.png)
Deep Thoughts About Stupid Sh*t: A Pop-Culture Podcast
Ever had something you love dismissed because it’s “just” pop culture? What others might deem stupid shit, you know matters. You know it’s worth talking and thinking about. So do we. We're Tracie and Emily, two sisters who think a lot about a lot of things. From Twilight to Ghostbusters, Harry Potter to the Muppets, and wherever pop culture takes us, come overthink with us as we delve into our deep thoughts about stupid shit.
Deep Thoughts About Stupid Sh*t: A Pop-Culture Podcast
Deep Thoughts about Blade Runner
All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want.
The 1982 science fiction classic, Blade Runner, was a favorite of the Guy girls’ father. Mainstream media critics can’t ruminate about how a loved one’s relationship with a piece of problematic pop culture affects the way we view it. Luckily, we aren’t mainstream media. In this episode, we peel back the layers of misogyny, unhealthy sexual politics, dubious consent, toxic masculinity, and xenophobia that surround this truly breathtaking mash-up of neo-noir, science fiction, and dystopian future-casting. Blade Runner asks important questions about the nature of humanity while simultaneously denying humanity to women (the only female characters who appear are manufactured). The Guy sisters bring some deep thoughts about why that is, what changes could have addressed it, and how their dad could have missed it.
Throw on your earbuds and have a listen before all of our deep thoughts disappear like tears in the rain!
TW: discussion of violence, sexual assault, and rape
Mentioned in this episode:
The person who suggested Rachael giving “tears in the rain” would have been more powerful:
https://screenmayhem.com/blade-runner-1982-has-an-inexplicable-gender-blindspot/
More feminist analysis of the film:
https://trinitycollegestage3media.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/blade-runner-feminist-reading/
Our theme music is "Professor Umlaut" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Support the show at ko-fi.com/guygirls
Learn more about Tracie and Emily (including our other projects), join the Guy Girls' family, secure exclusive access to bonus episodes, video versions, and early access to Deep Thoughts by visiting us on Patreon.
This could have been a less misogynist movie, still grappled with the same things, if Rachel had given the tears in the rain speech what others might deem stupid shit. You know matters, you know it's worth talking and thinking about, and so do we. We're sisters, tracy and Emily, collectively known as the Guy Girls. Sisters Tracy and Emily, collectively known as the Guy Girls. Every week, we take turns re-watching, researching and reconsidering beloved media and sharing what we learn. Come overthink with us and if you get value from the show, please consider supporting us. You can become a patron on Patreon or send us a one-time tip through Ko-fi. Both links are in the show notes and thanks.
Speaker 1:I'm Tracy Guy-Decker and you're listening to Deep Thoughts About Stupid Shit, because pop culture is still culture, and shouldn't you know what's in your head? Today, I'll be sharing my deep thoughts about the 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner with my sister, emily Guy-Burken, and with you, let's dive in, emily Guy-Burken, and with you, let's dive in. Okay? So when we wrapped up our last episode, we mentioned that Blade Runner. It was one of the ones that our dad really appreciated. So I know you're aware of the film, but what do you know? What do you remember? Have you seen it? What's in your head about Blade Runner?
Speaker 2:So I know I saw it as a kid. I remember watching it with dad when I was a kid. What I took away was that larry of I'm larry and this is my brother daryl, and this is my other brother, daryl, from the bob newhart show, or from newhart, rather not the bob newhart show from newhart had an important role in the film. I cannot remember that actor's name, but he's someone who every time I see him I'm like it's Larry. So yeah, that's in there. I remember from seeing it as a kid really being taken by that character, the, the actor who plays larry, and I cannot remember that actor's name. Um, that character's uh workshop because he like made like toys and things like that. Um, so I remember the replicants. Um, I have seen the movie more recently so my husband had never seen it and so he and I watched it sometime in the past five years or so. Um, and it hit different Um, although there was still quite a lot in there that I really really enjoyed. Um, but the the um clearly consent was not a primary focus. So that's in there. Rutger Hauer's Roy Batty that character really stuck with me. His Tears in the Rain speech really stuck with me. His Tears in the Rain speech. It really like. I was spent a lot of time when I saw it again recently thinking about, like the idea of mortality and how that is kind of what gives humanity meaning and so these replicants do, in a lot of ways, have humanity, in part because they are mortal and um. I know dad absolutely loved the film Um.
Speaker 2:I know it is extremely influential in both the look like the. There's the. It's like noir, sci-fi, um, and you know you can see it in like the fifth element is clearly influenced by by Blade Runner. You can see it in in any number of different genre and non genre films merging of like the noir, uh like crime story with the futuristic idea of of um replicants and uh, like sci-fi stuff is is, I think, really really fantastic.
Speaker 2:And I I don't think that I fantastic and I don't think that I know I have read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep in high school, so it's been like 30 years since I read it. I don't really recall much about it. But that's the story, the Philip K Dick story that was the seed that became Blade Runner. So I'm not sure what is? It's Ridley Scott, is that correct? Yes, what is Ridley Scott, what is Philip K Dick? And, like, what came about through the movie making process, what came about from the actual story writing. So I have some thoughts. Also, watching it more recently, I remember when I saw it as a kid everything looked like like super futuristic. But watching it more recently and there's a an outfit that the love interest is wearing where she's got this like high collar, and I remember thinking it looked so futuristic as a kid. And watching it recently I was just like that is so 80s. So those are my kind of inchoate thoughts. So tell me what's at stake here? Why are we talking?
Speaker 1:about Blade Runner today. Yeah, I think I put it on the list because we're kind of on a jag of movies that remind us of dad, and I think I wanted to mix it up because last week we talked about City Slickers, which is, you know, very sort of real world drama, and so I was throwing in Blade Runner, which is sort of the quintessential sci-fi movie in my brain, and those were sort of two sides of dad's you know movie viewing that you know, with us. So I think that was really all that was at stake on this, uh, or why it got put on the list. I should say, uh, what's at stake is that it was, you know, like dad was a large driver of my cinematic education and this was sort of the epitome of science fiction movies and, as I received it from, him I mean, if he were still alive and I asked him, maybe he would say no, no, it's not that it's whatever the day, they were still or something, but um, but it was certainly in the pantheon of sci-fi movies.
