Page 1 of 2
See The Happy Ending In A Different Daylight
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:41 amby Leon Corporation
What if the Happy Ending in the Theatrical Cut didn't take place on Earth at all? Couldn't it just be The Mars Colony? Imagine an optical title at the start of the scene saying "Mars Colonies 2019", in the same vein as we've seen "Los Angeles 2019" at the beginning of the movie. Wouldn't that be more believable than sunny Earth? It certainly would be an inexpensive solution to a major plot hole.
How do you like this thread's title
?
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:31 amby Deckard BR26354
Well all the scripts that Deckard and Rachael drove out into the desert. No mention of Mars.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:08 amby endzem
I'm all for a "happy ending". Always have been. But I do agree it should be off into a desert or some kind of wasteland north of LA. Perhaps even Off-World.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:30 amby Leon Corporation
Sure, the dessert, but that's gonna cost them money. My suggestion will only cost a title. Just a little bit of text, a few words and the plot hole is kind of solved. Who cares whether Mars wasn't in the original scripts? The happy ending with them flying over a healthy Earth wasn't in the original script either! Try to be imaginative, fellas. Be creative!
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:51 amby endzem
Okay, so are you saying that at the end, right after the elevator doors close, we cut to that scene with just the title, ?Mars Colonies 2019?? And then?roll the credits? If I were to see that title screen, I would expect to see at least a little bit of visuals afterwards. Otherwise I might feel like I was left hanging.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:27 pmby Leon Corporation
endzem wrote:Okay, so are you saying that at the end, right after the elevator doors close, we cut to that scene with just the title, ?Mars Colonies 2019?? And then?roll the credits? If I were to see that title screen, I would expect to see at least a little bit of visuals afterwards. Otherwise I might feel like I was left hanging.
No, you'll see exactly the same as in the Theatrical Cut 1982. Except, before the actual "Happy Scene" starts, we see a black screen with white, silvery letters: Mars Colonies 2019. What if this was included in the first place, you know, when people saw BR for the first time in 1982? A simple text could've saved the film from a lot of critique.
Another question: Why are we led to believe they are still on Earth anyway? Wasn't the Earth doomed? The ending tells quite the opposite. It tells us it's a wonderful, green planet.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:11 pmby endzem
I get you now. Keep the ?beautiful nature? scene, but just imply before hand it?s somewhere else. That could work; however, from 1982 to 2019 we?re talking 37 years into the future (not too far away). I think it would be kind of hard to believe that in just 37 years humans have managed terra-form a Martian colony to that extent. Also, that we have developed the ability to travel to a planet like that, which no doubt would be very far away.
Unless a wormhole has been discovered!
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:20 pmby sha
i will own up here that when i saw the TC I assumed perhaps wrongly that the elevator doors closed then we were shown the "Fantasy" that was Deckards hope for a happy ending and the words pror to this were the clue that it was what Deckard wanted to happen as in "to bad she won't live , but then who does" as in to bad you won't have a happy ending but then who does, am i makeing any kind of sense here? i thought it wasn't a continuation of the plot mearly an ironic glimpse of what lovers the world over hope for....to live hapily ever after,.....but who does.
I also thought this was further renforced as Deckard is driveing a car ect,surely an outdated mode of transport.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:54 pmby Deckard BR26354
Leon Corporation wrote:Another question: Why are we led to believe they are still on Earth anyway? Wasn't the Earth doomed? The ending tells quite the opposite. It tells us it's a wonderful, green planet.
Let's not forget that these scenes were never in the original script - they are out-takes from "The Shining" that Ridley was forced to tack on the end by the money guys after the previews were shown.
Ridley didn't want them in for that very reason - they don't make any sense.
BTW, who mentioned dessert?
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:11 pmby Leon Corporation
Deckard BR26354 wrote:Leon Corporation wrote:Another question: Why are we led to believe they are still on Earth anyway? Wasn't the Earth doomed? The ending tells quite the opposite. It tells us it's a wonderful, green planet.
Let's not forget that these scenes were never in the original script - they are out-takes from "The Shining" that Ridley was forced to tack on the end by the money guys after the previews were shown.
Ridley didn't want them in for that very reason - they don't make any sense.
BTW, who mentioned dessert?
That's part of my point. It doesn't make sense. It would've made more sense if a simple text was added. Why did the film people forget that the planet was dying? Somebody made the "Happy Ending" and must've thought the audience isn't going to notice the environmental difference.
In 1982 the film makers believed that in 2019 our world was going to look like Blade Runner (massive pyramid buildings and flying cars). And we also are led to believe that replicants are send to work lightyears from Earth. If we can buy into that, why is it strange to believe we could fertilize Mars?
Hehehe, "dessert". That was me, I'm afraid.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:17 pmby Deckard BR26354
Okay then, my answer to your original question is that I'd rather not have that ending at all. It was better in the DC when the lift doors closed and the end titles appeared.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:24 pmby Leon Corporation
Deckard BR26354 wrote:Okay then, my answer to your original question is that I'd rather not have that ending at all. It was better in the DC when the lift doors closed and the end titles appeared.
I know but lets go back in time ... to the year 1982.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:20 pmby raymccoy
I bet the happy ending was added because Tandem Prod. didn't like the overall scenary at all and wanted to end on a happy note. You know because the masses like happy endings in general. Ironic how the opposite happened. But then Tandem had their heads up their asses the whole time so it doesn't matter.
Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:10 pmby Deckard BR26354
raymccoy wrote:I bet the happy ending was added because Tandem Prod. didn't like the overall scenary at all and wanted to end on a happy note. You know because the masses like happy endings in general. Ironic how the opposite happened. But then Tandem had their heads up their asses the whole time so it doesn't matter.
shhh, slagging off the BR partnership might bring the whole site crashing down. You never know who's reading this board.
Posted:
Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:09 amby BR796164
It isn't Jerry Perenchio for sure.. err, ok I'll shut up now.