I am CONFUSED! Blade Runner The Final Cut (1982) | Reaction and Commentary

[@VerowakReacts]

What are some great Rutger Hauer movies? If you want to support me here's how: Patreon (full length & polls): www.patreon.com/ Subscribe to the channel: kzbin.info Follow me on Twitter for stuff and selfies: twitter.com/verowak Become a channel member: kzbin.infojoin

[@markcole5108]

Ladyhawke, Wanted Dead or Alive, Flesh and Blood are good movies with Rutger Hauer as a main character

[@bluebeast440]

The Hitcher

[@HamishMcNaughton]

@@VerowakReacts I remember enjoying Blind Fury

[@steelydanlover1972]

If we're talking about Rutger Hauer's best film from an acting standpoint, it has got to be The Hitcher (1986). It's very much a cult film. Sadly, it was a box office failure. The average person on the street wouldn't have heard of it, but it's so so good. Frankly, it's odd that I even know about it. I'm 30, I was born and raised in Ireland, and I watched The Hitcher on DVD with my younger sister when I was about 11/12. Had our dad not had such an interest in niche cinema, I doubt we'd have ever heard of it or watched it. On another note, you're in luck, The Hitcher (1986) just got a 4K Blu Ray release last October, so you can now watch it for the first time in the best quality available.

[@steelydanlover1972]

Another great Rutger Hauer film is a TV movie called Escape from Sobibor (1987). It is the story of the uprising and mass escape from the Nazi death camp at Sobibor, the most successful uprising by Jewish prisoners of any Nazi death camp (uprisings also took place at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Treblinka).

[@one1charlie643]

At the end Roy isn't psychotic. His emotions have finally manifest, and he doesn't know how to process them. He loved Pris but didn't understand it, felt sorrow at her loss and didn't know why, anger at the one who killed her, reveled in the thrill of hunting someone, power drunk at dominating over another with superior strength, pity when he watched Deckard hanging, mercy when he saved him. A master class in movie making

[@Lethgar_Smith]

Rutger Hauer and Ridley Scott got on very well and understood each other's vision. Harrison Ford never felt comfortable with the character and struggled to understand what Scott was trying to achieve.

[@johannesvalterdivizzini1523]

@@Lethgar_Smith Hauer is just brilliant.

[@Mr.Ekshin]

I just can't suspend my disbelief and fully buy into this film. I'm fine with the futuristic city, with replicants, with flying cars, and off-world colonies. But LA getting that much rain? Sorry... not buying it.

[@TheycallmeMrWonka]

Some of what you're saying is opinion. You're making statements that would go directly against things the director and actor have said. You are fine to say what YOU think but stating it in fact when it's your subjective observation isn't the way.

[@mocthezuma]

Except that Ridley Scott insists on Deckard being a replicant, which means that Roy saving him makes no sense at all. The point of that scene, and what the screenwriters intended, was that Roy realizes that life is worth saving, and comes to terms with the fact that his life is over. He isn't able to save his own life, so at least he can save Deckard. Which is completely ruined by Deckard being a replicant as well, since that means he'll die soon anyway. A masterclass in ruining your own movie.

[@crispy_338]

This movie was so influential for future films. The cyberpunk, gritty, noir future is an incredible setting

[@VerowakReacts]

I love how the setting plays a huge part in the movie!

[@ryanhill-u3z]

hey can you please put gloves on and do a reaction to the movie Austin powers international man of mystery

[@RandyWhite-e6t]

Yeah it’s arguably the most influential film of the 80s

[@sfkeepay]

Roy’s speech doesn’t only apply to replicants. It applies perfectly to all of us. All life is precious, and it all ends the same way.

[@rdkirk3834]

At the moment Deckard loses his grip to fall to the streets below, Baty's hand flashes out and snatches Deckard's wrist. At that moment, Baty shouts, "Ha! _Kinship!"_ Until that precise moment, Deckard had what is common to all humans: An expectation, a belief, a hope that he could delay death a bit longer, that he could fight or run or escape, that there was still a chance to live a bit longer. It wasn't until the moment his fingers lost their grip that Deckard realized with certainty that _his time had run out._ It was in that moment Baty could say, "Now you are completely like me!"

[@fyrestorme]

Except that it doesn't. His was an incomplete view. A human, materialistic view - which taken to its ultimate conclusion would fail - it would make all life meaningless. But it isn't meaningless and it doesn't have to end (not truly). To be clear, this temporal life we all live in this world most assuredly does end at some point; But life - true life - doesn't have to - not if you trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. 'Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."' - John 8:12 'that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;' - Romans 10:9 saved from what? From true death - the second death. Everlasting death and damnation. Eternal pain and torment in hell forever. That is not something anyone even wants to contemplate, but if you are unsaved, then it is where you are headed without the saving grace of Jesus. Turn from your sin, repent and surrender your life to Christ and you will have eternal life through Him.

[@sfkeepay]

@fyrestorme, I don’t believe life is meaningless at all. Life is what we make of it. But the fact that life is finite is one of the things that makes it precious, something to cherish and defend, and above all, to recognize as truly the miracle of miracles, the ultimate gift bestowed on us. But it has a tragic quality, and recognizing that we all have to go through those final moments grants us a pathway to love and active compassion for everyone. Our mortality is the companion to our existence.

[@sfkeepay]

@rdkirk, A very compelling and, as far as I know, singular insight. Thank you for describing it…

[@3DJapan]

The goatee guy who makes the origami later plays Admiral Adama in Battlestar Galactica.

[@group-music]

He was also famous as Lt. Castillo, the boss in Miami Vice.

[@nokta7373]

Mr. Edward James Olmos. True GOAT.