Speaker 1:So I think that's kind of what's at stake, is like kind of like our relationship with that and like my relationship with the genre. Even so, that's kind of what's at stake and we will get into it. I didn't have as much time to do the research as I often do before we sit down, so I like some of the questions about, like, philip K Dick versus Ridley Scott. I'm not going to be able to answer, but there's plenty to fill our time even without that, so so I want to get into it there. There's a lot of conversation we need to have about feminism or the lack thereof in this film.
Speaker 1:In fact, like it was, was I just watched it today or finished watching it today, and it was this, this I was much more disturbed in re-watching this movie than I anticipated. Like I I was not anticipating being disturbed in this way like I was yelling at the screen at one point, yeah uh, where I was like stop, she doesn't want it, stop it. He's actually yelling at the screen. So uh, um. Also, I should note there are many versions of Blade Runner, so Scott released like a uh, another version in the mid two thousands. It was like the final cut.
Speaker 2:That was like sort of his director's cut version Cause, didn't the studio require him to have Deckard do a voiceover? Harrison Ford.
Speaker 1:Yes, there's a voiceover that Harrison Ford does. It's sort of like throwback to noir, sort of a feeling. That was not Scott's original vision. But the studio was afraid that viewers wouldn't understand what was happening. And so in the mid-2000s it's it, you know it had been come, become such a classic he was able to do what he wanted, so he re-released it. He apparently resisted the, the resisted the temptation to like re-edit and put in cgi, so he did not fall into the trap that George Lucas fell into. We released it without that voiceover and there were other changes, apparently, like a longer scene, the actual sex scene, which isn't on screen, but the lead up to it there was more of it.
Speaker 1:There was more conversation at the end as they go off into the sunset. I didn't watch that. I'm not talking about that. I did not watch Blade Runner 2049, which is sort of the reboot, so I'm just talking about the 1982 film. So I just wanted to name that for listeners who maybe are big aficionados, who've watched all of them, who know all of this. So folks feel free to get in touch and tell me you know what got fixed or what got changed or what got complicated by those additional versions. I'm just talking about the original, uh release of the 1982 film. So I want to talk about feminism, I want to talk about women, uh, in this movie. I want to talk about you. You named sort of humanity and mortality and and I want to talk about that.
Speaker 1:You named the influences this film has had, so I want to talk about that and sort of like dystopia in general, sort of a future dystopia and what. What doing that? Like psychologically, sociologically, what we're doing when we sort of have a dystopian future in which we tell a story.
Speaker 2:So I want to have that conversation a little bit. I would also and this is something that, like I think, general media criticism can't do, but we can is, if we can get into it talk about the fact that our dad, who had two daughters and was incredibly proud of us I don't know that he would have described himself as a feminist, I don't have any idea. Yeah, I don't know either, but was someone who was fiercely protective of us in many, many ways, had no problem with us seeing this film as children when the sexual politics and dynamics are not in at all consensual on the women's part yeah, um yeah, it's not just a sexual pot like the the gore violence is also it's.
Speaker 2:It's gendered violence, and I know so dad, when he would see something in media that he was concerned was giving us the wrong idea, would stop what we were watching and talk to me about it. I know I can recall at least two occasions where he did that. This didn't happen with Blade Runner. I think that it would be interesting, when we talk about gender and feminism in this film, what it means that it was so normalized that our fiercely protective father didn't even think to talk to us about. And I'm not even talking about like the. The gendered violence is the sort of thing that I can comprehend a little bit, just being like it's a violent film.
Speaker 2:I waited until they were 12. It's fine, but the Deckard and I cannot remember the, her name is Rachel. Okay, yes, so that scene between Deckard and Rachel which blew my mind when I saw it recently, because I was like how did I not remember this? This is not seduction, this is not. It was gross equals. It was nasty and it was gross. I mean, it was rape, yeah, and so the fact that our dad, who was so protective of us and so fierce about our own bodily autonomy, let us watch this, and I say kid, I was probably like 12. I mean, I was not a little little kid, but I was yeah. Yeah, that's something that I think would be interesting when we get to it, to talk about just what that means for how acculturated we all are into violence against women. That I didn't remember that from watching it as a child.
Speaker 1:It didn't bother me as a child, right Me, neither. I didn't remember dad. All right, he's okay showing it to us. All right, so let's get into it. Let me, I'm. I'm actually. This is like again. There's just so much and and it's, it was. It's a finely crafted film. There are pieces of the, the final product, that I quibble with, but it's finally crafted.
Speaker 2:Oh, it's very it's an amazing movie in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1:I'm. I'm going to actually read the Wikipedia synopsis, or at least use it as my starting point. So it's November 2019.
Speaker 2:That far off future, distant day.
Speaker 1:It's November 2019. Oh, the movie actually starts with like there's like a preamble, like a prologue in text that explains that in the early 21st century, ai technology has gotten so good that they've made these robots called replicants, that are indistinguishable from human beings and they're used basically as slave labor in off-world sort of colonization and they get uppity and are now illegal on earth and there is a whole force of cops whose job it is to kill. On site. These replicants are known as blade runners and we are informed in this text prologue also that that is not known as killing, it's known as retiring. So that's the prologue. Then we see it's 2019, los angeles. We meet former police officer r Deckard, who is Harrison Ford, and he actually gets arrested by another officer, gaff, who's speaking in like this weird. What we learn later is street talk, which is a mashup of Japanese, spanish, german and English.
Speaker 2:Anyway. So this guy Gaff makes origami figures. Let's see him doing it. Edward James Olmos, isn't it?
Speaker 1:It is Edward James Olmos. Yes, so Gaff takes Deckard to Bryant, who's the former supervisor, and basically Bryant tells Deckard, you're back, we're pulling you out of retirement, we need you to be Blade Runner again. He has no choice. No choice, so he has to track down four replicants who have come to earth from off world. They stole a spaceship. They come to earth Uh, we don't quite know why. So they end up watching the video of one of these replicants, leon, who, uh, was being administered like this test, like a Turing test kind of thing, isn't it?
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Explain Turing test. So, oh, the Turing test, named for Alan Turing, who was the computer programmer. Basically, a Turing test is something that is used to determine whether the responder is human, and so there are questions that one asks that kind of help you understand whether the responses are coming from organically, from a person, or are like AI.
Speaker 1:Thank you. So this test in the film is called the Voight-Kampff test. It, like, looks at eye iris what's the word?
