What is so special about Blade Runner?

[HanaBi]

Okay, so most of us either love/loathe or just don't understand this classic/cult SF film. It's very much one of those Marmite scenarios: you with love it or don't care for it.

But in a lot of people's eyes it is the very epitome of what science fiction is all about, and what could soon become a reality (hopefully not in 2019!)

So what makes this film so special?

Is is just for the depressing/spectacular visuals of a Dystopian city-scape?
The storyline perhaps? The story itself is hardly challenging on the mind, and yet somehow is engrossing all the same.
The continued question of whether Deckard really is a Replicant?
Or is it a classic only because of the sumptuous technical production values, capped with some wonderfully moody music by Vangelis?

Or does the film live off its own hype, and in actual fact there's nothing special about it after all?


For myself, I would have to say I revere it purely for the visuals, the music, and the fact that even Replicants are self-aware of their own mortality - underlined perfectly by Roy's "Tannhauser Gate" monologue at the end. Which for me, was the highlight of the entire film.

I know that when I first watched this in the cinema just after its release in 1982/3, I was bored senseless with it. Probably because I was expecting something not too dissimilar to "Star Wars", which was doing the rounds at roughly the same time.

I think only when the Director's Cut was released some 10 years or so later did I really begin to appreciate the production values, and the fact that not all SF films show a Utopian future.

I still don't care much for Harrison Ford; and am more sympathetic towards the Replicants (nothing more than slaves with 4 year life spans).

But the visuals and mood always wins me over and makes up for a fairly mundane exposition of "kill all robots"

 

[J Riff]

It never made much of an impression here, either. Saw it, forgot it, rewatched it, half-remember it was okay. Damnation Alley, same thing.
Galaxina, only remember certain parts...

 

[reiver33]

I saw it twice in the same day when it first appeared, so you can guess I'm a fan. I prefer the original, with voice-over and 'corny' ending, as at heart its a noir story, just one set in the future. Most critiques seem to prefer the Directors Cut, but I think that's based on having viewed the original and the remembered voice-over provides context.

 

[TWErvin2]

I don't know what made it for me. It was sort of blatant and yet creative in it's theme related to humanity and what is is to be human. The dystopian backdrop was decent, and I thought that the acting was well above average.

The lines about what was going be lost, like tears in the rain, sort of hung with me. And the Sebastian character, was sort of memorable, at least to me.

 

[tinkerdan]

I never saw the movie in a theater. But I believe I first saw the US theatrical release on VHS I remember the voice over and the happy ending; also I recall the origami unicorn with no real reference of context. Later I watched the Director's cut and I think that that version had a lot to add.

What it was for me was a movie based on Do androids dream of electric sheep, and since I read as much of Philip K. Dick's work as I could get hold of it held that extra bit of fascination for me because of that. I wasn't expecting it to be near to faithful to the book and it certainly wasn't disappointing. I would agree that the voice over managed to fit the dark (noir) atmosphere that the film presented.

Though not faithful I do think that the film captured some of the basic theme that lay within the original work and often played on several strings or threads to that that often led to ambiguity.

Deckard really isn't a hero in any traditional sense and he's more like a modern Sisyphus in that his job was to track down and kill replicants who were very close to their expiration date and were going to eventually go away on their own. So Deckard was racing to do the dirty job that might have been necessary to help minimize any potential damage they might cause; but in truth the most compelling reason for Deckard's involvement was that they were breaking the law by being there and the sentence for that was death, which was ironic in the sense that they were already sentenced to death.

That made Roy the real hero of the story (at least for me) because he fought right down to the last minute; grasping every bit of life that he could before expiring as much as he could in his own chosen fashion; while at the same time preserving Deckard's life as his last act.

 

[Paul_C]

I loved it when I first saw it and still enjoy watching it.

My preferred version is the original too, voice-over and all. As for Deckerd, he has to be human for me or the film doesn't "work" for any number of reasons.

 

[Stewart Hotston]

It was a time and a place, a foreshadowing of our own society (not literally obvs) and with characters who could draw us in. Like so many films that hit the zeit geist perfectly for those that came after, who'd already experienced a world of copy cats influenced by such a seminal film, the impact is much less.

@Paul_C I agree with your views on the better version

I've always thought Brazil was its perfect companion piece

 

[BigBadBob141]

What is the point of building robots/androids who can pass for human?
And then top it off by giving them such a short life span???