[@bankbarcomo806]

And the math h.s. teacher in Los Angelos in Stand By Me (?).

[@WayneCoston-kj1go]

Daryl Hannah and Pris, who would go on to star in Splash, with Tom Hanks. Joanna Cassidy returned over 30 years later to reshoot Zora's death as it was clearly an actor with a bad perm in the other versions. Harrison Fords brother stood in for him in this version in the confrontation scene with the snake seller as the original was out of sync with the dialogue.

[@group-music]

@@WayneCoston-kj1go Yes. Although I read it was Harrison Ford's son.

[@billmac7558]

THIS is where "Zoom and Enhance" came from to become the meme it is today.

[@crispy_338]

Zoom in to where we can only see 6 pixels. Now enhance and upscale it to 4k 🤌🏻

[@Calico_Jack_]

Roy discovered "humanity" and compassion at his final moments. No one lives forever and the other detective didn't know Rachel didn't have an extended life span. Each origami symbolized the scenes.

[@Randsurfer]

Death is the greatest teacher.

[@scgreek1114]

"Why does everything look so dark?" Because you're watching it on a tiny screen in a brightly lit room. The experience was quite different in a theater.

[@Micaltuta]

No mention of the music? It is one of the greatest film scores and makes a huge contribution to the atmosphere.

[@timboxall8936]

Vangelis was indeed a unique talent

[@vendicepartners]

Watched the film with a live orchestra. It was as good as you'd imagine....

[@lukebarton5075]

Don’t be too harsh on her. She is confused after all.

[@Lethgar_Smith]

Ridley Scott originally envisioned The character of Deckard as wearing a fedora. In fact, I think he was going to have all the men wearing hats much like we later see in the movie Brazil but Harrison Ford told them, "Sorry guys, I just wrapped on a film where I wear a fedora through the whole movie. It's not going to work" So, because of Indiana Jones we didnt get the fedora wearing version of Blade Runner.

[@VerowakReacts]

I'm glad there was no fedora for Blade Runner :D

[@WhatTheExpletive]

And there is much rejoicing in the movie that could have been and relish it what has come to pass~

[@fau8908]

I would like to see the "m'lady" *fedora tipping* Ford though.

[@butnooneshome]

They could have swapped the Fedora for a flat cap with a razor blade in the brim …

[@johngreig7281]

Noir detective, absolutely spot on that was the style choice Ridley was going for, this is one of my favourites of all time and 2049 is a brilliant sequel, such a rare thing.

[@luizdearaujo3892]

I recommend Philip K Dick’s novel: “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” that served as the basis for Blade Runner movie.

[@chrisnielsen9885]

I just read it. It’s very different but excellent in its own way

[@rdkirk3834]

An earlier Dick story covering a similar topic is "Imposter" (which has also been made into movie starring Gary Sinise).

[@asterix7842]

The building that Sebastian lived in was the Bradbury, an actual LA historic landmark known for it’s ornate ironwork. Several movies have been filmed there and, supposedly, regular tours are given and I’d like to see it if I ever visit LA again.

[@michaelsmith1262]

Ok, people continually bring up Deckard's eyes in that one scene as evidence he was a replicant. If it was that simple, they wouldn't need to use a complicated Voight-Kamph test would they?

[@markhamstra1083]

And the actors in this pre-CGI movie were all humans, not replicants, so it is possible for human eyes to appear that way given the right lighting conditions.

[@ofb-jq5lc]

True, but you would have to have the right lighting conditions, and the right angle of view to notice. Hard to get a humans, much less a Replicant who does not want to be found out, into those conditions without tipping them off. I mean, technically it could be done, but probably much easier to use the Voight-Kampff machine and just ask seemingly generic questions.

[@psterud]

It's more symbolism for a movie plot. Little clues for the viewers, not for the characters in the actual movie.

[@psterud]

@@markhamstra1083 I recall some pretty significant camera trickery being used to achieve that effect.

[@markhamstra1083]

@@psterud Not really. The effect was so easily achieved that Harrison Ford accidentally made it happen to his own eyes by just missing his mark by a little, stepping into the light instead of remaining behind it as intended.

[@ronnyb5890]

they are'nt robots, they are flesh and blood but enhanced in strenght and durability exept for the 4 year lifespan Roy even says it to Sebastian, we're no machines, we're physical

[@Argoon1981]

That is right, but machines are physical, in sense that you can touch them, what you and Roy probably wanted to say, is that they are not made of metal they are organic.

[@wackyvorlon]

They’re genetically engineered humans. If you gave a human body and a replicant body to a modern day coroner for autopsy, the coroner would not be able to tell the difference.

[@woeshaling6421]

They are robots in the technical sense: constructed. Biological, but constructed. Colloquially, we understand robots as mechanical clanking machines. In that sense they aren't

[@mokane86]

They are custom parts grown then assembled Frankenstein monsters. They are basically genetically enhanced and cursed humans who have trademarked DNA though.

[@fau8908]

The first 'robots' were in the Karel Čapek's play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) where they were made from synthetic organic matter, similar to replicants in Blade Runner.

[@caramba10]

He picked up an Origami Unicorn made by Gaff and the only reference to a Unicorn is in his dream, so how could Gaff know? coincidence or............

[@group-music]

That unicorn day dream was added by that idiot Ridley Scott 10 years after the film was released. Originally the unicorn origami is a reference to Rachael being unique. It still is because as Deckard looks at it he remembers Gaff talking about her.

[@butnooneshome]

Memories can be implanted, but dreams are our own imaginings. Gaff would have no way to be aware of Deckard’s dreams.

[@edgarcia4794]

The bare arm in the picture belonged to Roy. Leon liked to take candids of them to capture moments in their life times.

