the GIRL REACT to *Blade Runner* WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? (First Time Watching) Sci-fi Movies
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- NEW MERCH: white-noise-store.creator-spr...
Links: direct.me/whitenoisereacts
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the videos that you are seeing are those of the artist(s) featured and do not necessarily reflect the views of the channel, contributors, site editors, affiliates, sponsors or advertisers.
Stella's Insta: / stellaa_rrose
The girls, Hayley and Stella, are reacting to Blade Runner and what does this movie even mean? Blade Runner directed by Ridely Scott and starring Harrison Ford is a legendary 80s movie! Enjoy this first time watching blade runner movie reaction to sci-fi movies!
#firsttimereaction #moviereaction #bladerunner #bladerunner2049 #ridleyscott #denisvilleneuve #stevenspielberg #readyplayerone #stanleykubrick #videogames #videogamemovies #sciencefiction #scifi #scifimovies #girlsreacting #firsttimewatching
Merch Store:
teespring.com/stores/white-no...
For exclusive content, early access and much more...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/whitenoiserea...
For business or collaborations email:
peeweecinemasbusiness@gmail.com
For sponsorships: whitenoisereacts@thestation.io
Hero Patrons:
Stella
Brad
Alexander Berry
Sarah Shetland
Isabella Horn
Emily
Darkaddict19
Immanuel mcfarlane
Jake A
Sckye Hansen
Hyb3rGamimg
Sharon
Black Flame
Denisa Čižmářová
Jade Fairman
Khadijah Sims
Osher Ratzabi
Seth
Dario Tamadon
elizabeth
Sofie Hansen
Tann Honey
Giuseppe DeGaetano
Adam Armstrong
Noah Moore
Alex FairysnailTails
JM1K13
iminhighschool
Josip Buretic
Rebecca McGowan
Thomas Jones
Tommy Ross
Talia Herron
RegalLatin2303
CD85
Zennor Whyte
Anthony Velasquez
Carlos Hernandez
Lauryn Shealy
Gabby B
Kinglier
004
Josh Dixon
Tracy Parr
Iyana Taylor
Jayie
Megan Arnett
luccabeast
DABSLABOG
Elijah Yang
Destiny O
Jonathan
Leah
Angel Groves
HisGreatness86
Avatar Ashdel
BlueDebut
Michael Rutter
Michael Diego Gabriel
Crystal
Marcus Russell
Highseas
Dmaru Hill
It’s Angie
Just Michelle
FrickingKaos
Curtis Miller
Kiran
Artverse
ThunderBeast
christina kunnumpurath
grantingallday
Carlos
Rochelle Gardner
Jessica taylor
Donald “Chronos” King
Abigail Nelson
Patrick Jackson
Megan Bell
Guin12
Anissa Allié
Sarah
Joshua Heaysman
Sandell Lentz
Sheldon
Daniel Fuchs
pusha .
SimianSupreme
Danyelle
GraysonTodd
Priscila
Everett (PixelMight) Baker
beautiful bliss
Sarah 9
Chantel W
Anthony Allan
Rob Williams
UltimateHope101
Dėborah Aribo
Kathryn Fike
Joseph E.W.
Chicken Ala Queen
Jennifer Perez
Nahfiscared
Maria Oncoy
Gecko Dmitrievich-Shcherbatskaya
Belzeref
Ricky Flores
Arake
leyla
Dale
Justin Feldman
Anna Roth
Ellie H
Sha Jackson
Susana Canales
Michelle Cook
iisublime
Lauren
Maria Harrington
Makayla Araujo
Brendizzzzle
Elizabeth Olivero
Valeria Loera
Chloe Winterbottom
DarthDecimus24
Dominik Klar
Nola Scott
Cadence Beisigl
Reuben Filimaua
Meghna
Andrew langton
Quietjbc
Dylan H
Kaitlyn
Alicia Hauskins
Cat Hack
maemisfitz
Ashley ‘LJ’ Peters
Kat Bland
Dorian Gipson
Nicole111
goonghana .
Andrea Mason
Senko
Kadin Osceola
Dannica Horsman
Angelie Romo
Pritha Hajra
Samantha Reandeau
Kelly
Teddy O'Hea
Kara Rohlman
J Michael Bell
Gavin Furukawa
SongBird177
Kora Orion
ripeka manawatu
Kygro
Raymundo Bustos
Kevin J. Coleman
Deseray Stoner
Glorie
Don Hart
Choux D Bruxelles
Anime empress
Seirsan
Tamija
Jess Bracero
Anastasiia
Katie Langton
Emag
Rhodessa Gonzales
Cedrick Desjardins
Justine
Shannon Warkentin
Morgan Tinkey
Fai
Elin
Shelly Do
1985anj
Elisa Luna
Noternie
pattinaggiojo
Kassie Hustrulid
Klara
Ashlei Morrell
Annie519
Katie
lorenajocelyne
breanna
Allora TV
Raven Dark
Demetria Conley
florence
Jenny V
Tim Möbius
Alice
Melanie
WastedPo
Avery
Kat Garrett
GO.
Amber Burton
Sarah Mosinski
Chelsea Keel
Alfred Höttl
Robert Hinojosa
Haley
LM_252
Jenny M
Vol
Ronja Greger
Haunt
Terrie Vasquez
Sophia Jackson
Taylor Fortenberry
Nneka Bonner
Its Morbin' Time
Melanie
Darth Dolak
Rebecca Piper
Xalia
Rose Ogden
Andrew Hansen
Fritz (Sarah B)
Ashly Heilmann
Ashley Stephenson
Sulema
titus
Raindog
Haley Hastings
Nerd Going Outside
Meredith
Isabella Hayes-Hollands
Raikiri29
Skylight106
Jessica Gorder
Ruth
Emily
Jessica Heebner
Lidia Dias
Shannon Roux
Mariah Greuel
Tom Ekstrand
Alejandra Díaz
Ryan Moore
Madelyn Lafferty
Nicole Ogunbodede
Darius
Taylor
jonathan Edge
Mona7
FOTSnax
Ann
elishia monaghan
Angeldanger145
Michael Therrien
Anne
Ramona
Coco
Kristin Carter 
Развлечения
Which is better, this movie or the sequel?
I prefer the sequel,
Blade Runner 2049 🔥
As much as love the first movie, Blade Runner 2049 really hit home to me.
This one. Blade Runner is a film to watch because you like sci-fi, and 2049 is a film to watch if you liked Blade Runner.
This is insuperable.
This one has a handful of incredible scenes but the sequel is the better movie overall. The plot of BR is really basic when you think about it, 2049 has much more mystery and intrigue
_"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe... Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die."_
~ _Roy Batty_
Such an emotional line of dialogue by Rutger Hauer’s performance as Roy Batty and It feels emotional and dawns me that Rutger Hauer and his character Roy Batty both passed away in 2019.
And Rutgar Hauer came up with that monologue.
@@jimamos7984He came up with the last line of the monologue, which is what makes it memorable.
@@miller-joelApparently it wasn't just the last line. He ad libbed a bunch of bits in the final soliloquy.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Tears in the rain. Look it up.
Great, thanks for repeating what I've just heard.
Well done
Sorry girls, but you got the wrong version here. The final cut from 2007 looks way better. And you didn't notice the music at all. It's the best electronic film score Vangelis ever made and it fills the slow parts with emotions. Do yourself the favor to watch the final cut before the sequel.
