Blade Runner - Story Explanation and Analysis

Patreon: / maxderrat
SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
PayPal: paypal.me/maxderrat
Twitter: maxderrat
Discord Link: / discord
Twitch: twitch.tv/maxderrat
NOTE: The following introduction was omitted from the video for the sake of time. The text for it follows. While it's not necessary to read, it might provide a greater appreciation for what remains in the video.
----------
I have only seen Blade Runner twice in my life: the first time was about a year ago, and the second time was a week prior to the publication of this video. To all the sci-fi nerds and fanboys out there who cherish this film as the holy grail of the genre, you might feel some… admittedly… rational trepidation about how in-depth my analysis of this film can be, given the fact that I have only seen it twice. However, I propose that there may be some unique, valuable wisdom to be shared by somebody who has only seen this movie… this specific movie… twice. Before you laugh, give my explanation a chance.
The first time I watched this movie, my expectations were impossible to meet. All my friends and fellow film fans sang the same chorus line: oh, it’s the greatest sci-fi film ever made! Oh, it’s one of the greatest films ever made! Make sure you don’t watch the theatrical cut! Watch the “Final Cut.”
Well, I watched it… and I thought it was… good. It was good! Not great! I didn’t see what the big deal was, though. So, I thought that maybe I just didn’t get it, but that didn’t seem right. I got the metaphors about prejudice and objectification, and all that. So, I figured… eh… maybe I’d just have to be one of those weird people who doesn’t think this movie is a timeless masterpiece.
Fast-forward to a year later… The Blade Runner sequel is coming out. Seeing that my audience enjoys my analysis of film and video games… so why not give the original a second shot and do a video on it? I popped the disc in, sat through the film’s entire run time… and my god… my experience with it was so much more profound.
Blade Runner’s themes and messages about the value of human life and how little respect some of us give it… hit me like an emotional tidal wave. The experience was so different the second time around I was hit with this deleterious feeling which… I can only describe as guilt. I felt guilty... for not understanding the film’s true value the first time around, and I think the reason for that dovetails into the character of Deckard’s existential crisis, particularly his growing inability to objectify replicants.
I think the reason why I didn’t appreciate this film the first time around is the same reason Deckard didn’t appreciate the replicants: he and I were expecting a particularly utility from our respective objects. I was expecting a sci-fi epic that welded action and intelligent sci-fi concepts into a harmony of mathematical precision. Deckard was expecting replicants to act like - to use his own words - “any other machine. They’re either a benefit or a hazard.”
It is only through time and experience do we both learn the true value of our respective objects and, by proxy, what those objects teach us about the sacredness of life. I hope you will join me for the next few minutes as I describe how every piece of Blade Runner’s composition… from its cinematography and music… to its scripting and performances… communicates how human beings SHOULD perceive the value of life and how… horrifyingly… the majority of human beings may never, for as long as we live, comprehend that value. Needless to say… there are spoilers ahead.

[@thenightking8112]

The second you hear a saxophone in a 80s movie you know its about to go down

[@CamRulz475]

I felt this lol

[@freddymarcel-marcum6831]

A tenor sax, fo sho.

[@TheEmpressNyx]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@LateNightRewrites]

Just watched this movie for the first time ever and I thought the same thing!! Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, etc. Every. Single. Time.

[@corrtan]

Perfect music for horizontal dancing 👌🏻

[@gokhandemir7917]

Watching this movie feels like you’re having a fever dream

[@burtbiggum499]

Gökhan Demir doesnt help that when l watched it the first time l was totally sleep deprived

[@lfet7280]

Thats exactly what i said after my first watch

[@RickGrimes807]

I thought exactly the same thing while watching it. It felt like a nightmare and it was amazing to watch.

[@Ben-xz3bo]

Is there ever daylight in the universe

[@hyperdrivemeleetm5955]

Brian Wilson sameeee

[@AngeloXification]

The moment Roy saved him, was the moment Roy transcended the self. Something many humans never do.

[@jaymo27]

Angelo Alexander interesting, but i’d say it’s the moment he transcended the group identity or stereotype in favor of the self. he didn’t do what a malfunctioning machine would do but instead what he himself felt was right and in that found his individualism as a human being.

[@BigBeefNCheddar]

He became more human than many humans.

[@SuperTrucker2019]

For certain, Roy's humanity superseded Deckard's own in the ultimate twist of irony. If, by some twist of fate, they had found themselves in the opposite situation, does anyone believe Deckard would have saved Roy? Hell, no!!!

