to back them up. I could just as easily argue that Gaff seems less human to me than Deckard... At the end of it all, what you've got is a lot of "coulds", and not a lot of evidence. Rachel may or may not have been a Nexus 6, according to the movie. I will easily concede that. Your other points... I personally try to stick to what is clearly stated/presented in a movie when discussing it. I try to limit my inferences to things I can directly point to in the movie itself, not external materials. As for BR2049, I personally don't consider it canon, and there is nothing anyone can say that will change my opinion on that. Don't even bother. This is the only thing I will say about it, and I will not respond to any comments about it.
@@Lucklaran I'm delighted that we seem to share a dislike for 2049 ... since you will not get into that 'non-sequel', I will leave it at that ... Just to clarify, so are you saying that you think Deckard is an older model replicant OR he is a real human ? (regarding Gaff and Bryant's identity (human or replicant), I think its tied to the main discussion of Deckard's identity ... lets talk about Deckard's identity first shall we...)
Zora wasn't the “pleasure model”; Pris was. Zora was the one described as “beauty and the beast”. Regarding the ethical questions of the plot: basically, it's a movie about slavery. Told from the perspective of a slavecatcher.
This is why Pris appeared to them to be toying with Deckard instead of just killing him right away. She literally didn't really know how to finish him off because she was a pleasure model, not a killer.
The theatrical release was narrated by Harrison Ford and the narration answered some questions for the viewer. It also gave an old detective story vibe. I count myself lucky because I saw it in the theatre in 1982.
No CG at all... Only Models used in this Movie. Bladerunner Soundtrack is Vangelis's best work and an influential work in the history of electronic music. Rutger Hauer played Roy, acted in many many movies (you should check them out) The Snake Lady was not the Pleasure Riplacant, that was actually Pris.
@@richieclean but as far as the original before the final cut was released, that should have been is all model movie, is I'm correct. I mainly talking about, certain buildings the flying cars in a few other things... I'm sure that some of the backdrop were either paintings or drawings that were somewhat enhanced? but I'm not talking about those areas. I guess my first comment on this area was a little vague, but that's more of what I'm talking about.
@@richieclean either way, they just don't make them like this anymore. You can find a movie here and there that has a touch of the old school creativity, when it comes to using models or man-made special effects. It's just a rare art in Cinema, anymore.
@@myproject13ttt it was a rare art back then. Effects heavy films like Blade Runner weren't exactly 10 a penny in the early 80s. There are plenty of filmmakers today who make use of practical effects. Look at BR 2049, look at stuff like Christopher Nolan's work, at Mad Max Fury Road, at the Dark Crystal series. CGI just happens to be another tool in the filmmakers toolkit. And it's an art in and of itself. Yes, in a lot of cases it's relied upon too heavily, but that's down to the filmmaker, not the technique. Given how the industry as a whole has grown I wouldn't be surprised if there are way more practical effects artists working today than there were when this film was made.
In the blade runner universe the population of earth is very low because of environmental reasons. Most of the population has moved to the off world colonies. As a result often times a handful of people or even a single person will live in a building by themselves. Oh and as an aside as a result of pollution and the environment most of the animals have died. In fact in the novella, Deckard is doing this job to get enough money to buy a live sheep. It’s a huge status symbol to own a live animal in this dystopian future.
The novella is set on a post nuclear war Earth with many areas completely uninhabitable. Everyone with a survival instinct has left for offworld colonies, even though conditions are difficult.
@@BlueBrainMountainStream The novel that Blade Runner was based on involved an underpopulated world in the wake of the last world war. I always thought that Blade Runner flipped that around and made the world over-populated. I think Blade Runner 2049 kind of "merged" those two world views - the world was over-populated, and then a major de-population event happened.
William Gibson walked out of the theater when he saw this, because he didn't want it influencing his work. He would go on to become one of the most well known authors of Cyberpunk literature. For a (very, very loose) adaptation of his work, see Johnny Mnemonic.
"Johnny Mnemonic" (the movie) was alas a bit of a mess, it was as if they got part way through it and then lost their way. The book is much better, likewise some of Gibson's other books. Have to say though, even having met the guy and been inspired by his works in my own research, his writing style is a bit dense. When it comes to cyberspace concepts, I think Iain M. Banks did it better with Feersum Endjin.
Also New Rose Hotel. It's been so long since I saw it, I can't remember if it was any good. Willem Dafoe's presence is all I remember, if that says anything.
I love the whole Sprawl Trilogy: Neuromancer, Count Zero & Mona Lisa Overdrive. It takes place in the same timeline as Johnny Mnemonic. It was somewhat influenced by Blade Runner (at least the description of cities) but Gibson's whole take on Cyberspace was fully his. The recent sci-fi show The Expanse reminds me of Gibson's description of space travel, but obviously a couple centuries more advanced. I had a collection of his short stories as well & they're all terrific reads.
The Replicants in the Blade Runner movies are biological. Bio-engineered humans. Not mechanical robots that look human on the outside like in Alien. You kind of confused yourselves at the beginning with the out of universe movie trivia about Alien and Blade runner having some very loose in universe connections and easter eggs (both being Ridley Scott creations.) Also, in the book that Blade Runner is based off of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," the Replicants are machines. I personally like the change in the films to them being biological beings, yet not naturally created. It makes the question of what "being human is" interesting.
Ah but in movie Blade Runner 2049 (witch I hope they watch soon), there is a scene that fans noticed that made a connection to Aliens. I'm trying not to spoil it for them...but that is where the conversations and theories that the Blade Runner and Alien Universes are linked. Also the Prometheus movies show subtle connections to the Blade Runner Universe. Just saying in a respectful way.
Yeah, a lot of people make that mistake for some reason. If they were robots, they wouldn't need the test. They could just cut suspected replicants open and look for circuitry.
The androids in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" are not machines. They are organic and require a post-mortem bone marrow analysis to determine whether they were human or not.
I once made a list of The 500 most influential Films, that personally shaped, and changed my life in some form or another... and out of 500 films that I've seen throughout my entire Life, this movie was my # 1
He left that origami unicorn as a calling card to let him know that he was there, & he let them go. He left origami throughout the film. Also that unicorn dream sequence was leftover footage from Ridley Scott’s “Legend”.
Also there’s another cut, I believe “The Directors Cut” in which Scott implied Decker was a Replicant the entire movie. A decision like 90% of fans have a serious problem with bc it’s pretty fucking lame honestly lol.
Gaff let them go because Deckard Is a replicant, Scott is on record as saying so and there is a shot in the film where Deckards eyes reflect the light in the same way as Rachel. Also the Unicorn dream and the Unicorn origami, Gaff knew, 4 years, too bad she won't live but then again who does.
Fun fact: Ridley Scott got his shooting commercials and developed an insanely good eye for cinematography from it. It’s why his movies are always shot extremely well
I'm one that enjoys the original theatrical cut a lot more. It provides more insight into what is happening as well as provide a more informative ending. I remember seeing it in Theaters on the big screen when it was originally released. It was an amazing experience.
I agree. So many people hate the narration for some reason but it helps make sense of what's going on in my opinion and the extended ending does as well.
I would recommend to everyone to watch the original film release, (if you can find a copy) It has a voice-over from the prospective of Deckard by Harrison Ford. I personally prefer this version, as there is a lot of things to get your head round, and the voice-over makes some things clearer. It also contrasts the China town feel with a feeling of a 1930's private detective film. I know the original version is not most peoples favourite. Which ever you prefer everyone has to acknowledge this is a master piece of cinematography (No C.G.I. in 1982).
Yeah, the theatrical release explained the details like "little people" and "skin-job", giving us a culture of the world they lives in. I wished they kept the narration, but keep the dark ending of the Director's Cut.
RIP Rutger Hauer: Thank you, for giving us the greatest improvised death monolog in cinema! _Rachael was in Deckard's apartment, who says the other cop 'Gaff' was there for her?_ _Deckard is a replicant, how else could Gaff know about the unicorn in his dream?_
@@roybatty92 It was not coincidence. Ridley Scott confirmed that to him Deckard was a replicant. In fact, the director's cut you can see that the house his remembers is the exact same house on Rachel's pictures.
@@cyphus5 WHAT?! Not even close, amigo. Listen, I love Villenueve, but he missed the mark with BR 2049. That movie felt like a bad Terminator sequel. I'm also a fan of Gosling, but he's no Harrison Ford. Not to mention, it was way too long. 2049 had too many problems. Road Warrior, Godfather II, Aliens, and T2 are examples of better sequels than the originals... 2049 does NOT belong on that list.
@@cyphus5 The sequel is so lazy .. how can the entertainment street leading to Las Vegas casino be so empty with just a few broken giant sculptures ? What happen to the tall lamp posts, giant ad displays, big billboards ... why would they clean up everything when in a hurry to abandon the city due to radiation ? THe casino is in such good condition without any broken windows, no creepers, no peeling gangrene walls ... why would the electricity still be running for Deckard to play the silly light shows in the unscathed lounge ... etc etc emotionally hollow looking visuals, everyone on the street are so well dressed and doing nothing to tell us their cultural background unlike the first movie's rich ethnicity details of chinese, japanese, hare krishnans, arabs, dwarf street urchins, ostrich sellers etc etc .. one look you know they are dressed like in poverty compared to the sequel where you cannot tell their poor background ... the first movie was so rich and gritty and descriptive, the sequel is like lazy and everything blurred over ...
@@TheEnnisfan Agree fully .... .. maybe except Aliens ... its a perfect sequel to Alien but not better, just different .. Both are great in their own ways. Alien had more surreal other-worldly mysterious sets (Giger at his best) and great atmosphere. The movie created the xenomorphs, face huggers, space jockey, alien eggs, the otherworldly space ships etc. It had the chest burster scene, the robot captain revelation .. its builds quiet tension elegantly. Aliens had more actions, more gore and the queen alien ... its like slam bam actions galore ... Aesthetic wise I prefer the first Alien, gore and action wise I prefer Aliens .. Still think the first Alien is the greater movie, many of the sequel's designs and actions are just modified versions of the first movie's inventions after all .. its like Ridley Scott created the blue print and James Cameron made some good alterations to it .. Some alterations are not improvements, just alterations.
@@88feji I can't argue with you, amigo. Aliens as an action film is hard to beat. Cameron right as he started that insane streak of great movies. Unfortunately, 20 years later have made Avatar. And even more unfortunate, he's making 20 more sequels of that trash.
@@TBRSchmitt There are three short films (two live action and one anime) released shortly before Blade Runner 2049 (2036: Nexus Dawn, 2048: Nowhere to Run, and 2022: Black Out) that are also worth watching as they cover some of the events that occur in between the two films.
The best of science fiction and especially of the cyberpunk genre, asks one question. "What does it mean to be human?" It is how each work answers that fundamental question that determines how well it is received. Blade Runner answers that question by making the question not just about the Replicants, but about ourselves. It lets us question ourselves. It lets us examine what we have done. And asks us to examine our memories, because the memories, even for us, eventually fade. Like teardrops in rain.
@6:31 similar shot in Gladiator (at the palace in Rome. Also directed by Scott). Didn't know what Cinematography was until I saw this movie. The author of this novel asked Ridley Scott "how did you it?" This is exactly how I envisioned this world ". Deckard has interaction with Rachel at his apartment you can briefly see his eyes glow red.
"The eighties were so confident". P. K. Dick published the original short in 1968, so there was plenty of room to play. Brilliant author, brilliant film, brilliant director. So glad you two are fans of this one!
Deckard is not a replicant. Dick said he wasn't, Ford knew he wasn't, and Scott only added that scene in later because he wanted people to think Deckard was.
