Blade Runner: The Final Cut (1982) * FULL LENGTH REACTION
Added 2024-08-21 17:21:13 +0000 UTCI don't think I've been this confused in a long time.
I also don't think there's a clear yes or no answer to whether he's a replicant or not, and seeing as it's adapted from a book, I want to read it and see how different it is to the movie.
I'm going to have to watch this one again, in order to pay attention to so many things 😂
I'd love to know what you think about the movie and whether or not Deckard is a replicant.
For this style of reaction, you need your own copy to watch the movie. You can set picture in picture by right clicking twice on the video and selecting "Picture in picture". The right clicking twice is a bit tricky, because you have to right click, then move your cursor so it's not on the menu, then right click again
- Vero 🕵️♂️🤖
Thank you so much everyone for your support, I couldn't do this without you 🥰
Comments
Ooh, although I'm not one of the big fans of this movie... I like it well enough that maybe I'll buy it. It's something worth rewatching... Long ago I used to buy and collect movies. I think an online purchase of this is worth it. Then it becomes available outside streaming... there are so many platforms now but it's not streaming on anything right now I believe. The reason I'm not as big a fan as others is because of the quote "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" I did not see androids in Blade Runner. I mean... androids are supposed to be machines while cyborgs are part machine and part organics. I read the book prior to the movie... but I don't remember the book... and I thought the quote appears at the end of Blade Runner but searches say it does not. LoL I'm totally misremembering things maybe - okay I bought it.
Mannygogou
2025-03-16 08:50:22 +0000 UTCThere's a scene in Deckards room his eyes shine as a replicant that's the big hint he is a replicant. The book is very different from the film some parts are better but Rutger's Roy Batty in the film is a much better character.
Andrew Jackson
2024-09-01 07:55:03 +0000 UTCThe novel by Philip K. Dick has a sub-plot that I found to be really interesting. It wouldn't have added anything to "Blade Runner" but I've always wondered if a screenwriter could adapt an entire new film out of it. "Blade Runner 2049" hasn't enjoyed the same popularity as "Blade Runner" but I enjoyed it a lot. Looking forward to your watchalong.
ButtercupsTrueLove
2024-08-31 18:39:38 +0000 UTC@Verowak When the movie came out, these three videos were dripped out leading up to the movie -- presumably to help build interest and hype for it. Unfortunately, commercial success eluded 2049 but secondary markets (streaming and physical media) hopefully have helped here. (I did my part! :) ) Denis does an introduction for each short. I should also mention that each short has a different director hand-picked by Villeneuve himself. This alone keeps it interesting I think.
Ron
2024-08-26 06:53:05 +0000 UTCBook report book report! I've never gotten around to it.
Barry Hammock
2024-08-26 03:21:54 +0000 UTCThis is the first time that I hear about the short-subject films! How did you hear about them?
Verowak
2024-08-26 01:16:50 +0000 UTCThank you for your interpretation of the movie! I love thinking of "what if" scenarios, and love seeing the movie as if Deckard is a replicant, and as if he's not a replicant. It just gives me more things to imagine lol I do like the idea that only the ones identified are replicants, but I also like the idea that the Blade Runners are replicants sent to chase down replicants without knowing they're replicants. It seems a bit morbid in a sense. Interesting that the narration was removed in the subsequent cuts of the movie, I'm not sure why they would do that. Perhaps Ridley Scott didn't like it for some reason, or thought that the scenes that replaced it was more vague so those watching would get to come up with something that differs from the theatrical cut. I don't know much about film noir, but I definitely need to see some movies so I get a better feel for it 😅 I'm glad you enjoyed watching it with me!!!
Verowak
2024-08-26 01:15:32 +0000 UTCThe movie is really well made to let everyone decide for themselves what is the truth
Verowak
2024-08-26 01:10:57 +0000 UTCThat's a good way of looking at it yeah. Their relationship being human/replicant or replicant/replicant definitely shows a different side of Deckard's character
Verowak
2024-08-26 01:10:09 +0000 UTCIt's definitely fun to try to figure something out, and see how people interpret art/movies. That's the joy of movies for me, seeing what other people take from it.
Verowak
2024-08-26 01:09:02 +0000 UTCI can definitely see both sides, and I'm fine with either. It just makes me more curious to read the book and see what the source material elaborates on or perhaps makes more clear.
