Blade Runner (1982) – Deep Dive – Part III: A Replicant By Any Other Name.

Every now and then you get a movie where fans argue over which version you should watch. In most cases it’s just theatrical and directors cut. For Blade Runner there are seven versions (though two you probably won’t find anywhere) and three are in my view worth watching. So lets break down the differences and which ones are worth a viewing. Primarily there are two elements that divide the versions, first and most simply is the edgier content. Some cuts have a bit more graphic violence, while others kept them to a minimum. Generally speaking I’m of the view that you want the edgier stuff, none of it is over the top and it’s just extra content. As a result I don’t really find the US Theatrical release or the “Directors Cut” to be worth viewing since there are other versions that provide everything they do and that extra footage. The second and better known division is the voice overs and happy ending. These were effectively producer additions and as such are only in the theatrical versions. So let’s look at three versions worth watching.

The European Theatrical Cut (1982)

For many people this would be the first version of the film they would have seen. Not only was this the released format for theatres across Europe, it was also the version used in Australia and Asia and was used on VHS releases (as an unrated version) and is perhaps best known to American fans as the version on the Criterion Edition Laser Disc. It is different from the US theatrical release only in three slightly extended and more violent scenes. The US Broadcast version cut even more scenes, so outside of the unreleased San Diego sneak peak (Which had some additional footage that has never been seen since) this is the ultimate voice over/happy ending version.

While the voice overs rarely added anything of worth and in some occasions (such as Roy Batty’s death) actually detract from the scene, they do occasionally include some interesting nuggets of information that help frame the context in which the original release was offered. It’s also worth noting that in this version of the film I really don’t feel that Rick Deckard is a replicant. I’m not sure if that indicates Scott decided to push it in that direction later with the directors/final cut, if it was a concept rolled back by the studio or if it’s just a coincidence. There are some people that still prefer this version (Perhaps because Deckard seems more human), though they are in the minority. It is worth checking out. If you can’t find the European version, the US theatrical cut will do as the differences are inconsequential.

The Final Cut (2007)

This is regarded as the definitive version, though I feel that is a simplification. There is still merit and some additional context to be gained from some of the other versions. I also feel that over time Ridley Scott has changed how he wants to frame Deckard and where you stand on that may impact which version you prefer. This cut definitely pushes strongly in the direction of Deckard as a replicant and perhaps a lot of this was because Scott had in mind (at the time he was doing the notes for the Directors Cut at least) to do a sequel where Deckard was a replicant that can reproduce. This idea was somewhat taken up in Blade Runner 2049 but as many peoples response to that reveals, the idea wasn’t necessarily a winner and revealing Deckard’s status was always going to be divisive. To be clear though the Final Cut doesn’t directly address the idea that Rick is a Replicant, it just hint at it, but most people feel he is after viewing it.

Joanna Cassidy re-filming her death scene for The FInal Cut

The Final Cut makes significant changes to theatrical release. The most notable ones are that the voice overs are entirely gone as is the happy ending and a dream sequence about a Unicorn is added. These changes were also present in the 1992 Directors Cut, however, the Final Cut goes much further in ways that can only be seen as improvements (unless you are an effects purist), so for me the Directors Cut is no longer worth watching. Changes from that version include fixing a number of visual issues with the original, notably the death of Zhora (Where in all other versions it’s pretty clear it’s a stunt woman in a bad wig), the scene where Rick questions the mechanical snake salesman (which had terrible lip syncing) and the shot of the Dove flying off after Roy Batty’s death. On top of this it also adds in those extended edgier scenes from the European Cut. This is easily the best looking version of the film. However I’m not convinced it is the best version of the film for telling the story.

The Ultimate Collector’s Edition – A good place to find the restored Workprint version.

The Workprint Version

This is a bit of a wildcard and this version may be hard to find, but it walks a significant middle ground between the two main versions of the film and has somewhat legendary status. This is the version that was so hated by the original screener audiences in 1982 that they had to radically change the film with the voice over and happy ending for the theatrical release. But it’s the same version that when screened in 1992 as “The Directors Cut” (Which Ridley Scott quickly objected to) was so popular it actually led to the studio putting together the 1992 Directors Cut with Scott’s guidance and that led to the long journey to what would be the Final Cut. It’s fascinating how much difference ten years can make in the reception this version got.

But it’s also worth noting that while it doesn’t have the theatrical versions voice overs or happy ending (Both mandated by the producers after the negative reaction to this very version), it also doesn’t have the Unicorn dream sequence and for me that is a positive. While I don’t hate that sequence, it seems to exist for the purpose of suggesting Deckard is a replicant and frankly I prefer the ambiguity and always felt that dream sequence was out of place anyway.

This version is also notable in that it has one piece of unique voice over dialogue, after Roy Batty’s death and unlike in the theatrical release it actually adds to the scene instead of taking from it. The line is about how long it took Batty to die (all night) and how he died (fighting it all the way, like he loved life, even the pain). It makes the appearance of Gaff shortly after the scene make more sense (As hours would have passed) and the suggestion that Roy’s death was slow and painful makes his character even more tragic. I can only assume it was replaced with a different voice over on release for the same reason they threw in the happy ending, it was just felt to be too depressing.

Of course this is a workprint, so there are issues, but actually it’s more complete than you may imagine. The most notable change is in the music, Vangelis hadn’t quite scored everything and in the scene just after Zhora’s death instead of “One More Kiss Dear” we are treated to a bit of The Ink Spots. Interesting given how franchises like Fallout and Bioshock tend to use that groups music. Somehow they’ve ended up as the go to group for Tech-Noir and it seems it may have started with this workprint. Despite that absence, most of the soundtrack is actually in place along with the effects.

Not only that but the restored version from the Ultimate Box Set (Which is the version I watched) looks pretty much release ready. The Workprint does a good job of showing a third path between the theatrical and final/directors cut and it’s well worth watching if you can find it. Interestingly there has been a fan edit (The “Analogue Cut”) which uses the Workprint as a template but utilises elements of the final cut. I haven’t seen it but I highly approve of the concept.

The Universe Expanded

While Blade Runner failed in theatres on it’s original run, it went on to become a cult classic and became a huge influence on film makers and other creatives going forward. The world in which it is set seemed so real and so interesting that naturally people wanted to tell new stories in here. Some of it is worth checking out, others less so. In my view none of it is officially part of this universe, not even the so called sequel because it significantly reframes the original and in my view failed to understand what made that film. With that in mind let’s get that out of the way first as I have a lot to say about it.

The Replicant in the room – 2049

I’m not going to drop a synopsis or character analysis for 2049, so I’ll briefly cover how it relates to the original. Deckard is in the film (a long way into it) and he and Rachael somehow managed to have a child, though Rachael died in childbirth. Most of the plot follows an investigation to track them down by a new Blade Runner, Officer K, who is a Replicant himself. In theory a relatively simple plot and one that didn’t really need nearly three hours (46 minutes more than the original) to tell. But then the actual script is given a lot of needless complications that don’t really add much to the film except an excuse for David Villeneuve to push for that cinematography Oscar. The fact this movie costs double ($185m) the inflation adjusted ($92m) production budget of the original is really quite telling and while it made the film nice to look at it didn’t help recapture the magic. Ultimately the plot ends up revolving around a simple “Chosen One” mechanic with a fairly obvious twist thrown in. The movie takes twice as long to say half as much.