Absolutely brilliant film, like you both I saw it after hearing all the hype and had different expectations. I wasn't expecting a slow burn think-piece. As such, I didn't really like it the first time through. But, it stuck with me and I started to think about it more and notice all these other details in the film. Now, it's one of my favorite films of all time. The important thing to understand is there are no "heroes" in this film, especially the humans who have created an underclass of slaves which they call "replicants" but yet are indistinguishable from humans. We see that replicants have emotions, they can fall in love, experience fear, hate, and even empathy. Yet, we routinely see humans in this world as cold and heartless people. Notice how the VK test often asks questions dealing with violence towards animals, humans are unphased by these questions its the replicants that are horrified. You can even see this in the Police Captain's office where he has hunting pictures. Again, this film is STUFFED with details and wants you to draw your own conclusions. To me, this all just shows how the humans are more "robotic" than the replicants with their casual disregard for life. By the end, you should be questioning what it means to be human. I always figured that Roy saved Deckard because he wanted someone to remember him, someone to recognize that he was a living being that existed. As he said, all his experiences would be lost in time, like "tears in rain." With Deckard, he finds someone he can express some of his life story to before he passes and thus hopefully Deckard will remember him long after he's gone. At least, in that small way, Roy can continue to live on. He won't "die" or have never existed at all because someone will remember him. The last scene is obviously meant to for the audience to question whether Deckard himself is a Replicant via the Unicorn Origami, the same unicorn he dreamed. There's no right or wrong answer, it all depends on how you read everything. The director, Ridley Scott, has his belief, the writers have theirs, and Harrison has his. But, the answer doesn't really matter, it's the question that is interesting. Awesome film.
The other thing it's so hard to bear in mind now is that Blade Runner pretty much invented so many of the cliches of cyberpunk futures (neon-soaked rainy cities with quasi-human androids et al) that it can be underwhelming to modern audiences to watch it. But if you try to find clear precedents for Blade Runner, either visually or thematically, at least within the world of cinema, it's really hard. I mean, Godard's "Alphaville", maybe? There isn't much. Blade Runner pretty much comes out of nowhere, and invents a new genre and visual language. The fact that it still looks like it could have been made yesterday is remarkable. I think probably only the cigarette smoking dates it (yet still works quite well in a sort of retro-noir way, as though it were a futuristic version of the 1940s).
Something cool to note, Gaff, the other Bladerunner, is played by Edward James Olomos, who played Commander Adama in the rebooted series of Battlestar Galactica, which was just peppered with Bladerunner references through out the series
i think you guys have missed how sad the death of Zhora was. May be need to re-watch the movie. I've Never seen in any other movie a scene where a character is going from a Dangerous Powerful predator on the verge of killing the hero, to a completely defenseless frightened prey running for her life. That's the moment where i question if they're only just "robots"... This movie gives me a Nostalgia feeling every time, even though, obviously i've never been in that world.
As frightening as Zhora was when she attacked Deckard, she still let him live. Whereas the same compassion cannot be said for Deckard who, for all intents and purposes, shoots a terrified, fleeing woman in the back and immediately buys a bottle of booze to forget it. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen.
@@thatguybehindtheglass Not a woman but a replicant. that's also why he exist. to avoid any murder charges against a human, since he's not human himself.
@@juliusperseus8612 The whole point of the movie is to question whether that “not a woman, but a replicant” premise holds up or whether it is actually a fiction used to justify and absolve the mistreatment and murder of persons.
I always thought there was some symbolic significance of the position of Zhora's gunshot wounds in her back--- they look to be in the perfect spot as if she was an "Angel who lost her wings."
One of the things even repeat viewers don't get is that the Eye at the beginning of the film is not Deckard's, it's Roy's. He is seeing Earth close up for probably the first time. He is the protagonist of the film, but it doesn't follow him. That is very very rare in cinema history.
WB released three Blade Runner 2049 "short films", which are based just before the next movie. I definetly recommend checking them out before you watch the sequel.
Here you go 😁 Part 1 th-cam.com/video/rrZk9sSgRyQ/w-d-xo.html Part 2 th-cam.com/video/UgsS3nhRRzQ/w-d-xo.html Part 3 th-cam.com/video/aZ9Os8cP_gg/w-d-xo.html
What does it mean to be human? Don't we all want a longer life? The search for your maker. One of my top 5 movies. I saw it when it first came out in theaters and many times since.
33:04 Roy Batty was played by Rutger Hauer, a Dutch actor that just passed away on 2019. He is awesome in this movie but I also love him playing Navarre in the classic fantasy/adventure movie Ladyhawke, which also features Michelle Pfeiffer & Matthew Broderick. Worth a watch... 27:48 The actor came up with all the stuff that Roy Batty says just before dying at the end of the movie. "... like tears in rain..." He will be missed...
During a time that people feared the changing technology and the emergence of AI this story makes you question what it means to be alive and who really is good or bad. Iconic movie.
That final moment where Rachel trips over the origami unicorn hints at Decard being a replicant, it means the other cop with the light eyes has been there, but also that he knows Decard dreams of Unicorns, because as we know from Rachel when a replicant is being hunted cops get to see their file and read about their manufactured memories and dreams, this little origami unicorn was his hint (without alerting Rachel) that he could have ’retired’ Rachel but didn’t, but also, why they both have to run now. Or at least, that’s one theory, and I like it.
Actually Pris is the pleasure model and Zhora is the "beauty and the beast" replicant. It's explained during the scene with the police captain and Deckard gokg over the case studies of each replicant. But yeah this movie blew me away when I first saw it. I actually prefer the theatrical version with narration, because it gives off a more noir feel of the crime/detective movies of the 1940s which is what Ridley was going for according to his interviews. Plus it explains a lot of the back story that you don't get with this new version. Oddly enough this movie tanked in the box office when it was released, but over the years gained a huge cult following. Thanks for reacting to it!
Ridley didn't want the narration, it was added in because the studio wanted it to be more palatable for the audience. The narration was added last minute, with very little passion. The Final Cut is how Ridley really envisioned it.
@@Flup2 Ahh yes you are correct, he did not want the narration, I stand corrected. Sorry my memory isn't the best these days. But he was going for the noir feel of the film harkening back to the films of 1940's and 50's which is why you still see some cars from that era driving by, and that nostalgic song (One More Kiss, Dear) in the movie that sounds out of place in a futuristic setting.
@@jlange73 You are however absolutely correct about this being a Film Noir through-and-through. Some people (like TBR Schmitt) went in expecting an action movie, but it was really meant as an old-fashioned detective movie set in a sci-fi universe.
There are so many layers to this movie, it is epic in every way. Even down to the placement of the tiny origami pieces being important clues to the plot 🦄
A cool thing back in the 80s was that, after this movie had come out... it started showing on tv. And as with many of the movies of that era, they were the talk of the day at school for almost every kid at school. Especially with movies like E.T , Gremlins, Indiana Jones. The same went on with tv series.
Great video as always. 1) Pris was the pleasure model and Zhora was the soldier; 2) Dr. Tyrell was portrayed (brilliantly) by the recently-departed Joe Turkel--who played the sinister Lloyd the Bartender in Kubrick's THE SHINING (1980); 3) the meaning of Gaff's unicorn origami is that Deckard himself is a Replicant as well. The unicorn dream in this version was implanted in Deckard's mind--hence Gaff's knowledge of his real self; 4) while the "Final Cut" is a fine version, I recommend you both check out the 1982 "Theatrical Cut"--which has the much disliked Deckard narration intact (of which I am a fan) and the SHINING ending (you'll see what I mean)...and/or the "International Cut"--which retains the narration and unedited graphic violence (my personal favorite version)...
Rutger Houer, the Platinum blonde guy in this also played in a movie with Matthew Broderick & Michelle Pfeiffer called Ladyhawk. Loved them all in that. Rutger most recently played in the HBO True Blood Series as Niall, Sookie's Fae Grandfather. Pris, the pleasure model is played by Darryl Hannah who was in the movie Splash with John Candy & Tom Hanks. She more recently played in the Nicholas Sparks movie A Walk To Remember as the Mom. Zhara the one with the snake, is played by Joanna Cassidy who played Sue Ellen's Boss on Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead.
I find a certain kind of irony in TBR immediately picking out Rachael as being too robotic to be human, when the character is actually being portrayed by a real human actress who acts lifeless enough to convince the audience that she can't be human and yet in the movie, she's human enough for Deckard to develop feelings for her.
Ridley Scott had always intended for Deckard to be a Replicant too. It is much more obvious in the director's cut. I always believed she had been created just for him and their relationship had been planned by Tyrrell.
Wait, are you saying that Sean Young is a shitty stiff actress but in this particular movie her mannequin-like acting serves the director’s intentions?
The actor that played Roy was Rutger Hauer a Dutch actor he also played in the movie Ladyhawke a couple of years later. You might check it out it’s about a medieval knight who is under a spell where he spends his nights turned into a wolf and his true love spends her days as a hawk. They travel together but since each is in animal form when their love is in human form they are forever apart. Michelle Pfeffer stars as the love interest and Mathew Broderick plays a young thief who helps the break the spell.and provides much of the comic relief.
The sequel is also NOT very action-y. It's a long, very, slow burn. But it is absolutely magnificent and you can't take your eyes away from the screen because the story and visuals (my god - the VISUALS!) are so beautiful and captivating.
If you can, read the out-of-print book Blade Runner: The Inside Story by Don Shay. The level of detail and the work put in creating the miniature models is astonishing.
Personally I love slower paced character driven films, this is much more in the style of older noir films like Maltese Falcon, you should try watching some of those classics too. The sequel to this is also incredible.
"It's too bad she won't live; then again, who does?" For me the key is not the first part of the line, but the second: then again, who does? We all die, after all.
The 4K disc of this is pretty great. Within 5 years Scott had directed two of the best films of their respective genres. It was a thinking man's science fiction film,one that wouldn't be equalled until Mamoru Oshii's 95' Ghost In The Shell which does take elements from this but does them in a very different style. Like GITS,the Final Cut has a very zen like feel to it now that you can hear the amazing soundtrack. Probably the best adaption of a Philip K.Dick story,and there have been a lot of them. It's not exactly his story but it's far better even than great films like Total Recall. Rutger Hauer is amazing and this should have made him a leading man just like Ford. He is the heart of this film. The fact that Hauer came up with the speach at the end was well done on his part. And the fact that he saves Deckards life at the end simply because he spits at Roy,he defies him,before he falls is a nice touch that's easy to miss. Replcants are not machines,not like Bishop ECT. They are living beings just made instead of born. Of course people talk about if Deckard is a replicant or not,but that always seemed foolish. It weakens the film. The irony is that he is human,but has become cold and dead,even more than Leon. The scene on the rooftop has so much more power when he regains his humanity after listening to Batty. Scott has gone a bit off his rocker in recent years and his statement that Deckard is one of them shows that he didn't really get what Dick's story was about. And remember Rachel is experimental,a Nexus 6.1 if you will. The tech that makes her lack of awareness possible has only been made,under the terms of the story there's no way for Deckard not to know what he is. Either way they were right to keep it vague. It's always better to imagine things than have them spelled out. A lesson Scott seems to have forgotten now.
A good summary of relevant issues. Dick's original book did include elements of Deckard doubting his own humanity, but then that was a theme of all his books, what's real and what isn't. Well said about it being a stronger theme of Deckard being human but losing his moral humanity because of what he does, regaining it because of Roy's realisation of the value of any life at the end, though as you say this works precisely because it's vague, which is why I prefer the original theatrical release in some ways (the unicorn scene is unnecessary, and I know the extra dialogue at the end of theatrical release was added later, with Deckard saying Rachel has no termination date, but I think that works better for a film that does not have as its main focus the theme of what is real). And yeah, in more recent times Ridley has gone right off the wall, from soppy eco tree hugger stuff like Avatar to the utter mess of daftness of Promethius and sequels.
