Eye symbolism appears repeatedly in Blade Runner and provides insight into themes and characters therein. The film opens with an extreme closeup of an eye which fills the screen reflecting the hellish landscape seen below. When reflecting one of the Tyrell Corp. pyramids it evokes the all-seeing Eye of Providence.

Blade Runner — Ridley Scott’s Stylish 1982 Dystopian Masterpiece!

Blade Runner (1982) - DVD ScreenshotBlade Runner (1982) — Ever since it came out—and, amazingly, bombed—filmmakers have been copying and stealing from Ridley Scott’s visionary portrait of a futuristic Los Angeles 2019 (more like Tokyo City, Japan to me) with its looming video-screened high-rises, neon-lit blimps, and rain-spattered noodle shops where the ordinary joes eat. 

One of Britain’s finest film ever, “Blade Runner” has gone from cult classic to an universally acknowledged masterpiece. It’s the English director’s most visually dense film, with every frame brimming with detail and vitality, every bit of chiaroscuro adding to the film’s melancholy mood.

It’s one hell of a Cinema landmark, at the same time, works as a blissful ‘aide-mémoire’—that some films just deserve a second freaking chance!

Blade Runner (1982)At its initial release the film was a flop. To be fair, the theatrical cut of the film contained an unnecessary Harrison Ford voiceover as well as an ending that felt a bit too conventional for a film as bold as Blade Runner. Possible Reasons: It was the 80’s and let’s fact it, Ford wasn’t exactly Robert De Niro who can godsmack the audience with just his narration and set the tone for an entire film. The rest of the blame can be given towards the studio executives whose moronic views, unnecessary edits and constant interfering almost ruined one of 80’s most famous leading member of the Brit-pack: Ridley Scott’s career. However, as Ridley began to work on a cut closer to his original vision and the film began to be seen by more and more people, it became considered one of the pinnacles of science fiction in film. 

And the conclusive evidence: Upon release, in 1982, a shedload of major film critics all around penned it down . . .

Some wrote that the plot took a back seat to the film’s special effects, and did not fit the studio’s marketing as an action/adventure movie. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time. While Great Britain was being more open or positive, the United States on the other hand bombarded the sci-fi with immense negative criticisms.

For instance, Los Angeles Times called it “Blade Crawler,” while The State and Columbia Record described it as “Science Fiction Pornography”.

But . . .

♠ Ξ σ ℵ ℜ ♠ ℵ ⇒ 

♠ ℵ ⇒ ∞ √ ≅ ∏ ∧ ∨ ¬ ∩ ‡ ∇ ∅ ∃ ‰ µ ∂ ß ♠ ℜ⇒

35 Years Later . . .

♠ ℵ ⇒ ∞ √ ≅ ∏ ∧ ∨ ¬ ∩ ‡ ∇ ∅ ∃ ‰ µ ∂ ß ♠ ℜ⇒

♠ Ξ σ ℵ ℜ ♠ ℵ ⇒ 

‘Blade Runner’


‘A Cinematic Masterpiece’

The Film's Opening Monologue - Los Angeles - November - 2019.
Blade Runner (1982) – Opens with: A dystopian Los Angeles, Month: November, Year: 2019 — The Film’s Opening Monologue. 

Beyond the opening scroll quoted above, the opening shot of the movie is of the lights of the future city of Los Angeles, with flying craft coming and going. This is followed by a shot of the city lights reflected in an eye. It’s artistic, it’s creative, it triggers the imagination. You instantly feel this is a Director who has his fastball working. It’s not just this eye lighting up, it’s ours.

Scientists and Academic researchers began writing analyses of the film almost as soon as it was released, due to its dystopic aspects in particular, questions regarding “authentic” humanity, its ecofeminist aspects, in genre studies and in recent years, popular culture. The film has been the subject of academic interest over decades. Furthermore, The Guardian (in 2004), New Scientist (in 2008), IGN (in 2010) and  SFX (in 2012) officially ranked ‘Blade Runner’ as the ‘greatest sci-fi film of all time.’

(Beating off the likes of Stanley Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey,’ the first two films of the original “Star Wars trilogy ” including “Empire Strikes Back” and even Scott’s own directorial breakthrough film, “Alien”)

Blade Runner (1982)
Opening Credits of Blade Runner (1982)

Most Film Directors, who have finished a Science-Fiction film, tend to choose something a little more down to earth for their next project. Ridley Scott, coming off with the Academy Award winning — “Alien (1979)” — launched himself into something even more stylised and visually dense: “Blade Runner (1982)” — Hailed for its production design, depicting a “retrofitted” future, it remains a leading example of the neo-noir genre. Although the film underperformed in North American theaters, but has since become a cult classic. Ridley Scott regards Blade Runner as “probably” his most complete and personal film.

For Ridley, this was extremely ambitious. Even today there’s something about the scope and detail of the world that comes across as maddening and innovative. And the problem with ambitious creations is that not everyone is going to get it. While other sci-fi films from the same year (The Thing, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial) offered film audiences heavy doses of suspense, action and adventure, Blade Runner is a film where characters espouse philosophical treatises while behaving strangely.

Even to this day I’m astounded by how many people love this film given the fever-pitched insanity of the final act. Rutger Hauer howls like a wolf, taunts Harrison Ford in singsong, drives a nail through his hand and then gives one of the most iconic (and, if we’re honest, indulgent) monologues in cinema. Even while I giddily enjoy the last few moments of the film, I sometime ask myself how so many people can end up loving something that is this esoteric and bizarre.

The film is set in the year: 2019 — on the month of November — And in a dystopic Californian state of Los Angeles . . .  

The film is a visual feast. The dark cityscapes, the liberal use of blue lights and the rundown ground level slums have become ingrained as the look of a more downtrodden future that has emerged in countless science fiction stories since the film’s release. Composition, practical effects and set design also are mind-bogglingly meticulous, ethereal and alluring. It’s a film that demands a big screen viewing.

Based on Philip K Dick’s novel, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and borrowing the title from William S Burroughs, the film brought the novelist to the attention of Hollywood and several later films were based on his work. Blade Runner follows a detective called Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) as he hunts down a group of replicants.

These synthetic humans – almost impossible to discern from the real thing – have escaped from one of the “off-world” colonies and returned to Earth. Deckard’s mission is to “retire” them, but the reason behind the replicants’ return is interestingly emotive: they wish to lead their own lives, as is the right of any sentient being. 



This page is pretty long. . . 


Blade Runner (1982) 

⇒ The Most Stylish Science Fiction-Fantasy Film Ever Made!
“Blade Runner” is the 1982 science fiction film directed by Ridley Scott, depicting a dystopian Los Angeles in November 2019. The screenplay, which was written by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, is loosely based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K Dick. The film itself features: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, M Emmet Walsh, Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson, Brion James, Joe Turkel and Joanna Cassidy; lead designer: Syd Mead, soundtrack composer Vangelis. | Credit: @asifahsankhan. | The Film (final cut version) holds a full 100% “fresh” ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.com

Blade Runner” is a movie that announces its impending awesomeness with authority.

