If this scene had been included in the finished film, it might have explained Sebastian's apparent death. (That is, the sight of Dr. Tyrell's dead body triggered a fatal cardiac arrest in the guy, who was already dying from the effects of his progeria anyway.)
Avatar was an amazing technological feat in movie making. Too bad it was so transparently p.c.and anti-humankind that a public-schooled teenage brown-shirt could have made the same point with hand puppets or cartoons. I have seen Blade runner at least 10 times but I haven't the urge to see Avatar again since the first viewing. The former was thought-provoking, the latter was boringly predictable.
@Skeleton997 - Avatar was a visual, CGI feast for the eyes, undoubtedly, but " Blade Runner " is a study in what humanity is. Blade Runner's Replicants were artificial life forms, but they were constructed of the same DNA as we are, even though their DNA was tweaked & amped - up & programmed to self - destruct after their expiration date. Roy Batty might've seen himself as a freedom fighter of sorts. Avatar was " Gosh - Wow " effects, but Blade Runner had much more substance.
@Skeleton997 , the reason movies like Blade Runner can be seen over and over again is how detailed and complex it is despite its seemingly simple plot. And it also doesn't force feed you, hence every time you see it, you see something new or figure out something that wasn't so apparent at first viewing.
i prefer the way these scenes played out in the Director's Cut. It's a modern stigma to not leave much up to the viewer's imagination anymore, so the more ambiguous route (without the tomb and replicant Tyrell model) I think is a bit more compelling, Also, apparently they changed Roy Batty's famous: "I want more life, fucker." to "I want more life, Father." Why couldn't they have left that amazing line alone in the Final Cut?
it's not about "FX" it's about LayinG* a Foundation* and ProceSS* of Creation, not "everythinG" needS* 2 be "in" Camera, da Future is a Purely DigitaL* LandScape, it's about zee Creation ProceSS* dah?
anyhow, you'll see, when "avatar" 2 & 3 ComeS* out, easy 2 talk shit, when we don't "make" it, dah?
IF u think so, then don't Support those filmS* but obviously, u stiLL* wiLL:
:P @PaytonWestlake anyhow, ^_^ why complain* Ridley Scott is workinG* on PrometheuS* and Soon, B.Runner SequeL, dah?...
I totally agree about Avatar being a rehash. I think the issue is more that people like what's familiar but different, not that there is a lack of fresh ideas in Hollywood.
As for effects, it's more expensive to use CG than real props and dressing - at least for now. I think a combo of actual and virtual props/dressing/miniatures is a great way to make fantasy come to life. It worked for LOTR.
Awesome. I hate all the CGI crap. How impressed to see models built and filmed compared to the lame CGI easy way out that they have today. AVATAR was not impressive to me at all.
Those drawings are spectacular, they remind me of HR Giger's work, plus they look vastly better than CGI. A picture is worth a thousand words, all I can say is that they teleported me into the world which they described.
@1king4all Reminds me a bit of HR Giger too, which is not surprising as HR Giger was the primary designer in another Riddley Scott film - Alien. The pods, alien, alien ship, and spacejockey were all his designs.
That they made these special effects in the early 80s is much more impressive than todays CG, Avatar looked good but Blade runner looks better, and propably at about 1% cost of the Avatar movie.
That would have been a very interesting scene in the movie. Actually, with the revelation that Tyrell, Rachel, and Deckard are all replicants, it would have begged the question of just how many people in the movie, or on earth, were actually flesh and blood at all?
@Wintermutate - The Replicants WERE still flesh & blood. They weren't machines, except in the sense that all life forms are basically carbon - based machines. The main difference between normal humans & Replicants was their superior strength, reflexes, skill sets, & intellect. & of course their limited life spans. Except for that, they're just as human as we are.
@Wintermutate - Just not " kosher " flesh & blood, though.
Genetically altered humans are something of a staple of science - fiction. The TV movie " Brave New World " had genetically engineered humans. Star Trek had Noonien Singh Khan as 1 of a number of genetically - altered supermen who were frozen, then set adrift in space presumably to land on a habitable planet. Dr. Bashir, in ST DS9, was found to be genetically altered even though such procedures w / unethical & possibly illegal.
@buttdagger No one who was making the movie, knew what a repliant was. Well I suppose they all had their different opinions. Nuts, bolt and springs wouldn't have been actor's choise.
That really should have made it in. It ties in so beautifully both with the Egyptian symbolism throughout the film and the idea of Tyrell being a corporate God/King (that is, a Pharaoh). Ridley Scott's ability to paint this picture of a New Egypt while still using such subtle imagery is nothing short of brilliance.
I like this ending also because it shows to Roy that even his creator had a lifespan and that all we can do is live the best while we are here and in death see what it brings us. In the movie ending Roy able to take life to expand his own realizes that life is precious and the worst one can do is take it because in death he realizes it meaning. I think this is something we all will feel when our time comes. wish we all respected life the gift of the Creator more.
Tyrell was an imposter god (creator) and Sebastian (probably a replicant too), who created living toys, was a lesser imposter god than Tyrell. That's why Roy killed them both. Replicant or not, they were very human. Then again, we replicate ourselves - don't we?
Glad they didn't go with this silly idea. The movie is fine as it is, it doesn't need the cheap trick of a "plot-twist". One reason why I don't like Deckard being a Replicant.
I can see why this was cut out. This scene adds so much emphasis and depth to Roy's storyline that it would make seem to make him a co-protagonist wouldn't it?
@GhostSnake Gaff (the real "bladerunner"), Bryant, Sebastian, Taffy Lewis and the Chinese guy at the Sushi stand. I think its cool that Deckard was actually just a front for Gaff who was the actual bladerunner..think about it. Why risk a human bladerunner?..just make a replicant bladerunner and put a real bladerunner in charge of it.
I believe the point of the movie is to question what is human and how we define ourselves as human. By revealing Deckard as replicant, we begin to question things.
The idea of "God" (Tyrell) being dead is a nice touch, but I think They did right in leaving that out. Having the creation kill the creator as punishment for mortality is good too.
@xnonsuchx I would still love to see some director like scott find a similar styled writer to at least try to do a sequel. I know it probly will suck but I would at least like to see an attempt. I just dont understand why hollywood wouldnt want to rake in the cash for a sequel. They could evolve out the real tyrell with nanotech and cryonic revival and fill in some of the technical gaps and story gaps and perhaps open up new mysteries.
Soldier starring kurt russel is a prequel (soldiers become obsolete for a new kind of super soldier) the film is set in the same universe kidn of thing. not as good as blade runner but a very good underrated action film
@ditdatdot Yes I saw the soldier flick with Kurt russel who I really like as an actor but That movie to me really stunk. I love scifi but it has to be good and as a consequence to me 90% of scifi is crap. Scifi is really hard to do good. Blade runner was an awesome movie and it still stands the test of time...the first alien movie was the same it was great and then all the rest were shit...The whole thing with the the dorky space marines wtf...I was a marine and that embarresed me
Amen. One of the reasons I like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight and Batman Begins. He used as much live action effects as he could get away with. I hope there are directors up and coming now who recognize the value of live action effects..
I always found Tyrell Stupid and arrogant so i thought he was not the real one.Such a Genius doesnt get killed like that.Didnt he know that Batty would do that? He designed his Mind
Tyrell might be arrogant and a genius at the same time.
Perhaps he simply didn't expect Roy to have a motive for killing him. Perhaps he resigned himself to die as soon as he saw Roy (realizing this meant his death). Perhaps he so wanted his creation to love its creator that he would value it over his own life. Perhaps he had been waiting all these years for his creation to become smart enough to find a way back to him, like a proud father wanting his children to outsmart him.
@nanuaraq0409 I think it is a combination of the factors. First, Tyrell is proud of his creation and wants to experience a conversation it. He's smug because he knows what he's created, but also intrigued. Second, even if he knows that Batty is there to kill him, he's knows that he stands no chance against a replicant that he designed himself to be the perfect warrior. Third, I think he underestimated the emotional impact when Batty realized that his own life could not be saved.