@@mapesdhs597 Yes,I agree. Over explaining things is never a good thing. We didn't need to know anything about the Aliens. The mystery is what made them interesting. It was very Lovecraft,as Dan O'Bannon intended. It should never be flat out said that Deckard is either or. I'm glad that 2049 didn't answer the question either way.
@@kellinwinslow1988 And a billion points for the Lovecraft reference. :D Pity there's never been a good movie version of any of his stories; for an industry stuck in a quagmire of endless reboots, sequels, prequels and wokification, Lovecraft has originality in spades, but I guess Hollywood is too afraid to do anything genuinely new. Hmm, though a dated style, I guess 'The Dunwich Horror' isn't too bad. Seeing Prometheus at the cinema was truly painful; the words, "You're an idiot for buying a ticket!" may aswell have been on the screen. In the first Alien film, not once did one ever have cause to regard any of the characters as stupid or ignorant; rather, they were simply in it way over their heads. Much the same in the three familiar sequels (Alien 3 may be a lacklustre film but its characters are never actually stupid). In Prometheus though, we are shown people who are quite literally dumbasses, because that's how they act. Oh look, we're on an *alien* planet, in a dark and scary cave, and here's a weird looking snake thing waving around on the floor, so ok I'll shove my face right up to it, that's a perfectly sensible thing to do - done by someone who's supposed to be a scientist no less! And the most annoying thing about that scene? It implies that in the universe of alien all these people came from a culture which never had space scifi horror movies. :D The lack of relevant self reference is infuriating. Ok so they can't reference the Alien saga itself for obvious reasons (how meta would that be), but heck, something! Hey dude, don't do that, haven't you seen the space dramas? Just one example from a great many, but alas the later film was even worse. Another alien planet; step outside wearing dumb looking floppy hats. No proper suits, no pathogenic analysis of the atmosphere, etc., etc., etc., and a humanoid alien who, when awakened, almost immediately acts like a dumbass. And throughout it all, this whole theme of psycho androids because reasons. Sheesh, these later movies are like being stuck inside Ridley's head while he's having a what-if mental wedgie that's far removed from the original O'Bannon concept, namely, following the poor reception of Dark Star (which I assume you've seen, awesome film), when he said, "If I can't make them laugh, maybe I can make them scream." It's crazy how many older films, with their often dated effects, etc., are when compared to modern productions easily just so much better; believable plots, characters with actual story arcs, etc. These days all we seem to get are woke remakes or somesuch which are inevitably terrible, such as the yawnfest that was The Arrival. The older 1995 film by the same name with Charlie Sheen is oodles better. It's not like good movies can't be done, such as Pitch Black and Riddick. Just beats me how the rotten eggs ever get the green light to begin with. DIrector power I suppose, influence because of past success. Have you ever read A. C. Clarke's, "Moondust"? A movie version of that would be good if done right (it has nothing to do with his entire 2001 saga, which really began with, "The Sentinel"). And I enjoyed, "Rendevous with Rama", the basic notion of us humans just not being as special or interesting as we like to think we are. :D
@@mapesdhs597 Clarke is a great writer. I have a bunch of his books such as Childhoods End,which was one of the inspirations for Evangelion,and all his 2001 books. Good stuff. Listen,I hate the new Alien films. Hate them. The entire point was that we shouldn't know anything about them. O'Bannon was a great writer. He was inspired by Lovecraft's At The Mountains Of Madness. The mystery and terror is what drives Alien. I have all of Lovecraft's stories,in really nice hardcover sets,and in spite of his writing issues he was a master at building up terror. Not horror. Terror. Now the Aliens are nothing more than targets to be shot at. Prometheus reduced everything down to nothing more than a terrible Friday The 13th rip off. And not in the fun,stupid way. Just the stupid,stupid way. Playing the Arkham Horror Card Game or any of the board games is far more scary and immersive than that or Covenant was. It's just like Star Trek or Star Wars or Robocop or Terminator or Predator. They just can't leave great works of art alone. They have to stripmine the past. When I think of how badly things like Star Trek have been managed by that chowder head Kurtzman,really The Wrath Of Kahn is so good it brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it,it just brings my piss to a boil. I'll just stick to playing the Star Trek Frontiers board game. At least that feels well thought out. But your points are well made. I'm sure we'd get along fine if we met.
@@mapesdhs597 And yes I have Dark Star on Blu Ray. Carpenter was a master of his craft from 76' to 88'. And if we are talking about best Lovecraft films I'll put The Thing right along with Alien as the best. Reanimator is great of course but it's not really his story. O'Bannon was great,as I've said. It's cool that his son worked on Farscape. Amazing show.
Obviously the cinematography is gorgeous but I think what really sells it for me is the soundtrack. Vangelis's music is the perfect complenent to the hazy look of cyberpunk LA
@@_AlejandroVega1 Yeah it definitely better from a pacing perspective if anything. The original had its flaws, after all it took a while and many version before we arrived at the Final Cut.
The original cut had a narration by Deckard throughout the movie, almost like a homage to the Mickey Spilane detective movies from the 40's. It helped to explain some of what was going on. Unfortunately it didn't go over well so the narration was taken out of the final cut. The late great Rutger Hauer played a great villain with that classic quote "All of those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain".
Another movie that is hinted to exist in the same universe is Soldier, with Kurt Russell. There are a number of Easter eggs that indicate it's in the same universe. Pretty underrated movie IMO.
The replicants have human DNA, so they are like genetically engineered humans/humanoids used for slave labor. Also, because of their 4 year lifespan, they are emotionally like children. Did you notice that the origami gum wrapper at the end was a unicorn? Deckard dreams of unicorns...
Ohhhhhhhhh you guys are in for a treat. Blade Runner was a monumental in influencing Sci-fi, cybepunk and an astonishing achievement in world building that holds up even today! A flawed masterpiece!! And BR2049 stunned those of us whom are precious about original BR. It's a modern marvel in cinema! Denis Villenuve direction, Roger Deakins behind the light and lens! I can't wait for you guys to watch BR2049
Roy had no intention of killing Deckard; he just wanted to put him in a heightened state of fear (hence all his theatrics). He knew that putting Deckard in fear for his life would make him hyper aware of his own mortality and fear for his life. That's why he says "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it?" Roy is constantly in fear of his impending death, and he just wanted Deckard to understand that feeling. Roy's iconic "Tears In Rain" monologue is him using his last few minutes to make his argument for his own humanity. His memories aren't implants; they are his own...and now they'll be lost...like tears in rain. Whether he's referring to his own tears or whatever sympathy Deckard might now be feeling for Roy is kind of up for debate. I think,, in the end,, Roy wanted what everyone wants- to be understood and remembered by someone when we're gone. It's a very existential thinker of a film. Deckard dreaming about a unicorn, and then Edward James Olmos making the origami unicorn is interesting...almost as if that dream was implanted into Deckard's memory...hmmm...
He did add his own memories to the ones that were implanted. These unique memories of his own that will be los, is what saddens him. However, this fact is true for all humans.
Or the Unicorn was Rachael's memory implant that Deckard had access to (just like the spider-nest story) and the image of the Unicorn was stuck in Deckard's head.
@@wfly81 Everything you mentioned about Roy's interaction with Deckard becomes totally meaningless if Deckard is not human. Why should Roy give these life lessons to a "fellow Replicant"? Rather than a human being who has spent his life killing Replicants with extreme prejudice and impunity. Roy vehemently refers to Deckard as *you people*... Clearly as in: "you are not my kind." The story of a man who has lost his humanity through his job as a killing machine, and regains it through of all things, the Replicants (who ironically are the most human of all the characters) that he has to destroy... Is a lot stronger than some Twilight Zone twist ending that he was a Replicant all along. Gaff's origami are subtle messages to Deckard- the chicken in Bryant's office (Gaff thinks Deckard is "chicken" to take on the assignment). The matchstick man with an erection in Leon's apartment (Deckard has romantic feeling's for Rachael). And the Unicorn... When Gaff tells Deckard "It's too bad she won't live..." he's telling him to leave this place and go and live your life with her, not as a machine-like killer Blade Runner, but as a human being once again, and treat every day with her as if it may be your last. Because SHE is the Unicorn. She is what Deckard has been looking for his entire life (whether he knew it or not). At the beginning of the film Deckard had given up and was willing to waste his remaining days until death... But now he has a reason to live again, love again, show passion and stop being a "cold fish." And Gaff is giving him that send off. I find my take on the symbolism behind the origami Unicorn to be more powerful than "A ha buddy! I'm on to you that you're one of them. So go ahead and run off with your robot girlfriend."
A detail that I love in this film comes from Rutger Hauer's portrayal of Roy Batty. In the scene where he is telling Pris that Zhora has been killed, notice his facial expressions. It's sadness, but it's not an adult look. It is the expression of a child, maybe a even 4 year old. Later, during the Tears in Rain scene, after he says his bit of poetry, he then looks at Decker almost shyly, seeking approval for his verse. Just beautiful work.
I like the theatrical version where Harrison Ford narrates the movie. It has been said that Blade Runner, Outland and Alien are in the same universe. The more I see the movies, the more it make sense that they are. Replicants are humans that are manufactured in a laboratory ..
The theatrical has a much more neo-noir feel, which I enjoy. I think every version has something great to offer, which is a testament to how amazing this film is.
Others have said it, but this really is a pillar of cinematic sci-fi. The aesthetic here inspired SO MANY movies, shows, graphic novels. I came with receipts... Anime such as Bubblegum Crisis and Silent Mobius were built around this landscape. And Ghost in the Shell also addresses questions about digital memory, sentience, and what it means to be "human." One of the lead characters in Bubblegum Crisis is named Priss and briefly dresses like Priss from this movie.
Heck, even modern cinematography takes clues from Blade Runner. Christopher Nolan literally just sat his production team down and played this film and said, "I want Batman Begins to be lit and shot like this."
Some people have interpreted the unicorn on the floor as indicating that Deckard is also a type of replicant because of the dream about unicorns. If not, how did the other guy know about the unicorn?
Yeah, the scene with Deckard's dream of unicorns (from Scott's fantasy movie "Legend"), coupled with Gaff's origami unicorn heavily hints at Deckard himself being a replicant.
@@group-music Yes, I know - I watched the theatrical cut in1982. Scott's inclusion of the unicorn scene changed the meaning of Gaff's gesture, with all what that implied.
The movie was panned by critics when it came out. With Harrison Ford in it, people expected Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Instead they got one of the greatest (if not the greatest) science fiction movie ever made. In college, we broke down the various themes of this movie (there are multiple ones). This is science fiction in the best sense - it asks the tough questions... the ones with ethical implications. You guys nailed it regarding style and atmosphere... it really stands alone for that time. Many movies since have tried to replicate it (pardon the pun).
The Bradbury building where the cool interior staircase shots were shot is in Los Angeles. You guys should check it out. It’s been used in multiple films.
And the interiors of Deckard’s apartment were shot in the Ennis House, one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings. The Bradbury building and the Ennis House are two of the most important pieces of architecture in LA.
When Blade Runner initially came out, it was a box office bomb. It was too new, too avant guarde, to ahead of its time. It went into the vaults, and stayed there until someone decided to have a showing at a small theatre, and it got surprisingly good reviews from the showing, so there were more showings and it started to grow, and then it just exploded. It's now an absolute cult classic in the SciFi world - and it really holds up over time.
I have also heard that the voiceover that was used in the original theatrical release was deliberately ruined by Ford by being drab in the hope that it would be rejected, which probably didn't help
i highly recommend at some point you also watch two of the other sci fi films on your poll....FORBIDDEN PLANET, probably the best sci fi film from the fifties after WAR OF THE WORLDS....also the 1956 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, it's better than the 1978 version...