[@johnscott4196]

The tears in the rain speech made this movie. And I read that the actor actually inserted that dialogue on his own.

[@HerrFlachpfeife]

That's only partly true. Rutger Hauer shortened some of the lines and added "will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

[@dabe1971]

Exactly. The majority of the monologue was written by David Peoples. Hauer cut down the dialogue while keeping the tone of the speech intact, as he felt the scripted version to be "overwritten". He did add the final line "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die."

[@mokane86]

@@HerrFlachpfeifethe final line is what makes his last lament universally deep and sad. Without it and even more lengthy it sounds more like a complaint flex.

[@davidtoupal1015]

Like tears in the rain

[@johncarey7786]

there's a lot in this movie that you'll miss the first viewing. The final origami piece was a unicorn just like in Deckard's dreams

[@VerowakReacts]

I can never tell what Origami is supposed to look like 🤣

[@Mr.Ekshin]

@@VerowakReacts - Not being able to tell what Origami is supposed to look like... is a pretty good indicator that you may be a replicant.

[@santiago451]

​@@VerowakReacts More importantly, the unicorn is the giveaway that Deckard is a replicant. That's why the real cop knows about his implanted unicorn dream, just like all of Rachel's implanted memories. It's also why that same cop treats Deckard like trash throughout the whole movie, only gaining respect for him in the end ("you've done a man's job, sir"), which is why he lets him and Rachel go.

[@markhamstra1083]

@@santiago451 That’s one explanation. Not the only one.

[@znk0r]

​@markhamstra1083 you can make what you want of it but Ridley Scott says he's definitely a replicant.

[@robmarconi6758]

This. This is my favorite movie. Every time i watch it, i come away with more appreciation. The special effects, the soundtrack... this is the only soundtrack i listen to. It examines humanity and what it means to be human. Like all deep cyberpunk

[@VerowakReacts]

I love the ending with the "tears in the rain" monologue. This is a movie that you appreciate more things on every rewatch yes!!

[@zmarko]

The 'cat & mouse' chase at the end of the film is my favorite one in a movie, ever. And Rutger Hauer's performance is perfect. Playful, & terrifying. And then his final monologue is epic. Man, what an amazing film.

[@erichwoods8336]

The word that Roy utters just when he catches Deckard from falling off the building 'Kinship' very understandable when Roy was looking at the end of his humanity. Gaff and Deckard were not Replicants but in Gaff's eyes rivals in the department.

[@rdkirk3834]

Roy waited for the moment Deckard lost his grip on the precipice...which was the moment Deckard lost his grip on his life. In that moment they shared the absolute knowledge that their time had run out.

[@dIggl3r]

Man that movie is just too good! Got the chills every time I see it, even 42 years later! 😁

[@Need2Pleaze]

The 5 replicants we see in the movie are the only replicants seen on screen. Everyone else is a human. There is another cut where there is an extended ending. Deckard has a voice over in which he mentions Rachel is unique because she has no expiration date. Similar to a human. Even though “origami dude” doesn’t know about her lack of a 4 year limit, I believe the silver unicorn is a message that he knows she is unique and is letting them both escape. The line “it’s too bad she won’t live, but then who does”? I think is simply pointing out that none of us know whether we have a 4 year limit or an 80 year limit. Replicants don’t know when they are going to die, just like us humans. There are a lot of very philosophical questions and messages throughout this movie. I think everyone needs multiple watches to feel like they get this film.

[@markhamstra1083]

That’s one explanation. Not the only one. And unicorns aren’t unique. They are special or magical, but not one of a kind.

[@Need2Pleaze]

@ Agreed and Agreed, but the unicorn is often used as a symbol or metaphor for uniqueness. I believe there is a significance to each origami figure in the movie. I just haven’t taken the time to figure them all out. Like most great art, there is a lot of room for each person to interpret it in their own way.

[@markhamstra1083]

@@Need2Pleaze Disagree. Unicorns are frequently used as a metaphor for specialness or magicalness. At most rarely are they used as a metaphor for uniqueness, for being the only one of its kind.

[@TheTomt50]

"Is Deckert a human?" That's a good question. The real question is, what defines being human? What does it mean to be human? These are living sentient beings. Yes, they were created. Are we not (if you believe in a creator)? Oh, so the quote: "It's a shame she won't live, but who does?" Really just gets at the heart of it. Everyone dies. It is just one more thing that connects replicants to humans.

[@stevesheroan4131]

The second they begin to understand that it is unjust that they have a predefined time limit, then their violent reaction is totally understandable, though not justified by law. What if you were told that you had a terminal illness, and THEN discovered that it was given to you on purpose to keep you under control. My response would probably be exactly the same as Roy’s. If you have the capacity for human emotions and a will to live (beyond the mere instinct to survive), then I argue that you should have the same rights as a human. If we don’t want this problem, we should just never build something better than us lol.

[@promiscuous675]

@@stevesheroan4131 Surely the whole point of being alive is to leave something better when you are gone.

[@motodork]

Deckard is a replicant.

[@arandomnamegoeshere]

When folks dive down the rabbit hole looking for definitive proof whether Deckard is a replicant or not... it misses the point. The ambiguity exists for a reason. The notion that the line between synthetic and human is blurred if not functionally indistinguishable is the entire theme. Get too caught up on what Deckard is and you lose the thread. (Not that I don't appreciate the niggling itch to dig in to the story for all the hints. And there are many that... at the very least... tease the question.)