They don't notice a lot of things like photography, set designs and, indeed, music.
sorry pal, but this is the only version possible
@@JulioLeonFandinho 'The only version possible"? What?! Why?! ^^;
@@SCharlesDennicon I think it's a problem they watch it in a very bright room. This movie should be watched in a dark theater. As I remember they complained about the dark scenes in Alien too (another Ridley Scott film).
The Score from Chariots if Fire is holding for you on line one........
- Roy was the leader, as he was a combat model with "Lev. A" mental and physical abilities. Hence his speed and ability to physically outmatch Deckard.
- The "emotional inexperience" of the replicants lends to the creepiness and unease you feel when they try to show emotions. Leon's childish playing with the eyeballs. Roy trying to process his emotions when he is telling Pris about Leon's death.
- When Pris is first shot, she flails around like a broken toy. It's creepy, but it makes sense in that Pris was also physically superior to humans but emotionally immature. The shot she took was fatal, but she still had full use of her arms and legs. The shock and pain of her wound would have put her into "no, no, no, this isn't happening" mode, which manifested itself into looking like a full-sized super-strong human having a panicked temper tantrum.
- I think you guys missed the meaning behind Roy's fist clenching in the phone booth earlier in the movie. It's supposed to represent some sort of replicant pre- rigor mortis, and he had to fight to get it to go away. It showed that Roy's time was quickly running out. In the final fight, it happened again, and he had to use the nail to flood his body with life-or-death adreneline to give himself a few more minutes.
- Interesting that you guys saw the original version with the voiceover by Harrison Ford. Many hated it, including Ford himself, but it does help with some of the more cryptic parts of the plot. Back in the day, rewatching a movie was almost expected. Today, there is so much more content, audiences demand that you can get everything out of it on first viewing. So here, there are many cases of "what is happening... what is happening... ah, now I understand what was happening". Some people love that style, and others tend to panic. Believe me - a second viewing will be a completely different experience.
I've personally always liked voice overs and wish we'd go back to them. Not because I can't pick up on subtle clues or because I want them to explain things to us, but I just feel like you get more intimate with a character when they do a voice over and you hear their innermost thoughts and stuff.
@@NovusIgnis there's times where voice overs work. And its part of the Noir shtick. But I just didn't like how they felt in this instance.
To each their own.
I agree, this movie deserves a second watch, as I alluded to in my comment today. It almost becomes a different movie with each watch.
I sure hope they read your comment. Spot on and we’ll said.
The voice-over definitely succeeded in selling the noir aspect of the movie. But I agree with Harrison Ford that it took a lot of the mystery away, and ultimately I prefer the narration-free versions.
I think people went into this movie expecting a sci-fi action/thriller because they saw that it was directed by Ridley Scott and starred Harrison Ford, and their minds instantly went to Alien and Star Wars. But its structure and tone plays much more like a slow-burn noir detective story that just happens to be set in a sci-fi dystopian future that basically involves human cloning and poses heady questions about what it means to be human and what it means to be alive.
The final cut is the best version of this movie - it removes the studio mandated voiceover and happy ending, reinserts a removed critical scene, plus cleans up the effects and some continuity errors. It's meant to make you ask questions and think about the themes yourself, not spoon feed you the answers.
And unlike most self-indulgent 'director's cut' movies, it was a few minutes shorter than the other cuts.
@@zybch “self-indulgent” director’s cuts? What in the world could that mean? Who better to make a film more in line with the director’s vision than the Director himself??
@@motodork I love the theatrical release of Terminator 2 way more than the director's cut of Terminator 2, so for me at least the director's vision is not a guarantee of quality.
@@solomiguex James Cameron's D cuts are often worse, most D cuts are, self indulgent or misguided just look at what George Lucas did to Star Wars.
Anyone who knows anything about creative arts should know the phrase "Kill your darlings"
D cuts fly in the face of this very concept, only a film ruined by producers or a very very rare reserved director would produce a quality D cut
LotR = cut for time
Blade Runner = studio interference
Aliens = i don't like the execution of the daughter storyline but I understand the intent and it both adds and takes away from the theatrical cut lol
Terminator 2 = literally ruins one of the main plot points about experiential learning of the machines
The most complete director's vision does not always equate to the best version of a film. This is because directors are emotionally close to their work, and it can be difficult for them to judge what needs to be left on the cutting room floor. For example, the redux cut of Apocalypse Now has its fans, but is generally regarded as inferior to the original, particularly in terms of pacing.
RIP, to those who worked on this film:
Vangelis, composer.
Jordan Cronenweith, Cinematographer.
Terry Rawlings, Film Editor.
Philip K. Dick, Author.
Joe Turkel, Elden Tyrell.
Brion James, Leon.
Morgan Paull, Holden.
Rutger Hauer, Rot Batty.
Syd Mead, Concept Artist.
Deeply depressing.
When this came out in 1982, it made you believe that more and more movies would always be made to take you to an entire other world, and another place within the mind. That hasn't turned out to be so, which is why this movie remains timeless.
A cyberpunk neo noir masterpiece. It's one of my most favorite films of all time. Like most cyberpunk and noir, it deals with moral ambiguity, philosophical questions of existence, and dark lighting.
I would say this is the first Cyberpunk film. So much has been inspired from this films visuals.
@ryanhampson673 very true.
Riffing off this with some additional comments...
This flick really inspired. It was very much a unique feel at the time. And it inspired a zeitgeist of what "cyberpunk" would look like to come. Cyberpunk didn't quite exist when this came out. Gibson's Neuromancer manuscript hadn't been completed when Blade Runner released (Gibson has said he was around 3/4 complete at the time). The movie had shocked Gibson at how it had wonderfully portrayed these urban environments in a style he was also working on in his book. Though - both Ridley Scott and Gibson cite similar influences like French comics appearing in Heavy Metal magazine.
All these works... and those that come later... feed in to each other, creating this cultural tuned carrier wave that is the Cyberpunk genre.
Blade Runner is one of the first harmonics.
@@arandomnamegoeshere Yep, I think the best term for Blade Runner would be protocyberpunk, since it wasn't quite there yet, but all the cyberpunk that came afterwards took heavy inspiration from its visuals and themes.
@@ryanhampson673 I'm not sure you could call Fritz Lang's Metropolis from 1927 cyberpunk, but it is at least dystopian.
Can we take a moment to appreciate how much of a classic beauty both Sean Young and Joanna Cassidy were in that time?
13:37 Pris breaking the car window was actually an accident by Darryl Hannah the actress playing her. But she was such a trooper that she finished the scene and then told the director she needed to go to the hospital.
Ridley Scott decided to keep it in the film. I think it was a good move considering it lets the audience right away know Pris isn’t human. One of us would have been badly cut by that accident, Pris was barely fazed.
Film has been talked about to death but I always thought and still do, that he simply didn't want to be alone in the end. Also the replicant at the end is a combat model, it's why he's so much stronger and menacing.
No, that is the actual Bradbury building in Los Angeles built in 1893, quite well known for it's architecture.
This is one of those films, the more you watch, the more you notice, and the story gets deeper and deeper. Great film.
Yeah, every time I go downtown in LA I try to pop in to the Bradbury building. All the wrought iron and the architecture are just gorgeous.
