What's New in Blade Runner - The Final Cut? 380
tripper700 writes "25 years since its original release, a definitive version of Ridley Scott's science fiction masterwork Blade Runner, Blade Runner: The Final Cut, has been released. So what exactly has changed? And is it worth all the fuss? SFFMedia describes each change in detail. Is it just a patch up job attempting to cash in on a cult film? Or like an oil painter retouching a masterpiece, or a novelist polishing prose, is Ridley Scott simply trying to perfect his original vision?"
Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, not like these changes are generally of any real significance (although, given how extensively different the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was, Blade Runner may be significantly different). For all the bitching that was done about Star Wars, for example, barely anything was changed in those movies. I just really don't see why this is worth getting worked up over, as people inevitably will.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Changed or not? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm wondering if this is actually a change. In the original, it's a beautiful bit of ambiguity: Hauer slurs the word, so that it sounds halfway between "father" and "fucker", neatly summing up his feelings towards Tyrell.
If they've actually re-dubbed that, I'll be a little disappointed.
Oh well, Scott's still unlikely to mess things up as much as Lucas did
I want more life "father"?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, however, this is the Age of the Tracker. Everything is available, and if you can't get if from legitimate channels, well
Re:Riddle me this: (Score:4, Insightful)
Storytelling 101 - show, don't tell. Especially don't tell poorly.
The movie stands up quite well without the narration.
Re:Stlll boring, I bet (Score:3, Insightful)
I felt Blade Runner was a masterful work. It did not bore me because what it lacked in action (if action can be "lacking", since it's not a prerequisit for a good film anyhow), it made up for in atmosphere.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stlll boring, I bet (Score:3, Insightful)
I blame the "Citizen Kane" affect, i.e I only got around to watching the 'great work' after first seeing so many films that were based upon the original, that when I did finally see it with high expectations I was underwhelmed and like "Oh I've seen this before". Sure this may of spoiled my enjoyment, but even so I never had that "wow" moment when watching Blade Runner, even the newer versions. Compare that with a film like 2001 or Alien, I could watch those again today and still be amazed.
It's hard to imagine not hearing the voiceovers (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, when I watch the first "Director's Cut" I hear the voiceovers in my head
I disagree about that "the transition from book to movie was made clumsily". The only thing I really object to, although I understand it, is the cinematic differentiation of replicants from humans displayed by Leon removing an egg from boiling water. If you can stick a replicant's hand in boiling water without hurting them, then the VK test is kind of pointless. Frankly, I'd cut that scene.
From TFA: In the scene where Batty confronts Tyrell, the line, "I want more life, fucker" has been replaced with "I want more life, father".
Bad change, IMO. In a movie with zero profanity, that line really hit hard.
Also from TFA: Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing? He seems to spend a large part of the film being bashed to a pulp.
True, if you assume "Nexus 7" vs. incredibly illegal experimental Nexus 5
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
But at least ask yourself this: if it makes no difference why did they change the order?
Counting replicants (Score:4, Insightful)
In the Director's Cut, RS added the possibility that Deckard was a replicant, while the original (with voiceover) made us assume he was what PK Dick calls "An authentic human", and frankly, not a very good one. I and my BR fan peeps debated whether or not Deckard ***was*** a replicant, based on evidence from the movie. But we didn't really debate whether or not RS wanted us to debate it. He clearly wanted us to think that he POSSIBLY was. There were MANY clues in the Director's Cut that supported his Replicantshipiness. Not the least of which was the missing replicant, one of which "got fried." Some (not I) thought that Deckard was the missing replicant, re-programmed to kill the others. I always thought it was a continuity gaff. (Sorry for the pun)
I saw it in LA on the huge screen, and aside from the sheer grandeur of enhanced city effects, the most significant change was that they changed the numbers of replicants that arrived and were fried. THERE WERE NO MISSING REPLICANTS after this new, improved release. By changing that gaff, RS sent a clear signal that Deckard's Replicanticity was ***NOT*** a foregone conclusion. It is STILL left to the viewer to decide.