[@rayvanhorn1534]

Many think Deckard is, but there are a few points that go against that: replicants are illegal, & why would you have one on the force if they're prone to unstable behavior? He couldn't match Roy's strength much less Zora & Priss, & Lastly he possesses emotions & a humanity...they do not

[@michaelpeters364]

I always figured with Roy and the nail in the hand, it was for the boost of adrenalin, from the pain... also his hand was sort of freezing up, maybe going numb, and that acute injury and pain got the nerves sort of working again, for a while... I take the ending as Rachel and Deckard going on the run... and the origami guy basically letting them go, but he or others might still come after them. Replicant or not (somewhat intentional ambiguity), there are no guarantees in life, so Rachel and Deckard, on the run, will try to make the best of it. Who knows? Maybe as a prototype, Rachel doesn't have a time limit... or maybe she does - - we don't know and neither does Deckard.

[@johnmason9655]

Rutger Hauer titled his autobiography All those Moments, with a nod to his speech at the end.

[@johnscott4196]

Life was more precious to Roy. The paradox that saved Deckard as he was dying he released the dove and saved his enemy. The line about not everyone living was just a comment on humanity

[@wackyvorlon]

Roy Batty’s final act on this earth was an act of mercy. Perhaps one of the most human things possible.

[@timboxall8936]

13:37 Yep, the animals are all artifical. Basically the planet is completely crapped out due to radiation, atmospheric pollution, etc. (hence it also being very dark most of the time). Nearly all animal life is extinct, but there's a roaring trade in artifical animals. This also harks back to Deckards asking if the owl in Tyrells office is real. If it were, it'd be worth billions (as it is, it's darned expensive because it's so complex) - and be a huge status symbol to own. In the source novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" it's everyone's dream to own a real animal, down to a fly or a toad. It's an indicator that one can have an empathetic connection.

[@ofb-jq5lc]

12:55 - Deckard used his Esper machine to enhance the photograph. The image of the woman in the photo (Zhora) is a refection of a reflection within the room in the photo, which the Esper machine was able to zoom in on and manifest to clear resolution. According to the 1982 press kit for Blade Runner, the Esper machine is "A high-density computer with a very powerful three-dimensional resolution capacity..."

[@VladislavBabbitt]

The first theatrical version in 1982 had Harrison Ford as the narrator, so some things were more clear to the viewer than in the following cuts. Deckard is human in this version but is also inhumane. Batty at the end valued life more than anything else, even Deckard's life. This is why he saved him. Also the ending is different. Rachel is a Nexus 7. No superhuman strength but also an open lifespan. The Origami guy is also a Blade Runner.

[@splitimage137.]

"Confusion is the sign of a beginner's mind." - a very wise sage, indeed.

[@reggiesalas4285]

I would definitely watch the making of this movie to understand the work an effort that went into making the final cut. It's very impressive, and you will definitely appreciate some of the things they did with 2049 after watching the making of this. Cheers V.

[@stephenkoehler4051]

A lot of Phillip K Dick's stories (author of the original novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep which the film is based on) are about the doubtful nature of reality. PKD was a problematic author who experimented with drugs and metaphysical experiences. He passed shortly after seeing a cut of this film as it had been the first motion picture made of his work. His greatest work though was the alternate history The Man in the High Castle which depicts an alternate history if the Axis had won WWII. The cult success of Blade Runner spawned a whole host of PKD works adapted to the screen such as Total Recall (1990) and left behind a broad variety of works. A remarkably interesting film of a PKD Short Story called Imposter (2001) was made starring Gary Sinise, Nadeline Stowe, and Vincent D'Onofrio which explores somewhat similar themes to Blade Runner as far as reality and existence. Although poorly received, it was a good one as far as I was concerned. The question of Deckard's status as a replicant wasn't an issue in the original cut. The original narration brought back a 1940's film noir aspect to the story that I liked. I missed the narration by Harrison Ford on the later cuts, but I suppose that the Scotts vision prevails. This version did correct several scenes in the movie where effects had not been completed such as the ending scene with the dove flying into the sky which did not show the proper matte painting, but instead a representational day shot of the side of a building. It might be noted that the Year 1982 was a banner year for Science Fiction/Horror. E.T., John Carpenter's The Thing (which is very visceral, but an excellent movie), Creepshow, Star Trek II, and Tron being the most prominent. It was a good year to be a fan and the next year brough several other good ones as well. It was also my first exposure to Rutger Hauer who I come to admire as an excellent actor whose roles include Ladyhawke, Flesh & Blood, The Hitcher, and Blind Fury among many others. Definitely you might want to add Ladyhawke to a future viewing as it is an excellent film which is filled with romance and magic as his character journeys to rid himself and his love of a curse which condemns them to be ever apart. I enjoyed immensely your reaction to this one and look forward to many more.

[@josepha5885]

In the theatrical version, Harrison Ford's Deckard narrates. In that version it was clear Deckard was human. Harrison Ford says Deckard was human. Then Scott releases a director's cut on home video (VHS) and suddenly it's an open question if Deckard is a replicant or not.

[@markhamstra1083]

The question of whether Deckard is a replicant or not did not begin with the director’s cut release. The ambiguity around that question was always intentional in Hampton Fancher’s screenplay, and he considers the question and the lack of its resolution to be fundamental to the story of both this movie and its sequel. Others involved with the movies have voiced opinions or declarations that unambiguously answer the question one way or the other, while yet others embrace the preservation of Fancher’s intentionally unresolved ambiguity.

