so now the theatrical version is canon?
lol. Then they should lift the embargo on it and actually start showing it on tv.
shareI see it on TV all the time. What embargo? What the hell are you talking about?
--
MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner (1982) Discussion > so now the theatrical version is canon?
Yes the theatrical cut is canon.
shareJust regard whichever version that works best for you to be canon.
Whenever I hear the word "canon", I like to think of Martin Luther, and how he told the Catholic Church to stick their canon up their ass.
Agree, I like The Final Cut best so that's what I'll watch.
shareThis isnt about your favorite taste for ice cream. This is about an important message. Deckard is a human. A barbaric human which slaughters innocent people just to earn his income. And there is that replicant. A synthetic human. And he, in his last moments of life, become more human then humans. It is the era of postmodernism (which we are still in) where everything is meta. Newsstories are more real then reality (means hyped up). And synthetic humans become more human then humans. Thats why everything the theatrical cut simply destroys the core of the story. Without the fact (!) that Deckard is a human the whole movie is just an amazing slideshow of beautiful pictures. But the heart or soul of the story would be completely destroyed. This was one of the few moments in movie history where studio bosses won against a director to save the movie! That way Blade Runner became the masterpiece of postmodern storytelling. BTW Never wondered why there are styles of all era of human history mixed at the sets? Cause at postmodernism the meaning of things is gone. Just the appearance counts.
Thats why there is only the theatrical cut and nothing else. Beside your favorite kind of ice cream indeed ;) .
Haha, this comment is so great. And you’re so right.
shareAs someone who has done editing, the editor is the one with power, not the director. The director can cry all he wants (or the actors) but it is the editors compilation of scenes that creates the movie. They can change the entire order of a movie if they want (and they often do for flow.)
I kind of feel like people saying 'oh the director's vision is better' is just because nobody ever talks about anyone but the director, but an editor studies the scenes and has a vision of how it all comes together. Maybe they're great at putting a story together, maybe they suck.
But the problem with directors is that they fall in love with their work, and lose objectivity. That's why most movies that say 'written and directed by' have problems. Nobody is there to say 'this is better' or 'that idea sucks' or 'that makes no sense, lets put this in.'
So I think an editor can create something closer to what an audience would want to see, given their objectivity.
Marcia Lucas did wonders in the editing room for Star Wars.
sharewhat did she do?
shareMarcia Lucas pieced together what we see as Star Wars from many scenes and special effects that Lucas had filmed but where not a cohesive film. She reordered scenes and cut scenes that didn't work. She added the Death Star assault on Yavin's moon to build tension. Originally, George Lucas just had the Rebels go after the Death Star.
Without Marcia Lucas, John Williams, and James Earl Jones, Star Wars would have been much less the movie than it was. Give George Lucas his due credit, but we can see in the prequals what happens when there is not a strong editor involved.
true but he was not a powerhouse back then, nobody could cut the film for him now, so the op's comments are not true, the editor is not the authority on the film.
shareIt depends on the contract. Final cut can go to the producer, director, or writers.
Sometimes it works for the best; sometimes it does not.
yes but in principle the director is the one in charge.
shareThat is true most of the time, but the studio head or production company can tell the editor how they want a film cut. Some directors have had pretty big fights with studio heads over this.
In the United States, the director puts together a directors cut which is not what we see when we see a "directors cut" on Blu Ray. This first cut is often much longer than the movie will be at release. The first cut of Star Wars was about four hours long. The director will then collaborate with the film editor to work toward a final cut for release.
Unless the director has final cut approval by contract, the editor can change the film in many ways, but the editor will usually go over each cut or move with the director. Some directors take on both roles.
Listen closely to director commentary on cut scenes for films. Some talk openly about not wanting a scene removed, but it had to be for one reason or another because the editor believed it to be the way to go. A good film editor works with the producer and director to get the best version of the film done.
Editors never have final cut...