Speaker 1:Dilation, Thank you, Dilation and contraction and pays attention to blush response, like almost like a lie detector kind of a thing, and it asks questions, that hypothetical questions that put them for emotional responses. So this guy Leon, this replicant Leon, we see him, he's being administered the test and when he's asked about his mother he says I'll tell you about my mother and he shoots the test giver in the groin. So we see that footage over and over again, actually throughout.
Speaker 2:And Leon is a replicant, and Leon is a replicant.
Speaker 1:Leon is a replicant. He's one of the four who've escaped or who have come to Earth. So Bryant sends Deckard, sends Harrison Ford to meet with the CEO of the company that creates replicants. The guy's name is Eldon, terrell or Tyrell, I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce it. Um, so the idea is that they're asking Terrell if this test, if this Voight-Kampff, this Turing test, would work on this next generation, which these four replicants are known as Nexus six. So Terrell is like well, I want to see it fail before I tell you if it's going to work. So do it on, do it on a human. And, um, harrison Ford is like you and he's like no, do it on her. There's this like assistant it's not clear what she does, but a colleague of Terrell's, her name is Rachel, she's just very 40s with this very 40s hairstyle, like precise like this woman, like bright red lips, like very 40s makeup, like big shoulder pads which are crossed between 80s and 40s. Anyway, they do the test on her and it's this weird sort of like montage that takes a really long time and finally, uh, decker lets her go and confronts um Terrell and privately says like she's a replicant, and Terrell's like how long does it usually take for you to know. And he's like I don't know about 30 or 40 questions and Terrell goes that took a hundred, didn't it? He's very proud that he's that Rachel. Rachel is so very special and she has.
Speaker 1:We learned that she actually has memories. They've they've implanted memories into Rachel, so she doesn't know that she is a replicant. So Deckard goes to Leon's hotel room, finds photographs which he takes, and also like a scale, like like a fish scale or a snake scale that's in the tub. So he sort of bags that as evidence. He goes home. Rachel's there waiting for him.
Speaker 1:She says I know what he told you, but it's not true. Here I have something to show you. And she hands him a photograph of purportedly herself and her mother. It's a little girl and a woman. And then he names memories Do you remember this? Do you remember this? These memories of things. And she sort of finishes the memory and he says they're not yours, they're Terrell's nieces. He implanted them in you. And she's like really upset and actually sheds a tear. Well, stoically upset, but she sheds a tear. He says it was a bad joke, I'm sorry, let me get you a drink. She runs out, okay. So meanwhile, leon and another replicant, replicant Roy, who is played by Rutger Hauer in this sort of Billy Idol bleach, blonde, look. They investigate a replicant eye manufacturer and learn of JF Sebastian, who is the guy. Larry who's the actor's name is William Sanderson. He's a genetic designer who works closely with terrell and he's there's something wrong.
Speaker 1:He's 25, we'll get to it, okay, gotcha so the a photograph in that he picked up from leon's hotel room plus the scale, eventually lead deckard to a strip club where zora, who we know is a replicant, works as a stripper and she has like scales, like glued to her body.
Speaker 2:that actress went on to play dolores in, who framed roger rabbit. Oh cool, so six degrees of deep thoughts about stupid shit persona to try and get to get close to her.
Speaker 1:She seems to kind of know what's going on. They have like a quick fight and then he actually chases her down the street and shoots her in the back as she's running away in this like metal bikini and clear raincoat it's very slow-mo, crashing through glass like soft soundtrack, almost soft porn kind of a feel. It's very disturbing. And we first hear deckard say in his voiceover uh, you know the report what says like standard retirement. But that doesn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back. And there are are my feelings again. It's very weird.
Speaker 1:Anyway, after the death of Zora, deckard sees Rachel kind of watching him. He loses her in the crowd and then gets caught like Leon grabs him and he and Leon are fighting and Leon is winning and is about to gouge his eyes out with his thumbs when he gets shot in the head. He, leon, rachel shot him. Okay, leon gets shot in the head, rachel shot Leon, saving Deckard's life, saving Deckard's life. So she ends up following him back to his apartment. They're talking. She's like kind of grappling with the fact that she's a replicant and she says something like if I left, if I went up North and like started over. Would you track me down? He says no, I wouldn't, but someone would, and he falls asleep.
Speaker 1:She sort of makes herself at home in his apartment. She's looking at his photographs. He has all these like old, like very old photos, like spread out on the sheet music, stand on his piano. She's playing piano. She's looking at his photographs. She takes her very severe. She's playing piano. She's looking at his photographs. She takes her very severe. Fancy forties hair do down and now has sort of big curly hair around her face. He wakes up, sits with her at the piano bench and they have a little conversation and then he like kisses her neck and she pulls away and then he tries to kiss her lips and she gets up and starts and she moves to the door. He chases her like roughly, closes the door and then basically like restrains her and forces her to kiss him and like forces her to say that she wants him to kiss her. It's really, really gross. This was the bit that I was yelling at the screen yeah, this.
Speaker 2:This was the part that blew my mind, because I'm like how did I not remember this?
Speaker 1:because this is awful meanwhile, priss, who's the fine daryl hannah, the final of the four replicants who escaped, who we hadn't met yet, she um endears herself to jf, sebastian, the william sanderson, the guy, the william sanderson character, and gets herself invited into his apartment his apartment, I guess it's meant to be like an old hotel or something. It it's a giant building. He lives there on his own. He's this very gifted genetic scientist, so he has all of these like androids, toys, that the animatronics they all move like. So he comes in the door and these two little guys come and greet him and say home again, home again. Jiggity jig, welcome home JF. Come and greet him and say home again, home again, jiggity jig, welcome home jf.
Speaker 1:It's uncanny and creepy. I I was watching, I wasn't charmed, I was freaked. But there's, there's a like, a friendship happening and we know we as viewers know that she's putting it on because we know she is the replicant, but jf doesn't yet. So we learn that he is. Has this genetic disorder called like methuselah disorder or something like that, where he's aging more prematurely, aging like more quickly than he ought, and that that keeps him from going off world?
Speaker 2:that's the only reason he's still on earth because he's like 25 and William Sanderson, he says he's 25. William Sanderson, the actor, is probably in his mid to late 40s.
Speaker 1:Yeah, or at least looked it, and they actually well, they actually seem to have put makeup on to make him look even older, like to make his skin age. His skin Like it was kind of like leathery. I think that was enhanced with cosmetics. Roy comes to Sebastian's house and it's just like no real preamble. Pris just says hi, roy, and then they start talking. Sebastian realizes there if he hadn't already, he realizes that they are both replicants and talks about how he helped build them. There's peace of him in them and they really invite him to be an ally. They talk about Terrell and how it's hard to get to him and maybe you. That's happening.
