Blade Runner (film) sequels/prequels!

[shootemindehead]

Never bought into the "Deckard was a replicant" stuff. Doesn't make any sense for me. But I am only talking about the original cut which is my prefered version. AFAIK, both Ford AND Scott denied that the character was a replicant at the beginning, but Scott revised his spiel later.

[Neil]

Never bought into the "Deckard was a replicant" stuff. Doesn't make any sense for me. But I am only talking about the original cut which is my prefered version. AFAIK, both Ford AND Scott denied that the character was a replicant at the beginning, but Scott revised his spiel later. "Original cut" = cinema narrated cut?

[shootemindehead]

Yeh. For me that's the real film. Unlike most people, I actually like the voice-over. It adds a film-noirish dimension to the film, which really suits it and I've always looked at Deckard as a sort of future Sam Spade-like character. None of the tinkering really did much for me, nor did the retrofitted unicorn nonsense. I know Scott has said that Deckard is a replicant, but he was written as a human and Ford played him as a human and the story is heavilly leaning toward a man vs machine angle. If Deckard isn't a human, 'Blade Runner' loses a lot of its umph and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[MinionZombie]

The first version I saw was the 1992 Director's Cut, and I quite like the final touches in the 2007 Final Cut (even if some - like the lip synch bit - were things I never noticed). My biggest like for the 2007 cut was touching up the colours so the live plates and the matte paintings matched perfectly. As for the original cinema cut voice over - when I first heard that I hated it grand style. You can tell that Ford hated every minute of delivering it and was deliberately being awful, it's awful, clunky, obvious narration ... I find Deckard's moments of quiet contemplation far more satisfying, rather than a dreadful bit of narration ordering me to listen to exactly what he's supposedly thinking, in all it's blindingly obvious fashion. In terms of human/replicant - I can go either way - for a long time I've felt that he was a replicant by the end of the film (as in, it was something he had to discover) and that it was a mystery of the film. In a way it becomes about self discovery and making every second count ... "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

[shootemindehead]

Deckard being a replicant never worked for me though, and if he was supposed to be from the beginning of the project, then everyone would have been on board. Clearly the writer and actors weren't, so to me it's a case of Ridley Scott reconning the idea into the film midway and then trying to force the idea with later revisions. Harrison Ford is playing Deckard as a human being, even if he is a somewhat cold human and one that isn't too well adjusted, "Sushi" as his ex-wife called him. But then again, their isn't a single human character in the film that is well adjusted. Everyone is "disfunctional". But, if Deckard is a robot, why the hell would he be weaker than the other replicants in the film, if he's been tasked with killing them? Roy, Pris, Zhora and Leon are all clearly physically stronger than him and it's Deckard's wits that sees him through. His speech is also very different to the other nexus 6 replicants in the film. All of the robots have a stilted way of talking and Roy exhibits a forced, fake emotion, but Deckard at certain points in the film shows clear human emotions and is capable of putting on a comical voice when he is sussing out Zhora. And he hates the job, even down to loathing having to "shoot a woman in the back". If he was a replicant, he wouldn't give a tinkers cuss. Why would they program him to hate being a bladerunner. Surely it would havev been wiser to program him to be part of the team, as it were. It's silly. Plus, his captain clearly knows Deckard for a long time. He needed the "old Bladerunner magic back". Replicants only have a very short lifespan, excluding Rachael, who was a "special" project of Tyrell's. So his captain wouldn't have known him at all, neither would Gaff. Nothing makes sense about Deckard being a robot, other than a half-hearted, half fleshed-out "twist" and for me it makes the film a lot weaker.

[EvilNed]

I think you're confusing version. In the original cut, no he's not a replicant. But Ridley never wrote thaf dialoge either. So for me, that bullshit voice over doesn't even apply. It's irrelevant for the directors cut / final cut. The final cut / directors cut is the definite version for me. As for what the actors, writers or directors intended, that's beside the point. It's the final product that matters.

[bassman]

As a casual fan of BR.....I don't understand why it has to be one way or the other. There are several versions of many older films. Why can't they all be enjoyed? At a recent screening of Dawn the crowd was given a choice of which version they wanted to see. While it didn't really matter to me either way, Argento's version was booed. I can understand that because it's my least favorite of the three, but it's still the same movie...

[shootemindehead]

They can, I agree. I just think the Deckard as replicant thing is a bit silly and certainly something that's an afterthought that's been forced and for me it doesn't really work. But, I don't agree that it's "the same movie". Changes to a film can make a huge difference. Sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. For instance 'Apocalypse Now - Redux' is a hugely inferior version to the original theatrical cut. Likewise for 'The Big Red One'. Both films had footage on the cutting room floor for a reason. Also, take 'Aliens' for example. I simply cannot watch the original theatrical version any more. The Cameron cut is a far more enjoyable film and the inserted scenes make a huge difference. - - - Updated - - - As for what the actors, writers or directors intended, that's beside the point. It's the final product that matters. But there's several different "final products" Ned. I own every one of them on a great boxset I git a few years ago. But the theatrical version will always remain the definative version for me, because THAT is what the people who made it in the first place wanted it to be (sans voice-over of course). The other versions are director retrofits and not what was intended at the time, even by Ridley Scott. But, yeah, if people want Deckard to be human or a robot, they can enjoy either show. The robot thing just doesn't add up for me, because it simply wasn't written or played that way originally, so the subsequent retrofits don't really work. Either way, I think a 'Bladerunner' sequel will probably be awful.