Harrison Ford looking like I felt watching the movie.

My biggest issue with the film is it seems to heavily push the idea that Deckard is a replicant. So much so that most people after watching assume it outright said he is. The film holds back from outright saying it is the case, but it’s pretty clear this is the intention. It’s strange enough for Rachael to randomly be able to bare children but it would be even stranger to be able to have a child with a Human.

In general the sequel answers a lot of questions that should never have been answered (and a few that shouldn’t even be questions), a common issue for franchise reboots these days and in doing so it actively diminishes the first movie (And there is no greater crime in my view for a sequel). The question about Deckard and what happened to him and Rachael was a question best left unanswered. It was definitely not a mystery worth discarding for the sake of a brief cameo in sequel. 35 years later that had it turned into a multi-film franchise in it’s own right, it was clearly not going to feature an 80 year old Harrison Ford in any kind of capacity that really matters. In short they burned down the original to prop up their own vision of the franchise.

To make matters worse Deckard is simply not Deckard in this movie. For some reason he seems to have switched personalities with Han Solo or Indiana Jones. One of the reasons Deckard stands out so well amongst Ford’s roles is that his personality is nothing like those characters. He doesn’t stand around wise cracking and goofing his way out of situations (Though he certainly gets lucky with them). He is a character built on the Film Noir template. Those elements are discard in 2049, hard to say if that is down to the writers or Ford himself. Either way I felt like Officer K was teaming up with Han Solo for the third act of the movie.

Well… it was better than his Joker.

My second issue is it pushes aside the Tyrell Corporation and the original replicants for a duplicate corporation and only marginally different replicants (Another thing that seems to happen a lot with reboots and I suspect is something to do with merchandise rights). The new corporation is lead by a moustache twirling Jared Leto that is simply far less interesting and believable than Joe Turkel’s Tyrell.

A lot of this is due to Leto’s portrayal of the character that pushes it so far into comic book super villain that it is hard to buy the character as a creative genius. The role needed a more subtle approach and Leto simply doesn’t do subtle. Indeed at this stage there is not much getting around it, Leto simply isn’t that good. He just isn’t talented enough to pull off the method approach. He’s basically Nicholas Cage without the charisma. A good part of the problem though is that his motivation (Creating replicants that can have children) is basically only there to drive a plot that was a bad idea in the first place.

I’m going to die now because that’s what replicants do at the end of Blade Runner movies. .

My third issue is that the protagonist is an empty shell whose story is largely a nihilists one, Early on it seems he is looking for purpose in life, for a while feels he is special, but ultimately must come to terms with basically his own unimportance. This theme largely replaces the theme of the original of what it means to be human and the nature of reality itself. Not that those themes aren’t touched on, but with a replicant protagonist dealing with other replicants there is no direct contrast with the human condition. As many of us that prefer Deckard as a human have pointed out this kind of story needs a central character that the can ground the audience. Perhaps Nihilists and Replicants can relate to K but I am neither of those.

More importantly the message of K’s journey seems to be to accept your lot in life, that you are not special and you are basically here to serve. Maybe there was meant to be a different message, but for me at least it didn’t come through. When Roy Batty discovered his fate, he fought it all the way and treasured every aspect of what lie he had. If you compare his screen time to K’s and consider how much more progress his character achieved it’s simply embarrassing. Officer K isn’t a terrible character, but he’s not one that should have ever been the lead.

Replicants haven’t yet learned to aim weapons.

It’s interesting to compare the opening scene of 2049 to the storyboarded opening of the original film. See Villeneuve was dropping an Easter egg with this by almost copying that unused scene (One he likely heard about the same place as me, from the documentaries on the ultimate collectors edition box set). The difference in the scenes is telling though. The point for Deckard was to both make him look a bad ass, but also to introduce you to the cold brutality of the job. K’s version however drags the scene out to a physical struggle (Deckard just shoots the guy straight away) and makes him look bad at his job. The scene is also used as the jumping on point for the main plot, but the truth is it could have been entirely skipped with minimal impact.

The one positive from K is actually his holographic AI companion “Joi” (Which is a hilarious name… if you know, you know) that pretty much is the sole interesting character in this movie outside of Edward James Olmos’ brief cameo (which was itself another misstep, losing further mystery from the original for the sake of a tiny bit of fan service).

Nuking a city for aesthetic reasons is so Fallout 3. Tenpenny would be proud.

Another problem is the reframing of the setting to be post apocalyptic. The world of Blade Runner was dystopian but it was a pretty unique feeling dystopia. The version shown in 2049 feels more generic. True the novel was set after a global nuclear war, but Ridley Scott’s version was not and when question on the subject he suggested the world was over populated and over polluted. He made no mention of War. In Philip K Dick’s world it was heavily under populated. World War Terminus wiped out most of humanity. Were Villenueve creating a new adaptation of Dick’s story that would be one thing, but he seems to want 2049 to be in both worlds at once and to me that feels disjointed.

A very uniform looking street scene. But they’ve got the glowing umbrellas so we should just focus on that.

On first viewing I really liked the cinematography of 2049, but when I re-watched I came to realise that the parts that weren’t post apocalyptic really feels like an imitation of the original. They for instance have tried to impersonate the street scenes with lots of people running around with umbrellas, but the scenes in the sequel lack the chaotic mismatch of cultures and styles that is in the original. In attempting to replicate those scenes they actually missed the entire point of them – a cultural melting pot ramped up to 11. The sequel wears the unique world of Blade Runner like a uniform.

A common problem for a lot of todays reboots is they make references and feel that is enough. The audience are expected to applaud because they repeatedly say things that should like Deckard’s instructions to his computer while examining Leon’ photo, that people have umbrellas or that they opened the film with a variation on the unused opening of the original. These are all meaningless. Set so many years after the original it made little sense to try and duplicate the street scene so closely, but perhaps the problem boils down to the fact this sequel did come so late. These kind of things are

A scene that works hard to give us multiple references to the original movie and all really just for Easter Eggs.

The visuals and the soundtrack in 2049 are both great and terrible at the same time. In isolation they are beautiful but both are like an AI’s interpretation of the original. Created to look and sound like it but without the detail shown by the human understanding of context. Ironic given the franchise. Every time I re-watch this movie it feels less impressive, that is the opposite of how I feel every time I re-watch the original (And believe me I did that five or six times while writing this).

Where 2049 did follow the original was in failing at the box office. But it’s worth noting while Blade Runner had to deal with the success of E.T. and Wrath of Khan, 2049 hit the scene in October with the closest thing to real competition being the “Kingsman” sequel and the unwanted remake of “Flatliners”. With the original film having done the hard work already, the sequel didn’t really have any excuse. Half the people that watched the film loved it, the other half hated it but as a sequel it really needed to be less divisive amongst it’s built in fan base. Of course later that year “The Last Jedi” came out demonstrating that rule far better and more dramatically. Blade Runner 2049 is not a franchise destroyer like that movie, indeed I’m not sure I’d even call it a bad movie, but it was a major disappointment and a bad sequel. At least in this fans view.

