Editor Roundtable: Blade Runner

Download the Math of Storytelling Infographic

This week, Valerie looks at the 1982 version of Blade Runner, in order to continue her study of forces of antagonism. This film was directed by Ridley Scott from a screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples. It was based on the 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick. 

Genre: Thriller – I saw this as a thriller but I know Kim considers it a crime story. I can totally see where she’s coming from on this one. It does seem like a police procedural. Honestly, there’s not a whole lot of story here to work with (it’s a guy hunting down 4 people to kill them) and the spine is a bit wishy-washy. So, although I’ve said thriller, I’m not married to that analysis. 

Anne’s going to talk more about the genre in a bit, specifically with respect to the spine. And, as part of her study she looked closely at the beginning hook, middle build and ending payoff of Blade Runner, so I’ll hand it over to her to take us through the summary. Anne?

The Story

  • Beginning Hook – When an undercover cop is murdered by a human-seeming android called a replicant, ex-cop Rick Deckard is called out of retirement to go back to his old profession of blade runner to find and kill the replicant. The replicant and its friends have escaped an off-world colony and come to earth for mysterious reasons. Deckard refuses the call at first, but when he learns that the Tyrell Corporation, which manufactures the replicants, has created a new replicant, named Rachael, who doesn’t even know she’s not human, he becomes intrigued and takes the case.
  • Middle Build – As the band of replicants execute their plan to find Tyrell and have their short lifespans increased, Deckard becomes more involved with Rachael while he follows leads to the escapees. One by one, either he or Rachael eliminate all but the replicants leader, Roy, but when Deckard’s boss reminds him that he’s also responsible for terminating Rachael, he must decide whether to do his job, or treat her as human and let her go. He promises to let her go.
  • Ending Payoff – In a final confrontation, an injured Deckard is at the mercy of the physically superior Roy, but as Roy’s short lifespan winds down, he spares Deckard at the last moment, and dies. Deckard finds Rachael and together they escape to a better place in the north, to live out whatever lifespan Rachael has been allotted by her maker.

Kim: Crime-Noir? Even though he is hunting them down to kill them, it felt like the kind of crime story that follows both the investigator and the “criminal,” and the spectrum of life value for justice and injustice is slightly different.

The Principle – Valerie – Forces of Antagonism

I’m continuing my study of Forces of Antagonism this week. Recently, I heard Steven Pressfield say that, in Blade Runner, viewers had so much empathy for the villain that it almost ruined the story. That made me curious, so I wanted to study the film to see what was happening there. I think a good place to start is by looking at the premise of the film.

Replicants are genetically-engineered beings designed to work as slaves in colonies on other planets. After an uprising in which the Replicants rebelled, it became illegal for them to live on earth and special police officers, known as Blade Runners, were ordered to hunt them down and kill them. 

Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, is a retired Blade Runner who’s been forced by his former boss to hunt down four Replicants. He refuses the call (saying he’s had enough of killing) only to accept it when his own life is threatened. Now, the threat to his life is very subtle. He’s told that if he’s not a cop, he’s “little people” and it’s only later in a voiceover that we find out what that means. Since we’re told that it’s a kill-or-be-killed situation, we don’t get a chance to experience the emotion of it, so we’re robbed of an opportunity to empathize with the protagonist. 

I talked about this in the Silver Linings Playbook episode. Intellectually, we understand the situation Deckard is in, but we’re experiencing his life and death stakes at a distance. We’re not being drawn into the movie or into Deckard’s struggle. We’re very much on the outside and that’s a problem. A main character doesn’t have to be likable. We don’t have to sympathize with Deckard, but we must empathize with him. Readers (or viewers in this case) must develop an emotional connection to the hero, but unfortunately, we’re not given that opportunity.

We find out in the first 15 minutes of the story that the Replicants are super-human and have become so advanced that they’ve begun to develop their own emotions, notably hate, love, fear, anger, and envy. As a way of regulating this, the Tyrell Corporation has given them a 4-year life-span.

The main villain of the film is Roy, the character played by Rutger Hauer. 

The villain needs to have a reason for what he does, but we don’t want to empathize with him. While he’s got to have a point, as we saw in Whiplash, that can be done very effectively without tipping the scales and creating empathy.

What’s happening in Blade Runner is that we’re getting a kind of double whammy. We have a hero we don’t empathize with and a villain we do empathize with. This ties in with one of the themes of the story, which I’ll get to in a minute.

So, how did the writers direct our emotional connection to the villain? And moreover, why?

To begin with, the very premise of the story creates a villain who’s an underdog. The underdog is a type of hero that is in a disadvantaged position; the odds are against him. Villains aren’t typically underdogs. They’re powerful—much more powerful than the hero. Roy is a sentient being who has been born into slavery. He has no rights, no hope of happiness, no recognition or expectation of fair treatment. If he was a simple robot or machine we wouldn’t think twice about that. We’re surrounded by machines that exist to make our lives easier, but since they’re not sentient beings we don’t give them a second thought. I mean, I don’t think about my dishwasher unless I’m using it. Roy, and the other Replicants are different. They have the capacity to love and fear.

The Replicants don’t realize that their lifespans are so short until Leon forces the information from Deckard. Given their creation dates, they have at most 14 months to live. As the leader of the group, Roy is trying to find a way to extend their lives and this is something we empathize with too. If, God forbid, we were told that we (or one of our loved ones) had 14 months to live, we’d move heaven and earth for more time.

Empathy is building slowly over the course of the film, but in the last couple of minutes it goes into overdrive. First, Roy saves Deckard. The villain saves the hero while exclaiming “kinship”! And the hero is Harrison Ford in the ‘80s. I mean, how can we not love someone who saves Han Solo and Indiana Jones?

But if that wasn’t enough, we then get Roy’s monologue followed by Deckard’s voiceover. 

ROY: Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave. I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attacked ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.

DECKARD: 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 do I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.

Now, if we layer on the visuals and of course Rutger Hauer’s performance, then our hearts simply break for Roy. We see him in his underwear with a nail through his hand which are both images reminiscent of Jesus in a loin cloth on the cross. So in other words, Deckard was trying to kill not only his savior, but our savior.

But there’s more…

The soundtrack is melodramatic (and award-winning by the way), it’s pouring rain and Roy is talking about tears being lost in the rain—his tears. He accepts his death and dies with dignity, on his own terms. He tells us he’s been living in fear, and we can see that in his face. He’s completely vulnerable in this moment and as he dies, the film moves to slow motion. And, in case we didn’t pick up on all the other signs, he’s also holding a white dove; a symbol of peace which he releases to the sky, to God.

