Dave Ward
Sr Member
Could you expand on that?:thumbsup
Blade Runner: Where to begin?
- Thread starter Risu
- Start date
Could you expand on that?:thumbsup
androidandy
Sr Member
The Directors cut removed all the violence from the European Theatrical cut that most people were used to on VHS before that. They used the American Theatrical, which not a lot of people remember. It also still has some post production flaws that were never fixed because on video they were barely noticed. Including wires holding up the spinners, and the infamous stunt woman crashing through the glass in a bad wig in SLOW MOTION. 
I do prefer the non "Father" version of Rutger's line, but it doesn't kill the movie for me, just takes off some of the edge it had back then, but Tyrell's death makes up for that. Plus it was recorded originally both ways, for use as a television cut. It took me a little while to get used to, but I am cool with it now. I think it only bothered me because I was so used to hearing it the other way, that my brain kept correcting it as I heard it.
In the end, the DC is even slower, and the effects mistakes will take you out of the film, Stay away from it. The Final Cut is the same film only better, and does have some well placed additional footage.
Andy
I do prefer the non "Father" version of Rutger's line, but it doesn't kill the movie for me, just takes off some of the edge it had back then, but Tyrell's death makes up for that. Plus it was recorded originally both ways, for use as a television cut. It took me a little while to get used to, but I am cool with it now. I think it only bothered me because I was so used to hearing it the other way, that my brain kept correcting it as I heard it.
In the end, the DC is even slower, and the effects mistakes will take you out of the film, Stay away from it. The Final Cut is the same film only better, and does have some well placed additional footage.
Andy
Seriously, Deckard is not a replicant, that is the whole point of the movie. If he was a replicant he would never think the replicants were quite close to being human, but rather much like a replicant that thinks he is human, which would be a pointless point. The girl is a replicant though.
On the other hand I think Deckard was saved by the replicant because they are quite human, and he knew he was 'dying' so he really had no reason to keep fighting. They only fought the Blade Runners because they didn't really like being killed (who does)
And the first time I watched it was when the directors cut came on vhs, and I thought it was incredibly boring (could be because I was 15) Can't remember which of the other versions I prefer, but if it's anything like 'Aliens', 'the Abyss', or 'T2' you probably should only watch the theatrical if you have to short time to watch the 'real' movie.
On the other hand I think Deckard was saved by the replicant because they are quite human, and he knew he was 'dying' so he really had no reason to keep fighting. They only fought the Blade Runners because they didn't really like being killed (who does)
And the first time I watched it was when the directors cut came on vhs, and I thought it was incredibly boring (could be because I was 15) Can't remember which of the other versions I prefer, but if it's anything like 'Aliens', 'the Abyss', or 'T2' you probably should only watch the theatrical if you have to short time to watch the 'real' movie.
Oh it was discussed back then more than I care to remember.
My wife was the first to start that argument right after we walked out of the preview :rolleyes :lol
My wife was the first to start that argument right after we walked out of the preview :rolleyes :lol
androidandy
Sr Member
I think Ridley was hoping for a surprise twist ending ala '6th Sense', with the unicorn and origami, but you really cant do that with a 10 year old movie, and especially it won't work with a 29 year old movie. All that matters is that you must think he is human early on and at least suspect his humanity at some point during or even after the movie, because it isn't his humanity you need to question, but your own. An ambiguous ending allows you to keep questioning that better than a pat ending, one way or the other.
Andy
Andy
androidandy
Sr Member
As far as the Unicorn, it is my belief that it is not a dream, but a memory. In Sebastain's apartment he has a large Unicorn toy. Tyrell can make Owl's and other animals, why not unicorns?
Andy
Andy
Alan Cross
Sr Member
I need to add: I actually like the voice-over narration. In fact, the narration has my favorite line in the film, it's the VERY LAST line of narration in the last scene. So GO NARRATION! WHOOO!
Then again, the film works fine without it too. And, just to thoroughly confuse you, I'd watch the Original 82 Theatrical Cut... then watch the directors FINAL, ULTIMATE, THIS-TIME-I-REALLY-MEAN-IT, CUT. Because it's pretty cool.
Then again, the film works fine without it too. And, just to thoroughly confuse you, I'd watch the Original 82 Theatrical Cut... then watch the directors FINAL, ULTIMATE, THIS-TIME-I-REALLY-MEAN-IT, CUT. Because it's pretty cool.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
So Deckard is a replicant huh?
Because Ridley Scott said so.
Well...
Philip K Dick has him as human.
Hampton Fancher wrote the screenplay as Deckard being human.
And of course Harrison Ford has said he played him as human.
Three to one. You're outnumbered.
For me one of the themes of the film is racism. So here we have a human who's job it was to hunt down replicants and kill them with extreme prejudice, falling in love with one of them.
Kind of kills that point if he is one of them too no?
But you guys go ahead and believe what you like, no matter how wrong you are. :angel
Personally I like the Final Cut, however I do see the point of "I've already seen the '82 (voiceover) release" and therefore know what's going on.
Kevin
Because Ridley Scott said so.
Well...
Philip K Dick has him as human.
Hampton Fancher wrote the screenplay as Deckard being human.
And of course Harrison Ford has said he played him as human.
Three to one. You're outnumbered.
For me one of the themes of the film is racism. So here we have a human who's job it was to hunt down replicants and kill them with extreme prejudice, falling in love with one of them.
