When the cast & crew fu***** hate the director

The making of Blade Runner was a nightmare. Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott failed to get along, and some way into production, crew members and producers also turned against the British director. The movie was shot almost entirely at night, so everyone was knackered, and the physical conditions were terrible. This is the short story of that difficult, conflict-laden filmmaking experience.

[@aarsandijvie]

The bored and tired attitude by Ford ultimately served the dystopian setting well.

[@count69]

Baked

[@mishtaromaniello8295]

Baked

[@AbirTarafdar]

Agreed

[@robertmaybeth3434]

...unfortunately an attitude shared by too many in the audience, why it tanked at the box office

[@lordenkidu1876]

@@robertmaybeth3434its a cult classic so he achieved his vision regardless.

[@Sunprism]

Fun Fact: Steven Spielberg was so convinced that he had annoyed the crew on Jaws, and they were going to throw him into the ocean, that he left as soon as the last shot was finished and immediately got on a plane

[@Scipio488]

He's lucky Ford wasn't flying it.

[@christophermccutcheon2143]

Sounds like an action of shame tbh

[@catmenot7143]

I’m glad Ridley Scott stood his ground, this movie is a visual masterpiece with a unique story that is more relevant today more than ever.

[@Fuzzmo147]

This & Brazil by Terry Gilliam

[@watermelonlover745]

Same❤

[@beestingza]

Deckard is human. He was human in the book, and he's human in the film. Any other way doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Ford is right.

[@Bloodynine606]

Meh the story is awful everything else is great

[@aclark903]

@@Bloodynine606Have you read Dick’s book?

[@richardede9594]

I think it's slightly unfair to say the whole cast disliked Ridley - it was really just Harrison. There are numerous interviews out there from Daryl Hannah, Rutger Hauer, Joanna Cassidy and Sean Young all saying how much they loved working on Blade Runner and enjoyed working with him.

[@sub-jec-tiv]

Yeah most people just said, ‘working in constant smoke and rain was a drag, but we loved doing the movie.’

[@LarryHazard]

Most of these essays are a bunch of horseshi

[@slartibartfast7921]

Huh. Clickbait I guess. I’m going to unsubscribe.

[@anti-mate407]

@@slartibartfast7921 yea im unsubbing too wtf lmao i dont even like scott but this title is just clickbait then

[@slartibartfast7921]

@@anti-mate407 Be the change you wish to see brother 👊🏻

[@rickricky6421]

Harrison having a coke habit is a revelation I never thought I would hear. Wow.

[@TheGeneralDisarray]

Try watching Star Wars and when they're in the cockpit of the Falcon, keep an eye on Carrie Fisher's hands and try and spot her single massive fingernail / coke spoon

[@TheGeneralDisarray]

I say this with no judgement, fucking loved Carrie Fisher my whole life

[@BlazingOwnager]

To be honest I'm not sure he did. Fisher, sure, but Ford is talking like a man who just took a whole bottle of antidepressants there. Like the inverse reaction.

[@CrazyHowie]

It was the 80s. Everyone was on blow.

[@shawnadams1965]

@@CrazyHowie pretty much... if you could afford it.

[@narcotect]

Harrison seems to have been a miserable prick right into his senior years

[@Count_Gustav]

He hates Josh Harnett in Hollywood Homicide, he hates Shia Labouf in Indiana Jones 4 and who knows if there are more than I can mentioned. I sense a pattern he hates his co-star younger than him.

[@pericles9629]

Always has been. Fames got its drawbacks but you'd think being the most sucessful lead actor of all time would be something to be cheery about.

[@cbrown9294]

In the original story, Deckard was worried all throughout, that he was a replicant. It was never revealed if he was or not. That was a theme in all of Phillip K Dick’s writing; what is real, is what we experience real or simply fantasy, is reality really reality?

[@kirkdarling4120]

In the original novel, Deckard is definitely human. But you are right that the consistent theme of Dick's writing is "what is reality...and does it matter?"

[@theprecipiceofreason]

@@kirkdarling4120 Nah it was way more punk than that. DADOES wasn't so much 'why does it matter' and more like, 'look what we will let them do to us, given time.' It was a critique of people without empathy and a society that forces empathy out of us, making us, 'androids'. It was a metaphor for where society was headed in 1968 and he wasn't wrong.

[@MrAgmoore]

Not what I remember. Deckard was always human. The real key themes were, "What makes a human a human?" The book answers the question with, "the ability to empathize is what makes us human". The book briefly mentions a replicant, who became an opera singer. The book asks, what does it mean when a robot gains the abilty to empathize? Does that make the robot a human? When Rachael finds out that the only reason why Deckard goes around killing replicants, is to be able to afford a real life sheep, she takes his sheep and throws it off a skyscraper ( the world is post-apocalyptic, and real life animals are ultra rare, which is why most people have cheap animatronic versions ). With regards to Deckard: What does it mean when a human loses their empathy? Does that make the human a robot? With regards to Rachael, and the society that we live in: What does it mean when a robot becomes "more human" than human? I actually find it quite sad that you got 47 upvotes, because you completely missed the point of the book. The meaning of the book is in the title, which is why he did not want the title changed...

[@bcarr1122]

I read the novel recently. Although the book clearly establishes that Deckard is human, there is ambiguity about whether one of Deckard's associates is a machine. The film---at least its later versions---surely presents this idea as a composite, managing to keep one of the book's themes intact. Indeed, the novel helped me better appreciate the movie. The film is a genuinely outstanding adaptation, one that I feel is stronger than its source material.

[@MrAgmoore]

@@bcarr1122 the film is 100% garbage and after reading the book, 150% garbage.

[@mishtaromaniello8295]

Harrison Ford's reasoning for why he resisted Deckard being a replicant only reinforces how strong Ridley Scott's idea was. An audience sympathizing with a character who exists just as a human does with all their thoughts, feelings, instincts, and actions yet not realize they aren't "real" until it's revealed to them is thought-provoking. Because then in what sense would Deckard's humanity be any less substantial than before we discovered his artificial origins? This is especially evident in Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty- a villain who we learn was actually just trying to fight for his right to exist on his own terms. That's the beauty of Blade Runner.

[@mistermorphescarnoe2898]

By Deckard being human, we as the audience can directly sympathize with Roy just as Deckard did in the end. Because he, like us, is human (and therefore a spectator of injustice) - if it was ultimately explicitly revealed that Deckard was a replicant, it would take us out of our seats and make it so we are only able to sympathize with Deckard on a superficial level since it would make him a victim of the same injustice endured by Roy, and cheapen the purpose of Roy saving Deckard from falling as well as his monologue (where he explains to Deckard and us spectators by extension, that he has seen and experienced incredible things that we could never believe). The reason 2049 worked where I'm sure the OG would have failed, is they revealed that K was a replicant in the middle of the movie, leaving the rest to explore him coming to grips with this realization - we see his anger, frustrations, and discovery of a newfound purpose. If the ending of the OG was that Deckard was also a replicant hunting his own kind, the experience falls flat because we won't ever see how Deckard deals with this realization nor how it affects his direction going forward, not even an extended ending would do that monumental task justice.