The sarcophagus/crypt scene could have turned out nicely , and another interesting departure from the book.
But to show Tyrell as having mechanical parts, that would have been so dumb. What's great in this movie is that you're never fully sure on how the replicants are made. They seem to be fabricated humans, but still , biological machines, not robots. What's the difference then between a biological machine and a human being? That was the whole point of the movie.
I always felt that Tyrell was lying to Roy about NOT being able to extend Roy's life. Earlier in the movie, it was discussed that the "fail safe" for replicants was a 4-year life span. I assume if they could do that, they could also over -ride the "fail safe".
As amazing as this scene would've been, I don't think it could've been done any other way than what was filmed. Tyrell needed to die at the hands of Roy, because it was both a sort of satisfaction that he killed his maker, but also the realization that he was going to die and that death was coming.
They missed a trick here : how beautifully twisted and evil the 'Corporation' metaphor would have been if their 'Maker' turned out to be a Replicant himself , made by yet another 'Maker' .
It would of course have been a nice symbolism, too, if Roy had found, that there IS no creator (and perhaps never was), except for replicants continuing to multiply and replicate over and over again, simply to die after their years are spent.
Which again brings up the question of whether they're different from humans.
The Mausoleum Scene would have been fantastic. Totally Epic, and at the same it could have given the egyptian theme more sense. They should have definitely included that scene.
Don't like the idea of Tyrell being a replicant as well. I always liked the scene in which the maker has his own design turn on himself. Not to mention I felt Tyrell had it coming for treating replicants as disposables and denying them any right simply because they are artificial humans.
Batty had no reason to keep Tyrell alive when it turned out he couldn't extend his life or provide him with good enough answers.
i had a cool version on Laser disc back in 90"the critterion collection...in that version roy pressed his thumbs into Dr.Tyrells eyes and lots of blood came out...is that scen in the 2007 version?
This ending might have been cool,but I Iike the way it was done. It reminds me of Dr. Frankinsteins creation(monster) meeting his creator and killing him.
What might have been a better twist instead of Tyrell being a replicant would have been if maybe Roy Batty had gotten into the chambers where replicants are created/stored and found another version of himself ready for activation after he 'retired' imagine the emotions he would feel being faced with the even harsher reality of being disposable over and over again.
I like the idea of Tyrell being a replicant but at some point, there would be too many characters being revealed to be replicants. Having Tyrell and Rick both end up as replicants may have been too much.
If, however, Tyrell was revealed to be areplicant, I would prefer not having the scene with the Roy and the dead "Maker." It would have left Tyrell, Tyrell Corp. and its products (the replicants) shrouded in total mystery.
Wow, I really would have liked to see this ending. I don't know whether it would have been better than the actual ending, but it certainly would have been interesting to see.
I'm looking for participants to take part in a university study of Blade Runner. Please just visit my profile for more info and the link to the online survey. Thanks!
I have so much respect for these special effects guys. they are immaginative, creative, problem solving geniuses. It is a dying art because of all this CGI bollocks. Fuck CGI. Nobody is impressed by it anymore. Bring back the real special effects!!!... Bring "Wow" back into movies
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@PaytonWestlake you're such a fucking moron... wow I literally do not know where to begin. I'll begin by saying that the realism achieved by CGI has the potential to look alot more realistic than this... this is a dying art because it's been trumped. You can appreciate it for the lack of CGI available at the time, but also CGI is very impressive. You obviously have never done 3d modeling or rendering. It can be loads more difficult than practical SE.
You're last comment actually reveals that you are a bigot so I won't worry when you call me a moron. I was expressing an opinion. One shared by many people. Check out the comments & the campaign to stop CGI in the Clash of the Titans remake. If you're opinion is that CGI is better, then say that, without insults or racist remarks. I might respect you're comment more if it was not full of insults & racism. Maybe you could create a CGI world for yourself where there are no SE, blacks or mexicans?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@PaytonWestlake youtube won't let me get enough space and I don't feel like arguing in 6 or 7 boxes but jesus you are fucking dumb, I'm just guessing by what you said that you're black or mexican
well I think to be too left brained or too right brained causes imbalance & absolutist thought, which is anachronistic in the 21st century. Star Wars 1 (and The Thing & Bladerunner & Alien & Akira & 2001 etc.) look organic, real and fantastic without CGI, but the new Alice in Wonderland and Avatar are utterly beautiful works of art. Also THX1138 looks so much better with its new CGI upgrades. So its better to have the best of both worlds in all things :) ps. says a PC & MAC user. :P
I was not impressed by Alice and I'm a huge Tim Burton fan. CGI overkill IMO but you do have a fair point. I agree that CGI has a place in movies but not as a replacement for SE. For "Where the wild things are" Spike Jonze used a combination of real costumes, animatronics and then enhanced facial expressions with CGI in post production. If it is used delicately it can be very effective.
@PaytonWestlake Christopher Nolan does't like using them much either. His effects are, as much as he can, 'in camera'. Nolan prefers the look of it. Inception has only something like 530 CGI shots. Avatar had something like 3,000!
@IfIfsandands Nolan is the last director to actually make me say "wow" in the cinema (DK's truck flip & Incetions zero gravity hotel). In a recent edition of Empire magazine he said that directors should be doing things "the hard way". I agree. In the same edition of empire Cameron, Spielberg & Zemekis were yaking about "motion capture" and how they could make old actors look young. They are too busy playing with their new toys to realise they have lost their way. now they make crap movies (IMO)
@PaytonWestlake I agree.Inception made me go 'wow' too. There's a theory that Nolan's films explore the idea of making art or making a performance. Keeping that in mind, there will always be a character in a film that speaks for Nolan. In The Prestige, Bale's character tells Hugh jackman he shouldn't be afraid to 'get his hands dirty'. This is Nolan's rule of thumb. The Prestige then, can be seen as one film maker Bale/Nolan doing things the hard way, versus the special effects guys Jackman.
@PaytonWestlake ...and you can bet Nolan will never make a 3D movie. You have to film them on digital cameras and he just doesn't like the look of it. He prefers celluloid. I am a huge fan of his. Another English man showing the yanks how to play their own game. Think about it, between Nolan, PT Anderson, even Tarantino, we'll have a golden age of great Hollywood movies to look forward to over the next few decades!
@PaytonWestlake with CGI, as with anything else, people are impressed with it when and only when it's done well. For example, whether you yourself liked it or not, it's pretty clear that people in general were very impressed with Avatar.
@Isncee I dont think people were impressed by Avatar. I think most people were impressed by Avatars CGI, But the movie was just Blue Pocahontas. Avatars CGI became a crutch for a poor storyline. Special effects are supposed to enhance a story not replace it.
@PaytonWestlake What? No-one I know as impressed by Avatrs CGI. It's mondaine. Some people I know where kind of impressed by the feel good epic story.
@PaytonWestlake I agree that CG is not suppose to carry the movie. However, Pandora is a fictional environment and I believe it was done really good. That whole ambient was so rich and beautiful I think this could not have been done any other way, no chance. But you are right, blue Pocahontas that's what it is. And that's maybe ok. What I'm missing is the Blade Runner type of movies, or some other, new stuff.
@PaytonWestlake I know I've said this before on another video, but there's really no need to be so harsh. I liked both "Avatar" and "Blade Runner." They're both good films, just in different ways, and I really believe that it's unfair to compare the two.
I agree dude. SFX are great when used properly, and that is to enhance what is already a good movie. They should be complementary to the film and not steal your attention away from character or plot. A good example is Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. HUGE amounts of CGI and SFX but it's all complementary to the movie and never becomes the main focus.
@PaytonWestlake CGI is as much or more complicate than the real thing but if done correctly you can achieve the impossible in terms of size and complexity. Of course real props are nice and cool to make but CGI can be just as good looking and and take no more space than your hard drive. And a good CGI artist can do the same thing as these artists.
