• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

film: Blade Runner (Director's cut vs Original Theatrical Release)

StarOceanHouse

StarOceanHouse

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
7,521
Location
Southern California
I just watched this movie for the first time and it was awesome. So I decide to go on amazon.com to look for the movie and I notice that there seems to be a noticable difference (at least thats what I read). The version that I watched had no narration. Was that the director's cut? If so then why did they cut out the narration? Is it a better movie without the narration?
 
Director's cut has no narration and the ending is COMPLETELY different. (SPOILER) Did the one you watch have the cop go off with the Replicant at the end or did they 'part ways?'
 
It's a much better movie without the narration. The legend is that Harrison Ford thought the voice-over was a stupid idea, so he intentionally did a crappy job with the lines. But the studio used it anyway.

The narration doesn't really clarify anything about the story, and after a while it just gets distracting. The director's cut has also become the definitive version of the film - I haven't seen the original-with-studio-mandated-changes version available since VHS.

It's also much better without the stupid "happy" ending that has Deckard and Rachel driving off into the mountains.
 
Last edited:
MilesTeg said:
Director's cut has no narration and the ending is COMPLETELY different. (SPOILER) Did the one you watch have the cop go off with the Replicant at the end or did they 'part ways?'
Click to expand...

I guess I did watch the original because I do remember them leaving together. They don't run off to the mountains as far as I know. I just remember them entering an elevator (or a door?) then it goes to the credits.

"Too bad she won’t live, but then again who does?"
 
ugh...they still play the theatrical version on cable. I saw it for the first time a couple of weeks ago. There is an excellent book called Future Noir that is all about the making of Blade Runner. The book reveals just how much Ford disliked the project and why, to this day, he hardly even talks about it. The outdoor footage used for the "happy" ending was taken from leftover film shot for The Shining and is completely unnecessary, IMO.
 
StarOceanHouse said:
I guess I did watch the original because I do remember them leaving together. They don't run off to the mountains as far as I know. I just remember them entering an elevator (or a door?) then it goes to the credits.

"Too bad she won’t live, but then again who does?"
Click to expand...

That's the director's cut. In the alternate version, this shot is followed by a voice-over revelation that Rachel was part of a new generation of Replicants that didn't have a finite lifespan - you see, she does live! Wonderful! They can start a life together!

If ever a studio-suggested ending smelled like total shit, it's this one.
 
I guess I did watch the original because I do remember them leaving together. They don't run off to the mountains as far as I know. I just remember them entering an elevator (or a door?) then it goes to the credits.

"Too bad she won’t live, but then again who does?"
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's the director's cut; the original shows Deckard and Rachel driving through the countryside and stuff at the end.

I've only seen the original once or twice, so I'm not really qualified to say which is better, but the ending to the Director's Cut sounds better by all the descriptions I've read. I don't remember the narration being particularly bad in the original, and the pauses in the director's cut where the narration originally was seem just a moment too long, but, on the other hand, the director's cut still makes sense, so the narration can't have added much to the storytelling.

* EDIT - POSSIBLE SPOILER BELOW *












I also really like the implication at the end of the director's cut that Deckard is actually a replicant himself, which I believe was missing or at least toned down in the original.

Dan
 
Originally posted by Banquo
The book reveals just how much Ford disliked the project and why, to this day, he hardly even talks about it.


and so he should. honestly, it makes me angry that they made the second version. i mean, it's art. people don't go around with red markers drawing in arrows and writing 'look here' on paintings do they? art by nature is subjective, and it's meant to be ambiguous. stuff like this just proves how evil money inherently is and how it degenerates everything that it crosses paths with.

*grumble grumble*

ps. i've seen both versions and you can hazard a guess what i probably think about the narrated one ;)
 
Last edited:
SPOILERS FOLLOW.

i'm definitely on the director's cut side of things. the narration was a device which played on the film's noir roots (and this film, effectively (though chinatown can stake a large claim too), started the 'neo-noir' cycle, including films like dark city and the matrix, amongst others) - most films noir of the fifties employed this 'hardboiled' narration (from their near-exclusively male, detective protagonists) style to create a more tangible sense of mystery and investigation (and it was also thought to help ease the relationship between the films and their, mostly, original book forms). i guess it just followed on that a 'new' noir film would employ the same techniques.

regardless, and like others here have already said, it doesn't work in this film at all. but it's not the narration that bothers me so much: like chupu and fairnymph note, the idea that deckard is a replicant (and yes, he is) is only followed through to its logical degree in the director's cut. considering it's one of the more interesting philosophical ideas of the film, i find it rather stupid that it was ever left by the wayside.

i also abhor the 'happy ending' with deckard and rachel leaving together: it doesn't fit at all with the mood of the film, and feels - as it was - like a badly tacked on ending to appease an audience that didn't, at the time, give two shits about the film anyway (it only came to critical acclaim many years later).

great film though :)
 
Last edited:
The director's cut is unequivocally superior. The gritty, dark, neo-noir elements of this story don't want a happy fairytale ending; such an ending doesn't fit the tone of the movie at all. The theatrical version of this film is therefore a travesty, because it really fucks up Scott's visionary masterpiece by toning it down.

Scott's version of Blade Runner is a superb film. It's dark and twisted, intelligent, well-acted, deeply philosophical and visually stunning. You watch this film one time and there are multiple scenes that will stick in your head, like that opening shot of a run-down futuristic Los Angeles. Not to mention Rutger Hauer's death scene being one of the most brilliant moments in movie history, a flash of cinematic genius.

Scott's uncut version also contains a scene with a unicorn that implies Deckard is a Replicant. It's great stuff. The theatrical cut should be banned. It's utter garbage, and it really amounts to a slap in the face for the audience. The studio was saying, "You are too stupid to understand this richly textured meditation on the essence of humanity so we'll dumb it down for ya!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top