[@RuniqFrost]

@@mistermorphescarnoe2898 One small correction: we knew K was a replicant from the start. We got told in the middle of the movie that he might not be as he could have been born.

[@rickyg7662]

They could have just uploaded his memory into a new replicant.

[@FinalFantasyIV]

the movie only works if Deckard is a human, we need to see that the replicants (such as Roy) have more humanity than Deckard, an actual human, so he killing them just for living is way more messed up. also Deckard is a human in 2049, they said Rachel had a daughter with a human, and well she and deckard were a couple so there you go lol also deckard is old and weak in the new movie

[@michaelbutler9166]

@@FinalFantasyIVagreed. If the movie comes down to 2 replicants fighting, who cares? But if Roy proves that he’s the better man - more human than human - then the film is saying something

[@Infisly]

I find it hilarious that Ridley Scott directed Alien in London, then had trouble with the American crew on Blade Runner. While James Cameron made Terminator in the US and then hated the London crew on Aliens. Scott wasn't allowed to operate the camera for BR, while the English Aliens crew supposedly didn't like Cameron trying to get involved with every process. Finding out that directors weren't allowed to operate the camera back then sounds nuts.

[@samtaholo]

Came here to say this. To the English crew working on Aliens, Cameron was also an upstart nobody from across the pond. They wanted to do things their established way (including taking tea breaks, for example) when Cameron knew he was working on a tight budget and a tight schedule. Cameron was used to (and demanded, often extremely bluntly) full commitment from his cast and crew on his (admittedly much smaller) previous projects.

[@Bd951]

Ridley Scott is a great director but whatever happened on the set of this movie elevated it high above everything else he has done, including Alien. There will never be another movie like this.

[@yuyutubee8435]

Visually? Sure. But, and I say this as a fan of the film, many of the plot beats and especially the acting weren't anything particularly special. I think the pacing and tone fall apart when things get to JF Sebastian's apartment with his weird living sex dolls.

[@ThomB1031]

Ridley admits that Blade Runner happened on its own to some degree. It ended being deeper than Ridley made it.

[@starwarsroo2448]

​@yuyutubee8435 it's Ford's best performance and Rutger Hauer puts in something that's never been replicated

[@dickdastardly5534]

The trouble with working with people who all consider themselves the expert and not prepared to concede they are not the director. I am glad Ridley stuck to his guns and the comment above about F Sebastian’s sex dolls I cannot say that I ever considered thats what they were 😳lol. For me Bladerunner is one of the all time greats.

[@allnamestakenlol]

@@starwarsroo2448 Replicated? Pun intended, I hope. Lol

[@catyear75]

The director was correct in his approach. You can’t let the Lunatics run the Asylum.

[@dinkmartini3236]

If a movie director can't realize his vision then nobody can.

[@st.anselmsfire3547]

Leaving Deckard's nature ambiguous worked way better than trying to say he was definitely human or definitely an android. The book leaves you with more questions than answers, especially with that mysterious cult that seems to have taken over the world, and how everyone seems to have forgotten the world before the war.

[@babagalacticus]

i could NEVER for the life of me understand this utter nonsense about 'replicants' being 'androids'; REPLICANTS are "bio-engineered" HUMANS, the result of extremely hi-tech gene splicing, editing etc. an 'android' is a MACHINE with a highly sophisticated 'AI' cognition system but a MACHINE all the same. as in 'BISHOP' from the first "ALIEN" movie? when damaged, what did we see come spurting out of his mouth? blood or the equivalent of hydraulic fluid? and when RUTGER HAUER'S character (ROY BATTY) is wounded, what do we see on his face? BLOOD. why does this weird but fairly obvious fallacy continue to obtain? in point of fact, one would think that anyone who has seen the sequel (BR:2049) would have had the question COMPLETELY sorted & settled once & for all time: ANDROIDS, DO NOT give BIRTH to OTHER ANDROIDS. derp. 🤖👶👀😹😳😬

[@moonasha]

unfortunately somewhere along the way ridley scott turned into a hack fraud who can't write his way out of a paper bag. Every movie after black hawk down, maybe gladiator if you're generous, has just been god awful. And of course he couldn't keep his hands off blade runner, shoving that stupid unicorn scene into it.

[@georgelionon9050]

It depends on which version, in the original version it's unclear, or for most viewers wouldn't even get the idea he could be a replicant himself.. in the directors cut he definitely is, and no I don't care what Harrison says about it, since it's not the actor that defines what the movie is. That Harrison believes that Deckard is human is perfect, because Deckard believes it too.

[@frenchfriedbagel7035]

@@georgelionon9050Smart people ignore the unicorn scene. Because it is literally just unused footage from Legend put into the middle of Blade Runner.

[@georgelionon9050]

@@frenchfriedbagel7035 if you decide to ignore things that dont fit what you want to see, and frame it "smart people do it", you are right. If you take the movie at face value, in the directors cut he is made a replicant no doubt.

[@______IV]

Two things that will always ruin a movie: 1. Using exposition like a hammer 2. Executives micromanaging directors and writers.

[@michaelgarcia4100]

I mean, thats what ruins all life as well

[@phaodaimotnguoi-1manfortress]

Not the case here, we would not get the masterpiece that is blade runner if ridley did not stood his ground

[@scottishcheese13]

@@phaodaimotnguoi-1manfortressI think you misread their comment

[@stackhat8624]

2. Why movies are so terrible now.

[@scottishcheese13]

@@stackhat8624 movies aren’t terrible now, you’re just lazy and nostalgic

[@soakingbook]

The only lessons Harrison Ford should ever be teaching Ridley Scott are flying lessons.

[@BrB0424]

And even then he's crashed like twice lol EDIT: 5 times 💀

[@rhapzodyk541]

@@BrB0424 don't forget he also landed on a taxiway lol

[@eatZeppelin]

Way more than twice haha

[@BrB0424]

@@eatZeppelin oh damn I didn't know about the newer ones

[@BONELORDLANK]

I mean, Ford was totally right about the voiceover though.

[@han3wmanwukong125]

Let us all be reminded that Harrison Ford is a notorious sourpuss with an overall negative outlook on everything. Look at his view of Han Solo, one of the most beloved characters in sci-fi cinematic history.

[@chamoo232]

Yeah he comes back for sequels but always has that "do me a favor and kill my character so I never have to do this sh*t again" attitude.

[@Max_Kraft]

@@chamoo232 He came back for all this legacy movies like Indiana Jones and Star Wars and he openly admitted that he don't care a bit he's only there for the money. An attitude that I would understand if he depended on the money, which he doesn't - he's filthy rich. Why doesn't he do something he enjoys?