The villain has become the victim, and the hero has become either the villain or a pawn, depending how want to look at it. Deckard’s pursuit of the Replicants seems monstrous and kinda cowardly. He’ll save his own neck rather than stand up for injustice. 

The real villain then becomes Tyrell, but he’s a minor character who got killed off ages ago. We’re not thinking about him in this moment. We’re focused on two characters on screen; Roy and Deckard. 

The placement of this speech is not an accident in my opinion. I remember listening to Seth Godin one time, talking about the impression that you leave people with. It’s pretty old wisdom that in life, in our business dealings and so on, we want to leave people with a positive feeling about us and about the service we’ve rendered. This is why stores wrap your purchases so nicely. It’s why the ending payoff of our stories is so important. It’s why all romances end with a happily-ever-after. It’s human nature to remember the last interaction we had with a person, or a story, or a business.

Roy’s speech takes up four of the last eight minutes of the movie. The filmmakers wanted to leave us with a feeling that Roy’s death was unnecessary and a waste. After this scene it’s just Deckard driving off into the sunset with Rachel. While we don’t really care about the love story (it’s such a minor part of the story as a whole) we’re glad that at least one Replicant gets a chance to live. We’re supposed to be happy for Deckard too, but I’m not sure why. That he has a chance at happiness maybe?

Why would Hampton Fancher, David Peoples and Ridley Scott want to leave us questioning who the villain is in this story? Well, if you think about it, we’ve seen this strategy before. Mary Shelley told this story over 200 years ago. Frankenstein is an excellent novel, and I highly recommend you read it. In fact, one of our colleagues here at Story Grid, Maya Rushing Walker, has written a Masterwork Guide of Frankenstein. You’ll want to read that too.

In Shelley’s novel, one of the main questions is, who is the monster? Is it Victor Frankenstein, or the being he created? That’s the same question being asked in Blade Runner. Who’s the villain here? Is it really the Replicants? Or is it the Blade Runners for hunting them down, or is it Tyrell and the people who work for him, for creating them in the first place? This is the question of theme I mentioned a few minutes ago.

I think Shelley pulled it off better, to be honest. Because in her novel, the question of evil is between the creator and the created. It’s brilliantly done. In Blade Runner, the creator—Tyrell—is so far in the background that the question of villainy is really diluted. Deckard isn’t the kingpin, he’s just an ex-cop that’s been caught up in all this. 

The idea of a victim needing to kill another victim in order to survive also works perfectly fine. But to pull it off, you need a master villain. Suzanne Collins excuted it extremely well in The Hunger Games. President Snow is an active character. He’s the mastermind behind it all. Tyrell, by contrast, is a minor character. After the scene with Rachel, we kind of forget about him until Roy visits him later in the film. 

Ok, so yes, we have empathy for the villain and we lack empathy for the hero and while that might have been intentional, I think the execution is still flawed.

Anne:  The Story’s Spinal Scoliosis Still Didn’t Ruin It For Me 

I saw this movie in 1982. I was in college. It was very cool. I remember being kind of wowed by the whole thing. Though I didn’t really grasp its nuances, a whole lot more of it has stuck with me over the years than, say, An Officer and a Gentleman, or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, or even Sophie’s Choice. I retained the origami guy, the beautiful replicant woman, the micro-imprinted scale from the artificial snake, the discovery of clues in a single photograph. I remembered Pris and her black airbrushed eyes, and Roy Batty’s death scene. Of course I remembered the dark, polluted, rainy, crowded city and the giant pyramidal headquarters of the Tyrell Corporation.

Watching the film again almost four decades later, with Story Grid under my belt and, I hope, a little better than collegiate taste, I was able to see all sorts of problems with it. But—and this is important—I retained enough of it that as I rewatched, I could put little clues together from 38 years ago. I could see the careful setups and payoffs that supported the big philosophical ideas the film was trying to explore. And it was still pretty damn good.

I got into a Twitter conversation the other day about this film. It’s highly regarded, and makes lots of people’s lists of Top 100 films of all time. But what does that even mean? I’m not sure. It could well be that when my generation dies out it’ll fall off those lists because “you had to be there” to feel that it was a really cool movie.

But I think it’s more than that. It’s a story that asks large philosophical questions about what it means to be human. 

It only partially succeeds. It’s another swing and a miss, like I found with Jupiter Ascending and Cloud Atlas. It’s a big idea story, built to explore philosophical questions about what constitutes life, and whether humans should try to create artificial life, and when artificial life becomes real life, and whether any of us are what we believe ourselves to be, and how all living things desire to go on living. It asks us to consider how different we are from the replicants. We all grow up knowing our expiration date, more or less, and like the replicants, we do some pretty crazy stuff to extend our lives.

But to make an entertaining movie about a deep philosophical theme, you have to dress it up in a good story. I’d like to look at where this one sags under the weight of its big ideas. I’d like to talk about how the story spine curves.

As a refresher, when we say the “story spine” here at Story Grid, we mean the core moments that identify the inciting incident, the turning point, the crisis, the climax, and the resolution of the three main acts, also known as the 15 Core Scenes or Core Moments. 

Now, a truly well-constructed story will have 15 core moments that turn on the value at stake for the global genre. The culminating scene, which is the global crisis, should be the right kind of core event for that genre. 

So, for instance, all 15 core scenes of an Action or Thriller story should turn on life and death, and each should bring the protagonist closer to or further from death. The core event is the hero at the mercy of the villain.

In a Crime story, the value at stake is justice and injustice, and each core scene should bring the protagonist and the criminal closer to or further from justice. The core event is when the perpetrator is brought to justice, or sometimes when the criminals escape and get poetic justice.

So what does Blade Runner give us?

We have an inciting crime by the villain in the opening scene. It looks like it could be a crime or a thriller. But we quickly learn that the cops already know who committed the murder. The bigger issue is that a band of replicants is at large on earth and need to be “retired,” or killed. Deckard must track them down. So instead of a murder investigation, we quickly shift to something like an Action/Duel/Hunted story.

A twisted and dark love subplot is launched as Deckard becomes fascinated with the replicant Rachael, but a Love subplot is standard in all sorts of Crime, Thriller and Action stories, so this isn’t necessarily a problem. The trouble is, the beginning hook seems to turn on Deckard’s discovery that she doesn’t know she’s a replicant, and the moral question of whether that means he’ll have to kill her too. It’s a bit muddy.