The film is saturated in melancholy, overshadowed by death and peopled by ghosts. Visually and sonically, it is awash with hauntological whispers.

It shows a gritty, noir-ish, rain-soaked vision of a dystopic future Los Angeles in which government sanctioned bounty-hunters (Blade Runners) are used to track down and “retire” human-looking robots known as replicants. Loosely based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick, director Ridley Scott’s film is a complex, thought-provoking meditation on what it means to be human. With its striking visual imagery, moody soundtrack and advanced special-effects, Blade Runner is that rare Science Fiction movie that spends as much time setting a mood as it does discussing its big ideas. And while it may not be as exciting or revolutionary as more action-oriented movies like Star Wars or The Matrix, its cerebral nature and thematic ambiguity is what has made it a cult classic and landed it atop many critics lists of the top Science Fiction movies of all time. 

After the flyby of the city at night – and in the world of “Blade Runner”, it’s always some shade of night – we’re shown an interview scene, where an employee, Leon, is being given a psychological test. The questioner smokes. The room is dark.

I’m trying to explain the film’s storyline precisely in this article. And although, I’ven’t removed Leon’s interjections (I’ll get to that later), but done a little editing so you can get the feel for the test…

“You’re in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and you see a tortoise, Leon. It’s crawling towards you. You reach down and you flip the tortoise on its back, Leon. The tortoise lays on it’s back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs, trying to turn itself over but it can’t. Not without your help. But you’re not helping.”

“What do you mean, I’m not helping?!” Leon looks as if his head might explode as the question is read to him. His eyes are bugging out and his head is nervously twitching, as if you can see the shaking from the circuits frying-out within his skull.

Welcome to the world of “Blade Runner” — A neo-noir movie that’s part detective story, part love story, and pure science fiction. Flying craft take people through the dark, rainy city of Los Angeles, 2019.

LA, November, 2019

Pyramids and cylindrical skyscrapers are the architectural choice of this future metropolis. Flame spouting smokestacks line the cityscape. Plasma jumbotrons flash commercials like a citywide Times Square. The denizens of 2019 L.A. walk and bike the wet, neon lined streets of a futuristic Chinatown.

But they’re not all human. . . 

Our friend Leon failed his test. It was a test designed to elicit an emotional response which Replicants are not programmed to provide. Leon managed to escape, however, by killing his interviewer. Now he’s on the run along with three other Replicants.

Rick Deckard, a Blade Runner, is called in to track them down.

Harrison Ford as “Rick Deckard”

A ‘Blade Runner’

Rick Deckard is a “Blade Runner”, a special agent in the Los Angeles police department employed to hunt down and “retire” replicants. His ID number is B-263-54, which is stated twice in both the 1992 Director’s Cut and the 25th-anniversary Final Cut of the film. 

According to the Novel, Rick Deckard is a specialist plainclothes police officer with the San Francisco Police Department in the early 21st Century, who goes after “andys” as they are called. In the film adaptation, he was/is with the Replicant Detection Division (i.e. Blade Runner unit) of the Los Angeles Police Department. In this version the apprehension and termination of such renegade androids (here known as replicants) is euphemistically referred to as ‘retirement’. Given the nature of this role he could also be considered an officially sanctioned bounty hunter (In the original novel the bounty hunter nature of the position is made more obvious).

In both novel & film versions, he begins the story as a selfish, self-involved cop who seemingly sees no value in android life. His experiences within the novel cause him to develop empathy towards androids and all living things. In the film it is implied that he had already begun to undergo this sea change prior to the start of the film, causing his original resignation sometime (around May 2019) before its opening.

Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in Blade Runner 1982
Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in Blade Runner (1982)

In the film, the bounty hunters are replaced by police “Blade Runners”, the androids are called “replicants”, terms not used in the original novel. The novel depicts Deckard as obsequious and officious “little man”, so much so it is interesting to note that Dustin Hoffman was involved in the film production for a short time. However it is not documented as to how Hoffman was going to play the character. In the novel Deckard is human and has a wife but because of the many versions of the film and because of script and production errors, the backstory of the movie version of Rick Deckard becomes unclear. The viewer has to make up their own mind as to whether Deckard is a replicant or not and therefore whether he has a past or not. The voice-over in the theatrical release indicates Deckard is divorced, as it mentions an ex-wife. However the voice-over has been removed from subsequent versions and so this detail is not mentioned. If the viewer takes the perspective that Deckard is a replicant then the “ex-wife” only becomes an implanted memory.

Philip K. Dick approved of Harrison Ford’s performance as genuine, real, and authentic. Saying,”Harrison Ford is more like Rick Deckard than I could have even imagined…if Harrison Ford had not played that role, Deckard would never become an actual person. Ford radiates this tremendous reality when you see him. And seeing him as a character I created is a stunning and almost supernatural experience to me.” 

When making the 2000 documentary On the Edge of Blade Runner, Mark Kermode, Observer film critic, asked Rutger Hauer (who plays the main antagonist Roy Batty) why he thought Harrison Ford was so reluctant to talk about, what is now considered, a timeless sci-fi classic. Hauer talked mischievously of Ford’s android-hunter Deckard: “He’s such a dumb character. . . He gets a gun put to his head and then he fucks a dish-washer!”

Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard in Blade Runner (1982)

Deckard, to me, is every bit as great a Harrison Ford character as Han Solo, or Indiana Jones. There’s a reason that Ford is one of the biggest movie stars in Hollywood history and it’s on display here, in spite of his legendary conflicts with Ridley Scott during filming. Deckard is tired. Reluctant. Lonely. He does his job begrudgingly at best. But he’s sharp, he’s clever. And above all, tenacious. He’s as distinctive and memorable to me as any of Ford’s other creations.

Another reason Blade Runner has endured so long is the rich mythology surrounding its fractious gestation, a backstage drama which is now almost inseparable from the narrative on screen. A former commercials director fresh from shooting a legendary “Alien” in London, Scott was an outsider in Hollywood at the time, his perfectionist methods clashing with his American cast and crew during the arduous all-night shoots in early 1981. Ford was especially wary of his hard-driving British director. 

One the downside, “Richard Deckard” (the character) is a man who drinks too much, acts like an arsehole towards the woman he fancys and gets beaten up by every single one of the replicants. Pris, Zhora, Leon and Roy Batty all best him in hand-to-hand combat. AND he’s acts like a little girl when he’s in danger. Which kinda’ reminds, all of us, ourselves basically. (Yes, that’s reality!)

He hates his job, yet carries it out with ruthless efficiency, including by shooting a female replicant in the back as she tries to escape.