[@nokta7373]

Scott was forced to release that ending because the Studio needed the movie to have an "happy ending" or they feared it wouldn't appeal to the squeamish masses, also needed Deckard to be unquestionably human for fear the same squeamish masses would fail to "empathize". Scott always despised the out-of-screen narrator voice (as anyone should, ever, in every movie) and got rid of the ending the first chance he got. The final cut version is the closest to his original vision AND the nice part is that it leaves the question about Deckard nature open. As is "I'm not answering this question because it's the wrong question", the power of the movie's message LIES in the ambiguity "shit, I've rooted for and emotionally connected with this flawed character and now you tell me he might be a replicant!?" - That's were the tragedy is. Emotions are transversal to the nature of the subject. We all feel, humans and replicants. It's an open question about the nature of our souls. A much more powerful message than "they lived happily ever after".

[@khalidcabrero6204]

@@nokta7373Deckard being human is what makes the novel & movie meaningful & powerful. Scott's final cut fiddling to introduce ambiguity just made it plain stupider.

[@markthompson5367]

Ridley Scotts directorial debute was The Duellists(1977).low budget movie that showcases Scotts visual style perfectly

[@RandyWhite-e6t]

Debut not debute

[@Csaba__]

I totally agree the sets and the mood of the movie is fantastic

[@VerowakReacts]

I just have to rewatch the movie without my lights on so I can see all the details 😂

[@sweiland75]

This is definitely one of those movies that require multiple viewings to understand it more. I look forward to watching your reaction to Blade Runner 2049.

[@motodork]

Three months ago I traveled to Los Angeles and visited the Bradbury building where some scenes from this film were shot. That is where Sebastian lived. It was surreal to be standing in that building, which I have seen in that film so many times.

[@VerowakReacts]

That must have been so nice!!!

[@mckrackin5324]

"Couldn't he transfer his mind to a new body?"... No. The mind is what dies. Their coding is what has the time limit.

[@mckrackin5324]

By the way, Deckard knew Rachel's past because they told him. Her creator has detailed files on every memory she has before she went online. They gave him information to use against her.

[@charlesmstover]

Think about this. Why did Deckard have no choice but to hunt the replicants.

[@stevemccormack9948]

Bladerunner is a good example of being armed with a great story.

[@clarkmichaels822]

A film where its own director didn't really understand what he was telling. Ridley Scott has gone on record that he thinks Deckard was a replicant, ruining the entire point of the movie (Deckard learns a Replicant valued life more than he, a real human, does). If Deckard was a Replicant the whole movie makes no sense.

[@JasonRule-1]

I think Deckard starts out as a human with stilted emotions and in a sense he becomes more of what a human should be in parallel with the Replicants who are becoming more human, in a sense. He's experiencing emotions and life more deeply in a way he's never done before. That aspect of it implies that even some humans need to become more human.

[@BirdBrain0815]

I'm always amazed by how people latch straight onto the question of whether or not Deckard is a replicant. I blame Rachel asking whether he ever took the test himself for that. I wish that wasn't in there because it very much distracts from _actual_ key question of the movie, which is not is this or that guy human but rather what does it even mean to actually human? And are the humans in this movie any more human than the replicants.

[@ebutuoy6055]

The original theatrical version, which I prefer, is easier to understand.

[@JasonRule-1]

I absolutely agree! 👍

[@rdkirk3834]

The original author Philip K Dick had already published a story about a replicant that believed it was human but really wasn't (that story has also been made into a movie). This much later story is a much more sophisticated concept. Philip Dick makes it explicitly clear in the novel that Deckard is human...but _because_ of his occupation, Deckard fears for his own humanity. So, the confusion over Deckard's nature in the movie is purely a matter of Scott diddling with the original point of the story.. Bladerunner actually reaches backward more than it reaches forward. This is not the same question of whether a sentient machine (like Data of Star Trek) should be granted the rights of humanhood. IN Star Trek and other science fiction, there is still a real difference between a machine and human, even if we grant that machine the rights of a human. Bladerunner reaches back to the concept of enslaving other humans by denying their actual humanity, creating different classes where no difference actually exists. Deckard's narration about Bryant at the beginning of the theatrical release makes the comparison explicitly. At the beginning, Deckard sees replicants as mere "machines." The movie chips away at Deckard's concept of the difference between humans and replicants, inch by inch. Memories, photographs of the past, emotions, empathy, the desire to live. The Voight-Kampf tests empathy...but has Deckard lost his empathy? Toward the end, as Deckard is hanging from the rain-slippery precipice by his mangled fingers, Baty studies him carefully, the replicant's eyes glittering. Deckard fights grimly to retain his grip. At the moment Deckard loses his grip to fall to the streets below, Baty's hand flashes out and snatches Deckard's wrist. At that moment, Baty shouts, "Ha! _Kinship!"_ Until that precise moment, Deckard had what is common to all humans: An expectation, a belief, a hope that he could delay death a bit longer, that he could fight or run or escape, that there was still a chance to live a bit longer. It wasn't until the moment his fingers lost their grip that Deckard realized with certainty that _his time had run out._ It was in that moment Baty could say, "Now you are completely like me!" The knowledge of the certainty of his death was all that had still separated Deckard from Baty, the last thing that kept him from understanding what it was to be a replicant. And in a way, the small span of hope the replicants had in finding a way to extend their own lives had been what made them completely human.

[@mikejankowski6321]

I am glad you are thinking of watching the theatrical version already. I would recommend that. There are some scenes in it that were cut from later versions, and things added in later versions, that change the story and your impressions of the characters. I won't say any more, except that I prefer that original version. The origami sidekick Gaff is just into that as a hobby, it's not evidence that he is a replicant, only that he had been places. I am firmly in the camp that Deckard is NOT a replicant, as we find him out and about retired and he has to be arrested and strong-armed by the police chief to go back on duty. He also gets his ass handed to him by the known replicants - if he were one of them things would have been very different in hand-to-hand combat. Also, the end when Roy saved him and then died after that short conversation would have been rather pointless if Deckard were also a replicant, starting with he wouldn't qualify as "you people". Ultimately the cop was more robotic about trying to kill his target and the replicant did the human thing and saved him. A meaningful twist. Gaff assumed that Rachel had a 4 year lifespan like the others, so his comment about she wouldn't live is addressing the mortality of both humans and their creations. Again, see the theatrical version. Great reaction!

