Listening to Blade Runner's Terrible Voiceover

Get a whole month of great cinema FREE on MUBI: mubi.com/eyebrowcinema
Support me on Patreon! Benefits include early access, exclusive vlogs, and more: / eyebrowcinema
Is Blade Runner's voiceover actually that bad? This video takes a closer listen to Harrison Ford's infamous narration and digs deeper into why it lands with such a hollow thud.
Subscribe for more video essays on film.
Follow me on Twitter: / danpgsimpson
Filmography: letterboxd.com/pgcooper/list/...
Music Featured:
Serial Killer by John Bartmann
Alpha Number II by Small Colin
Love Him by Loyalty Freak Music
Fragmented Pianos by Mikael Lind
Both Flanks by Small Colin
And Never Come Back by Soft & Furious
Symphony No. 1: Hope? by Steve Combs
I Feel You by Soft & Furious
Setup with an E by Small Colin
Ofelia's Dream by Bensound
End of the Trip by Komiku
Works Cited:
Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner by Paul M. Sammon. 1996.
Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner. Directed by Charles de Lauzirika. 2007.
Even 'Blade Runner' producer hated the voice-over. Adi Robertson, The Verge. 2013. www.theverge.com/2013/3/15/41...
More Eyebrow Cinema:
No, Superhero Movies are NOT Like Westerns - • No, Superhero Movies a...
The Fly - The First Horror Movie I Loved - • The Fly - The First Ho...
Being John Malkovich and the Office Movies of 1999 - • Being John Malkovich a...
The Plot Holes of Vertigo (and why they don't matter) - • The Plot Holes of Vert...
The Decay of Cinema - • The Decay of Cinema
Chris Benoit and Separating the Art from the Artist - • Chris Benoit and Separ...
Sleepless in Seattle - Crying at Action Movies - • Sleepless in Seattle -...
Star Wars Can't Move On - • Star Wars Can't Move On
Contextualizing Insomnia - Nolan's Secret Gem - • Contextualizing Insomn...
Movie Theaters and the Value of Inconvenience - • Movie Theaters and the...
Action and Pacifism in Castle in the Sky - • Action and Pacifism in...
How Terence Young Made James Bond - • How Terence Young Made...
Hierarchies of Violence in The Shining - • Hierarchies of Violenc...
The Curious Case of Forrest and Benjamin - • The Curious Case of Fo...
Never Say Never Again is a Waste - • Never Say Never Again ...
Harry Potter - 10 Years Later - • Harry Potter - 10 Yea...
Stanley Kubrick's Favourite Actors - • Stanley Kubrick's Favo...
Long Movies are Good, Actually - • Long Movies are Good, ...
On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The End of James Bond - • On Her Majesty's Secre...
Dune, Star Wars and Building Sci-Fi Worlds - • Dune, Star Wars and Bu...
Dark Souls Difficulty and the Easy Mode Debate - • Dark Souls Difficulty ...

[@corbinmarkey466]

Denis Villenueve should pull an April Fool's prank where he releases a version of Blade Runner 2049 with Ryan Gosling providing awkward and unnecessary narration.

[@davidjames579]

"I didn't know why Joy had forgotten my name on that bridge"

[@TheCaptainnoU]

"Worm... Protein to fill my stomach after the hard part of my day is done."

[@colbyboucher6391]

That would be *brilliant* honestly

[@jamescastle99]

"I was in shock when I discovered that the horse of my dreams was in fact in the furnace"

[@zackaryslawtandnuggetfan653]

They should have Harrison Ford do it. "I don't know why I'm even narrating this scene, I don't show up for another hour and a half. 🤔"

[@kedsarama]

The fact that the executives couldn’t figure out what emotions were being shown on screen makes me think they might have been the real replicants.

[@avanishdutta2658]

Remember he said test audiences too. Both sides are dumb.

[@EyebrowCinema]

That's the real VK test.

[@Channel-qe6xt]

They're rich people - so you're right

[@Bluebuthappy182]

I think you're being a bit harsh on replicants there. The studio exec were much more likely to be psychopaths, just confused by emotion.

[@rottensquid]

@@EyebrowCinema Ha! nice! Malcolm Gladwell did a fun little essay about this exact problem with execs, documenting the history of the original All in the Family pilot. The original network put it in front of a test audience (as was standard practice), and it did very poorly, with predictable complaints: Archie Bunker was too mean, racist, etc, and should have been a nicer man and better dad. The network passed, and it was taken to another, who also tested it, with identical results. But the network president saw past the "hot take" reaction and ordered season 1 anyway. Within six months, it was the most popular show on television.

[@Alchemeter]

I’m ultimately glad Ridley Scott got his final cut. I feel like if I’d watched the original cut first, my love for the film would’ve been diminished.

[@shoegazer5451]

I only knew about the existence of the theatrical cut from KZbin.. God it's awful

[@oneblacksun]

Shame he had to blatantly say that Rick is a replicant.

[@caflagel]

I actually did see the Theatrical Cut first. Saw it on Netflix maybe 11 years ago. Thought it was a pretty stellar movie who’s primary flaw was that shitty voice-over and an ill-fitting happy end. I saw the Final Cut several years later, knowing only that the voice-over was nixed. I didn’t know Ridley also scrapped the happy ending (thank god.) Needless to say my love for the film skyrocketed after seeing The Final Cut. I can’t watch the Theatrical Cut anymore. It’s just inferior to the Final Cut in every way. I’m actually glad I saw The Theatrical Cut first. I feel like I got the full Blade Runner experience by seeing the evolution of something that was pretty good to begin with transition into something outstanding.

[@JohnnytNatural]

I've probably watched final cut 3 times in the last few years; with the subtitles it really help understand all the context; the voice over is ridiculous

[@walterfowler4785]

I watched the original cut first, and I kind of like the narration. As one who read the book, I loved the idea that he was sitting in an office and dictating the case down the line, explaining his lack of emotion while narrating. That said, I watched the Final Cut last night and loved it. It was better than the Theatrical, but I like both cuts, because they have different things to offer.

[@bimmovieproductions6352]

Ruining tears in rain with voiceover should be a crime against humanity.

[@viewtiful1doubleokamihand253]

Nah, that will be Putin attacking Ukraine.

[@BleedForTheWorld]

There's a Blade Runner 29th Anniversary soundtrack that features a track called 'Tears in Rain Alternate Spoken' and I think it's really good. I love the ending to this film but this alternate spoken track really gives a different feel to the film. I think it should have been included in Final Cut as an alternate track.

[@matthewackermanaski9687]

And the dove flying away with a plain shot of a factory chimney instead of the oppressive BR scenario.

[@AbrasiousProductions]

agreed, I'm genuinely sickened.

[@menuki95]

I never saw the original thank GOD... so I was just enchanted by the Final Cut, and I am forever thankful... "I have seen things you wouldn't believe..."

[@timtims2258]

I like the interpretation of Gaff as being made redundant, but in my honest opinion Gaff's hostilities towards Deckard are because Deckard abandoned the system and chose to be alone. And its Gaff's way of looking down on Deckard for his nihilism and cynicism. This works especially well because Gaff is basically there to pull Deckard back into this system, out of the fringe and in line with society.