[@RestitutorEuropa]

At least he genuinely liked playing Indiana Jones

[@alilaro]

He was right though, they all were overplayed, tired characters from already overhyped films. It feels like pandering more than anything.

[@han3wmanwukong125]

@alilaro 90% of his roles have been either cavalier cowboy or action superhero. He had maybe 2 romantic comedies. I'll look to see if he's done any theatrical performances of MacBeth , but I don't think he has since maybe he went to acting school.

[@optimaliron3718]

You didn't need to include the horse poop

[@unhappiness8465]

What poop

[@unhappiness8465]

Oh

[@hyperreal]

Its just for you. Open wide

[@mediumwarmm]

was eating while watching, i agree

[@hoju63]

Shit happens.

[@LumenPsycho]

It feels more like Ford is the issue. Haven't heard anyone say anything good about working with him. Negativity seems to follow him around, acting like he was forced to be an actor.

[@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter]

LoL agreed. His cross to bare

[@shirogitsune3480]

He just seems like a really cynical and miserable person. Great actor, but I can’t imagine staying in the same room as him for very long.

[@beastmaster6943]

He hates his legacy as Rick Deckard, Han Solo and Indiana Jones 3 of his major characters

[@Scipio488]

@@beastmaster6943 He can never forgive them for overshadowing his performance as Bob Falfa.

[@Count_Gustav]

He hates Josh Harnett in Hollywood Homicide, he hates Shia Labouf in Indiana Jones 4 and who knows if there are more than I can mentioned.

[@danielh9844]

Ford was also pissed because he had signed onto this art film just before becoming a box office success, and he was obligated to do it in place of other films that would have made him much richer.

[@subliteral]

That sounds pretty realistic. Wonder what he would have done if not for Blade Runner?

[@Toughmittens]

It sounds like he actually read the book and didn’t want the movie to stray too much from the underlying message of the story. Ultimately, he just made an action film that was vaguely based on a Dickey but missed the mark.

[@Max_Kraft]

I really like the work of a lot actors like Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise, let you forget that they are often massive divas and dickheads - maybe people like Viggo Mortensen are the minority in the acting buisness.

[@Scipio488]

@@Toughmittens "It sounds like he actually read the book". Thanks; I needed that laugh.

[@MonoFlax]

1:49 No offense to Harrison Ford, I love the guy, love his work, but… way to miss the point of the movie you’re working on

[@Okinawatrip]

Funnily enough, that puts him in exactly the same mindset that a replicant with human memories would be in when he choses to believe he is human.

[@MonoFlax]

@@Okinawatrip maybe he’s just REALLY getting into character lmao

[@emanuel81111]

Harrison ford definetely didnt get it , it doesnt matter whether he was a robot or a human, if he feels and love, how can you question hes humanity? , no matter what his flesh was made of.

[@Evil_Peter]

I agree, but I think Scott also missed the point in his own movie by introducing the heavy handed hints towards a definitive answer. The writers had the better grasp of how to portray that question along with the theme.

[@emanuel81111]

@@Evil_Peter ridley was forced by the producers to put that, to make the stoey more direct , because for the CEOs Deckard real nature was too vague 🤦‍♂️

[@jamesc8722]

Some movies can change your perspective profoundly. Blade runner is one of them.

[@VideoManSir]

What perspective of yours was changed?

[@josephfarrugia2350]

@@VideoManSir watch the movie, agai if need be, & you come back & tell us.

[@gatoiel]

I dont think this movie is a life changer. Can you describe to us?

[@katierasburn9571]

nah. It was alright, the book was cool and confusing in equal measure, but life changing? the androids having empathy thing is a common theme by now

[@jamesc8722]

@@VideoManSir good and evil is not always black and white, sometimes evil is done with good intentions. The trail of destruction left behind by the androids was caused because they wanted their own freedom and peace. The trail of bodies left behind by Deckard was done to keep the peace. The duality of both characters committing evil to achieve their goals, allowed me to sympathize and realize that sometimes evil is only perceived by those who are affected by it, and that the ones who perpetrate it, do not necessarily perceive their actions as evil.

[@jasonjohnson1690]

Don’t watch the making, watch the movie. Rutger Hauer out acts Ford the entire time, he’s great.

[@thenablade858]

He was also good in Ladyhawke (with Michelle Pfeiffer and Matthew Broderick), but the 80’s synth music for a Medieval film gets me everytime.

[@kirishima638]

IKR! And now he’s considered a joke because of his muscle man roles.

[@jmlkhan5153]

​@@thenablade858yessir! Ladyhawke would be a timeless classic masterpiece if the soundtrack didnt almost completely ruin it

[@evanpb]

NGL I love Harrison but he clearly completely missed the whole point of Blade Runner if he thought it was a bad idea to suggest his character was a replicant.

[@Valrin7236]

he obviously either never read or didn't understand "Do androids dream of electric sheep".

[@Thrainite]

I suspect Deckard is human since I felt that the 'tears in the rain' scene between him and Rutger was meant to show that the line was invariably blurred. But if they're both replicants, I can see how it would reduce the story to watching two computers go through a runtime. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can see where Harrison is coming from. We're all human, and trying to empathize with the well-made facsimile or alien without a human element to ground the story simply means you're watching things do things. As it stands, I like the movie because it is one of the few out there that makes people think. It's why I have the unpopular opinion that Star Wars and Harry Potter are just kid movies. Even old stories like Heike Monogatari or the Illiad/Odyssey make you think. Not because it's hard, but because it poses questions with regard to what humanity is and what it means. Much like this movie.

[@keithklassen5320]

​@@ThrainiteThe thing is, you didn't read the book. In the book, the question is really vital and relatable.

[@_Jay_Maker_]

@@keithklassen5320 The book and the film are allowed to be different and have different interpretations. If Deckard is a Replicant, then him accepting and saving Rachel is irrelevant, because then it's just two robots fucking rather than a man getting over his bitterness and accepting someone who isn't human despite it. It's a fine question to keep up in the air, but one that should never have a solid answer.

[@Thrainite]

@@keithklassen5320 Bold of you to assume a nerd commenting on a cinema channel hasn't. Regardless, a movie is allowed to be different provided it's good. To give an example: American Psycho and Fight Club. Further, the book is "meh". It isn't even a book. More a novella. Is it better than Dune, Armor, Starship Troopers? No, not really. But, it's like, our opinion dude.

[@SCharlesDennicon]

Frenchman here. I've watched BR maybe 10 times in the last twenty years, and yet it's the first time I hear that godawful voice-over.

[@wavertone]

the voice over was an add on because the american test audiences were STUPID and confused by the movie; that is literally what happened. so then they went back and added the narration to help the idjit galoots.