Meanwhile, the band of replicants are seeking justice for themselves. They’re ruthless, but they aren’t wholly unsympathetic characters. They’re the victims of a heinous crime at the hands of the Tyrell Corporation: they were made conscious and powerful, but also aware of their extremely limited lifespans. We don’t love them, but we certainly can’t argue with their clear motivation. They just want to live. They’re carrying out what almost feels like a caper, going up against the corporate bad guy who done them wrong.

So by the end of the beginning hook, we’re no longer sure what kind of story we’re following.  

In the Middle Build, Deckard becomes more involved with Rachael, and at the same time his  investigation leads him him to one of the replicants, whom he kills. Rachael saves him from murder at the hands of another replicant by killing that one. Whether to protect her or kill her is the Deckard’s crisis of the middle build, which seems to me like a crisis belonging to the dark Love story, and to Deckard’s internal Worldview or Morality plot. His promise to let her go free is the resolution, and that too belongs to Deckard’s internal arc. Meanwhile, Deckard kills the second to the last replicant in an exciting fight scene that puts us back in Action or Thriller territory. The Crime story is long gone.

The Ending Payoff is the final confrontation. An injured Deckard is at the mercy of the physically superior Roy, which cements the Action or Thriller genre—it’s as straightforward a hero at the mercy of the villain scene as you’ll find anywhere. But as Roy’s short lifespan winds down, he spares Deckard at the last moment, and dies. There is no decision on Deckard’s part, no sudden access to his inmost gift—the crisis (whether to let Deckard live or kill him while he can) belongs to Roy, who is the villain but also sort of a victim, and not to the putative protagonist.

Then, in a final resolution from the Love story, Deckard finds Rachael and together they escape to a better place in the north, to live out whatever lifespan Rachael has been allotted by her maker.

My conclusion is that the story works on the strength of its fascinating ideas, brilliant visuals, and some great Action and Thriller scenes, but its spine is kinked and doesn’t run straight through. It’s too intelligent and ambitious to be terrible—there are reasons why it’s still highly regarded—but it bears the marks of mixed and unclear vision on the screenwriters’ and director’s part. It is worth watching and studying, because the big ideas in it are subtly signaled, well set up and paid off, and ultimately clear, but those elegant big ideas are clothed in a a bit of a mish-mash of genres that isn’t quite as tailored as we might wish.

Kim– A Cautionary Tale in Creating Subtext 

I had never seen Blade Runner before Valerie announced we’d be covering it for the podcast, but I was excited. I have recently pinpointed that I have a fixation with robot/android/AI stories because of the questions they raise about life and meaning and belonging. But with this particular story, I was sorely disappointed.

Granted this is an older film, but we’ve studied many older films—Double-Indemnity, Rear Window, True Grit, Yojimbo—which took a little getting used to, but nevertheless completely sucked me in. 

This did not happen with Blade Runner.

The problems started from the get-go. The initial conventions were haphazardly introduced and made for unclear/unmet expectations.

Friendly reminder:

  • Conventions are the Characters, Setting, Means of turning plot (creates opportunity for conflict and change) that establish the life values of your chosen genre and create expectations
  • Obligatory Scenes are the key moments of change—i.e. events, revelations, decisions—that turn those life values and pay off our expectations.

As I’ve been examining beginnings this season, I’ve begun to notice the specific ways that writers introduce conventions and establish life values. And how we as an audience are primed to pick up on those cues. 

We WANT to have a meaningful experience so we’re looking for meaning in what is presented. This is the fundamental basis for stories: subconscious awareness to draw meaning from patterns and is wired in our DNA for survival. 

So in Blade Runner, I was picking up on cues but then those cues were not consistent. So I was confused, and annoyed, and the larger change over the course of the story wasn’t as meaningful. 

In the show notes you’ll find my conventions breakdown of the opening sequence. I’m just going to touch a few elements here to make my case of why this opening doesn’t work for me.

[Opening scroll] – In the future there are advanced robots virtually identical to humans used for slave labor. They revolt and are declared illegal on earth, hunted and killed by special police squads: blade runners. Not human so it’s not an execution.

Early in the 21st Century, THE TYRELL CORPORATION advanced robot evolution into the NEXUS phase – a being virtually identical to a human – known as a Replicant. The NEXUS 6 Replicants were superior in strength and agility, and at least equal in intelligence, to the genetic engineers who created them. Replicants were used Off-World as slave labor, in the hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets. After a bloody mutiny by a NEXUS 6 combat team in an Off-World colony, Replicants were declared illegal on earth – under penalty of death. Special police squads – BLADE RUNNER UNITS – had orders to shoot to kill, upon detection, any trespassing Replicant This was not called execution. It was called retirement.


  • Tyrell Corporation
  • Robots
  • Humans
  • Replicants
  • Genetic engineers
  • Nexus-6 combat team
  • Special police squad / Blade runner


  • Early 21st Century
  • Off-world
  • earth

Means of turning the plot

  • Replicants are treated as slave labor and for hazardous exploration and colonization of other planets
  • Mutiny leads to replicants being declared illegal on earth
  • Blade runners’ orders are to shoot to kill, upon detection, any trespassing Replicant 
  • This was not called execution. It was called retirement.

What expectations does this set up: A blade runner and a replicant are going to face off … 

Content – Life/Death, Power/Impotence, Justice/Injustice

Reality – Fantasy/Science-Fiction

To Valerie’s point, we are already feeling empathy for the replicants. They are advanced and nearly equal to humans in every way, and yet they are being used for slave labor and hazardous missions. They stage a mutiny so we know they have a will of their own and likely are tired of being treated unfairly. They’re declared illegal and hunted down and killed. Blade runners sound like the unfeeling robots at this point.

[Scene 1] – Leon is interviewed by Holden, feels cornered so he shoots Holden

Summary: Leon Kowalski is the next new employee at Tyrell Corporation to be interviewed by Holden … he’s been there six days. Holden administers a kind of lie detector test where he asks questions and then watches the retina of the eye for signals. Holden says, “It’s a test designed to evoke an emotional response.” Holden asks Leon about a hypothetical helpless tortoise in the desert and then about his mother. Leon shoots him under the table, then stands and shoots him again.


  • Female voice over intercom
  • Leon Kowalski, new employee
  • Holden, interviewer


  • Los Angeles, November 2019 (the future)
  • Terrifying skyline with flames, etc
  • Giant building/pyramid
  • Office cubicle
  • Seated across desk
  • Chairs say Tyrell on them

Means of plot

  • Scene type “Called into the boss’s office”

Scene change: Concealed to Exposed,  Kowalski feels cornered so he shoots the interviewer. 