[@Dr.DisrespectFan918]

Goku solos roy

[@londonbowcat1]

6:00 his prejudice conflicts with his desire ​@@SuperTrucker2019

[@agirotto1]

What I find amazing is that when Roy talks about his memories being lost forever, he's not only speaking for himself or the replicants, but for all human race. The whole movie is about human nature and what defines what being a human actually means.

[@pasajerodelabrujula8261]

Roy saves his life because it’s the only way he’ll be able to live...in Deckard’s memory.

[@diegocrusius]

wow

[@88feji]

+Random Thoughts Your interpretation is shallow ... you chose an easy answer become you're simple minded thats why ... why is it that fools are so often self-deluded to think they are clever, thats really amusing ...

[@diegocrusius]

@@88feji the internet is dark and full of toxic people

[@niro56]

@@diegocrusius wtf you on.. toxic perhaps every now and then, but intelligent. The real trolls are in your everyday life. Also the very premise of this movie is the second-class existence of replicants and their rebellion against abrupt 'termination'. The dude's interpretation is satisfactory.

[@diegocrusius]

@@niro56 Im criticizing 88feji for his toxic behavior, not Pasajero's analysis which is on point

[@dvd11811]

"All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die" ... Goodbye Roy/Rutger ... RIP ... and thank you for creating one of the most memorable monologues in the history of cinema ... this was the hook that made me fall in love with the movie Bladerunner ...

[@Cryptonymicus]

Yeah, Roy conveniently forgets about all the "moments lost in time" when he and the other replicants slaughtered people on a shuttle in order to get to Earth.

[@alejandropreciado1814]

@@Cryptonymicus it's called growth. Hindsight is 20/20.

[@philipwoodall3103]

Roy becomes more human as he realizes the fragility of life

[@Crimsonterminator100]

When K asks Deckard if his dog is real Deckards response of "I don't know ask him" perfectly answers the Deckard/Replicant question

[@inukshuksixtyfour1164]

The dog exists, therefore he is real.

[@miguelpereira9859]

Damn didn't realise that line was as deep

[@neela5460]

My theorie is that in the last scene of the movie Roy literally becomes his „own god“ so he can choose to have mercy on Deckard. The development of his character and that its meaning changes from devil to God so drastically is visible in many ways. The first hint is the huge nail Roy smashes through his hand. It reminds of Jesus who was hung on the cross with nails through his wrists. It indicates first changes of his mindset. The next symbol is the white dove he capures and releases into freedom in the end. It’s not only a symbol for hope but can also be seen as the incarnation of God, or rather the Holy Ghost. Now we have two hints of the holy trinity. The last one is God himself, in this case Roy and his actions and words. While he is obviously changing his ‚ind about killing Deckard the light always shines on Roy like a halo. This method is by the way also used in several other films like pulp fiction to make biblical references. But back to Blade Runner. The last and most obvious factor is his actions and words. The prejudices that replicants are 100% inhumane and criminals is proven to be wrong by him as he saves his former enemy. He makes his own decisions and doesn’t depend on anybody else anymore,not even the ‚an who created him. Roy accepts he’s gonna die and chooses his last act to be his most humane. He helps another man, which is basically the golden rule of the Christian faith. I think when you rewatch this specific scene and keep my theory in mind it will add so much more depth to the story and interpretation of Roys character, but let me know shat you think. :))

[@turbo8628]

Just watched it for the first time (spoiler free believe it or not) and i agree with all of this. I watched the directors cut, so no narration, but with the unicorn memory and origami at the end (pounting to deckard being a replicant). Besides that, which i don't like because deckard being human makes way more sense, absolutely brilliant film.

[@flybyorb6858]

@ neela - excellent, I agree

[@limeyosu2000]

I never thought deckard was a replicant. They keep changing the ending of this movie and I know people hate it, but I still love the version with Harrison narrating. It was what I grew up with.

[@Vestaaa480]

I have only seen the one where they leave and find the horse origami, and that didn't seem to give the impression of him being a replicant. What other endings were there?

[@turbo8628]

@@Vestaaa480 narration aside, one cut has the movie continue beyond the door closing, with the two of them leaving together (presumably north where they will be safe to live their lives). Having just watched the directors cut for the first time, i had no idea there were alternate endings. Imo, dekkard works better if he is not a replicant, but the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn at the end point to him being a replicant. Both felt put of place for me because if they are removed from the movie then it works better imo, but ending at the doorway was a better choice. The narration i cannot provide an opinion on.

