Original against Ditector's Cut

Sat Nov 16, 2002 10:26 am by Guest

I'm a fanatic of Blade Runner, and I was very dissapointed of the version Director's Cut. I like the original version (that with the in off Harrison Ford's voice, and the end with Deckard and Rachel flying scaping from the metropolis). Can anybody tell me why the Director's cut is better? By other hand, i've tried to find where to buy the original version but i had no success; i can't found it in DVD nor in VHS...why?
[addsig]

Sat Nov 16, 2002 11:38 am by Centauro

The OV was declared illegal on earth, under penalty of death. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
[addsig]

Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:47 am by Tomtrek

Well, many people (me, for example) feel that the 'ride into the sunset' ending is, well... tacky. They DC ending leaves it more open, and not so much of a 'happily ever after' (as we also don't know how long Rachel has to live). Also, the voice over wasn't done well, as Harrison Ford did it and tried to do it as bad as possible so they wouldn't use it. Plus the DC has the unicorn sequance, which leads to the whole Deck-a-Rep thing. The OC is not out on DVD so far, but if you look hard (reeeeealy hard), you'll find it on VHS. I did, you can.
[addsig]

Sun Nov 17, 2002 2:37 pm by endzem

The best place to find the voice-over version is on e-bay.

Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:48 pm by BR796164

Good one, Centauro. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif"> - The voice-over suggests the "only truth" to the audience, thus is deliberating in the way of developing your own opinions and conclusions on the plot and the characters' motives. -The visual concept and the overall taste of the ending is in total contradiction with the poetry of the entire movie.

Sun Nov 17, 2002 8:28 pm by skywalker1187

As per usual, Centauro speaks and all is made clear. Another difference is that you are given more periods without dialogue. For example in the OV, when Gaf and Dec are flying to the Police statinon, you're given a brief intro on Gaf and the world they live in. However, in the DC, you're only given the music and the scenery. Watching the two scenes side by side, they each give completely different feelings. Which one you like would just depend on your taste, or as Centauro has pointed out, lack thereof. [ This Message was edited by: skywalker1187 on 2002-11-18 02:35 ]

Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:09 am by Tomtrek

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> On 2002-11-17 20:37, endzem wrote: The best place to find the voice-over version is on e-bay.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> That's probably true, but don't stop looking everywhere else! I found my copy in my local Woolworths! <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">
[addsig]

Mon Nov 18, 2002 11:41 am by Nexus6

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> On 2002-11-17 12:47, tomtrek wrote: Well, many people (me, for example) feel that the 'ride into the sunset' ending is, well... tacky.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> ya we hate happy endings! hehe..
[addsig]

Mon Nov 18, 2002 1:01 pm by Guest

The voice over and tacked on "tacky" ending were added to the film by the studio execs (unimaginative, money grubbers) after the test screening subjects (random people) told the pollsters (complete brainless idiots who think they're in the "entertainment" business) that they didn't like the ambiguous ending and they really weren't too clear as to what was going on in the film. In other words, the test audiences didn't want to be challenged by science fiction. God forbid they should be made to think! In any case, the studio execs forced the changes so they could make more money. Harrison Ford was brought back to do the voice over he didn't want to do and a new ending was filmed LONG after the film had finished principal shooting. Which one is better? That's entirely your decision depending on if you like nuance and artistic license, or if you like being led around by the nose like cattle.

Mon Nov 18, 2002 2:28 pm by Guest

Now, I usually just browse the message boards, but this topic made me speak up. I for one, happen to like both versions of the film. Granted I agree the original ending was a bit too "Hollywood" for me, but I happen to miss the Harrison Ford voice over. It helped add to the atmosphere that this film was a futuristic version of the classic 1940's style private dick movie. I like the new version as well, but it feels a bit too forced to me. I don't feel like it gives the viewer the option to establish their own opinion, but rather the additional footage smacks of someone screaming: "No! No! No! you're not supposed to think that way, you have to believe he's this instead! I'm still waiting for an ultimate DVD version, one in which you can choose which version of the fim you want to see. Just my opinon for what's worth.

Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:32 pm by BR796164

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE>Ridley Scott said in an interview on American television that in film noir, voice-overs sometimes work, and sometimes don't, and they didn't work in BR.</BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> (from BR FAQ)

Tue Dec 24, 2002 6:57 am by Guest

Writers have a saying, that editors like a piece better "when they've pissed in it", and I think that applies to directors as well. Though there are things to say in favor of the Scott version, I have to give the preference to the original cut, which I'm lucky enough to have on laser disc. I'm an old movie buff, so I found the very true-to-noir narration not inappropriate. I enjoyed the fact that the narrator is anything but omniscient: Deckard never solves the mystery. (In the end, no one is alive who knows why the replicants came to Earth and did what they did.) The "happy ending" is tacked on a bit awkwardly, but it makes a lot of sense. If Rachael is an experiment to find out whether borrowed memories stabilize a replicant's mind, then if she dies after the regulation four years no one will ever know if the experiment worked! The Scott cut has only one problem, but it's a big one: the suggestion that Deckard is a replicant himself. As the film was written -- and acted -- on the basis that Deckard is not a replicant, not surprisingly it ceases to make sense once we imagine he is; and the film becomes what its critics always said it was, a good-looking piece of junk.

Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:50 am by ROBOCOP

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> On 2002-11-16 17:38, Centauro wrote: The OV was declared illegal on earth, under penalty of death. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> This was not called murder it was called retirement <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif">
[addsig]

Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:06 am by BRmovie

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> On 2002-12-24 12:57, Taras wrote: Writers have a saying, that editors like a piece better "when they've pissed in it", and I think that applies to directors as well. </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> Well, the Director is the guy who makes the film in the first place. Everything is what he has made, so I don't think your statement makes a lot of sense, particularly as he worked closely with the writers to create his vision. <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> Though there are things to say in favor of the Scott version, I have to give the preference to the original cut, which I'm lucky enough to have on laser disc. I'm an old movie buff, so I found the very true-to-noir narration not inappropriate. I enjoyed the fact that the narrator is anything but omniscient: Deckard never solves the mystery. (In the end, no one is alive who knows why the replicants came to Earth and did what they did.) </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> The "Scott version"? Ouch! Kinda thought every version was really his version. The Original Theatrical Release changed his version (the Workprint) to something that was pandering to rather silly over-reliance on test screenings to an audience who couldn't care less and were also annoyed that Ford wasn't doing yet another Han Solo/Indiana Jones type of role. So the voiceover was added, written by an old screenwriter who had all but retired and had nothing to do with the film before then (or any SF film AFAIK), spoken dreadfully and forcing a viewpoint which at times is not related to the original scriptwriters vision. Worse than that was not having the unicorn dream, which, whether you are interested in the Deckard may-or-may-not-be a Rep subtext is nevertheless the entire point of why Gaff makes little origami, etc. figures. But worst of all is the silly "happy ending" which jars horribly with the rest of the film and many are of the opinion adds nothing, but takes away a lot. (And the VO and tacky ending were the source of much of the negative criticism at the time when it was actually released!) The DC is NOT Scott's true vision anyway - it merely fixed some of the big problems, was rushed through and mostly didn't involve Scott's participation. <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> The "happy ending" is tacked on a bit awkwardly, but it makes a lot of sense. If Rachael is an experiment to find out whether borrowed memories stabilize a replicant's mind, then if she dies after the regulation four years no one will ever know if the experiment worked! </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> Your statement has some validity in suspecting that Rachael may not in fact have a four year restriction. But you can still suspect that with the other versions. So, doesn't justify the ending at all. And as it forces the viewpoint (never mentioned by anyone else), it is reducing the viewer's need to think. <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><BLOCKQUOTE> The Scott cut has only one problem, but it's a big one: the suggestion that Deckard is a replicant himself. As the film was written -- and acted -- on the basis that Deckard is not a replicant, not surprisingly it ceases to make sense once we imagine he is; and the film becomes what its critics always said it was, a good-looking piece of junk. </BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE> While I am in fact in the Deck-a-Human camp, the facts in this are that Scott took on the idea while they were filming. It is Hampton Fancher who originally suggested that it would be good to have the audience leaving the cinema wondering about the possibility and it is PKD who actually introduces the idea in DADoES. In DADoES Deckard is proved not to be. Fancher (and Peoples) wanted the question to be raised, but not the answer. Scott seemed to go along with that, but pushed it a little further (though IMO doesn't prove it). So, I would say this question is intrinsic to Blade Runner from the very beginning and not something Scott introduced ten years later! Others involved in the filming range across the viewpoints as well - some of them saying of course he is and some of them saying of course he isn't. The idea was discussed on set between Scott, Ford and others. 
[addsig]

Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:07 am by The Old BladeRunner

um quick question: is there any way to get the Theatrical VO version tht is letterboxed, i really wish i could view it the way i do w the Dir. Cut..

anyone know?????

hopefully its not a bootleg, right?

Original against Ditector's Cut

Who is online