Expectations advanced: Kowalski is a replicant, going to be on the run, a blade runner is going to have to chase him down.

Annoying things: Unclear if Holden is a blade runner or an employee of Tyrell. Also, why didn’t anyone check him for a weapon? Why is there no security during the test? If the intent/hope is to detect a replicant and then “retire” them, why would they be so casual about everything? Was it to create a shock when Leon suddenly shoots Holden? But then later, when we learn that Holden is a blade runner, a good one, it just feels kind of … lame. The elite police squad feels more like a lab tech. 

[Scene 2] Deckard, an ex-blade runner, is arrested and taken into custody on Captain Bryant’s authority.

Voice over from Deckard: They don’t advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession. Ex-cop. Ex-blade runner. Ex-killer. 

Deckard sits down to eat at an open-air street restaurant. Cops approach and speak to Deckard in a foreign language. Deckard has the restaurant owner translate.

Owner: He say you under arrest, Mr. Deckard.

Deckard: Tell them they got the wrong guy. 

Owner: He say you blade runner.

Deckard: I’m eating.

Cop: Captain Bryant [foreign language]

Deckard: Captain Bryant, huh?

Deckard leaves with cops. In voiceover, he tells us he didn’t need a translator, he just didn’t want to make it easy for them.


  • City goers
  • Deckard
    • Character (strength of will, motives, moral code, behavior) – Voiceover is kind of intense, but behavior is of a nonchalant guy, doesn’t seem to take things too seriously, goes with the flow.
    • Thought – seems to not be too proud of the fact that he was a blade runner
    • Fortune (external circumstances) – “ex-cop, ex-blade runner, ex-killer”, divorced, wife thought he was a cold fish
  • Restaurant owner
  • Cops
  • Captain Bryant (offstage)


  • Crowded city street
  • Open air food stand
  • Flying cop car


  • We learn he is an ex-blade runner … he doesn’t seem proud of that. We don’t know if he quit or was fired?

Scene Change: Independent to In Custody

Expectations Advanced: Similar to Leon, a “Called into the boss’s office” scene, Bryant needs him for something, does this have to do with Leon?

Annoying things: There is an advertisement announcing that there are shuttles to other worlds where you can join a colony and start over … and yet that’s supposedly where replicants are. Off-world. So isn’t unsafe to leave earth and be out among replicants or not? Feels inconsistent with the severity of the opening text. 

[Scene 3] Captain Bryant tells Deckard he needs him back to hunt down four replicants that killed a bunch of people and put Holden in the hospital. Deckard initially refuses but then complies.

Deckard is taken to police station, goes into Bryant’s office.

Byrant: Hiya Deck.

Deckard: Bryant

Bryant: You wouldn’t have come if I’d just asked ya. Sit down pal … ah come on don’t be an asshole Deckard. I’ve got four skin jobs walking the streets. 

Voiceover: Skin jobs. That was Bryant called Replicants. 

Bryant: They jumped a shuttle off-world. Killed the crew and passengers. They found the shuttle drifting off the coast two weeks ago, so we know they’re around. 

Deckard: Embarrassing. 

Byrant: No it’s not embarrassing. Cuz no one’s gonna find out they’re down here. Cuz you’re going to spot ‘em and air ‘em out.

Deckard: I don’t work here anymore. Give it to Holden. He’s good.

Bryant: I did. He can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs him. He’s not good enough. Not as good as you. I need ya Deck. This is a bad one. The worst yet. I need the old Blade Runner. I need your magic.

Deckard: I was quit when I come in here, Bryant. I’m twice as quit now.

Bryant: Stop right where you are. Do you know the score, pal? If you’re not cop, you’re little people.

Deckard: No choice huh?

Bryant: No choice, pal.


  • Deckard
  • Captain Bryant
  • Other Cops


  • Former Train Station now Police Station
  • Bryant’s office
  • Across the desk
  • Surrounded by cops who brought him


  • Holden is alive but maybe not for long
  • There’s more than one replicant on the loose — four in total, they’re most advanced type, already killed 23 people.

Scene Change: Rebellious to Compliant

Expectations Advanced: he’s going to hunt down Leon … this will likely come to a violent end.

Annoying Things: I don’t find Deckard’s motivation to go back to work for Bryant believable enough. There is nothing to show the audience that this threat has any weight to it. We haven’t seen the might of the elite police squad in action. We saw Holden operating solo as an interviewer and get shot. We saw Decker shrug off the cops who came to arrest him, and even Bryant’s character is goofy. Now we can presume there is a subtextual threat when Bryant says “If you’re not a cop, you’re little people”, but we don’t really feel it. We don’t know what it means—it’s VAGUE.

Also, Decker had referred to himself as an ex-killer … which seems to tell us he doesn’t want to kill anymore. 

Decker comments in voiceover that his former boss, Captain Bryant, is a bigot because he’s using the term skinjob to refer to replicants. This seems to tell us he does not agree with him, and since he doesn’t want to kill replicants anymore, we presume he already has had a moral change of heart of some kind. Is this what led to his divorce?

These are the questions being raised for me as a viewer … 

Also this is acting at the set up for Deckard’s transformation (Worldview-Education/Maturation I think, but it’s not executed tightly so it’s unclear). It’s too VAGUE.

But then as the story progresses, Deckard makes reference to the way he’s beginning to feel about replicants … empathy, compassion, etc. When he find they have memories and photographs. 

But … I thought he already was having these kinds of inklings about their humanness? But then he still shoots them no problem. 

The unclear establishment of Decker’s character plus the unclear development and inconsistencies are confusing and, as a viewer, I’m frustrated. Decker’s initial THOUGHT LIFE VALUE wasn’t clear, and so as his THOUGHT began to change over the course of the story spine, it wasn’t compelling. It’s odd to me that in a film with such overt voiceover that the character’s transformation was still so unclear. Again, I think this is another reason why our empathy resides with the antagonists on this one.

Key Takeaway: 

  • We need our life values to be CLEAR. The way to communicate clear life values is by being specific, not vague. 
  • And vague is meaningless storytelling. Specific is meaningful. 
  • Specific does not necessarily mean “on the nose” or obvious. 
  • Specific simply is the opposite of vague. Show us something clear, and keep being clear as things change, and we will feel the meaning.

I think sometimes we worry that being too specific, too forthright, will make something “on the nose” so we try to be coy, thinking it’s subtext. Anyone else? Just me?

But this is a trap.

Subtext isn’t simply unstated. It’s not guessing. It’s something that is known without having to be stated. But it’s still essential that the right information is conveyed in order for the information to be known.