Guess both are art... but yeah... somehow this is like more ... 'noble'... CGI have a huge potential for abstract reality, and i think it's abused in order to avoid making reality... what i wanna say... cgi is cool when you have to depict a virtual reality environment... or.. 'see the internet in all it glory'... or something alike... i don't know... but these guys where like the renacentists of the depiction of the unreal... well... kinda twisted.. xD Regards! ;)
@PaytonWestlake these guys also used cgi, albeit sparingly as a result of technological limitations. necessity is the mother of invention. if they were still working today(and many of them are), they'd use cgi as well(and many of them do)
@PaytonWestlake I'm in VFX industry for 10 years and I have worked on feature films, and I can't say how many times this exact thought came to me. CGI is so overrated. But exactly the same effects can be done with CG to "not look CG", but that's not what the producers want, they want it to be video game like. And believe it or not people still likes it that way. One of the newer movies I like and has that natural look is "Children of Men". Davy Jones from "Pirates of the Caribbean" is awsome.
@markomanius That's interesting to hear. (producers want that artificial look). Personally I don't understand why the "analog" art of doing special effects isn't more popular these days. I know it's expensive but It's the best you can get in terms of looks if you have the right people. F.i. no spaceship looked better than the Nostromo made out of zillion handcrafted metal plates. Seeing all this complex real ligning, the smoke particles, the textures...is a breathtakingly sensual experince.
Overall I thnk that this origanal idea is pretty interesting. It certainly changes the overall tone of the film in a significant way. It is a shame they never bothered to film it in the end. I wonder if it would be possible to make a convincing 'stand-in' of this premise by using some of the deleted scenes along with todays digital technology and then edit it into a cut of the film? Just a thought...
No, I really don't know much about that sort of thing, thats why mentioned it on here to see what sort of feedback I would get. If that makes me a nerd, then you must have the IQ of a caveman... ;-p
I only saw the directors cut of this movie. There is this scene where Deckard dreams of a unicorn. At the end of the movie Deckard finds the origami figure Gaff left...a unicorn. Conclusion: The only way Gaff would know about the unicorn is, if Deckard was a Replicant with manufactured memories.
Or his memories could have been used as implants for replicants. I think that the film is supposed to be very open to interpretation, the unicorn at the end fits in with the theme of paranoia throughout the movie. Thats why this film is so great...
You nuts are cracking me up with your comments!!! I saw the 82 version on the big screen back in the day, and Roy squished his thumbs into Dr. Tyrel's eyes almost up to his wrists. They edited out probably ::05 seconds of this scene in the later versions....but you don't really want to see it anyway!
@flipwiggins Impossible. The 1982 version was the theatrical cut, which edited out all the violence. The violence is restored in the Final Cut DVD which came out in 2007. There was never any version to show his thumbs going into Tyrell's head up to the wrists anyway. Don't spread bullshit around, us nerds know our films. ;)
Scott wanted everyone to be a replicant? Deckard, Tyrell... oy...
Whole point of the movie was supposed to be man making his creations more human than himself. THUS Deckard and Tyrell had to be human to make the point!
Tyrell makes the mistake to his peril, Deckard ignores it.
that maybe so. but at the end of the day this is a film. and the book is a book. Blade runner is loosly based on the book. it is NOT a straight up adaptation. so what the film whole concept will be different from the bok philip k dick wrote
yea i get your point, but in the world of Blade Runner practilly everything is created, even the animals are artificial and not real, so it goes to raise the question...what can be considered real? and then we bring Roy Batty, Rachel, including Deckard who is neither truely Human or truely a replicant, he's in the middle of the ever struggling balance of Nature vs Man Made, so Tyrell being a replicant is even better because it brings even more questions and makes it a bit more interesting...
The overall point is "more human than human" meaning, what is it to be human and can humans be improved. The film isn't out to prove humans are the best, but questions humanity as the endgame or the beginning. Deckard is a wildcard, if non-human is he acting better than they who created him?
I think the possibility of Tyrell as a replicant is the best yet. Rachel and Deckard's IDs become irrelevant in that context, I think. But I wish that every once in awhile people would consider that Philip K Dick was the creator of the story. While Scott interprets the story into a movie, he can leave a situation ambiguous, but not go back and guess what he meant, or could have done 25 years later. If he doesn't know, he should leave it to the book.
I absolutely love the ambiguity of Deckard being a replicant, whether it was intentional or not- I don't care. The idea that they had to make Tyrell a replicant as well is just not workable and would kill the mood of the story. I almost wish this movie could be re-done in today's time (using VERY little or NO cgi, which would kill it) with a quality actor to play Deckard, such as Christian Bale..yeah, today's film might completely ruin Ridley's sense of atmosphere tho and the amazing soundtrack.
While I like that dead true makers crypt idea, the constant "HES A REPLICANT" would get on the level of Scooby Doo in how ridiculous it is. Im someone who denies that Deckard is a replicant, so to see Roys dialogue with his "maker" be some sort of a counterfeit would really be spoiling something special in my opinion.
I'm not so sure about that, but it definitely lacks the satisfaction that Roy's murder of Tyrell brings in the movie. Think about it. Roy couldn't get more life for himself and Pris so what would the next best thing be? Killing the bastard that gave them such short lives! There are probably a lot more reasons this ending wouldn't have suited the movie. I do agree though that it's an interesting idea. Have you read the book? I just read it. It is a good read.
This ending would have detracted from the foreshadowing created by Rachel's memory implant about the spider who gets consumed by her offspring. Tyrell had to be human so that he could be consumed by his creation.
is your appreciation of movies rested solely on plot twists?
how about profound messages? deckard being a replicant would not be a pointless plot twist, it would only buttress the most important theme of the film: what it means to be human.
but i agree that it would not make much sense to have him as a replicant because of how he interacts with people. they seem to know him, and tyrell seems not to.
A perfect example of the greatness of open endings - you can choose whether you think he's a replicant or not. Whatever you think, the suggestion of Deckard being a Replicant is still there.
Well, Dekkard was a replicant with implanted memories, e.g. the memorie of the unicorn. At the end Dekkard finds an origami unicorn, meaning that Gaff knew about Dekkards dreams, in other words, Dekkards memories.
whats funny with the thing that Deckard is a replicant, is that he is being used as a blade runner. How ironic isn't that? A replicant retiring other replicants. And since Gaff knew he was one, why shouldn't the other collegues of Deckard know that he is one? It's somewhat of a mystery. Even though replicants are illegal, they still use replicants. Deckard has to be an older version aswell, since he is inferior to all the Nexus 6's.
"Isnt it clear by now? Even the guy who made the movie said so"
--It's not clear, hence the debate. To Scott, he shot all that Dekkard replicant scenes that weren't in the movie so to him Dekkard is a replicant. And if he wanted to make it clear he should have done just that.
"I offer a possible explanation"
--The reason you can't is because you're trying to rationalize a point that the film doesn't support.
"Ridley Scott has said that Deckard WAS a replicant. So yes, it is very clear. What is unclear is how people can't seem to understand that fact."
--Just because he said it in an interview 20 years after the movie, and after shooting the footage that shows it, then not including it in the movie, doesn't mean it's in the movie.
Art is wonderful. It has a life of its own. Literary agency says that when art is distributed from its creator to others, its meaning is no longer decreed by the maker but determined by the audience. Ridley Scott had no more control over this "child" from its inception than Tyrell did of his replicant creations.
When Leon shot Holden the cops thought that these nexus-6 were too dangerous.. So perhaps they reprogrammed Deckard. Deckard probably has at least normal intelligence and at most normal physical strenght. Not ever nexus-6 had physical level A. Roy Batty was mental A and a physical A
Deckard was probably reprogrammed because he didnt have superhuman strength. However, maybe they didnt give him superhuman strength because Deckard could have figured he wasnt human after all
Maybe the law declaring replicants on earth illegal was being broken on purpose? Maybe the law had exceptions, like creating replicant-on-replicant hunters like Deckard on special emergencies, which would be logical. Its like an equation balancing itself out.