What’s more blade runner than a woman fighting with a sword to EDM? I mean aside from everything?

Black Lotus – The Animated Nonsense

For all my issues with Blade Runner 2049, at least it attempted to be in the same universe as Blade Runner. Having watched half way through the recent animated Black Lotus series I struggle to see how it can really be considered a part of the same franchise. Of course technically Black Lotus is a spin off of 2049 and perhaps that added distance is part of my problem, but ultimately it is a generic cyberpunk story where androids are called Replicants and where it rains and people walk around with umbrellas (Because apparently that is all Blade Runner is now).

Super special cyborg ninja women with no memory may seem a cool concept (to a 13 year old anyway) but it’s a plot about as far removed from the world of the original as you can get and seems better suited in the Cyberpunk Franchise than Blade Runner. On top of this the soundtrack is basically energetic modern electronic dance music (Again something more in line with Cyberpunk).

One day I may give it another chance and just try to ignore that it claims to be a Blade Runner story, but the problem is we already have a Cyberpunk anime and it’s apparently quite good (So I’ll be watching that first). Ironically with some tweaks this story would have been much better suited in something like the Snow Crash or Neuromancer worlds, but apparently no one feels those classics worth putting on the big screen…. But those are rants for another time! This one is really not worth bothering with IMHO.

Blade Runner The Game
One of the best point and click adventure games ever made.

The Video Game

If you don’t have an issue with some retro gaming, the game released in 1997 (five years after the Directors Cut breathed new life into the franchise) is actually an extremely good point and click adventure game and while it tells a new story it fits well in the movies universe. It’s also one of the few point and click adventure games that actually aged well. I highly recommend it and it is available on GoG, so you don’t have to mess around with CD’s.

The game features many of the original cast (and as the story runs parallel to the movies plot it allows for unlimited cameos) and while it doesn’t technically have the original soundtrack from the movie it does have a pretty accurate re-creation by Frank Klepacki (Most famous for his soundtrack on C&C Red Alert). This is who they should have brought in for Black Lotus or even 2049 because his replication of Vangelis is almost indistinguishable from real thing. The game also has great replayability with multiple endings and some game elements (like who is a replicant) changing each play through.

The Surprisingly Good Marvel Adaptation

Books and Comics

Shortly after the original film came out Marvel comics actually made an adaptation of the story and it is surprisingly high quality. It adds some extra detail but remains true to the story. This is well worth picking up if you can find it. There was also a novelisation eventually released by Les Martin (initially they wanted Philip K Dick to write it, but for obvious reasons he refused and insisted they re-release his original novel instead, which they did but eventually got Martin to do the adaptation anyway).

There was also a sequel trilogy written by K. W. Jeter that followed immediately from the events of the film, though he also tried to link the story up somewhat with the original novel (Which is not really possible given the divergence, but it does include at least one character that is only in the novel). These make for an interesting alternative continuation of the story to what we see in 2049 but ultimately doesn’t fit any better. Worth checking out but probably only for the more hardcore fans.

Apparently in the same universe.

Movie and TV tie ins

Interestingly it seems Ridley Scott actually considers Alien and Blade Runner to be part of the same universe. Though my guess is he isn’t including the Alien Vs Predator movies with that. These actually do have a lot of compatibility (even aside from recycling Alien’s computer screen readout for Deckard’s Spinner). Of course Scott also considers Prometheus/Covenant as canon and a lot of fans would disagree with him there (I actually liked Prometheus, but I can’t defend Covenant and am not keen on it’s version of the origin). Whether this link will ever really mean anything to the casual viewer or not is probably dependant on Scott’s continued involvement with both francizes. Currently he is still involved, so who knows.

Another film that strongly hints at being set in the same world is 1998’s “Soldier” staring Kurt Russel. Certainly for me it felt like a spiritual successor even if not legitimately canon. However, when listing Kurt Russel’s character’s military career it seems he was at a lot of the same battles as Roy Batty. The film never directly mentions androids or replicants and Russel’s unit are all show to have been brainwashed from birth to serve as soldiers (making it very unlikely he is an android), however his unit are all replaced by a new superior model, one whose origin is not explored and which I always felt was suggested to be artificial. The links were deliberate and the film was devised as a sort of Blade Runner sequel. Officially though, there is no link.

It’s also worth noting that because of the Philip K Dick link that many other movies and TV shows based on his work also fit somewhat into that universe. Most notable is the TV series Total Recall 2070 which despite the name was really a Blade Runner TV series. It featured an android cop teaming up with a human and featured a lot more android based stories than it did artificial memory ones (i.e. ones you’d expect from a Total Recall series). As strange as that was, the show was actually pretty good (though somewhat dated now, 90’s TV CGI aged horribly) and worth checking out if you can find it.

Final Thoughts

So that is my epic Blade Runner deep dive done. Through my research and multiple re-watches of the movie this labour of love has only increased my appreciation for the work of art that is the original Blade Runner. At it’s heart it is a philosophical movie and while it is melancholy in tone it brings with it seeds of hope.

If a machine that was created as a solider to do nothing but kill and spent it’s whole life span doing it can learn empathy for it’s enemy perhaps we can learn empathy for each other. If Deckard can find meaning and purpose and go from hunter to protector maybe we can find purpose in our lives too. If Rachael can find something to live for after having everything she thought she was stripped from her maybe we can find that strength too.

Maybe too it is a warning telling us not to forget that the people you see every day with their brains apparently turned off, operating in some kind of automatic response mode are actually still people under all of that. But it’s also a warning not to lose ourselves, not to forget we are human, not to shut ourselves off and treat everything as nothing but an objective, a target, a job. It is truly a deep philosophical story but it is built on a very human beauty.

Despite the artificial nature of a lot of the environment and of the synths in the soundtrack each note and each frame is an emotional one that tells a story. The futuristic world is built on the old world. Each brick is a ghost. This is why the world of the film feels so lived in and real. In creation of the film was a perfect storm of pressure, conflict and emotions but also of course of incredible talent. It’s not something you can replicate by throwing money at it, it is lightning in a bottle. That said, when you make a world this interesting it is a shame to abandon it.

The End

Word is Ridley Scott is involved in a new TV series that will see a further branch of the Franchise (set several decades after 2049 presumably to allow a fresh start). Bringing back franchises for TV shows is quite hit and miss but if Scott is genuinely involved (Instead of just taking an executive producer credit so they can use his name) I am certainly going to be keen to watch it. We will see.

Anyway, I hope you found something of value in this multi-part examination of the film. It’s going to be a while before I do another one of these I think and I’ll probably make that a lot shorter. I’m thinking probably The Terminator, though maybe I’ll throw a curve ball and do Airplane! We will see. Meanwhile October is fast approaching and that means I need to get ready for the torrent of horror movie reviews I will do. Feel free to leave me comments on this.