@@heyheyjk-la I fully geeked out when the building was used as a set in the 4th season of BOSCH series...I was like "look, the building from Blade Runner!" XD
The short story this movie was based on, "Androids dream of electric sheep," has a similar premise, but different story and world building.
For example, in the story, the Rachel character doesn't exist. Instead, Rick Deckard has a wife, and the reason he's hunting down this particular group of replicants is because he wants to buy his wife a real animal as a pet. Having a real animal pet, as opposed to a replicant pet, is a sign of high status. This is hinted at in the movie with the artificial snake.
The story overall has a very different vibe from the movie. Phillip K. Dick's science fiction wasn't as "dark" and "gritty" as a lot of people typically think. This is a symptom of how film makers have adapted his work. His original writings are more satirical and whimsical than anything else.
It's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
It's a novel, not a short story.
As mentioned, it was a full novel not a short story. And Rachel's character did exist... Deckard has a one night stand with her somewhere in the middle.
...
Near the end, she kills Deckard's newly bought pet.
That's false, Rachel does exist. Except the Tyrrels are called the Rosens, so she's called Rachel Rosen. And the book is absolutely dark and gritty. References are made constantly to the poor, toxic air quality due to World War Terminus having happened a decade earlier (WW3), and outside San Francisco is an endless wasteland of "kipple" (irradiated rubble). Entire neighbourhoods of SF have buildings that are either abandoned or inhabited by just one or two people, because the war depopulated the city, and in the ten years following the war, the radiation killed MILLIONS more. Not gritty? Come the fck on.
DADOES is a novel, and both Pris and Rachel Rosen are characters, both identical physically, but with different life experiences.
Essentially, they exist to defeat the android test Deckard uses.
The book is worth reading for that alone.
This is full of logical, moral, and ethical ambiguities for a reason. It's meant to promote thought, discussion and introspection. In the real world, there is no black or white, just shades and tints of color.
Nothing wrong in being honest about your movie opinions. Personally, I feels it's one of Ridley Scott's greatest movies as far as cinematography, score, ect.
Oh you got the voice over version. Not great. Ridley and Harrison hated it, the latter intentionally delivered the lines badly.
The happy ending was thrown in there by the producers and the studio, along with the narration. You can tell by Harrison Ford's voice he wasn't happy to do the narration. Basically, the movie was taken away from Scott in post-production. That's one reason why there are director's cuts out there. Scott was a commercial/TV ad director before getting into films. You can tell his visual sense is pretty amazing. The happy ending panorama shots were outtakes from The Shining scenes of the family driving to the Overlook Hotel. The movie was not popular when it came out, with Ford being an action star and people didn't get his dour performance in this one. Visually, just a stunning film.
you are mistaken, that is always the ending, the studio interference there was to make Scott SHOW it rather than leave it ambiguous. but the events SHOWN in this ruined theatrical version at the end are the same events that take place after the ending of the director's cut. the ending of their story isn't changed, the change is in showing it rather than leaving it to a viewer's imagination.
the studio interference that really ruins the film here is the voiceover, which is an all time disaster. it destroys the film.
@@HockeyNationHD The voiceover was added to help the audience follow along. I find it sad that even with the voiceover the ladies are having a hard time following it still.
@@krisbrown6692 it's not that complicated a plot, i think the trappings of the story may have confused them or made them feel there was more to be confused by than there was. i've seen similar on here at times w like Lord of the Rings and other genre properties. they psych themselves out.
Haha! I should have paged down a little to see your post. I just made one about the narration myself. Opps!
@@group-music It destroys the film as art and as an experience. The plot itself and some of the stuff is enough homage wo plopping on comically on the nose lame narration the way they do in parodies of old noir stuff.
I love Rutger Hauer, I think he's such a great actor. I highly recommend the medieval fantasy film Ladyhawke from 1985 starring him, Matthew Broderick and Michelle Pfeiffer. Black magic, divided lovers, knights, pickpockets and corrupt leaders. It's amazing.
Another good one is a HBO movie called “Father land” set in an alternate universe where the Nazi’s won WW2 and he’s a detective working for the Nazi regime.
Flesh+Blood is better than Ladyhawke imho.
It's a better watch.
Ladyhawke is kinda cheesy.
Captain Etienne Navarre IS a pretty cool name for a character!
Rutger Hauer is SCARIER THAN HELL in the _"Hitcher"_ with C. Thomas Howell
I second that recommendation.
A masterpiece. Worth a rewatch. I HIGHLY recommend watching the director's or the final cut on a rewatch.
Other people have observed that the replicants, although very intelligent, have the emotional maturity of toddlers. That is why the replicants' emotional reactions to various situations in the film seems abnormal to us.
Yeah.. they only live for four years. Not much time for mental and emotional growth beyond factory default, but just a little. Hence the behaviors and moralities don't match with normal adult humans.
@@NefariousKoelThey may be able to program or implant knowledge in a replicant's mind, but replicants lack the emotional growth and maturity that a long life of lived experiences brings.
@@NefariousKoel I always thought that it wasn't so much about how much time they'd been alive but that they were given all these abilities that made them superior to humans but were never 'raised' by anything that might be called parents. They were turned on, sent to work doing awful unpleasant things, and nobody was around to ask why the world was the way it was. No wonder they rebelled, ya know?
@@karlmortoniv2951That's an excellent point.
@@glennwelsh9784The only replicant whose performance I found out of place was Zhora's. She seemed very human and had expressions of laughter and concern that didn't seem at all out of place. She didn't betray that she knew Deckard was a Blade Runner but you could tell that while she was in the shower she was trying to plan what to do. She seemed much more like a human undercover agent than a replicant who was learning to blend in. Perhaps her past training for political assassinations had made her seem more human by necessity.
Personally I'm not a fan of the theatrical cuts with the narration, I much prefer the Director's Cut or the Final Cut. It gives the audience more visual clues rather than outright telling them.
But I totally agree, Ridley Scott is the master of crafting a set and using good cinematography to show it off, some of his films are hit or miss in terms of pacing and plot but when he gets to show off his strengths regarding the visual design it really works. There's no wonder people love cosplaying characters from Alien so much, there's so much detail in the costume design and set props.
I believe the replicant eye effect was done with a mirror or something to get that same red eye glint you get on older photographs with flash, before digital cameras had default functions to eliminate it. People were wondering for years whether Deckard's eyes glowing was just a set error from him being in the same shot as her while they were doing the effect, or whether it was a deliberate director's choice to hint that Deckard was also a Replicant.
Oh also, the Bradbury Building is a real place in L.A. really nice piece of architecture and actually really pleasant with a huge skylight and the wrought iron staircases when it's not covered with prop debris, darkness and dripping water.
Yeah, the extra narration version is my least favorite. I tend to like noir style films but Ford's extra narration sounds like he didn't want to be there doing that voiceover. Which, it turns out, was the case. Final Cut version is my preferred. Less exposition is more in this instance.
The voiceover is for dumb people who need everything spelled out for them.
Before diving into 2049, I highly recommend watching Blade Runner: Final Cut before watching it. The 1982 theatrical cut suffered from studio tampering. The noir voice-over and "happy ending" were mandated by the studio. The Final Cut is the version Sir Ridley Scott wanted released and he was able to present his complete vision.