[@EyebrowCinema]

This is also a really good interpretation. Way more thoughtful than "he was brown nosing for a promotion"

[@timtims2258]

​@@EyebrowCinema This is exemplified by his line "You've done a mans job" as he throws his gun towards him. As a way of saying 'you are once again a functioning member of society, here is your tool' Because what is a MAN? someone who does his job. Which gives great irony to it all, Because Deckard retires because he is disgusted only to be pulled back in and being shown (witnessing Roy's death) just how right he was to leave in the first place. The line "A Man's job" off-course has a very beautiful double layer. His line "to bad she wont live, is just another way of saying that running away again won't work. It almost Orwellian in the sense that one can try to avoid the system but never escape it.

[@Brad772006]

Interesting and I like this interpretation

[@voxorox]

Could be that and all of the above. I always interpreted Deckard as a replicant, but with a former Blade Runner's memories implanted. Possibly Holden's memories, the one who was shot at the start. Or another one who had retired, returned to do the job and failed. That part didn't matter, just that they had created a special replicant to hunt replicants.

[@kaydgaming]

Occam’s Razor

[@BugVlogs]

“Apocalypse Now” is a perfect example where the addition of a voice over actually works in the movie’s favor

[@EyebrowCinema]

Absolutely. Poetic writing and Sheen nails the delivery.

[@BugVlogs]

@@EyebrowCinema If I recall correctly, most of the narration in Apocalypse Now wasn’t actually recorded by Martin Sheen, but by his brother Joe Estevez. It’s still amazing though

[@Elora445]

@@BugVlogs Indeed. He apparently also did some stand-ins for his brother in some scenes. At least according to Wikipedia.

[@andrewkaanjr9469]

Not like Taxi Driver or anything like that though?

[@BugVlogs]

@@andrewkaanjr9469 Taxi Driver also has good voice over

[@myowenopinion]

With this and Once Upon A Time In America, Why is the Ladd Company insistent on fucking up great movies upon their initial release?

[@bimmovieproductions6352]

Ikr, it's insane

[@AgsmaJustAgsma]

Chariots of Fire's success made Alan Ladd & Co. egomaniacal scumbags. No wonder the studio went belly up to the point of the Police Academy series not even being able to salvage their asses.

[@EyebrowCinema]

LADD stands for Let's Alter Da Director's vision.

[@sanjurosama]

According to the making of, Scott went over budget, which gave Bud Yorkin and Jerry Perenchio the right to do whatever they wanted with the film, since they financed the completion of it.

[@NTWoo95]

The voiceovers honestly don't even sound like Harrison Ford, they sound like someone doing a decent impression of him

[@LeviTate2000]

I read he hated doing it so deliberately goofed them up.

[@majorpwner241]

Just sounds like him utterly bored and not engaged.

[@thegreatstefano]

​@majorpwner241 that's exactly what it is, him and Scott hated the addition so he talked half-assed to show how bad and unnecessary the studio demands were.

[@mrflipperinvader7922]

Sounds like Leslie Neilson

[@chimpinaneckbrace]

Show don’t tell. Voiceover: “HERE’S ALL THE TEXT AND THE SUBTEXT, YOU BIG DUMB-DUMBS."

[@DAFTBONCHKOOPA]

The only gripe I have with the final cut is how they criminally replaced "I want more life...fucker" with "I want more life...father." ruined the final cut for me and takes me back to the director's cut.

[@AbrasiousProductions]

I don't know, I like father better but I will admit, my one criticism with the Final Cut is the remastered effects stand out too much and look inauthentic

[@rickdeckard1075]

that's because you millennials arguably literally shockingly can't eject a sentence without it containing the f-word.

[@robzilla730]

I was 10 years old when BR came out in '82. Since it was R-rated i got my big sister to take me to see... loved the narration. Movie is incomplete for me without it.

[@ThierryVerhoeven]

In a way it's quite fitting that Harrison Ford sounds as unwilling to do the narration job as Deckard is to chase down replicants. Okay, that doesn't make it any better, but still...

[@davidjames579]

He was. He did it as bad as he could get away, so they wouldn't be able to use it. He was horrified when they did.

[@gasphynx]

Lmao

[@Cr4z3d]

I actually kind of thought that myself, ironically it fits his character.

[@SeriusChevy]

I get a strange campy nostalgia from the narrated version that I actually do like. But the final cut is the better version I'm sure...

[@rickdeckard1075]

@@davidjames579 its completely consistent with the book character...ive heard ppl criticize the voice acting before but not while it was done so charming.

[@two_owls]

Re: Deckard not using the foreign language at the restaurant...I've seen a similar criticism leveled at Babylon 5 and thought I'd mention: it isn't a plothole. Plenty of ppl know enough of a language to understand it when spoken (or when written) but can't craft phrases/sentences themselves with any degree of ease. In multi-language areas, it's common for ppl to speak back and forth in different languages, understanding each other (more or less) despite not talking in the same tongue.

[@ajinkyatarodekar9099]

This. I am learning German and this happens to me almost everyday. I can get what the speaker is saying, but I cannot form sentences spontaneously.

[@FirstnameLastname-my7bz]

I was about the same. AND in general, just because character said something doesn't mean they do it 1:1 on what they said, unless it's propaganda piece. Even fucking comics characters don't work like that

[@ernestoacosta7918]

I’ve talked Spanish my whole childhood until I took ESL classes and the tongue was lost from me but I understand everything a Spanish speaker says

[@JPH1138]

Yeah I used to think a lot of scenes with characters swapping languages didn't make much sesnse, but since then I worked shifts at work with two ladies from Uruguay and Peru who regularly switched up from speaking in English or Spanish depending on which one they felt was easier to communicate a given phrase.

[@majorpwner241]

Actually, I felt strongly that he was pretending not to understand Gaff, and likely doing the same not using lingo to order. He wasn't showing his full hand so to speak, and was quite possibly just giving Gaff a hard time the same way Gaff does to him.

[@SnapperChannel]

If anything, the original Blade Runner voiceover just represents a bigger problem of studios not trusting their audiences enough to let them think for themselves and let the film speak for itself. It's why while test audiences can be useful in a lot of cases (Animated films, in particular, go through numerous changes over their production so changes based on test audiences aren't too out of the norm), relying too heavily on them especially when a film is very far into production just shows a lack of confidence in not only the film itself but the filmmakers as well. The writers forcing VO very quickly in without Ridley Scott's input clearly demonstrates that. Also, it just ruins the point of the film being a visual medium with numerous interpretations from audiences if you just have Harrison Ford spell out how to feel. This isn't to say voiceover narration is inherently bad (don't worry, I'm not CinemaSins) but it works in certain films more than most. And Blade Runner as you said was clearly made without any notion of putting VO in, so it just comes across as...the film doing a SparkNotes on itself. Plus, I just love how you can tell Harrison Ford was so bored and uninterested do the VO; surprised he doesn't badmouth that as much as he does with his time on Star Wars lmao. Great video Dan.

[@EyebrowCinema]

Thanks Matt! I actually had a section in the video about good voiceovers for a while but eventually had to cut it for pacing.

[@avanishdutta2658]

@@EyebrowCinema I understand the point above comment made, BUT.......... Goodfellas? That film has VO. How did it work in that and not in Blade Runner? A movie is obviously an audio visual form of storytelling but how does it work in scorsese films everytime?