[@khalidcabrero6204]

I agree. I don't like all the voice-overs in the original version, but the idiotic "ambiguity" inserted in the director's cut makes it an inferior film. Pity.

[@herbertkeithmiller]

5:29 the scene with Rachel is the only time you see the sun in this movie.

[@michaelsmith1262]

In the book, he isn't a replicant. Scott implies that he is, with the dream sequence of the unicorn and the unicorn origami at the end. The original had a narration that said in the epilogue that Rachel was given an indefinite time span. Most speculate that Roy let Deckard live because he valued life at the end because he knew he was close to death, and I would guess wanted to the company as he was dying. The narration also said that it took all night for him to finally die.

[@mrfomo217]

Blade Runner is one of my absolute favourite movies. And contrary to what people might claim, the unicorn scene is not from the movie 'Legend.' It was filmed for the original release, but ended up on the cutting floor on the insistence of the studio since they saw it as too "artsy."

[@miamicool666]

We are all Unicorns.

[@Treverlorn]

I always recommend a rewatch to anyone watching this for the first time. There are some subtle clues if you can spot them. For example, pay attention to what shapes Gaff makes with his origami. Also, I recommend watching both The Thing and E.T., and Alien if you haven't seen that yet.

[@jmontesi4]

There is a Blade Runner game (named Blade Runner, made by Westwood Studios). The game puts you into the role of a junior Blade Runner officer investigating a different case (animal murders). The game events happen along with those of the movie, including visits to a few places seen in the movie. One remarkable thing is that at the start of a playthrough the game randomizes a few characters making them replicants or humans (you don't know until a key game event if your character IS a replicant or human!), changing the story and the ending (there are 13 different endings, though some are just slight variants) A few of the actors in the movie reprised their roles In the game. PSA: There is a remastered version -avoid the remaster at all costs, people! Get the "SCUMMVM" version instead.

[@ianrastall]

I had this for PC when it first came out. I never got very far, but I did pick up my favorite "line", if you will: "All you gotta do is ask."

[@ClaireRedfieldKennedy-ld2lx]

8:40 They want James Hong's secret of how he hasn't aged since the late 1960s! He even surpassed this movie's version of 2019 as he hasn't aged in 2024!!!

[@rdkirk3834]

Hong holds the record for most live action appearances in American cinema. He's second for voice acting roles.

[@kevincaulder96]

Hey, Verowak. The reason Roy Batty pushed the nail through his hand was that he was beginning to shutdown. Tyrell had told him earlier that he had burned twice as brightly as the others, which means he would die before his time. Roy Batty was showing Deckert that life is precious. He wanted more. And humans are guilty of wating alot of time not knowing how they have. He would killed or given anything to extend his life and he did. Including, killing Tyrell, the man who literally created him. Rachel was the unicorn in this setting as she did not have the restrictions of the other Replicants. Her programmed was open ended. She would eventually, die, but would longer than the others. After all, she is the replacement for Tyrell's niece. Half, the other police officer, was played by Edward James Olmos. You may have seen him the 198o's television show Miami Vice. Watching you try and unwind this script was a fascinating study. Akin to a mouse turning every corner of maze looking for the way out. I'll be back, sorry for the Arnie reference, for your reaction to BLADE RUNNER 2o49. Keep going and enjoy the movies.

[@TennSeven]

There is nothing that stands out about replicants to let people know they are replicants, and that is the whole point. It's a thought experiment: if there were manmade people who were indistinguishable from regular humans except for their emotional responses, and if even their emotional responses would be the same after five or so years (or could even be induced with false memories where the replicant itself would not know it was not human), are they not human? Should they not be afforded the same rights an considerations as a naturally born person? At what point does something artificial deserve the same rights and protections that the rest of us have?

[@anubis66678]

This is why I feel that fixating on who is or is not a replicant. misses the point of the story.

[@antecave]

Underrated Ridley Scott film: "The Duelists". His first I believe. The directors cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" is also good.

[@kaizen5023]

Rutger Hauer improvised Roy's dying "tears in rain" speech-- what a legend!

[@usulsk]

People are too hung up on the question whether Deckard is a replicant. That's not the point. The main point of the movie is what is life and if it really matters if someone is a replicant or not.

[@donwagner8661]

This is my all time favorite movie. It's extremely layered. And very subtle in it's delivery of theme and ideas. But the dichotomy between Deckard and Roy is one of the highlights. Even though they don't meet till the end they're both on similar paths. The voice over that was removed from the director's cut actually helped to elaborate on the fact that Deckard has been a blade runner for a long time and wants to quit because he's burned-out, depressed and has had enough of killing. He has lost sight of happiness. For Roy on the other hand, his reverence for life is foremost on his mind. He's caught in the inevitable ending every one of us has to face. He's dying and he knows it. His god, his creator however is actually someone he can see and interact with. So his desire is to "ask" his god, his creator for more life. And god said no. There's not a way to give him more life. And he lashes out as a result and kills "god" He returns to find the last of his friends dead at the hands of this human. And knowing his time is running out, the chase ensues. Roy saves Deckard and gives his speech because at the end, he had no one else to listen. Between Roy, and Gaffs comment about Rachel not living, (but then again who does) Deckard sees things differently and takes his chance to be happy with Rachel. Coming through his malaise and finishing the arc in his story. Least that's what I took from it. Lol.