In the states it varies between the studio/producers and the director (writers as a very rare exception like 50 shades of Grey or a handful of movie - TV is different) but the editor works in service of the director always...
In France Directors always have final cut...
exactly.
shareThat ain't true, it's the director that has the power, and sometimes the producer, depending on the situation.
shareThe theatrical cut always was canon and always will be. All the other stuff was just created by Scott to earn more money. Beside that he didnt had the smallest clue how the story worked which he based his movie on (this movie was one of the few times when studio bosses got the message of a movie better then the director!).
Perfect example of "Even a blind quirrel will find a nut" :) . But to defend Scott: Before this movie he was mainly known for doing amazing tv ads. For example Apples 1984 was done by him. Thats why its fine that Scott did Blade Runner. Cause he has done it visually beautiful. But .... til today he doesnt understood the core of the story: Deckard is a human. If Deckard isnt a human the whole story becomes completely pointless. But how should a director, only famous for his tv ads, get that message?
what did the studio got that he didn't? to be fair, in the international cut without the voice over, one feels that something is off, it makes you think that he could be a replicant too.
shareThe voice over isnt understood by many. Its an important part of this movie, cause it feels out of time! Like everything in this movie. Cause its a postmodern movie. Its strange that noone critizizes all the old egypt artefacts used at the sets. Which had the same purpose as the Film Noir voice overs: To be ripped out of their temporal context and just be there to appear cool. Thats postmodernism in one of many ways.
And the studio bosses (or whomever was in charge at this movie) realized that Deckard had to be human. Otherwise this movie would have been the longest and most beautiful tv ad ever :) . And thats why they deleted scenes which pointed to a conclusion that Deckard isnt a human. The only thing, in backsight, which wasnt as smart was perhaps the happy ending. But then again ..... wasnt it nice that Deckard and Rachael got their "riding" into the sun ;) ? But this part I would consider as educated critic of the theatrical cut. But most other points are sourced by the simply misunderstanding of the core of that movie (be it that Deckard is a human or the voice overs).
it never felt out of time for me.
shareVoice overs were mainly part of the 1950s detective film noir stories. Using them in a science fiction story in a 1982 movie (and therefor rip it out of its temporal context - thats perhaps a better description then "feeling out of time" - you are correct about this) was as much postmodernism as possible.
shareI don't really understand postmodernism or how it applies to this.
shareThe quintessential of this movie is postmodernism. Back then when it was a good thing :) . Today Jordan Petersons analysis of postmodernism are completely true. It isnt a good thing anymore. But back then at it roots it showed amazing worlds like in Blade Runner and had amazing messages like "When humans losing their enlighted core machines become way more human then humans".
shareThe theatrical cut satisfied some squeamish studio executives. The film that matters is the director's cut. Whether or not Deckard is a replicant is up to the audience. That's the beauty of the director's cut -- it lets you think, as opposed to telling you what to think.
shareI always preferred the international cut of the movie over the theatrical cut. I just couldn't buy that Deckard was a replicant like Ridley wants us to believe in his latter two cuts of this movie. The only thing I liked from the final cut of the movie was when Roy called Tyrell father instead of a cheap explicative. That made the scene more effective and powerful to humanize Roy in that way.
shareOne of the worst things in the final cut is precisely eliminating fucker.
shareCalling him father fit more since Tyrrell created him. Saying an F-bomb made him seem like a stranger which doesn't fit. Roy strove to be more human and showed it by surprisingly saving Deckard on the rooftop. He was trying to prove it by NOT killing him.
shareRoy didn't know him, Tyrrell was nothing for him, he didn't want to be more human, he wanted more life. Roy saved Deckard not to prove anything but because he was a primitive, pitiful creature to him, like one would save an insect out of sheer marvel of nature. Eliminating fucker just shows Scott's inability to understand his own material, because he is a charlatan and Blade Runner was a fluke. Now since destroyed.
share