When Priss engage J.F. Sebastien, lol : "Jesus the whole building ?!" Lived exactly like him for two years. Nobody for hundreds of meters around. Plus the confinement. You play basketball in the middle of the nights, some guitar & watch some objects drifting in low earth orbit layed on your back while smocking good cigars. (sometimes I didnt even cross another human for days. Perspective. Makes you think)
its a disappointing sequel ... lazy visuals that depends on just big space and walls to give a superficial sense of grandeur , very hollow looking visuals compared to how dazzlingly rich and gritty the original looks ...
Zora, Leon and Priss all had a look of bafflement when Dekard didn't die right away. Roy broke Dekard's fingers then said something about trying to shoot straight. He shot straight with broken fingers. But Roy said "straight isn't good enough."
Sorry to be picky... But Roy broke the fingers of Deckard's *right* hand (the hand he shoots with). When Roy gives him back his gun and lets go, Deckard switches the gun to his *left* hand and instantly takes a point blank shot at Roy (which Roy still dodges- although it did clip his ear). So he didn't shoot at Roy with broken fingers- it was the hand he wasn't used to shooting with and he still missed with Roy a foot away.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the most beautiful looking movies we have ever seen! So much more to explore in this world and we can't wait to watch the sequel to see if any of our predictions come true!
Thank you all for the support!
"Watch to watch"
Heh :)
Awesome movie.
The sequel is worthy.
@@BunniMonster Great catch lol
The ballad of Deckard...
Ex_Machina did well in the poll. Definitely agree that it should have gotten a lot of votes. Well worth a watch.
The iconic Rutger Hauer's improvised line of "lost like tears in the rain" is one of my favorite lines in any movie. Coming up on 50k, well deserved!
If I remember correctly, he worked on it like 4 in the morning. Such a simple line of dialogue but it is so powerful. When we first saw it, my brother commented, he might be crying in his final moments but we can't tell because of the rain.
@@NeilPower I thought the same thing first time I saw it. Great line, underrated actor, he was in one of my favorite guilty pleasure movies, Blind Fury. A really fun movie IMO! Thanks NP for the comment!
It wasn’t improvised. He thought about it beforehand and then said it during rehearsals and Ridley loved it and let him say it during filming. This is info from the making of documentary.
@@ClaytonMacleod It wasn't in the script, he added the line. That's all I meant, poor choice of words
@@cmsweitzer1 it was in the script,he whittle it down cuz it was to long of a speech
Roy was played by Rutger Hauer and he was an amazing actor. The "I've seen things" speech he created during the filming. One of my all time favorite movies.
That's not quite accurate. He came up with the "tears in rain" line, and it was during a script read-through with the cast, not on the day of filming. He did do an outstanding job, though.
I think this was his best role...i sooooo like it.
R.I.P. Rutger...THX for all!
The ending to me is beautiful. Roy, created to be the pinnacle of humanity, maximum self sufficiency, strategic mind, incredible power. His last moments he realises that he is alone, his "family" dead and his creator, the one man who could understand him, dead by his own hands.
Roy realises that all his memories, the one thing that links him with humanity, will be lost with him.
Roy refuses to die alone, and his last wish is to be remembered and understood, his goals unmet, his last solace is to be understood.
In his last moments he composes a phrase he believes to be beautiful (creates rather than destroy, his "purpose"), he steals the dove to prove to something that he still exists, to take control of something while everything else leaves his control.
Roy is feeling emotion, and learning to express it, for the first time. In his last moments he wishes to rebel from the purpose he was created. A combat Bot's last wishes is to create and be remembered for the things he has seen and done, as a real person.
Well said
Well put! in some ways more human than human. I feel like he understood in the end how connecting with each other and sharing our experiences and existance is what keeps us alive. alive though others. What an achingly beautiful scene. And now Rutger gone, Vangelist gone, ...We remember them through their incredible work and talent, thus keeping them alive.
it's not exactly that ... the dove and the nail have a very precise symbolic meaning, and make Roy a legendary character in the story of the replicants. Roy doesn't want to revolt but to save his people
Don't forget: In a way his last 'act' isn't to KILL: but to save the life of the man trying to kill him. To value life rather than death. He died human.
"Blade Runner" is one of the most visually influential movies ever. It put the "cyberpunk" aesthetic into the mainstream, and inspired generations of artists worldwide.
It established the cyberpunk look for generations to copy from ... there maybe some earlier works of vaguely similar styles but most film makers, artists, designers quote none other than Blade Runner as their inspiration ...
And a lot of films after it.
One of the most influential sci-fi films ever.
Overrated book better
@@mikerodgers7620 the book was great also,but The Matrix was inspired by this film
YES, the Japanese Cyberpunk Anime were all inspired by Blade Runner and Alien , specially the BUBBLEGUM CRISIS.
@@mikerodgers7620 not overrated at all.
You definitely see the influence Blade Runner had in a lot of work. Ghost In The Shell, The Matrix, and even the cyberpunk genre as a whole. Christopher Nolan even used Blade Runner as inspiration for his Dark Knight Trilogy in his approach to applying realism to a rather unrealistic world. The animated series Batman Beyond also heavily borrows its sci-fi aesthetic from Blade Runner, even down to the flying Batmobile that has a design quite similar to Blade Runner's flying "Spinner" police cars.
This movie was shocking because the whole film's purpose is "What makes us human" Everyone thought it would be this sci fi shoot em up bang film.....but it is a deep emotional character study that plays on our emotions :)
yup but i think they missed how sad the death of Zhora was.
Never seen in any other movie a scene where a character is going from a Dangerous Powerful predator on the verge of killing the hero, to a totally defenseless frightened prey running for her life in seconds.
There's an idea that every story is ultimately "Who am I?"
The film was also shocking because our hero shoots a woman in the back
@@gordondavis6168 it's not shocking but sad.
@@gordondavis6168 smh
A lot of Vangelis' music for the movie was composed on the fly -- Vangelis sat, surrounded with his instruments, and as he watched the movie, he improvised the score. That's one reason why it fits so well.
th-cam.com/video/oFUg3G4sFF8/w-d-xo.html
thats how it works always xD
It's a great score. Fun fact : they used the same sythethisers Vangelis used for the sequel's soundtrack.
He always works like that, for that reason people loves working with him, that alongside the fact that he is constantly creating (as well as his innovative creations) have made a lot of people say he’s the 20th century’s Beethoven
R.I.P Vangelis
Now that you have seen "Aliens" and "Blade Runner". I recommend you watch "Outland" starring Sean Connery. It's lesser known sci-fi movie from the early 80's. He plays a US Marshal stationed on a moon around Jupiter (I think) facing off against a drug syndicate and corrupt miners. Although it's not actually said, you get the vibe that Alien, Blade Runner and Outland all take place in the same shared universe.
the movie Soldier with Kurt Russell is actually supposed to be in the same cinematic universe as Blade Runner
This might interest you about Outland.
th-cam.com/video/2kI1CIt6wN4/w-d-xo.html
AND Outland is a Peter Hyams film, like 2010!
I haven’t seen that movie in a very long time, but I heard about that implied connection to those other movies recently. So I must watch Outland again! I believe there’s also a deleted scene from Prometheus, where there is a definite link between the Alien and Blade Runner universes established?
Outland is basically the classic western movie High Noon set in space.
Personally my favorite Scifi movie ever. The cinematography along with Vangeli's soundtrack makes you experience this movie different from all other Scifi movies out there.
Such unique style!
Despite being a 39 years old movie it still feels fresh and relevant to me.
One of my favorite too. Initially, I was confused by the film but upon further viewings, it has become my favorite.
When i first saw this movie on VHS tape back in the 80's i didn't care for it too much but it grew on me and i liked it more when i got older but the one thing that stuck with me was the soundtrack, i just couldn't get it out of my head.
I first saw it in when I was like 10 years old in the 80's. It was on in the middle of the night and instantly it was one of favorite films and my love for it has only grown.
Blade Runner's based on a great Philip K. Dick novel called "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?"
Many of hid short stories have been made into other sci fi films like Total Recall, The Minority Report and A Scanner Darkly. Almost everything he wrote about deals with paranoia and existential dilemmas mixed in with technology.
Also influenced a lot of films like Brazil, 12 Monkeys
@@remove_marko It straight out influenced Brazil, the country.
@@RaphaellGlau lmao
my favorite author the golden man is my favorite story of his
I'm still waiting on the invention of a mood dialer for my wife...
Watching your reaction feels a little like watching this masterpiece for the first time again... Thanks!
First saw Blade Runner as a teenager and almost 40 years later I am still in awe of Rutger Hauer's performance. Sadly he passed away in 2019... the same year his character Roy passes.
Man...do I miss Rutger Hauer! He was memorable in everything he did.
Loved his little bit in Batman Begins!!
He was cast as nod to Blade Runner since Nolan took inspiration from it for the first instalment of The Dark Knight Trilogy.
Rutger should have played Lestat in "Interview With the Vampire". I pictured him while I read the book.
I always felt like when Roy looked down on Deckard trying to hold on for his life with his grip slipping, he saw himself and his own struggle to stay alive, and felt pity, and the irony, and he decided to do what nobody could or would do for him.
Yes, at that moment Batty shows that he is not only physically superior, but also morally superior. He saves Deckard not only to demonstrate this, but because of his own very real empathy. He has nothing further to prove, and also nothing further to lose. He wants to go out with magnanimity and wisdom, leaving a worthwhile mark on the world, despite its poor treatment of him and his friends.
@@KaitainCPS "More human than human.".
@@KaitainCPS that's my take as well.
It's because Deckard spits in Roy's face just before he loses his grasp. He shows the same defiance in the face of death that Roy feels & that causes Roy to empathise with Deckard and save him. A lot of people miss the spitting because of how busy the shot is. All this meaning will be lost in time like saliva in rain.
@@AmbroseCadwelli don't see where he spits in his face. I think you imagined that
"Lost in time, like tears in the rain"
Chills, every time. An incredibly poignant and harrowing view of what life is.
Also, Rutger improvised that line.
One of the best monologues in film history
Well, he didn't improvise that, but he wrote that monologue.
you know rutger also died in 2019 just like the character in the movie
@@That1punk91 Ouch. That hurts to learn.
@@jean-paulaudette9246 it's a crazy coincidence
Rutger Hauer passed away in 2019, the same year his character died in blade runner.
wow!
This year I completely lost myself.
Rutger Hauer is my spirit animal. Great reaction, guys!
'The eighties were so much more confident.'
Never thought I would hear that. Seemed very different when I was a kid.
It's probably been mentioned but the actor playing the cop Gaff is Edward James Olmos. After Bladerunner, he later went on to famously play the enigmatic Lt. Castillo on Miami Vice. Just like his character Gaff, the Lieutenant was a taciturn sharp dressed man.
However, in the early 2000s he played the role of Commander William Adama on the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. The central premise of the show (and the original version which predates the Terminator movie series) is the entire the human race has been decimated by a race of killer robots called Cylons.
Olmos's character Adama commands the last remaining space warship that guards a refugee fleet of humans searching for a new home. Within the ranks of Cylons are models that look exactly like humans (i.e. eat, sweat, sleep etc) that are used as infiltration units. In the show the human model Cylons began to be called "skin jobs" as an homage to Blade Runner.
I saw this movie when it first came out when I was 12. The next day I went to camp for a month and it was out of the theater by the time I got back. All I could think about at camp was this movie. I had never seen any Sci-Fi movie that felt so real. Still my favorite movie of all time.
IMO TBR Schmitt is quickly becoming the best movie reaction channel. For example: Brandon Likes Movies and Popcorn in Bed (two other youtubers at a similar level to TBR) have, comparatively, thoughtful and genuine reactions to the movies they watch. All three channels are very good. However, TBR has pulled ahead and is now much more in depth. TBR does a mini-review at the end of the movie that gives you a clear picture of what they think, what they noticed and what the take-away was (if any).
Also, TBR's analysis is fairly pragmatic: They talk about the movies in relation to themselves, not what people have said or what they think people want to hear.