Nexus6 were new, so new that Dekkard didn't even know about them. Dekkard worked for the BR unit for years & was retired. His boss worked with him all those years. Why would he pretend all of that? Otherwise, that would mean his boss was also a Replicant. Makes even less sense the more you try to rationalize it all.
I dont want to get into the replicant/human debate. We can all read about it online. Lets just summarize that I think the overall case for Deck being a rep is stronger. But I respect the other view also.
sleg - That's not supported by the content of the film. The scene where Dekkard meets another Dekkard replicant was cut, so that element of Dekkard's character is not revealed.
The unicorn has no direct meaning. It doesn't correlate to anything else in the film. The unicorn origami is random. Why then does he never realize he's a replicant as a result? If you're going to make Dekkard a replicant himself, you'd better make him realize it by the end of the film. Otherwise you failed.
If you look at Deckards face at the end, you can clearly see he's figured it all out, but that part is left open, leaving it to the viewers imagination to decide whether or not Deckard's a replicant.
Jugge: That's probably why they decided to leave it as a subjective choice of the viewer, whether Deckard's a replicant or not.
"If you look at Deckards face at the end, you can clearly see he's figured it all out"
--What he's figured out is that Gaf was there and believes 1. they're in love, 2. she's not a threat, and 3. she's going to die very soon, and so Gaf has let them go. But they need to live on the run anyway because, as he said before, someone would come after her.
Exactly! I hate this "Deckard was a replicant" shit. The reflection in the eyes thing was an accident, they where probably supposed to cut to a close up of Deckard with out the reflective eye light effect, it got left in by either mistake or laziness and created this big myth, Ridley went along with it because t made him look even more artsy and intelligent. Hes not a replicant! Its a shallow attempt at depth of story that wasn't there.
That would have been a great plot twist to have Tyrel as a rep.
I for one think Scott is wrong with Deckard as a replicant. P.K. Dick never would have allowed that to happen
The Deckard as a rep. has more holes then swiss cheese. I am surprised how many belive that angle. The story just isnt nearly as good with him as a replicant
If this scene had been included in the finished film, it might have explained Sebastian's apparent death. (That is, the sight of Dr. Tyrell's dead body triggered a fatal cardiac arrest in the guy, who was already dying from the effects of his progeria anyway.)
Scifimaster92 1 month ago
Avatar was an amazing technological feat in movie making. Too bad it was so transparently p.c.and anti-humankind that a public-schooled teenage brown-shirt could have made the same point with hand puppets or cartoons. I have seen Blade runner at least 10 times but I haven't the urge to see Avatar again since the first viewing. The former was thought-provoking, the latter was boringly predictable.
Skeleton997 3 months ago
@Skeleton997 - Avatar was a visual, CGI feast for the eyes, undoubtedly, but " Blade Runner " is a study in what humanity is. Blade Runner's Replicants were artificial life forms, but they were constructed of the same DNA as we are, even though their DNA was tweaked & amped - up & programmed to self - destruct after their expiration date. Roy Batty might've seen himself as a freedom fighter of sorts. Avatar was " Gosh - Wow " effects, but Blade Runner had much more substance.
knoxvilleguy2 2 months ago
@Skeleton997 , the reason movies like Blade Runner can be seen over and over again is how detailed and complex it is despite its seemingly simple plot. And it also doesn't force feed you, hence every time you see it, you see something new or figure out something that wasn't so apparent at first viewing.
PungiFungi 2 weeks ago
i prefer the way these scenes played out in the Director's Cut. It's a modern stigma to not leave much up to the viewer's imagination anymore, so the more ambiguous route (without the tomb and replicant Tyrell model) I think is a bit more compelling, Also, apparently they changed Roy Batty's famous: "I want more life, fucker." to "I want more life, Father." Why couldn't they have left that amazing line alone in the Final Cut?
12ealDeal 3 months ago
2016 is a little more than 4 years away. Are the replicants amongst us?
sixfourallstar 3 months ago
it's not about "FX" it's about LayinG* a Foundation* and ProceSS* of Creation, not "everythinG" needS* 2 be "in" Camera, da Future is a Purely DigitaL* LandScape, it's about zee Creation ProceSS* dah?
anyhow, you'll see, when "avatar" 2 & 3 ComeS* out, easy 2 talk shit, when we don't "make" it, dah?
IF u think so, then don't Support those filmS* but obviously, u stiLL* wiLL:
:P @PaytonWestlake anyhow, ^_^ why complain* Ridley Scott is workinG* on PrometheuS* and Soon, B.Runner SequeL, dah?...
SaffuriousOne 3 months ago
I like the idea of Tyrell being a replicant but only if Deckard was left as a human. Not every character can turn out to be synthetic.
jksonny 4 months ago
I totally agree about Avatar being a rehash. I think the issue is more that people like what's familiar but different, not that there is a lack of fresh ideas in Hollywood.
As for effects, it's more expensive to use CG than real props and dressing - at least for now. I think a combo of actual and virtual props/dressing/miniatures is a great way to make fantasy come to life. It worked for LOTR.
MsMoviedorkland 4 months ago
Comment removed
Shemassault 3 months ago
why is thins info not in my supposed Final Epic Box set..?
TerribleTimes 5 months ago
Awesome. I hate all the CGI crap. How impressed to see models built and filmed compared to the lame CGI easy way out that they have today. AVATAR was not impressive to me at all.
MAHDLO1956 6 months ago
Those drawings are spectacular, they remind me of HR Giger's work, plus they look vastly better than CGI. A picture is worth a thousand words, all I can say is that they teleported me into the world which they described.
1king4all 6 months ago
@1king4all Reminds me a bit of HR Giger too, which is not surprising as HR Giger was the primary designer in another Riddley Scott film - Alien. The pods, alien, alien ship, and spacejockey were all his designs.
dewfall56 5 months ago
That they made these special effects in the early 80s is much more impressive than todays CG, Avatar looked good but Blade runner looks better, and propably at about 1% cost of the Avatar movie.
BigRed4231 6 months ago
Oh why'd they leave this out? That would have been cool
TheObscureMind 7 months ago
I wish that would have been in the movie!
MrNalfgar 7 months ago
What doc is this from?
rleeh333 8 months ago
@rleeh333 - I may be wrong, but I think it's from 'Dangerous Days - The Making of Blade Runner'. Gotta check though.
ultimateedition 7 months ago
That would have been a very interesting scene in the movie. Actually, with the revelation that Tyrell, Rachel, and Deckard are all replicants, it would have begged the question of just how many people in the movie, or on earth, were actually flesh and blood at all?
Wintermutate 8 months ago 5
@Wintermutate - The Replicants WERE still flesh & blood. They weren't machines, except in the sense that all life forms are basically carbon - based machines. The main difference between normal humans & Replicants was their superior strength, reflexes, skill sets, & intellect. & of course their limited life spans. Except for that, they're just as human as we are.
knoxvilleguy2 2 months ago
@knoxvilleguy2 I think it's pretty clear that I meant "flesh and blood" in the sense that they're made the good old fashioned way.
On a planet where no average person can afford a "real" snake, maybe "real" humans wouldn't be as common as they think...
Wintermutate 2 months ago
@Wintermutate - Just not " kosher " flesh & blood, though.
Genetically altered humans are something of a staple of science - fiction. The TV movie " Brave New World " had genetically engineered humans. Star Trek had Noonien Singh Khan as 1 of a number of genetically - altered supermen who were frozen, then set adrift in space presumably to land on a habitable planet. Dr. Bashir, in ST DS9, was found to be genetically altered even though such procedures w / unethical & possibly illegal.
knoxvilleguy2 2 months ago
I have to agree, this scene should've been added in on one of the later versions. it would've tied-in great.
TangoDown229 9 months ago
Nuts, bolts, springs? Even the actors don't know what a replicant is.
buttdagger 10 months ago
@buttdagger No one who was making the movie, knew what a repliant was. Well I suppose they all had their different opinions. Nuts, bolt and springs wouldn't have been actor's choise.
Retardretroguy 9 months ago
@buttdagger lol replicants are more human than human.