[@HaIsKuL]

Me neither. I’ve only seen the director’s cut. Maybe that’s what you’ve been watching as well.

[@zoyadulzura7490]

5:09 You can hear Ford's eyes rolling.

[@uNpOpuLArOpInION69]

Lol

[@MnJiman]

Whether or not the voice over was a bad choice, if you end up doing it you should give it everything you got.

[@Yebi263]

Ridley Scott put together some timeless looking visuals.

[@cinedome1]

Absolutely, it's easily among the best-looking films of all time.

[@WinstonSmith19847]

Yeah that Hovis commercial was well loved in the UK that's not even a joke really it was.

[@hhjhj393]

Agreed Alien and Blade Runner are just visual masterpieces. Alien spinoffs not so much lol, but my god was Alien such a perfect movie.

[@globalnomad1221]

Amazing film, Ridley was right

[@Hiznogood]

He gave the movie depth, when the American producers wanted another shallow action movie!

[@Toughmittens]

Sounds like the things the crew and actor resisted are what saved the film

[@Timlagor]

"very much wanted to collaborate" -to get his own way

[@EricDaMAJ]

If I was a professional actor, one of the first questions I'd ask my director is "Do you want my professional input?" If the answer is yes, I'd give it. If not, I'd shut up except when I spoke my lines. Why be a dick about it? Film is a collaborative effort; a team effort.

[@KnoseDoge]

"film is a collaborative effort; a team effort" sounds like an oxymoron to the previous statement in the text...

[@DaveCollins123]

Correct. If the film bombs they blame the director. If I was directing and going to take the responsibility I'd at least want to be blamed for something that was actually mine....

[@LarryHazard]

​@@KnoseDogeteam effort doesn't mean everyone has a different opinion on what to do, if that was the case no movie would be done. Most jobs just require you to do what you're told. If everytime you hire someone you are forced to listen to their ideas nothing would get done

[@HansWurst-lg1ws]

Correct, it's a team effort. A director knows how to direct and the actor how to act. Many iconic scenes in movie history are born out of improv or actors giving unsolicited advise about the proposed script. Roy's "tears in rain" monologue was partially cut short, partially improvised. In Indiana Jones the "Bring a sword to a gunfight" scene was pitched by Harrison Ford as he got tired of doing the original choreography. Just to name a few related ones. Contesting each others ideas about a joint vision is a good thing on set if done in good faith - unless it's due to arrogance, unprofessional overconfidence or ... cocaine. Harrison sure was a dick about it in this case lol.

[@cabnbeeschurgr6440]

Harrison ford also just seems like a grouchy fuck about everything, even before he got old. I doubt he was fun to work with in anything

[@semloclusa1630]

I disagree; the voice-over in blade runner wasn’t all that bad. When I saw it originally in a theater in ‘82, it didn’t bother me. It actually reminded me of the old film noir pictures of the 1940’s that had narration.

[@Noone-of-your-Business]

I agree. I also don't get what the fuss is all about. It's not brilliant, but it is _functional,_ and I truly doubt that many people bitching about the "condescending narration" in the theatrical cut would have _understood_ the story without it. If you have the _knowledge_ of the voice-over, it is easy to say it was unnecessary. Show the director's cut to someone who does not know anything about the movie or its story and ask them to find out how much they understood _without_ the narration.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

I actually prefer BR with the narration.

[@youareivan]

i like the narration too. i do wish ford had been a little more invested in his narration performance. even so, if i get a say i'm usually voting for narration. maybe it's because the first time i saw it was the original release in theaters, i don't know.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

@@youareivan Agree, except about his lack of enthusiasm. It adds to the reality because Deckard would in fact sound EXACTLY that way, he wasn't doing this by choice. He was forced into this job and also probably found it uninteresting, he was just doing it because he had to. Which is exactly how Ford's the narration sounds (probably not coincidental).

[@laurentguyot3362]

yes its perfect for a tired old cop which has lost all hope for humanity.

[@tgbishop83]

And he arguably made the greatest sci-fi movie of all time👍

[@Decoy303]

First Cyberpunk film.

[@chirgwintoo_9991]

@@Decoy303hahaha no

[@matthewschwartz6607]

Wasn’t there also a Directors cut?

[@plugshirt1762]

@@chirgwintoo_9991it literally is lmao unless you’re trying to say it’s metropolis which is a big stretch

[@elrondes1]

Not even close lol. Cool visuals, but terribly paced, way too long, and with a "deep" meaning that fits on a post-it note. It's arguably the most pretentious "art-house" sci-fi movie of all time 👍

[@mastereppsreturns6586]

Sounds like to me, Ridley Scott was only pushing for the correct dynamic between actors & crew and a director, that was how it's supposed to be in the first place, while the cast and crew were just being difficult, lazy and entitled.

[@StormDogg]

Harrison was definitely being entitled. He wanted to collaborate? The guy's an actor. He wasn't hired for his artistic insight. Actors get way too full of themselves. What if every actor on set wanted to collaborate? Oh no, that'd be ridiculous. Harrison's just special because he's more famous, so his ideas are better (despite completely missing the point of the story)

[@Toughmittens]

He saved the character. As someone who has read do androids dream of electric sheep, I think it would have gone against the point of his character to make him robotic.

[@colonelcrackerz2320]

@@Toughmittens not really. Both Ridley & Harrison have both confirmed Deckard was a replicant all along. Also it was based on the book, not a straight adaptation

[@fernandolealdesouza8289]

Aesthetically the most influential film of 40 years! Everything changed after him! And that has a price...

[@bangleyjelly]

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

[@EscapeToVictoryNow]

Do electric sheep dream of being hurdled by electric dogs?

[@unkle_Enkil]

Depends on how much cheese they've been eating. 😊.

[@0volts157]

@@unkle_Enkil Red pill a sheep today.

[@gavman21]

Do androids dream of harrison ford?

[@thomasc6574]

we wuz replicant n shitte

[@killer3000ad]

There was a time when Harrison cared about the movies he appeared in. Nowadays he will do whatever the studios ask even if it means destroying Indiana Jones and Han Solo. When he was interviewed for Blade Runner 2049 and asked about the Deckard being a replicant he replied, "I don't care." Additionally when people complained about the lore destroying Disney changes to Star Wars he replied, "F-- the lore."

[@hhjhj393]

Yeah, actors are just actors don't get why people care so much about their opinions..... Yes actors do have SOME artistic control over their characters and how they act them, but beyond that let the director do his job.... Most actors don't give a FCK about whatever they are in, they just want money.

[@gustavomezcala4142]

I love the voiceover from the start its reminiscent of the Philip Marlowe novels

[@wavertone]

@@gustavomezcala4142 does it need it though? Will the film still work if it’s taken out?