[@bluesummerstaylor3987]

In improvising the scene, I think there is something profoundly more 'Human' than often given reverence being seen from Roy's collective experience and transcendence of thought that gives him a sort of metaphysical or existential victory in all of this. Compare him with himself, when he quotes Blake, he is, as an android would, simply mimicking depth of soul through the words of a gifted soulful poet. Yet as he laments before his death, the monologue we are given is from the depths of his own soul as valid as any...His thoughts have reached the most abstract and qualitative of places and what he produces in his words are: Art. Not a mimicry of citing the art of another, but the construction of his own art given form.

[@RamaDays67]

I think this is the best comment in all of youtube. Thank you, that's quite a beautiful thought. I guess a youtube comment can be more profound than any literary analysis in modern academia.

[@Teabone3]

one of my favorite films ever. I do like 2049 as well.

[@TheBee87bee]

For me,this is the best of Science Fiction!

[@ivanpardo1752]

All the things I loved, You've make an analysis about them, Filosophy, Movies, games. Love your channel!

[@zumi1036]

"I am the storm that is approaching"-Roy

[@holdencawffle626]

Love blade runner. Have watched many videos on it. This was probably one of the best videos on BR I've ever seen.

[@bicyclist2]

I have three or four versions of this film. It came in a box set. I have been a big fan of this film since it came out. I've seen it dozens of times. Thank you.

[@OmegaPointZen]

I have always seen Roy as the good guy.

[@spookyfizz]

What an excellent analysis of this movie. Well done sir.

[@Name-fk8zk]

Rutger Hauer looks just like an older version of my crush from high school in this film. I was rooting for the replicas ever since Roy entered the screen.

[@DavidLawler1]

One of the best videos I’ve seen on this movie. Great work.

[@08karlos]

My Favorite Film Ever

[@GianniEndo]

Beautiful analysis. You have a way with words

[@hawkdsl]

Harrison Ford says he's not a Replicant... and he (Deckard) was able to impregnate Rachel. Tyrell even says she is unique.. the first to receive memory implants... The first to not know she is a replicant. Implying she is the first in many things undisclosed by Tyrell, but hinted.. In fact, if Deckard is a Replicant, then that would constitute a new replicating living machine form, and still wouldn't be human. We could still prosecute Replicants as servant living machines. The moral questions are only blurred if Deckard is Human.

[@jesseoreilly1792]

What an epic movie.

[@maxwellschmidt235]

Villainy doesn't describe Roy or any of the replicant gang in the movie. Their crimes consist of escaping from slavery, returning home, and avoiding capture by blade runners. The term blade runner itself has a similar rhythm and sound to slave hunter. It's fair to say that the movie sets them up as criminal, but by the end we find that they are in fact the heroes, struggling to live free in a world that criminalizes and demeans their existence.

[@stevedavenport1202]

Ridley Scott, amazing....

[@nirvanafatal]

Re watched in 2019 and still love it.

[@354Entertainment]

Top 10 Movie of all time!

[@maaxunicorn552]

10:31 max saying "crumble", the wall crumbles :0

[@MicahBuzanMUSIC]

I wonder how much the opening of Blade Runner inspired the opening of Otomo's own cyberpunk masterpiece, Akira? Even the ominous percussion is similar.

[@i1bike]

Point is simple. No matter who you are, the system swallows you, like you never even existed. It is not changeable, life is a game, a chase

[@bomsbravo]

The question is did he really see the ship on fire or is it just another implanted memory?

[@Noisetank007]

even if it is, the feelings he got from it are distinctly human.

[@switzerlandful]

I recall climbing onto a roof in the north east and experiencing rain on aroof. Sometimes we see thigns before we understand it. I don't understand anything beyond ti.

[@chrizzel28]

Awesome analysis as always! To this day these sorts of things make me wonder if we should advance AI research and the like any further than we already have. It's an undeniable fact that life is suffering, and the only way to deal with that is to find a way of being that makes this suffering a non-issue. But if we create an AI into this world, how responsible are we for its suffering? What happens if we can't make it transcend this suffering? I know that wasn't really the main theme of this video, but that's the kind of thing that I personally think about when seeing artificial life like this.

[@painexotic3757]

Lmao codes on a program can't suffer. It's not real.

[@normadom3715]

@@painexotic3757 ... but the codes are programmed onto computer chips which are then embedded in the android to function like a human brain with rudimentary applications of the five senses in response to stimuli of some sort...just a figment of the imagination. Let's keep it solely within the realm of science fiction. It's complicated enough having to deal with human emotions.