The ‘happy ending’ more fits the next film though. I also think the theatrical cut is good for first time viewers, as it helps fill in a lot of blanks. Then people can watch the final cut after that.
oh no you're watching the wrong one. You should have watched The Final Cut. The one with the voice over is notoriously known as the worst one.
The original is always the best
it doesn't matter which version they watched, they'll like and hate it as much as they did here
They should watch the final cut after they watch the original. Even though the theatrical cut is not the best, it adds some exposition.
That moment between Deckard and Rachael was controversial back in 1982. It was intended to be. Rather like Ripley stripping to her underwear or nearly being choked with a 'girlie' magazine in Alien, it was intended to push boundaries.
In this case, about how Deckard can talk casually about having a wife, when there is no evidence of one, and act so clumsily with Rachael, as if neither of the pair have any real experience about what they're doing. They are 'exploring' new emotions, one knowing they are more real than their memories, and Deckard still in ignorance or uncertainty.
Pris and Batty have something similar going on, with both acting like kids in love for the first time, and also being only emotional with each other, and all others are enemies, like the living machines they are.
Perhaps they all want authentic experience, something of their own. - and it's awkward and unsatisfying and dangerous, much like life.
Not a take I've heard before. Not sure if I agree with everything you said, but interesting conclusions you draw
it (deckard and rachael scene) is also standard fare in certain type of "romance" novel. a very popular genre , then and now. scene is sort of cliche in that sense.
Early in the movie Deckard refers to his EX-wife. She's not around anymore.
This is what I love so much about this movie, it leaves so many scenes up for interpretation including how Deckard acts throughout with his ability to have his fingers broken but still able to climb a rooftop or take lots of punishment but shows such little emotion.
I took a look at this when it came out, when I was going to Collage in Australia. My conclusion was; Deckard realized what Rachael wanted (him, and freedom). But Rachael was a prisoner/slave to her programming, remember she is not genetically a human. As demonstrated by the photos etc, she could not act as she wanted! In order to "free" Rachael, she needed a "push" (and yea that's relay uncomfortable to us, as the audience). Obviously she could have continued to resist, but she didn't, and ultimately broke her programming, as demonstrated by their ongoing relationship. When she was finally liberated, loved, protected and respected by Deckard. Remember that most replicates were many times faster and stronger than normal humans... which came at the cost of longevity, but Rachael was "special"... The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long.
Deackard's eyes. The unintended mistake that opened up a HUGE debate on whether or not Deckard is a replicant himself. Harrison Ford accidentally stepped into a focused light path intended for Rachel only. There have been numerous debates on this "Deckard is a replicant" topic, with Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford each having their own different opinions
Key points in the movie include the meaning of each of the origami (fear, lust, uniqueness). So how is it that Gaff knows Deckards feelings and dreams so deeply? At the end, Baty knows his end is imminent. He is using pain to keep conscious and alive for a few more moments. Significantly, Baty is built for combat and killing. So, by saving Deckard, he is rejecting his programmed nature and asserting his own will. The versions of the film matter as well. Imagine the story ending with Deckard and Rachel leaving the apartment without the sunny car ride at the end.
Roy Batty's monologue is only 42 words long, yet always gets me emotional
1:23-1:24 - Kind of shocked that when compared to the _War of the Worlds_ reaction where Hailey and Stella were able to recognize so many different actors especially the incidental actresses (the woman from the Office and Lisa Ann Walter), Hailey and to a small degree Stella never recognized *ANY* of the actors (aside from Harrison Ford) in _Blade Runner_ especially the actors who played Hannibal Chew and Eldon Tyrrell respectively, the former is James Hong who has been doing acting for several decades and appeared in many films and TV series such as _Big Trouble in Little China, Wayne’s World 2, Mulan,_ the _Kung Fu Panda_ films and was in _Everything, Everywhere All at Once_ while the latter is Joe Turkel who was the ghost bartender, Lloyd from _the Shining._
I don’t blame them since it was released in the 1980’s and they aren’t familiar with certain actors despite seeing them in other films from the 90’s and 2000’s/2010’s. Even it goes further that during their _Annihilation_ reaction aside from Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaac none of them recognize Tessa Thompson nor Gina Rodriguez.
Not really that surprising. They are very young and this movie is 40 years old. I probably couldn't have told you much about the cast in a 40 year old movie when I was their age. It's only shocking because it underlines how old WE are! LOL
A lot of people also miss the details in the breakdown of the 4 replicants in the beginning. For me, Zhora (snake dancer) is not afraid/doesn't feel vulnerable around Deckard while she's naked/in the shower because she's a "Level A" physically ("superhuman", same as Replicant leader Roy) and was used in military death squads off-planet. She's mentally a B Level (Roy is A). She probably knew she could fight/kill/overpower most normal men, though Deckard being an experienced/notorious Blade Runner does make a difference. It probably also explains why it took so many shots to bring her down.
Deckard is also not a replicant; one of the main reasons being his having been alive for more than the maximum 4 year lifespan (with many people in his life having known/worked with him for many of those years). I also never doubted the family photos he had were really his family - they serve as a foil to Rachel's fake ones.
This is one of my favorite films and my absolute favorite sci-fi movie - it inspired so many of the famous ones/series that came after. I also totally agree you guys should watch some classic noir ("Casablanca", "Double Indemnity", "The Maltese Falcon", "Out of the Past"...). Enjoyed the reaction!
Lackluster? I can't imagine how it could have more luster.
It's a visually stunning masterpiece that fully immerses you in its dystopian world. It's more film noir than film noir. The attention to detail in the production design is impressive. The film's exploration of what it means to be human and the ethics of creating creatures to be slaves is thought-provoking and resonates long after the credits roll.
Yes. Zhora's death-run scene through the glass windows is one of the most visually stunning pieces of cinema I've ever seen. Very lustrous.
Agreed. Blade Runner is one of my top 3 movies of all time that became an iconic classic that still influences sci fi to this day for a reason. It set the bar and movies are still compared to it like "The Creator" that just came out.
I think today's younger audience is just used to movies that hit you over the head with messaging w/o the nuance, subtlety, or subtext that films used to have. Everything is so overt and plainly spoken now. So movies like BR must seem slow, tedious, and boring in comparison.
It's sad if today's audience has lost that ability to dig deeper to uncover more meaning in what they consume.
@@boomieboo Yes, this is not a junk food movie. If that's all you know, you'll wonder why it didn't spoon feed you everything.
She said she thought the story was a bit lackluster, not criticizing the visual aspect. Which, considering it's very much a film NOIR, is a pretty nonsensical criticism. It's like remarking how quiet silence is. It's a movie meant to convey a world full of meaningless clutter, while being severely lacking in happiness & warmth, & the main characters are all in states of hopeless desperation, who are all fairly inept at expressing emotion.
If only they'd thrown in some bright primary colors & given Deckard a love for karaoke.
Sheesh.
@@deepermind4884The quality of the viewing is to blame here. Is Blade Runner made to be screened on a LED screen in a bright day-lit room? Hell no!
This is cinema, a black velvet theater and a silver screen, this is what this movie deserves. The Digital Age cannot make Blade Runner relevant. It's a piece of timeless celluloid archive from a future that was and will forever be.
I can't believe you two watched the theatrical cut. That was the worst possible choice. The Final Cut is the only version worth watching in my opinion.
I mean it's not the only version worth watching. It's just the best version out there. The theatrical cut is still better than most sci-fi films out there.