Kind of kills that point if he is one of them too no?
But you guys go ahead and believe what you like, no matter how wrong you are. :angel
Personally I like the Final Cut, however I do see the point of "I've already seen the '82 (voiceover) release" and therefore know what's going on.
Kevin
CB2001
Master Member
The reason why this film didn't take off at the Box Office was because E.T. was ruling the Box Office at the time it was released. Another cinematic victim that E.T. claimed at the same time was the John Carpenter classic, The Thing, as well as Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
MooCriket
Master Member
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Fact: Ridley Scott was fired off the film following two poorly received test screenings at which audiences had been told to expect a "Harrison Ford action film."
Fact: Producer Bud Yorkin wrote Ford's narration in an attempt to make the film more accessible to stupid people, thus increasing its box office prospects at home and abroad.
Fact: Harrison Ford intentionally delivered a sucky reading of the voice-over, because he detested the way it was written.
Fact: Both Phillip K. Dick and Hampton Fancher intended for Deckard to be a human being, and this intension is reflected by the original theatrical release.
Fact: The whole point of Dick's story is to show what happens when a human being becomes dehumanized by killing and insensitive to suffering (a la the concentration camp Nazis). If Deckard is a replicant this theme -- the reason the book was written -- is rendered meaningless.
Fact: For some reason, Scott fell in love with the idea of giving his film a cheap O Henry-esque twist at the end by revealing Deckard to be a replicant. Instead of leaving the matter ambiguous, Scott hits the nail on the head with that idiotic unicorn business, and audiences are left with a film that, at it's core, is about nothing.
Fact: Ridley Scott is a visionary director, but as a writer he leaves a lot to be desired.
So, which version of Blade Runner do you "begin" with? Beats me, but my favorite version would be either the theatrical cut minus the narration, or the director's cut without the unicorn dream.
Fact: Producer Bud Yorkin wrote Ford's narration in an attempt to make the film more accessible to stupid people, thus increasing its box office prospects at home and abroad.
Fact: Harrison Ford intentionally delivered a sucky reading of the voice-over, because he detested the way it was written.
Fact: Both Phillip K. Dick and Hampton Fancher intended for Deckard to be a human being, and this intension is reflected by the original theatrical release.
Fact: The whole point of Dick's story is to show what happens when a human being becomes dehumanized by killing and insensitive to suffering (a la the concentration camp Nazis). If Deckard is a replicant this theme -- the reason the book was written -- is rendered meaningless.
Fact: For some reason, Scott fell in love with the idea of giving his film a cheap O Henry-esque twist at the end by revealing Deckard to be a replicant. Instead of leaving the matter ambiguous, Scott hits the nail on the head with that idiotic unicorn business, and audiences are left with a film that, at it's core, is about nothing.
Fact: Ridley Scott is a visionary director, but as a writer he leaves a lot to be desired.
So, which version of Blade Runner do you "begin" with? Beats me, but my favorite version would be either the theatrical cut minus the narration, or the director's cut without the unicorn dream.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
"Tootsie", "An Officer and a Gentleman", "Rocky III", and "Porky's" were the top five along with "E.T." at number one.
"The Thing" definitely suffered, however I would disagree with ST:II as it was the sixth highest grossing movie of 1982.
1982 had several big movies that we have come to know and love- "First Blood", "Poltergeist", "Conan the Barbarian", "Firefox", "Tron", and "Megaforce"!
It's no wonder a dark film like "Blade Runner" was crushed at the box office; and that it was released with the "happy ending".
Kevin
CB2001
Master Member
Okay, so E.T. ruled the box office for Sci-Fi movies.
"The Thing" definitely suffered, however I would disagree with ST:II as it was the sixth highest grossing movie of 1982.
But wouldn't ST:II had done better at the box office if E.T. hadn't been at number one?
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Well... it would have been 5th, not 6th.
Would it have made more money without "E.T."? I honestly couldn't say- but I suppose "every" film would have done better without "E.T." in the picture.
But don't get me wrong here- I'm not debating with you, just trying to add info along your lines as 1982 was a big year for movies. :thumbsup
Kevin
MooCriket
Master Member
Ladies and gentlemen of the RPF Blade Runner is Deckard a replicant supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider:
This is Deckard. Deckard is enjoying a bowl of yummy noodles. See, look he IS enjoying that tasty bowl of noodles
Now, think about that. That does not make sense!
Why would a replicant -- an android-- want to live on Earth and eat a bowl of yummy, tasty noodles? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does enjoying a bowl of yummy tasty noodles have to do with this movie? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this movie! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a man talking about a another man enjoying a bowl of yummy, tasty noodles. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, while your in front of your computer monitor deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed Blade Runner RPF jury, it does not make sense.
If Deckard lives on Earth and is enjoying a bowl of yummy, tasty noodles you must know that he cannot be a replicant!
Why would a replicant -- an android-- want to live on Earth and eat a bowl of yummy, tasty noodles? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does enjoying a bowl of yummy tasty noodles have to do with this movie? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this movie! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a man talking about a another man enjoying a bowl of yummy, tasty noodles. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, while your in front of your computer monitor deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed Blade Runner RPF jury, it does not make sense.
If Deckard lives on Earth and is enjoying a bowl of yummy, tasty noodles you must know that he cannot be a replicant!
Similar threads