[@seancase2746]

When Gaff (Edward James Olmos) says “Too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?” he just means that everybody dies eventually, even if replicants die sooner.

[@tvbenglishsongtranslations]

Few people know that ‘Aliens’, ‘Predator’, ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Soldier’ all take part in same universe. Tyrell who invented the replicants in ‘Blade Runner’ is listed as the mentor to Weyland who owns the Weyland Corporation in ‘Aliens’. At the end of ‘Predator 2’ there is an Alien skeleton in the ship. What Roy describes at the end of Blade Runner is witnessed by Sergeant Todd in ‘Solider’.

[@johankaewberg8162]

Rutger Hauers greatest role, and has done a bunch.

[@gerhardii]

Try We Were Soldiers Once with Mel Gibson....1st Vietnam Battle....One of best Vietnam films. Touching

[@Cam-yu8wy]

Love how Roy is brutal, murderous and we're made to think he's the villain of the movie, and though he remains brutal and murderous, we start to realize he's as close to a freedom fighter anti-hero we get in this world. Tears in the rain monologue is beautiful and deservedly is a fan favourite, but I equally love how he just smacks us over the head with the line "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.", just in case we didn't get it already 😊

[@2o4tom]

I believe Leon's constant interruptions were his attempts to throw off the Voigt-Kampff test.

[@sca88]

Definitely watch the theatrical cut with Deckart's narration and the film will make more sense.

[@mikegandalf]

No, that defeats the very purpose of this work of art unless you need to be spoon fed.

[@RandyWhite-e6t]

It’s deckard

[@locutus9956]

Absolute masterpiece of a film. Definitely the right version to watch though (theres quite a few different cuts including one with a terrible film noir voiceover narration by Decker (might acutally be the original cinematic version but not certain (this is the version Ridley Scott says is the 'right' one though. I also highly recommend watching Bladerunner 2049, its actually a really good sequel (some folks hate it others love it mind you so your mileage may vary!

[@Randsurfer]

In the intro you nailed the central theme. "There must be something in the replicant that makes them standout...'

[@kaizen5023]

Roy pushed the nail through his hand for the adrenaline rush / pain to stay alive as long as possible.😮

[@JuliusTrout-s7p]

One of my favourite films of all time. Remember the unicorn dream Deckard had ...and the origami model Rachael kicked in the final scene ??? You really have to watch this film again. And maybe again. I saw it in the cinema in 1983 and have watched it many times since. You get new things out of it with every viewing. Like your reac tion a lot.

[@VerowakReacts]

I'm glad you liked it! It's a movie that I'll rewatch a lot in order to notice and appreciate new things for a while 🥰

[@kaizen5023]

You were asking all the right questions 💯

[@chrissiegle1065]

In his other huge movie, Legend, there are columns that appear in darkness's lair... Ridley put one of them in this movie...a cameo... right outside of JF Sebastians home... i thought that was so cool 😎

[@3DJapan]

This film created the "dark with neon" cyberpunk look.

[@UpLateGeek]

On a first watch, you don't even know what questions need answers, but you're asking all the right questions. Most of the answers are there, or can be inferred. You'll definitely pick up a lot more on a second viewing, especially when you don't need to worry about recording your reactions. Of course, having a comment section helps with finding the answers, but it's still worth another watch to see the answers for yourself.

[@VerowakReacts]

The comment section is all over the place with different answers and theories haha. I'll definitely focus on picking up new things when I rewatch it though!

[@crymsonvega4854]

​@@VerowakReacts The answers were right there. Time to figure them out. Yes the film was asking questions but the questions you were not focusing on are very relevant to our current society. Re-watch and get the answers on your own viewing. Either that or watch a video that explains it, you are right it is not straight forward but it showed you the answer. It' is NOT going to give you the answers by explaining it to you. Show don't tell.

[@jessebynum9355]

In the 1982 theatrical cut there is a final scene that was removed from the later cut. Deckard and Rachel are driving in the country. Rachel asks Deckard if they are lovers and he says yes. There are a couple of more statements, she says "we were made for each other." This seemed to imply that they were both replicants. In that scene Deckard's narration told the audience that Tyrell had told him that Rachel was a newer Nexus-7 model and did not have the 4-year failsafe built in, so she had unlimited life. Harrison Ford did not like that scene as he felt the beauty of the countryside was a weird contrast to the gllom of the rest of the movie. Ford's narration in the theatrical cut was removed. Scott and Ford disagreed on whether Deckard was a replicant. Ford believed Deckard should be human as he felt the audience would relate to him better, while Scott said he was a replicant. If Deckard was actually a replicant he would. It should be noted that in the 1968 novel, author Phillip Dick indicated Deckard was human as he had taken the Voight-Kampf test. Also, in the novel it was stated that there were only 2 ways to identify a replicant. One, the V-K test, which was administered to a living being, and the other way was doing a bone marrow examination posthumously. This would seemingly indicate replicates had a skeletal system similar to a human rather than simply being a robot covered with an outer skin.

[@markkringle9144]

The implications is the unicorn is an implanted memory...so maybe Decker is a Replicant.

[@rayvanhorn1534]

Rachel is the unicorn, a rare & unique one. Deckard is human; he couldn't match Roy nor even Priss in strength & he has emotions & possesses a humanity they cannot.

[@rdyer8764]

No spoiler here --> Your instinct to watch this again (or more) is good. The big question for me: as Roy the replicant is dying, yet chooses to save Decker the human is, "which character has more humanity, Decker or Roy?" I think you're teed up perfectly for Bladerunner 2049. The production value is even better, though the themes are similar. Enjoy!

[@crossbones13]

"I am CONFUSED! Blade Runner The Final Cut (1982)" Of course you're confused, *V-wak* . You just watched _Blade Runner: The Final Cut (1982)_ ...