[@SnapperChannel]

@@avanishdutta2658 I think it’s because Scorsese designs his films to have VO and they help enhance the story (GoodFellas is probably the best example of VO in a film) while Blade Runner went into the movie without VO in mind but then hastily added in for fear of alienating audiences. It’s not as much as a question of VO’s purpose in movies in general more just how VO specifically does not work for Blade Runner

[@rottensquid]

@@avanishdutta2658 I think it would be really interesting to do a side-by-side of good voice-over v. bad voice-over, to examine why it works and why it doesn't. With Blade Runner, the obvious answer to the latter question is that it is explaining the movie's subtext, which is always, ALWAYS a no-no. But as much as it's gratifying to trash obvious mistakes made in bad faith by cynical execs without a creative bone in their body, I think we need to balance those kinds of video-essays out with ones that examine and admire when things are done well. So Scorsese's numerous well-executed VOs, Fight Club's brilliantly rich narration, even Amelie's omniscient narration would be worth looking at. Though I understand from my French friends that the latter loses much in its translation into english.

[@helpyourcattodrive]

Bladerunner is my favorite movie. I never thought of the voiceover. It never bothered me.

[@billysm00th]

Its actually great

[@Fizbin32111]

Same. I can't image it sounding any different. Maybe it should have been more upbeat? Ha, yeah right.

[@nateds7326]

Harrison Ford has got to be one of the best actors in the world when it comes to faking giving a shit for a movie role(He made the best scene in the Rise of Skywalker by a mile because of that), so the fact that he absolutely could not fake enthusiasm for the narration says alot.

[@davidjames579]

He was trying to sabotage it so they couldn't use it. He though even movie execs aren't that dumb to release it with the VO as recorded.

[@harrybaker9044]

Harrison ford hated making blade runner and hated working with Ridley Scott. By the time they asked him to add a voice over he was probably so done with the film that you can hear it in his voice no matter how hard he tried to cover it.

[@luciddream5055]

@@harrybaker9044 Then why did he acted in this movie ?

[@commandervile394]

@@luciddream5055 He hated his character in Star Wars too, but he needed street credit to get his name out, and of course...the reasons why anyone acts in the first place, money and fame. Star Wars made him big, but he still hated his character Han Solo. The same with Blade Runner.

[@majorpwner241]

@@commandervile394 Why on earth does he hate these roles? They're what I love him for. I couldn't care less about Indiana Jones personally, or whatever else he put out for the most part. Han Solo and Deckard are his iconic roles by a mile.

[@teacherdude]

For me, the voice over was an integral part of the movie. That's how I saw it when it came out in theatres and I don't remember it being a problem at the time. Still. lots of people hated it from the get go.

[@arnoldjack7956]

Ohh I agree same here and I don’t understand all the hate

[@Canalman]

Harrison Ford's voice acting in the voice-over makes me laugh at how dead he sounds. You can tell he really didn't want to do them.

[@nexuszone67]

i understand that it was read that way probably because he didn't want to do it but to me it was so perfect for a ex Blade Runner that didn't know what to do with his life.

[@Canalman]

@@nexuszone67 fair

[@attrage7545]

If you look closely during Zhora's death scene, as the cop turns her head to reveal the tattoo, a tear rolls from her right eye. That little detail I didn't notice until I saw the film in high definition, and it made me appreciate the scene even more. Great video

[@GeoffreyToday]

I've honestly never noticed Gaff being angry at Deckard. That never registered for me. I'll have to rewatch the movie. I think I always just considered Gaff to be kind of odd and eccentric.

[@majorpwner241]

I'm not even sure I'd call it outwardly angry, but he is a complete dick to Deckard. There's some clear underlying hostility or perhaps he just likes giving him shit, but this video did a great job of summarizing what is likely going on in their relationship. One thing of note is when he does an origami chicken in the office meeting with Bryant - a subtle way that he's calling Deckard cowardly for not wanting to take the job. It's also clear at the end that he's the one tipping off Deckard that he will be sent to hunt him down, so there's some compassion or respect for him there at the very least.

[@noalindqvist9826]

I always thought I saw the theatrical cut because there wasn't any scene with a unicorn. But thanks to this video I know now I didn't see the theatrical version because had I done that I would have spent the entire film laughing at this narration.

[@odomobo]

Well also, there are like 5 cuts of the movie

[@charliethecockney1175]

Not gonna lie, the voiceover helped me to understand the film (since I first watched it as a kid), but now I hate it 😂, glad I got to see the final cut

[@uniktbrukernavn]

Same here, it helped especially since English isn't my native language. The movie would've had a lot less impact if certain things weren't explained several times. Lets face it, young people are pretty stupid and I was no exception :) Now that I'm old and cynical I prefer the Final Cut.

[@Deivid-bn6yw]

Tbh I’m kind of an idiot so I found it quite helpful

[@GA-1st]

I saw the theatrical release in '82. One of about a dozen people in the auditorium at the time. It seemed clunky even then. But I was blown away by the movie, regardless. Of course, when viewing it again on home video with the narration eliminated, I interpreted what remained having had the benefit - or detriment - of hearing the narration. I'll never know how much it has shaped my perception of the film. What I do know, however, is that I was in awe since my first viewing (sigh) 40 years ago. Oh, and regarding your observation of the Rachael revelation scene, i.e., "cruelly dismissive of Rachael's false memories" - that's an understatement! It's devastating, actually. And I think it's worth mentioning that it was Sean Young's pitch-perfect reaction that sold the scene. She gave a massively underrated performance. Great stuff!

[@ChrisMaxfieldActs]

"Bad" narrations have been a staple of detective and film noir pictures since forever. I don't hate the BLADE RUNNER narration, though some lines were kind of "on the nose," and a few outright cringey.

[@rottensquid]