Absolutely agree. I watch those other 2 and they are great and fun to watch but I really love this couple, they are awesome. Very enjoyable to watch during the movie and the discussion after really sets them apart.
I liked how it showed Roy Baty, the oldest and most soon to die, struggling with his emotions all the time...he was smart, tactically and strategically knowledgeable, but he wasn't really interested in that...he was grappling, trying to emotionally mature...and he did, to the point that, in the full knowledge of his imminent death, he loved and valued Life so much that he didn't even want Deckard to die.
This is the wow moment that most people do not recognize when they see it.
Everyone who reacts to this movie says, It's Harrison Ford movie! Ford is great in it, but Rutger Hauer is the MVP. He gives the movie heart and soul. Tragically underrated actor, at least in the U.S.
I think he told Deckard a memory that Roy wanted to be remembered by.
Rutger Hauer does a great job of playing a super-intelligent four year-old. When he tells Sebastian that he has some really nice toys, it's not a joke. When he's telling Pris about how the others are dead, he really plays it like a child.
He's the real hero of the movie. Ends up showing more humanity than Deckard overall.
36:10 Thing to remember about this, Deckard had never faced off against a Nexus 6. They were the newest, and by far, the most advanced replicants made.
Not all Nexus 6 are made the same way like Roy, for example Rachel do not have the strength or agility of Roy ... and each Nexus 6 are made for different purposes, so every replicant could have very different abilities and shortcomings, including different life spans ...
@@88feji Except they straight up tell you that, outside of Rachel, all Nexus 6 have the 4 year lifespan.
@@Lucklaran
umm .. a few things I disagree, pls correct me if I'm wrong :
1) the first movie does not explicitly say Rachel is a Nexus 6 model.
What happens is that Capt Bryant asked Deckard to bring the VK machine to test for efficacy on a Nexus 6 model at Tyrell Corp ... when Deckard arrives, Tyrell asked for Rachel to be tested. Throughout, Tyrell merely mentions that Rachel is an "experimental model", never explicitly saying what model she's belongs to ...
Its only in the sequel 2049 (which I am disappointed with) do we know that she's actually a Nexus-7 model, NOT Nexus-6 ..
2) Its not mentioned explicitly in the first movie that "all Nexus 6 have 4 year life span". The actual words from Captain Bryant are a lot more ambiguous ..
He uses the term "they" instead of "all Nexus-6" when mentioning the 4 year life span. "they" could equally be referring to just the escaped replicants rather than all Nexus 6 ..
3) Also, even if we assume Capt Bryant is referring to "all Nexus 6" when talking about the 4 year life span, he could still be intentionally fed false information by Tyrell going by the fact that both Rachel and Deckard are secret experimental models of unknown model types ..
4) Even Capt Bryant could be a replicant himself, I believe he's likely a replicant too from some visual clues in the movie....
The only one I believe to be human is Gaff ...
@@88feji With regard to the VK test on Rachel, what Tyrell said was that he wanted to see a "negative before I provide you with positive". He was hoping Rachel would pass so he could tell Deckard afterward that they'd made a Replicant that could pass the test, making them "undetectable". He doesn't admit to Rachel being a Replicant until after she fails. As for Rachel being special, Tyrel told him she was "an experiment, nothing more" after the test. He also tells Deckard they(Replicants) have a "strange obsession" because they are "emotionally inexperienced with only a FEW YEARS in which to store up the experiences" which people take for granted. He then goes on to explain the "experiment" with Rachel was to "give them a past" to "create a pillow for their emotions" so they can "control them better". As far as I'm concerned this is Tyrell telling us that all Replicants have this issue. Off screen Tyrell fills Deckard in on the "source" of Rachels memories, which he later relates to Rachel. It's presumably at this time he informs Deckard that Rachel has no "termination date", since they never meet again onscreen. It's true he never assigns her a "model number". But, since the Nexus 6 were the "newest" it would make sense they would be experimenting on them. But, it's entirely possible she was not.
As to your second point, I refer you back to were Tyrell mentions they only have a "few years" to "mature. No offense, but it's a stretch that only these 4 would have that specific limit. And again, per the first point Rachel was "special" in not having a 4 year termination date. This implies none of the others had this.
Your third point. I already covered the nature of the "experiment" with Rachel, it was about implanted memories. As for Deckard being "experimental", there's nothing in the movie to imply this. However, even if he was, he was "retiring" Replicants before the Nexus 6 came out. That would make him an inferior model, which could track, given that we constantly see them mop the floor with him in physical combat. My issue with this is that obviously, Deckard has a history, a past. He is known, and easily passes for human. Look at his interactions with the people he meets. Even Priss, a "pleasure model" does not have his easy way around people. Their interactions are stiff, compared to him, including Rachel. He has none of the issues the "newer" models have, including the one "experiment" with Rachel. This would imply he was better in at least this respect than a Nexus 6, so why build this issue into the "newest model" when the Tyrell motto is "More human than human"? Tyrell want's his Replicants to be better, not worse, than humans.
Your final points, well, those are just opinion, no point arguing them, as there is nothing in the movie to back them up. I could just as easily argue that Gaff seems less human to me than Deckard...
At the end of it all, what you've got is a lot of "coulds", and not a lot of evidence. Rachel may or may not have been a Nexus 6, according to the movie. I will easily concede that. Your other points... I personally try to stick to what is clearly stated/presented in a movie when discussing it. I try to limit my inferences to things I can directly point to in the movie itself, not external materials.
As for BR2049, I personally don't consider it canon, and there is nothing anyone can say that will change my opinion on that. Don't even bother. This is the only thing I will say about it, and I will not respond to any comments about it.
@@Lucklaran
I'm delighted that we seem to share a dislike for 2049 ... since you will not get into that 'non-sequel', I will leave it at that ...
Just to clarify, so are you saying that you think Deckard is an older model replicant OR he is a real human ?
(regarding Gaff and Bryant's identity (human or replicant), I think its tied to the main discussion of Deckard's identity ... lets talk about Deckard's identity first shall we...)
Zora wasn't the “pleasure model”; Pris was. Zora was the one described as “beauty and the beast”.
Regarding the ethical questions of the plot: basically, it's a movie about slavery. Told from the perspective of a slavecatcher.
Zora was apparently an assassin model, specialized in Political Insurrection
This is why Pris appeared to them to be toying with Deckard instead of just killing him right away. She literally didn't really know how to finish him off because she was a pleasure model, not a killer.
@@craigcummings5067 hahaha excellent choice of words there.
The theatrical release was narrated by Harrison Ford and the narration answered some questions for the viewer. It also gave an old detective story vibe. I count myself lucky because I saw it in the theatre in 1982.
No CG at all...
Only Models used in this Movie.
Bladerunner Soundtrack is Vangelis's best work and an influential work in the history of electronic music.
Rutger Hauer played Roy, acted in many many movies (you should check them out)
The Snake Lady was not the Pleasure Riplacant, that was actually Pris.
Strictly speaking the final cut does have *some* digital effects shots. But not many.
@@richieclean but as far as the original before the final cut was released, that should have been is all model movie, is I'm correct.
I mainly talking about, certain buildings the flying cars in a few other things...
I'm sure that some of the backdrop were either paintings or drawings that were somewhat enhanced? but I'm not talking about those areas.
I guess my first comment on this area was a little vague, but that's more of what I'm talking about.
@@buddystewart2020 totally agree🔥
@@richieclean either way, they just don't make them like this anymore.
You can find a movie here and there that has a touch of the old school creativity, when it comes to using models or man-made special effects.
It's just a rare art in Cinema, anymore.
@@myproject13ttt it was a rare art back then. Effects heavy films like Blade Runner weren't exactly 10 a penny in the early 80s.
There are plenty of filmmakers today who make use of practical effects. Look at BR 2049, look at stuff like Christopher Nolan's work, at Mad Max Fury Road, at the Dark Crystal series. CGI just happens to be another tool in the filmmakers toolkit. And it's an art in and of itself.
Yes, in a lot of cases it's relied upon too heavily, but that's down to the filmmaker, not the technique.
Given how the industry as a whole has grown I wouldn't be surprised if there are way more practical effects artists working today than there were when this film was made.
In the blade runner universe the population of earth is very low because of environmental reasons. Most of the population has moved to the off world colonies. As a result often times a handful of people or even a single person will live in a building by themselves. Oh and as an aside as a result of pollution and the environment most of the animals have died. In fact in the novella, Deckard is doing this job to get enough money to buy a live sheep. It’s a huge status symbol to own a live animal in this dystopian future.
I always thought the opposite - that corporations were trying their best to recruit people to live off-world since earth was overpopulated.
The novella is set on a post nuclear war Earth with many areas completely uninhabitable. Everyone with a survival instinct has left for offworld colonies, even though conditions are difficult.
@@thoriated It was called World War Terminus wasnt it? The fallout created all sorts of problems in humans as well. JF Sebastian, for example.
@@thoriated thanks! Didnt know that
@@BlueBrainMountainStream The novel that Blade Runner was based on involved an underpopulated world in the wake of the last world war. I always thought that Blade Runner flipped that around and made the world over-populated. I think Blade Runner 2049 kind of "merged" those two world views - the world was over-populated, and then a major de-population event happened.
William Gibson walked out of the theater when he saw this, because he didn't want it influencing his work. He would go on to become one of the most well known authors of Cyberpunk literature. For a (very, very loose) adaptation of his work, see Johnny Mnemonic.
I love his work , but i still think "Pattern Recognition" is his best novel. Which was set in the current day , lol.
"Neuromancer" is perfect. But then he did re-write it ten times because he was afraid it wasn't good enough...
"Johnny Mnemonic" (the movie) was alas a bit of a mess, it was as if they got part way through it and then lost their way. The book is much better, likewise some of Gibson's other books.
Have to say though, even having met the guy and been inspired by his works in my own research, his writing style is a bit dense. When it comes to cyberspace concepts, I think Iain M. Banks did it better with Feersum Endjin.
Also New Rose Hotel. It's been so long since I saw it, I can't remember if it was any good. Willem Dafoe's presence is all I remember, if that says anything.
I love the whole Sprawl Trilogy: Neuromancer, Count Zero & Mona Lisa Overdrive. It takes place in the same timeline as Johnny Mnemonic. It was somewhat influenced by Blade Runner (at least the description of cities) but Gibson's whole take on Cyberspace was fully his. The recent sci-fi show The Expanse reminds me of Gibson's description of space travel, but obviously a couple centuries more advanced. I had a collection of his short stories as well & they're all terrific reads.
The Replicants in the Blade Runner movies are biological. Bio-engineered humans. Not mechanical robots that look human on the outside like in Alien. You kind of confused yourselves at the beginning with the out of universe movie trivia about Alien and Blade runner having some very loose in universe connections and easter eggs (both being Ridley Scott creations.) Also, in the book that Blade Runner is based off of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," the Replicants are machines. I personally like the change in the films to them being biological beings, yet not naturally created. It makes the question of what "being human is" interesting.
Ah but in movie Blade Runner 2049 (witch I hope they watch soon), there is a scene that fans noticed that made a connection to Aliens. I'm trying not to spoil it for them...but that is where the conversations and theories that the Blade Runner and Alien Universes are linked. Also the Prometheus movies show subtle connections to the Blade Runner Universe. Just saying in a respectful way.
@@Malryth yes, but they are really only hints for movie buffs and Ridley Scott fans. It means more out of universe than it does in universe.
@@Malryth It's just an Easter egg imho. If you overlap the two timelines nothing syncs up whatsoever.
Yeah, a lot of people make that mistake for some reason. If they were robots, they wouldn't need the test. They could just cut suspected replicants open and look for circuitry.
The androids in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" are not machines. They are organic and require a post-mortem bone marrow analysis to determine whether they were human or not.