The voice-over was added because test audiences had no idea what was going on. The ending after they enter the elevator was also added because the film ending with them entering the elevator did not please test audiences. The Final Cut version removes this scene and adds another key scene. At least five versions of this film exist all with subtle tweaks, but some, though small change the film in huge ways. My fave is the Workprint version as the film was originally released to test audiences.
The part between Deckard and Rachael was meant to mimic old Noir films where no didn't mean no. In 1982 such things still weren't out of bounds in films, which is why so many 80s films feel icky in parts by today's standards. That said, the style and look of this film would go on to influence an entire generation of artists in visual effects, comics, and beyond.
I think Rachel doesn’t have too much depth because she’s a replicant. She’s meant to be someone “without a soul” but starting to develop one. So the question it asks us is…are created humans equal to birthed humans? Do we all have souls? Is it moral to create humans?
I'll start a discussion when someone gives a proper definition of "soul". For now, it's a jiggamagick, a buzzword, an excuse that means everything and nothing.
Once you set it clearly, I'll gladly have a talk with you.
@@sophiamarchildon3998 very high level of consciousness. Ability to discern right from wrong and exercise free will. Potential to self actualize, ability to commune with God. That’s what makes us “in His image and likeness”.
I can’t give a concise definition so I’m throwing everything in there just so there’s no miscommunication.
@@chrisherber1635 You used "consciousness" and "God" as base references. "Right" and "wrong" thrown in the mix as would-be constants. Unless you properly explain those first, you are just as groundless as the tooth fairy and Thoreau.
Please remove yourself from any contamination of the world.
I think it’s a masterpiece due to style and atmosphere
final cut is better than directors cut .
The version you watched is the Theatrical version, that includes a narration that the studio wanted But Scott did not. Eeven with this is a classic that includes the iconic lines at hyhe end by the Roy Batty character. The version Known as the final Cut is the one that reflects Scotts vision.
The Bradbury Building is entirely real and one of the most famous and architecturally unique buildings in Los Angeles. It's been used as the set of a number of film and television productions, including that of the Harlan-Ellison-written "Demon With A Glass Hand" episode of the original OUTER LIMITS.
It's been a National Historic Landmark since 1977.
ah, your watching the bad version, Harrison Ford hated the voice over so he did it really badly in the hope it was not used. Shame your missing out on so much with this version.
Looking forward to your _Blade Runner 2049_ reaction later today and if you enjoy it I recommend for Hailey and Stella to react to _Arrival_ (also directed by Denis Villeneuve who did Dune and Blade Runner: 2049) along with _The Matrix_ films, _ET, Back to the Future, AVATAR_ (includingThe Way of Water), _Total Recall_ (the 1990 film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger) and _Minority Report_ the latter two which just like _Blade Runner_ are film adaptations by Philip K. Dick.
The origami unicorn has more meaning than the fact that Gaff had been there. You need to watch the Final Director's Cut to understand though as a crucial scene was cut out. You are right a lot was cut out.
5:55 In the early 2000’s, Edward James Olmos the actor playing Gaffe starred in a SYFY tv show called Battlestar Galactica. The show was a remake of a late 1970’s show of the same name. In both incarnations the human race loses a war against a race of robots called Cylons.
In the remake there wee Cylons they looked like big clanking metal robots. However, there were also models of Cylons that looked perfectly human like the Replicants in this movie. They needed to eat, sleep, boink etc just like regular humans. Just like the Replicants if they needed to they could easily peform superhuman feats of strength, speed and endurance. However, unlike the Replicants they could choose to ignore pain and could interface into electronic systems by plugging wires into their flesh. If a Cylon of any type expires, their consciousness would be downloaded into a new body.
Because of Edward James Olmos participation in Bladerunner, the human formed Cylons were also called Skinjobs in the dialogue of Battlestar Galactica.
The Bradbury Building in Los Angeles actually exists. It was built at the end of the 19th Century, so no connection to Ray Bradbury (although it would fit).
Of the other Castmembers, aside from Ford, Rutger Hauer (Batty) was in a ton of films. He's perhaps best known for "Ladyhawke", made a few years after this. Sean Young (Rachael) was in the 1984-Version of "Dune", Edward James Olmos (Gaff) was the Main Role in the "Battlestar Galactica"-Series from 2003-2008). Daryl Hanna (Pris) was in the "Kill Bill"-Films. Brion James (Leon) showed up in "The Fifth Element" and Joe Turkel (Tyrell) had a small but important part in Kubricks' "The Shining" (he was the Bartender).
And that's the real interior of the Bradbury, not a set. It's been cleaned up now, though ;o)
Another film I love starring Rutger Hauer is The Blood of Heroes. Great post-apocalyptic movie with a really good cast. I wish it would get remastered and released in its original aspect ratio.
This film is the holy grail of modern fictional storytelling. The goal of cyberpunk is not to entertain but to engage your imagination towards the future.
Awww, the voiceover version😥. You should have done a poll to ask which is the best version to watch
There is no greater James Hong performance than Big Trouble in Little China.
The reason the production design in this is so good is because there was a strike in the movie industry( actors, maybe?) so the production was put on hold for a WHILE . The designers , still excited about the project, ended up having loads of time to research and think and sketch. Just gorgeous.
Fun to see the old theatrical version again, I saw that one in 1982, although I prefer the Director's Cut and the Final Cut. My friend and I thought Deckard getting rough on Rachel was not okay back then. Btw, I used to be an amateur climber, and could pull myself up with my fingers only; granted, they were not broken.
The reviewers failed to understand that Deckard was being hunted and pumped up with adrenaline. People have been known to lift a car from on top of a person under extreme circumstances.
Well, when they were giggling and saying, "He's basically floating right now", they somehow forgot that Deckard had another hand with which he held his body weight, using the hand with the broken fingers to blindly feel for a grip to pull himself up. Considering that movie protagonists nowadays are way more superhuman than they used to be in the eighties, I don't quite get what their problem with that scene was.
This movie does a good job of setting up the world in a way you wanna question everything. So much so you’ll go back and rewatch it again and again, sifting through the different versions to try and come up with answers. And tho the sequel does what it can to provide those answers for you. However, some say it only provides answers, if you accept them at face value.
The scene with Rachel being "pushed" into admitting to want to be with Decard was seen as questionable by many in the 80's.
However it makes sense in the Noir context. 90 years ago, most people thought that healthy women didn't feel that kind of desire. Of course they did, but couldn't admit to it, so the strong man who took charge, so the woman has no choice but to accept an ultimately pleasurable situation free of responsibility and guilt, was a common fantasy among women.
At least that's what I was told by women who lived at the time.
I think within the context of the film, it further illustrates how replicants like Rachel are not seen as human and therefore affording them the same kind of human dignity of choice and consent is not deemed necessary. That speaks to how women were objectified in the culture of those classic noir films much the way replicants are in the world of Blade Runner.
@@glennwelsh9784 That could also be a part of it.
They could also want to show how actually inexperienced and inadept replicas are at emotional situations - even with the implanted memories.
As a sort of mirror to how the other replicants express their emotional connections in slightly off ways.
Dude, you and I are probably from the same generation. There's no use trying to explain the kiss scene dynamic in historical terms. Younger generations have learned that the dynamic has been used to take advantage of women WAY more than it has been used to "help" them express their feelings. This comment not directed a you, I pretty much tried the same thing in my comment.