Speaker 1:We see sebastian and roy go to terrell's house. Terrell's in this very luxurious apartment with, like, he's actually already in bed, uh, reading, and it's it's meant to be this dystopian future. So he's super rich and like his apartment, is talking to him and says, like you know, uh, jf, sebastian wants entry. They're playing a chess game. They come in. Tyrell immediately recognizes roy. He is not fooled from, he knows exactly who he is. They have a conversation about like with very technical scientific things, about the fact that they cannot extend roy's life. Part of the whole deal with replicants is that they only live for four years. So and that was part that was intentional, like built into the programming to kind of protect us from rogue AI, I suppose. Well, like anybody, roy wants more life, and so he's come to his maker which is what he calls him to try and get more life. And even the one curse word in the whole film, roy says I want more life. Fucker, it's not possible, there is no way. There's like science, science, science, science that says why I didn't follow it doesn't matter. So when he realizes he can't get what he wants, roy, you think for a moment he's sort of accepting it. He puts his hands on either side of cheryl's face and actually kisses him chastely, I mean like no tongue but like on the lips, and then squeezes the man's skull and gouges out his eyes to kill him. Pf Sebastian's watching this whole thing, freaking out. He starts to run. We don't know what happens, though. We hear we cut scene. We see Deckard in his police cruiser, which flies by the way, hearing over the police radio that the body found with terrell's body was that of j of jf sebastian. So roy's killed both of them.
Speaker 1:Decker goes to sebastian's apartment. He's ambushed by priss, but he does manage to kill her. She, her death is almost like a beetle, like, like on her back, like twitching. It's bizarre. Um and Deckard and Roy get into this extended hide and seek chase scene where each one trades being the hunter and the hunted. Uh, roy like punches through the wall and grabs Deckard's arm and pulls it through and ends up like breaking two of his fingers. Um, roy is at the end of his four years and like his one of his hands is starting to kind of like like clench into a fist, like it seems to be outside of his control. He takes a old nail out of the I don't know, like an exposed beam and like shoves it through his palm. He chases Deckard up through the building, like up onto the roof. Deckard tries to get away from him and tries to like jump to the adjacent building and like kind of doesn't quite make it and he's like hanging from an I-beam with his broken fingers.
Speaker 1:And whatever Roy does jump holding a dove, inexplicably in one hand and Deckard's about to fall, roy saves him and pulls him up onto the roof and then gives this speech about things that he's seen and how it's about to be lost. This is the tears in the rain speech that you referenced. You know so that Ridley Scott like just hits us over the head with the fact that this guy has a soul and the voiceover is I don't know why he did it, you know, I guess. So we had this like moment where Harrison Ford's character is kind of grappling with the humanity of this replicant that he was trying to kill. So gaff, the other cop, the guy who does gore origami, played by edward james olmos, says I guess you got him, um, and then says like they're kind of yelling at a distance in the rain, because it always rains in the los angeles of 2019, of ridley scott's dystopian future, always like not just drizzle rain. So in the rain he says I you know too bad, too bad she's gonna, but I guess we all do so.
Speaker 1:Deckard like rushes home. He finds the his apartment door is like a little bit cracked, so he pulls his gun and he's coming in. He's looking for Rachel. He's calling her name. He's really scared. He finds her in bed like sheet covering her. He pulls, pulls the cover over her, off of her head and he kind of rests his head against her cheek. Uh, and you, you think, as a viewer, you think she's dead but she's not. And he kisses her. He says do you love me? She says I love you, she. He says do you trust me? She says I trust you. So they get up, we see them leave the apartment.
Speaker 2:He sees like a gum wrapper in an origami unicorn and he'd had so he knows that he'd had a dream about a unicorn, hadn't he when he fell asleep? No, oh, maybe that's in the.
Speaker 1:Uh the, that must be in the director's cut, Uncut the director's cut. There's no dream at all. So he well, so he knows Gaff was there and let her live. So the final scene of the movie is them driving into the sunset like beautiful, like outside now of the. But he was wrong, because Terrell told me that Rachel was special. I don't know how long she's got, I guess none of us do. And that's the end of the theatrical release. So this film does not pass the Bechdel test. There are more than one named female characters. There's at least three.
Speaker 1:They're all replicants. All three of them are replicants. That's it. It's only those three, and they are all replicants.
Speaker 2:And they never do not speak to each other, they never even share a scene with each other. No, they do not share a scene, even though Pris and. Zora are like comrades in arms.
Speaker 1:Comp? Not sure, even though pris and zora are like comrades in arms, compatriots, comrades, yeah, but we don't ever see them on screen together. So it doesn't pass the bat cell. Because, though we have the three named characters, they don't talk to each other. So therefore they don't talk about something other than men because they don't even talk to each other. And the, the women, all three women are manufactured, and they are all either manufactured for sex in Pris' case, or sexualized by the men around them.
Speaker 2:Zora was wasn't Zora also like a sex replicant?
Speaker 1:No, she was a combat replicant. No, she was a combat replicant. Oh, okay. So about her? Bryant, the supervisor cop says talk about Beauty and the Beast. She's both. She is a sex worker because she's a stripper, but she was not manufactured explicitly for that. Pris was manufactured explicitly to be a pleasure model. And then Rachel, who was not manufactured for that purpose and is sort of a businesswoman. At least that's the way we're presented to her in the beginning is raped and then forced to flee with a rapist ask for yeah I mean like, but the rape itself, like the way that he coerces her.
Speaker 1:He says tell me to kiss, say the words kiss me, like he forces her to ask him and then, yeah, flees with her rapist, saying that she loves him and trusts him.
Speaker 1:So, like, and the, the beauty and the beast one, the zora, who is the, the combat one, like she gives him the what for, like she almost kills him actually priss almost kills him too. She like squeezes him with her thighs, but in the end, you know, he kills them both. And like we're meant to have some empathy or sympathy for these two women, I think, as viewers. And yet also it's so like especially I don't even want to say especially for both of those two. Their deaths are like sexualized. Yeah.
Speaker 1:I found it deeply, deeply disturbing and like I think, like I was reading some commentary and again I didn't do quite as much research as I might have liked because I just ran out of time, but I read some that like Scott was saying that you know he was trying to make a statement about patriarchal technology with these women, but like, uh, I personally believe he did that because otherwise, no one would remember him.