[@painexotic3757]

@@normadom3715 It's a simulated mind, not a real mind. It can't suffer the same way a human can. It's not a real conscious..

[@gondwanandreams7635]

@@painexotic3757 how do you know that for sure? The human brain is electrochemical energy firing in a particular way. That's not that dissimilar to a computer

[@painexotic3757]

​@@gondwanandreams7635 Simply because humans themselves don't even understand how the brain functions entirely. AI can only be simulated to what humans THINK the way a brain functions, not the way it truly functions. Hence, why simulated AI cannot suffer the way humans can.

[@JaPeKePaJaKe]

The picture is horizontally reversed.

[@stevejorfi9086]

I saw this movie when it first came out and it thew me for a loop. I wasn't expecting what I was seeing. Something totally new and different and enjoyed it. And it was a total box office flop, It took a few years for the public to realize and video rentals what classic it has become and still talked about.

[@StoicFlame]

the absolute answer is here: 13:05 deckard eyes glows yellow just like the other replicates

[@mattday7337]

In my opinion which you obviously don't have to agree with it doesn't matter. I've always found the ambiguity in the film as to whether or not deckard is a replicant is more entertaining than knowing outright whether he is. I believe it's down to each viewer how they take it as there is evidence for both arguments, whether he is or isn't. For example Ridley Scott said he always intended deckard to be a replicant whereas Harrison Ford disagreed and always thought he was human. Although deckard has the eye glow of the replicants in one scene and Gaff knew about the unicorn dream, however if you've seen 2049 he's still knocking around 20 years later, meaning he'd have to be a replicant with am indefinite lifespan. To add to this the entire sort of point of 2049 is that replicants can reproduce which means they are now in effect real people. unless I'm misremembering the original then Rachel was a sort of prototype model of replicant who wasn't aware she was one, so it makes sense that maybe tyrell built in a uterus and all that, but it seems unlikely that, given replicants weren't suppose to be able to reproduce, that deckard would've been given the ability to produce sperm were he a replicant. And as the video states the point of the film isn't whether or not he is the message of blade runner is the sort of blurred lines between being human or not so I think it's more important for it to remain ambiguous than it is for the audience to have a definitive answer.

[@davidlean1060]

@@mattday7337 Let's face it though, Blade runner is Ridley Scott's film. He was there until the end and if he planned Deckard to be a replicant, then he is one. I agree that the debate itself is more interesting that the answer and I can see why the story of a cold killer human being learning about the value of life from his prey is compelling. But the story of a man who doesn't realize he is artificial is so much more interesting, to me at least, simply because that story hasn't been told as much as the other.

[@richardrose2606]

If you can tell whether or not someone is a replicant because their eyes glow red there would be no need for the Voight Kempft test. You could just look into their eyes.

[@irisjanemay1903]

I bet if they made replicants that actually looked like Rutgar Hauer and Darrel Hannah they'd get a lot of orders.

[@stratogustav]

I disagree with a few things you said, specially the aggressive part where Harrison wants to have sex with Rachel, he was no longer testing her, he was having a real human experience with her, and that's why the sexual "aggressiveness" simply demonstrates that he is treating her like a real women he desires, and she understands that from his actions, and that's why she agrees to submit to him. At that point they are both having one of those kind of special moments Roy is talking about at the end of the movie. The other thing I disagree is when Rachel saves Harrison, she is not asserting she wants to be seen as an individual, or that she is rejecting her nature by killing one of her kind, instead it is simpler than that, she is choosing to save Ford because she has empathy for him as a human being, in other words she is experiencing love, and that is even more powerful. That said, you're correct that the point of the movie is that humans and replicants are equal, which means that it doesn't matter if Harrison is replicant or not, because humans are some kind of replicants too, but he is definitely human though.

[@SuperFireburst]

If Blade Runner had a giant fallace, this guy would be non stopping glocking that mighty jhonson

[@neilsdechamp]

New retro wave music is so great

[@henrytoledo4103]

If you think Deckard was a replicant than you fall for every sci-fi trope ever written

[@Seisman913]

Great closing line

[@Mrdreamleaf]

See I do like looking at the clues that point to whether Deckard is a replicant in both the book and movie but I think you're right with what you said at the end by asking the question you might to some degree be missing the overarching point to the entire question. Ah Blade Runner is still one of the most fascinating movies ever made.