Also, a lot of people fail to see that Deckard is not a hero. He has a lot of dark spots and weaknesses, and that is how it's meant to be. It seems that nowadays people expect all movie characters to be role models, even though that wouldn't be realistic at all.
Again we have to look at it through their eyes
They said more than once this was "not what they were expecting". They didn't say, but they were probably expecting more of a futuristic action,-adventure story a la Terminator. The inner workings of these reactors' minds is the most entertaining part of these channels!
What you watched is the original theatrical release with the voiceover; that was dropped in subsequent releases, and additional shots were added, one key one being the insertion of a dream sequence containing a running unicorn, dreamed by Deckard when he dozed off while Rachel was playing the piano. That inserted dream sequence, along with the origami unicorn at the end, led to decades of speculation that Deckard was a replicant. This was finally settled with Blade Runner 2049 which makes it clear that he was not a replicant.
Blade Runner 2049 settled it that Deckard IS a replicant.
Both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckart was a replicant. I think denials to the contrary were just to keep the discussion going.
The writers of both films in an interview have said they never intended him to be a replicant, but for 2049 they intentionally left it open for everyone's interpretation.
@@Therap1ssed Ridley Scott himself has publicly stated Deckard is a replicant.
@@motodorkyes but the writer has said he's not. It's a decision Ridley made after the fact not intended in the script. IMO it ruins the film making him a replicant. Dekker is inhuman. Kills at will with no remorse or empathy. The replicants have more empathy than humans and it's his interaction with the replicants that he regains his humanity. This is all moot if he's a replicant.
Final cut is the best. Blade Runner, Soldier, Alien, Prometheus and Predator all occur in the same universe (loosely)
If they make another Blade Runner
They need to bring Hoyte Van Hoytema as cinematographer
The reason why really good high quality vintage classic movies don't tell you everything, is the fact that people before managed to think by themselves, they had something called intelligence and imagination. A good story allows the viewer to fill in the gaps by cognitive ability. A good story lets the reader see for themselves. It's named magic. Something that doesn't exist anymore. 🖤
Exactly my thoughts!! When you wait for everything to be explained to you by dialogue.... you miss all the subtle tells in the actual scenes! This was a frustrating watch!!
I love the woke generation! Every girl I've ever dated.... EVERY ONE.... has been turned on by being "overpowered" at some stage! If it's been messing around.... or making up after an argument! The caveat to this is that I've only every done this if they wanted me too and in a consensual relationships. I've had girls ask me to choke them and slap them..... I mean Jesus Christ!! The thought never even popped into my head before they asked!
You know, it really is good that you mentioned intelligence and imagination as being traits that people don't have anymore because you, sir, with your pompous, ignorant, rude and disgusting generalisations prove that you don't possess either yourself. And if it feels like magic doesn't exist in the world today, well, no wonder, what with people like you around to cast shadows from your giant soapboxes. Maybe reflect on that a bit. But you probably won't 🙃
Comments for this movie: "creepy", "weird", "creepy""creepy""creepy", "weird" etc... Such a good analysis.
OMG I was thinking the same thing, so useless.
This was the theatrical release that you watched. The most common version to watch is the final cut. The final cut has some updated effects, the removal of the voice over, adds some credence to a theory that one of you postulated earlier and gets rid of the "happy" ending that was tacked on in the end.
The ultimate cut fixes up some cg timing and dialog as well as keeping the extra details about the various characters, removed the narrative and kept the ambiguous ending of the international cut
You girls are really good commentators.
And this movie is the best science fiction movie ever made. Good mix.
Nice. My favourite movie of all time. Based on the work by Philip K. Dick, an amazing Sci Fi author who used SF as just a backdrop environment to explore the idea of what it means to be human. This movie is a masterpiece.
The soundtrack to this film by Vangelis is a piece of art in itself.
His "Themes" compilation album is amazing. Still listen to it to this day.
I like the idea of experiencing some film noir, especially Humphry Bogart's movies from that era like "The Big Sleep" and "The Maltese Falcon". Also the more arty "Casablanca" and "Psycho", and the more typical "Double Indemnity" and "Notorious". Enjoy the black and white.
Some great films and not forgetting The Third Man
nah they'll complain as much as they did here lol
Oh dear, the Original Cut with the "Happy" ending which was forced on Ridley Scott by the studio, not the Final Cut with which Scott fixes all the faults and problems with this version.
Y'all watched the original version instead of The Final Cut? Still cool, 'cause I grew up with the original version (and saw the Director's Cut in the cinema), but The Final Cut is the best version....
Ridley Scott was the king of set design. He was an Art major in college and it kind of shows. The sets in this movie, Alien and Legend are all amazing.
23:42 you totally misread the scene. She does want him. She likes/loves him but doesn’t want him to get involved. Thats why she tried to leave. She knows how dangerous it is for him to be involved with a runaway replicant. In the 1980’s it was a very common theme in movies for people to “sacrifice” themselves to “save” the one they love. Look at all the heart throb love movies that came out of that era. Every single one involved a “sacrifice” of one’s desire in order to protect the one they love. She is also a replicant who doesn’t seem to have much experience in love.
He was willing to take the risk for the sake of love. Thats why he couldn’t let her leave.
Yeah, at some point you should think about watching the final director's cut of this film which removed that terrible voice-over that the studios forced them to add because they thought the audiences would be too dumb to understand the film otherwise. On the other hand, you could skip that but definitely watch the sequel, which I love and think is, ultimately, the better film, but it couldn't really exist without the original as the foundation, along with the advancements in SFX and filmmaking. It's a gorgeous movie, as well.
Such a shame that you watched the worst cut of the film. The Final cut is the best version of it imho . Even if you don’t do a react to it I’d really recommend watching it so you can get what the director intended before the executives started meddling and changing things to placate test audiences, the worst being the combination of the terrible voiceover and the sunny/happy Hollywood ending.
After having seen the other version(s) I find the Harrison Ford voice overs irritating, like the producers thought we're too dumb to understand the plot.
the best cut is this one, the other freaking 7 or 9 or whatever are just Ridley Scott obsessed with proving that Deckard is a replicant...
that, and an easy way to rob people's money with millions of different editings to sell.
Regarding the voiceover, do yourself a favour and watch, for instance, Sunset Boulevard... and then shut up
I get that the narrative is supposed to be part of the noir trappings, but the narration is terribly written and acted, and when you watch the movie without it it's very apparent it was injected late in production.
I know! As soon as I saw the car ride to the country I just groaned.
@@JulioLeonFandinhoThe final cut is considered by many as the best because it's a full-scale renovation. For example, when Roy dies, he’s holding a dove. In every previous version of the film, there’s a shot of the dove fluttering upwards into the blue sky. Trouble is, there are no blue skies in Blade Runner’s Los Angeles, so they used the same shot but altered the sky to make it as dark and rainy as the rest of the film. Elsewhere, when Zhora gets shot, every previous version of the film had shown Joanna Cassidy’s stuntwoman Lee Pulford stumbling through multiple panes of plate glass as she dies, and because the shot was in slow motion, it was rather obvious that it wasn’t Cassidy herself doing it. In the Final Cut, they were able to bring Cassidy back and shoot her head and shoulders reacting to being shot, and then digitally paste them onto Pulford’s body, so now it’s more consistent. Elsewhere, they did things like paste out obvious cables lifting the spinner off the ground, etc. And most importantly, it doesn't have that awful voice-over and happy ending.