[@ekathe85]

@@wavertone You could argue the same thing for the music, the sets, the special effects. I like the voiceover for the same reason OP mentioned, Blade Runner is essentially a noir crime film set in the future, the VO is stylistically in line with film noir. Just because you'd understand the plot without it, is not enough reason to remove it if it fulfills an aesthetic function.

[@peterswires8439]

@@wavertone The voiceover was added at the insistence of the studio execs. It wasn't even Harrison Ford's voice. It was removed in the director's cut.

[@wavertone]

@@peterswires8439 yes, the studio execs added it after a terrible test screening in Texas. It is Harrison’s voice though, there are recordings of him deriding it as he’s doing it.

[@Loner-Wolf]

From pain is a masterpiece created.

[@aldosigmann419]

James Cameron had quite the opposite view of British crews whilst doing 'Aliens'...

[@SSM654]

That's so fucked up to make crew and cast work 36 hours. As 1st AC in film I hate when productions do this, it's inhuman, abusive and doesn't bring out the best in anyone. It just shows how poorly run production is if we are going THAT much into OT. Anyone who thinks he's great for putting crew members/cast through this have never worked on set before. Fucking ridiculous. You can make great art without putting people through shit.

[@michaelvmatthews193]

That movie had a lasting impression on me. I think it was the best movie I’ve ever seen. The sequence where the bicyclists ride through the rain soaked streets was visual poetry. When Harrison proves to Shaun that she isn’t human with such cruelty demonstrating just how much of an “it” she was, yet with a full pallet of infused human emotions was incredibly powerful. Watching this basically innocent “manufactured” creatures entire foundation ripped away spoke deeply of the meaning of a soul. And so much of modern life is reflected there. By tearing people down, reducing us to a point we can be used: just like a machine or a slave. As far as Deckard being human, there’s no way he could have taken the beatings he did and survive as a human. Plus, as he had no idea he was a replicant (were that the case) it reenforced the metaphysical insanity of creating such beings and either giving them a four year lifespan or deliberately manipulating them with the omission of “Hey, you’re not even human.”

[@catsupchutney]

Same here, I obsessed over that movie for months, even going to the library to look up articles in film review magazines.

[@laurentguyot3362]

This movie clearly could compete for the tiltle of best movie ever

[@defenstrator4660]

Human beings can take that beating. And him being a replicant not only is against the point of the book and the script, it also undermines the issue that there isn’t really a difference between them.

[@EmperorofMu]

Agree, and the music is so good. Didn't like 2049 much at all

[@wavertone]

@@defenstrator4660 did you see BR2049? Opening scene my man gets smashed through a wall by an OG blade Runner replicant, I am not sure a human can take that beating, and instantly bounce back. Maybe they had humans chase replicants for the first few escapes but it seems they wised up fast when humans got totally wrecked and sent replicants to do ‘a man’s job’. And it doesn’t undermine the meaning or point of the story if Deckard is a replicant. It merely reminds me of when they’d send former slaves to hunt and retrieve runaway slaves.

[@DingoDIDeatmybaby]

Filmed for 36 hrs straight? Goddamn, no wonder everyone hated working on it.

[@Don.M.]

Back when Harrison Ford cared about the roles he played

[@mvc9178]

All those poor, poor millionaires

[@TheBulge]

Multi*

[@hhjhj393]

I have always noticed it's the rich who scream the loudest. Whenever the rich have to do ANYTHING they scream and cry and make this big issue, yet if the working class ask to not be treated like complete dirt they scream, "you're just LAZY". It's ALWAYS the rich who scream the loudest while doing nothing. They have hungry personalities they always want more.

[@JCYoung-ni4cy]

Harrison was right. Having Deckard be real and rediscover his humanity is a big part of the story. Making him a replicant and that STUPID STUPID unicorn scene destroyed the central premise.

[@lukas7956]

Having seen both the theatrical and the ultimate 2007 cut, I must support the minority audience who think the voice-over was entirely alright. It's hard to detest Blade Runner in any shape or form, you know :D.

[@traviswilcox3472]

I first saw the movie when I was just 10 yrs. old and I loved it. The voice over appealed to me because it made it seem like one of the old black & white private detective films from the 1940’s. I like the idea of Deckard being human over being a Replicant. I also like this video showing the flying car pass by the Coke sign right after suggesting Ford was using Cocaine during the film. 😅

[@josemiguelfernandezdemarti7799]

All the circumstances helped to build a unique masterpiece, and all of the people involved in the making of this movie is aware of that.

[@ArchangelExile]

0:27 Proof that Harrison Ford has the least amount of shits to give when it comes to movies he's starred in. Low energy, like he doesn't even want to be there.

[@Chris_231]

the Harrison ford monologue at the end sounds so painfully done hahaha

[@TK-ky5kh]

I think Ford resisting the idea of being a replicate made it his best performance of his career. Because none of the replicants saw themselves as replicants either. They saw themselves as people or at least they wanted all the dignities and rights of a person. The replicants were all having existential meltdowns because their short lives were dedicated for cheap labor. The whole point of the film was the idea of "what's the difference?", isn't that what all people are anyway? Mortals who spend their short lives as an expendable source of labor. My point is that Harrison, playing it exactly like a human, whether he was replicant or not, made the film.

[@JamesMoore-un3cu]

Its no surprise to me whatsoever, that Ford (and the rest of the crew) were difficult to work with. I agree with Scott that the British crews were more compliant and willing to follow the director's vision to its (intended) and natural end. Ford himself is - obviously - an egomaniac. Just listen to him speak in any interview he's ever given. And Scott's portrayal of this story was SPOT ON and accurate, and turned out to be one of the best sci-fi flicks of all time. Actors are just way too entitled (they're almost a species of people unto themselves) so bringing out the best in their acting requires a firm hand and a superior vision like Ridley Scott's. SO GLAD that Scott persisted and made the incredible Blade Runner. A film like this and a vision like his is almost certainly never to made again. Studios would never allow the cost overruns to complete a vision this spectacular again.

[@user-ih5jr8rt5q]

no, he's a delusional pretentious arrogant narcissist with no idea what makes good directing, he should have stuck to being a DP and found someone with a better sense of directing

[@darkknight5227-g7j]

You're spot on about Ford's conceit. Very well documented. I'll take Ridley's vision (and firm direction) over Harrison's or anyone else's ego every damn time, ALL the time.

[@Blazedreptile]

Ridley Scott is an arse.

[@user-ih5jr8rt5q]

@@darkknight5227-g7j Ridley is the one with the ego, Ford is quite down-to-earth - ummm, have you heard Ridley talk?

[@aldosigmann419]

James Cameron had quite the opposite view of British crews whilst doing 'Aliens'...

[@nigratruo]

And YET: The movie got so good just because it was Riddley Scott's vision, a good director will do exactly that: He knows what he is doing and that why he is an award winning legendary director. Ridley Scott is right, he has proven that in many legendary one of a kind original movies that we don't know the kind of anymore today.