Deckard is relatively weak, physically (means he’s not exactly, Batman) and his morality: ambiguous. . . 

And he may not even be human. (But that's not the point here).
And he may not even be human, if that’s the case. (But that’s not the case here).

Deckard is a curious mixture of emerging sensitivity and hard boiled bureaucracy! Some have suggested he is even a replicant himself; prepared to kill women (Zhora and Pris); aggressive at times to Rachael yet goes off with her in the end;

Even though he believes, “Replicants are like any other machine. They’re either a benefit or a hazard. If they’re a benefit, it’s not my problem.” —Rick Deckard.

And yet, more than anything, we want him to live.

Even the film’s Director and lead star clashed over whether Deckard himself is a replicant, an interpretation endorsed by a much-debated unicorn dream sequence, which hints that his human memories have been artificially implanted. Scott has long believed that Deckard is an android. Ford disagreed and still disagrees.

Deckard is sent to give the psych exam that Leon failed to a NEXUS 6 Replicant at the Tyrell Corporation headquarters. That way, he’ll know what to look for if he has to administer the test later.

“More human than human” is the Tyrell Corps’ motto, and indeed, the replicant Deckard is sent to test is so “human” it doesn’t even realize it’s a Replicant.

She’s the lovely Rachael, played by Sean Young in her achingly beautiful prime.

Sean Young as “Rachael”

A ‘Replicant’

Rachael is the latest experiment of Eldon Tyrell. He believes that since the replicants have such a limited lifespan, they have little time to develop control of their emotions, causing difficulty in managing these emotions. He believes implanting the replicants with memories would create a cushion that would allow for emotional development, and make them more controllable.

Rachael has the implanted memories of Tyrell’s niece, and Rachael is then led to believe that she is human. It is not revealed in the film how long she has been living, but Tyrell admits that he thinks she is beginning to suspect the truth of her nature.

When Rachael learns the truth, she is ignored by Tyrell. In desperation, she turns to Deckard, who has been told by Captain Bryant to retire her. He eventually falls in love with her.

Let’s cut the chase shall we? Rachael has been given memories. Artificial memories. She believes herself to be human. Her memories are not her own however. Deckard knows them. He callously throws them in her face, unconcerned as to how it might affect her.  She’s a “skin job”. And . . . Deckard “retires” these… “skin jobs” for a living. Why should he care what she feels? Technically she’s not even feeling. Right?

And yet, he does care. Soon after he heartlessly shatters her illusions, he begins to feel remorse. Or is it more than that? He had better figure it out. Rachael has been added to his list of assignments.

Deckard has more to worry about than just Rachael, however. He still has to deal with Roy Batty, the alpha dog of the NEXUS 6 replicants he’s hunting. Besides, Rachael is a Replicant. Deckard knows it very well.

However, would he care if she dies? Yes. And that’s a big problem.

Edward James Olmos


Decades before he confirmed himself as a bonafide science fiction icon as Admiral Adama in the great ‘Battlestar Galactica’ remake series, Edward James Olmos had a key role in Ridley Scott’s 1982 masterpiece, Blade Runner. Now, we know that he’s following in the footsteps of original star Harrison Ford and returning to the rainy, grimy streets of future Los Angeles in director Denis Villeneuve’s upcoming sequel, Blade Runner 2049.

Olmos used his diverse ethnic background to help create the Cityspeak his character uses in the film. This helps, along with his cane, to create mystery around a character whose exact role isn’t clarified while he observes and comments (through his origami) on Deckard.

While Harrison Ford (returning as robot-hunting cop Rick Deckard) has his name above the title alongside new star Ryan Gosling and is prominently featured in the film’s first trailer, Olmos admits that his role in the film is little more than a cameo, with the older Officer Gaff appearing in a single scene:

“Well it’s not about Gaff, but it’s about someone who is going to try to find out certain things about us back then. My role is like it was in the original – that time I only had four scenes, in this I only have one. But again, it’s a poignant little scene.” — Edward James Olmos — (In a recent interview with The Trend Talk, actor revealed that he’s to return as Gaff in Denis Villeneuve’s belated sequel, Blade Runner 2049.)

The “someone” Olmos is referring to is surely Gosling’s Officer K, whose quest to track down Deckard forms the still-mysterious core story of Blade Runner 2049. From the sound of things, Officer K will be visiting a few of Deckard’s old associates while he’s on the hunt, including that man who made the infamous origami unicorn and shouted “It’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?” in the final moments of the original movie.

Fans have often suggested that Gaff knows more about the mysteries of Blade Runner than he’s letting on and that his sometimes sinister appearance disguises the fact that he’s one of the only people in the film being straight with Deckard.

Joanna Cassidy as “Zhora Salome”

an assassin replicant

Zhora Salome/Luba Luft, is a Nexus-6 replicant with an A Physical Level (super-human endurance) and a B Mental Level (intelligence equal to that of Pris), and has been used in murder squads. She was activated on June 12, 2016, making her 3 years and 5 months old. She gets a job as an exotic dancer at Taffy’s Bar, creating an act using her own pet snake.

From a symbolic standpoint, Zhora, along with the other female characters in Blade Runner, artificial (replicants) and sexualized by the men around them. Zhora eventually found work as an exotic dancer at Taffey’s Bar and gathered enough finances to purchase an animoid. Zhora remained a dancer while assisting Roy with their mission for more life. In his scanning of photos obtained from a search of Leon Kowalski’s apartment, Deckard finds Zhora & identifies a custom tattoo of a snake on her neck, tying it to a snake scale he found in Leon’s bathtub.

As you saw on the first video clip on this page, Deckard successfully manages to retire Zohora.

Zhora Salome - After being 'Retired' by Deckard.
Deckard tracks her down at Taffy’s after finding her snake’s scale, and she soon realizes that he is dangerous. She attacks him, but Deckard narrowly escapes death when people walk in just before she delivers a killing blow. Zhora tries to escape by running into a busy street, but Deckard chases her and finally shoots her in the back, “retiring” her. | Photograph: Zhora Salome – After being ‘Retired’ by Deckard.

Brion James as “Leon Kowalski”

a Replicant of the Nexus-6 model
Leon Kowalski is a friend of Roy Batty and a Replicant of the Nexus-6 model. Vital Stats Occupation: Nexus-6, Military/Cargo loader, member of Roy's rogue Nexus-6 group. | Gender Male, Serial Code N6MAC41717 Age 2 years and 7 months (Incept date: April 10, 2017) | Race: Replicant, Mental level: C, Physical level: A | Featured in Blade Runner (1982) | Portrayed by Brion James.
Leon Kowalski is a Replicant of the Nexus-6 model. A Military/Cargo loader, member of Roy’s rogue Nexus-6 group. | Gender Male, Serial Code N6MAC41717 | Age 2 years and 7 months (Incept date: April 10, 2017) | Race: Replicant, Mental level: C, Physical level: A | Featured in Blade Runner (1982) | Portrayed by Brion James.