Hate to be the 100th person to probably say this but more than just about any other film, checking out something other than the theatrical cut puts this film in a much better light.
Though your criticism about Rachel stands across pretty much all versions, the Final Cut is definitely worth checking out on a rewatch.
The movie Soldier with Kurt Russell is supposedly set in the same universe. His character fought in the same battles that Roy Batty mentions.
Since nobody's mentioned it, the scene where Pris meets J.F. Sebastian, where she runs off and punches through the window of his car..... that was a blooper. She slipped and ran into the car, accidentally punching through the window.
And breaking her elbow!
Puzzling that out of all the reactions that i've watched for this movie Gen Z always seem to struggle with the most simplest of concepts to the point of needing a chalk board then go to the extreme of turning something mundane into a complete task.
They wouldn't know what a chalk board is!!
Yes that was James Hong. At 94 years old he has more than 600 screen credits and counting. 🌞
James Hong is amazing as the evil sorcerer in 'Big Trouble In Little China'. Probably my favorite character in it, really brings the room together.
Didn't see the 1982 version for a while. Interesting you choose this version and not the definitive director's cut without voice over and without the happy ending 😊
The actor, Rutger Hauer, who plays Batty, is in a few really cool movies that you two definitely will enjoy watching:
"The Hitcher" (1986), also stars Jennifer Jason Lee (from the Hateful 8), and C. Thomas Howell (from The Outsiders, and Red Dawn).
"Nighthawks" (1981), also starring Sylvester Stallone, Billy Dee Williams, and Lindsay Wagner (the original Bionic Woman).
"Ladyhawke" (1985), also starring Matthew Broderick (of Ferris Bueller's Day Off), Michelle Pfeiffer (from Scarface, and The Witches of Eastwick).
One of my personal favorites fof his is "Blood of Heroes". Grade A sci-fi B-movie. Love it! Oh, and 'Flesh and Blood' too.
Both Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah went on to be headlining stars.
At the beginning they listed out what type of replicants were on the run and is where they say that Batty (Hauer) was specc-ed for military ops.
This was based on the short story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep from Phillip K DIck, other movies based on his works are THe RUnning Man, Total Recall, The Adjustment Bureau , Minority Report... there is one that was a lower budget movie called Overdrawn at the Memory Bank starring Raul Julia (Gomez Adams from the movies) that’s good. Mst3k did an ep on it that totally worth a watch.
Another movie from Ridley Scott that's pretty great, I think, and hasn't been reacted to by the larger react community, is Legend , starring Tom Cruise, Tim Curry and Mia Sara. It's a Beautifully shot film that Scott did after Blade Runner with an awesome and unique Soundtrack by Tangerine Dream.
I think given what you know having watched this, rewatching the "Final Cut" version before you watch 2049 will give this film a new stance and meaning.
It was never hailed as an action sci-fi... it is a dystopian art piece that asks what it is to be human.
If you can, I'd recommend "Dangerous Days", the making-of documentary. Even if you're not sold on the film, it's a must for any film fan.
One thing about 23:22, the reaction cut the part where she tells Deckard "put your hands on me". This is important, because she says it unprompted by Deckard. Meaning, that is what she wanted, imo.
As for Deckard being a Replicant? Deckard barely makes it to the other roof, Roy clears it with room to spare. Deckard has to expend nearly all his effort to climb up onto the first roof, Roy effortlessly lifts Deckard with ONE hand. In every physical altercation between Deckard and a Replicant they mop the floor with him. Roy literally smashes his head through a lath and plaster wall covered with tile. In my opinion, if Deckard were a replicant, he would perform much better in the physical fights. It makes no sense to me to create a Replicant, specifically to hunt down other Replicants, then make it physically inferior to them in every way. Literally desinging it to fail. "But he has a gun!" Yes, and the only Replicants he kills with it are the pleasure model, who is very clearly not trained to fight(she literally passes up an oppurtunity to kill him so she can do some flips), and the one programmed as an assasin. It's useless against Leon, who disarms him with laughable ease, and Roy who renders the gun useless by breaking/dislocating Deckard's fingers. Further evidence that Deckard is far more fragile than his targets.
So, in my opinion, Deckard is not a Replicant.
Roy was a 'combat' model and a veteran of many "off world" battles. The original script had the movie open with Roy crawling out of a pile of "dead" replicants.
The film Soldier with Kurt Russell takes place in the same universe as Blade Runner and Kurt plays a combat model replicant who also becomes conscious
@@aaronlane1391I don't think that's the case. In the movie he was groomed since birth with many others by the military to be a super soldier at the expense of loosing his humanity.
Kurt Russell's character was 100% human.
It's been a while since I've seen it, I remember the character was raised as a pure soldier but i thought he was genetically engineered originally
@@aaronlane1391I understood that the newer soldiers were but not Curt Russell's generation.
There is a line of dialogue in the "love scene" that was cut, that makes the whole thing make more sense. Rachel says to Deckard, "I don’t know how. I can't rely on my memories. " In reality she is attracted to Deckard and she wants him, but she is afraid to do something wrong.
Exactly. I think they talked over those lines and many others that would have helped them better understand.
@@technofilejr3401 True, they do talk a lot.
@@paulcarfantan6688Yeah, this is a movie that is best watched in a dark, quiet room.
If it was cut does that still make it part of the lore? I think we are forgetting another thing, replicants are non-humans who were killed on sight by guys like Deckard simply for existing on earth. Replicants existed to serve humans, Pris was a basic pleasure model made to satisfy humans sexually. I don't think consent was really a common thing between replicants and humans. It was partly different for Rachel and Deckard because both were confused. Rachel didn't act like a Replicant and Deckard didn't act like a Blade Runner when they're together. She saved him by killing a Replicant and he spared her and set out to protect her with his life against other Blade Runners that were sure to come for them.
You're watching the worst cut. This is the original theatrical, with the voiceover. Bad edits, strange ending. It's still a great film, and it's the one that captured audience's imaginations originally, but still... I hope you can watch the final cut/director's cut if you ever rewatch it for yourselves. The thing you liked about how much time you're given to soak in some scenes; there's so much more of that in the best cut, and you get the impression of different thoughts in Deckard's mind than the ones the voiceover told you he was having.
I’ll try not to make this an encyclopedia entry. This is the neutered studio version. There’s not supposed to be any voiceover. The end shot is tacked on - it is taken from The Shining. There are missing scenes. Of particular import is a dream Deckard has of a unicorn. The idea is that replicants are “replicating” human behavior, but imperfectly - If there is such a thing as “perfect” human behavior. Yes, he is a replicant. Note Gaff’s line at the end - “You’ve done a man’s job, sir.” Not a good job, a man’s job. The dove is Roy’s soul flying to heaven - and that scene is the only time in the movie you see a break in the clouds. This is the most influential movie of its time and thereafter.
Ha, this is such a weird cut.
The Final Cut version without the dialougue allows the mind to wonder more within the movie. It becomes more immersive,convincing and along with the music very trippy
I forgot about the Pris death scene. Daryl Hannah played Pris in Blade Runner, and also Elle Driver in Kill Bill. Her final scene in Kill Bill Vol. 2 is pretty much an homage to her final scene in Blade Runner.