Speaker 2:So by saving Deckard at the very end and saying those things, he guarantees some sort of continuance because this person will remember him, sort of continuance because this person will remember him. So it's not empathy, it's not compassion, it's still kind of self-interest, but still very human self-interest. But one of the things that I find interesting on this rewatch, you know, in the past five years and then hearing you talk about it, is that it's not clear to me that deckard is the protagonist, necessarily in the, the, the sense of like the good guy, because he is like. He kills zora by shooting her in the back as she's running away, and boy can we say a lot about that in terms of propaganda and the ways that you and I have really grappled with what policing is in the real world. He straight up rapes Rachel. It's not clear to me if he would have done that if she were a real woman.
Speaker 2:And Roy Leon, zora and Pris are the only I treat each other as fully realized people, and JF Sebastian is the only other person we see who is human, who does so, who treats them as fully realized people, and so like is this, is this supposed to be? Now noir is supposed to be about morally ambiguous gray characters. That's the essence of noir. So like it's perfectly within in keeping with the the genre, that like it's not clear who's the good guy. The only truly good person we see is jf sebastian, and he is killed for his trouble by the only other person who might be considered the protagonist, roy batty.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean I I actually think that he is the pro. I think that deckard is the protagonist. Roy Batty, yeah, I mean, I actually think that he is the. I think that Deckard is the protagonist. I think he's an anti-hero and in fact, there's fan theories that I mean. I say fan theories, I don't mean to diminish them. There are some analysis that suggests that Deckard himself is a replicant.
Speaker 2:Well, and that's in the director's cut, which I guess, when he dreams about a unicorn. And then it is meaningful that Edward, james, james Olmos, Gaff leaves, the origami that he leaves as a unicorn, which suggests that that dream was not an organic dream.
Speaker 1:Yeah, also the photos, all of the photos, that that dream was not an organic dream. It was big, yeah. Also the photos, all of the photos.
Speaker 1:But I still think he's the protagonist and he is an antihero for sure. I mean, part of the exercise feels like how much can we forgive our protagonist? Yeah, yes, the thing about that end moment, like that. You just named the tears in the rain, the humanness of it.
Speaker 1:One of the commentators that I read and I will try to find this and put it in the show notes because I think that I really like this and I want to make sure I give credit to the person whose idea it is that I'm sharing here this could have been a much more interesting. Well, let me rephrase that Less misogynist. This could have been a less misogynist movie, still grappled with the same things. If Rachel had given the tears in the rain speech after fighting off her rapist, or maybe not fighting like at some point, like in grappling with who she is and the fact that she's manufactured, the fact that she has been treated so lightly by everyone, from Terrell to Deckard, if she had the same kind of so Deckard, if she had the same kind of arc that we had from Roy, but it was in Rachel, and even a similar sort of fight scene and then she gave the tears in the rain speech, I think it could have been a much less misogynist movie and still grappled with the questions that Ridley Scott wanted to grapple with.
Speaker 1:About what is the nature of humanity, about the role of mortality in humanity.
Speaker 2:About. What strikes me about this film is that the only people who get an arc are men. Like, all of the active players are men. So we've got Deckard, we've got Roy Batty, uh. We've got Jeff Sebastian, we've got, uh, terrell, um, the the the maker. All of them get to be active participants, even Leon, in their lives.
Speaker 2:Now, like Zora does, like Zora does, like Zora and Pris do make, like, do have agency and make their own decisions, like in befriending JF Sebastian on Pris's part, on finding a place to hide and giving Deck deckard what for, on, uh, zora's part. But in terms of character arc, we don't see anything from anyone other than the male characters. So deckard goes from like it's my job to kill replicants, to running away with one. And Roy Batty goes from like this is my enemy, I'm going to kill him to saving him, and I mean accepting his death in that there is no other choice, although that is extremely human as well, is extremely human as well. And even like we don't exactly see a character arc from jeff sebastian. He seems to be basically the same throughout, but we we still. It's more his story than it's the story of rachel, zora and priss we we see more emotional response from him.
Speaker 1:We do see a lot more emotional response from him.
Speaker 2:And so it's a problem that there are no human women in this film.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's a problem that none of the women in this film get to have a complete story in the way that Roy and Deckard do, and it's, it's infuriating because it is such a rich text that only gives humanity to men and even male replicants yeah, you know, it's really one of the commentators like not, not, not even like a fan that I just, in my quick research, was saying like I can't believe that this was made by the same person that made aliens, which was so feminist with ripley, and I remember what you told me about alien, which was that that was actually like a last-minute casting decision and that in fact, ripley had been written as a man and they put sigourney weaver in in that character, in that role, um, and like that's really interesting and telling to me when, like I saw that comment, I can't believe this is the same person, Ridley Scott, that did Alien, when this is so not feminist.
Speaker 1:I mean this is an anti-feminist movie.
Speaker 2:It's actively misogynistic.
Speaker 1:Not intentionally.
Speaker 2:I don't think, not intentionally.
Speaker 1:I don't think Ridley Scottott said and in fact I suspect that he thought that he was doing things to like lampoon it, but I it, in my opinion, missed the mark. But I think that that fan comment, like I can't believe and what I learned from you about the character of ripley and alien as played by sigourney weaver like it actually makes a lot of sense. Like I wonder what if we made the exact same movie but cast sigourney Weaver? It actually makes a lot of sense. I wonder what if we made the exact same movie but cast Sigourney Weaver instead of Harrison Ford? All of a sudden this is a very different movie even with the forced sex.
Speaker 1:Even if Sigourney Weaver Deckard put the moves on and forced Rachel to have sex with her in that same exact way, it still is a very, very different movie if I have Sigourney Weaver as Deckard. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. And I think that's really telling about Ridley Scott and his moment in time in the 70s and 80s, mm-hmm. And even the accident of Ripley in Alien, which we should probably put on the list if it's not already.
Speaker 2:That actually brings me to what I want to talk about about our dad. Like what I want to talk about about our dad in that in a lot of ways, even though I don't know that dad would ever have like self-identified as a feminist, he overtly raised us to be feminist in a lot of ways.