I once made a list of The 500 most influential Films, that personally shaped, and changed my life in some form or another...
and out of 500 films that I've seen throughout my entire Life, this movie was my # 1
Agreed! And Lawrence of Arabia🙌🏻
and "Barry Lyndon"
One Of The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Ever Made
A strong candidate for the Greatest Movie Ever Made ... not just sci fi...
He left that origami unicorn as a calling card to let him know that he was there, & he let them go. He left origami throughout the film. Also that unicorn dream sequence was leftover footage from Ridley Scott’s “Legend”.
Also there’s another cut, I believe “The Directors Cut” in which Scott implied Decker was a Replicant the entire movie. A decision like 90% of fans have a serious problem with bc it’s pretty fucking lame honestly lol.
Gaff let them go because Deckard Is a replicant, Scott is on record as saying so and there is a shot in the film where Deckards eyes reflect the light in the same way as Rachel. Also the Unicorn dream and the Unicorn origami, Gaff knew, 4 years, too bad she won't live but then again who does.
The Blade Runner soundtrack was created by Vangelis, who also created the soundtrack for Chariots of Fire...
Fun fact: Ridley Scott got his shooting commercials and developed an insanely good eye for cinematography from it. It’s why his movies are always shot extremely well
The duelist is good too.
Do androids dream of electric sheep. Is the name of the book
I'm one that enjoys the original theatrical cut a lot more. It provides more insight into what is happening as well as provide a more informative ending. I remember seeing it in Theaters on the big screen when it was originally released. It was an amazing experience.
I agree. So many people hate the narration for some reason but it helps make sense of what's going on in my opinion and the extended ending does as well.
Hi, I'm J. F. Sebastian. This is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl.
I don't think they've seen Newhart. LOL
I would recommend to everyone to watch the original film release, (if you can find a copy) It has a voice-over from the prospective of Deckard by Harrison Ford. I personally prefer this version, as there is a lot of things to get your head round, and the voice-over makes some things clearer. It also contrasts the China town feel with a feeling of a 1930's private detective film.
I know the original version is not most peoples favourite.
Which ever you prefer everyone has to acknowledge this is a master piece of cinematography (No C.G.I. in 1982).
YES!
I like the original cut an final cut equally.
Yeah, the theatrical release explained the details like "little people" and "skin-job", giving us a culture of the world they lives in. I wished they kept the narration, but keep the dark ending of the Director's Cut.
Same. It seems most folk dislike it, but, to this day, the ‘international cut’ is my #1 fave iteration of BR.
When simply describing a space battle invokes more of a sense of awe and wonder then all the CGI ever.
RIP Rutger Hauer: Thank you, for giving us the greatest improvised death monolog in cinema!
_Rachael was in Deckard's apartment, who says the other cop 'Gaff' was there for her?_
_Deckard is a replicant, how else could Gaff know about the unicorn in his dream?_
it was just a coincidence, and thanks
You’ve done a man’s job, Sir.
@@roybatty92 It was not coincidence. Ridley Scott confirmed that to him Deckard was a replicant. In fact, the director's cut you can see that the house his remembers is the exact same house on Rachel's pictures.
This is one, if not the greatest, sci-fi flick of all time. Nothing else to say.
I dunno. I think the sequel is better, myself. Although they are both great.
@@cyphus5 WHAT?! Not even close, amigo. Listen, I love Villenueve, but he missed the mark with BR 2049. That movie felt like a bad Terminator sequel. I'm also a fan of Gosling, but he's no Harrison Ford. Not to mention, it was way too long. 2049 had too many problems. Road Warrior, Godfather II, Aliens, and T2 are examples of better sequels than the originals... 2049 does NOT belong on that list.
@@cyphus5
The sequel is so lazy .. how can the entertainment street leading to Las Vegas casino be so empty with just a few broken giant sculptures ? What happen to the tall lamp posts, giant ad displays, big billboards ... why would they clean up everything when in a hurry to abandon the city due to radiation ? THe casino is in such good condition without any broken windows, no creepers, no peeling gangrene walls ... why would the electricity still be running for Deckard to play the silly light shows in the unscathed lounge ... etc etc emotionally hollow looking visuals, everyone on the street are so well dressed and doing nothing to tell us their cultural background unlike the first movie's rich ethnicity details of chinese, japanese, hare krishnans, arabs, dwarf street urchins, ostrich sellers etc etc .. one look you know they are dressed like in poverty compared to the sequel where you cannot tell their poor background ... the first movie was so rich and gritty and descriptive, the sequel is like lazy and everything blurred over ...
@@TheEnnisfan
Agree fully ....
.. maybe except Aliens ... its a perfect sequel to Alien but not better, just different ..
Both are great in their own ways.
Alien had more surreal other-worldly mysterious sets (Giger at his best) and great atmosphere. The movie created the xenomorphs, face huggers, space jockey, alien eggs, the otherworldly space ships etc. It had the chest burster scene, the robot captain revelation .. its builds quiet tension elegantly.
Aliens had more actions, more gore and the queen alien ... its like slam bam actions galore ...
Aesthetic wise I prefer the first Alien, gore and action wise I prefer Aliens .. Still think the first Alien is the greater movie, many of the sequel's designs and actions are just modified versions of the first movie's inventions after all .. its like Ridley Scott created the blue print and James Cameron made some good alterations to it .. Some alterations are not improvements, just alterations.
@@88feji I can't argue with you, amigo. Aliens as an action film is hard to beat. Cameron right as he started that insane streak of great movies. Unfortunately, 20 years later have made Avatar. And even more unfortunate, he's making 20 more sequels of that trash.
Always fun to watch you two discover a gem from the past. 👍
A great classic movie, just love it. I highly recommend you watch the sequel Blade runner 2049
We definitely will be!
@@TBRSchmitt There are three short films (two live action and one anime) released shortly before Blade Runner 2049 (2036: Nexus Dawn, 2048: Nowhere to Run, and 2022: Black Out) that are also worth watching as they cover some of the events that occur in between the two films.
The best of science fiction and especially of the cyberpunk genre, asks one question. "What does it mean to be human?"
It is how each work answers that fundamental question that determines how well it is received.
Blade Runner answers that question by making the question not just about the Replicants, but about ourselves. It lets us question ourselves. It lets us examine what we have done. And asks us to examine our memories, because the memories, even for us, eventually fade.
Like teardrops in rain.
Oh boy. Was gonna go for a walk and saw this pop up? Who need exercise? Not me...
haha no exercise for me too!
Pris is played by Darryl Hannah, who is also in Kill Bill. Her final scene in Kill Bill is an homage to her death scene in Blade Runner.
You two should watch The Hitcher (1986), another great one with Rudger Hauer :)
Absolutely! Amazing movie and it seems to be one of those forgotten classics.
And Lady Hawk, Nighthawks and Flesh and Blood!
Salute of the Jugger is pretty unique... Mad Max sports movie.
@6:31 similar shot in Gladiator (at the palace in Rome. Also directed by Scott). Didn't know what Cinematography was until I saw this movie. The author of this novel asked Ridley Scott "how did you it?" This is exactly how I envisioned this world ". Deckard has interaction with Rachel at his apartment you can briefly see his eyes glow red.
"The eighties were so confident". P. K. Dick published the original short in 1968, so there was plenty of room to play. Brilliant author, brilliant film, brilliant director. So glad you two are fans of this one!
Deckard is not a replicant. Dick said he wasn't, Ford knew he wasn't, and Scott only added that scene in later because he wanted people to think Deckard was.
The cop with the dead eyes, the one who did the origami, is James Olmos of the 2004-2009 Battlestar Galactica series.
@@group-music Martin Castillo was a lieutenant.
I hope you choose a few more Rutger Hauer films to watch, he's amazing in The Hitcher. A true menace and tormentor!
Absolutely brilliant film, like you both I saw it after hearing all the hype and had different expectations. I wasn't expecting a slow burn think-piece. As such, I didn't really like it the first time through. But, it stuck with me and I started to think about it more and notice all these other details in the film. Now, it's one of my favorite films of all time. The important thing to understand is there are no "heroes" in this film, especially the humans who have created an underclass of slaves which they call "replicants" but yet are indistinguishable from humans. We see that replicants have emotions, they can fall in love, experience fear, hate, and even empathy. Yet, we routinely see humans in this world as cold and heartless people.
Notice how the VK test often asks questions dealing with violence towards animals, humans are unphased by these questions its the replicants that are horrified. You can even see this in the Police Captain's office where he has hunting pictures. Again, this film is STUFFED with details and wants you to draw your own conclusions. To me, this all just shows how the humans are more "robotic" than the replicants with their casual disregard for life. By the end, you should be questioning what it means to be human.
I always figured that Roy saved Deckard because he wanted someone to remember him, someone to recognize that he was a living being that existed. As he said, all his experiences would be lost in time, like "tears in rain." With Deckard, he finds someone he can express some of his life story to before he passes and thus hopefully Deckard will remember him long after he's gone. At least, in that small way, Roy can continue to live on. He won't "die" or have never existed at all because someone will remember him.
The last scene is obviously meant to for the audience to question whether Deckard himself is a Replicant via the Unicorn Origami, the same unicorn he dreamed. There's no right or wrong answer, it all depends on how you read everything. The director, Ridley Scott, has his belief, the writers have theirs, and Harrison has his. But, the answer doesn't really matter, it's the question that is interesting.
Awesome film.
The other thing it's so hard to bear in mind now is that Blade Runner pretty much invented so many of the cliches of cyberpunk futures (neon-soaked rainy cities with quasi-human androids et al) that it can be underwhelming to modern audiences to watch it. But if you try to find clear precedents for Blade Runner, either visually or thematically, at least within the world of cinema, it's really hard. I mean, Godard's "Alphaville", maybe? There isn't much. Blade Runner pretty much comes out of nowhere, and invents a new genre and visual language. The fact that it still looks like it could have been made yesterday is remarkable. I think probably only the cigarette smoking dates it (yet still works quite well in a sort of retro-noir way, as though it were a futuristic version of the 1940s).
Something cool to note, Gaff, the other Bladerunner, is played by Edward James Olomos, who played Commander Adama in the rebooted series of Battlestar Galactica, which was just peppered with Bladerunner references through out the series
i think you guys have missed how sad the death of Zhora was. May be need to re-watch the movie.
I've Never seen in any other movie a scene where a character is going from a Dangerous Powerful predator on the verge of killing the hero, to a completely defenseless frightened prey running for her life.
That's the moment where i question if they're only just "robots"...
This movie gives me a Nostalgia feeling every time, even though, obviously i've never been in that world.
As frightening as Zhora was when she attacked Deckard, she still let him live. Whereas the same compassion cannot be said for Deckard who, for all intents and purposes, shoots a terrified, fleeing woman in the back and immediately buys a bottle of booze to forget it. Our hero, ladies and gentlemen.
@@thatguybehindtheglass Not a woman but a replicant. that's also why he exist. to avoid any murder charges against a human, since he's not human himself.
@@juliusperseus8612 The whole point of the movie is to question whether that “not a woman, but a replicant” premise holds up or whether it is actually a fiction used to justify and absolve the mistreatment and murder of persons.
I always thought there was some symbolic significance of the position of Zhora's gunshot wounds in her back--- they look to be in the perfect spot as if she was an "Angel who lost her wings."
One of the things even repeat viewers don't get is that the Eye at the beginning of the film is not Deckard's, it's Roy's. He is seeing Earth close up for probably the first time. He is the protagonist of the film, but it doesn't follow him. That is very very rare in cinema history.
WB released three Blade Runner 2049 "short films", which are based just before the next movie. I definetly recommend checking them out before you watch the sequel.
Here you go 😁
Part 1 th-cam.com/video/rrZk9sSgRyQ/w-d-xo.html
Part 2 th-cam.com/video/UgsS3nhRRzQ/w-d-xo.html
Part 3 th-cam.com/video/aZ9Os8cP_gg/w-d-xo.html
What does it mean to be human? Don't we all want a longer life? The search for your maker. One of my top 5 movies. I saw it when it first came out in theaters and many times since.