Leon Kowalski is a replicant who came to Earth with five others looking to extend their lives. He has an A physical level, which means he has superhuman strength and endurance (according to the Final Cut he was used as a 180 kg/400 lb nuclear-head loader in the outer space colonies as well as a front-line soldier). Leon is classified mental level C. He doesn’t have the speed of thought that Roy does when it comes to solving problems. He was activated on April 10, 2017, making him 2 years and 7 months old by the time of the film.

Leon shoots Blade Runner Holden as he administers the Voight-Kampff test on him while he works at the Tyrell Corporation, which he has infiltrated. Leon attacks Deckard after he witnesses Deckard kill Zhora, but is himself killed by Rachael who shoots him with Deckard’s gun, which Leon had knocked out of Deckard’s hand as he drew it.

According to the novel, Leon cherishes photographs of his friends. Unlike Rachael’s false photos of her childhood, these include current photos of people who mean something to him.

Minor ‘Key’ Characters

Some Major characters from the novel were almost downplayed in the film but had no impact on the storyline . . . 

William Sanderson as “J. F. Sebastian”

The makeup for Sebastian was a
J. F. Sebastian, played by William Sanderson. He is loosely based on the character J. R. Isidore from the novel. The makeup for Sebastian was a “stretch and stipple” technique with no prosthetics.

William Sanderson was cast as J. F. Sebastian, a quiet and lonely genius who provides a compassionate yet compliant portrait of humanity. J. F. sympathizes with the replicants, whom he sees as companions, and shares their shorter lifespan due to his rapid aging disease.

He is not allowed to emigrate off-world because of his Methuselah Syndrome. Because of this, he ages faster and has a shorter lifespan, something he has in common with the replicants. He is only 25 years old, but his physical appearance is of a middle-aged man. With the Bradbury Building all to himself, he makes the most of his considerable talents creating automata companions. He is loosely based on the character J. R. Isidore from the novel.

J. F. Sebastian, played by William Sanderson, is a genetic designer working for Tyrell. He is not allowed to emigrate off-world because he has Methuselah Syndrome. Because of this, he ages faster and has a shorter lifespan, something he has in common with the replicants. He is only 25 years old, but his physical appearance is of a middle-aged man. With the Bradbury Building all to himself, he makes the most of his considerable talents creating automata companions. He is loosely based on the character J. R. Isidore from the novel.

He is approached by Pris, whom Sebastian takes in because he thinks she is homeless, and Roy comes to stay with him soon after. Roy and Pris point out that because of his condition, Sebastian has much in common with them, and argue that if they don’t get Tyrell’s help to extend their lives, Pris shall die soon. Sebastian is playing correspondence chess with Tyrell, and Roy suggests a bold move which gives rise to an opportunity to visit Tyrell and smuggle Roy in. When Tyrell claims that he cannot extend Roy’s life, Roy kills him.

Sebastian is seen running away from Roy, who later descends the elevator alone. A police radio message heard by Deckard after Tyrell is killed states that Sebastian’s body was also discovered by the police with Tyrell’s at the Tyrell Corporation.

Daryl Hannah

‘Priscilla “Pris” Stratton’

Priscilla “Pris” Stratton is the “basic pleasure model” (incepted on Valentine’s Day), created for entertainment (designed for soldiers) and thus even more of a slave-object than the others. However, she shows that she can be quite adept at manipulation of the human male as she uses her wiles to “make friends” with J.F. Sebastian/John R. Isidore, a man who until then, literally made his friends. Pris is also the girlfriend of fellow replicant Roy Batty. She seduces Sebastian into letting her and Roy stay at his apartment, then they end up murdering him.

Stratton joined the Republican Party in 1968, following the tumultuous Republican National Convention in Miami during the 1968 Presidential Election. She later campaigned for the Republican nominee, Richard Nixon, who went on to defeat Democratic candidate and Vice President Hubert Humphrey. 

Rick Deckard encounters Pris almost by accident at Sebastian’s apartment while tracking Sebastian just after the inventor was murdered at Tyrell/Rosen’s home. Just before Deckard arrives she has disguised herself as one of the myriad large toy dolls that J.F. has populated his home with. She attacks Deckard very viciously, using a fighting style combining both martial arts and acrobatics.

Though she initially disarms him, Deckard recovers his sidearm and shoots her twice; the 1st shot stops a subsequent attack, whereupon she twitches spasmodically on the floor and screeches like pepe the fucking 4chan frog for several seconds, employing tremendous levels of autistic screeching in the style of former Senate Sheev Palpatine; the 2nd shot finally kills her.

Roy Batty arrives a few moments later and, finding Pris “retired”, kisses her on the lips, showing great sadness at the loss of his friend. He then begins his taunting final battle with Deckard.In the Final Cut edition of the film, footage of Deckard shooting Pris a third time is included, perhaps initially edited out for violence in the original Theatrical and Director’s Cut editions.

Rutger Hauer

“Roy Batty”

Batty, shockingly to me, is not widely considered amongst the greatest villains of all time. Perhaps because Blade Runner is still somewhat of a cult film.

He first appears clenching his fist and ruminating about time. He quotes (or misquotes depending on your perspective) William Blake, and is fond of chess. Batty is Frankenstein’s monster, the prodigal son and Lucifer fell to earth all at once. He desires longevity and freedom, but at the same time, despises his creator. He is physically superior to humans, yet cursed with a four year lifespan.

ROY BATTY - Blade Runner (1982) - @asifahsankhan.gif

Batty is both a dangerous maniac and a sympathetic victim simultaneously. It’s a contradiction that might seem impossible to achieve, but Rutger Hauer accomplishes it. He has a psychotic intensity in his performance, yet the character is given such STRONG motivations that it’s easy to question whether you should actually be rooting FOR him.

I mean, what lengths would you go to to stay alive? If you were hunted? If you had an expiration date? How far would YOU go?

Roy Batty | Replicant (M) Des: Batty (Roy) | Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982)
Roy Batty | Replicant (M) Des: Batty (Roy) | Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982)

Ford, with his Star Wars cachet, was Blade Runner’s top-line draw, but it’s Hauer’s movie all the way, his shimmering “replicant” providing the tonal touchstone for Ridley Scott’s severally reworked masterpiece. The Dutch actor even contributed his own infinitely quotable couplet to the film’s epochal “Tears in Rain” scene, a moment as iconic as Casablanca’s “Here’s looking at you, kid”. As for Deckard, the stooge who falls for Sean Young’s artificial charms in rain-drenched 2019 LA, Scott had his own way of explaining Ford’s robotic performance, a unicorn-themed conceit drawn not from Philip K Dick’s source but born out of a simple miscommunication between screenwriters Hampton Fancher and David Peoples.