[@johnmanole4779]

5:22 more like an imperfect god

[@eldraque4556]

Yes, brilliant

[@nateb3679]

during the test bro smokes that cigarette like a damn joint lol

[@nik021298]

2049 answered the question exactly the same way you did. Yes

[@LiveLocalTexasMusic]

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼awesome job!! Great video!

[@Sophie-Ocean]

Something nobody noticed is that Rachel ask him " have you ever past the eye test?" She know he is a replicant too. Therefore she ask him that. Another giver are all the old pictures he has on the piano, who can impossibly be from and of his ancestors, as the photos are too old, but at the same time he has no pictures of ex wife, or girlfriend, nor kids, nor of his parents or family. Which suggest that he has implanted memory, and like all other replicants he has a load of photos. Another give away is the piano partition whose music wake him up because they are implanted memories.. he also said I was dreaming of music.. Together with the unicorn. Also Tyrrell tell him secrets about rachel and replicants that he shouldn't tell him.. but who concern clues about himself such as the number of questions necessary to unveil her as replicant, and the fact that she believes to be human, like himself. I saw the movie only once tonight. I thought he was a replicant pretty early on in the movie. Also because it will be the kick ass turn around at the end. Both him and the last Nexus 6 have a damaged hand and repair it in the last scene. The Christ save him, with a nail in his hand, for the second time his life is saved by a replicant. I had seen passages of the movie before, buy never whole, and seeing it tonight I think they were well ahead thinking the movie was done in 1982.. they got the inside of modern cars 100% correct. With screen.. They missed on the touchscreen but got the voice recognition and audio activation correct, such as the zooming in photos. They got climate change wrong tho. They focus on air pollution, which was In in the 70'es 80'es, while actual climate change, lack of water and temperature raise, was not discussed. Today it's opposite they don't talk about air pollution and pollution in general at all, unless it's connected to CO2 release and use of hydrocarbure. There is no focus on youth and fame, which is the case today, but more on costume and fancy dressing as it was in the 80'es. Anyway pretty in advance for it's time already even there. The movie inspired the time except it wasn't a success. So the movie was forecasting things like a prediction. It didn't catch the actual reality buy close to, and it made the mistake to project Japanese everywhere in the future who were in front at that time in electronics but perished away early in the 90'es in a self-made bubble. Grafities are there tho. As most sci fi apocalypse from the 70 - 80'es, they see an end of the world dirty all burned down and chaotic. But none of them mention the animals and plants and water supply, nor climate change nor new energy sources, and they usually focus too much on car and gas. Good that this one didn't made that part of the mistake, but still it's all dark and chaos corresponding to big city life at that time, more than future reality. A main line in all those sci fi, is that equality between men an women didn't even appear in the background of the consciousness of the movie director. The genders role are identical to 60'es 70'es, with gross caricature of women. And women as sex objects. A plus is that action women are an almost constant in the movie. Living in fear is being a slave is more than actual in this time of conspiration theories, systematic online propaganda from the FSB, and radical Islamists or islamo-fachist terroristes, all around us. Covid19 pandemia is less scary than those degenerated idiots mentioned right above, and those denying the seriousness of the virus. I sometimes wish that the virus will kill all those idiots first, that will make a much better world.

[@adamjung558]

I read your whole comment which is quite long and interesting in many of it's suppositions. I find it strange you mention how people can be misled by propaganda and fear tactics but yet succumb to them so readily. For most, truth is subjective, a phantasmagoria of fevered shadows on a caves wall. You see merely shadows cast by what is ultimately real and true. I feel a great and terrible sorrow for you, victims of not the noise of chaos but malice and aforethought beyond your wildest reckoning. I'm sorry for your state . Are you American? I'd guess you are, that or one of the five eyeS. Challenge yourself. Be more than the effect of causations beyond your control

[@iIO_OIi]

Memories are pretty important for the development of personality, but you'll often inherit pieces of personality from a parent you never met, and so it is likely partially genetic too, let's say half and half for simplicity. Of course that being said, since we're talking about reolicants, I guess it would be 100% memory... interesting concept...

[@sailorrenek7823]

I really don't see how people would think Deckard is a replicant when there is no evidence that shows that he is and what so called clues reasons that people use to point towards that he is really doesn't work at all and is forced. The main reason people try to back this up is Ridley says so. Take the unicorn scene where Deckard falls asleep at the piano, you can see that the unicorn scene was just forced in with the editing and feels completely out of place also it was never a deleted scene from the movie but a scene take from the movie Legend that was released in 1985 3 years after Blade runner. Remember Ridley has an ego and likes to be in control he disliked that he never had full control over the blade runner screen play and script all written well before he was hired to direct the movie. I could go on showing how all the so called clues says Deckard is a replicant are false and easily taken apart and they don't fit.