I grew up with the original theatrical cut. Seeing it on video in the first months of release (I was 11) it was quite over my head, but a couple years later, it was the only thing on back when there were only 13 channels, and I found myself rewatching it out of boredom. My dad came in, and watched together, slowly realizing what a masterwork it was, until the gutpunch of a climax dropped us to the floor. It instantly became my favorite film for the next 20 years. I caught it in arthouse theaters every chance I got. I even watched it once scrambled on a pay channel my parents didn't subscribe to, just to absorb the magnificent audio experience by itself. Highly recommended. When the various director's cuts began coming out, I went to every single one, and appreciated for the first time that it hadn't really needed nor particularly benefited from the added narrative. But I still maintained a nostalgic appreciation for Harrison Ford's bad pulp-style voice-over, for the very reason that its deliberate cheesiness undercut the dark, over-serious tone of the film itself, making the deeper, more complex themes feel like a secret gift hidden beneath the B-movie trash. That's always a delightful experience. But as time went on, I found my nostalgia fading. I don't think there's any real value in nostalgia for its own sake anyway. And though I still think fondly of that time bonding with my dad over this masterpiece, I don't consider that original version sacrosanct by any means. I agree entirely with you, that the voice-over ultimately belittles the film. Subtext is the most important aspect of story. The imagery, action, words, and music, all come together to suggest the shape of an idea that's just too big to be put into words. To then add an explanation, even a good one, diminishes that idea into not much more than that explanation. Once explained, the movie requires little in terms of further thought. But without Deckard's interpretation of what the movie means, what's behind Gaff's behavior, what motivated Roy's choice, we, like him, are left to ponder. And on pondering, layer on layer of meaning are revealed. Gaff may well consider Deckard a threat for being the machine that replaces his skills as a worker, now his health is failing. This brings in an interesting examination of the ways this world reduces even human beings to nothing more than the worth of their labor, and then erases them because their labor can be replaced. But I think this metaphor works as well of better if Deckard is human, and not a replicant. Roy's choice, in the end, is also far more pregnant with meaning than the voice-over's ham-handed explanation of it. Another video essay, now seemingly gone from KZbin, once examined how Roy's stories from his past, unlike most sci-fi, aren't fleshed out by official Blade Runner Universe Lore(tm). We don't know what C-beams are, or what Tannhauser Gate is, or what sparked the war that sent attack ships to be destroyed attacking/defending it. That history is lost with Roy's death, and though Deckard was there to witness Roy's humanity, he can't dignify Roy's life by carrying on those stories. The video essay points out the parallel between this and the "great erasure" of the history of black people who were kidnapped from Africa to become slaves. Not only was their history forgotten, but their descendants have no way of tracing their families back, beyond the most general information yielded by DNA. This subtext may not have been deliberately intended by the screenwriters (I will have to look into this, now I'm dating someone who knows David Peoples) but that's the magic of subtext. Intended or not, it's there, perfectly paralleling the real life horror of slavery and dehumanization. The narrative, in trying to explain what Roy's choice meant, leaves that subtext muted at best, erased at worst. In effect, Deckard makes the choice about him. The enduring mystery about the film is whether Deckard is a replicant or not. After all, his callousness with Rachel, poor social skills, isolation and misery all match the replicants. Rachel wonders if he'd pass the test if he didn't already know the answers, didn't know how society expected him to feel about eating dog, or whatever. He even collects old photos that seem to have no bearing on his life. In interviews, Ridley Scott insists he was a replicant, proven by the unicorn reverie, which Gaff knew about. But, of course, that unicorn is no more a part of the original film than the shots of the mountains from the studio-mandated ending in the theatrical cut. Like them, it was tacked on, this time by Scott himself, taken from his test footage when preparing to film Legend. It recontextualizes the film as Scott wanted it. But Hampton Fancher, not to mention Harrison Ford himself, have different interpretations of the character. If Deckard is human, the film implies that humans can be as emotionally stunted as replicants are considered to be. That layer is lost if Deckard is explicitly a replicant. But I think here, we get an even better look at the purpose of subtext. It allows the movie to imply both narratives at the same time, letting you mull over the implications of either as you please, without contradicting itself. Further, it suggests that whether Deckard is a replicant or not doesn't actually matter in the least. After all, replicants and humans are both the same, both capable of emotion or lack of it, and both struggling under the same oppression. What, ultimately, is the difference between Deckard's threat to the replicants and his Bryant's threat to him should he not follow orders? The world isn't actually divided between humans and replicants, but slaves and slavers, and Deckard is on the same side of that divide as Roy and the rest. That subtext is implied in any interpretation of the film you choose. But when the clumsy voice-over announces what Roy's choice means, that subtext is muted in favor of a much simpler one, which allows Deckard the option to benevolently save the one replicant he gives a crap about. It glosses over the fact that Deckard will spend the rest of his life hunted, no matter what he is. The voice-over reassures us that we are not, and never will be, replicants, thank goodness. When the truth is, we have way more in common with them than we would like to believe. And without that cheesy, reassuring narrative reminding us that this is just a fun little bit of pulp sci-fi noir about a detective chasing bad guys and getting the girl in the end, the movie is much darker, much deeper, and much more honest about where we all stand in an increasingly dystopian future.

[@majorpwner241]

Man wrote a whole essay in these comments. Man I can't even be bothered to get into all of it. You make a lot of good points, but the part about blacks having their history erased is a little over the top. What history? A history of warfare among the hostile tribes of their own people? It's not like whites completely erased their identities. They were cast out by enemies among their own kind to that very fate. Allusions to how wrong slavery is in media are all fine and good, but let's not disappear up our own arses acting like blacks are all wholesome people and were not at all to blame for their own lack of meaningful history or tradition. Slaves in Africa or slaves in more civilized places... which was actually better for them to be? Sorry, cruddy thing to focus on with all the good stuff you said, but that just stuck out like a sore thumb and felt a little narrow. Slavery, certainly awful, is portrayed so differently in modern 'history' than what actually took place. You don't buy a plow, or a draft horse, and then beat it to pieces so it can't be used to do any work. Same thing with human slaves. Sounds really bad making the comparison right? Yeah. I acknowledge slavery is awful. Point being, the way it's presented and the way it generally happened are not the same thing.

[@rottensquid]

@@majorpwner241 Cool lesson. I assume you have another one about how we'd all be better off under the Third Reich. Consider me pwned, and then go fuck off into the garbage with your shitty justifications for your hateful beliefs.

[@musicaleuphoria8699]

Even Harrison Ford doesn't sound comfortable with the voiceover during the outtakes.

[@CowabungaWo101]

"They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper... that's my profession." Your profession is advertising for killers?

[@thelostandromedan81]

I sometimes suspected replicant Deckard caused Gaff's injury while Gaff was trying to bring him in, and they erased his memories to make him a Blade Runner. Gaff is essentially his handler and resents him for putting Gaff out of action.

[@johnowen6134]

Lmao was that Roy Batty line edited? At 19:25, it sounds like he calls Tyrell “fucker” but I swore in the movie he said “father”? Maybe I’m just slow and deaf idk.

[@marianotorrespico2975]

John Owen --- ACTUALLY, YOU ARE CORRECT. | I saw "Blade Runner" in 1982, and in that version Batty did say: "I want more life, fucker!" Since then, the soundtrack has been edited, to the detriment of the character of Roy Batty.

[@xmodemrm]

@@marianotorrespico2975 It's different in the different cuts of the movie, the workprint had Father as well so it might have been Scott's original intent: "I want more life, father." - Workprint, Final Cut "I want more life, fucker." - Theatrical, International, Director's Cuts. "I want more life." - Alt. broadcast version (shown in Dangerous Days.)

[@marianotorrespico2975]

@@xmodemrm --- Correct, because the P.K. Dick story was unpleasantly contemporary during the Regency of Nancy Davis-Reagan. I noticed the change to the dialogue when the director's cut was published; typical businessman's contempt for Art, given the subject of the story.

[@rottensquid]

Yeah, the original theatrical cut was "Fucker," but the TV edit was "father," most likely redubbed for that very purpose, and then used for one of the numerous "director's cuts." TV redubs are notoriously bad. There's an amazing one out there for The Big Lebowski that's hilariously absurd, revealing the Coen Brothers' contempt for the whole concept.

[@thelambliesdownongenoa1831]

Don't give a fuck about the hate, the narration (AT LEAST IN THE ITALIAN DUB) is wonderful because it gives Blade Runner the atmosphere of a hard-boiled detective movie (and it also gives some background about Cityspeak, the slang used by the characters and their past). Plus, I always loved the original ending with the scenes from "The Shining", they are the perfect counterpart to the darkness and pessimism of the rest of the film, with an outstanding closing line: "Non sapevo quanto saremmo stati insieme...ma chi è che lo sa?" ("I didn't know how long we had together... who does?"). Regarding the unicorn scene...it wasn't even filmed with the rest of the sequences, it's scrapped footage from the movie "Legend". I've seen all the 5 official cuts of Blade Runner commercially available: the oldest of them is called "The Workprint Version" and, while it has no happy ending and no narration, it has no unicorn scene either. The various director's cuts and final cuts made available starting from the 90's are nothing more than commercial operations, like the Alien's so called director's cut. Blade Runner was a masterpiece since its inception date and by the time the director's cut was released it had already gained a cult following

[@johnwatson3948]

Would be interesting to learn what ending Ridley originally intended - probably not the elevator scene. The shots in the car with Rachel were certainly done by Ridley even if it was not for a happy ending, that this was Deckards ground car is shown by the production pics of it driving in the country.

[@chiggermethod463]

Forever baffled at the hatred for the voice over, loved this movie growing up but it absolutely loses something minus the voice over. Walked out of a rescreening because it was the final cut version.