Agent1W 7 months ago
That really should have made it in. It ties in so beautifully both with the Egyptian symbolism throughout the film and the idea of Tyrell being a corporate God/King (that is, a Pharaoh). Ridley Scott's ability to paint this picture of a New Egypt while still using such subtle imagery is nothing short of brilliance.
ststafford 10 months ago
God reading the comments on this is so terrible.. Was I the only person that actually understood the movie?
ShaktipatSeer 11 months ago
I like this ending also because it shows to Roy that even his creator had a lifespan and that all we can do is live the best while we are here and in death see what it brings us. In the movie ending Roy able to take life to expand his own realizes that life is precious and the worst one can do is take it because in death he realizes it meaning. I think this is something we all will feel when our time comes. wish we all respected life the gift of the Creator more.
concious2 11 months ago
Tyrell was an imposter god (creator) and Sebastian (probably a replicant too), who created living toys, was a lesser imposter god than Tyrell. That's why Roy killed them both. Replicant or not, they were very human. Then again, we replicate ourselves - don't we?
Jeorney 1 year ago
That would have been cool. Thats why he could not help them. Only Sebass knew and with this story he could have lived
toonsis 1 year ago
Glad they didn't go with this silly idea. The movie is fine as it is, it doesn't need the cheap trick of a "plot-twist". One reason why I don't like Deckard being a Replicant.
Vebinz 1 year ago
Some parts of the sound track of The Inception made me remember Blade Runner, ?
aldo1973aldo 1 year ago
I can see why this was cut out. This scene adds so much emphasis and depth to Roy's storyline that it would make seem to make him a co-protagonist wouldn't it?
marlboroman1985 1 year ago
@marlboroman1985 I think youre absolutely right
HLimmen 1 year ago
I wanna know who the hell is human.
GhostSnake 1 year ago
@GhostSnake Gaff (the real "bladerunner"), Bryant, Sebastian, Taffy Lewis and the Chinese guy at the Sushi stand. I think its cool that Deckard was actually just a front for Gaff who was the actual bladerunner..think about it. Why risk a human bladerunner?..just make a replicant bladerunner and put a real bladerunner in charge of it.
Gloomshadow1 1 year ago
@Gloomshadow1
But that makes no sense giving that Replicants are illegal ion earth and thus probably are rarely around to be hunted.
UIn other words, why bother creating a repicant Blade Runner when he'll rarely have anything to do.
Vebinz 1 year ago
@Vebinz Ridley Scott said it was so ..so we cant argue about it!
Gloomshadow1 1 year ago
@Gloomshadow1
Ridley Scott says alot of things, but i the end it isn't his movie alone, but the result of many working together. He can't impose his vision 100%.
Vebinz 1 year ago
@GhostSnake
I believe the point of the movie is to question what is human and how we define ourselves as human. By revealing Deckard as replicant, we begin to question things.
The idea of "God" (Tyrell) being dead is a nice touch, but I think They did right in leaving that out. Having the creation kill the creator as punishment for mortality is good too.
nanuaraq0409 1 year ago
wtf where in the hell is blade runner 2 or some sort of follow up.....I dont expect it to be as good but I would love to see it any how!
DK0526 1 year ago
@DK0526 - Phillip K. Dick didn't write a sequel.... not that the movie really followed his book closely.
xnonsuchx 1 year ago
@xnonsuchx I would still love to see some director like scott find a similar styled writer to at least try to do a sequel. I know it probly will suck but I would at least like to see an attempt. I just dont understand why hollywood wouldnt want to rake in the cash for a sequel. They could evolve out the real tyrell with nanotech and cryonic revival and fill in some of the technical gaps and story gaps and perhaps open up new mysteries.
DK0526 1 year ago
@DK0526
Soldier starring kurt russel is a prequel (soldiers become obsolete for a new kind of super soldier) the film is set in the same universe kidn of thing. not as good as blade runner but a very good underrated action film
ditdatdot 11 months ago
@ditdatdot Yes I saw the soldier flick with Kurt russel who I really like as an actor but That movie to me really stunk. I love scifi but it has to be good and as a consequence to me 90% of scifi is crap. Scifi is really hard to do good. Blade runner was an awesome movie and it still stands the test of time...the first alien movie was the same it was great and then all the rest were shit...The whole thing with the the dorky space marines wtf...I was a marine and that embarresed me
DK0526 11 months ago
Amen. One of the reasons I like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight and Batman Begins. He used as much live action effects as he could get away with. I hope there are directors up and coming now who recognize the value of live action effects..
zootube323 1 year ago
I always found Tyrell Stupid and arrogant so i thought he was not the real one.Such a Genius doesnt get killed like that.Didnt he know that Batty would do that? He designed his Mind
Legrandez666 1 year ago
@Legrandez666
Tyrell might be arrogant and a genius at the same time.
Perhaps he simply didn't expect Roy to have a motive for killing him. Perhaps he resigned himself to die as soon as he saw Roy (realizing this meant his death). Perhaps he so wanted his creation to love its creator that he would value it over his own life. Perhaps he had been waiting all these years for his creation to become smart enough to find a way back to him, like a proud father wanting his children to outsmart him.
nanuaraq0409 1 year ago
@nanuaraq0409 I think it is a combination of the factors. First, Tyrell is proud of his creation and wants to experience a conversation it. He's smug because he knows what he's created, but also intrigued. Second, even if he knows that Batty is there to kill him, he's knows that he stands no chance against a replicant that he designed himself to be the perfect warrior. Third, I think he underestimated the emotional impact when Batty realized that his own life could not be saved.
Wintermutate 8 months ago
i want more life,...fucker
suaveyobi 1 year ago 2
The sarcophagus/crypt scene could have turned out nicely , and another interesting departure from the book.
But to show Tyrell as having mechanical parts, that would have been so dumb. What's great in this movie is that you're never fully sure on how the replicants are made. They seem to be fabricated humans, but still , biological machines, not robots. What's the difference then between a biological machine and a human being? That was the whole point of the movie.
Gargantua606 1 year ago 2
my real name is eldon O.O
eldomsquid 1 year ago
I always felt that Tyrell was lying to Roy about NOT being able to extend Roy's life. Earlier in the movie, it was discussed that the "fail safe" for replicants was a 4-year life span. I assume if they could do that, they could also over -ride the "fail safe".
imtxsmoke 1 year ago
As amazing as this scene would've been, I don't think it could've been done any other way than what was filmed. Tyrell needed to die at the hands of Roy, because it was both a sort of satisfaction that he killed his maker, but also the realization that he was going to die and that death was coming.
Gluesponge 1 year ago 6
They missed a trick here : how beautifully twisted and evil the 'Corporation' metaphor would have been if their 'Maker' turned out to be a Replicant himself , made by yet another 'Maker' .
jimdivax 1 year ago
@jimdivax
It would of course have been a nice symbolism, too, if Roy had found, that there IS no creator (and perhaps never was), except for replicants continuing to multiply and replicate over and over again, simply to die after their years are spent.
Which again brings up the question of whether they're different from humans.
nanuaraq0409 1 year ago
right, they were ALL replicants, Deckard, the chick and Tyrell. stupid.
SuperOxideDimutase 1 year ago
The Mausoleum Scene would have been fantastic. Totally Epic, and at the same it could have given the egyptian theme more sense. They should have definitely included that scene.
JoseWanKenobi 1 year ago
so thats a real head yes... didnt it hurt to squeeze his eyes like that?
faszika 1 year ago
Tyrell Eldon exists.
153SCORN 1 year ago
Bring "skill" back into movies - and you'll Bring "Wow" back into movies
saviouroftheuniverse 1 year ago
Don't like the idea of Tyrell being a replicant as well. I always liked the scene in which the maker has his own design turn on himself. Not to mention I felt Tyrell had it coming for treating replicants as disposables and denying them any right simply because they are artificial humans.
Batty had no reason to keep Tyrell alive when it turned out he couldn't extend his life or provide him with good enough answers.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
i had a cool version on Laser disc back in 90"the critterion collection...in that version roy pressed his thumbs into Dr.Tyrells eyes and lots of blood came out...is that scen in the 2007 version?
