Roy Batty's Death

Chris Guillory
Aug 24, 2014
San Francisco Bay Area
Hi, I'm new here, and glad to see a Blade Runner section! As I saw it, the first thing that came to mind was Roy Batty's monologue as he was "dying". It had such a profound effect to me in a few ways. First of which, was how an artificial human would have such an understanding of the implications of his death. Second, it was never in the original script, Rutger Hauer allegedly improved it.

I don't remember how he died in DADoES, but I think it was rather quickly, something to the effect of him getting shot and just being dead.

Love this scene!

OOPS, should I have started this with ****SPOILER ALERT****??

That would probably be taking things a bit too far... :D

But that scene is certainly iconic, and often quoted all over the Internet. I haven't had a chance to quote it yet, but some day...
I think not in the book. It's a wonderful monologue.
link to full text
According to that, Hauer cut the scripted speech slightly and added a little.

I've read the story years before the film, but I haven't seen the Director's cut. I enjoyed the recent R4 dramatisation.
I and my family found the film uncomfortably violent. I can cope with more sex & violence (up to a point, depending on writing style) in a book or even Radio than TV/Film. Seeing a fight or sex act isn't the same as reading usually, unless the author is into pornographic description something ...
Last edited:
It is a beautifully written & visual scene; and I am pleased Hauer decided to trim the original down to just a couple of pertinent lines. The delivery was exceptional, and I don't think I've been moved quite so much (although perhaps the newly crowned Aragorn from ROTK, bowing to the 4 Hobbits and saying "you bow to no one", certainly touched a bone.)

Not wishing to be maudlin of course, but perhaps Rutger will tell someone before he passes away, that he wants some or all of those lines rewritten on his tombstone. A very dignified end, I would would think.
I love the symbolism of the entire ending.

All through the film there's been the juxtaposition of human vs replicant: replicants want to be more like humans, and cling to their emotional experiences and the draw of memories to make them feel more alive. Humans, on the other hand, are increasingly struggling to tell replicants from humans, as underlined by Deckard testing Rachel.

However, replicants are still treated as machines. And that's why Roy's death is so powerful.

When directly faced with his own death, Roy looks down upon Deckard and takes pity on him. The symbolism adds to this - Roy has a nail through his hand, like a crucified Jesus, and carries a dove of peace. Then Roy forgives, and then saves him, before allowing himself to be sacrificed.

Roy is not simply human - he has transcended that, through spiritual allegory that puts him more on a par with a saviour to be (literally) looked up to.

Everything comes together at the ending - the speech and the imagery are wonderful. No wonder its become so iconic.
His monologue is my favorite from any film. It's tragic, beautiful, inspirational...and yes, Hauer deserves massive props both for acting and rephrasing the original.
For those interested, here's the script from the theatrical version:

I was curious, and the word "man" is used repeated (though not exclusively) to refer to Deckard. Almost as if to emphasize thinking about his status as a (hu)man.

One point of interest - how does Roy know who Deckard is? Even if Leon had overheard Deckard after Zhora's death, he died right after. So either Roy was also there (which explains "For Zhora," finger break), or Roy has more sources of information than it appears. He might have become aware of Deckard when Leon tells him he couldn't get his precious photos "Man? Police-man?" But Roy seems to have an opinion about Deckard.
This is a beautiful movie. The book just doesn’t hold up to it.

I wonder if you folks who like SF so much like it for it’s commercialability. Think what kind of film directors could cash in on these books, if they had the technology.
Agreed, it is the rare beast that outshines the source material.

Saw it recently at the Prince Charles Cinema and it was glorious on the big screen.

I'd seen it so much as a young adult, i kinda got bored with it and didn't see it for maybe 15, 20 years. Watching it again after such a long respite was quite an emotional experience and i'll go and see it again.
I wonder if you folks who like SF so much like it for it’s commercialability. Think what kind of film directors could cash in on these books, if they had the technology.
Not really. I don't think the best SF is very cinematic at all, featuring characters with complex inner lives and events that wouldn't work on screen.

Similar threads