Speaker 2:So, for instance, um, I proposed to my husband which we have some friends who have had a problem with that and the wife of that couple said something about like well, I just, you know my dad would be so disappointed that you know, like he didn't ask for my hand in marriage. And they're like what would your dad think? And I was like, okay, so if we had gone the more traditional route and my spouse had gone to dad before we got, before he asked me to say may I have emily's hand in marriage, I know dad would have been like I think you should be talking to her.
Speaker 1:Yeah, totally he would have said like uh, I don't want to marry you. Yeah, like, why are you asking me why? Are you talking to me? Yeah, yeah, that is definitely how dad would have so if either of our spouses had done that, yes, so that's I like.
Speaker 2:I wanted to like contextualize that in that way, so like this is who our dad was. And yet dad was still a product of, you know, mid mid century, mid 20th century. You know he was born in 1950. And it did not occur to him, as I understand it, just how riddled with misogyny this favorite film of his was, to the point where he let us watch it and did not talk to us about it. And I want to think about what that means for men in our culture Well, everyone in our culture, but men in our culture, especially when you can watch this film, film that is a tour de force I mean, this is a masterpiece of filmmaking and not recognize the lack of humanity of the female characters when the entire film is about what it means to be human and so women are not human science fiction.
Speaker 1:It's also neo-noir and I'm not I'm not excusing it like this doesn't make it okay that noir science fiction and dystopian, uh, dystopia, dystopian genre, like all all have contributed to and participated in misogyny, but they have they do for. And so I wonder too of how much of like, like the it's just expected, because that's that's how noir goes, that's how science fiction goes. Now, thank god we have, you know, new generations of science fiction writers and that's not how it always goes anymore.
Speaker 2:But in 1982, it was still pretty new to have science fiction that had fully realized female characters well, and they had been written as men right, right, right, ripley yeah, so well, and that's what's coming up for me is how much we just accept that this is how stories are and this is what women are, because these are questions that, even though I have been someone who proudly declares myself a feminist from like tiny hood, it did not occur to me that there was a problem with women being sexualized. You know, I saw that as something to aim for because that's what culture told me and it's. You know. I have a vested interest in challenging that, because I am a woman, whereas men don't. It's very easy to just let it pour over you.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I do want to just quickly nuance. There isn't a problem with women being sexualized inherently, as long as that's not. We are sexual creatures. The problem is when that is the sum total of their existence. I just wanted to name that explicitly because sexualization is not in and of itself problematic.
Speaker 2:In particular in this film, the way that In this film it is problematic, absolutely because that's all they are. Yes, well, I'm reminded of when you were talking about the sexualization of Zora's death. Do you know the author of Zora's death? So are you? Do you know the author? Jim Butcher? No, I cannot remember the name of his stories, but he writes basically noir fantasy. So like very noir. Main character is like a grizzled, hard-boiled detective, but in a world where magic exists. And so I started reading the first one, and the first case that he's on like big case that he's on is the death of a woman. Who is the woman is naked and they sexualize this dead body and I was like I can't read this. I cannot read this. Why, why are we getting like these loving descriptions of her breasts?
Speaker 2:she's dead yeah, that was what I was reminded of when you were talking about that, and it's because I read it in the last few years, because if I'd read it in my 20s, I would have just tripped halfway along by yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I would like to. Actually, I want to move on because we're running short of time and I really want your brain on this case. So we've talked before. Like when we talk about horror, we talk about the ways in which, like, we kind of insert the things that we're afraid of into horror. I want to talk about dystopian futurescapes and what is happening sociologically in these dystopian futurescapes, because I think that there's something akin to horror, kind of peeling back zeitgeist layers In the classic example that you often give, emily, is that when a conservative or Republican president is in office, we tend to see zombie films, and when a Democrat or liberal president is in office, we tend to see vampire films and sort of what, the fears of that kind of style of leadership is is kind of playing itself out in our horror films.
Speaker 1:What are these dystopian futures doing? Like this, like gritty, dark, dirty, rainy, very lonely, very isolated dystopian future where and this is one thing that feels kind of prescient I think like, like ridley scott got some things wrong, like everybody smokes in his 2019 later, like everybody smokes and in fact we see status is like like just regular people smoke cigarettes and like super rich people smoke cigarettes on these, like long filters or like long opium pipe style pipes, but but everybody smokes, so there's smoke everywhere.
Speaker 1:He got that wrong. But what he got right was that it's not actually government actors, it's corporation actors, right like terrell. Who's this super powerful, like god-like figure runs a business, doesn't he like?
Speaker 2:live in a pyramid too.
Speaker 1:Yes, so like that, I think you know he got right in a in a weird sort of prescient, scary way, but but I'd love to like kind of unpack like why we do this as humans, that we write these stories about these dystopian futures which in this case was only 37 years in the future and maybe it was 40 when he wrote it and like the wholesale change in society that he was envisioning in less than 40 years, like with like language changes and like not just like the technological but also the social changes that he was envisioning Like. I feel like that must be some fears manifesting, right.
Speaker 2:So I've got two thoughts on that, please. So the first is both do Android, stream of electric sheep and Blade Runner are about a fear of loss of humanity, like we're losing ourselves, losing humanity, and I think that's a common dystopian fear, like if you look at the hunger games, it's a fear of loss of humanity, loss of compassion. I think it's interesting and telling that this film was made during the Reagan years, because the loss of humanity comes about in part because of the haves versus have-nots and in a lot of ways, replicants are the ultimate have-nots and the fact that Terrell is this godlike figure because he is so wealthy and, if I remember correctly, aren't there like billboards everywhere in the film and and there's, there's, there's a, there's a, very much a blending of cultures in this dystopian future that he so like there's, there's, um, the billboards have, like, I believe, chinese women, but but the but the street language is Japanese.
Speaker 1:There's just this sort of mish mash of cultures, not, I don't. I don't know how to describe it, if it's a salad or if it's a melting pot but, it's definitely all mixed up together and there is a sense of hierarchy because, Deckard says of course I knew the street language.
Speaker 1:He calls the Asian man who's serving him noodles to come over and translate what Gaff is saying for him and we hear in the voiceover. He didn't actually need a translator, he just didn't want to give him any like, give him the satisfaction of being understood, or something like that.
Speaker 2:Well and right there. I mean, that's such clear xenophobia.
Speaker 1:I mean, like, the dystopia as described in 1982 is a taco truck in every corner yeah, and a sushi and a sushi truck on the on the other corner, yeah, and so like yeah so there's, there's like that xenophobia built into it.