MrFonkster 1 year ago
I actually thought that, that painting at 1:22 was a photograph at first. That just goes to show how talented the artist is.
WoodRatGirl 1 year ago
@WoodRatGirl its ar eally nice art, but you should definetly train your eyes.. xD
Winterhe4rt 1 year ago
@Winterhe4rt
And you should definitely bite your tongue. SMART ARSE! LOL j/k
WoodRatGirl 1 year ago
What a cool idea, too bad they didn't used it.
JustWaIkAway 1 year ago
I think this ending'll be better than the one used in the movie.
matman000000 1 year ago
This ending might have been cool,but I Iike the way it was done. It reminds me of Dr. Frankinsteins creation(monster) meeting his creator and killing him.
PumpkinPuffer 1 year ago
i want more life fucker?
lengjai11 1 year ago
What might have been a better twist instead of Tyrell being a replicant would have been if maybe Roy Batty had gotten into the chambers where replicants are created/stored and found another version of himself ready for activation after he 'retired' imagine the emotions he would feel being faced with the even harsher reality of being disposable over and over again.
silbitnuoc 1 year ago 3
I like the idea of Tyrell being a replicant but at some point, there would be too many characters being revealed to be replicants. Having Tyrell and Rick both end up as replicants may have been too much.
If, however, Tyrell was revealed to be areplicant, I would prefer not having the scene with the Roy and the dead "Maker." It would have left Tyrell, Tyrell Corp. and its products (the replicants) shrouded in total mystery.
jksonny 2 years ago 3
Wow, I really would have liked to see this ending. I don't know whether it would have been better than the actual ending, but it certainly would have been interesting to see.
4fitter27 2 years ago 2
hi Lloyd
xdarkdaysx 2 years ago
Oh yes, uncle Syd. I love him very much.
drtyrell969 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm looking for participants to take part in a university study of Blade Runner. Please just visit my profile for more info and the link to the online survey. Thanks!
filmresearch2010 2 years ago
I have so much respect for these special effects guys. they are immaginative, creative, problem solving geniuses. It is a dying art because of all this CGI bollocks. Fuck CGI. Nobody is impressed by it anymore. Bring back the real special effects!!!... Bring "Wow" back into movies
PaytonWestlake 2 years ago 66
Amen brother!
Heineken57sauce 2 years ago
Fuck CGI. Hell yeah. Fuck that shit.
AwesomeCoasters 2 years ago
I love this comment! Everyone knows how obvious CGI is when it's used in films.
You know, in about 20 years or so we're all going to look back and joke about movies and how corny they looked b/c of CGI.
aeopmusic 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@PaytonWestlake you're such a fucking moron... wow I literally do not know where to begin. I'll begin by saying that the realism achieved by CGI has the potential to look alot more realistic than this... this is a dying art because it's been trumped. You can appreciate it for the lack of CGI available at the time, but also CGI is very impressive. You obviously have never done 3d modeling or rendering. It can be loads more difficult than practical SE.
lebrongordon 2 years ago
You're last comment actually reveals that you are a bigot so I won't worry when you call me a moron. I was expressing an opinion. One shared by many people. Check out the comments & the campaign to stop CGI in the Clash of the Titans remake. If you're opinion is that CGI is better, then say that, without insults or racist remarks. I might respect you're comment more if it was not full of insults & racism. Maybe you could create a CGI world for yourself where there are no SE, blacks or mexicans?
PaytonWestlake 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@PaytonWestlake youtube won't let me get enough space and I don't feel like arguing in 6 or 7 boxes but jesus you are fucking dumb, I'm just guessing by what you said that you're black or mexican
lebrongordon 2 years ago
@lebrongordon I'm mexican, I guess I should just drop out of my Math Major at University? Probably best for me to go mow someone's lawn I take it.
ferny5ando 2 years ago
well I think to be too left brained or too right brained causes imbalance & absolutist thought, which is anachronistic in the 21st century. Star Wars 1 (and The Thing & Bladerunner & Alien & Akira & 2001 etc.) look organic, real and fantastic without CGI, but the new Alice in Wonderland and Avatar are utterly beautiful works of art. Also THX1138 looks so much better with its new CGI upgrades. So its better to have the best of both worlds in all things :) ps. says a PC & MAC user. :P
earthacademy 1 year ago
I was not impressed by Alice and I'm a huge Tim Burton fan. CGI overkill IMO but you do have a fair point. I agree that CGI has a place in movies but not as a replacement for SE. For "Where the wild things are" Spike Jonze used a combination of real costumes, animatronics and then enhanced facial expressions with CGI in post production. If it is used delicately it can be very effective.
PaytonWestlake 1 year ago
@PaytonWestlake Christopher Nolan does't like using them much either. His effects are, as much as he can, 'in camera'. Nolan prefers the look of it. Inception has only something like 530 CGI shots. Avatar had something like 3,000!
IfIfsandands 1 year ago
@IfIfsandands Nolan is the last director to actually make me say "wow" in the cinema (DK's truck flip & Incetions zero gravity hotel). In a recent edition of Empire magazine he said that directors should be doing things "the hard way". I agree. In the same edition of empire Cameron, Spielberg & Zemekis were yaking about "motion capture" and how they could make old actors look young. They are too busy playing with their new toys to realise they have lost their way. now they make crap movies (IMO)
PaytonWestlake 1 year ago
@PaytonWestlake I agree.Inception made me go 'wow' too. There's a theory that Nolan's films explore the idea of making art or making a performance. Keeping that in mind, there will always be a character in a film that speaks for Nolan. In The Prestige, Bale's character tells Hugh jackman he shouldn't be afraid to 'get his hands dirty'. This is Nolan's rule of thumb. The Prestige then, can be seen as one film maker Bale/Nolan doing things the hard way, versus the special effects guys Jackman.
IfIfsandands 1 year ago
@PaytonWestlake ...and you can bet Nolan will never make a 3D movie. You have to film them on digital cameras and he just doesn't like the look of it. He prefers celluloid. I am a huge fan of his. Another English man showing the yanks how to play their own game. Think about it, between Nolan, PT Anderson, even Tarantino, we'll have a golden age of great Hollywood movies to look forward to over the next few decades!
IfIfsandands 1 year ago
was that how it was in the book?
Costoffplus 1 year ago
@Costoffplus Unfortunately not, in the book Roy never even goes to see Tyrell thus Tyrell never dies.
mrmattw95 1 year ago
@PaytonWestlake with CGI, as with anything else, people are impressed with it when and only when it's done well. For example, whether you yourself liked it or not, it's pretty clear that people in general were very impressed with Avatar.
Isncee 1 year ago
@Isncee I dont think people were impressed by Avatar. I think most people were impressed by Avatars CGI, But the movie was just Blue Pocahontas. Avatars CGI became a crutch for a poor storyline. Special effects are supposed to enhance a story not replace it.
PaytonWestlake 1 year ago 48
@PaytonWestlake What? No-one I know as impressed by Avatrs CGI. It's mondaine. Some people I know where kind of impressed by the feel good epic story.
bierbuik 1 year ago
Comment removed
peaceandmetal88 10 months ago
@PaytonWestlake I agree that CG is not suppose to carry the movie. However, Pandora is a fictional environment and I believe it was done really good. That whole ambient was so rich and beautiful I think this could not have been done any other way, no chance. But you are right, blue Pocahontas that's what it is. And that's maybe ok. What I'm missing is the Blade Runner type of movies, or some other, new stuff.
markomanius 5 months ago
@PaytonWestlake I know I've said this before on another video, but there's really no need to be so harsh. I liked both "Avatar" and "Blade Runner." They're both good films, just in different ways, and I really believe that it's unfair to compare the two.
Scifimaster92 4 months ago
@PaytonWestlake
I agree dude. SFX are great when used properly, and that is to enhance what is already a good movie. They should be complementary to the film and not steal your attention away from character or plot. A good example is Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. HUGE amounts of CGI and SFX but it's all complementary to the movie and never becomes the main focus.