[@PurushaDesa]

I'm always shocked by how many younger viewers of this film cannot emotionally connect to the information given right at the start of the film that they're _slaves_ . They are very violent, yes, but they're escaping the worst possible treatment and then considered freaks for having a perfectly human reaction to the inhuman.

[@VerowakReacts]

Just because you assume that "younger viewers of this film cannot emotionally connect" doesn't mean it's the case

[@PurushaDesa]

@@VerowakReacts With respect, those findings are in line with this video too where it's barely mentioned. There are various points in the film that are designed to elicit a more sympathetic reaction - how scared Leon is, the murder of Zhora, Roy's grief.

[@carlossaraiva8213]

She IS tall. Daryl Hannah the actress is 5,11 ft (1,80 mts in metric). This is her favorite movie. Not the favorite movie she was in but her FAVORITE movie, period. And she starred in it. How cool is that?

[@kaizen5023]

Roy pushed the nail through his hand for the adrenaline rush / pain to stay alive as long as possible.

[@centurycountess4949]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the old series farscape, but the girl with the layered blonde bob, after she put dark makeup over her eyes for some reason she reminded me of one of the characters in the series

[@VerowakReacts]

Not familiar with that series at all 😅

[@angelalfonsodelacruztosca5365]

Roy's ending is amazing. Blade Runner it is a work of art.

[@longfootbuddy]

people will undoubtably say that deckard is a replicant, because they see his eyes suddenly look like that, but thats only there to make you question the difference between humans and replicants, and it makes 0 sense to think deckard is actually a replicant

[@wackyvorlon]

I think a core theme of the movie is whether replicants are human or not. In that ambiguity rests Deckard himself.

[@longfootbuddy]

@@wackyvorlon well, they certainly want you to question what exactly life is, what human is, and what these replicants are.. but again, these are just questions, and not answers, like many will take a these kinds of suggestions in a movie

[@JumboSeventyNine]

@@wackyvorlon This is the point. Personally I think Deckard is a replicant because there is the eye lighting and also Gaff knows his dreams and there are other clues. However the argument of is Deckard a Replicant misses the point a bit. Once the Replicants are 'More human than human' or they are indistinguishable the question isn't are they a human or a replicant its are the two the same thing and what does it even mean to be human anyway?

[@NateAZ]

Origami guy (not a replicant) was Edward James Olmos, who has been in lots of movies and TV shows, notably he was a main character in Miami Vice back in the day and more recently he was Adama in the new Battlestar Galactica. A great actor in his own right. The 'tears in the rain' line was unscripted...just a great line from Rutger Hauer on the spot. He's another really great actor in my opinion.

[@thunderstruck5484]

Saw at the theater with my wife! Didn’t understand everything the first time around, took some mental maturing to appreciate this movie , lots of great movies coming out back then , thanks!

[@VerowakReacts]

Definitely hard to pick up a lot of things on the first watch through!

[@thunderstruck5484]

@ exactly! Thanks

[@Pfhreak]

"Is Deckard a human or a replicant?" Welcome to a debate that's been raging nonstop since 1982.

[@VerowakReacts]

I gotta say, people's strong opinions on this debate are quite.... exhausting 🤣

[@bandm-j1b]

Edward James Olmos once said that he considered Battlestar Galactica to be a prequel to this movie. You should watch the series, for sure.

[@Kheldar633]

Notice that Bryant pours two shots for them in his office but never touches his. A courtesy when a sober person entertains someone who's off the wagon.

[@markmurata3624]

The unicorn origami at the end shows Deckard is a replicant. The unicorn was in his dream, and no one else could have known that.

[@rayvanhorn1534]

Rachel is the unicorn....she's a rare one

[@Treverlorn]

I definitely prefer the Final Cut. I don't recommend the theatrical version.

[@LoricSwift]

You should definitely check out 'The Thing'!

[@markkringle9144]

There are like six versions of this movie, starting with the theatrical cut. Everyone talked about how great E.T. was, and when I saw it, I was disappointed.

[@philpascali4070]

it's a big question and let out if ford is or isn't a replicant and divides the fans , but in what is subtle implied he is one and that is disturbing for fans because if he is , then who is not are they only real humans left , so that is crazy to imagine ^^

[@VerowakReacts]

It seems a lot of people think he is, and a lot think he isn't lol

[@WhiskyCanuck]

@@VerowakReacts famously, people directly involved in making the movie (ie Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, and I think also the screenplay writer) have disagreed on whether he is or isn't.

[@rayvanhorn1534]

He actually isn't & there are several things which point to this; replicants are illegal so why would he be on the force, why would they even entertain working with him? He couldn't match Roy or even Priss in strength & finally he has emotions & possesses a humanity they cannot.

[@philpascali4070]

@@rayvanhorn1534 they are illegal on earth not as general , they were made for a purpose , rachel is one to and she is not made to match the others as well , how explain his memory lapses , the unicorn " dream " , he is one that is what the movie intend , rachel did not knew she was one till some time , why should he know he's one ,

[@JasonRule-1]

If you watch this again definitely watch the theatrical version with the voice-over by Deckard. It does much better explaining what's going on and it has an upbeat ending. It's my favorite!

[@VerowakReacts]

I'm really curious to see the differences between the two versions

[@JuandeFucaU]

the only one who is an actual replicant is Ridley Scott.

[@joek468]

Back in the day this was a pretty cool video game. Really nice graphics for the time

[@CharlesVanNoland]

V-wak, you've posited many things while watching this film that the sequel explores. Good on yous. :D

[@VerowakReacts]

I'm really looking forward to the sequel!