Blade Runner (1982) – Deep Dive – Part II: The World of Blade Runner

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Blade Runner is the world building. Ridley Scott avoiding being too explicit in designing this world and avoided extensive exposition about it. Outside of the visual aesthetics were are given very few hints about the world and yet the verisimilitude is off the charts. This feels like a genuine, lived in world. To break down the world of Blade Runner our first stop must be with the source material. Philip K Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
The source novel

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Philip K Dick’s novel is at heart a philosophical work. The author viewed androids as symbolic of the part of humans which he refers to as the “Automotive reflex machine”, where humans shut down everything about them that makes them human and in it’s extreme form allows them to become self centred and remorseless killers. While this is the replicants natural state, the bounty hunters who are tasked with retiring rogue ones find themselves walking a fine line between cold professionalism and empathy for those they hunt. The more they cut themselves off from feeling anything the more like their own prey they become, but if they allow empathy for these things they won’t survive long in the field. The novel’s protagonist Rick Deckard constantly finds himself struggling to find this balance, and it’s interesting to note that by the end of the novel Rick’s state of mind (outside of a strange religious experience) is reflective of where Deckard starts out in the movie, done with it all and ready to retire.

Deckard with his literal electric sheep he keeps on the roof (Art created by Midjourney AI).

As the films story evolved and with Ridley Scott in the directors seat the view of the androids/replicants gets largely flipped on it’s head but many of those original beats remain and it certainly laid the scene for what has become the big question of the film over the years: is Rick Deckard a replicant? Interestingly this idea is toyed with in the novel, but mostly with Phil Resch, another Bounty Hunter who for a portion of the book is suspected by both Deckard and Resch himself of being an android. However it turns out he’s basically just a sociopath that enjoys his job a bit too much. Deckard’s involvement with Resch leads him to question his own stance in regards to the androids. Despite all this though the androids themselves remain for the entire story incapable of empathy and highly dangerous because of it. Sometimes they are envious of human empathy but more often they despise humans for it (Something especially notable with Roy Batty).

Deckard hunting a replicant at the Opera
Deckard hunting a rogue android at the old Opera House (Art by Midjourney AI)

One of the major changes from book to film is we have gone from an underpopulated world devastated by nuclear fallout to an overpopulated one devastated by over industrialisation and resource shortages. It’s worth noting some articles ignore this (probably because that’s been retconned, but Scott was pretty clear in interviews at the time that the world was as it was because of over population and industrialisation. He said it was a natural progression from where we are now (Though he hoped it wouldn’t be the future). He made no mention of Nuclear War and that wouldn’t really fit in with the way he painted his world. In the novel however the entire set up is due to “World War Terminus”.

Blade Runner 2049 shifted things back more in line with the novel by including more post apocalyptic elements, including Las Vegas in the aftermath of a dirty bomb. The original movie had nothing like that and of course in the theatrical release they actually leave the city you see a world that really doesn’t look post apocalyptic. Despite this change, both versions end up with a major drive for humanity to head to off world colonies, which of course is the entire reason for the Replicants/Andy’s existence.

Deckard in a police station run by covert androids (Art by Midjourney AI)

One element from the book that is very subtly kept in the movie is that of the rejection of genetically inferior humans. In the novel the character “John Isidore” has mutated due to radiation and is now what is referred to as a “Chicken Head”. In the film Sebastian is partially based off of him, though his issue causes premature aging (and it’s not mentioned that it is caused by radiation). Both characters live in a nearly abandoned apartment block that becomes the setting for the final show down and both characters are associated with Pris.

It is suggested both characters are unable to travel off world because of their condition. Unlike John though Sebastian is a genius, just a nervous, socially awkward one. Intelligence is mentioned briefly though by Leon when he suggested workers (even menial ones as Leon would have been) at Tyrell are subjected to regular IQ tests. In the novel those that fall short of the acceptable IQ score are deemed less than human, like poor John Isidore. It’s not directly mentioned if this is the case in the film, but it seems likely.

Wilbur Mercer
Wilbur Mercer being pelted with rocks (Created by Midjourney AI)

The movie also drops the global religion of Mercerism, an empathy based religion involving a kind of shared consciousness and puts less emphasis on the rarity of living animals. True every animal we come across in the movie turns out to be synthetic and it’s clear having a live owl or snake is incredibly rare, but we are never told why or how bad it is. In the novel animals are almost completely extinct and as such preserving the remaining ones are considered of the highest moral duty (Including something as simple as a spider). Owning a real animal gives one a high social status and those with fakes pretend they are real (Unlike in the movie where the response to “Is it real” is usually “Of course note”).

Deckard and the Toad
Deckard finding the rarest of animals, a Toad!

In the novel Deckard actually owns an electric sheep that he keeps on his roof (Yes, the sheep from the title is actually physically present) and later buys a genuine goat with his bonuses and near the end of the book he finds a toad in the wasteland. It’s interesting how much more context this gives to the questions in the Voight-Kampff test and their regular references to animals. The scene in the movie where Rachael is tested is perhaps the only scene from the book almost directly replicated, including the questions asked (Up to a point). So when Rachael is being asked about a painting of a naked woman, the important thing in the book was that the woman is on a bear skin rug. In the movie they didn’t mention the rug.

Pris fascinated by a spider and about to pull it’s legs off (Art by Midjourney AI)

According to Dick, in contrast to how he saw his androids, Scott saw replicants as “Supermen that cannot fly”, certainly he viewed them with more wonder than Dick and that perhaps assisted in bringing them to life on screen. While Scott’s “Replicants” certainly share their core being with Dick’s “Andys” the thing that defined them as dangerous and inhuman for Dick is used by Scott to demonstrate how they have evolved to be just like humans. Empathy is still key to the story, the characters and the world, but in a different way. The humans of Blade Runner are not the religious, empathy obsessed survivors of an apocalypse that they are in the novel. They are not trying to rise from the ashes of the old world, they are instead still sinking into the decay of the past. Instead of the few being brought together by a device that allows a shared empathic experience, the many are instead driven apart by a world where the little people are walked on and everything is fake. Philip K Dick’s Androids would fit right in to that world, so instead it is the Replicants themselves that are reminding us what it means to be human.

Deckard having a vision of Wilbur Mercer before his confrontation with Pris (Art by Midjourney AI)

Roy Batty and Rachael are most notably different. Though Deckard does fall for both versions of Rachael, in the book this is mostly done as a manipulation by Rachael and he is not the first Bounty Hunter to fall for it. However her seduction doesn’t stop him doing his job, nor does it lead to him becoming colder as it did with Phil Resch. This confuses and infuriates Rachael to the point where she murders Deckards recently acquired goat. That Rachael is emotional, but not empathetic. The version Harrison Ford’s Deckard falls in love with however is not an emotional manipulator, but instead a victim that has woken up from a lie. She feels enough empathy for Deckard that she saves his life by taking that of another Replicants and then puts her fate entirely in his hands. Ultimately her character couldn’t be more different. It’s also worth noting in the novel that Pris is the same model of replicant as Rachael. Something totally skipped in the movie, that could have been interesting. It’s interesting to note the kind of manipulation Rachael does in the book is somewhat transferred onto Pris in the movie.