AnotherSchmoe 3 months ago
@PaytonWestlake I would like to see more latex. That sure is more convincing than CGI.
HRVDNT 1 year ago
@PaytonWestlake Hell yea! Well said!!
bierbuik 1 year ago
@PaytonWestlake CGI is as much or more complicate than the real thing but if done correctly you can achieve the impossible in terms of size and complexity. Of course real props are nice and cool to make but CGI can be just as good looking and and take no more space than your hard drive. And a good CGI artist can do the same thing as these artists.
vomitrelish 8 months ago
@vomitrelish i respect all artists but this is quite fucking impressive
way2muchNFO 6 months ago
@PaytonWestlake
Guess both are art... but yeah... somehow this is like more ... 'noble'... CGI have a huge potential for abstract reality, and i think it's abused in order to avoid making reality... what i wanna say... cgi is cool when you have to depict a virtual reality environment... or.. 'see the internet in all it glory'... or something alike... i don't know... but these guys where like the renacentists of the depiction of the unreal... well... kinda twisted.. xD Regards! ;)
levogiro 7 months ago
@PaytonWestlake these guys also used cgi, albeit sparingly as a result of technological limitations. necessity is the mother of invention. if they were still working today(and many of them are), they'd use cgi as well(and many of them do)
zackhanscom 7 months ago
@PaytonWestlake I'm in VFX industry for 10 years and I have worked on feature films, and I can't say how many times this exact thought came to me. CGI is so overrated. But exactly the same effects can be done with CG to "not look CG", but that's not what the producers want, they want it to be video game like. And believe it or not people still likes it that way. One of the newer movies I like and has that natural look is "Children of Men". Davy Jones from "Pirates of the Caribbean" is awsome.
markomanius 5 months ago
@markomanius That's interesting to hear. (producers want that artificial look). Personally I don't understand why the "analog" art of doing special effects isn't more popular these days. I know it's expensive but It's the best you can get in terms of looks if you have the right people. F.i. no spaceship looked better than the Nostromo made out of zillion handcrafted metal plates. Seeing all this complex real ligning, the smoke particles, the textures...is a breathtakingly sensual experince.
lordoid 4 months ago
@PaytonWestlake I couldnt have said it better myself!
musicduct 5 months ago
Wow thats amazing!
harrisonhiroyuki 2 years ago
Interesting...
schizoidboy 2 years ago
In one scene you see Deckard's eyes glow like the replicants do. It was quite subtle but possibly an intentional hint.
countevil 2 years ago
Ermm...yeah Deckard was. The ending of the film was the biggest hint on that one
kicken18 2 years ago
@countevil
It was. Scott admitted that in an interview.
nanuaraq0409 1 year ago
Overall I thnk that this origanal idea is pretty interesting. It certainly changes the overall tone of the film in a significant way. It is a shame they never bothered to film it in the end. I wonder if it would be possible to make a convincing 'stand-in' of this premise by using some of the deleted scenes along with todays digital technology and then edit it into a cut of the film? Just a thought...
PappaChimp 2 years ago
yea, get on that for us! You big f'ing nerd!
superdoobo 2 years ago
No, I really don't know much about that sort of thing, thats why mentioned it on here to see what sort of feedback I would get. If that makes me a nerd, then you must have the IQ of a caveman... ;-p
PappaChimp 2 years ago
I only saw the directors cut of this movie. There is this scene where Deckard dreams of a unicorn. At the end of the movie Deckard finds the origami figure Gaff left...a unicorn. Conclusion: The only way Gaff would know about the unicorn is, if Deckard was a Replicant with manufactured memories.
RyoMassaki 2 years ago
Or his memories could have been used as implants for replicants. I think that the film is supposed to be very open to interpretation, the unicorn at the end fits in with the theme of paranoia throughout the movie. Thats why this film is so great...
PappaChimp 2 years ago
You nuts are cracking me up with your comments!!! I saw the 82 version on the big screen back in the day, and Roy squished his thumbs into Dr. Tyrel's eyes almost up to his wrists. They edited out probably ::05 seconds of this scene in the later versions....but you don't really want to see it anyway!
flipwiggins 2 years ago
smile flipwiggins
AnoukaKC 2 years ago
@flipwiggins Impossible. The 1982 version was the theatrical cut, which edited out all the violence. The violence is restored in the Final Cut DVD which came out in 2007. There was never any version to show his thumbs going into Tyrell's head up to the wrists anyway. Don't spread bullshit around, us nerds know our films. ;)
mrmattw95 1 year ago
Damn!! If this was in the movie then my mind would have exploded!! What a mind-fuck that would be!!
crazycardude1984 2 years ago
Joe Turkel who played Dr. Tyrell was also terrific as Lloyd the bartender in The Shining. Great screen presence in that movie.
Unfortunately, he's done mostly T.V. and nothing in over ten years.
I wish they had gone to all the way with this story line. Sounded great. Too long though.
JessSayin 2 years ago
Tyrell is cool I'm sorry to say - not sure if I have ever seen such a powerful character in a film ever
mmsnyman 2 years ago
If EVERYONE is a replicant, then how do you compare our humanity?
The theme was that humans were less caring than their machines. We were becoming the robots..
walterjack 2 years ago
Much better. Much, much better.
typhoonaaron 2 years ago
So I guess Tyrell won't be singing "I Only Have Eyes For You" to Roy....
JubalCalif 2 years ago 3
Scott wanted everyone to be a replicant? Deckard, Tyrell... oy...
Whole point of the movie was supposed to be man making his creations more human than himself. THUS Deckard and Tyrell had to be human to make the point!
Tyrell makes the mistake to his peril, Deckard ignores it.
Anyone else GET THIS!?!
walterjack 2 years ago
but deckard was a replicant. Ridley scoot comfirmed this
nendo 2 years ago
Yes, and it ruins the whole concept Philp K. Dick's book set out to make.
walterjack 2 years ago
that maybe so. but at the end of the day this is a film. and the book is a book. Blade runner is loosly based on the book. it is NOT a straight up adaptation. so what the film whole concept will be different from the bok philip k dick wrote
nendo 2 years ago 2
yea i get your point, but in the world of Blade Runner practilly everything is created, even the animals are artificial and not real, so it goes to raise the question...what can be considered real? and then we bring Roy Batty, Rachel, including Deckard who is neither truely Human or truely a replicant, he's in the middle of the ever struggling balance of Nature vs Man Made, so Tyrell being a replicant is even better because it brings even more questions and makes it a bit more interesting...
jordanrules32 2 years ago
The overall point is "more human than human" meaning, what is it to be human and can humans be improved. The film isn't out to prove humans are the best, but questions humanity as the endgame or the beginning. Deckard is a wildcard, if non-human is he acting better than they who created him?
garbagelasagna 2 years ago
This should have been in the movie.
NartSaga 2 years ago
I think the possibility of Tyrell as a replicant is the best yet. Rachel and Deckard's IDs become irrelevant in that context, I think. But I wish that every once in awhile people would consider that Philip K Dick was the creator of the story. While Scott interprets the story into a movie, he can leave a situation ambiguous, but not go back and guess what he meant, or could have done 25 years later. If he doesn't know, he should leave it to the book.
CarbonSource 2 years ago
it should have been made like this. cause we all knows the maker is Charles Bishop Weyland from Weyland-Yutani corp.
also he didn't die 4 years previous, but much earlier, in the arctic.
ghosterdude 2 years ago
I absolutely love the ambiguity of Deckard being a replicant, whether it was intentional or not- I don't care. The idea that they had to make Tyrell a replicant as well is just not workable and would kill the mood of the story. I almost wish this movie could be re-done in today's time (using VERY little or NO cgi, which would kill it) with a quality actor to play Deckard, such as Christian Bale..yeah, today's film might completely ruin Ridley's sense of atmosphere tho and the amazing soundtrack.
gumpishelf 2 years ago 2
I hope we are discussing about who was replicant and who wasn`t at least more 25 years !! Great movie.