Verowak
2024-08-26 01:08:13 +0000 UTCDefinitely a movie that has to be seen more than once before you gain full appreciation for it; so yeah that helps explain why it became a cult classic in the intervening years after its release.
Laxjedi
2024-08-22 14:49:30 +0000 UTCI've always thought that Deckard was human and still think so after seeing a number of different cuts of this movie. Interestingly, both Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott have very strongly held (and opposite) opinions on this topic. But, I won't say until you see 2049. Speaking of 2049, I should also mention that there are several short-subject films that were released just prior to the release of the movie. They're all on YT: * 2036: Nexus Dawn * 2048: No Where to Run * 2049: Black Out These 3 shorts fill-in the time between 2019 and 2049 and are meant to be seen before Blade Runner 2049. (It was part of the marketing campaign.) Someone very thoughtfully cut them into a single video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffxo_6Cg0Cw (The originals are on the Warner Bros YT channel.) If you can manage it, I'd love to see a reaction to them. The total runtime for all 3 shorts is only 24 min.
Ron
2024-08-22 09:29:56 +0000 UTCWell, if Deckard is a replicant why is he not as strong as the other replicants? Of course I don't know what they have done with this final cut thing. I'll watch along with Vero and see. I like the existential way the original cut ended the movie and for me brought the movie to a kind of full arc. I don't know if they kept that or not. I like the whole feel and mood of the movie and Rutger Hauer was really brilliant in this. All the actors were top level but Rutger really carried the movie, it wouldn't have worked without that strong performance. Directors should not cut their own movies, especially Ridley Scott! Having watched the reaction I will say this. Having not read the book by I think Phillip K Dick. ( I think the books title is something like 'do androids dream of electric sheep' something like that.) The replicants represented in the movie are more like human hybrids not androids or robots. Nothing in the movie makes me think that Deckard or anyone else besides the 5 identified characters are replicants. I say this because it doesn't seem to me that the movie was focused on that sort of sub plot. The point of the movie is more like, Is it possible for humans to create something that has consciousness? (Me: no because we don't know what consciousness is). If you create a human like life form, with consciousness, how are you suppose to treat it? These seem to me the questions the movies is focused on. In the original release, after Roy(Batty) saves Deckards life, there is a little narration from Deckard to the effect that he doesn't know why Roy saved him, perhaps it was because at that moment Roy values all life ( This fits well with him releasing the dove), but that all Roy wanted was to know why he's here, what he's suppose to do, and how long has he got, which is what we all want to know. Both of the subsequent cuts of the movie remove that narration, I don't know why because I think it's a valid observation. In the scene where Racheal and Deckard are leaving his apartment, and he finds the origami left by Gaff, it's a sign to him that Gaff was there and could have killed Racheal but didn't because Gaff wants Deckard to take Racheal and leave the city. The implication at the end of the movie is that Deckard did exactly what Gaff wanted and knows that Gaff is not going to send anyone after them. I could say something else here but since you say you're going to watch the theatrical release I won't because it could be a bit a spoiler. That's what I think about the movie anyway, reading the book might make me think different. The theatrical release is better in my opinion. Your observation that it feels like film noir is great. I didn't think of that but your right it's a sci fi in the film noir style and they really pulled it off. I would never watch the sequels to this myself. It was great fun watching this with Vero.
Scott Howard
2024-08-22 01:25:41 +0000 UTCI prefer the idea that he's not a replicant (which seemed to be the way the theatrical cut was leaning). It's just that the relationship with Rachel is more provocative if one is a human, and one is artificial.
WastedPo
2024-08-21 23:01:06 +0000 UTCI LOVE and HATE this movie. I HATE this because as an Imagery Analyst in the real world for 2 decades. You CANNOT ZOOM AND ENHANCE! You are just making the pixels bigger. The Tears in the Rain Speech always makes me cry though. Roy was a human. More Human than most humans. No one wants to know what I have seen and done.
Daniel Looney
2024-08-21 21:26:18 +0000 UTCI feel like the question of whether Deckard is a replicant or not is itself the point, so I’ve never really understood why people take sides on that issue? None of the answers are as interesting or meaningful as the implications of the question.
Razor Bikini
2024-08-21 19:12:36 +0000 UTC"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" Based on some scenes and clues in this version, I'm in the Deckard is a Replicant Camp. Rutger Hauer's final monologue in this movie .. just .. brilliant.
Barry Hammock
2024-08-21 17:58:30 +0000 UTC