The book version of the final showdown between Deckard and Batty (Art by Midjourney AI)

Roy Batty’s empathy meanwhile becomes key to the entire movie’s climax. The breakthrough in saving Deckard’s life totally breaks Philip K Dick’s view of an android and that is of course the point. In the novel Batty is the most militant of the androids in his hatred of human empathy. But because of this he is also not the greatest threat to Deckard (Instead that is Pris, who appears exactly like Rachael). When Deckard confronts Batty in the novel there is a brief shoot out that Deckard wins relatively easily. In the movie however Deckard is so outclassed by Batty that the hunter becomes the hunted and ultimately Rick is at Roy’s mercy. This contrast really summarises the difference between the two approaches. But it’s worth noting that in both empathy is key. To understand the differences between the two versions of the story all you really need is to understand the changes to these pivotal characters. In both they define what it is to be an android/replicant, but what that is fundamentally changes between versions.

Rachael pushing Deckard’s goat off the top of his apartment building (Art created by Midjourney AI)

When it comes to the visual aesthetics though, despite Dick’s world being far more desolate and post-apocalyptic the author felt that Scott had truly managed to put on the screen exactly what he was seeing in his head. One of the things that Dick mentioned a lot was “Kipple”, the detritus of societal decay that the residents were constantly trying to hold back the flow of, this is certainly present in the film though in a different from. The world on screen seems to have decayed far slower over a long period of time instead of through a key cataclysmic event. It’s worth noting that Dick wasn’t especially descriptive of these things so the novel wasn’t the main source of inspiration for those aesthetics. Strangely that was Heavy Metal Magazine and three of it’s artists.

Heavy Metal

Unknown to many fans of his films, Ridley Scott’s secret weapon has always been the science fiction and fantasy comic magazine “Heavy Metal”. First published in English in April 1977, as the American wing of French magazine “Metal Hurlant”. The magazine would go on to influence the minds of some of the greatest science fiction visionaries in the movie industry, but none more so than Ridley Scott. Of specific note to Scott was the work of Jean ‘Moebius’ Giraud. In the late 70’s Scott was looking to get into science fiction, having just watched George Lucas’ Star Wars. His plan at the time was to create a science fiction version of medieval chivalric romance story “Tristan and Isolde” and to base the visuals on Giraud’s work.

While Scott was busy working on Tristan and Isolde, Giraud was working on another ill fated project, Alejandro Jodorowsky’s “Dune”. Through that he was introduced to Chris Foss, HR Giger, and Dan O’Bannon. After the collapse of both projects that team would end up working with Scott directly on what would become Alien. While Giger obviously designed the Alien itself, Giraud designed the space suits and a few other bits and pieces. His time on the movie was short, but it wasn’t the only collaboration to come out of the failed “Dune” project. While production was slowed to halt on Dune, Dan O’Bannon and Giraud teamed up directly with Dan O’Bannon to produce the story “The Long Tomorrow” for Metal Hurlant.

Moebius’ artwork from “The Long Tomorrow”, written by “Alien” writer Dan O’Bannon

Moebius and The Long Tomorrow

The Long Tomorrow is a short, two part Noir Detective story within a sci-fi setting and while not directly inspired by Philip K Dick, it seems like something that could be straight out of his mind. It’s art style may have defined both “Tech Noir” and “Cyberpunk”, with the grandfather of Cyberpunk William Gibson giving it credit for how the world of his novels look. It’s influence is also apparent in everything from “Escape from New York” to “The Fifth Element” and yet the story really couldn’t be simpler. Private Detective Pete Club is given a job by a glamorous Femme Fatale to collect a package from a lock up in a rough part of town. The short story goes on to involve a couple of fights, a brief chase and a shape shifting alien that Club inadvertently has sex with.

Art by Moebius

The story itself has little baring on Blade Runner outside of perhaps the styling of Pete Club as a 40’s hard boiled detective in a futuristic world. But the interesting thing is how the world is depicted. While it’s clear things are happening in outer space most of humanity seems to be buried deep in a multi-layered subterranean labyrinth of a city, with the surface world apparently desolate and seemingly only accessible for the space port (It isn’t made clear, but the setting is likely not on Earth). The higher levels of the city seem to be for the well to do, while the lower ones are over populated and run down. Travelling between the layers seems to be done in some form of hover car.

Art by Enki Bilal

Enki Bilal and Philippe Druillet

Moebius wasn’t the only artist contributing to Heavy Metal Magazine that had a big influence on the design of Blade Runner. According to Rutger Hauer when he asked Scott what Blade Runner would look like he pointed him in the direction not of Moebius but another French artist, Enki Bilal, whose works (at the time they were filming) included “Exterminator 17” and “Légendes d’Aujourd’hui“. Bilal would later go on to become a movie director in his own right, making films such as 2004’s “Immortal”, which featured a mixture of live action and animation and was certainly one of the more stylish and original films I’ve seen in recent years (though clearly far more ambitious than the budget warranted, so a 6/10). Much like Ridley Scott, it is clear Bilal has a real gift for stunning visuals.

Art by Philippe Druillet

While Scott was looking at Moebius And Bilal the movies producers had already earmarked Druillet’s “Lone Sloane” story “Delirius” from 1973 as a template for the films cityscape. The title refers to the planet Delirius which is a planet-wide city. It’s worth noting that while Isaac Asimov’s “Trantor” predates Delirius both pre-date George Lucas’ Coruscant (and both were possibly an influence). However, unlike the administrative cities of Coruscant and Trantor, Delirius is a planet wide pleasure city. Think of a planet made entirely of Las Vegas. Druillet was famous for his futuristic cityscapes so his work seems a good place to draw influence when creating one of your own. Incidentally, all the AI generated art I used in the section about the novel was done specifically in the style of Moebius, Bilal and Druillet. It seemed the appropriate way to bring the scenes to life.

Edward Hopper and Nighthawks

The last art based inspiration for Blade Runner is Edward Hopper’s painting, “Nighthawks”. Often seen as an exploration of the loneliness of a large city the paintings theme is entirely appropriate for the vibe of Blade Runners dystopian cityscape. One of the techniques used by Hopper, especially in “Nighthawks” is distance. By placing the viewer far enough away that everything is still clear, yet the viewer feels isolated from the people in the picture. The theme of loneliness is common in Hopper’s work so if looking to make your characters feel isolated it’s not bad inspiration. In the movie, wide angles and distance is regularly used to invoke precisely those feelings.

The street bar from Blade Runner

The use of light and contrast is also of note in the paining. There the light from the fluorescent bulbs of the diner seem to leak out into the darkness of the street outside. Light and darkness plays a vital part in the feel of Blade Runner too (Indeed whole video essays have been produced on that topic alone). Of course there is one other influence that likely impacted the lighting styles more than Hopper and that is Film Noir.