[@vinniemack5222]

Pay attention to Deckard's eyes in a specific scene between him and Rachael.

[@sailorrenek7823]

@@vinniemack5222 Ahh the glowing eyes reason. It is never talked about at all by anyone in the movie that replicas eyes glow. If that was a thing then all you would need to do is shine a light into their eyes to see they are a replicant and would not need to use the machine to test them to see if they are human or a replicant. It was just a simple mistake made in the film and you see it happen in a lot of movies back then and even today. OK that one is debunked, next.

[@vinniemack5222]

@@sailorrenek7823 If it was a mistake they would have fixed it. The movie has been rereleased enough for it to have been done. No, no one states in the film that replicants eyes glow but they continuously show that they do though it is subtle, you still pick up on it. Lastly, the unicorn scene that was adden in in the later release adds to the Deck replicant theory. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who is or isn't human or replicant because the movie is great and we're all going to keep watching it regardless.

[@sailorrenek7823]

@@vinniemack5222 the eye glow only happens once in the movie and it's only in that one scene, beyond what I said already about it if it was a thing you would of seen it from the other replicants which you don't see so it's not a thing. As I've said before there is no evidence at all that says Deckard is a replicant. The only reason for it is Ridley came out and said he is and has tried many many times to try to make it so with all the different cuts of the movie and each time he tried it never worked. I fell in love with this movie when it was first released and I enjoyed it the most along with the 1st cut made but every other cut made sucks because all they do is have more useless stuff added in that does not fit at all just to stroke Ridley ego.

[@jakobs.family.computer]

Nice Frank note. Well done

[@20Avalanche06]

Deckard is a human acting like a machine, retiring Replicant. The Replicant are machines trying to act human.

[@michaelammons9405]

No cgi back in 82

[@lonelyfox7427]

You need to make more Blade Runner videos they are so interesting

[@ClayTomlinson]

In the book, Deckard isn't a replicant

[@smiggle-286]

I don’t think there is any cgi in this film. Nearly everything in this film landscape wise is miniatures, and in camera effects cut out and reinserted after the fact.

[@switzerlandful]

Give it feeling and reason and aesthetic

[@chanktx9447]

I watched this movie on acid the other night best experience ever now I can't stop watching

[@JimmyJaxJellyStax]

Would some create replicants today if they could? Seems like a disturbing yes.

[@ScarletEdge]

I thought only Rachel got false memories, as Tyrrel stated she is a one off experiment. She also doesn't have life limit, as per theatrical version. Can someone confirm?

[@88feji]

+TwilightDream Rachel had Tyrell's niece's memories I think, if I'm not wrong Deckard revealed that to her in his apartment ... as for her life span, I think she was perceived by the police to die soon (as Gaff told Deckard, "its too bad she won't live.."), but in the sequel they mention that she later gave birth to a child and die soon after .. which means she lived for an unspecified period after running away with Deckard .. so she probably lived for around 10 years based on her daughter's age in the sequel ... like what Tyrell said, she's an experimental model so I guess Tyrell secretly gave her a longer life span than Roy ...

[@michaeleugeneromero180]

decker is not a replicant...

[@alexanderleach2424]

There is no cgi, that opening scene is all in camera effects

[@richard6869]

Why the industry that makes the replicants do them so alike to humans? Why isn't there an easier way to recognize them? Can someone explain please? im reading the and ive watched the movie but so far i saw no explanation

[@johngrayatkinson1214]

These alot to this movie It's also about TIME and what you choose to do or not do with it. While Batty only lives 4 years he sees and lives so much. Where as Dekkard wastes life

[@phillydterminaldisease6578]

Shits dark af ....like U CANT SEE. It's so dark 0:01

[@davidlean1060]

I used to scare my Mother witless after seeing this film first because I would practice hanging off the banister upstairs by my fingers like Deckard does in those final scenes! Kids eh?!

[@yahiryellow1]

But what about the pictures of him and the girl when they were young? What about the small pieces of oragami in the film?

[@nathanbasset]

Blade: Become Human

[@danielnicolae99]

Why are the scenes mirrored?

[@Lexandmax81]

I always say: " Does it matter?"

[@maxderrat]

That works just as well. :)

[@Lexandmax81]

Max Derrat BTW, great vid! Love it. Very pro!