33:04 Roy Batty was played by Rutger Hauer, a Dutch actor that just passed away on 2019. He is awesome in this movie but I also love him playing Navarre in the classic fantasy/adventure movie Ladyhawke, which also features Michelle Pfeiffer & Matthew Broderick. Worth a watch...
27:48 The actor came up with all the stuff that Roy Batty says just before dying at the end of the movie. "... like tears in rain..."
He will be missed...
Ladyhawke was one of my favorite movies as a kid and gave me a real soft spot for Rutger Hauer, even when he wasn't playing the good guy.
he's great in 'soldier of orange', a ww2 flick
The original name of the book was "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
During a time that people feared the changing technology and the emergence of AI this story makes you question what it means to be alive and who really is good or bad. Iconic movie.
That final moment where Rachel trips over the origami unicorn hints at Decard being a replicant, it means the other cop with the light eyes has been there, but also that he knows Decard dreams of Unicorns, because as we know from Rachel when a replicant is being hunted cops get to see their file and read about their manufactured memories and dreams, this little origami unicorn was his hint (without alerting Rachel) that he could have ’retired’ Rachel but didn’t, but also, why they both have to run now.
Or at least, that’s one theory, and I like it.
Actually Pris is the pleasure model and Zhora is the "beauty and the beast" replicant. It's explained during the scene with the police captain and Deckard gokg over the case studies of each replicant. But yeah this movie blew me away when I first saw it. I actually prefer the theatrical version with narration, because it gives off a more noir feel of the crime/detective movies of the 1940s which is what Ridley was going for according to his interviews. Plus it explains a lot of the back story that you don't get with this new version. Oddly enough this movie tanked in the box office when it was released, but over the years gained a huge cult following. Thanks for reacting to it!
Ridley didn't want the narration, it was added in because the studio wanted it to be more palatable for the audience. The narration was added last minute, with very little passion.
The Final Cut is how Ridley really envisioned it.
@@Flup2 Ahh yes you are correct, he did not want the narration, I stand corrected. Sorry my memory isn't the best these days. But he was going for the noir feel of the film harkening back to the films of 1940's and 50's which is why you still see some cars from that era driving by, and that nostalgic song (One More Kiss, Dear) in the movie that sounds out of place in a futuristic setting.
@@jlange73 You are however absolutely correct about this being a Film Noir through-and-through. Some people (like TBR Schmitt) went in expecting an action movie, but it was really meant as an old-fashioned detective movie set in a sci-fi universe.
Rutger Hauer also stared in LadyHawk, a fun fantasy romance set in medieval France with Michelle Pfeiffer and Mathew Broderick.
There are so many layers to this movie, it is epic in every way. Even down to the placement of the tiny origami pieces being important clues to the plot 🦄
A cool thing back in the 80s was that, after this movie had come out... it started showing on tv. And as with many of the movies of that era, they were the talk of the day at school for almost every kid at school. Especially with movies like E.T , Gremlins, Indiana Jones.
The same went on with tv series.
Great video as always. 1) Pris was the pleasure model and Zhora was the soldier; 2) Dr. Tyrell was portrayed (brilliantly) by the recently-departed Joe Turkel--who played the sinister Lloyd the Bartender in Kubrick's THE SHINING (1980); 3) the meaning of Gaff's unicorn origami is that Deckard himself is a Replicant as well. The unicorn dream in this version was implanted in Deckard's mind--hence Gaff's knowledge of his real self; 4) while the "Final Cut" is a fine version, I recommend you both check out the 1982 "Theatrical Cut"--which has the much disliked Deckard narration intact (of which I am a fan) and the SHINING ending (you'll see what I mean)...and/or the "International Cut"--which retains the narration and unedited graphic violence (my personal favorite version)...
Deckard isn’t a replicant.
@@GeorgeEugeneBarrett If you think that, cool for you! 👍🏻
Is the international cut on dvd?
@@cesarmedina7080 It is on the special edition 5-disc blu-ray set, not sure about DVD...
He is not. He was hurt constantly, beat up and hurt. The police guy was one doing weird stuff with paper
Rutger Houer, the Platinum blonde guy in this also played in a movie with Matthew Broderick & Michelle Pfeiffer called Ladyhawk. Loved them all in that. Rutger most recently played in the HBO True Blood Series as Niall, Sookie's Fae Grandfather.
Pris, the pleasure model is played by Darryl Hannah who was in the movie Splash with John Candy & Tom Hanks. She more recently played in the Nicholas Sparks movie A Walk To Remember as the Mom.
Zhara the one with the snake, is played by Joanna Cassidy who played Sue Ellen's Boss on Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead.
I find a certain kind of irony in TBR immediately picking out Rachael as being too robotic to be human, when the character is actually being portrayed by a real human actress who acts lifeless enough to convince the audience that she can't be human and yet in the movie, she's human enough for Deckard to develop feelings for her.
Ridley Scott had always intended for Deckard to be a Replicant too. It is much more obvious in the director's cut. I always believed she had been created just for him and their relationship had been planned by Tyrrell.
Wait, are you saying that Sean Young is a shitty stiff actress but in this particular movie her mannequin-like acting serves the director’s intentions?
I'm not saying she's a bad actress, just that she gives the impression that she's robotic in this particular role.
The actor that played Roy was Rutger Hauer a Dutch actor he also played in the movie Ladyhawke a couple of years later. You might check it out it’s about a medieval knight who is under a spell where he spends his nights turned into a wolf and his true love spends her days as a hawk. They travel together but since each is in animal form when their love is in human form they are forever apart. Michelle Pfeffer stars as the love interest and Mathew Broderick plays a young thief who helps the break the spell.and provides much of the comic relief.
The sequel is also NOT very action-y. It's a long, very, slow burn. But it is absolutely magnificent and you can't take your eyes away from the screen because the story and visuals (my god - the VISUALS!) are so beautiful and captivating.
21:51- "The facts of Life" speech. My favorite part of the movie.
maybe the most influential cyberpunk movie ever made, even if the story and pacing are flawed. despite the bad parts, i still keep coming back to it
Made me want to immediately jump back into cyberpunk 2077 lol!
As far as cyberpunk aesthetics go, Blade Runner absolutely defined them in all media, forever.
The story and pacing are anything but flawed, there's no bad parts.
Nothing is wrong with the story or pacing tho lmaooooo
Just because it doesn't follow the formula you see in every Hollywood movie doesn't mean it's flawed
Those practical effects from 1982 are beautiful and hold up very well
If you can, read the out-of-print book Blade Runner: The Inside Story by Don Shay. The level of detail and the work put in creating the miniature models is astonishing.
Personally I love slower paced character driven films, this is much more in the style of older noir films like Maltese Falcon, you should try watching some of those classics too. The sequel to this is also incredible.
"It's too bad she won't live; then again, who does?" For me the key is not the first part of the line, but the second: then again, who does? We all die, after all.
Yes. We all die and we don't know when...
The 4K disc of this is pretty great. Within 5 years Scott had directed two of the best films of their respective genres. It was a thinking man's science fiction film,one that wouldn't be equalled until Mamoru Oshii's 95' Ghost In The Shell which does take elements from this but does them in a very different style. Like GITS,the Final Cut has a very zen like feel to it now that you can hear the amazing soundtrack. Probably the best adaption of a Philip K.Dick story,and there have been a lot of them. It's not exactly his story but it's far better even than great films like Total Recall. Rutger Hauer is amazing and this should have made him a leading man just like Ford. He is the heart of this film. The fact that Hauer came up with the speach at the end was well done on his part. And the fact that he saves Deckards life at the end simply because he spits at Roy,he defies him,before he falls is a nice touch that's easy to miss.
Replcants are not machines,not like Bishop ECT. They are living beings just made instead of born.
Of course people talk about if Deckard is a replicant or not,but that always seemed foolish. It weakens the film. The irony is that he is human,but has become cold and dead,even more than Leon. The scene on the rooftop has so much more power when he regains his humanity after listening to Batty. Scott has gone a bit off his rocker in recent years and his statement that Deckard is one of them shows that he didn't really get what Dick's story was about. And remember Rachel is experimental,a Nexus 6.1 if you will. The tech that makes her lack of awareness possible has only been made,under the terms of the story there's no way for Deckard not to know what he is. Either way they were right to keep it vague. It's always better to imagine things than have them spelled out. A lesson Scott seems to have forgotten now.
A good summary of relevant issues. Dick's original book did include elements of Deckard doubting his own humanity, but then that was a theme of all his books, what's real and what isn't. Well said about it being a stronger theme of Deckard being human but losing his moral humanity because of what he does, regaining it because of Roy's realisation of the value of any life at the end, though as you say this works precisely because it's vague, which is why I prefer the original theatrical release in some ways (the unicorn scene is unnecessary, and I know the extra dialogue at the end of theatrical release was added later, with Deckard saying Rachel has no termination date, but I think that works better for a film that does not have as its main focus the theme of what is real). And yeah, in more recent times Ridley has gone right off the wall, from soppy eco tree hugger stuff like Avatar to the utter mess of daftness of Promethius and sequels.
@@mapesdhs597 Yes,I agree. Over explaining things is never a good thing. We didn't need to know anything about the Aliens. The mystery is what made them interesting. It was very Lovecraft,as Dan O'Bannon intended. It should never be flat out said that Deckard is either or. I'm glad that 2049 didn't answer the question either way.
@@kellinwinslow1988 And a billion points for the Lovecraft reference. :D Pity there's never been a good movie version of any of his stories; for an industry stuck in a quagmire of endless reboots, sequels, prequels and wokification, Lovecraft has originality in spades, but I guess Hollywood is too afraid to do anything genuinely new. Hmm, though a dated style, I guess 'The Dunwich Horror' isn't too bad.
Seeing Prometheus at the cinema was truly painful; the words, "You're an idiot for buying a ticket!" may aswell have been on the screen. In the first Alien film, not once did one ever have cause to regard any of the characters as stupid or ignorant; rather, they were simply in it way over their heads. Much the same in the three familiar sequels (Alien 3 may be a lacklustre film but its characters are never actually stupid). In Prometheus though, we are shown people who are quite literally dumbasses, because that's how they act. Oh look, we're on an *alien* planet, in a dark and scary cave, and here's a weird looking snake thing waving around on the floor, so ok I'll shove my face right up to it, that's a perfectly sensible thing to do - done by someone who's supposed to be a scientist no less! And the most annoying thing about that scene? It implies that in the universe of alien all these people came from a culture which never had space scifi horror movies. :D The lack of relevant self reference is infuriating. Ok so they can't reference the Alien saga itself for obvious reasons (how meta would that be), but heck, something! Hey dude, don't do that, haven't you seen the space dramas?
Just one example from a great many, but alas the later film was even worse. Another alien planet; step outside wearing dumb looking floppy hats. No proper suits, no pathogenic analysis of the atmosphere, etc., etc., etc., and a humanoid alien who, when awakened, almost immediately acts like a dumbass. And throughout it all, this whole theme of psycho androids because reasons. Sheesh, these later movies are like being stuck inside Ridley's head while he's having a what-if mental wedgie that's far removed from the original O'Bannon concept, namely, following the poor reception of Dark Star (which I assume you've seen, awesome film), when he said, "If I can't make them laugh, maybe I can make them scream."
It's crazy how many older films, with their often dated effects, etc., are when compared to modern productions easily just so much better; believable plots, characters with actual story arcs, etc. These days all we seem to get are woke remakes or somesuch which are inevitably terrible, such as the yawnfest that was The Arrival. The older 1995 film by the same name with Charlie Sheen is oodles better.