This is a great way to introduce your character, setting, and means … with subtext. The reader gets to experience the specific elements and draw larger conclusions from them. Create a sequence that allows us to infer meaning. A meaningful pattern. This is show not tell.

I came across several articles online in my research that helped spell out some specific tactics you can use. Applying these subtext tactics specifically to your conventions is a great way to craft a strong beginning to your story.

How to Harness the Power of Subtext by Sue Weems

The Only Five Ingredients You Need for Story Subtext

Leslie – POV/Narrative Device 

If you’ve listened to our recent episodes, you know this season I’m focusing on POV and narrative device, which answers the question, how do I deliver my story to the reader? 

POV is what we’re familiar with from grade school. It tells you whether your story is first person, third person limited, omniscient, etc., and whether it’s written in past or present tense. The narrative device or situation gives you the  you who is conveying the story, to whom, when and where, in what form, and why. 

Getting clarity on the narrative device choice has been transformative for my clients because it provides useful constraints that limit the infinite choices you have to make in the story. When you understand why someone is sharing a story to whom and under what circumstances, the question of which details you should and shouldn’t include become clearer. I go into this in depth in my Bite Size episode on choosing your POV, which can be can be found here, and you can find my article on narrative device here, and the article on POV here.

What’s the narrative problem presented by the premise?

This question is the focus of my work this week. My thoughts are still coming together, and I’m piggybacking on what my fellow Roundtablers are talking about here, but through the lens of POV and narrative device. Please keep in mind my musings here are very much the realm of the working hypothesis. 

Here’s the premise as I see it: A reluctant former cop and retired blade runner has to take a job killing replicants (genetically engineered beings designed to be more human than human) to save his own life in a dystopian futuristic-noir version of Los Angeles. So that’s the character with a problem in a specific setting. 

The life values suggest Blade Runner is a Thriller, with Deckard as both hero and victim. Rachel becomes another victim when Deckard is told to kill her, and we begin to see the four replicants in this way too. You can tell from Valerie’s analysis that the villain is fairly complicated here. 

As a straight Thriller, there isn’t much of a story and it isn’t that interesting. You have a bounty hunter who is slightly outmatched by the villain being chased. In a story like that, the hero should express their individual gift to outwit and overpower the villain. But this isn’t a straight Thriller. The putative villain, Roy, continues to overpower Deckard. In the end, Roy could kill Deckard but chooses not to, as if proving he is more human than Deckard, who would have killed Roy, despite his misgivings. 

The story sets us up to believe Roy is the primary villain of the Thriller—we get plenty of details about why humans should be afraid of him. He’s an advanced model, and much stronger than humans. Tyrell appears to be the external antagonist of Deckard’s internal struggle. Without Tyrell’s need to put down the replicants, Deckard faces no dilemma. He can continue life as he’s been living, avoiding facing the moral complexity of the job he had been doing. 

In the novel, Deckard’s dilemma hasn’t happened yet–he is still employed as a blade runner, but in the film Deckard has serious misgivings about what he’s doing (so much so that he gave up his former career in which he gained some renown). He chooses to kill to save his own life. This situation is repeated multiple times within the film from different points of view. It’s telegraphed in the opening scene when Leon kills the examiner rather than be found out as a replicant on Earth. But we don’t see it that way in this moment. At the end of the story, only Roy is willing to die rather than continue killing. This film definitely has some weak elements as my fellow Roundtablers have explained, but despite the problems, the deeper I look, the more interesting the story becomes—we’re left with questions about what it is to be human. 

Blade Runner, like Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, explores identity and what it means to be human. (In the novel, Deckard’s doubts about the morality of retiring human-like androids don’t arise until after the story begins, after he’s met Rachel and believes that some humans may have been mistakenly killed.) 

The problem to me is that the real conflict in this story and what makes it interesting is the internal dilemma, which is hard to dramatize in a film. For the dilemma to be real, we need to be afraid of Leon and Roy and the other replicants in the beginning, but come to see them differently. The problem of ambiguous heroes and villains appears to be what the story is trying to pull off. To ratchet up Deckard’s dilemma, the villain has to evoke sympathy and at certain points we have to be disgusted with Deckard. That seems to be the source of the problems in the story spine. 

What’s the controlling idea? Something along the lines of this: Life and meaning are preserved when we allow a challenge to enlighten us to a broader understanding. That’s not that specific, but hopefully you can see where I’m going with this. My suggestion is that life can’t exist without meaning. Roy’s sacrifice at the end allows Deckard to find meaning, and Deckard is not going to waste the opportunity.

What’s the POV?

The voiceover suggests this is first person. The novel employs editorial omniscient, with a narrator that editorializes quite a bit, expressing opinions about society. To me, it’s not as effective as first person to tell this story, but the stories in the book and the film are different enough that different POVs can make sense.

What’s the narrative device

Who? Deckard is telling the story.

To whom? I suspect he’s addressing people like himself who face the same dilemma. The obvious solution is to kill, preserve your own life, but if someone makes a sacrifice, we can wake up and disengage from a corrupt system to grasp what meaning we can. 

When? After the events depicted (more than four years after Rachel was created). Deckard has gained significant perspective.

In what form (by implication)? Verbal? There’s nothing to indicate it’s written or in some other form. Closer inspection might reveal more.  

Why? At first I thought this seemed like a justification or explanation of Deckard’s choice(s), shifting blame to society for whitewashing the killing of replicants. But time and reflection leads me to believe Deckard wants to encourage other people to take advantage of opportunities to quit engaging in the kill or be killed system.  

How well does it work?

I think the challenges with this film are more to do with the genre and structure than the narrative device. The narrative device works works pretty well because the larger issues of identity are echoed in Deckard’s individual expression. The voiceover feels a little clunky, but I got used to it. I think we need Deckard’s human perspective to make this story work. 

The portion of the novel I read was on the nose. A character outside the story tells us how and what to think about the situation. I like the way the film allows us to reach our own conclusion. It would have been interesting to see the novel written in first person from Deckard’s point of view.

Final Thoughts and Takeaways for Writers

We like to round out our discussion with a few key takeaways for writers who want to level up their own writing craft. What have we learned this week? 

Kim: To craft a killer beginning, you need to introduce your conventions (characters, setting, and means of plot) with clarity and specificity so they can establish opening life values the reader can FEEL. Do not be vague and coy. Use the sequencing of the information you present to convey meaning to the reader, but do it intentionally so it comes through clear. Otherwise your reader will be frustrated and not likely to continue into the middle of your story.

