It's a few years since I've seen Blade Runner. I remember watching it and loving it. However, I didn't know then that there were so many cuts. I want to watch/have the best version of Blade Runner, so which is it? Is it the Final Cut since it was the one Ridley Scott finally released?
shareThe Theatrical Cut will always have a special place in the hearts of those who loved Blade Runner during the '80s. Together with The Final Cut, it's still the favorite version of Denis Villeneuve (director of Sicario, Enemy, Prisoners and the up-coming Blade Runner sequel). If you saw The Final Cut and loved it, there's probably no way back. It certainly is the most polished version available.
Alex
What would you say makes the original cut just as good/worse as the Final Cut?
shareSome like the voiceover because they say it adds to the original hard-boiled detective story intentions of the movie. Then again, others find it terribly cheesy and obtrusive. However, The Theatrical Cut/International Cut is more ambiguous towards the origins of Rick Deckard than the DC or the FC, because it omits a certain key scene.
share[deleted]
I dont know how long we have together
WHO DOES?
Its too bad she wont live
BUT then again who does?
Amen!
That's the clock done, now for the chairs.
Actually, one thing I do know from the Final Cut is that on some scenes, Deckard's eyes glow, like Rachel's during the interview scene. If it is the Final cut, wouldn't Ridley Scott change it if he wanted him to be a human?
About the voiceover, it sounds like in the Theatrical Cut, Rachel is like a timer. (We don't know when she'll go off, but she will). However in the Final Cut, we are supposed to assume that she will only live for four years. Is that right?
Actually, one thing I do know from the Final Cut is that on some scenes, Deckard's eyes glow, like Rachel's during the interview scene.
Very good. It's not that easy to pick up if you're not looking for it. It's in all the versions, BTW.
Alex
Actually, one thing I do know from the Final Cut is that on some scenes, Deckard's eyes glow, like Rachel's during the interview scene. If it is the Final cut, wouldn't Ridley Scott change it if he wanted him to be a human?
About the voiceover, it sounds like in the Theatrical Cut, Rachel is like a timer. (We don't know when she'll go off, but she will). However in the Final Cut, we are supposed to assume that she will only live for four years. Is that right?
Yes.
Watching Blade Runner and saying, "Hey, I reckon Deckard is a replicant himself!" is like playing Monopoly and saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if this was real money?"
Watching Blade Runner and then discussing the "startling" idea that Deckard might be a replicant is like visiting the Louvre and then talking about the radiators.
That's the clock done, now for the chairs.
People like discussing it for the same reason they do for the ending of Inception: There wasn't a clear answer. However, in both movies, if you look hard enough, you get your answer.
Another reason is the people who made the movie give different answers. Harrison Ford says Deckard is human. Ridley Scott says he's a replicant.
Harrison Ford says Deckard is human
Cool, do we know what the caterer says? Can we find out what every other employed person on the set says?
Could be gnarly and rad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
what about the producer Michael Deeley, Grasshopper? Dont you care what he has to say? :P
http://myimpressionz.tk
Another reason is the people who made the movie give different answers. Harrison Ford says Deckard is human. Ridley Scott says he's a replicant.
I'm sure everyone has an opinion but I only care for what the director has to say. The only thing that Harrison Ford did was to play Deckard as a human which is ultimately exactly what Scott wanted. Batty and Co are the past. Rachael and Deckard are a glimpse of the future.
Alex
Sorry but your are incorrect? As a MD (going into Cardiology atm) its well known in the scientific and medical community, the western world has just an average to below average life span with some western nations being the worst.
Monaco is #1 with Asia namely Japan and China is in the top 3 highest average life span nations on the planet with Switzerland near the top 3 bottom or shortest life spans.
Also Western area life spans are in the 70's NOT your inflated Wikipedia numbers. Also even in Western countries its Asians (Japanese, Korean and Chinese) who have the highest average life spans. Now all this is not due to ethnicity alone tho it contributes, but it really depends on diet being #1, financial status, lifestyle and other traits that mainly decide this, but sadly people no matter where they live will have a short life span due to simply poor diet and medical care etc. Even war decides on it, like Afghanistan for example has a very low life span but its purely due to all its wars etc.
Dr.Nichole A. MD. AKA Nicky was here.
I never revisit posts. Too busy and mature to argue.
Post Edited: Sat Nov 28 2015 01:50:26
I never revisit posts. Too busy and mature to argue.
*beep* off, liar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
[deleted]
I have to say i prefer the FC ending, it just felt appropriate for the film mood and theme, having Rachael without the expiration date is just mediocre, like a boring romance tv movie
shareThere are only 2 to choose from. Theatrical (original, which was also #1 rental on VHS for years) or The Final Cut. The "Director's Cut" is a misnomer and wasn't the cut Ridley wanted... the FC is the real direcctor's cut.