[@CaptToilet]

A good example of why test audiences should never be listened to.

[@abeboy5433]

I remember watching Blade Runner around 2014 on Netflix for the first time. It only had the narration version for some reason. Even not knowing anything about the film watching it I kept thinking the voice over was all wrong and didn’t fit. After reading more about Blade Runner later on and finding out more about the different versions, watching the version without the narration made things all lot better. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one that felt the narration was horrible.

[@Knifegash]

I had much the same experience as you, first saw it on Netflix way back in 2012 or so, the narration bugged me but I just tried to ignore it. But the ending, that was what left a smudge on the entire thing, I *loathed* that happy hollywood ending with the atmospheric and tonal shift into green trees and open road about as jarring as a car wreck. Finding out about and watching the Final Cut was like drinking cool spring water, that was the stuff.

[@jergran69]

I remember liking the narration when I was a kid. I thought it gave it film-noir feeling. Listening to it now? It's just awful.

[@jonathanross149]

A flim-noir should have a voice over, but it should also be better than this.

[@AugustGallmeyer1998]

@@jonathanross149 most of the best noir films I can think of: Maltese Falcon, Chinatown, Vertigo, Third Man, Out of the Past, Sweet Smell of Success, Night of the Hunter, Long Goodbye, Big Sleep, etc. None have voice overs and are fine.

[@CEPAIVA]

Blade Runner is an epic underrated movie that has attracted all mixtures of opinions, and what have you! It's like love at first sight in one package! Actors, plot, scenarios, wardrobe, lights, cinematography, and most importantly the Music, a bravo for Vangelis! Love the soundover because it helps me comprehend and illustrate Decker’s mind-setting throughout the movie! The theatrical version is the only one in my opinion the best! 👏👏

[@EricdelaRicefarm]

I agree with removing the rest of the v. o. and the scene of Rachel and Decker running off into the sunset but I do like the end bit about Roy appreciating life and especially when he mentions Roy sat there for hours dying, enjoying it in a way. It makes me think about a dying deer or prey from a predator, how they lay there breathing fast until it slows down. Idk if it’s just me or if I even described it properly but that’s what I think

[@captlazer5509]

Saw the movie when it came out and honestly it didn't need a voice over. It wasn't confusing. I like the film noir aspect of a voice over and if written better it might be appreciated more.

[@stiofanocathmhaoil2318]

I first saw BR in the early 80s, so for many yrs the voice over cut was the only version. I quite liked the VO and feel nostalgic about it. If I had access to it I reckon I would still watch it.

[@jonathanross149]

I can't find the VO version anywhere

[@robertoaguiar8082]

@@jonathanross149i was able to find it, after years looking for it. It is in a set with 4 versions of the movie. I saw this movie in the 80’s as well, and the voice over version is the one close to my heart.

[@johnwatson3948]

Great comments and analysis. Was surprised no mention of the early Ridley Scott editing experiment that had lots of Harrison Ford voiceovers done under Ridleys direction - these actually sounded good since they were unrelated to the producers last-minute ones that Ford did under duress. This was a legit attempt to do the film more like the classic hard-boiled detective movies - but apparently also did not work so well.

[@Retrostar619]

Nice essay. Never saw the cut with v/o, and I learned a lot from this. Like the background music too!

[@thiagomeneses6373]

Amazing video, thank you so much for this!. There is this great brazilian writer, Fernando Sabino, who said: "The important thing is not to say, but rather to know. Certain things shouldn't be said, because by saying them, they no longer are told by the 'non-saying', which says much more." I'm happy for listening to this voicevor after watching the movie, and now that Blade Runner has shaped a big part of me, the voiceover does indeed concretize some of my assumptions, but then again, the ambiguity is what makes Blade Runner special, it is what makes the movie alive to this day, the voiceover 'kills' this important quality of Blade Runner, we don't talk about things that are already known to be completely true or false, we all crave to know things to their full extent, but exactly when we achieve that, all it's power is lost, we were chasing, not the answer itself, but the feeling all that ambiguity brought us.

[@God_gundam36]

8:00 I'm sorry but i legit burst out laughing the first time i heard that, Like holy shit the dead pan and bluntness in which he just drops that

[@jamesgoss1860]

Any comment on the alternate voiceover in the workprint after Roy dies? It's interesting to me because it shows that narration had been part of Ridley's original plan. And also it's much better reading than what is in the theatrical cut, and expresses sympathy and respect to Roy's death, and not totally missing the point. "I watched him die all night, it was a long, slow thing, and he fought it all the way. He never whimpered and he never quit. He took all the time he had as though he loved life very much. Every second of it, even the pain. Then he was dead."

[@marcgoulding5230]

I saw and loved this film when it was released and I was a teen - and I very much appreciate and agree with your critique (and appreciation).

[@Noone-of-your-Business]

19:30 - Yeah no, _that's_ not the original line. And yes, I checked. And I do get where you are coming from and I mostly agree, but consider that test audiences were really baffled and did not understand the plot of the movie. And being an impressionable teenager in 1982, I was so blown away by the visuals and the music that I didn't get it either - *_with_* the voiceover. Even Ridley Scott admitted that the movie was difficult to read for audiences: he said that his reaction to the first cut was "This is beautiful. But what the F*** does it _mean?"_ And while I do agree that most of these voiceover lines - especially the last ones - do more harm than good, we also need to concede that we are now looking back on 40 years of interpretation with 20/20 hindsight. This movie was so revolutionary in its style and atmosphere that people had no time to pay attention to detail, I would argue. At least that is how I feel about my own experience with the film. It is easy today to say nobody needed the voiceovers when almost everybody saying that saw the film first _with_ them. Still, great analysis. You won me over for the most part. Thank you for showing me some perspective.

[@ethangorham17]

The timing for this video was perfect for me. You might find this interesting. Was just watching The Final Cut this morning to calculate that cut's Average Shot Length (ASL), so one thing standing out to me during this watch was just how rich and tempered Blade Runner's visual storytelling is not only in a cinematographic sense (which is stupendous and among the absolute best of cinema as a whole), but in the editorial sense as well. The pieces build and layer upon each other with precision, and together with the film's soundscape and Vangelis's music, snowball the film into the series of aural and visual delights that it is. For those curious, I counted 1208 shots over a non-credits/logos runtime of 1:49:16, giving the The Final Cut of Blade Runner an ASL of 5.43 seconds. And then, just for completionist's sake, I started doing the same for the Theatrical Cut. And, ugh, where do I begin? In a mechanical/technical sense, the narration kinda fits. *Kinda.* It's largely employed over shots that aren't really plot-specific, so it doesn't get in the way of how the film unfolds in that sense. Otherwise? It's incongruent and distracting. The film's forced to accommodate it in many small, but continuously compounding ways. In terms of characterization, it distracts from the visuals and performances while it supplants the soundscape that builds and shapes this world and the characters inhabiting it. Every time it comes up, it forces acting, picture, sound, and music to take a backseat as it colors Ford's performance in miscolored shades, some shots are forced to linger too long, others not long enough, and it forces the soundscape to fade away like a fart crowding out oxygen in a space suit. So, it's not merely that the writing of the narration is dunderheaded (to say the least) and that its delivery is bored; or even that it's merely distracting. No, *the narration actively detracts from the film overall and the film is forced to be worse to accommodate it.* By the time I got to Zhora's death scene, I had to stop. Like any chore, I will likely finish it in due time, but damn, that doesn't make it any less of a chore. In any case, thank goodness the workprint was rediscovered back in the 90s and got the ball rolling to where Scott's director's cut was eventually enabled to return Blade Runner to its full and proper glory.