Anne: I’ve been hammering away at the draft of my Masterwork Experiment story, and yesterday morning I finally felt like I had enough material written to take a run at defining the spine. (Yes, I am more of a pantser than a plotter.) Sure enough, the scenes weren’t all turning on the global genre. It leaped out at me, and now I know what I need to fix. 

The same tool helped me see what wasn’t quite working about Blade Runner. So my advice—which I’ve mentioned before—is this: practice stripping down your own work and other stories you consume to the statement of the 15 core scenes. Get comfortable passing over a lot of the cool shit in your story, which is arms and legs and fingers and toes, and just naming the spine. The 15 core scenes that turn on the values at stake of your global genre it is one of the very best diagnostic tools we have. It takes practice, but that practice will pay off in a big way.

Leslie: My takeaway is very personal this week. When I don’t enjoy a story but can’t stop thinking about it after it’s over, I need to keep looking at it to figure out what’s getting tweaked. And working the objective analysis helps me see what’s happening beneath the surface. I didn’t enjoy Blade Runner, but I’m getting a lot out of thinking about it. 

Valerie: Boy, I’ve gotta say, the key thing that’s sticking with me this week is the need to study Masterworks. It’s one thing to know what the principles of storytelling are and how they work, but we also need to understand when and why to use them. I keep saying we must have empathy for the hero, and that’s true. I stand by that. But as storytellers, we can always push the boundaries, right? If we want to tell a story that explores the question of who is the hero and who is the villain, then we need to look at how other writers have tackled that issue. Frankenstein works so well because we empathize with both the creator and the created. We can see both of their points of view equally and we’re really torn to say which of them is doing the right thing. It raises significant moral questions which is why we’re still talking about it 200 years later. 

Listener Question

To wind up the episode, we take questions from our listeners. This week’s question comes to us from Story Grid Guild member, Fred Rege. Fred writes:

With respect to the Story Grid Spreadsheet, does a scene’s value shift relate to the overall scene or just to the turning point complication? For example, imagine a scene in which a character kills his rich uncle, then inherits millions of dollars. From the character’s perspective, he has gone from poor to wealthy; that’s his most obvious scene-level shift. But if one looks at the scene from the turning point’s perspective, the scene turns when the uncle was killed – that is life to death. So from a Story Grid perspective, what’s the value shift? This is important; globally, I’d want to inspect the valences and make sure I’m not repeating things. As well, I want the story spine scenes to turn on the global value at stake.

Valerie : Fred, thanks so much for your question. Value shift is the Story Grid principle I had the most trouble understanding and so as a result, I’ve really studied into it.

The issue you’re having here, I think, is about how the 5 Commandments of Storytelling work with the Units of Story. If you recall, each of the 5 Commandments exists in each Unit of Story, and this can be a really confusing—and overwhelming—idea. But, the more stories you study, the more sense it makes.

On the Spreadsheet, you’re tracking the value shift for each individual scene as it relates to the global story. Now, it’s entirely possible to have multiple values shifting in a scene. In fact, in well-written stories, it’s almost a guarantee that that’ll be happening, and that you’ll be able to analyze a scene from each of the character’s points of view. But the Spreadsheet is designed to track the main storyline.

The turning point is an unexpected event that the character doesn’t immediately know how to react to. It therefore throws him into crisis (which is some form of “what do I do now?”) and the choice he makes (including the action he takes) is the climax. It’s the turning point that shifts the value for a unit of story. The turning point isn’t itself a value shift; it creates a value shift. 

In your example, it sounds to me like you’re mixing two different units of story, and two different point of view analysis. The uncle’s death occurs at the scene level. Something happens that the nephew isn’t expecting, and that throws him into crisis. The crisis question then is, does he kill his uncle or not? The climactic action is that he kills his uncle. If the nephew is your protagonist, then on the Spreadsheet you analyze the scene from his perspective and track his value shift. You wouldn’t track the uncle’s value shift of life to death. What the nephew’s shift will be depends on your story and I don’t have enough information from your example to offer any suggestions. 

This is the kind of thing that Story Grid Certified Editors help writers with during developmental editing calls. When we work with clients we’re diving deeply into their stories and so have all the information we need to help with this kind of detailed and specific question.

Keep in mind, that when the nephew kills his uncle, he doesn’t also become a millionaire. By that I mean that the inheritance is dramatized in a later scene. So the uncle’s death gives rise to the possibility of getting the money later in the story. Therefore, if poor to rich is a value shift you believe needs to be tracked for your global story, it would be tracked in another scene.

I hope that helps.

If you have a question about any story principle, you can ask it on Twitter @storygridRT, or better still, click here and leave a voice message.

If you’re interested in the Un-Podcast that Leslie and Valerie are hosting, you can sign up at valeriefrancis.ca/innercircle or writership.com.

Join us next time when Anne will analyze the short story “Pilgrims” by Elizabeth Gilbert for her second dive into what makes a short story tick. Why not read it during the week, and follow along with us? 

Your Roundtable Story Grid Editors are Valerie Francis, Anne Hawley, Kim Kessler, and Leslie Watts.

Download the Math of Storytelling Infographic

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


About the Author

Leslie Watts is a certified Story Grid editor, writer, and podcaster. She’s been writing for as long as she can remember: from her sixth-grade magazine about cats to writing practice while drafting opinions for an appellate court judge. When the dust settled after her children were born, she launched www.Writership.com to help writers unearth the treasure in their manuscripts. She believes writers become better storytellers through practice, and that editors owe a duty of care to help writers with specific and supportive guidance to meet reader expectations and express their unique gifts in the world.
Story Grid 101: The Five First Principles of the Story Grid Methodology
by Shawn Coyne
What are the first principles in writing a story that works? At Story Grid, it’s easy to get distracted by the tools, spreadsheets, commandments, macro lense, micro lense, and on and on. However, all of this eventually comes back to five first principles. In Story Grid 101, Story Grid founder Shawn Coyne distills 30 years... Read more »
Paperback: $19.99
Ebook: $0
Audiobook: $14.99
Author Leslie Watts


Kevin Brown says:

The discussion on Blade Runner is emblematic of a general unease I feel with Story Grid. The panelists seem to be critical of Blade Runner because it does not conform to the conventions of a genre, and because it does not consistently implement acknowledged story-telling techniques.

This starts with the Pressfield quote: “in Blade Runner, viewers had so much empathy for the villain that it almost ruined the story.” But empathy for the villain doesn’t almost RUIN the story, it MAKES the story.