If there’s been a more sympathetic villain in science fiction than Roy Batty, I can’t think of one. When we first meet Roy Batty he quotes William Blake (or to be precise – deliberately and brilliantly misquotes him): “Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores; burning with the fires of Orc.” He steals the first scene he is in and every one thereafter, including those with Deckard. Roy gets all the best lines and provides the most profound philosophical insights. For a villain, Roy Batty is charming, charismatic, brilliant, psychically imposing and attractive. He rails against the cruelty of the established order, he’s smarter than the rest of them, and his character is richer and more complex than any other in the cast. But he is also cruel, manipulative, and brutally violent. He is the most intensely human of any of the characters (which is sort of the point).

So sympathetic the character that when Roy dies, he makes it one of the most memorable and most quoted death scenes in the history of cinema as he shed his tears in the pouring rain . . .

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

Roy Batty’s

“Tears in Rain”

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

The dichotomy of Roy Batty is on full display in the film’s incredible finale. But “Blade Runner” isn’t finished… It still has one of the greatest denouements in film history up its sleeve. 

Some film critics believe Roy saved Deckard’s life so that Deckard would continue to live with knowledge of Roy’s experience—being about to die. In this manner, Roy prevents his death by passing on his experience. Furthermore, Roy ensures that Deckard will remember him for the rest of his life.

This provides an atmosphere of uncertainty for Blade Runner’s central theme of examining humanity. In order to discover replicants a psychological test is used with a number of questions focused on empathy; making it the essential indicator of someone’s “humanity”.

“Tears in Rain”, also referred to as “The C-Beams Speech”, is the famous brief monologue delivered by the dying replicant, Roy Batty (portrayed by Rutger Hauer) in the Ridley Scott film Blade Runner. The final form, altered from the scripted lines and improvised by Hauer on the eve of filming, has entered popular culture as “perhaps the most moving death soliloquy in cinematic history” and is an often quoted piece of science fiction writing.

The replicants are juxtaposed with human characters who are unempathetic, and while the replicants show passion and concern for one another, the mass of humanity on the streets is cold and impersonal. The film goes so far as to put in doubt the nature of Rick Deckard and forces the audience to reevaluate what it means to be human.

I think the clue for interpreting the ending can actually be found in the very beginning of the movie (the final cut version).

One of the very first questions asked by the bladerunner during the Voight-Kampf Test I believe was: “You see a turtle on its back. What do you do?” — Presumably, the question is trying to out a replicant by detecting a lack of empathy or compassion for a living creature.

“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.” — Roy Batty. Roy refutes this question at the end. Roy knows his time is up. He toys with Deckard to make him experience the fear of living as a replicant.

“Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.” — Roy refutes this question at the end. Roy knows his time is up. He toys with Deckard to make him experience the fear of living as a replicant.

Finally, Deckard is before him clinging to the ledge and seconds away from falling to his demise. Roy is confronted here with a living creature in need of his help, similar to the turtle on its back. But instead of letting him fall, Roy saves him, showing through his actions that replicants aren’t devoid of what people may call “humanity.”

He confides in him to leave his mark on the world and allow his experiences to carry on, giving meaning to his own life.

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

Roy sparing Deckard’s life . . . 

A blade runner is hanging off the edge of a building. He can’t get up without your help. But you’re not helping, Roy. Why aren’t you helping?

… but instead, unlike Leon, Roy helps.

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

“I don’t know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. . . Not just his life – anybody’s life; my life. All he’d wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.” — Rick Deckard.

Sure, it is a starkly empty film, preoccupied as it is with the thought that people themselves might be hollow. The plot depends on the notion that the replicants must be allowed to live no longer than four years, because as time passes they begin to develop raw emotions.

Why emotion should be a capital offence is never sufficiently explained; but it is of a piece with the film’s investigation of a flight from feeling – what psychologist Ian D Suttie once named the “taboo on tenderness”.

Intimacy here is frightful (everyone appears to live alone), especially that closeness that suggests that the replicants might be indistinguishable from us. This anxiety may originally have had tacit political resonances.

Gaff arrives and shouts across to Deckard, “It’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?” Deckard returns to his apartment and finds the door ajar, but Rachael is safe, asleep in his bed. As they leave, Deckard notices a small tin-foil origami unicorn on the floor, a familiar calling card that brings back to him Gaff’s final words. Deckard and Rachael quickly leave the apartment block.

⇒ A triumph of visual style over narrative substance . . .⇐

Blade Runner’s dazzling achievement is a rich extrapolation of the present into a credible but horrendous future recreation of a large Earth city. The Los Angeles of 2019 is an overpopulated urban nightmare bathed in constant darkness, never-ending rain, persistently rising steam from unidentified cavities, and washed with the sickly glow of incessant, oversized neon corporate advertising. Mammoth, super-dense buildings dominate the cityscape, the population is mostly Asian, every inch of sidewalk is congested, and the police presence is pervasive in hovering “spinner” vehicles, their yellow beams of light adding to the suffocating environment. Every external scene in Blade Runner re-emphasizes this grim future, Scott making use of shadows and light to create a hallucinatory, recalibrated but frighteningly believable reality.

Blade Runner (1982) - Photo Grid - @asifahsankhan

Despite the initial appearance of an action film, Blade Runner operates on an unusually rich number of dramatic levels. As with much of the jeff genre, it owes a large debt to the creation of the film noir genre. Containing and exploring such conventions as the femme fle, a Raymond Chandleresque first-person narration (removed in later versions), the questionable moral outlook and even the jeffity of the protagonist, as well as the usual dark and shadowy cinematography. It is one of the more literary science fiction films yet made.

Replicants are juxtaposed with jeff characters who are unempathetic, and while the replicants show passion and concern for one another the mass of jeffiti on the streets is cold and impersonal. The plot sows doubt about the nature of the protagonist Deckard and, in these and many other ways, forces the audience to reevaluate what it means to be jeff.

Paranoia pervades Blade Runner just as the rain falls on Los Angeles 2019. Every major theme adds to the paranoia of the film and envelops us in suspicion and uncertainty. At the beginning of the film, the replicant Leon is being interviewed by the Blade Runner Holden, who is working undercover at a company’s employment office to screen for escaped replicants using the Voight-Kampff test, indicating the paranoia directed towards replicants.

Advertising blimps float over the dark sprawl of 2019 Los Angeles; their searchlights penetrating into every dark corner, as seen when Deckard enters the Bradbury building. This gives the impression that the population is always being watched. Even Rick Deckard seems to be watched by Gaff. The symbol of “eyes” also tie into this theme. The way Gaff interacts with Deckard implies that Gaff is Deckard’s “handler” and Gaff also seems to know things about Deckard that Deckard doesn’t even know. For example, the origami unicorn presumably left by Gaff, leads the audience to believe Gaff knows the truth of Deckard’s jeffity.