[@DerekPower]

This is actually why I like the 1992 DC more. Because the VO was dropped, those “longer” shots - meant to support the VO - become little mood pieces, a chance to linger a bit longer in that world.

[@nexuszone67]

i have to disagree. i liked that the narration is "dunderheaded". intentional or not i think it made Dekard fit into the scenery and feel of the movie. he was so numb at this point in his life he didn't know how to feel anymore and even at the end with the great gift Roy gave him he was still lost in the past and how to reconcile his life. the voice over version of the movie makes this my all time favorite movie ever.

[@mangomation3945]

What I dislike the most is that I think the film could've benefited from a noir style narration, absolutely it could've, but the takes and writing they went with in the final edit were subpar to say the least. I can stomach the majority of it moreso than most, but the narration after Batty's death is just excruciating - and especially maddening given there was a much better bit of narration already in the workprint for that scene! (Rather than announcing the obvious, instead detailing how Batty's death was slow and painful, and that Deckard 'watched him die all night'.) The ending driving through the mountains wasn't always part of a studio happy ending as well. The narration just plays on top of what was originally a much more ominous/ambiguous ending, the original dialogue having been replaced with silent looks and takes. Though I think that ending would've been still bad, as it was way too blunt in pushing the 'deckard is a replicant' angle (which I also think cheapens the movie thematically a lot, but that's just my own personal take.)

[@natepeace1737]

The voice over version is my favorite. It was the original theatrical release. It gives it a gum-shoe detective noir 40’s Bogart type feel, and I love it.

[@theoddfather8782]

Exactly!

[@leeturton9254]

It's vile...kills that superb ending stone dead

[@drjeff5812]

Blade Runner is a 40s style Noir film. It had all the elements even good guy who was not a good guy all the way. It had the fem-fatale the bad guy and his gang and of course the police heavy. Even the way it was filmed was total Noir. The narration was a required aspect. The later versions ruined that Noir aspect.

[@leeturton9254]

@@drjeff5812 Harrison ford made it sound as awful as possible... deliberately i think... it's awful

[@drjeff5812]

Sadly true he just phoned it in so to speak. I believe if Ford had given just half the effort to the voice over that he did to his performance it would have been a much better film.

[@BugVlogs]

As fucked up as it is, hearing Harrison Ford say the N-word will never not be funny to me 😂😂😂

[@attalal]

I had a copy of the theatrical release on VHS when I was a kid and I watched it a million times and that was the version I fell in love with. When I grew up, my smarter friends really let me have it for liking it. "You like the stupid-people version! lol"

[@greyfox4838]

we've seen this countless times, producers meddling with a creative endeavor because profits are at risk if a "product" isn't made to hold the hands of the lowest common denominator, I don't blame the producers or the executives, this is what feature films have to battle with under a capitalistic industry, the voice over makes sense when you have profits as the goal and test audience as indicators

[@salazars.4123]

I think the voice over was an attempt to approach BR to the more traditional film noir movies.

[@DarthBill13]

This was how I first saw this movie. I've always loved Blade Runner and every time I got to see it again I felt like I was missing something. For years I knew there was once narration but could never find the version that had it. I also remembered there being the scene where they "got away" at the end. Now that it is decades later and thanks to you, I can experience both, I do agree that the movie is better without them. I wish the narration was done well as it would have given the movie more of the classic noir detective movie feel.

[@MrBDB001]

It's unpopular but I watched the theatrical release 18 times and I still have a cherished place in my heart. This was my introduction and I still find worth in it. I spent weeks scrutinizing this movie trying to understand all the inconsistencies present and not the need for a modern look at marginalization the language was using in the voiceover.. I still love the voiceover.

[@jonathanswift2251]

I once asked Hampton Fancher, a regular customer of mine in a bookstore I worked in, if he believed Decker was a replicant. He admitted that he didn't know for sure. He had just finished laboring over the Blade Runner follow-up screenplay and he had said it was grueling. I suppose we'll never know for sure about Deckard. There is no definitive answer, despite what fans, and even Scott himself, have said in retrospect.

[@orgywithpigs6]

How is Rachel having an indefinite life span a plot hole? You allude to Tyrell not being able to extend Roy’s life as some sort of evidence against Rachel not having a 4 year span. It’s pretty simple yo. It’s how they were made. Tyrell can’t extend Roy’s life because it’s already bet set. Rachel coulda just been made without the 4 year life span.

[@plasticweapon]

okay, now tell us how and why. no? it's a plot hole.

[@orgywithpigs6]

@@plasticweapon lol how? The movie doesn’t even go into how replicants are made in the first place. So why should the movie suddenly need to explain the how for Rachel? Why? Idk, maybe Tyrell wanted a personal replicant without the 4 year limit. Going by 2049, she’s a replicant meant for breeding. Hell, some Google searches are saying she’s a Nexus 7. Only the Nexus 6 models are specified to have the 4 year lifespan.

[@deathwish1284]

zhora's death always get to my nerves, so disgusting so real yet beautiful

[@JohnnyTightIips]

I actually LOVE how Harrison did as bad a job as possible on the voiceover because he hated the idea so much. Makes me laugh every time how terrible it is.

[@LeanderNadeltanz]

This might cause some backlash - but I actually like the voice-over. It was the first Version I ever saw of Blade Runner, and the voice-over stuck in my head. For some kind of weird reason, I still have a vivid memory of my very first attempt to Blade Runner, including the voice-over. Whether it is good or bad, needed or superfluous - for me it is a very personal part of my first experience of one of the greatest films ever made.

[@aminmalik4086]

I like the Voiceover version much better....plus the Sunshine at the end in contrast to the dark movie. I disagree with all these new snobby critics of the Theatrical Version.

[@plaidchuck]

Seems the older directors get a pass on voiceovers whereas it’s pretty much avoided these days with the “show don’t tell” mantra. Scorsese is about the only old school guy I can think that has used it consistently except for The Departed interestingly enough. Thats what has made Dune so hard to film since so much of the characterization is done through internal dialogues.

[@riddly5491]

I would like to say, the scene where he picks up the scales and photos in the apartment was very confusing to me on first watch, No idea why, I didn’t put the pieces together, so I can understand why they would include this voice over.

[@Flup2]

7:40 Deckard doesn't use cityspeak himself (even though he knows and understands it) because it's probably beneath him. That's not a plothole, it's actually very fitting with Deckards loner personality, he's rigid, stoic, not conforming to anything socially.

[@jwnj9716]

Oh God, not the voiceover. Even Frank Darabont buried it.

[@Bale4Bond]

Is Frank Darabont known for his terrible taste in voiceovers?

[@BugVlogs]

@@Bale4Bond The voice over in Shawshank Redemption is great though

[@EyebrowCinema]

I came very close to adding footage of Darabont mocking the voiceover at the end. Resisted the urge though.

[@DerekPower]

Darabont likes *good* voiceover and doesn’t shy away from pointing out how Blade Runner is an example of bad voiceover. It was actually watching Goodfellas one time on TV that gave him the sign to use VO for The Shawshank Redemption and that it will work. (Also helps that Morgan Freeman was cast for it =] )

[@robderiche]

Your voiceover was appropriate and essential in this excellent video!