 

[SilentRoamer]

For me the whole tone of the film - futuristic cityscapes with the tonal music in the background, great acting and ta great script with everything for me done just "right".

One of my favourite films of all time.

Also Hauer supposedly wrote much of the Tears in Rain monologue after not liking the original: Tears in Rain Monologue

I agree with those above that Roy is the real hero of this story. Hauer said that Batty wanted to "make his mark on existence ... the replicant in the final scene, by dying, shows Deckard what a real man is made of." I couldn't agree more!

 

[Paul_C]

What is the point of building robots/androids who can pass for human?
And then top it off by giving them such a short life span???

Tyrell tells Roy that (at the time he was created) the lifespan was short due to "replicant genetics" and couldn't be extended - though as Rachel has no end date it would appear they've made improvements.

I agree with those above that Roy is the real hero of this story. Hauer said that Batty wanted to "make his mark on existence ... the replicant in the final scene, by dying, shows Deckard what a real man is made of." I couldn't agree more!

This is why it works so much better (for me) if Deckerd is human, Roy saves him from falling just as his own existence is about to end, if Deckerd is just another replicant the ending loses a lot of its meaning.

 

[TWErvin2]

This is why it works so much better (for me) if Deckerd is human, Roy saves him from falling just as his own existence is about to end, if Deckerd is just another replicant the ending loses a lot of its meaning.

I very much agree.

 

[RX-79G]

Blade Runner is excellent sci fi because it does something only sci fi can - proposes a problem that doesn't yet exist, and then explores it. In this case; what happens when our sentient AI devices object to being owned and used.

And I think Blade Runner does something really great to explore this - it gives us humans to empathize with as it introduces us to the "machines". And then over the course of the film makes those humans increasingly alien while the androids become more and more human. By the end of the film we understand Batty to be the most human character of all, full of love and wonder. Then we discover that our human, Deckard, never was. Now we are empathizing entirely with the enslaved machines. Its brilliant.

Blade Runner is also a film noir detective story, wonderfully converted from the '40s to the future.


As far as "why replicants?", I think the answer is actually simple: creating real AI from scratch never happened in the Blade Runner universe. Instead, the discoveries about memory implantation, genetics and cloning allowed Tyrrel to build human mind/body analogs. Scientists don't truly understand the nature of intelligence or life, but have the ability to replicate most of its functions very closely and very inexpensively. If they could make a machine as smart as Roy Batty out of computer chips, they would. But they can't, so they use our genes to make replicant "machines" instead.

The three year life span is about control, and also so the audience understands that the slaves are living under a death sentence.


Deckard is undoubtedly a replicant - he's the same series as Holden, and the two share many personality traits and mannerisms. Given the fact that he, Holden and Rachel have personalities and memories that could pass for human - and are allowed free reign on Earth - one might conclude that they don't have the 3 year lifespan protection built in. I think it is possible that Deckard is newly decanted in the beginning of the film and what he believes was him having quit the force is simply how the police integrate new replicant blade runners into service. Because they need to have empathy for both people and the replicants they hunt, the blade runners are built with mixed feelings about their jobs.

 

[Lucien21]

The definitive version of the film is the 2007 Final Cut which Ridley Scott had control over. They handed the editing to someone else to do the "director's cut". Ridley Scott is said to have been less than happy with that version.

I still like the voice over version, but the prefer to watch the Final Cut these days.

 

[RX-79G]

The definitive version of the film is the 2007 Final Cut which Ridley Scott had control over. They handed the editing to someone else to do the "director's cut". Ridley Scott is said to have been less than happy with that version.

I still like the voice over version, but the prefer to watch the Final Cut these days.

"Definitive" to the director, much like the '90s re-edits of Star Wars?

I was so bothered by the "father" edit and some other small things that I'll stick with the '91 director's cut. I actually think it was edited better, even if it left some violence out and errors in. It just flows better to me - especially scenes like Tyrell's death.

 

[WilliamDavey627]

I think it has so much going for it. Tone, direction, acting. The characters and themes though would be two of the biggest ones. I don't know, I just really like it.

 

[Overread]

A lot of films, especially from Hollywood ask questions and provide answers through their story. By the end most of the questions the film asks are given answers. Most of what one is left puzzling might be background elements or plot holes where its clearly a gap in information as opposed to an unanswered question that the story raises.