Valerie says: “The villain needs to have a reason for what he does, but we don’t want to empathize with him.” Maybe we don’t want to empathize, but the way Blade Runner draws us into empathizing with Roy is a mjor reason the film sticks in the mind. It’s a strength of that story.

(As an aside, Valerie also says: “The idea of a victim needing to kill another victim in order to survive also works perfectly fine. But to pull it off, you need a master villain. Suzanne Collins executed it extremely well in The Hunger Games. President Snow is an active character. He’s the mastermind behind it all.” I would argue that in the first Hunger Games book, President Snow is a pretty minor character. Katniss is not very aware of what role he personally plays in that book.)

Anne is concerned that it’s not clear whether this is a Crime, Action or Thriller story: “It’s a bit muddy… So by the end of the beginning hook, we’re no longer sure what kind of story we’re following.”

That may be true, and I can see how that would bother a Story Grid editor. But when I saw the movie, it did not bother me in the slightest. I just didn’t care what kind of story it was. It was interesting, and I wanted to know what happened next. The “mish-mash of genres” wasn’t a problem.

Kim noted: “We need our life values to be CLEAR. The way to communicate clear life values is by being specific, not vague. And vague is meaningless storytelling. Specific is meaningful.”

What I saw in Blade Runner was life values that are ambiguous (which can be a synonym for vague). Ambiguous life values are not meaningless; they are realistic. Because life is usually ambiguous, and it’s often UNCLEAR what is good or evil, right or wrong.

It’s Deckard’s ambivalence about the morality of his actions that makes the film resonate. It stays with me decades after seeing the film. In the end, he doesn’t decide whether killing replicants is wrong, only that he can’t do it anymore. In life, we often don’t get clear answers or reach clear decisions as to what we should or should not do. Deckard’s worldview/maturation is vague. But it feels real.

I wonder, if the screenwriters and director had adhered more closely to Story Grid principles, would they have produced something less vague, more clear, but less compelling?

Tory Element says:

Kevin, I think your analysis interpretation is pretty good. However, I’d point out that most analyses (and opinions) are subjective and I enjoy the different interpretations. I also did not agree entirely with the panels’ thoughts, but it serves a useful purpose when learning to analyze a story, especially when authoring it yourself. I’m in that boat now, working on a story about half way through it, and using the SG tools will help me become better at writing and also hopefully help the story itself.

As for your last question, had the story tellers of Bladerunner adhered more closely to the SG methodology, it likely would have been less vague, which I personally prefer, but I’m not sure about less compelling. Again, that might be in the eye of the beholder. But great thoughts, tho. Thanks.


Hi Kevin.

We love Story Grid because it gives us precision tools to measure the working-ness of a story. We want to learn to diagnose our own work and make it better using those tools, and we want our listeners to be able to do the same.

Personally, I want to know the rules so I can make conscious decisions about which ones to break. After making more than 100 episodes of this podcast and analyzing the work of dozens of clients, I feel like I’m beginning to get a handle on it. It’s an academic approach to learning a craft. I think it’s pretty tried and true, but you’ll never hear me say that every storyteller must take the same path.

We don’t know how many of the weak story choices the writers and director of Blade Runner made consciously, how many were driven by studio executives, or what any of them were aiming for (other than a successful movie). We do know that the film remains “important” for reasons that I tried to articulate in the episode. Whether to represent the ambiguity of real life, or to simplify real life in order to tell a clear cautionary or prescriptive tale, is a philosophical question for the writer, and a matter of taste for the reader or viewer.

But you’re not wrong to ask: Would this film have been better for a more orthodox story structure? Or just more Disney/Pixar/MCU-ified? What does “better” even mean? Your mileage, as the saying goes, may vary.

Volodymyr Melnyk says:

These were exactly the thoughts I had when reading the article. Most of the problems that were brought up were things that made me enjoy the film; I loved the way it handled ambiguity, and there were stakes in it that made me want to keep watching, even if the stakes didn’t always lie with the same character. I also disagree with Anne’s point that maybe you had to be there when it first came out to like it; the first time I watched Blade Runner was several months ago, and it’s certainly stuck with me as one of the most enjoyable films I’ve ever watched, prompting much thought about it’s world and the questions it poses to the viewer.
Could it have been better if Deckard was a more empathetic character? That’s the one point I strongly agree with here. Had his life/death choice at the beginning been emphasized more (I completely missed it on my first viewing), the movie would’ve hooked me into the story faster than it did, and his further choices could’ve felt more empathetic. A stronger focus on the choices the characters make would’ve made the movie’s strengths stand out far more than they do.

Lissa Johnston says:

I’ve been looking forward to this ep bc I also enjoyed this movie when it first came out and was curious how it would hold up under SG scrutiny. Some thoughts:
1. The structural problems didn’t bother me when I first saw the film, probably bc I didn’t know any better. If we strip all of that craft stuff away, it’s just basically a cool story featuring a very popular star and we wonder what will happen to him at the end. Dig into it too deeply, however, and we def uncover some weaknesses.
2. POV has been on my mind recently after reading William Goldman giving some examples of how stories would change if told from different characters’ POVs. I can’t help but wonder if Blade Runner would’ve been better if Roy were the main character instead of Deckard.
3. This doesn’t have much to do with SG, but I find it ironic that the replicants are considered MORE advanced as they acquire the baser human emotions. And I’m guessing it was the author’s intent to show us the replicants ended up being showing more humanity than the humans.
4. To your point that Deckard really didn’t have much of a crisis when considering answering the so-called Call to Adventure – IMO there is a trope about law enforcement and military that they often are very unhappy when they retire from their stressful jobs and find themselves wanting to return to it. Hurt Locker comes to mind.
5. I haven’t read Dick’s story but I plan to now bc I am curious whether Tyrell as villain was more prominent in the story, or Roy was less empathetic, or there was some other factor strengthening the threat from the antagonistic force.
6. Two of Leslie’s comments relative to Dick’s story are sticking with me. One is that she feels the choice of first person in the film works better than the omniscient in the story. This makes me wonder if that’s part of the reason they insisted on the much-maligned voiceovers in the film – to emphasize that first person close connection with the audience. Secondly, I’m intrigued to learn that in the Dick version, Deckard is concerned there may have been some humans mistaken for replicants and killed. Now THAT would’ve really ratcheted up the tension and internal crises for Deckard IMO.

Thanks to all. Really enjoyed this ep. Keep up the good work!