The classic Film Noir style

Film Noir Influences

Film Noir is a genre whose visual aesthetic is almost entirely built around light and shadow. Rain and fog plays a part sometimes too, along with creative camera angles, but the use of shadows is consistent. It’s clear that while Scott was determined not to let the 1940’s style dominate the aesthetics, there is a deep level of influence both from the genre’s production values and from the hard boiled detective novels that occasionally provided the source material for the movies. When you see a worn down Deckard pour himself a glass of Johnny Walker, you could quite easily imagine him as Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe pouring himself some Rye. Indeed the elements of Noir are so prevalent in the film, it is regarded as the first “Tech Noir” film.

Blade Runner, defining the term “Tech Noir”

Another aspect of Blade Runner that resembles Film Noir is behind the scenes and a great example of how limitations can inspire creativity. Like many Noir’s, Blade Runner was pressed hard with it’s budget and schedule, which lead to often having to find creative ways to get around the limitations. Things like the heavy use of fog, re-use of neon signs and even things like the recycled Millenium Falcon that is used to form part of the city. The directors of Film Noir discovered early on that the creative use of lighting along with some creative camera angles could help hide set limitations while at the same time manipulate the viewers emotionally and put them on the edge of their seat.

Setting the mood – The Music of Blade Runner

When talking about Blade Runner, you simply cannot ignore the importance of the score. The haunting, synthetic melancholy manages to encapsulate the entire story and translate it into music. It is built into the very DNA of the film and without it, the movie simply wouldn’t be Blade Runner. It’s hard not to notice the impact of the change in music for Blade Runner 2049, even though they attempt to maintain the mood and the complete change of genre for Blade Runner: Black Lotus can only be described as a disaster. Many consider the soundtrack to the original film to be Vangelis’ best work and a masterpiece of cinema and it is hard to argue with that.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the music being such an important part is down to how Ridley Scott utilised it (At least what had already been composed at the time of filming). Possibly taking a page from Serio Leone’s book he would actually play the soundtrack from speakers while the actors were preparing for scenes. So as the actors performed they would have had the soundtrack in their mind, so no wonder it fits so perfectly for the atmosphere on screen. It’s hard to know just how much of Vangelis’ work was available during filming (Certainly by the time they put together the work print the majority of it was complete) but even if temporary music was used it certainly assisted the actors in setting the scene.

Vangelis writing the music for Blade Runner

Amongst the individual tracks the highlight and perhaps most synonymous track with the franchise outside of the opening and closing themes is “Blade Runner Blues”. A fascinating piece in it’s own right, the melody, such that it is falls into a very organic pattern. Some may describe it as random, but it is only as random as life itself, indeed it reminds me of some of the best performances of my favourite classical piece Chopin’s “Raindrop” (Prelude, Op. 28, No. 15). It reminds me of that even more so than “Tears in the Rain” which had a more delicate feel to it (perhaps because it is more about the tears than the rain or maybe just because it was a bit tighter in the rhythm). The thing I find so interesting with Blade Runner Blues in particular is that this organic feeling track is of course heavily synth based, it tells the listener (whether they realise it or not) “I am alive and yet I am synthetic” which makes it perhaps the beating heart of the entire soundtrack.

Of course the two most important pieces in any score are the opener that sets the mood for the entire film and the closing theme the audience takes home in their head as they leave the theatre. In this case the pair couldn’t be more perfect and they provide an interesting contrast. The opener is dramatic and epic, that gives few clues to the characters but immediately sets the scene for the world in which they live. The closing theme however is fast moving and insistent, implying action, perhaps because the story closes with Deckard and Rachael on the run, making it a lot more personal but also leaving the viewer wanting more and questioning what happens next. It also doesn’t hurt it’s the catchiest most memorable piece in the entire score.

End of Part Two

That’s it for my look at the movies production. There actually could be a whole lot more to discuss in regards to the tensions on set, the “T-Shirt Wars” between Scott’s “Xenophobia Sucks” and some crew members “Yes Guv’nor My Ass”, the pressure of the budget and deadlines and of course the disagreements between Scott and the movies producers. However that has all been very well covered in documentaries and really doesn’t help us that much in understanding what makes Blade Runner so great. Suffice to say some creative people thrive under pressure and with conflict and Ridley Scott usually delivers under such circumstances. Probably the biggest impact of all this conflict is the multiple versions of the movie and that I will get into with the final part of this deep dive.

Blade Runner (1982) – Deep Dive – Part I: Plot & Characters.

So we recently hit the 40th anniversary of Blade Runner (1982). I took the opportunity to finally watch my 5 disc ultimate collectors edition box set that I bought around the 25th anniversary. This is the version used for the disastrous test screenings that ultimately lead to the theatrical version with it’s voice overs and happy ending. Many years later in the early 90’s it was given a theatrical run and was so well received it prompted the creation of the so called “Directors Cut” in 1992.

It made for interesting viewing and I thought it was a good time to start talking about the movies I truly love, starting with this science fiction classic. This is going to be a hefty read as I am covering everything I can think of here outside of a scene by scene break down (Which I’m seriously considering doing at some point). As such I’ve decided to split this into three sections. The second part looks at world of Blade Runner (both thematic and production), including a comparison to the source novel and the various visual influences, the third and final part breaks down the different releases and spin offs (Including my review of the sequel).

This first part breaks down the basics of story and characters and while you will see many of my own takes on these things here, if you are a big fan of the movie and don’t want to go over all that you may want to just skip straight to part two where I’m pretty sure you’ll find some interesting things you probably didn’t know before. If you are a more casual fan or just want to read my takes (thank you for that), let’s get started!

Opening Scene
The iconic opening shot

Brief Plot Summary (Spoilers)

Set in a 2019 (Joining the likes of Back to the Future 2, Escape from New York and 2001 a Space Odyssey in now being set in the past) in a dystopian Los Angeles, the film tells the story a former “Blade Runner”, a police officer that specialises in hunting down and “retiring” rogue replicants (Androids manufactured by the Tyrell Corporation for off world use).

Retiring feels very much like killing a human being, but is seen in a legal sense as decommissioning a faulty piece of equipment. In the theatrical versions Deckard’s voice over makes it clear that he has had enough of the killing, the implication being that to him at least, it felt too much like killing. Perhaps he has developed some sympathy for the replicants over the years. The other versions of the film leave leave this more open to interpretation, but certainly he is a man with his own demons, tired of his role in the world and perhaps tired of the world he finds himself living in.

Deckard’s Briefing

Deckard is effectively given no choice but to return to the force as they need him to hunt down four rogue replicants. These are particularly dangerous models of the latest design (The “Nexus 6”), from a military detachment. Their leader “Roy Batty” is a particularly dangerous military model. This seems the set up for a solid science fiction action movie, but that’s not quite that straight forward. One of the questions that Blade Runners never seem to figure out until it is too late is what these rogue Replicants want? Why have they come to Los Angeles? They figure it has something to do with the Tyrell Corporation, but they don’t know what.

The Voight-Kampff test

It’s an interesting question because had they thought about the replicants as acting on human emotion the answer would be obvious. The Nexus 6 model only has a 4 year lifespan, which was built in due to that model being so human like that around that point they start to develop their own emotional reactions, notably empathy which in turn would make them immune to the “Voight-Kampff test” which is the primary means by which Blade Runners can identify replicants. So really it’s obvious what these Replicants want, they want what we all would want: More time.