[MinionZombie]

At a recent screening of Dawn the crowd was given a choice of which version they wanted to see. While it didn't really matter to me either way, Argento's version was booed. I can understand that because it's my least favorite of the three, but it's still the same movie... Yeah, the Argento Cut is decidedly inferior. I don't like what's been cut out, nor do I like the entire soundtrack being Goblin, and it doesn't feel like the Director's own vision - for me though, my preferred version is the Extended Cannes Cut. It's the first version I saw, so that's how it is for me (similarly with Aliens, whereas the extended version of T2 isn't as good as the theatrical version IMO). Shoot - As for the original cut of Blade Runner being "what the people who made it in the first place wanted it to be", I don't agree. In certain circumstances they had to just get the film finished (e.g. that dodgy shot with the dove flying away is just the side of some old stage building, whereas in the Final Cut it at long last fits in with the overall look and feel of the film), and then that voice over wasn't wanted by many of the people involved.

[shootemindehead]

Most films are subject to compromise. However, the so called "Director's cut" and "final cut" is Scott's vision only, mainly to force his "Deckard is a replicant" nonsense. It's not the collaborative effort that the original cut was, warts and all. It's simply Scott's tinkering. I've always found it odd though that so many fans claim that they hate the voice-over. For 10 years nobody gave a crap and then the "director's cut" appeared and everyone was like "I hated the voice-over". But, I think the film loses something without it. All voice-overs are clunky, from 'Double Indemnity' to 'The Shawshank Redemption' and I think that 'Blade Runner gets a raw deal over its one. It's really not that bad. But the voice-over lends a certain noirish feel to 'Blade Runner' that I like, as I mentioned before. Deckard is supposed to be like a Philip Marlowe/Sam Spade type in the future. His overcoat and Rachael's hairstyle are also throwbacks to the films of the 40's. The voice-over just suits it. Perhaps as a fan of 40's film noir, it resonates better with me than it does with most? Even the "happy ending" I prefer, as it shows that there's a "beyond" outside of the miserable city of L.A. and it leads nicely into Vangelis's score. As for 'Dawn of the Dead', I like the fact that Argento cut out that ridiculous chopper zombie and the idiotic pie-fight. But I prefer Romero's vision in the extended cut, which is the one I rewatch the most.

[EvilNed]

The Voiceover (and the happy ending) is the afterthought, not the "Deckard is a Replicant"-hints.

[MinionZombie]

The Voiceover (and the happy ending) is the afterthought, not the "Deckard is a Replicant"-hints. ^^^ I agree.

[MoonSylver]

I, like you Shootem, like the voice over, for the same reasons. 1st version for me+noir. But, I also like the idea that Dekkard MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be a Replicant. I'm ok with it being open to interpretation & not definitive, & don't really want or need someone to say "yes or no", as I feel that kind of spoils it. Kind of like the "Is MacCready or Childs a Thing?" ending of JC's "The Thing".

[shootemindehead]

AFAIK, the voice-over was present in an early draft of Francher's script, in which Deckard spends a lot of time alone in his apartment. Much of 'Bladerunner' took place behind closed doors, before Scott came on board and expanded it. It was then taken out, probably by Scott. Then, a version was put back in at the behest of the producers, much to the chargin of Scott and Ford. Don't know whether the happy ending was tacked on, or by whom though. @Moon, if people want the "Deckard replicant", or the "is he or isn't he", they can go with it. That's fine. For me it's a bit silly, for reasons outlined above. It just doesn't work for me. Deckard wasn't written as a replicant, nor was he filmed as a replicant, nor was he acted by Ford as a replicant.

[EvilNed]

I have to disagree on the replicant part. I believe the idea of him being a replicant was definetly there when filming. It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that it's not just some after thought. Tere are too many clues throughout. Also, the unicorn footage was actually shot during the original shoot in 1981/1982. It was removed and then reinserted. (http://www.mybladerunner.com/faqs/4-...-no-it-is-not/) A voice over was undoubtedly present in an earlier draft - being a noirish film - but THE voice over we were left with was tacked on by the same people who added a happy ending at the end, and that happy ending is just leftover footage from The Shining I believe. So yeah, the idea of Deckard being a replicant was present during the original shoot. Did Harrison Ford act him that way? Does it matter? Isn't the point that it's supposed to be ambiguous?