Speaker 2:This is not a benefit that there is, like more cultural competency and and sharing among cultures. This is horrifying.
Speaker 1:You know, it's interesting too, though, because, at least in the voiceover, when we first meet Bryant, who is the supervisor at the police station, in the voiceover and this is in the first few minutes Deckert tells us, the viewer, that Bryant is the kind of cop who would who in the past would have used the N word about black people. He says it out and, like, like that's meant to tell us that this guy is like A bigot, yeah, and and we're meant to sort of like then, therefore, judge Bryant.
Speaker 2:But there's also this, yeah, like baked into the dystopia is this bigotry? It's really. There's a lot of layers and I have zero doubt that Ridley Scott wanted to have some sort of parallel between slavery and the replicants.
Speaker 1:Oh no, that's made explicit. Yeah, yeah, that's made explicit. They name themselves as slaves. They name themselves as slaves.
Speaker 2:And you know, I think what it's probable that he's saying is that or was trying to say is that as long as there's someone we can feel superior to, we will always do that.
Speaker 1:But I don't. That's what I thought when you said, when you actually articulated it as the replicants, as the ultimate have nots. Yes, that's where I went. Yes, but what's interesting?
Speaker 2:is like is Ridley Scott aware of the xenophobia built into the dystopia that he created here? I don't know. Is this just? Like you know, globalization has been the big boogeyman for I don't even know how long. Yeah, I think that this is a film of its time, in part in the ways that we're talking about, like 80s, looks like the way. It is beautiful and well done and is not dated in the way that other 80s movies are. But it's clearly of its time in the fears of the Reagan years, the fears of losing our humanity to greed and you know, this constant forward momentum of technology, which you know was also like really gearing up in the eighties, but also the fears of like oh, my goodness, the Chinese and Japanese are going to take over.
Speaker 2:And I remember, even when I saw it the first time, with dad asking about, like, what's with the Japanese and all of that, and dad talking about, well, you know, there's some concern among some people that like, because China is such a big country and Japan has such a handle on technology that you know they may be the superpowers in the future, and I remember being like, oh okay, all right, but that's something that it's clear that it's a bad thing in this film yeah yeah, okay, well, with our little tech glitch, I'm not 100 sure how long we've been talking, but pretty sure it's been a minute.
Speaker 1:Um, the one last sort of thing that I want to say we've we've named how visually beautiful this film is and there there's a lot of symbolism in it that I didn't even begin to touch, sort of visual symbolism like. Eyes are extremely important in this film. They show up again and again and I don't know how he did it, but he manages to sort of show us that, like the replicants, eyes, like kind of the irises, flash like a light color, almost like, um, someone who's had cataract surgery, but they stay that way and we see it in like there's a replicant owl whose eye does that and we see it in um, both priss and roy's eyes do that.
Speaker 1:The person who puts them onto uh, jf sebastian, that he's the guy who can get them to charelle is an eye maker and made their eyes and they they're like visual gags, where they like, at one point, like roy holds up these two like glass eyes over his eyes and he looks really silly and it's it's like a repeated visual imagery that shows up again and again. That you know, I think that alone probably could have been a whole episode to sort of talk about, like what does that mean and how is that?
Speaker 2:deal with, like what's real and what's not real, and what we see in our perception and I'm also thinking, the visual of the pyramid that Terrell lives in and the idea of a pyramid with an eye on top, which is on money the.
Speaker 1:Masonic thing and the fact that the way that Roy kills his maker is to gouge out his eyes. There's a lot in there, visually. What I named about Scott's prescience, about the role of corporations and the role of advertising throughout, like just everywhere, the cinematography, the sets, the lighting I mean the lighting, I think is probably multiple theses about you know cinematography and lighting and storytelling.
Speaker 1:This film is very intentional. You know, like there are movies that you watch and you're like they were paying attention to the story and it's a good story, but like stuff around the periphery, like maybe just happened the way it fell out, this is not one of those films Like every single moment, every single shot, every single choice was a choice.
Speaker 1:It wasn't just like whatever it happened to default to. So I think that's really. I just wanted to like reiterate that that comes across and I think that's part of why it was so influential. You named some of the movies that it influenced in our very beginning and I think that you know I'm sure there are lots and lots of others, like the look of the flying cars and cabs and things very much.
Speaker 1:Fifth Element Took like whole cloth, just like lifted the scenes out. So you know all of these things and even like some of the actors right Like Ford did this like between two of the star wars films, I think you know. So we've got this like super young paris and ford like really just giving a believable performance. And I say believable because, like I was deeply disturbed. I wasn't reading it as an actor. Like you, you know there are moments where sometimes you're like pulled out of it and you're like these are two people who are reading lines. Uh-uh. No, I was right there and I was like mad at him. So I just like wanted to name that like the immersive experience of this film is really powerful. So that's the last like original point that I want to Anything else that you want to share before I see if I can highlight back some of the things that we said.
Speaker 2:This is one of those films that is in some ways, hard to talk about because it is both so good and so bad. Because it is so well-made, it is such a tight story, it offers so much food for thought, and yet it is swimming in this misogyny that is unintentional and it's hard to talk about this because it feels like okay, so cross that off our list. You don't want to watch that. It feels like okay, so you know, or cross that off our list, you don't want to watch that. Like that's not what we want to say. We really want to like engage with why Ridley Scott made these decisions and why he was completely unaware of the fact that he was making these decisions. But it's also like it can be particularly like you and me, where we haven't seen it since we were young. Watching it again now, in our 40s and recognizing misogyny is like a shock, and so it makes you reevaluate the film in a way that, if you know we're a regular rewatch every year, it might be harder to do. You watch every year, it might be harder to do, and so I just kind of wanted to highlight that. How difficult it can be to have these deeper conversations about beloved media.
Speaker 2:I kind of learned how to do this when I was getting my master's degree in English education. I had to take some prerequisites, some undergraduate prerequisites that I just hadn't happened to take while I was getting my bachelor's. One of them was a film class. The only class that would fit in my schedule was not a 101. It was a more advanced film class, it was a James Bond film class and I I almost said nope, I'm not taking this, and canceled it, even though I didn't know where else I was going to get a film class because I was like James Bond misogyny no. But I took it anyway. And my professor was fantastic or seven years old, was a James Bond film and he loved the film series uncritically as a child. But he grew up to become a literature professor and was able to criticize this franchise that he loved uncritically and so just kind of wanted to.