[@camgalloway691]

This is off topic but it’s fascinating how the Final Cut’s darker, greener, and more shadowy color remaster makes the film look less dated. Much of the datedness is covered up by darkness in the Final Cut

[@zackaryslawtandnuggetfan653]

I'll be honest, I love that Cold fish line 😂 Rutger Hauer rightly gets a lot of love for his performance, however, I'd personally maintain Harrison Ford's performance is the strongest aspect of the film, and the voiceover is kind of insultingly implying that Ford's performance couldn't convey Deckard's emotions. The Tears in Rain scene is a perfect example of how two actors can create an incredible scene. Rutger Hauer's beautiful delivery and Harrison Ford's beautiful reaction are such an incredible combination. This movie is a masterpiece 🤗

[@jamesoblivion]

The ride to police headquarters in Gaff's Spinner is such a gorgeous piece of filmmaking. These intricate, groundbreaking visual effects shots that still hold up 42 years later, paired with Vangelis's iconic score...it not only provides a sense of time and place, it inspires a sense of wonder and intrigue. In 1982, it inspired awe...but imagine the awe it WOULD have inspired, had this clunky, lethargic voiceover not been stomping all over it by overexplaining the plot and characters in turgid prose. I have never sympathized more with an actor than I do with Harrison Ford, sitting in that little room, having to read that trash.

[@sonsofliberty75]

I saw this version in 1982 in the theater! It is my favorite version. I prefer the theatrical version.

[@RetroFan]

I didn't think the voiceovers are bad. I have the Final Cut on 4K and Bluray and the Criterion International Cut on Laserdisc which does have the voice overs and happy ending in the country. Soon I'll have the 5 disc collector's edt which includes the workprint! I think it's nice to have all the versions.

[@fabiengerard8142]

👌🏻👌🏾👌

[@tankolad]

When Deckard was ordering from the ramen bar master, I was always under the impression that Deckard was just trying to emphasize that he intends to have 4 fish, though the master insists that 2 is enough. It was implied that Deckard is a regular since the ramen guy knew his name already so the interaction is friendlier than it seems outwardly.

[@rottensquid]

I thought he wanted four pieces, and the chef specified that four pieces meant two orders, as is standard with nigiri.

[@Knifegash]

Haha I always thought he wanted 4 servings of ramen, I imagined 4 blocks of ramen noodles being added to the bowl rather than a more typical 2, and the chef was trying to say that is a HUGE amount of ramen, just have 2!

[@rottensquid]

@@Knifegash No, remember, he points to some fish and says "four", and then after the argument, he gives up and says "and noodles." What tells you it was of its time is that these days, no one would go to a japanese lunch place and order "noodles." They'd order ramen, soba, udon, etc.

[@Knifegash]

@@rottensquid Oh I see, thank you so much for the clarification! It's a tiny scene and seems insignificant but it's so dense with meaning and interpretation!

[@alanbrito5239]

22:28 unironically that Front projection effect looks amazing front that time

[@beardykins3073]

Sounds like Leslie Nielsen from the naked gun films, jesus someone needs to do an edit of that

[@cbailey7889]

Having watched this version as a kid, I always enjoyed it. Seeing so many folks badmouth it now on KZbin has made me consider why some folks now would consider it unnecessary. This movie came out in 1982. Having grown up in that Era, I can tell you many folks didn't put that much into understanding a movie. Additionally, 1982 viewers didn't have the benefit of KZbin to explain subtle film nuances to them. So I think for the time, it was probably a good idea to add a bit of voice over context.

[@othoapproto9603]

When BR came out, I was working in a FX studio, and we all took the afternoon off to go see BR. We were all blown away by the film, but all agreed the narration was not needed. However, it is the voice in my head and I will not see BR any other way. It was the right call, regardless of what Ridley says.

[@vertigq5126]

While I agree with many of your points, I have to say that I think the “main character barely grasps the significance of what they’ve been through” ending isn’t really a bad thing. It reminds me the endings of some of William Gibson’s phenomenal cyberpunk stories. When done well, it can really help reinforce the themes of social disconnection and atomization in the story- that outside of the lives of the small cast of characters, the world at large hasn’t really changed, and even the characters themselves remain focused narrow-mindedly on their own lives instead of considering the broader implications of their experiences. In the end, very little changes- it’s not a happy way to leave a short, but definitely a thematically appropriate one! Thanks a lot for sharing this with us man. Keep up the great work! God bless you :)

[@jasoncornell1579]

The original speech by Gaff on the roof was "you've done a man's job sir!! But are you sure your a man?" Just prior to it's a shame she won't live quote

[@miyagimojo]

The “unicorn is Gaff’s memory” is a nice idea and would neatly explain Gaff’s hostility towards Deckard. I’d always simply assumed that Gaff was the real Deckard’s ex-partner and friend and that was why he was hostile and condescending towards replicant Deckard… and why he ultimately lets Deckard and Rachel go… I.e. he wanted his “friend” to have a happy ending in love that the real Deckard never had.

[@lovesigurd6183]

I thought that the idea of beautiful nature scapes existing just a car ride away from the crushing dystopian city was really funny. Remembering that it's Los Angeles in 2019 is even funnier.

[@disconnected22]

While it is clunky and tone deaf, I’ve always thought the voiceover was effective when he’s thinking about Rachel. I’ll have those lines in my head, even if I’m watching another cut.

[@archstanton8988]

For me, I disdain the Cuts of this AMAZING MASTERPIECE without the Voice overs as a Bad Edit for T.V. for Cable in the early years of the Fledgling Cable Industry that was sooo prominent in the 80's and 90's. When I first watched this as a Young Man all the way until now at 54, the End Sequence with Roy saving Deckard to me is dead! LIKE THE HEART OF IT ALL HAD BEEN CUT OUT without Deckard's Monologue about it. From just surviving being hunted by Roy, as well as Roy saving him. As Deckard's Mind processes what just happened and all of the Violence and Terror just POOF..... GONE. And it all fades silently into the Night and the Rain, JUST LIKE ROY'S TEARS............ ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!!!!!!

[@Bleckman666]

Describing Deckard's apartment as "typically empty" is a bit like describing the Super Bowl as "a football match no-one watches"...

[@nexuszone67]

why do i seem to be the only one that liked the voice over version? i think it made sense that Ford's voice over was so disinterested sounding. he was retired but so obliously not happy with his life and what he had done as a Blade Runner. the voice over makes the movie more dark and brooding for me and even where the voice over seems redundant i think it works on the level of inner dialog of someone that doen't think they can change. Blade Runner is my all time favorite movie for this darkness, Harrison's performance, and the awesome message at the end with Roy, and yes even the happy ending version where to me the voice over makes me think he still isn't happy with his life and role as a Blade Runner and never will be. i can't watch the newer versions without the voice over without craving to have that inner dialog.

[@thisismyname007]

In the book, Deckard buys a goat with his bounty money. Rachel tosses the goat off the roof. Later, Deckard finds a toad that he thinks is “real.” Deckard’s wife finds the on/off switch on the toad’s belly. None of that is in the film. 😢😢😢

[@henochparks]

Director Ridely Scott did a fantastic job but missed The author Philip Dick's point The voice over informs us of the point of the story by the author. Point one is Deckard has become detached and void of human emotions. Separated from others. Point two the androids are seeking the things humans relish. They are becoming human. Point three Rachael saving Deckard and then trusting him awakens Deckard's humanity. Roy refusing to kill Deckard again informs us that androids will become human if given time. Deckard realizes the goal of Tyrel. "More human than Human" That Tyrel put a human brain in Rachael. Thus is she an android or human despite her memories being implanted? Deckard's refusing to kill Rachael is more evidence of his discovering his humanity. Remembering that Rachael has no termination date and a brain is parallel to his accepting she is human and he needs to save her. ..This is Philip Dick's point: . We are human because of our human behavior and not because of our parts and pieces.