But I gotta tell you, I still prefer the voiceover. Although they fixed the "dead air" when Roy dies and Deckard just stares stupidly (sans voiceover), there is still too much lost without the voiceover. We really have no clue WHY Roy tried to kill Deckard, then saved him.
I was PRAYING that they at least added the original finale, with the "best line that most people have ever heard in a movie..." "We didn't know how long we had... who does?
Someday, I'll get a bottle of Johnny Walker Black (notice the label on deckard's booze... AND ROY'S!!!) rip both versions into an iMac (with voice command... Enhance 34 to 46. k'ch k'ch k'ch beep beep beep) and make my own cut. Or, maybe someone has already beat me to it?
Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrrgh where were you when Roy Batty uttered his last words as his biological clock killed him right before that in the same scene? [youtube.com] Were you in the theater bathroom taking a piss?
OK granted "C-beams" and the Tannhauser Gate whatever that is sounds like total bullshit but that was way better than the graceless and forgettable voiceover from Harrison Ford that followed.
A short list (Score:2, Insightful)
There have been some stunningly good science fiction novels over the years. A lot of science fiction films, though, are more about eye-candy.
Bladerunner did it right. I was a big Philip K. Dick fan, and I went to the original expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't. Bladerunner is still one of my all-time favorite films, in any genre.
Don't get me wrong, I love special effects. I just wish sometimes they'd pick more challenging stories to use them with. I hope all the software advances will make it cheap enough to do some movies that are a bit less mainstream.
Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* (Score:3, Insightful)
He's just as entitled to an opinion as you are. Try not to be abusive; there's no point to it. The voice over version had Roy's comments too; but they're about Roy's experience; Deckard's voice-over line was about Deckard's experience. Sometimes changes aren't for the best - even if they are made by the director. A movie, especially one like this, is more than the sum of its parts, more than one person's vision, and more than one character's experience. That's why you can see it one way, and the parent (and myself) can see it another. The real value here is that all three of us found great value in the experience.
Re:Toasted Monkey Balls (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* (Score:5, Insightful)
And yeah, as was mentioned, Scott and Ford hated the voiceover and intentionally bombed it in the hopes that the studio would leave it out. They didn't.
That being said, I've seen the Final Cut. I live in NYC and had the wonderful opportunity to see it in theaters, and I'll be honest, it's the best, by far. The storyline flows much better than any of the other versions, it's visually spectacular (though a bit overdone with the flare effect on the Spinners), and overall it's so much more watchable and doesn't feel as if it's dragging on as much as the other versions.
I took my girlfriend to see it for the first time, and she freaked out and loved it from the word go. To be honest, I was happy she saw that version first, as she didn't have aspects of it ruined by poor production, or bad editing. So if you've never seen Blade Runner, go see the Final Cut and pretend the others never existed.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't remember the scene well enough to comment on the specifics, but
If the threat posed by Gredo was a sufficiently IMMINENT threat, Han shooting first is certainly self-defense.
And, even without specifics I could certainly make a good case to the jury that bounty hunter sent by a mob boss posed a sufficiently IMMINENT threat to Han that he acted in self-defense.
Your response tells us more about your and the GP's views of the right to self-defense, than about Han.
But, I will say up until the late-80's/early-90s viewing Han's action as self-defense was the majority view.
Since then we have seen a rise in the view that only the State is allowed to protect people, not the people themselves. This view is very strong in Europe & Canada. Often you can get in more trouble defending yourself in England than the attacker will for attacking you.
Makes you kind of wonder about the Saudi case where the rape VICTIM was given 40 (?) lashes.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's hard to imagine not hearing the voiceovers (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, since the VK test is designed to tell replicants apart from humans. If you don't know whether somebody is a replicant or not, you can't simply stick their hand into boiling water. What if you're wrong?
Narration Version for me (Score:3, Insightful)