Tory Element says:

Hey SG editors, the Bladerunner episode was excellent. I’ve listened to it 4 times already. So much to unpack. I have to thank you because I think, after listening to this particular episode, that I’ve finally figured out what my current WIP is most like, for comparison. I really enjoy the multiple break-downs y’all provide for stories like Bladerunner. Question, how do you go about selecting these “master works”? Observation, have you or do you plan to analyze a master work that successfully checks all the boxes? I’m curious because you spend time on stuff that while good overall, seems to always fall short of rigid SG expectations. Not a criticism but just wondering if there are any stories that hit all the marks or is no story perfect? And a side note regarding Bladerunner. One of you made a comment about the movie studio insisting on a particular ending the story writers and director did not want. Just curious how you know that? Thanks.

Leslie Watts says:

Thanks, Tory! I’m so glad this is useful for your WIP!

I can’t remember who made the comment about the movie studio and the ending, but my guess is that they found it in an article available online.

I’m so glad you asked about how we pick our stories because I bet other people wonder about this too.

We each choose three stories per season based on what we think will help us in our work as writers and editors. We started as a study group, and we still function that way. Analyzing stories and coming together for dicussion has helped us a lot! Sometimes we choose stories we suspect don’t quite work (as Kim did in season 5) because we’re trying to explore the gap between what works and what doesn’t. Sometimes a story is a great example of one element of storytelling and though it has challenges in other areas, it’s still worth discussing. Also,sometimes our initial take on a story changes the more we look at it–and that can go many different ways.

It’s also true that stories sometimes strike a chord with readers/audiences even when they don’t work structurally. Anne talked about this in our Jupiter Ascending episode. There are subjective elements, and sometimes a writer hits a note that resonates with us in a way that isn’t explainable by objective standards. That’s important, and we need to pay attention when that happens as readers and writers. But we also want to write the best story we can, so we aim for a solid macro and micro structure, which is objective and that we can measure with Story Grid tools, as well as that special something. That something special is more speculative, so it’s harder to pin down. As editors, we can’t help you with that the way we can with the objective elements.

If we take Blade Runner as an example, we see a film that’s been criticized (and not just by Roundatable editors), but is also loved by loads of people. There is something to that, but it probably takes more digging to get to the bottom of what it is. Doesn’t mean it isn’t worth it, but it means it’s trickier to define and apply.

I hope that helps! Thanks again for your comments and questions!

tory element says:

Hey Leslie, thanks for your explanation. I also enjoyed the Pilgrims episode. As a listener and learner of story, I’d really like an episode or three of y’alls expert SG analysis of a story that works, both for the audience and by the book. I don’t know if this has been done previously or not, but I’d love to hear a couple of these. Thanks


Leslie Watts says:

Hi Tory, You might check out our discussion of Brooklyn (posting March 25). I know there are other examples when we all agree that the story works, but this is one that I remember because it’s recent. There are a couple of things I want to note about this. First, reasonable minds can disagree on whether a story works. And it’s important to remember that parts of a story can work, even when some aspect of it doesn’t meet a technical definition of a story that works. For example, one element of the story that Dncyger & Rush (Alternative Scriptwriting) identified as a problem is the combination of Noir and Science Fiction styles because the protagonist in each tends to have contradictory attitude (a noir portagonist tends to have lost hope, but the counterpart in a science fiction story tends to maintain hope). But that tension may appeal to you. So even when someone whose opinion you respect says this particular story doesn’t work, if there is something in it that speaks to you, it’s still worthy of investigation. In other words, don’t just take our word for it that something works or doesn’t. Second, when a story resonates, I recommend studying it and finding the elements that really work for you. But also ask, how did the writer pull this off? How can you adapt the parts that work and resonate with you for your story? How can you improve the parts that don’t work for you or that are technically not as strong as they could be? The fact is, Blade Runner is a powerful story that is communicating something important to a wide audience. There is something to that. I have a theory on it, but that’s not nearly as important as what the story means to you. Writing stories is a journey of self-discovery as much as it is about sharing your stories and ideas with others. There is a clue in the story that speaks to you (or song or poem or …) about who you are and what you’re meant to be doing here on Earth, and that is valuable. Hope that helps!

Nathan says:

“So by the end of the beginning hook, we’re no longer sure what kind of story we’re following.” I think you identified the key to this story. In the final analysis, the story is not an archplot. It is actually a miniplot.

Blade Runner explores how the story world affects various layers of society, all of whom are presented in triangles. Deckard-Rachel-Tyrel, Deckard-Gaff-Bryant, Pris-Sebastian-Roy, Roy-Sebastian-Tyrell, Deckard-Rachel-Gaff.

Imo, this story is a lot like Margin Call.

John M Roberts says:

I remember walking out of the theater after seeing Blade Runner in Hollywood for the first time. It was unique, different, made me think. The music, the environment, the story, it was all so original and fresh. Ridley Scott doesn’t tell a story in the traditional way. He creates living worlds that are believable. And as a viewer I feel drawn in, and can’t get enough. It lives in my mind long after the movie is over. And I want to go back, to that world, over and over again. I was confused after watching BR for the first time. I felt empath for Roy, like this was his story, and that was something I did not expect. Harrison Ford was the big star, and I did not like the character he played.

Roy did some bad things, but in the end, he showed compassion, and a love for life, and proved he was more human than Deckard. Deckard just followed orders without thinking, killing without a conscious, like one would expect a robot to do. And in the end he was very hypocritical…. like its okay to kill Replicants, but just not the Replicant he loved. I did not see a positive character change in Deckard. Roy, I did… he left me with a feeling of redemption, love, compassion, and appreciation for all life.

Years ago I was diagnosed with Stage 4 Ampullary cancer and given months to live. Today, I am cured. I know what it is like to have an expiration date. And what it feels like to have a miracle extension. The experience gave me a real love and appreciation for all life. Maybe this is why I love this movie so much, and feel the ending with Roy was so memorable. I don’t feel like Deckard took as much away from Roy’s death as I did. And for me, that is what still bothers me about the movie. I wish Deckard had learn more from Roy, about what it means to be human. But Roy, through Ridley Scott’s wonderful imagery, and Hauer’s tears in the rain speech, pure movie magic, really hit home with me. I grew up going to the Chinese to see movie premiers. It was a wondering time. I looked forward to the weekend, and could not wait till the lights went down and the curtains opened. Great story, great story telling, that is the key ingredient that makes it all work for me. Well done on all the comments, I learn a lot from you professionals.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Book

Is this your first crack at writing and finishing your book? Are you lost on how to tackle this project? This is the place to start.

First Time Writer

Is this your first crack at writing and finishing your book? Are you lost on how to tackle this project? This is the place to start.


Is this your first crack at writing and finishing your book? Are you lost on how to tackle this project? This is the place to start.