Zhora is the first of the Nexus 6 Replicants to fall.

The only lead Deckard has is from a killing at the Tyrell Corporation of the previous Blade Runner on the case by a replicant that had infiltrated the staff. The replicant escaped and was identified as one of these four Nexus 6 replicants. Deckard picks up some leads from the Replicants apartment and is able to pursue them to another Replicant called Zhora who posing as an exotic dancer. Deckard confronts her to determine if she is indeed a replicant, but sensing something is up Zhora attacks him and then flees. Deckard pursues and dispatches the first of his targets.

Rachael at the Tyrell Corporation

Things are complicated further for Deckard through an additional replicant being thrown into the mix. While visiting the Tyrell Corporation he is introduced to Tyrell’s assistant Rachael, who he is encouraged to test with the Voight-Kampff test under the pretence of “Wanting to see a negative”. Though it takes far longer than usual, the test does expose her as a replicant. Rachael is a new experimental model that is totally unaware she is an artificial construct having been implanted with false memories from Tyrell’s niece. After visiting Rick’s apartment, she learns the truth about her life and goes on the run herself, eventually saving Deckard’s life from a vengeful Leon (Confronting Deckard shortly after he has “Retired” Zhora) and becoming entangled romantically with him. Deckard has now ticked two names off the list, but Gaff informs him one more has been added: Rachael.

Roy and Pris pursuing their own leads

The remaining two replicants meanwhile, are pursuing their own leads in their quest to extend their lifespans. Their journey leads them to chase engineers that work for Tyrell until they find a man that can give them access to their creator directly. It can be argued their story is actually more interesting than Deckard’s, it is certainly more visually entertaining taking them to a kind of cry-lab, to an eccentric genius that lives in an abandoned building and builds himself robot friends that resemble toys and finally brings them to meet “god” on the top floor of the Tyrell building high above the city. If not for all the killing they could be the protagonists of a Tim Burton movie. Interestingly it is their actions that eventually lead to final stand off with the Blade Runner and the famous “Tears in Rain” scene..

Deckard’s perilous predicament.

The epic conclusion of our story sees Deckard pursue the two Replicants to Sebastian apartment after they have met and killed Tyrell. Pris manages to get the jump on Deckard (quite literally) but is taken out in the ensuing fight (Luckily for Deckard she is not a combat model). Roy Batty however is a much more capable opponent and soon the hunter becomes the hunted. Batty ends up pursuing Deckard to a roof top where a badly planned leap almost sees Deckard to his death, only be shockingly rescued by his enemy. Having reached the point with his emotional growth he can actually feel empathy and accepting that his own death in imminent and unavoidable Roy gives what wold become one of the most famous speeches in movie history:

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe… Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion… I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain… Time to die”

After a while Gaff appears and tells Deckard he has “Done a man’s job”. Deckard says he is done and leaves. As he departs Gaff says “It’s a shame she won’t live… but then again, who does”. Rick returns to his apartment to find Rachael and the two leave to go on the run together. On his way out he finds an origami Unicorn, left by Gaff. Depending on the version you are watching there may be more to this scene but for the sake of this summary I’ll leave it here. Let’s have a look at the characters because ultimately the characters are the heart of this story.

Rick Deckard

Deckard is played by Harrison Ford and it is a very different role for him from his two most famous ones: Indiana Jones and Han Solo. All three characters are a little moody at times and somewhat cynical, but Indie and Han are fun, sarcastic action heroes with buckets of charisma, while Rick Deckard is far drier in his personality and deeply melancholy. He has an inner strength and a strong sense of professionalism, but is largely warn down by the world in which he lives. Indie by contrast managed to remain generally upbeat despite having to deal directly with Nazi’s and Han Solo likewise despite dealing with both the Empire and the galactic underworld. One of my biggest disappointments about “Blade Runner 2049” (2017) was that this seems to have largely been forgotten by Dennis Villenueve who seemed to turn Deckard into something closer to those other two characters.

Rick Deckard
Hard Boiled Detective Deckard

Deckard is something of a throwback to the Hard Boiled Detective novels of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett and his personality could probably be found somewhere between the gritty pragmatism of Sam Spade and the more empathetic Phillip Marlowe. In a way the two detectives represent conflicting elements of Rick’s personality, which him moving closer to Marlowe and further from Spade as the movie progresses. It’s worth noting originally Deckard was going to wear a classic 1940’s detective hat, but the similarity between that and Ford’s previous role as Indiana Jones and his iconic hat lead to a change of aesthetics and that was probably for the best.

The thing dreams are made of?

As I mentioned earlier, in the novel Deckard’s journey is that through years of hunting emotionless androids he himself finds he has become no different to them. He has lost his own humanity. This isn’t quite the journey for the character in Blade Runner. Instead perhaps that is a journey that the character has suffered prior to the start of the movie and the reason he resigned form his job as a Blade Runner. So instead his journey is actually about rediscovering his humanity and it is ironic he is only able to do this through his interaction with replicants. Obviously the big question in regards to Deckard is if he is a replicant. We will come back to this.

Roy Batty

Perhaps the most interesting character in Blade Runner is “Roy Batty” played by an often overlooked and underrated Actor of great talent: Rutger Hauer. More than any other actor in the movie Hauer really defined the Roy Batty we saw on screen. From his drive to have Batty display the full spectrum of human emotions throughout the movie, to his moment of genius in altering the overly complex and wordy final speech of Roy Batty on the fly into what became one of the most famous bits of dialogue in movie history. The “Tears in Rain” line was never on any of the scripts and is the one line that resonates with everyone watching. Roy Batty is without doubt the crowning achievement in Hauer’s career.

Roy the battle hardened veteran.

Roy Batty was created to be an emotionless killer. Through his role he saw action in every off world combat since his creation date. As a replicant he had no off time so his life was nothing but combat and warfare. When Batty talks about the things he’s seen, he isn’t exaggerating. If you were to imagine what a human veteran may have seen in a time of war and then set those wars on alien worlds and deep space you start to get an idea. When those emotions started to creep in on Roy it’s not a stretch to consider that Roy may have suffered a certain amount of PTSD. This gave him a shock awakening to the reality of his existence and his mortality with his expiration date just around the corner.

The innocence within

Not only did Roy want to live, he likely also wanted some guidance as to what it all means. For all his tactical sills a physical superiority he was ultimately a child and every time he expressed emotions they seemed over the top, like he is being overwhelmed by them. This is entirely intentional. Rutger suggested this to RIdley Scott, who loved the idea and made sure to write these moments into the script. Between the pair of them we see Roy playful, wrathful and lustful. We see him mourning the death of his friends, we see him in utter despair when he finds there is no way to extend his life and we see him moments before his demise show empathy and compassion for the very person that moments earlier was trying to kill him. Of all the characters in the movie he is the most human and that ultimately is the entire point.