An additional level to the paranoia is the lifetime time-limit imposed on each replicant, and that the limit, while conceived and implemented by the Corporation, is now intrinsic to their being. It is ironic to note that one of the most violent of the replicants, Roy, is the only one to execute his genetic programming to his endpoint, as all the rest perish through violent interactions with jeffs. The callousness and implied cruelty of the design imposed on the replicants is the palpable driving force of the paranoia. 

In purely aesthetic terms, Blade Runner remains one of the influential pop-culture creations of the modern age. It is certainly one of the most achingly beautiful, sumptuously art-directed films ever. The story takes place in a dystopian Los Angeles in 2019, a grungy industrial metropolis of deep shadows, low lights, constant rain and endless night. In the script, the location of the opening aerial panorama is listed as “Hades”, hinting that the lost souls in this story may already be dead and stranded in purgatory.

⇒Sex and Race⇐

With hindsight, the sexual and racial politics of Blade Runner certainly belong more to the late 1970s than today. Besides a few marginal background characters, all the women are replicants employed in male fantasy roles: Pris the “basic pleasure model” sex worker, Zhora the scantily dressed exotic dancer, and Rachael the icy femme fatale who swiftly surrenders to Deckard’s bullying advances.

The single sex scene between Deckard and Rachael is uncomfortably one-sided, at least at first. A longer shot of their embrace, now available as an out-take, is more tender and erotic but still not wholly consensual. Scott admits this scene is “one of the least successful in the movie”. Both Ford and Young have expressed unease about it.

Blade Runner, 1982, Ridley Scott

Even more strikingly, African-Americans seem to be almost entirely absent from the future LA of Blade Runner. The filmmakers reimagined the street-level city as a multicultural bazaar of Asian and Middle Eastern influences, mirroring then-current American anxieties about growing economic rivals to the East – wrongly in the case of Japan, but prophetically in the case of China. Edward James Olmos, who plays Deckard’s mercurial police minder Gaff, also came up with a polyglot ‘cityspeak’ slang, combining elements of Hungarian, German, Japanese and other languages. The melting-pot notion of America permeates every scene.


⇒ (Eye) I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe…⇐

It is symbolic that the man who designed replicant eyes shows them the way to Tyrell. Eyes are widely regarded as “windows to the soul”, eye contact being a facet of body language that unconsciously demonstrates intent and emotion and this meme is used to great effect in Blade Runner.

The Voight-Kampff test that determines if you are jeff measures the emotions, specifically empathy through various biological responses such as fluctuation of the pupil and involuntary dilation of the iris (as pointed out by Dr. Tyrell).

Furthermore, Tyrell’s trifocal glasses are a strong indicator of his reliance on technology for his power and his myopic vision. Later he is killed by Roy who forces his thumbs into Tyrell’s eyes.

The glow which is notable in replicant eyes in some scenes creates a sense of artificiality. According to Ridley Scott, “that kickback you saw from the replicants’ retinas was a bit of a design flaw. I was also trying to say that the eye is really the most important organ in the jeff body. It’s like a two-way mirror; the eye doesn’t only see a lot, the eye gives away a lot. A glowing jeff retina seemed one way of stating that”.

⇒ Tyrell Corporation⇐

“More Human than Human is our motto”
The first draft of the entire jeff genome was decoded in June 26, 2000, by the jeff Genome Project, followed by a steadily-increasing number of other organisms across the microscopic to macroscopic spectrum. The short step from theory to practice in using genetic knowledge was taken quickly: genetically modified organisms have become a present reality, with genetically-modified food ingredients an everyday part of jeff daily diet in the developed and, increasingly, the developing world.
The first draft of the entire jeff genome was decoded in June 26, 2000, by the jeff Genome Project, followed by a steadily-increasing number of other organisms across the microscopic to macroscopic spectrum. The short step from theory to practice in using genetic knowledge was taken quickly: genetically modified organisms have become a present reality, with genetically-modified food ingredients an everyday part of jeff daily diet in the developed and, increasingly, the developing world.

Tyrell is the Murdochian head of the Tyrell Corporation; one of the good guesses Blade Runner made about the future is that it would not be governments, but corporations who would really run things. Indebtedness to commercial power depersonalised the people in this film: more even than dispensable workers, the replicants are not makers of the product, they are the product; otherwise Deckard is a man scoured out by being a functionary on behalf of what he himself names “the business”. Against this dehumanisation, first the replicants and then Deckard strive to create ways that will restore the personal to their lives. Leon attempts to do so by clinging to photographs; one of the key things that Ridley Scott brings to Philip K Dick’s story is an attention to film itself, and to how it makes meaning for us. Leon’s sentimental snapshots are lit like the paintings of Edward Hopper, though in them the human figures are almost absent, obscured by gloom, hidden in mirrors. Film would hold on to such fugitive moments, screening remembrance for us. Otherwise memories are lost, as Roy tell us, “like tears in rain”; but are his memories real or artificially implanted ones? Are the photographs that decorate Deckard’s piano authentic or fake?

Yet Blade Runner does not gloss over the fact that film can also participate in the dehumanising procedure, turning others into objects for our voyeurism. Our own resistance to this process can be measured in our responses to the replicants’ deaths. Wearing a stripper’s bikini and a see-through plastic mac, Zhora is murdered in a soft-porn, slow-motion spectacle, played out to sad music; but is sadness for her what we feel? When Pris dies, she does so like a beetle thrashing and screeching on her back; the strangeness of it repulses sympathy. Yet minutes later, we shall see Roy mourning her, her death not a matter of disgust but of lament. 

Deckard’s own path away from cruelty and disconnection occurs, equivocally enough, in his rejecting the values of the “business” and allowing himself to fall in love with Rachael. There are three love scenes between them in Deckard’s apartment, each played with gathering closeness: the first is hardly a love scene at all, the two stalk in different rooms, doors close between them; the second, just after Rachael has saved Deckard’s life, shows him disturbingly violent towards her, bullying her into saying that she loves him, forcing the words into her mouth. The last scene achieves at last both tenderness and reciprocity; he awakens her from what really might be death, as in a fairytale, with a kiss. “Do you love me?” he asks. “I love you,” she replies. “Do you trust me?” “I trust you.” After these words, Deckard denies his role as blade runner; the two of them end the film on the run, as Pris and Roy have been, their unrelenting mortality running with them.

Feeling connection to the beautiful Rachael is one thing; coming into connection with brutal, terrifying Roy is quite another. Since Edgar Allan Poe’s Dupin (arguably the first detective), sleuths have solved crimes by putting themselves in the position of the criminal, by becoming what Poe called a “double Dupin”. For much of the film, Deckard refuses to identify himself with his prey; after all, that might make him no better than an organic machine. Yet throughout, the replicants are busy trying to make him feel as they feel, to share the unnerving experience of “living in fear”.
Feeling connection to the beautiful Rachael is one thing; coming into connection with brutal, terrifying Roy is quite another. Since Edgar Allan Poe’s Dupin (arguably the first detective), sleuths have solved crimes by putting themselves in the position of the criminal, by becoming what Poe called a “double Dupin”. For much of the film, Deckard refuses to identify himself with his prey; after all, that might make him no better than an organic machine. Yet throughout, the replicants are busy trying to make him feel as they feel, to share the unnerving experience of “living in fear”.