So... either #1 shown in theaters, or the remastered version. The Theatrical cut is less hamfisted about hinting at Deckard's possible replicant status, and has infodumps that are important to the film. Ie. it mentions the street slang that Gaff is using which is excised in the Final Cut. I think bits of information like that are important for world building in the film, as well as helping new viewers understand the context of various street characters.
So you would say the theatrical cut is better than the Final Cut?
shareInternational Theatrical Cut is like the childhood sweetheart you married so many years ago....the mileage is here and she might not stand up to modern sense of beauty
BUT do you ditch her for the newest bimbo model of Victoria Secret's runways?
Hell NO :P
http://myimpressionz.tk
Yeah, I can go with that!
In retrospect, the happy ending of the original does seem a bit random and tagged on. At the time, though... well, that's just how it ended, and anyway, it looked gorgeous.
I remember the excitement of learning that the Philip K. Dick novel with the second most quirky title* was going to be filmed. I first learnt about it when I saw a poster for it on a train station in France. I'd read a few PKD books; I quickly got Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? under my belt in time for the release.
I saw it, and was blown away by it. Music by Vangelis, which I was already a fan of. Futuristic design by Syd Mead, whose work I had seen in magazines. Harrison Ford, whom everyone knew from Star Wars. Loads of others who weren't well known but would become so through works as diverse as Splash and the Guinness adverts. A thoroughly lived-in future - not a novelty now, but almost unprecedented at the time. Heck, science fiction films made by people who were genre literate were rare.
When we see the rubbish-covered roof space above Bryant's office, those of us who know the book immediately think of "kipple" even though the word is not used in the film - and perhaps I am not alone in thinking that Tyrell is a better name than the book's Rosen. It is slightly surprising that the "artifical" animals are not explained in the film, given their importance in the book, and the first time I saw Pris look into one of Sebastien's instruments, I wondered if it was a Mercer Empathy Box. Shame we don't get to see the Isidore/Sebastien character attempt to repair a real animal!
I was left with a sense that Scott had taken a fairly liberal approach to adapting the book, which resulted in something very different, yet equally good in its own way, and thoroughly respectful to the source material.
The voice-over: I've never had a problem with that. As someone else pointed out, it's important where the world-building is concerned. We also get a better sense of Deckard's world-weary cynicism and the fact that he really doesn't like killing things that are people in all but name. We hear Ford use the n-word and it's immediately obvious that a) he is not a racist and b) he despises those who are. The noir/Chandler vibe was fresh, and it was a novelty to have background music that was brass rather than synth. Come to that, clothes that were not basically silver foil were remarkable.
Something else we rarely got from SF films prior to Blade Runner: a sense that there was a whole world going on that started before the film started and continued after the film finished and extended beyond the scope of the camera. And - again, almost unprecedented at the time - we got to see a future city that didn't explode at the end! (Compare with the then-recent Logan's Run.)
I watched the film twice in the cinema in 1982, then many more times on VHS video. I remember being astonished that critics were panning this work of art, but it was nice to see them change their tune when the Director's Cut came out about a decade later - it was also nice to see the film on the big screen again! But before that, it was lovely to see how many things had been inspired by this amazing film. In 1984 I went to Covent Garden to see a ballet adaptation of Frankenstein - along with the Vangelis music and Hauer-like creature, it owed far more to Blade Runner than to Mary Shelley!
So yes, the Theatrical Cut is the one I fell in love with and married, and we're still together and happy. I might be up for a discreet dalliance with the Final Cut, or a fumble in the dark with the Director's Cut, but not at the cost of my marriage.
*The quirkiest title was the equally good "Flow My Tears," The Policeman Said.
That's the clock done, now for the chairs.
I like the TC better, but the Final Cut is drastically improved digitally. I saw the FC in theaters and the effects looked completely new. So neither is better really. TC for content, FC for show.
shareI think he meant other people keep doing this, and he wishes they would stop it, because you have identified the point of the film, and it doesn't involve "was Deck a rep" theories at all.
That's the clock done, now for the chairs.
I don't know what you are referring to with "point of the film", but I have a feeling it's something what you want it to be, and not necessarily what the director had in mind. Of course, there's nothing wrong with projecting one's personal thoughts and ideas, but to completely and intentionally ignore what is actually in the movie is another thing. Since you don't agree with what is in the movie, I wonder if you even like Blade Runner. Maybe you only like the movie that is in your head.
Alex
You reply to my posts as if you expect me to engage in further conversation with you. Why do you keep doing this? You should know better after your post of two weeks ago.
Goodbye.
That's the clock done, now for the chairs.
Hmm, I must have missed the post where you stated that you no longer wish to talk to me. I guess it had something to do with me calling you a bit close-minded. No problem. It won't happen again and sorry if I offended you.
Bye!