[@Dielawn69]

First off, im not saying directors cant be dicks and that actors can't bring anything creatively to the story and their characters byond just acting. But lets be real too often they push their power around too much. They get most of the money and fame so they think they can undermine the directors and writers vision. But when directors dont respect actors they whine. But when actors dont respect directors they act like these underdog heroes sticking it to the man. When they literally have more power than 99% of directors and 99.999999999% of writers.

[@RiSEME1733]

Just like 9-5s and those who work places for necessities, never make workers hate their job. Some don’t even want be there, so you’re just creating an even worse experience. Which could leave them to give minimum effort.

[@matttrafton2725]

I'm glad Ford stood his ground and didn't play Decker as a replicant. He was super human enough.

[@scottpatrick8645]

Boo hoo. Try a full time job in construction, or a nurse working the nightshift. It's a matter of perspective. Try getting some, Harrison.

[@Riskmangler]

In retrospect, the voiceovers are reminiscent of the hardboiled detective/noir tradition. But some of it was ham-handed. Still, a masterpiece emerged from all the tension.

[@subliteral]

Part of it , to me , was Ford's inflectionless delivery of the voice-over material. I submit it was his lackluster reading that made it painful. We've all heard great actors add convincing authority to otherwise awkward material and knock it out of the park.

[@willcifur]

The Ridley Scott re-edit of Bladerunner is about as close to a perfect movie as possible. Harrison Ford seems like a whiney douche !!

[@organfan668]

This is one of my favorite sci-fi films. I really like knowing the history behind films too, it just makes me appreciate them and enjoy them more

[@rory9174]

Ridley Scott is an incredible filmmaker. If those working on set liked him or disliked him, I don't care. He's the boss. Do what you're told and keep your opinions to yourself.

[@riproar11]

I disagree with so many people and agree with Harrison Ford. I had watched Blade Runner so many times and when someone told me that Deckard is a replicant, it disappointed me because Roy Batty saved his life because he valued everyone's life during his last moment, including the enemy (humans) who was determined to kill him.

[@kirkdarling4120]

In the original Phillip K. Dick novel, Deckard is definitely human. The point of the story is that ultimately there is no discernible difference between humans and replicants...the point is lost if Deckard is also a replicant.

[@wavertone]

ummmmmmm, does an enemy of a replicant have to be a human? irrelevant. a replicant killing another replicant....is an enemy. that isn't why he saved deckard. The point isn’t lost since the point is acting like a human not human provenance.

[@hhjhj393]

It doesn't ruin anything IMO because there is no way Roy would have known if Deckard is a replicant or not. That's the whole point of a Blade Runner to begin with, if not even a Blade Runner realizes he is a replicant then Roy wouldn't have either. So for all intents and purposes it doesn't change anything, Roy still saved his "enemy" which shows his capacity for kindness and mercy/humanity.

[@wavertone]

@@hhjhj393 THANK YOU. Exactly. Roy is saving his enemy. It doesn’t matter if deckard is human or a replicant, the only thing that matters is how conducts themselves not what they are under the hood.

[@guesswho6925]

So putting the actors in a wet damp environment to realise the conditions of real life hardship was a little to much for precious Harrison

[@Liusila]

Bruh you try getting just the right emotion out while reciting exact lines over and over while being drenched in freezing water in the dark in a cold warehouse.

[@Canalman]

It's actually extremely funny how the voice over adds *literally* nothing to the film that can't already be picked up on from context. The mantra is show don't tell, guys!

[@wavertone]

EXACTLY. you have the greatest visualist of our lifetimes showing you the grandest visions and then you have the stupidest, clunkiest, coarse narration telling you what you are seeing.

[@peterswires8439]

And it ruined the 'tears in the rain' scene.

[@wavertone]

@@peterswires8439 exactly. A character gives a beautiful soliloquy about the transient nature of life and then it’s destroyed by some witless narration for the lowest common denominator.

[@MsLuckoftheDraw]

I honestly don’t like this movie much and I think Deckard is a boring unlikable protagonist. But Roy’s death at the end is so bloody good that it makes everything worth it and elevates this movie to a stunning classic. You talked about Harrison Ford and the crew, but I wonder what Rutger Hauer thought about the shoot.

[@wavertone]

@@MsLuckoftheDraw Roy is the protagonist, Deckard is supposed to be unlikable.

[@MsLuckoftheDraw]

@@wavertone Yeah, I feel like that at the end. But for the whole rest of the movie, I think Deckard is the guy, you know? Honestly, when I say the end makes it worth it, I really mean the end makes every second of watching the earlier parts worth it.

[@wavertone]

@@MsLuckoftheDraw May I ask if you saw this movie in a theatre?

[@MsLuckoftheDraw]

@@wavertone I have not.

[@wavertone]

@@MsLuckoftheDraw I think the spectacle of it plays better in a larger context. Some movies are meant for a big screen and this is one definitely of them.

[@Norvik_-ug3ge]

Backing Ridley Scott 💯% on this one. Prima donna actors and smug department heads unused to a hard day's work. Ridley is from the North of England. Nuff said.

[@Norvik_-ug3ge]

Also, it's just the usual mild antagonism between Brits and Yanks, James Cameron experienced exactly the same when filming Aliens in England. Although James Cameron does have a reputation for being a bit of a cunt on set.

[@volatilesky]

The more I look into RS and the experience of actors having to perform for absolutely insane amounts of time, the more it comes across as a brute force method of filming; why frame and prepare, when you can just roll for hour after hour and hope for 'magic' to happen. It makes me recall Herzog saying "When you hear that young filmmakers are shooting 550 hours of footage, my heart sinks. They don't know what they are doing." unnecessary edit: when you're 'the man in charge', and you make someone perform the same task over and over to the point that an employee screams at you "I am not an animal" and refuses to go on, you are the problem.

[@samtaholo]

I recently read that on Napoleon, Scott had four cameras running all the time and gave the actors very little direction. He was going for volume of footage, not nuance.

[@JTRemillard]

I wish we could get a faithful adaptation of the book. The visuals and soundtrack were great, the story not so much. I agree with Ford regarding the nature of his character.

[@katierasburn9571]

i massively agree

[@michaellacy3699]

I genuinely think Ridley Scott is like the British George Lucas - he's always been an egotistical moron surrounded by actual talent. BR is one of my all-time favorite movies but that's down to the rest of the team, not Scott.

[@warbluedragon]

Bladerunner is part of the Alien movie timeline.

[@soakingbook]

The fact a US crew has to include a camera operator even if the director is operating the camera is dumb.

[@acroduster]

Synopsis of this whole video... Brillian director in charge of his own project has to listen to whinning employees thinking they have major things to make the film better... News flash, blade runner is one of the absolute best scifi films ever! So in the end they are all upset the director did know best.