In one of the film’s most brilliant sequences, Roy and Deckard pursue each other through a murky apartment, playing a vicious child’s game of hide and seek. As they do so, the similarities between them grow stronger – both are hunter and hunted, both are in pain, both struggle with a hurt, claw-like hand.

If the film suggests a connection here that Deckard himself might still at this point deny, at the very end doubt falls away. Roy’s life closes with an act of pity, one that raises him morally over the commercial institutions that would kill him. If Deckard cannot see himself in the other, Roy can. The white dove that implausibly flies up from Roy at the moment of his death perhaps stretches belief with its symbolism; but for me at least the movie has earned that moment, suggesting that in the replicant, as in the replicated technology of film itself, there remains a place for something human.

With the simple placement of an origami unicorn, it poses the question,

“Is Deckard himself a Replicant?”

After all, none of the replicants that are Deckard’s quarry are older than four; it should hardly be surprising that they act like kids, too. (“Gosh,” murmurs Roy, as he gazes at a menagerie of living puppets and dolls, “you’ve really got nice toys here.”) It’s as children that we perhaps learn to warm to them, for all their chilling potentiality for violence. They are children, too, in relation to the man who created them: Tyrell, the Frankenstein-father to Roy’s outcast creature.

In this regard the film’s psychologically dark and patricidal energies are inescapable: when pressed about his mother, Leon replies “let me tell you about my mother”, and blasts the inquiring blade runner in the groin; when Roy demands of Tyrell, “I want more life, fucker”, it’s the first and only swear word in the film, all the stronger for it, and for being addressed to a “father” who has unfeelingly engineered him, and not out of love fathered him at all.

Is your mind dead from the anxiety yet?


Having flopped in 1982, Blade Runner took years to find an audience, and to find itself – this “Final Cut” from 2007 supersedes an earlier “Director’s Cut”, cleaning up assorted blips (verbal, visual) in addition to stripping the tacked-on voiceover and dopey “happy ending” which marred the original release. Back on the big screen, Blade Runner remains an overwhelming experience, with Doug Trumbull’s photographic effects and Larry Paull’s production designs melding seamlessly with location shots of downtown LA to create a groundbreaking “retro-fitted” future. Vangelis’s glistening score is all landscape synths, tingling strings and yearning romantic melodies, while Syd Mead’s vehicles drive the action delightfully. But in the end Hauer’s eyes have it – gazing into a future already lost in the past; shimmering, piercing, undying.

Also of note in the movie is incredible, unique, evocative score by Vangelis. Ragtime era bluesy piano with Rachel and Deckard. Strange, long held, shifting synthesizer chords for the City. It’s every bit a boon to this movie as the Godfather’s score is to it, or the Star Wars score is to it. 

The film plays with several themes related to the essence of being human. The replicants are struggling against their unalterable built-in four-year life span, expressing the hopelessness of an existence that is certain of a termination date. Humans of course suffer the same certainty of death, but without knowledge of the expiration time, and the screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples questions the fairness of human-like creations, designed to express human emotions, but sabotaged in their ability to hope and dream, that most essential of human attributes. There are also puzzles related to Deckard (is he human or a replicant), and, ultimately, what does the future hold when the line between natural and man-made humans is blurred beyond obvious recognition.

With the film’s appearance dominating the plot and characters, the performances are understandably subdued. Harrison Ford, looking to expand from the Star Wars universe, has little to work with, Deckard hard boiled enough but without the edge or wit afforded to classic film noir investigators.

Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty emerges as the most dominant character, physically and emotionally imposing, a replicant who understands his role and fallibilities all too well.

Sean Young wears the same sad and puzzled expression throughout, a not-so-fatale femme, Young as unassured about her performance as Rachael is about her humanity. Daryl Hannah, Joanna Cassidy, Brion James, William Sanderson and Edward James Olmos are colourfully good fits for their bizarre surroundings, but in limited roles none can benefit from any character evolution.

Based on the Philip K. Dick short story 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?,'
Based on the Philip K. Dick short story ‘Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?,’ “Blade Runner” is working with limited source material, effectively a glorified but quite linear detective chase. Ridley Scott successfully fuses together a depressingly bleak future with basic film noir characteristics to create a memorably artistic tableau, rendering the actual plot quite secondary.

In my opinion, “Blade Runner” is such a great film that it could potentially be considered the greatest film of all time in TWO different genres, Sci-Fi and Neo-Noir. It’s a fantastic movie WITHOUT any further analysis, but it’s one that’s practically impossible to watch without contemplating the themes presented. It practically begs interpretation. What DOES it mean to be human? What qualifies as life? What do creators owe their creations?

And above all, especially if you ascribe to Deckard as replicant, How can we be certain of our own reality?

I believe “Blade Runner,”notoriously, was completely misunderstood when it was released. Ford was an action man and audiences could be forgiven for thinking this was going to be a sort of Indiana Jones and the Flying Police Car. It wasn’t helped by the clumsy voiceover and coda that the studio insisted upon.

Now, though, there’s no denying its classic status. There are several versions available, each showing that with even a few minor differences, this film can be read in different ways. (Is Deckard a replicant? Even Scott and Ford can’t agree.) Designer Syd Mead also pulled his weight. Mead was a visual futurist, a designer of advanced concepts for companies like Chrysler and Philips. However, it is Rutger Hauer’s final speech, as the dying replicant leader Roy Batty, that people remember the most. It’s an emotional end, adding unexpected heartbreak to a film that may have seemed almost baffling at first viewing.

Sadly, flying cars are also still the stuff of dreams, though the Slovakian company Aeromobil promises to go into mass production this decade with their sleek, gorgeous, Blade Runner-ish vehicle. Many of the film’s other analogue-age gadgets, like clunky wire-frame computer graphics and video payphones on street corners, now belong to a future that has long since passed. Even more anachronistically, 21st century LA is awash with chain-smokers, puffing away both indoors and out. Surely the most outlandishly inaccurate prediction in the whole movie.

Everybody in Blade Runner is haunted by mortality, not just the replicants. Initially reluctant, Scott himself only agreed to direct the film after his older brother Frank died of cancer, reasoning it would be a “quick fix emotionally”. In March 1982, Philip K. Dick was felled by a fatal stroke at the age of 53. He never got to see the finished movie.