What Blade Runner does is present questions and then not deliver on all the answers. By the end you do have questions, not plot holes or gaps but questions. This creates a huge buzz for a film because its a point of positive discussion (whilst plot holes are a negative point of discussion). In many it can be part of a huge legacy to the point where a sequel which answers those questions can actually become a bad thing. Part of the mystery is NOT having the answers.

Another great example of this is the more recent Mad Max film. The 4th in the series doesn't aim to actually answer many questions from the past and instead throws up a handful of new questions. It preserves the mystery of the wasteland whilst also hinting at more of the wanderers history beyond what is shown in the four films (eg the girl he envisions through the film).



So I think that is part of the films charm and its attraction. Blade Runner asks questions, presents some facts, presents some answers and leaves you hanging and wondering on others.



Also I think part of its charm is that whilst the questions its asking are far reaching it is, in the end, quite a small area of effect. Barring the head of a company (and lets be honest CEO's change all the time, turmoil might follow but the company will likely survive); most of the characters are small time. The questions are huge for the world setting, but this film isn't re-writing history. It's a snippet of the world - a small corner of a dirty dark city in the future battling its way through. It begins and ends very much like that; and for that it keeps things personal. This isn't one mans battle to change the world; but one man's battle to do his job and save himself.

For me a big part of teh attraction is the cinematography. The world built around it; the scenes and events are great and you feel the gritty sense of the city and the world its set in. I'm also a big fan of that era of film where we still had models and not CGI (CGI is great but models and such are great too)

 

[psikeyhackr]

What is the point of building robots/androids who can pass for human?
And then top it off by giving them such a short life span???

They are not robots/androids. They are genetically engineered humans. In that respect the movie does not correspond to Dick's book.

I think it is a very well made movie and it raises the moral question of the significance of genetic engineering. It deals with the same issue as GATTACA and some episodes of Star Trek, Space Seed and Dr. Bashir's genetic engineering. I expect this to be significant within 100 years assuming we survive our global warming problem. But most Blade Runner fans don't seem to pay attention to that.

psik

 

[Peter V]

A lot of films, especially from Hollywood ask questions and provide answers through their story. By the end most of the questions the film asks are given answers. Most of what one is left puzzling might be background elements or plot holes where its clearly a gap in information as opposed to an unanswered question that the story raises.


What Blade Runner does is present questions and then not deliver on all the answers. By the end you do have questions, not plot holes or gaps but questions. This creates a huge buzz for a film because its a point of positive discussion (whilst plot holes are a negative point of discussion). In many it can be part of a huge legacy to the point where a sequel which answers those questions can actually become a bad thing. Part of the mystery is NOT having the answers.

Another great example of this is the more recent Mad Max film. The 4th in the series doesn't aim to actually answer many questions from the past and instead throws up a handful of new questions. It preserves the mystery of the wasteland whilst also hinting at more of the wanderers history beyond what is shown in the four films (eg the girl he envisions through the film).



So I think that is part of the films charm and its attraction. Blade Runner asks questions, presents some facts, presents some answers and leaves you hanging and wondering on others.



Also I think part of its charm is that whilst the questions its asking are far reaching it is, in the end, quite a small area of effect. Barring the head of a company (and lets be honest CEO's change all the time, turmoil might follow but the company will likely survive); most of the characters are small time. The questions are huge for the world setting, but this film isn't re-writing history. It's a snippet of the world - a small corner of a dirty dark city in the future battling its way through. It begins and ends very much like that; and for that it keeps things personal. This isn't one mans battle to change the world; but one man's battle to do his job and save himself.

For me a big part of teh attraction is the cinematography. The world built around it; the scenes and events are great and you feel the gritty sense of the city and the world its set in. I'm also a big fan of that era of film where we still had models and not CGI (CGI is great but models and such are great too)

I think this is an excellent and insightful argument for the movie. I regard Blade Runner as a work of art and as we know, art is subjective - people can so easily have completely opposing views. For me it is a masterpiece.

 

[Danny Creasy]

I think this is an excellent and insightful argument for the movie. I regard Blade Runner as a work of art and as we know, art is subjective - people can so easily have completely opposing views. For me it is a masterpiece.

I never thought about the OP's questions until reading this thread. I just know that I always liked the film. It hit me favorably at the gut level like some painting that makes me linger. Peter V and Overread sum things up quite well. Oh, the women are ravishing.

 

[Danny McG]

The 'futurescape' enthralled me when I first saw it in my local cinema. Massive dystopian edifices and all those cool aerodynamic cars. Looking at it recently and they seem like normal everyday vehicles, we are catching up to the future