It's not like good movies can't be done, such as Pitch Black and Riddick. Just beats me how the rotten eggs ever get the green light to begin with. DIrector power I suppose, influence because of past success.
Have you ever read A. C. Clarke's, "Moondust"? A movie version of that would be good if done right (it has nothing to do with his entire 2001 saga, which really began with, "The Sentinel"). And I enjoyed, "Rendevous with Rama", the basic notion of us humans just not being as special or interesting as we like to think we are. :D
@@mapesdhs597 Clarke is a great writer. I have a bunch of his books such as Childhoods End,which was one of the inspirations for Evangelion,and all his 2001 books. Good stuff. Listen,I hate the new Alien films. Hate them. The entire point was that we shouldn't know anything about them. O'Bannon was a great writer. He was inspired by Lovecraft's At The Mountains Of Madness. The mystery and terror is what drives Alien. I have all of Lovecraft's stories,in really nice hardcover sets,and in spite of his writing issues he was a master at building up terror. Not horror. Terror. Now the Aliens are nothing more than targets to be shot at. Prometheus reduced everything down to nothing more than a terrible Friday The 13th rip off. And not in the fun,stupid way. Just the stupid,stupid way. Playing the Arkham Horror Card Game or any of the board games is far more scary and immersive than that or Covenant was. It's just like Star Trek or Star Wars or Robocop or Terminator or Predator. They just can't leave great works of art alone. They have to stripmine the past. When I think of how badly things like Star Trek have been managed by that chowder head Kurtzman,really The Wrath Of Kahn is so good it brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it,it just brings my piss to a boil. I'll just stick to playing the Star Trek Frontiers board game. At least that feels well thought out. But your points are well made. I'm sure we'd get along fine if we met.
@@mapesdhs597 And yes I have Dark Star on Blu Ray. Carpenter was a master of his craft from 76' to 88'. And if we are talking about best Lovecraft films I'll put The Thing right along with Alien as the best. Reanimator is great of course but it's not really his story. O'Bannon was great,as I've said. It's cool that his son worked on Farscape. Amazing show.
Obviously the cinematography is gorgeous but I think what really sells it for me is the soundtrack. Vangelis's music is the perfect complenent to the hazy look of cyberpunk LA
OMG, cannot wait to see your reaction to Blade Runner 2049 as well!
Can't wait to watch it!
I’m looking forward to that the most! Better than this one imo
@@_AlejandroVega1 . . .
@@_AlejandroVega1 Yeah it definitely better from a pacing perspective if anything. The original had its flaws, after all it took a while and many version before we arrived at the Final Cut.
@@_AlejandroVega1 Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?!
Rutger Hauer is the actor who played Roy Batty. It was his most famous role and in an ironic twist of fate both of them passed away in November 2019.
The original cut had a narration by Deckard throughout the movie, almost like a homage to the Mickey Spilane detective movies from the 40's. It helped to explain some of what was going on. Unfortunately it didn't go over well so the narration was taken out of the final cut. The late great Rutger Hauer played a great villain with that classic quote "All of those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain".
That's the version I prefer. It's biggest sin to some fans was that it seemed to have a happy ending.
Another movie that is hinted to exist in the same universe is Soldier, with Kurt Russell. There are a number of Easter eggs that indicate it's in the same universe. Pretty underrated movie IMO.
The replicants have human DNA, so they are like genetically engineered humans/humanoids used for slave labor. Also, because of their 4 year lifespan, they are emotionally like children. Did you notice that the origami gum wrapper at the end was a unicorn? Deckard dreams of unicorns...
True but that wasn't shot for this movie and it was added later for a director's cut.
Ohhhhhhhhh you guys are in for a treat. Blade Runner was a monumental in influencing Sci-fi, cybepunk and an astonishing achievement in world building that holds up even today! A flawed masterpiece!! And BR2049 stunned those of us whom are precious about original BR. It's a modern marvel in cinema! Denis Villenuve direction, Roger Deakins behind the light and lens! I can't wait for you guys to watch BR2049
Roy had no intention of killing Deckard; he just wanted to put him in a heightened state of fear (hence all his theatrics). He knew that putting Deckard in fear for his life would make him hyper aware of his own mortality and fear for his life. That's why he says "Quite a thing to live in fear, isn't it?" Roy is constantly in fear of his impending death, and he just wanted Deckard to understand that feeling. Roy's iconic "Tears In Rain" monologue is him using his last few minutes to make his argument for his own humanity. His memories aren't implants; they are his own...and now they'll be lost...like tears in rain. Whether he's referring to his own tears or whatever sympathy Deckard might now be feeling for Roy is kind of up for debate. I think,, in the end,, Roy wanted what everyone wants- to be understood and remembered by someone when we're gone. It's a very existential thinker of a film.
Deckard dreaming about a unicorn, and then Edward James Olmos making the origami unicorn is interesting...almost as if that dream was implanted into Deckard's memory...hmmm...
He did add his own memories to the ones that were implanted. These unique memories of his own that will be los, is what saddens him. However, this fact is true for all humans.
Or the Unicorn was Rachael's memory implant that Deckard had access to (just like the spider-nest story) and the image of the Unicorn was stuck in Deckard's head.
@@kevinburton3948 Except there's no reason to think that.
@@wfly81 Everything you mentioned about Roy's interaction with Deckard becomes totally meaningless if Deckard is not human. Why should Roy give these life lessons to a "fellow Replicant"? Rather than a human being who has spent his life killing Replicants with extreme prejudice and impunity.
Roy vehemently refers to Deckard as *you people*... Clearly as in: "you are not my kind."
The story of a man who has lost his humanity through his job as a killing machine, and regains it through of all things, the Replicants (who ironically are the most human of all the characters) that he has to destroy...
Is a lot stronger than some Twilight Zone twist ending that he was a Replicant all along.
Gaff's origami are subtle messages to Deckard- the chicken in Bryant's office (Gaff thinks Deckard is "chicken" to take on the assignment).
The matchstick man with an erection in Leon's apartment (Deckard has romantic feeling's for Rachael).
And the Unicorn...
When Gaff tells Deckard "It's too bad she won't live..." he's telling him to leave this place and go and live your life with her, not as a machine-like killer Blade Runner, but as a human being once again, and treat every day with her as if it may be your last.
Because SHE is the Unicorn. She is what Deckard has been looking for his entire life (whether he knew it or not). At the beginning of the film Deckard had given up and was willing to waste his remaining days until death... But now he has a reason to live again, love again, show passion and stop being a "cold fish." And Gaff is giving him that send off.
I find my take on the symbolism behind the origami Unicorn to be more powerful than "A ha buddy! I'm on to you that you're one of them. So go ahead and run off with your robot girlfriend."
A detail that I love in this film comes from Rutger Hauer's portrayal of Roy Batty. In the scene where he is telling Pris that Zhora has been killed, notice his facial expressions. It's sadness, but it's not an adult look. It is the expression of a child, maybe a even 4 year old. Later, during the Tears in Rain scene, after he says his bit of poetry, he then looks at Decker almost shyly, seeking approval for his verse. Just beautiful work.
I like the theatrical version where Harrison Ford narrates the movie. It has been said that Blade Runner, Outland and Alien are in the same universe. The more I see the movies, the more it make sense that they are. Replicants are humans that are manufactured in a laboratory ..
I’m a fan of the theatrical version as well, though I think we’re in the minority.
@@goldenageofdinosaurs7192 You can add me to that group. I've always preferred Ford's bleak narration.
The theatrical has a much more neo-noir feel, which I enjoy. I think every version has something great to offer, which is a testament to how amazing this film is.
"Replicants are humans that are manufactured in the lavatory"
Heh :)
Those of us that like the Theatrical Release are heretics.
Others have said it, but this really is a pillar of cinematic sci-fi. The aesthetic here inspired SO MANY movies, shows, graphic novels.
I came with receipts...
Anime such as Bubblegum Crisis and Silent Mobius were built around this landscape. And Ghost in the Shell also addresses questions about digital memory, sentience, and what it means to be "human."
One of the lead characters in Bubblegum Crisis is named Priss and briefly dresses like Priss from this movie.
Heck, even modern cinematography takes clues from Blade Runner. Christopher Nolan literally just sat his production team down and played this film and said, "I want Batman Begins to be lit and shot like this."
Some people have interpreted the unicorn on the floor as indicating that Deckard is also a type of replicant because of the dream about unicorns. If not, how did the other guy know about the unicorn?
Yeah, the scene with Deckard's dream of unicorns (from Scott's fantasy movie "Legend"), coupled with Gaff's origami unicorn heavily hints at Deckard himself being a replicant.
@@group-music Yes, I know - I watched the theatrical cut in1982. Scott's inclusion of the unicorn scene changed the meaning of Gaff's gesture, with all what that implied.
When you said "the eighties it seems were much more confident" you are spot on.
Deckard.... was actually the villain in this story, brilliant.
The movie was panned by critics when it came out. With Harrison Ford in it, people expected Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Instead they got one of the greatest (if not the greatest) science fiction movie ever made. In college, we broke down the various themes of this movie (there are multiple ones). This is science fiction in the best sense - it asks the tough questions... the ones with ethical implications. You guys nailed it regarding style and atmosphere... it really stands alone for that time. Many movies since have tried to replicate it (pardon the pun).
The Bradbury building where the cool interior staircase shots were shot is in Los Angeles. You guys should check it out. It’s been used in multiple films.
And the interiors of Deckard’s apartment were shot in the Ennis House, one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings. The Bradbury building and the Ennis House are two of the most important pieces of architecture in LA.
When Blade Runner initially came out, it was a box office bomb. It was too new, too avant guarde, to ahead of its time. It went into the vaults, and stayed there until someone decided to have a showing at a small theatre, and it got surprisingly good reviews from the showing, so there were more showings and it started to grow, and then it just exploded. It's now an absolute cult classic in the SciFi world - and it really holds up over time.
I have also heard that the voiceover that was used in the original theatrical release was deliberately ruined by Ford by being drab in the hope that it would be rejected, which probably didn't help
i highly recommend at some point you also watch two of the other sci fi films on your poll....FORBIDDEN PLANET, probably the best sci fi film from the fifties after WAR OF THE WORLDS....also the 1956 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, it's better than the 1978 version...
When Priss engage J.F. Sebastien, lol :
"Jesus the whole building ?!"
Lived exactly like him for two years. Nobody for hundreds of meters around.
Plus the confinement. You play basketball in the middle of the nights, some guitar & watch some objects drifting in low earth orbit layed on your back while smocking good cigars.
(sometimes I didnt even cross another human for days. Perspective. Makes you think)
The birth of the ‘Cyberpunk’ genre.
This was made in 1982 and it’s visuals still hold more than most other sci-fi movies made more recently
Examples
That's because cinema today is garbage, no one knows how to create visual storytelling and productions like this nowadays.
@@FuzzyDlop not true
Roy's (Rutger Hauer) speech and death always stuck with me...even today...and I saw Blade Runner in the 80's.
oh my god!! you guys have to react next to the sequel Blade Runner 2049!!! I personally think it’s the perfect sequel to a great movie.
its a disappointing sequel ... lazy visuals that depends on just big space and walls to give a superficial sense of grandeur , very hollow looking visuals compared to how dazzlingly rich and gritty the original looks ...
Zora, Leon and Priss all had a look of bafflement when Dekard didn't die right away. Roy broke Dekard's fingers then said something about trying to shoot straight. He shot straight with broken fingers. But Roy said "straight isn't good enough."
Sorry to be picky... But Roy broke the fingers of Deckard's *right* hand (the hand he shoots with). When Roy gives him back his gun and lets go, Deckard switches the gun to his *left* hand and instantly takes a point blank shot at Roy (which Roy still dodges- although it did clip his ear).
So he didn't shoot at Roy with broken fingers- it was the hand he wasn't used to shooting with and he still missed with Roy a foot away.
D'oh!