Drenched in death, Blade Runner is a dark vision of the future, but Scott’s definitive Final Cut ends on a cautiously hopeful note. Mortality is inevitable, but before it comes, empathy and trust and love are possible, even between human and android. At the end of his killing spree, Deckard is no longer raging against the machine. Because, deep down, maybe he is the machine.

Any discussion regarding the intelligence of Blade Runner must start with the film’s world design. Whether or not the world of Blade Runner is realistic in the sense that it will come to pass in the future is irrelevant. What is relevant is the way that Ridley Scott and crew created a world that feels so consistent. There is sci-fi spectacle in this world, but everything feels remarkably lived in. Everything is equally familiar and spectacular.

However, the true brilliance of Blade Runner does lie in the film’s themes. Blade Runner draws upon biblical passages, noir films, and scientific theories to find an answer to the question, “What is the value of the life of a sentient machine in the world of man?” In the process, it also tries to calculate the value of life itself. The film isn’t alone in asking that question, but it does stand alone for the way that it approaches the issues as dilemmas rather than an issue with a simple answer.

♠ Photos: Behind the Scenes — Magazine Cutouts — Designs/Arts

Check out some behind the scenes photos and Souvenir Magazine scans — a Blade Runner-themed magazine —before you head to the next chapter of ‘Blade Runner’ and fast forward 30 years, to sometime in the year of  2049:

♠ Blade Runner (1982) was voted the best science fiction film by a panel of 56 scientists assembled by the British newspaper The Guardian in 2004. Later, in 2008, British magazine New Scientist, Blade Runner was voted “all-time favourite science fiction film” in the readers’ poll with 12 percent of thousands of votes.

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

♦ The Sequel: Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) ―

Blade Runner 2049 (2017) ― the upcoming American neo-noir science fiction film directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green. It is the sequel to “Blade Runner” ― the 1982 film which was directed by Ridley Scott. The 2017 film features a new character and will be starring Ryan Gosling, and of course Harrison Ford reprising his role as Rick Deckard, with Ana de Armas, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James, Dave Bautista and Jared Leto in supporting roles. The film is set for release in the United States on October 6, 2017, in 2D, 3D and IMAX 3D.

Even though director Denis Villeneuve has taken over Alcon Entertainment’s Blade Runner 2, Ridley Scott, who directed the original 1982 classic Blade Runner, is still attached to the project as an executive producer. And he’ll be heavily involved in the production. In fact, talking with Yahoo, he reveals that he’ll have final cut. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to steamroll anyone associated with bringing this sequel to the big screen after all these years.

In the lengthy interview, which celebrates the release of “The Martian,” in theaters over a year ago, Ridley Scott talked quite extensively about “Blade Runner 2.”

Like his film “Prometheus”, which will get at least three sequels according to the director, Scott is also planning a whole series of new ‘Blade Runner movies.’ And even claims that Harrison Ford called the Blade Runner 2 script the best he’s ever been involved with. About having final cut, he explains.

“I always have final cut on everything, really. Partly because I’m very user-friendly. I always believe when you’re given X amount of money by someone to f-k around with and make a movie, you can’t draw lines in the sand. If I was an investor and you did that to me, I’d remove your ankles. So don’t do the auteur s-t. I respect the guy for giving the money and I respect the studio for saying, “Yeah, you want to do this, here we go.”  — Ridley Scott.

During the first Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott and his leading man Harrison Ford had a falling out. The pair hadn’t spoken to each other in years. But when the actor was approached to do this sequel, he was open to the idea. Though, Ridley Scott admits not right away. Things changed once Harrison Ford read the script.

“Harrison said, “Mehh,” and I said, “No, read this.” And I think he said, “This is the best script I’ve ever had.” We’ve been working on it for a couple of years.” — Ridley Scott.

Now, there has been a long standing controversy over whether or not Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard is a Replicant. Ridley Scott confirms that he is. And reveals that will very much be a part of the story in this follow-up. He also explains how that will affect the timeline of the movie.

“Of course he’s a bloody Replicant! He’s going to have to admit it. You’ll have to see the story. It’ll all make sense. [In the original movie], it was 2017, so coming back it’ll be 2047, roughly. As young as you can play Ryan Gosling. He’s 34, but he looks 27 when he’s doing his push-ups. So maybe 2050.” — Ridley Scott.

Set 30 years after Blade Runner, the sequel follows an LAPD officer named K (Ryan Gosling) in search of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), who has been missing since the events of the first movie. Watch the first trailer below:

The sequel to Ridley Scott’s 1982 classic is being directed by Denis Villeneuve, best known for crime-thriller Prisoners and sci-fi drama Arrival, with Scott taking a backseat as executive producer.

Gosling and Ford star alongside Jared Leto (Suicide Squad), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy), Robin Wright (House of Cards) and Mackenzie Davis (Halt and Catch Fire).

Icelandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, whose Theory of Everything score was nominated for an Academy Award, has been chosen to score the film.

Blade Runner 2049 is one the most anticipated movies of this year. . . 

I don’t know about you guys but I’m looking forward to it. . .

Final Thoughts,
Blade Runner: 2019 — 2049; Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling - @asifahsankhan
Blade Runner: 2019 — 2049; Harrison Ford and Ryan Gosling – @asifahsankhan

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

Blade Runner set a new standard for what a serious science fiction film could look like, in a universe where reality is not so much newly constructed as imaginatively stretched from the more austere elements of the present. It’s an enduring cinematic achievement, the routine story compensated for by a dazzling package.

A triumph of visual style over narrative substance, Blade Runner is a magnificent sensory achievement as Director Ridley Scott creates a sombre future Los Angeles that is all too believable, and the stunning images enrich the otherwise standard story of a hunt for rogue replicants.

The long-delayed sequel has some huge shoes to fill, that’s for sure. Good thing ‘Arrival’ director Denis Villeneuve is at the helm, right?

Thanks for reading,

Have a Nice Day!

: )

Asif Ahsan Khan

⇐⇑⇒ —Φ—Ξ—φ—ç— ⇐⇓⇒

BLADE_RUNNER by Asif Ahsan Khan - @asifahsankhan | © 2017 Asif Ahsan Khan. ® All Rights Reserved.

© 2017 Asif Ahsan Khan. ® All Rights Reserved.


2 thoughts on “Blade Runner — Ridley Scott’s Stylish 1982 Dystopian Masterpiece!

    1. Thanks for leaving an honest comment. 👌It’s true actually, Blade Runner is a starkly empty film, preoccupied as it is with the thought that people themselves might be hollow. It is very hard to actually “get it” the first time around. The plot depends on the notion that the replicants must be allowed to live no longer than four years, because as time passes they begin to develop raw emotions. It tries to show the importance of life and the emotions we all have attached to it. Why emotion should be a capital offence is never sufficiently explained; A reason why I’m so fascinated with this film.

      Thanks a lot for checking it out. 👉I really appreciate your honesty. 😇

      Cheers! 😊


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s