[@NeilCWCampbell]

Actually my sibling... No of course it doesn't..? Cognito ergo sum.. Peace

[@AdrianaMartinez-fp2po]

nice

[@Exitof99]

Man, right from the start you are getting things wrong. There is no CGI in this film, the only computer generated graphics are the displays in the spinner that say "PURGE", which were composited in post, but manual, not with a computer. This is one of the last great films to only use practical effects. Those flying spinner cars were filmed separate, as well as the gas explosions, and matted and composited the old fashion way.

[@switzerlandful]

Is all not chaos?

[@RyansChannel0203]

Deckard wasn’t “dehumanizing” Rachael by any means. If anything, he was trying to do the opposite. And Rachael’s mindset can very easily be determined by her deep attraction towards Deckard that she’s been trying to hard to suppress because of her artificial memories and emotions.

[@jonfranklinvillumsen8204]

Wery shallow wery amarikan - for starters why is Deckard called Deckard ?

[@NullifyFX]

Even after watching this video... I still don't really understand what's all the buzz around, it's still didn't clicked for me. I'm supposed to do a theory assignment about this movie as a university project but it seems like I just can't understand it and truth to be told I never enjoyed even once while watching this movie, I had to force myself to watch it till the end with at least 6 breaks in the middle. I guess that those kinds of movies aren't for me.

[@Cugastratos]

Huh... I first watched the film @ 17 and the "scene" hit me like a truck. It must be how one interprets the scene.

[@kusuma.kusuma]

why are the clips not in their original format? its backwards

[@maxderrat]

One word: copyright.

[@kusuma.kusuma]

Oh never even occurred to me. Doing this will prevent that? Wow. Anyway loved your video man!

[@maxderrat]

It's helped so far! ;) Thanks so much for watching!

[@dakotastyles]

Rachel was a.nexus 7 not a 6

[@TheDjn8]

The movie is from 1982 ffs, it’s not ”clearly CGI”, it’s matte painting

[@Noirlore]

Where do u get the clips to make this video and how do u not get flagged for it

[@moonroxxx]

The Book does not seem to imply Deckard is a Replicant .

[@NeilCWCampbell]

Th short story?

[@blond_slut]

My man thats great review love it!

[@superbowlofselfabuse]

Image being flipped drove me insane

[@1ambad]

This was a good video. Better than the more viewed videos that come up when searching "blade runner analysis". You deserve more traffic!

[@alben1703]

The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long' - Eldon Tyrel... RIP Rutger Hauer.

[@diapodespo3000]

It's a phrase from Lao Tseu

[@LeanderNadeltanz]

Today (November the 1st 2019) the movie 'Blade Runner' was caught up by reality. From now on, the film is no longer set in the future, but in the past. Strange, if you think about it... By the way - the BEST SCI-Fi Movie EVER Made! Too bad Rutger Hauer doesn't experience this day anymore...

[@oktfg]

A ways to go before we hit Zardos timelime

[@SuperTrucker2019]

@@oktfg That would be 2293. But before that, we're coming up on I, Robot, 2035. Then BR 2049. Then Minority Report, 2054. And A.I., 2101(approx. but worth a mention).

[@patriciamcdermott2761]

There is no cgi in the original Bladerunner, not until the Final Cut, even then not in the opening sequence I don’t think. Interesting views, thank you.

[@aryamik9722]

@RandomThoughts its science fiction. its a how the writer views the world. and to answer your question the future is already turning out to be like this (in the sense that megacorporations rule the world)

[@somechannel5151]

@RandomThoughts the movie isnt really meant to be pretty. it's more..visually striking. as overpopulation gets worse and worse, cities could eventually look like the cities in blade runner, all the buildings stacked over eachother and overflowing with people.

[@aryamik9722]

@RandomThoughts I'm from india and I agree 100% percent with what ur saying. The current government here only cares about dividing people based on religion. Our prime minister is illiterate and conservative and instead of thinking about actual problems such as overpopulation,poverty he's more interested in spending 3000 crores for a statue. The video I'm linking shows the stupid mentaltiy of these politicians kzbin.info/www/bejne/qGmwgHycYq-njaM

[@rudypattea4772]

@RandomThoughts are you trolling? Please go to the slums of some of the wealthiest cities in Los Angeles, New York, or Seattle and see if they’ve gotten “prettier”. Concentrated poverty still exist even with wealth per-capita is increasing.

[@mikm1330]

Max did you do that on purpose at 11:26? When you say human life, roy says it at the exact same time. Freaky..