Alex
Just in case anyone is wondering, I pointed out that I'd seen the list of "evidence" (other than the unicorn reverie) that Deckard was a replicant; I found the list laughably unconvincing. CremersAlex responded with this nonsequitur:
Wow! Okay, I'm going to stop talking to you because you don't even get the basics or the simplest of things.
So either I really am very simple minded
That would be my guess, evidenced by your obsession with the notion of being convinced as though you cannot trust your own opinion on this ultimately subjective matter.
What are you, a coward afraid to see it the way you want, why you want?
What does that feel like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
What are you, a coward afraid to see it the way you want, why you want?
What does that feel like?
Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.
1 Corinthians 8:2
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
most people wanna be challenged by differing opinions
You and your ilk just want to challenge one differing opinion, over and over and over...because you're cowards.
A lying sockcuking coward in your case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmK8-13LTqI
I Excel and Prevail
I've seen the theatrical cut, the director's cut, and the final cut and I love all three versions. I think the final cut is the best overall. A lot of people didn't like the voice over narration in the theatrical cut, however I had seen the theatrical cut so many times before the directors cut came out that whenever I watch the director's or final cut I hear in my head Harrison Ford's narration almost word for word. The good thing is that I liked and still like the narration, although I do see it as unnecessary to understand the film. I like the narration because of the way Harrison Ford's performance came across to me. Intentional or not to me he came across as sad, apathetic, and droll which I feel perfectly matches the tone of the movie.
Why are you going into freak-out mode?
I like the narration because of the way Harrison Ford's performance came across to me. Intentional or not to me he came across as sad, apathetic, and droll which I feel perfectly matches the tone of the movie.
Yes. Or, at least, I think the voiceover in tune with the character that we see on the screen. I've heard the other intonations where Ford sounds more emotional and I didn't like them at all. Harrison's disinterested delivery also forms an interesting contrast with the beauty that is on display.
[deleted]
That is my one beef with the FC, that color grade. Supposedly that's what "Ridley originally wanted" and it's that generic color scheme used in hundreds of action movies and posters.
shareI'm going to go with the Final Cut being the best cut for a very simple reason -- voice-overs are perfectly fine and I have no problem with them when appropriate (as is the case in a noir-ish movie like Blade Runner), but the voice-overs that were actually used in Blade Runner were just terrible. Trite, cliched, and delivered with all the enthusiasm of a pet rock (the last, I suspect, was intentional on Ford's part because the writing was just so terrible.) We can discuss the happy ending vs the ambiguous ending, but that discussion pales next to the fact that no matter which ending you prefer, the voice-overs were written by a hack. I suspect some executive at the studio had a hand in the actual writing.
It's a pity, too. A well-done, well-written voice-over can add depth to a movie in the proper hands.
Trite, cliched, and delivered with all the enthusiasm of a pet rock (the last, I suspect, was intentional on Ford's part because the writing was just so terrible.)
All in all, they tried 3 different texts and we know that Ford read the last one in 4 or 5 different intonations. You really think the whole time Ford was sabotaging the production? Or could it be that doing a VO simply was not his forte? Anyway, I can't imagine that the character Deckard would talk with enthusiasm, so in a way, the uninterested, lifeless tone is kinda appropriate to the occasion.
Alex
There's a difference between effusive and enthusiasm. The lines don't have to be delivered in some crazed voice; the actor simply has to demonstrate a commitment to, and enthusiasm for, the lines. Ford sounded so awkward and stilted that it just reinforces how bad the writing itself was. This isn't a knock on Ford -- I wouldn't blame him in the least for having a poor opinion of the monologue and allowing (consciously or not) his feelings to creep through.
I just did a little research and, yes, Ford openly admits to hating the VO and feeling incredibly ambivalent about speaking it. It shows. Regardless of how you feel about the VO itself, the writing was bad, overly-expository, and possessed all the incisive insight of a studio executive worried more about the LCD than art.
Have you heard some of the other lines and intonations? Harrison reads them with more passion or enthusiasm than the one they eventually used in the movie but still I'm glad they did not go for them. I guess that, during the '80s, I have grown accustomed to the most stilted one. You have to remember, to those who saw Blade Runner as their favorite movie, the voiceover was simply an inextricable part of that.
BTW, did you know that during their first meeting Ford said to Scott he didn't want to do a voiceover (nor wear a hat)? He just doesn't like doing them. I wonder why? Because it's a typical Film Noir ingredient, Ridley Scott always wanted Blade Runner to have a voiceover, but of the many times that they tried, he was never happy with the end result. Yes, I have no doubt the writing a good voiceover isn't easy but I truly think that Ford, being mostly a physical actor, isn't really that capable of delivering them in a satisfying way either.
Just saw "TFC" for the first time today on Blu-ray - it is by far the best version.
shareYes. No. Maybe.
Whichever version works best for you.
You want something corny? You got it!