SophyaFromBrazil 2 years ago
o wow..
anafredd 2 years ago
Ive been a fan for over 25 years and never heard of this plot twist until now. im totaly shocked & don't know what my opinion is!
Tetley007 2 years ago
While I like that dead true makers crypt idea, the constant "HES A REPLICANT" would get on the level of Scooby Doo in how ridiculous it is. Im someone who denies that Deckard is a replicant, so to see Roys dialogue with his "maker" be some sort of a counterfeit would really be spoiling something special in my opinion.
Jownak 2 years ago
I'm not so sure about that, but it definitely lacks the satisfaction that Roy's murder of Tyrell brings in the movie. Think about it. Roy couldn't get more life for himself and Pris so what would the next best thing be? Killing the bastard that gave them such short lives! There are probably a lot more reasons this ending wouldn't have suited the movie. I do agree though that it's an interesting idea. Have you read the book? I just read it. It is a good read.
lancerooke 2 years ago
This ending would have detracted from the foreshadowing created by Rachel's memory implant about the spider who gets consumed by her offspring. Tyrell had to be human so that he could be consumed by his creation.
lancerooke 3 years ago 2
nah, this is much cooler because it's more of a mindfuck.
ballantrae101 2 years ago
"I want another arm, fucker"
snifnscratch 3 years ago
is your appreciation of movies rested solely on plot twists?
how about profound messages? deckard being a replicant would not be a pointless plot twist, it would only buttress the most important theme of the film: what it means to be human.
but i agree that it would not make much sense to have him as a replicant because of how he interacts with people. they seem to know him, and tyrell seems not to.
banalexistence 3 years ago
This dude should have been a replicant not Dekkard.
scooby95024 3 years ago
A perfect example of the greatness of open endings - you can choose whether you think he's a replicant or not. Whatever you think, the suggestion of Deckard being a Replicant is still there.
sleggeleif 3 years ago
It's better that he wasn't a Replicant.
Same thing with Dekkard.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Well, Dekkard was a replicant with implanted memories, e.g. the memorie of the unicorn. At the end Dekkard finds an origami unicorn, meaning that Gaff knew about Dekkards dreams, in other words, Dekkards memories.
sleggeleif 3 years ago
Roy knew IMO that Deckard was a replicant.. thats why he was saved. Roy killed all other humans and even innocent humans.
Gaff is the only good human in the film
juggep80 3 years ago
whats funny with the thing that Deckard is a replicant, is that he is being used as a blade runner. How ironic isn't that? A replicant retiring other replicants. And since Gaff knew he was one, why shouldn't the other collegues of Deckard know that he is one? It's somewhat of a mystery. Even though replicants are illegal, they still use replicants. Deckard has to be an older version aswell, since he is inferior to all the Nexus 6's.
sleggeleif 3 years ago
Why even debate if Deckard is a replicant? Isnt it clear by now? Even the guy who made the movie said so. So I find the debate meaningless.
Deckard being a replicant despite them being illegal on earth could be a plot weakness. I offer a possible explanation
juggep80 3 years ago
"Isnt it clear by now? Even the guy who made the movie said so"
--It's not clear, hence the debate. To Scott, he shot all that Dekkard replicant scenes that weren't in the movie so to him Dekkard is a replicant. And if he wanted to make it clear he should have done just that.
"I offer a possible explanation"
--The reason you can't is because you're trying to rationalize a point that the film doesn't support.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Ridley Scott has said that Deckard WAS a replicant. So yes, it is very clear. What is unclear is how people can't seem to understand that fact.
MolokoPlus1980 3 years ago 4
"Ridley Scott has said that Deckard WAS a replicant. So yes, it is very clear. What is unclear is how people can't seem to understand that fact."
--Just because he said it in an interview 20 years after the movie, and after shooting the footage that shows it, then not including it in the movie, doesn't mean it's in the movie.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Exactly! Its a pity they weren't given a bigger budget to make it an even better movie
Seano71 3 years ago
Art is wonderful. It has a life of its own. Literary agency says that when art is distributed from its creator to others, its meaning is no longer decreed by the maker but determined by the audience. Ridley Scott had no more control over this "child" from its inception than Tyrell did of his replicant creations.
kidrites 2 years ago 4
When Leon shot Holden the cops thought that these nexus-6 were too dangerous.. So perhaps they reprogrammed Deckard. Deckard probably has at least normal intelligence and at most normal physical strenght. Not ever nexus-6 had physical level A. Roy Batty was mental A and a physical A
Deckard was probably reprogrammed because he didnt have superhuman strength. However, maybe they didnt give him superhuman strength because Deckard could have figured he wasnt human after all
juggep80 3 years ago
"So perhaps they reprogrammed Deckard"
--Rationalization.
"Roy Batty was mental A and a physical A"
--True, but Roy was able to lift Dekkard over his head with maybe just one arm. And plow his head through a wall without serious injury.
"maybe they didnt give him superhuman strength because Deckard could have figured he wasnt human after all"
--Rationalization. Maybe he was Human and that's why he had regular strength. Occam's Razor.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Maybe the law declaring replicants on earth illegal was being broken on purpose? Maybe the law had exceptions, like creating replicant-on-replicant hunters like Deckard on special emergencies, which would be logical. Its like an equation balancing itself out.
juggep80 3 years ago
"Maybe the law declaring"
--Rationalization.
Nexus6 were new, so new that Dekkard didn't even know about them. Dekkard worked for the BR unit for years & was retired. His boss worked with him all those years. Why would he pretend all of that? Otherwise, that would mean his boss was also a Replicant. Makes even less sense the more you try to rationalize it all.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Opinions are like assholes. Everybodys got one.
I dont want to get into the replicant/human debate. We can all read about it online. Lets just summarize that I think the overall case for Deck being a rep is stronger. But I respect the other view also.
juggep80 3 years ago
"Opinions are like assholes. Everybodys got one."
--And some people are just fucking assholes.
NoGuff 3 years ago
sleg - That's not supported by the content of the film. The scene where Dekkard meets another Dekkard replicant was cut, so that element of Dekkard's character is not revealed.
The unicorn has no direct meaning. It doesn't correlate to anything else in the film. The unicorn origami is random. Why then does he never realize he's a replicant as a result? If you're going to make Dekkard a replicant himself, you'd better make him realize it by the end of the film. Otherwise you failed.
NoGuff 3 years ago
If you look at Deckards face at the end, you can clearly see he's figured it all out, but that part is left open, leaving it to the viewers imagination to decide whether or not Deckard's a replicant.
Jugge: That's probably why they decided to leave it as a subjective choice of the viewer, whether Deckard's a replicant or not.
sleggeleif 3 years ago 2
"If you look at Deckards face at the end, you can clearly see he's figured it all out"
--What he's figured out is that Gaf was there and believes 1. they're in love, 2. she's not a threat, and 3. she's going to die very soon, and so Gaf has let them go. But they need to live on the run anyway because, as he said before, someone would come after her.
NoGuff 3 years ago
Exactly! I hate this "Deckard was a replicant" shit. The reflection in the eyes thing was an accident, they where probably supposed to cut to a close up of Deckard with out the reflective eye light effect, it got left in by either mistake or laziness and created this big myth, Ridley went along with it because t made him look even more artsy and intelligent. Hes not a replicant! Its a shallow attempt at depth of story that wasn't there.
keewatin427 3 years ago 4
I agree. You can see Scott gesting about this subject in interviews. Deckard is 100% human.
chompychomps 2 years ago
That would have been a great plot twist to have Tyrel as a rep.
I for one think Scott is wrong with Deckard as a replicant. P.K. Dick never would have allowed that to happen
The Deckard as a rep. has more holes then swiss cheese. I am surprised how many belive that angle. The story just isnt nearly as good with him as a replicant
toonsis 3 years ago
"how could Deckard be one, a former officer/bounty hunter, and have an ex-wife?"
Easy, those are just implanted memories. He only thinks he's an ex-cop with an ex-wife.
wingnutx 3 years ago