[@maxderrat]

WOAH. Actually, what's he's saying there is "wouldn't believe", but HOLY CRAP it DOES match up. :O

[@AbdullahQumper]

yes he is

[@charleszp938]

This whole movie felt like I tuned into it two thirds of the way through it's runtime.

[@fgg4136]

Man I can’t wait for cyberpunk 2077..

[@NaudiNadia]

Exactly what I thought while watching Blade Runner for the firat time today. I had been looking for good Cyberpunk genre movies for years and fuck me did this provide.

[@AngeloXification]

Just 52 more years to go :)

[@kimseniorb]

It would suck compared to this masterpiece

[@DZ-bj3yx]

Me tooooo

[@LordFlaggy]

so how are you handling the last 2ish weeks, i'm not doin so good.

[@QubitVector]

RIP Rutger Hauer. Greatest improvised line in any film ever IMO.

[@danejorgensen4553]

Is this Roy

[@date_vape]

@@danejorgensen4553 yes

[@whiteheavn]

What line did he improvised?

[@QubitVector]

@@whiteheavn "..like tears in the rain". The greatest line of the movie.

[@davidlean1060]

@@QubitVector He didn't improvise it there and then however. David Peoples mentions Rutger bringing the line out during one of the first read throughs Peoples was involved in.

[@hapsutakki]

Straight from the very the beginning; a factual error between traditional special effects and computer-generated ones: there was _no CGI_ at least in the original Blade Runner versions, only model sets and multiple overlaid film negative-/interpositive-composites, done painstakingly one layer on top of each other and without the possibility to undo the process without having to completely redo everything in the shot. More on the original making-of can be seen for example at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpakoaWNh9SYd7M -- Douglas Trumbull was the SFX supervisor.

[@Exitof99]

hapsutakki: I just logged in to say the same exact thing! Haha. Don't mess up with my favorite film, video making guy.

[@juahn93]

By CGI he probably meant special effects, it's not hard to get them mix up nowadays because most visual effects are computer generated rather than practical, as they probably didn't have the technology for computer generated images. The blade runner 2049 definitely has CGI

[@Exitof99]

@@juahn93 CGI is an acronym for Computer Generated Graphics. It can't be plainer than that. You can't mean "special effects" when you say CGI. It's an error on the video creators part.

[@juahn93]

@@Exitof99 CGI is computer generated imagery, where do you get the graphics from CGG?

[@Exitof99]

Juan Hernandez Haha, sorry, I meant to say Computer Generated Images. Wrote that when I just woke up.

[@LoudmouthReviews]

Really good analysis of this movie. Its a gorgeous and morally complex movie

[@maxderrat]

Thanks homie!

[@dm6182696]

Yeah, Max I love you dude. But it really rubbed me the wrong way when you said that the movie is "CGI". None of what you see in the film is CGI. It's all models and composites. It's totally analog and probably the most advanced analog film ever made.

[@Young_Dab]

Even if it is "CGI". There's nothing wrong with that. What's up with this bandwagon against CGI??? When done right CGI can be absolutely amazing!

[@dakotastyles]

@@Young_Dab the movie came out in 1982. If they used CGI at that time it wouldn’t look the same at all. CGI became a lot better after Jurassic Park

[@michaelingertson337]

@@dakotastyles Star Wars - 1972. Clearly CGI improved over the ten years between the two films. The question is 'Did Blade Runner use or even need them?' to tell the stories, and why is this important.

[@dakotastyles]

@@michaelingertson337 Star Wars came out in 1977 and “CGI” as in entirely computer generated like some of the dinosaurs on Jurassic Park.

[@endlessmike5027]

The Final Cut version has CGI

[@harun5105]

I watched it in my teens for the first time. It was so very different than anything else, that I think I developed love to the sci-fi genre starting from this film. I rewatched it now with the different eyes - all of us in a way replicants, aren't we?, just waiting for our time, when we'll meet our Creator.

[@rachelr3276]

I'd say the question posed to Deckard about whether he's taken the test isn't necessarily the movie telling us he is a replicant. I think if anything, it is a question to make him and the audience think about how similar human and replicant really are. They could be indistinguishable to the point that even a human wouldn't know they were a replicant. Rachael thought she was a human despite being a replicant, so maybe it was to give Deckard an impression of how that feels. It's questioning what makes you human and a replicant not

[@jonnytorres664]

Roy was wrong. His memories didn't got lost in time and that makes very happy.

[@goldy5223]

one day they will anyway