[@audio-video-stereo]

Ridley Scott can carry an entire motion picture from beginning to end. It’s a huge undertaking and the pressure to deliver is massive. I respect him tremendously.

[@christophermckenzie8486]

Ford was entirely correct about the "human" protagonist though

[@olllloollllo]

A piece of art. The headaches were worth it. The film is better than any CGI film today.

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

it's better.

[@christophermckenzie8486]

Not rival, FAR SURPASS

[@mrmrgaming]

If had gone well, there is also the notion the film would not be what we got and the acting the same. Scott is a perfectionist, and he notices everything on set. There was a scene in the Tyrell office (big stone pillars) where the crew fitted the pillars and just put them how they saw best because they looked the same either way. Scott walks in and says, "Those are upside down; turn them the right way." They lost the days shooting over just that. This is one of the reasons his films always look so good; he has a very good eye for detail.

[@hollywooda111]

Deckard being a replicant is the most brilliant twist and unknown in film history.

[@MikeMJPMUNCH]

I like that the point of "Is Deckard a replicant?" isn't the answer but the question itself.

[@thepagecollective]

It's juvenile philosophy that undermines the story of seeing the humanity in the "other."

[@hollywooda111]

@@thepagecollective is Deckard not part of that "other".

[@tstststs]

Deckard being a replicant would undermine the most important central theme of the movie. He is the human foil to the replicants, shown to be just as terrible and cold blooded, but also capable of being redeemed. Roy Batty's mercy in the end causes Deckard to regain his humanity that has been sundered from him by the harsh world we had created. The replicant in the end is more human than the human. Replicants are birthed from humanity as a reflection of our worst tendencies. Despite being bred for extreme violence they mostly want to be free to live, develop personal relationships like love, and explore human emotions, which they barely understand because mentally they are like children. They desperately try to understand the meaning of their manufactured existence, to the point where Batty confronts his creator and asks if he can be forgiven for the terrible things he's done - the things he was designed to do. Violence and brutality is all they know, and they want to live just like any other form of life, so they run when they are hunted, and hurt people in their flight. They are still terribly flawed and kill in cold blood, because they are programmed with this coldness to be better at their jobs, but you can tell there is a part of them that wishes for something else, something better. They don't feel kinship with humanity, who thinks of them as lesser forms of life, incapable of true emotions, so instead replicants form relationships with each other. In contrast, despite claiming some moral high ground, humans are consistently shown throughout Blade Runner to be terrible and flawed, so the replicants created in our image reflect those flaws, just hugely magnified by their inherent killing prowess. Despite the Voight-Kampff test asking ethical questions to determine who is human by their emotional responses, humans are shown to constantly behave unethically. The humans we see include Deckard the surly assassin who forces himself on Rachael when she's desperate and has nowhere to turn to, is unpleasant to everyone he meets, and isn't even very good at his job (most his successful 'retirements' are due to luck, he barely survives each one). Others include the corrupt police chief, but most importantly the creator Tyrell who doesn't understand why the replicants would feel ashamed of what they've done. Instead of absolving Batty of his guilt because he was bred for war, Tyrell doesn't think there's anything he should feel guilty about. Tyrell tells Batty that all that killing was 'actually kinda badass ngl'. He lacks the empathy to understand the emotional toil that comes with being a manufactured killer that barely has the emotional capacity to realize what they're doing. Replicants are just human children that are given terrible powers and pointed at the enemy. They are exactly what would happen if we did that to our children. At the end of the movie Batty shows that he transcends the flaws of humanity, by sparing a life he could've easily taken and helping Deckard, his hunter, because Batty wants to show that if replicants had been given a chance, they could've been more than amoral killers. If replicants hadn't been failed at every point by humanity, they would've been able to transcend their violent pasts. At the end of his life, Batty chooses to show compassion, because he can. It's the most human thing you can do. He proves replicants can be *more human than human*. Deckard is terrible, but he's still not irredeemable, just like the replicants. At the end of the movie, his 'humanity' is reawakened by Batty's mercy and he resolves to protect Rachael, hoping to do one good thing to atone for his transgressions. Just like Batty, despite all his flaws and the killing he's done, Deckard resolves to finally do something good, in the end. A replicant taught a human how to be human. If Deckard is a replicant the story loses so much weight.

[@hollywooda111]

@@tstststs Deckard IS a replicant?? I don't know what you're talking about. The film confirms it with his memory of a unicorn running though the forest and it's the whole premise on why Gaff leaves the origami unicorn at the end of the film for Deckard to find its a clever way for him and the film to say, we know you're an android and that memory is an implant besides the fact unicorns aren't real. Anyway Ridley confirmed this year's ago.

[@davidowens5898]

'Hard physical work'? Yeah? No shit? Ever carried an 80 lb. bundle of shingles up a ladder pitched @ 5 deg.? In 92 deg. heat? 30 bundles? And we weren't getting paid several million dollar$ for our trouble either. Nowhere near. 'Hard physical work' my ass. Ford worked construction before Star Wars made him a household name. He knows from REAL hard work.

[@aReallySwellGuy]

Imagine what the result would’ve been if they all had gotten along well and been constructive

[@TheFlowersOfNaivety]

I actually enjoy the narration in Bladerunner. But I find things to enjoy with each different version of the film.

[@firestarter000001]

Same.

[@0volts157]

Me, too. It provided more detail to suggest what the character was about. Plus - there are a lot of sounds in the movie that are abrupt and make you feel uneasy.

[@cattysplat]

It adds a film noir nature to it.

[@desotowright]

Minus the implications of Deckard being a replicant, Ridley Scott absolutely did not miss. It’s one of the very greatest films of all time, everyone’s hard work in spite of the difficulties making strongly shines through.

[@unhappiness8465]

Fighting over fiction. It's like twilight all over

[@citizenVader]

They have done that since the beginning of humanity. It's why we have over 4000 religions and kill each other over lies.

[@agrumpymonkey5800]

@@citizenVaderin this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God’s blessing, but because, I am enlightened by my own intelligence

[@citizenVader]

@agrumpymonkey5800 it's like a frog in a well while you are believing in dogmatic terms. The moment you escape to the surface, the whole world opens up and blossoms wildly in every direction.

[@Vortex]

Edward Witten eluded to some kind of higher being in a video about mathematics I watched recently. If someone with that level of intellect questions it then I think we should as well.

[@nostromo9743]

​@@citizenVader Here, you dropped your fedora kid.

[@maxbrazil3712]

Ridley Scott is a genius, so of course less intelligent people aren't going to like him.

[@FreeTimeMastermind]

Short, to the point. Great work.

[@cinedome1]

Thank you!

[@Bodkin_Ye_Pointy]

Doesn't matter how badly they hated him. Scott drew some iconic performances out of his cast and the cinematography combined to make this an iconic movie.