Rachael

The third character of note in the movie is of course Rachael, played by Sean Young. She completes both the movie trinity of hero, villain and love interest but also a trinity of contrasting emotional journey’s of self discovery. While Deckard has lost his humanity and finds it again through the events of the movie and Batty has gained a humanity he was never supposed to have, Rachael has just had her humanity (or at least as she understands it), stolen away from her by the revelation that she is a replicant. Her memories are not her own, the image of who she is in her mind has been shattered. She is left with just the knowledge that she was an experiment, that her whole reason to exist was to serve as a vanity project for a scientist with a god complex.

One More Kiss Dear

The only thing in her life that is real is the man that shattered her illusions, Rick Deckard. When she saves his life by killing fellow replicant, Leon, the pairs destiny becomes tied together. She made a choice to do the right thing and protect him and he makes the same decision with her. But more than that of course because they have also fallen in love. Something set up from their first meeting where she completes the Voight-Kampff test in a scene that felt very intimate. Sean Young plays her part perfectly. She has a certain aloofness about her, but not in a way that feels like a machine, it’s more like a 1940’s Femme Fatale. It’s a character trait that breaks down as her world breaks down around her and it creates an interesting contrast, when she thought she was human she acted less emotionally than when she knew she was a replicant. Her scenes with Deckard all have a sensuality to them, that makes me believe the pair could fall in love after having known each other for a short period of time.

Zhora and her artificial snake.

The Rest

There are some interesting, unique characters amongst the rest of the cast too. The other three escaped replicants for instance have their own unique personalities. Triss, played brilliantly by young Daryl Hannah is playful and manipulative, which makes sense given she is a pleasure model. Leon however was a manual labour model and seems to be on a simpler level emotionally than the rest. He is quick to anger but has a big emotional attachment to his photographs and to his friends, the other replicants, especially it seems to Zhora. Indeed it may be that the four replicants were two couples, though that is pure speculation.

Leon is not emotionally well adjusted

It is no wonder he has such strong attachments and simple emotions having spent his entire life loading nuclear fissionable material. He has not had much contact with the outside world. Brion James plays the role well and I always had sympathy for the character. Zhora played by Joanna Cassidy gets the least screen time of the replicants but perhaps the second most memorable death after Roy’s. She seems to be street smart and cynical, seeing right through Deckard almost right away. But her fear and panic shine through when she realises her time may be at an end.

Tyrell and a very comfortable looking dressing gown.

The Tyrell Corporation has a few interesting characters of it’s own. Eldon Tyrell (played by Joe Turkel), creator of the replicants seems to revel in playing god. He loves his creations, but doesn’t treat them compassionately. Indeed what he did to Rachael was really quite monstrous. Eldon it seems lives alone and his only friend appears to be Sebastian who he mostly only communicates with through their remote chess game. Yet he is surrounded by luxury in his 700th floor apartment atop the Tyrell building that looms over the city itself. A suitable place for a god to reside. It’s never made entirely clear what Tyrell’s motivations are, especially in regards to making Rachael and that question is further complicated by events of the sequel. In isolation though we can easily believe that Tyrell created Rachael simply because he could and perhaps also for the same reason that Sebastian created his “Friends”.

Sebastian and Pris with one of Sebastian’s creations

Sebastian (William Sanderson) meanwhile resides in an apartment in the Bradbury Building (Which appears to be mostly abandoned) and appears to have an even more lonely existence. His apartment is dusty and his friends are all mechanical creations of his own, far simpler than the replicants. He is shy, socially awkward and suffering from a physical condition that causes premature aging. Perhaps because of this he falls so easily for Pris and Roy’s manipulation, after all they just want the same thing he wants: more time. Sebastian is a tragic character, well meaning and unlike Tyrell not deserving of Roy’s vengeance. But underneath this perhaps the two geniuses are only really divided by social status and resources. As I will examine later, taken with information from the Source Novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” there is a strong suggestion that genetically inferior people are banned from moving off world and generally treated as barely human. It’s no wonder Sebastian was so easy to manipulate.

The last character of note is the most mysterious. Gaff, played by Edward James Olmos is on the surface a vein brown nosing career cop. Wandering around in his flamboyant outfits with his cane and talking in a mixed up language known as “Cityspeak”. He is mostly Police Chief Bryant’s errand boy, but seems to have been assigned to keep an eye on Deckard, presumably to make sure the want away detective is doing his job. He seems to dislike Deckard and is critical of everything including his appearance.

Where he becomes mysterious is in his use of origami where he seems to always provide some form of symbolism perhaps to Deckard’s state of mind or just to events. Initially creating a chicken during Deckard’s briefing, a man with an erection while searching Leon’s apartment and then finally leaving the famous unicorn outside of Deckard’s apartment. An action that also suggested that he knew Rachael was waiting for him and was allowing him to run.

Most significantly the origami unicorn, paired with Deckard’s dream of a Unicorn previously was intended as a hint that Deckard is also a Replicant. That made the character of Gaff pivotal to that particular mystery. The other thing worthy of note here is Gaff’s “City Speak”. For a character with minimal screen time the effort that Olmos put into it was staggering, literally inventing the language himself for the role, utilising his own knowledge of language and even going to the  Berlitz School of Languages in Los Angeles to research and develop his ideas.

End of Part 1

There is further context to be gained through examining the source material, influences and the multiple versions of the film. But before we get to that (in part 2 and 3) I think it is clear already that a lot of blood, sweat and tears went into the creation of this movie. More than your average production. While there was no doubt a few to which it was just a job, others I think realised there was something special here. Olmos gave his all to a relatively minor role, Rutger Hauer not only came up with one of the most memorable lines in movie history but put on the performance of his entire career here.

Ridley Scott with Harrison Ford on the set.

It could also be argued this is Ridley Scott’s masterpiece too, even considering the spectacle that was “Gladiator” and that other time he turned the science fiction genre on it’s head with the ground breaking “Alien”. Jordan Cronenweth and Douglas Trumbull, really provided a masterclass on lighting and camera work and Trumbull even came up with a clever technique using a small mirror that allowed for those occasional glowing eyes that Replicants have (Somewhat replicating an effect he also provided Kubrik with for 2001). To cap it all off Vangelis made perhaps his own masterpiece with the soundtrack, something we will examine further in Part II.

This movie was always going to be something special, but it was perhaps an accident of timing as to why it failed at the box office on release. We were already slipping out of the grittier more director driven films of the late 70’s/early 80’s to the more fun action packed movies of the mid 80’s, so perhaps the movie was already a year or two past it’s optimal release time, but the summer of 1982 was ruled by the release of Spielberg’s “E.T. The Extra Terrestrial”. Alongside E.T. you had “Star Trek II – The Wrath of Khan”, so right out the game you have two of the most famous science fiction films of all time, one with family appeal and the other a built in fan base already out before Blade Runner launches. On top of that you have “Rocky III” “Poltergeist”, Clint Eastwood’s “Firefox “and the similarly ill fated “John Carpenter’s The Thing” competing for the general publics hard earned cash. Today it’s hard to imagine Blade Runner (or The Thing for that matter) not finding an audience, but 1982 was an insanely strong year for movies and ultimately the movie flopped. But the box office isn’t everything and the film more than made up for it later.