Speaker 2:To like talk about the fact that figuring out how to love media that has such deep misogyny or other like I mean uses the N word or racism or anything like that, figuring out the balance between recognizing the glory and the greatness that is this film while also underlining the ways in which it falls short is just a very tough needle to thread. I am very thankful for that James Bond film class. That gave me kind of a framework for that. But I just kind of wanted to, because this film is so beloved for excellent reason. I just kind of wanted to because this film is so beloved, um, for excellent reason. I just kind of wanted to like put a pin in that yeah, all right.
Speaker 1:So this, so this particular beloved film, the highlights of our, of our conversation, include the fact that, you know, the overall message that we receive is disheartening because it is so misogynistic.
Speaker 1:This is a film that asks really important and interesting questions about what it means to be human while simultaneously denying humanity to people who are female or female presenting, because they're not human.
Speaker 1:None of them, they are replicants, they are machines, and even the machines that are male are given greater agency and humanity than the three women that we get in this film, which is disheartening, and in the 80s it wasn't surprising at all. Not only was it just sort of par for the course in the culture, it was also particularly for the genres in which this film was situated, namely neo-noir and science fiction and sort of a dystopian, specifically dystopian future. So those are some important things to note and that manifested in such a way that our dad who, regardless of the label that he might have chosen for himself, where he's still alive, he certainly raised us to have full agency and autonomy and yet loved this film, as far as we can tell, uncritically, and allowed us to watch it as pretty young people. So you're thinking you were maybe 12, which would have made me 15. I don't remember specifically how old we were, but that sounds about right.
Speaker 2:And showed it to us without commentary. Without commentary because they're, they're um.
Speaker 1:Specifically, when we watched blazing saddles, he talked to us about the fact that the n-word is used in that film yeah, although we also watched poltergeist, uh, and we scared the bejesus out of us and he was invested and made us keep watching. So you know stellar parenting.
Speaker 2:Father of the year.
Speaker 1:Father of the year I brought up specifically the question of sort of this in the meta question of of, of why it is that we humans make dystopian stories, and I hypothesize that it's similar to horror, where it's a way for us to kind of work through fears. You noted that this film was made in the Reagan years where sort of the idea of a loss of humanity was kind of at the forefront, as was a sort of underlying xenophobia that Ridley Scott, I think, was probably trying to lampoon while simultaneously baking it into his dystopian fears. We didn't say this explicitly but we did kind of walk around race in this film. There are no black actors in the sort of primary roles, but the film, I think, explicitly was looking to draw some insights or lessons about enslavement with the use of the replicants. And we do have this moment in the very beginning, at least in the voiceover version, where Deckard uses implied racism to sort of paint or not implied racism, but he uses racism as a way to sort of paint the picture of his boss as unsavory. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:I named and we actually talked at some. We talked at a little bit of airtime about the sexualization of these female characters. Not that sexualization in and of itself is a problem, but the fact that these women are manufactured and sexualized and that's pretty much the extent of their reason for being, and even at least one, zora's death, is sexualized is reductive, and that's the piece that that makes it problematic and misogynist, rather than just, rather than sort of a piece of a fully formed human, which is sexuality. I feel like I am probably forgetting something. What am I forgetting?
Speaker 2:forgetting something. What am I forgetting? Well, we talked a little bit about, like, the beauty of roy batty's final moments, the the tears in the rain speech and the like, the overt symbolism of the dove, and I talked about my interpretation of that as being like. This was not compassion on his part, but it was another very human impulse which is wanting to be remembered, wanting some part of him to live on after he is gone, which I actually I feel like that is part of what our dad, what resonated with our dad about this film. Um, yeah, and that's one of the things like people name that they love. That doesn't make make sense. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And then I named the not my original idea, but I love it. What an interesting thought experiment that if Rachel had given that speech instead of Roy, if Rachel had fought back against her exploitation and ended up giving the speech instead of Roy, and how that changes the overall message, at least around gender within this film being cast as Sigourney Weaver is what if we recast Deckard with Sigourney Weaver instead of Harrison Ford, and how does that change what we think about this film? And what, what messages come through in this film? Which.
Speaker 1:I'm that thought experiment is lighten up my brain right now. I gotta be honest.
Speaker 2:It's. It's really fascinating just thinking through how different our assumptions are, and that's one of the reasons we've talked before about the difference between writing a new story that centers a woman, dolores, and who Framed Roger Rabbit another noir film, and just keeping everything the same but just making a different casting choice, and how how those can make very different films, in part because of the assumptions that are just baked in, when we already decide that we're using she, her pronouns.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, Cool. Well, um, thanks for going on this ride with me. It was I did not expect to be. I don't even know what the word is. I had difficulty watching this movie. It was troubling for me to watch it. I did and I was not anticipating that.
Speaker 1:I was not anticipating that. So, listeners, I'm sure we missed something, cause this, this one's. This is a really rich text, so please share your deep thoughts about our deep thoughts. What did we miss? What do we need to nuance or change? Uh, what did we say that surprised you or excited you? Love to hear from you. You can get in touch with us through the text us button that's on your if you're listening on one of the streaming services, or you can comment on it if you're one of our patrons and thank you for being a patron, or you can send us an email at guygirlsmediaatgmailcom. Emily, it's your turn. Next it is what are we?
Speaker 1:what deep thoughts are you bringing me next week?
Speaker 2:Uh, I am going to bring you my deep thoughts about Beetlejuice.
Speaker 1:Oh, how timely yes.
Speaker 2:Do you remember our Finches Beetlejuice and?
Speaker 1:Joe, yes, but Beetlejuice was named after the star, not that it was before the movie, it was before the movie. Yeah, you named Beetlejuice the Finch I did, and Joe was named after a doctor companion yep, yep, and I think joe died first she did, she did, yeah and uh, yeah, I was a doctor who fan, even, even back then, which is like was the one with the scarf, tom baker.
Speaker 1:Yeah yeah, all right. Well, I look forward to hearing your deep thoughts about Beetlejuice. Until then. Until then, do you like stickers? Sure, we all do. If you head over to guygirlsmediacom slash, sign up and share your address with us, we'll send you a sticker. It really is that easy. But don't wait, there's a limited quantity. Thanks for listening. Our theme music is Professor Umlaut by Kevin MacLeod from incompetechcom. Find full music credits in the show notes. Until next time, remember pop culture is still culture, and shouldn't you know what's in your head?