[@Channel-qe6xt]

Excellent video!

[@MrVideoVagabond]

When I first saw the "Directors Cut" in the 1990s, I thought it was great to finally experience the film without narration. But on reflection, I have to admit that the original narration (as corny as it was in places) did help clarify things and propel the story along. I also wonder if the film would have made sense to most of its fans had they originally seen Blade Runner sans narration.

[@joeybeargrooves4ever]

The plot is indeed confusing if the viewer hasn't read the book. When you make a film based on a book, you make changes. But with Blade Runner, the character of Rachel and her love affair with Deckard are completely different. In the film, there's no good reason that Tyrell wants Deckard to administer the VK test to Rachel. In the book, Rachel already knew she was a Replicant. Tyrell wanted Deckard to test her in an effort to discredit the test. Tyrell also wanted Rachel to sleep with Deckard in order to manipulate and discredit Deckard. Deckard was married ,and sleeping with a Replicant was a serious crime. And why would the snake dancerReplicant make herself so public if she's hiding from the law? In the book, Replicants have created an entire safe-zone for themselves in the city. As for Gaff, his contempt for Deckard might be explained by the fact that he's a film version of the book's character Phil Resch. The film's magic isn't rooted in the plot, which is flawed. The magic is in the acting, visuals, music, and concepts.

[@mattgilbert7347]

I saw this at the cinema back in '82. I was only 10 years old at the time, but even at that tender age I probably didn't need any of the godawful voice over to understand the basics of the film. The deeper themes came later, concretizing into my own, very personal take on the film when I saw the director's cut in '96. My mother took me too see it on release. The director' s cut was the last film I watched just prior to her death in' 96. "It's too bad she won't live - but then again, who does?" Tears, rain, fade-to-black, curtains. More rain.

[@DwRockett]

3:46 ok this point caused me to laugh uncontrollably, well done

[@EyebrowCinema]

Haha I'm glad. I was trying tonfind a more elegant way to phrase that point and eventually was like, no, just say it lol.

[@jmmartin7766]

I originally saw BR when it came out. One of the things I loved about it was the voiceover, which made it seem like a 1930s/40s era detective movie (what is now referred to as 'retro'). Until then, it really hadn't been successfully done in a cool sci-fi movie like BR. When Scott removed it, I was seriously disappointed, and the movie is really missing that added 'retro' feel, imo I truly wish they would release each version (there are like eight, in all), but especially the first. Because I'd buy them all. (Fwiw, I do agree that the "happy ending" of the first movie was out of place and I *am* glad they changed that)

[@cbailey7889]

Noir...not retro, but I know what you mean.

[@jmmartin7766]

@@cbailey7889 The term is "retro." In this current era, people want "retro," not "noir"

[@joeybeargrooves4ever]

The theory that Deckard is a Replicant breaks continuity with both the book and the sequel to the movie. Deckard's unicorn vision is in neither the book nor the script. It was added ten years later and doesn't fit. If Deckard is a Replicant, then the whole man/machine dichotomy upon which the story revolves is lost. The major theme of the film is evolution-- humans such as Deckard have become more like machines while machines such as Replicants have become more like humans. The irony and beauty of the film lie in the fact that a machine is teaching a human how to love. If we need to explain the unicorn dream, chalk it up as a premonition. Rachel is the unicorn- a totally unique, beautiful, and vulnerable being which will be hunted and killed unless Deckard can protect her.

[@tetsujin_144]

I've never watched the theatrical cut, my first time watching the movie was the DVD director's cut. I had heard about the voiceovers of course, and that they were terrible, but didn't really know more than that. I have to admit I never quite understood everything that was going on in the movie. Some of it I'd heard about beforehand (like the idea that Deckard might be a replicant, ambiguity that I knew to be a recurring theme in Philip K. Dick stories) but I'm not always good at picking up on details in how characters relate to each other in stories.

[@80sGenKid]

First time I've ever heard that Gaff theory...that totally works to explain the unicorn origami...how else would Gaff had known...

[@thedaggonator]

I was born in 2005 and didn’t learn about the existence of this movie until 2017 (you know damn well why) and in quarantine I got bored. HOLY FUCK THIS MOVIE WAS AMAZING! But my first experience was a remastered final cut on HBO Max and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

[@shonenbag6478]

Now this is the extensive breakdown that's right up my alley!

[@pauldavidartistclub6723]

I had become a real film fanatic by the early 1980’s, when the theatrical release of Blade Runner came out, aided and abetted by film studies classes at NYC’s High School of Art and Design, an intensive film production and studies course at NYU taught by Thierry Pathe, and the then fairly recent Betamax which allowed me to tape hundreds of good and great movies aired on late night tv. I have no sources to back it up, but I don’t recall any such thing as “director’s cuts” in the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s or before whenever Scott’s cut of Blade Runner was released (early 90’s). I was among the few who saw Blade Runner in 1982, and while it’s visuals had a huge influence, the movie wasn’t then highly thought of, and certainly wasn’t a hit (even coming after Ford’s Raiders). I recall liking/loving a lot of it, the atmosphere, Trumbull’s effects, Vangelis’ score, the performances, but didn’t think the tale had much meat, didn’t seem to work as a Bogart-detective story, didn’t catch some of the nuance of Dick’s story, and had that atrocious narration. That nearly killed the whole picture for me, so was thrilled that Ridley’s cut removed it. In general I believe the theatrical version should be the genuine article…Lucas destroyed anything he touched after the fact…but the extended LOTR dvd’s proved to both me and my wife that sometimes a director’s cut is definitely the way to go

[@ThorfinnSkullsplitter-fz7ff]

I saw it when it came out in 1982. Was in college. It was in, then out of the theaters in only a couple of weeks. I had seen the trailer just a few months before and was totally in intreged by just that. Everyone hated it. My girlfriend hated it. But, I thought it was amazing, though I didn;t know why. It just seemed to set a standard. In 1982 I was right. Everyone else was wrong.

[@josephdarkhelmet9494]

My second favorite film of all time. (2001, the first). Thank Tyrell there is the Final Cut. The narration is absolute garbage, the producers are flat out saying the audience is a bunch of morons.

[@cvictor1126]

The VO adds color to the story, to discuss it as a redundancy to the descriptors in the plot is to miss the point entirely.

[@JeffreyDeCristofaro]

"Visual and poetic exploration" is exactly what this film is... having watched all five versions of the film back in 2007 (including the pre-release print) when it came out on that epic DVD re-issue, I got the same sense I felt earlier having seen Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Cinema is and should be a case of "show, don't tell", a label that should apply to Sir Ridley Scott, as he was one of a number of filmmakers (Alan Parker, Russell Maculhy, etc.) who emerged during the 1970's and early 80's after work in commercials and music videos to redefine cinema as mainly a visual, rather than dramatic/storytelling, medium. In other words, it was not just a matter of breaking from the confines of theatrical dramatization (a la a stage play) by going beyond the stiff, stagey visual limitations of what Alfred Hitchcock referred to as the "proscenium arch" (as filmmakers like Spielberg, Lucas and Coppola did with JAWS, STAR WARS and APOCALYPSE NOW, respectively), but also using visuals to convey both the narrative's structure and meaning, without having to rely on lengthy dialogue/exposition to fill the audience in on any details, whether important or not. It's a case of, if a deaf person was able to tell what was going on in the film without hearing any dialogue, the film succeeded in telling its story.