[@michaelrhudak]

First saw Blade Runner about 20 years ago, and I still prefer Deckard to be human even after everything that has come out saying he isn't. I don't think it dilutes the ideas in the film at all, as there are already enough replicants to go around. Ultimately, PKD's story and Hampton's screenplay are about what it means to be human, and those ideas work either way with whatever Deckard's identity is. My personal preference is that he's human because that's what I first saw him as. I'm glad they left it somewhat ambiguous in BR 2049.

[@katierasburn9571]

i think thematically it works better if deckard is human because the contrast of a human lacking empathy and a replicant that has gained empathy is fantastic

[@JohnKuhles1966]

Actually Ford is exactly what he supposes to be, highly bored, annoyed & pissed off ... fits perfect to the realism of the movie!

[@ThePauseMenuVlog]

Its insane how in the moment no one knows what will be classic and iconic but will protest and fight beyond their means that could ruin projects and relationships. Artists are almost always praised when they succeed, but everyone wants to crop their imaginations and control their vision

[@NotPork]

Ford's idea that the audience wouldn't relate to a replicant just shows that he didn't understand the script he had signed up for. He still insists Deckard is a human to this day.

[@SarahTheMiddleEarthling]

I have a book that talks about the symbolism in the film. Really interesting stuff. It's called Studying Blade Runner by Sean Redmond.

[@ravensthatflywiththenightm7319]

Kinda reminds me of the drama behind the making of Aliens. Except the actors were largely on James Cameron's side and it was just the UK crew that questioned Cameron's authority as a director. Supposedly it was partially fueled by the UK crew being "loyal" to Ridley Scott, though that does not justify those Brits sexually harassing the actresses on set, or stop filming / set designing to chase after imaginary "tea ladies". Maybe Scott shoulda gotten them for Blade Runner.

[@edwardfletcher7790]

Harrison Ford has a ridiculous ego, thinking he knows the story better than Phillip K Dick or Ridley Scott.....jeeeez 🙄 Nobody who's seen the film can argue with Ridley Scotts perfectionism 👍

[@FP194]

Is that the same Ridley Scott that make Prometheus and Alien Covenant

[@Juanmibarraa]

Yes, the voice over is crap. But I think it does tell us a lot about the lack of capability Ridley had to share his overall vision and convince people of it. I see him get a lot of praise for "doing things differently" and "going outside of the hollywood box". Honestly, I've noticed many people nowadays believe (like me) that this film doesn't hold up too well. It is visually outstanding and a masterpiece that changed sci-fi in that sense, but the execution of the story and development of the main characters leaves much to be desired. It does feel like a mess at the end, I definitely get why there was a lot of pushback from the studio. This could've been fixed with better communication from the beginning, instead he decided he knew better than anyone having directed just one feature film. It's quite dumb to believe directors are always right in their pursuit of "sticking it to the men". A lot of great movies have had positive and helpful input from their producers. To me, Ridley Scott was an avarage good director, he would've been great if it wasn't for his ego.

[@Juanmibarraa]

FYI, it's okay if you disagree. The main point I want to make is for young aspiring directors (I currently have the experience of working in Film Postproduction): Don't be stubborn and have the best communication possible with the studio from the get go. They will always have more power than you in final decisions, so it goes a long way to be open, charming and actually convince people that there is a reason for why your idea is better than theirs. This will save you a lot of headaches in Post. You need to understand that once a big company is behind you, your film is no longer an independent effort, it becomes a team effort where everyone wants its benefit. The tools a studio brings to the table are very much useful for a young filmmaker. So, don't be selfish, learn to share and accept new feedback: this will always (ALWAYS!) be a positive quality. It's exhausting to work with old fashioned directors in the present, the cast and the crew don't take kindly to authoritative attitudes.

[@DavidGodin]

This is one of the best fucking movies ever. Not bad... its the best

[@gerardoarenasss]

I’m sorry, but Harrison Ford complaining for the voice over that HE did with a Texan accent is rich 😂 the nerve he had to complaint

[@Parker--]

hard to say Ridley wasn't in the right on this one. An absolute classic and has been for about 30 years.

[@Zyzyx442]

So refreshing watching making of old 90's and 80's movies, today the "extras" and "behind the scenes" is just studio advertisiment of how great everything and everyone is so you really should invest.

[@arun2995]

Ridley Scott was so far head of everyone including the people he worked with. His vision is so haunting even now so many decades later and in my opinion one of the greatest Sci Fi movie ever, its up there with 1927 Metropolis. And let's not forget Tangerine Dream epic movie score which so elevated the moods of the movie even now those music instantly evoke beautiful images and rain for me.

[@kcewing1]

Tangerine Dream? Wrong. It's Vangelis. How, in this day and age of "just Google it" can you be so clueless?

[@user-yp7lm5pe1q]

The late, great Vangelis, my friend. Tangerine Dream gets their kudos for "Risky Business." Watch it if you haven't already.

[@arun2995]

@@kcewing1 Yes, it was Vangelis I mistaken it with the movie Thief

[@wavertone]

@@arun2995 tangerine dream did the score for the american version of a ridley scott film called legend. the original european score by jerry goldsmith was completely different, sweeping grand and beautiful and some say better. again, they drastically alter some movies for an american audience, unfortunate. if you can find the original european cut and score for legend it is way better.

[@darkknight5227-g7j]

Haha... I'll give you a pass on the mistake. Given you're one of the few (if any) who actually brought up the music. Which truly was another key aspect of this masterpiece. The sound and soundtrack was brilliant.

[@SeanCC]

Ford didn't understand that replicants were humans. That was the point of the movie Ridley was making. Engineered but still human and deserving of better than being slaves. But his bias served the film because the character was never supposed to question his own humanity.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

Blade Runner is one of the absolute best sci-fi movies ever. And I fing LOVE the narration, it gives insight into the world and adds texture. Normally I don't like narration, but here the narration brings out the film noir vibe and slams it headlong into the harsh, violent cyberpunk setting in a way that only season 1 of Altered Carbon has also been able to pull off.

[@wavertone]

@@Me__Myself__and__I does it work without the narration though?

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

@@wavertone Not as good. But I've already heard it and know the backstory info it contains. If I had not and saw BR for the first time without narration honestly, I'd be pissed for having seen the wrong versio.n. its better with.

[@wavertone]

@@Me__Myself__and__I the wrong version? The narration cut is the wrong version.

[@Me__Myself__and__I]

@@wavertone Ha! Never was, never will be.

[@wavertone]

@@Me__Myself__and__I the original version has no narration.

[@zirconic9]

Compare Ridley Scott's experience working with American film crews to James Cameron's experience working with a British film crew. There's a disconnect there. Cameron found that the Brits were not willing to listen to him, and he had to become dictatorial. I'm guessing it was less about culture than both men's egos.

[@Mycenaea]

Oh no! These poor, poor actors have to film in rain and fog?! No other people on this planet have to work in such harsh conditions :( :( :(