I’m an avid movie watcher and have been my entire life, but somehow I’ve reached the age of 36 with Blade Runner shaped hole in my heart.
I really want to watch this movie soon but I’m a bit intimidated by all of the different versions that have been released over the years. Do I watch the original theatrical version? One of the directors cuts? Which one? Help!
Here’s January’s thread on the topic.
Missed the earlier thread. My 2 cents.
The 25th Anniversary “Final Cut” version is probably the best to start with.
But I actually like the opening voice over, so something like the original International Version (had less stuff edited out) is okay if you stop at the point where … umm. If you hadn’t seen it, I guess I have to be vague. When the elevator door closes. If you start seeing aerial footage recycled from The Shining, you’ve gone too far.
If you get a good version of the Final Cut, it will include other versions, so you can watch one or more of those, too. The Wikipedia list is incomplete.
But there are lots of variants out there. One has a couple extra lines of dialogue and aired on cable TV years ago. I have a copy of that, but I taped over part of it before I realized it was different. Egad.
Lots of fun.
I haven’t seen the final cut, but I’d recommend the director’s cut over the theatrical release, which has an altered ending due to studio interference. Reading the wiki article, the final cut isn’t much different from the director’s, but has a few things tidied up, such as some re-synced sound and a couple fixes to the dialogue. The final cut is only 1 minute longer, it’s probably the one to go for.
I’ve seen every version and I prefer the theatrical release.
Seconded. I own every version, and I prefer the original theatrical release.
The Final Cut.
(To both of you) Why is that?
(You are making Ridley Scott cry.)
I wonder how many people would have even made the film noir connection without the theatrical cut voiceover? Watching the theatrical cut you are “set up” to view the film a certain way, you don’t think about things or characters as much because the format tells you what role they are playing(its a future noir afterall!) [spoiler]for instance Rachel is the mysterious femme fatale. Except she isn’t, she is totally innocent and a victim.
When you watch the film without the voiceover and tacked on ending its a totally different experience, you’re watching a strange film with a murky plot and you naturally begin trying to make sense of it. Its much easier to think about what is going on this way and come to the conclusion I believe the director intended.
It is a morally ambiguous movie where you must learn to ignore the initial viewpoint of the protagonist and come to your own conclusions, and this is much easier without the voiceover telling you how to view the work, the voiceover is distraction.
The tacked on ending also ruins the central message of the film and belittles Deckard’s decision. The irony of obsessing over expiration dates when any of us can expire at any moment is lost, and Deckard has just “gone rogue” with a kill on sight fugitive and he has no idea whether either of them will survive getting out of the city(to go where?) and ending with the elevator door closing is a perfect compliment to that.[/spoiler]
As you will see from the above, this thread will provoke endless debate about whether the original theatrical release was better or the directors/final cut was better.
I will grit my teeth and not say what I think of the views of those who are CLEARLY JUST PLAIN WRONG in their opinions (;)) about this subject.
Instead, I think the best advice (which must be given in very vague terms to avoid spoilers) is that the film has a generally dark feel but if you like darker go for the directors/final cut and if you like lighter, go for the theatrical release.
And grude, user a spoiler box, dude. There is yet time to edit your post if you are quick.
:smack:I missed the fact the OP has never seen the film, its too late for the edit.
Well I’d advise watching the final cut or director’s cut first, and then watching the theatrical version. Why? Because I think it is much easier to “get” the film that way, and some people are so turned off by the theatrical cut they never return.
He deserves to cry. Deckard is NOT a replicant.
I’ve PM’ed the OP to warn him there are untagged spoilers in the thread.
I believe you can only edit your post if yours is currently the last post in the thread.
Meh. The writers and director don’t agree on this, there is no definitive answer that deserves capitals. The threatrical release leans towards human, while the director’s and final cuts lean replicant.
Which is why I like the theatrical version…which is the question I was answering. So I don’t see the point of your post.
Have not seen the Final Cut version but far prefer the theatrical version to the 1992 Director’s Cut. With that one, all Ridley Scott added back into the movie was boredom.
Fair enough, you seemed to be saying your interpretation was the correct one.
The director’s cut has the same running time as the theatrical version to the nearest minute. The is one brief inserted scene, and the epilogue is cut. The final cut is 1 whole minute longer.
The Director’s Cut was an improvement over the theatrical—I’ve really grown to hate the voice-over in that version—but I’d pick the Final Cut because it resolved a few goofs and continuity problems. One exception: I wish they’d left the line “I want more life, fucker,” as I think it better implied Batty’s increasing desperation and that he was Not Fucking Around at that point, and better conveyed the menace of the scene unfolding.
*Father *carries its own set of implications, of course, but— eh, what can I say, I like the naughty word. Tee hee.