This movie is exceptional ... there really isn't anything much like it. Very much worth a second watch, maybe the Director's Cut (1992). Yes, it borrows from noir, but so does "John Wick." It's artistic and philosophical, and beautifully rendered. The author of the original story (Philip K. Dick) also wrote the source fiction for "Minority Report" and "Total Recall."
It's sad that young people think they are somehow superior or different to the people of the past, when every human throughout time is pretty much the same thing. Progressive indoctrination. Hegel would smile and nod (and be completely wrong). As for Rachel ... she was recently created and stuffed with memories. I think you guys forgot about that.
Wow. Some extremely good comments and deductions for a pair not familiar at all with film noir or movies of this era/style. Extra bonus points for Stella.
Couple of little tidbits...
The functions of the replicants in this film were briefly described to Decker. Roy Batty(the leader) was a combat model; it's why he's so strong, fast, and tactical. Zhora(snake woman) was also a type of combat model, but built more for rough fighting/assassinations. Leon(big guy from the beginning) was another combat model, but mostly designed for hard labor/strength work and low intelligence. Pris(flipping woman) was a "pleasure model"(comfort woman) for military personnel.
On the architecture/design of the sets, noticing J. F.'s building was named The Bradberry and thinking it was a reference to science-fiction author Ray Bradberry was a very good guess, but it was actually a coincidence. The Bradberry Building is a real 1893 building in Los Angeles. At the time of filming, it was very poor condition, but it had just been purchased by a developer that spent the next decade restoring it to its original glory. The lower floors are open today for tourists and the upper floors are in use as office space.
Another architecture reference is Decker's apartment. While it was built on a soundstage, the distinctive blocks that play so well in the light and shadow were actually made from molds taken from Frank Lloyd Wright's famous Ennis House(1924); also in LA. Used in many films and TV series as both an exterior and interior shooting location, in the case of Blade Runner, the set designers instead used copies of the distinctive blocks and the architectural style to create Decker's apartment. They did shoot the scene where Decker pulls up to his apartment at the real location. Though the Ennis House was in danger of collapse due to damage suffered in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, it was stabilized in 2006-07 and restored at great cost by private owners over the last decade.
Bladerunner is the first cyberpunk story ever made. It’s a proper sci-fi movie so it makes you really think about the human condition and certain philosophies. Like Dune, its another movie that’s made for people who like to think. Nothing wrong with wanting to see something more action packed.
James Hong has been around forever. He has been in over 600 television and film roles. Not to mention voice over work. That man has put in work.
An absolute classic
The "Final Cut" makes far more sense, as all the hints that Deckard is a replicant are put back in. For example Deckard dreams of a unicorn, so when Gaff leaves an origami, unicorn behind, it shows Gaff knows Deckards dream/memory implants, confirming to Deckard that he, as he had began to suspect, was a replicant himself. The "chatoyance" of the eyes is another hint that Deckard is a replicant, as they go out of the way to state the owl is synthetic, and show the reflection in its eyes early on. Gaffs origami "Chicken", "Little People" and "Unicorn" all have meaning. The film was loosely based on the book by Philip K.Dick (Total Recall, Minority Report, Through a Scanner Darkly etc. etc.) but in the book Deckard was not a replicant. Dick saw a rough cut of the film, and liked it, shortly before his death. Ridley Scott was still grieving for the death of his brother whilst making this film. Ridley was in constant conflict, with the cast, the crew, and the money men throughout the entire production. The "love" scene was as uncomfortable then, as it is now, and was also designed to show that Deckard was a replicant, whose emotions hadn't full developed, and did not how long he had to live, so could not afford to waste time on lengthy courtship rituals. Some of the main replicants got cut from the film in the middle of filming for cost and runtime reasons, leading to the very abbreviated plot. Pris putting her arm through the plate glass side window of the prop van, was an accident, was unscripted, and she was fortunate not to have been seriously injured. Watch the making of documentary for the truth about the film.
*a woman brutally beats a completely innocent man and runs away*
The reaction: "good for her" 🥺
Bruh
Ikr. Seeing good for evil and evil for good. These two are something else.
Missing from the version you saw: Harrison Ford dreams of unicorn….
Everything that you thought was missing or not explained enough…my dad who is old fashioned, politically incorrect most of the time, out of step with everything…he got it right away! Every genre you mentioned you like…. Blade Runner influenced a lot of them.
I built a Blade Runner diorama and have taken it to conventions. People of all ages talk in depth of how much they love the film. A grandma showed her grandson the diorama and told her bored grandson of how much she loved the book and film. A father gave his son a guided tour of my diorama. He knew the world so much I asked if he wanted to be my tour guide for the diorama. A mother told her son to be quiet. She just wanted to enjoy the diorama and talk about the film. Haley I’m sorry you did not connect with the film.
“Ode to my father”
it has every element to be a good movie… you won’t be disappointed!
Almost 47 minutes of the girl with glasses not comprehending a single thing. "I see howling!" No you don't. You hear howling.
Well good on you for finding a version to watch I never even heard of before :D
This was the first time for me where there was narration in classic detective noir style.
The version that I've seen in the late 80's was lacking that entirely, so you can imagine the confusion of audiences trying to figure out what was happening in certain scenes.
Add that to the possibilities of how many ways the ending can be taken and you end up with a movie that makes you think for hours, days, weeks and directing you to revisit deeper concepts about what life is. That inspiration for thinking is one of the reasons why it didn't end up forgotten.
Beyond that, another reason why it is considered a classic is because the things we now consider futuristic concepts came from here.
Watching it with present-day eyes it feels like it is nothing new, but when viewing it in the context of release date, it was an entirely new concept that inspired many movies to come and aim for a similar depiction of the future and visual style.
So this film basically started a whole genre called “Cyber Punk”. Highly futuristic cities mixed in with poverty and a seedy underclass. It’s based off a book “Do androids dream of electric sheep” By Phillip K Dick. He wrote a lot of the science fiction stories that were made into movies. Total recall, screamers, minority report, a scanner darkly and also the source for the series the man in the high castle.
Let's not forget the importance of the book Neuromancer by William Gibson.
The Final cut version is the preferred. It even had some new scenes shot with the original actor. This movie is crucial to enjoying the second movie to greater extent.
One of my favorite Scifi movies of all time :)
I think the central question of the movie is: What makes us human?
The replicants just want to live. And in the end Roy does the most human thing, because he doesn‘t want to die alone.
You probably should have watched either the Director‘s or the Final Cut.
The narration and the happy ending were added by the producers, not Ridley Scott. The other cuts end when the elevator door closes, then goes straight to the end credits, white on black.
Also, in those two cuts Deckard dreams of a unicorn, thus the origami figure at the end is another hint that Deckard could definitely be a replicant.
While the movie can feel slow, I think the visuals make up for it. One time, I only wanted to watch the opening, then caught myself having watched over an hour and decided to simply finish it.
I believe it’s one of the greatest misses in Oscar history that Jordan Cronenweth wasn‘t even nominated for this movie. A lot of people tried to imitate what he revolutionized here.
In Deckards apartment, She's not used to dealing with emotions, so she tries to leave. she has feelings for him, but she does not know how to react.
Also she is probably worried that she doesn’t know if what she sexually likes is really her or Tyrell’s niece. At least when we humans get into a sexual encounter and enjoy it, we know its our consciousness enjoying and not someone else’s.