Blade Runner tribute: "Bladerunner revisited >3.6 gigapixels"

François Vautier's video tribute to the science fiction film classic Blade Runner. He explains:

[This is an] experimental film in tribute to Ridley Scott's legendary film "Blade Runner" (1982). This film was made as a unique picture with a resolution of 60.000 x 60.000 pixels (3.6 gigapixels). It was made with 167,819 frames from 'Blade Runner'.

Don't miss the unicorn at 3:26.

Video link: BLADE RUNNER revisited >3.6 gigapixels, at vimeo.

[via BB Submitterator, thanks andydub, who spotted it via @ericavery ]

• [Anonymous]

  Great concept, well executed/rendered but poorly edited. The editing just made it a bit choppy and me :(

  Especially as it must have taken forever to render.

• [GreatRewards]

  I don’t get it.

  • [MrJM]

    Quite an experience to live in confusion, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave.

    Yeah, I don’t get it neither.

• [dan_coop]

  Looks amazing full screened, not so much so in a little box!

  The Rutger Hauer speech at the end makes my hair stand on end!

• [Ugly Canuck]

  Let me tell you about my mother….

  Seriously, most cool on the big screen,this experimental presentation.

  PS I now believe Decker – or is it Deckert? – to be a replicant himself…that’s why he does not visit a doctor, after his forceful encounter with Leon.

  • [Matt Deckard]

    It’s Deckard. :-)

• [seyo]

  Very cool. Although I don’t really get it either. Doesn’t matter. I think it’s time to viddy this flick again, it’s been a long time. Date with myself tonight in front of the boobplasma.

• [Pun]

  I never noticed a cube could look like a hexagon from the right perspective.

• [Jackasimov]

  Hey, that’s someone else’s intellectual property, mister! Frikken skinjob.

• [Anonymous]

  The book makes an interesting contrast to the movie. They both stand on their own. Funny thing is, the book explains some of the details of the movie glosses over. And for good reason. One of the main premises of the book is that nearly everyone with any brains, talent, or money has left Earth. All that’s left is a half abandoned crap hole filled with stupid people, including Deckard.

• [Larry7]

  This is really neat- thought I saw Julian Assange at 3:04!! =)

  Is this a legal artform yet? or could the poor guy get sued for using images/audio and daring to be creative?

• [defacebook]

  Love Blade Runner. One of my favorite movies of the ’80s (and of my youth).

  As for this experimental film — it looks cool, but that’s about it. Maybe that’s all it’s supposed to be.

• [Rev.Veggie.Spam]

  This reminds me of the few times I got to work on an old Moviola upright. Outside of the viewer, you could see some frames the movie, happening multiple times and slightly out of sync. It reminded you that the moment in the film you were watching wasn’t the only moment that made the movie whole.

  For those of you, not “getting it”…

  Think of the box as a metaphor for the light of a film projector itself (not difficult, I know). Now try to think about it as not just illuminating the film in the moment you are watching and the audio you are hearing but in that moment, it is also illuminating scenes yet to come and scenes already passed as those moments pass by “the projector” above and below.

  You don’t really understand the movie wholly until the end and all the key points have been illuminated.

  For a film with many active layers/story lines, this works great as a metaphor for Blade Runner. It also works in that Blade Runner is a fairly film to most people and that people can remember most of the plot points (as opposed to thematic layers) to complete the story themselves. For these reasons too, it probably wouldn’t work so well for your average romantic comedy.

  That’s just my interpretation though. I am often wrong and open to hearing your interpretation too.

• [IWood]

  I was quit before I saw this. I’m twice as quit now.

• [Someone else called Mart]

  “You see, son, that how a DVD player sees the world”
  If they ever do another release, this would be an amazing trailer. Beautiful…

• [melvillain]

  Blade Runner is one of my favorite films. I love this presentation. Absolutely beautiful.
  I guess we know where he comes down on the whole “Deckard: replicant or human?” debate.

• [Pantograph]

  Reminds me of yooouuutuuube

• [Saint Fnordius]

  Yeah, I’m of the “Deckard is a Human that begins to wonder what human means” camp. His job is what makes him begin to wonder if humans really are more “alive” than replicants are.

  On that level, it’s classic Phillip K. Dick: making the reader/viewer wonder, forcing the audience to think for themselves. Because despite my convictions, there are no easy answers.

• [Anonymous]

  Oh fuck that stupid unicorn already, they didn’t stick it in until 1992. It makes sense for Deckard to wonder if his own memories are real, but the point is his job is making him crazy, not that he’s a robot.

  If he were a replicant he wouldn’t keep getting his ass kicked so easily.

• [optuser]

  Has a very BRAINSTORM vibe to it. Nice work/link!

• [Anonymous]

  The unicorn represents an impossible creature, in this case a replicant with no expiration date.

  Deckard dreams of the unicorn when thinking about Rachael and Golf leaves the origami unicorn to remind Deckard that his intention to run away with Rachael and lead a normal life just isn’t going to happen.

• [Glossolalia Black]

  Might as well ask the people here: any hope of a rerelease of some sort for 2019?

  • [Ugly Canuck]

    There was an excellent blu-ray re-issue of late, still available cheap:

    http://www.amazon.com/Runner-Five-Disc-Complete-Collectors-Blu-ray/dp/B000UBMWG4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1282434401&sr=8-1

    Make that, tres cheap.

    Spoiler Alert: Deckerd’s a replicant: for how else could his little ex-sidekick/partner, Golf, know that D dreams of unicorns, as shown by the origami unicorn G leaves for D, when G lets D know that he (G) is allowing D & R to escape?
    I mean, the action makes it pretty clear from the opening frames that D does not care at all for G: so how likely is it, that D would have told G of his dream(s)?

    And if somebody made that kind of an allusion to one of my dreams, without my having ever told her of it, I’d wonder as to how I was built.

• [certron]

  I saw this awesome video before because it is the same guy who made the also-cool ants-in-a-scanner video! That should be added to a ‘previously’ box underneath.

• [Anonymous]

  The way I see it (though I know nothing filmed is without intention) the unicorn is coincidental. The movie is bigger than what the director says it is. Coincidence is human, we’ve all had eerie happenings and questions we couldnt answer about ourselves.

  I think Scott just latched onto the idea of a clever twist ending and ran with it without understanding the consequences.

  If Deckard is a replicant a lot of the film loses it’s impact and sense. One of the final scenes Roy says “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” (After lifting Deckard to safety) Odd statement if he knows Deckard is a replicant, if he’s talking to someone who can’t carry on any sort of message after his passing what is his point? He is making a case to humanity in his confession to Deckard. Scott just blurred the film to make it possible to have a twist. But the story lends to the replicants having more humanity than the humans, more soul, more poetry.
  (spoiler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_saUN4j7Gw&feature=related)
  That is a scene between a human and replicant, otherwise it makes no sense.

• [Brainspore]

  If Deckard is a replicant a lot of the film loses it’s impact and sense. One of the final scenes Roy says “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” (After lifting Deckard to safety) Odd statement if he knows Deckard is a replicant…

  Why would Roy know that?

• [Ugly Canuck]

  Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

  No they dream of unicorns.