Blade Runner Prequel/Sequel

I like the Director's Cut. I don't like the voice overs at all. I've heard that Ford did them deliberately badly so the studio execs would reconsider the wisdom of using them, but even that didn't persuade.

2nd, I don't like the sunny green fields ending of the first one. It's just incongruous with the rest of the film and doesn't convey that these 2 are desperate fugitives now. It's as though a suit said, "hey, we want to sell tickets. Give us a goddamned happy ending."

In either case, it never rises above a suggestion that Deckard is a replicant, but it's fun to speculate if that's what the writers are telegraphing to you.

Not Sure wrote:

I've reached an age or comfort level or something where I just don't watch movies that are going to piss me off. Seriously, I'm not going to feel out of the nerd loop for skipping this bullshit. Life's too fucking short.

People tell me about a fourth Indiana Jones movie, and I just say "why'd you do that to yourself?" People tell me the third Star Wars prequel was better than the first two, and I say "uh huh, interesting..." Then I look for the door, because clearly this person is going to try to leverage two hours of my life to replace the aching hole in theirs.

Seriously, we're all smart people. We ought to do a better job of smelling the stink on these turds and spend less time playing "but what if it's gooood?" It's not and you know it, and if you're down with paying money to see how bad things are I have some expired milk in the fridge. Ten bucks a chug.

Really, if I want to get pissed off at media, I'll watch the news.

This may be my favourite post of the past year.

I will say this, though: in the right hands, the BR universe would make a great TV series.

Mr Skeletor wrote:

I always thought the Directors cut made it pretty clear he was a replicant, which is how I like it.

I always thought the director's cut made it pretty clear that Rachel's timer was firmly in place. At the point the message of the film is reestablished. Without that ending the story is pointless.

Blade Runner is a visually magnificent film that is flawed in its execution. There are plot errors and inconsistencies due to constant rewrites during filming. Scott has made change after change and contradicted himself in interviews, in my opinion to generate interest over and over and drive sales to generate revenue for other projects. At times he's even attempted to take plot mistakes whose source was in early versions of the scripts and work them into the storyline of the final product. When I spoke of Blade Runner as a beaten, robbed, mutilated and run over man at the beginning of this thread I meant it -- this movie has been brutalized for thirty years, often by the hands of its own father.

The director's cut removed the cowardly ending of the theatrical release -- Rachel being immortal at the end of the story doesn't merely neuter the fundamental concept of the film, it paints a pretty damn ugly picture of Deckart aging while she watches. Talk about a freakish mistake. Director's Cut puts things in place for Deckart and Rachel -- "too bad she won't live, but who does?" That's the fundamental message to take away from the film. Turning Deckart into a machine doesn't hurt that part of the storyline so much but turns much of the self-examination that anyone in the audience is supposed to consider and turns it into crap. When all is said and done, it makes the story an episode of Transformers, hot robot-on-robot action where only one will be left standing. Another title for the kiddies.

S.

Chasch wrote:

2nd, I don't like the sunny green fields ending of the first one. It's just incongruous with the rest of the film and doesn't convey that these 2 are desperate fugitives now. It's as though a suit said, "hey, we want to sell tickets. Give us a goddamned happy ending."

That's exactly what happened by the way. The car in the clouds footage was from The Shining that was spliced in last minute to lift the spirit of the ending. That and the voice-overs were considered "fixes" that needed to be made before the release.

S.

I always thought the Directors cut made it pretty clear he was a replicant, which is how I like it.

I'd say so. If he isn't, then that unicorn scene makes no sense whatsoever. There's also the fact that the director said he's a Replicant.

Even so, I don't see what it adds to the story, especially since the movie isn't even really about Deckard.

I like the Director's Cut. I don't like the voice overs at all. I've heard that Ford did them deliberately badly so the studio execs would reconsider the wisdom of using them, but even that didn't persuade.

I like the voiceovers. For one thing, this is a noir film, and first person narration is one of the hallmarks of that style. Also, they make Deckard a more complex character, albeit unintentionally.

"They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper" is a pretty clear indication that he regards the Replicants as being alive in the same sense that humans are. Moreover, his comment about "skinjob" being equivalent to the n-bomb gives the impression that, to some degree, he even sees them a human beings.

On the other hand, he asks of Rachel "How can it not know what it is?" Obviously, whether they're people or not, he certainly doesn't look at them as equals. That's reinforced by the fact that he treats Rachel rather cruelly for seemingly no reason other than she's a robot and he can do it. So, while Deckard may not be the kind of person that would call black men you-know-whats, there's little doubt he's the kind of person that would call them "negroes."

Knowing that about the character, it makes his reaction to Roy's final act a little different if you ask me. It's as if he finds Roy's capacity for mercy bewildering, and the narration gives the impression that he's trying to figure out this quizzical behavior. It's not too far removed from Huck Finn being surprised that black folks care for their kin like white folks do. "It don't seem natrual, but I reckon it's so."

2nd, I don't like the sunny green fields ending of the first one. It's just incongruous with the rest of the film and doesn't convey that these 2 are desperate fugitives now. It's as though a suit said, "hey, we want to sell tickets. Give us a goddamned happy ending."

That's exactly what happened, and this is definitely the one thing that's an indisputable improvement over the theatrical version.

But if you set the details aside the overall message is there, and it's excellent . . . up to the point where they indicate that Rachel is immortal. That pretty much takes ninety minutes of fine story telling and flushes it.

Neither version never suggests that she's immortal, only that she doesn't automatically terminate. Even the happy ending says "But how much time we have together? Who knows?"

mjl1783 wrote:

I like the voiceovers. For one thing, this is a noir film, and first person narration is one of the hallmarks of that style. Also, they make Deckard a more complex character, albeit unintentionally.

"They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper" is a pretty clear indication that he regards the Replicants as being alive in the same sense that humans are. Moreover, his comment about "skinjob" being equivalent to the n-bomb gives the impression that, to some degree, he even sees them a human beings.

On the other hand, he asks of Rachel "How can it not know what it is?" Obviously, whether they're people or not, he certainly doesn't look at them as equals. That's reinforced by the fact that he treats Rachel rather cruelly for seemingly no reason other than she's a robot and he can do it. So, while Deckard may not be the kind of person that would call black men you-know-whats, there's little doubt he's the kind of person that would call them "negroes."

Knowing that about the character, it makes his reaction to Roy's final act a little different if you ask me. It's as if he finds Roy's capacity for mercy bewildering, and the narration gives the impression that he's trying to figure out this quizzical behavior. It's not too far removed from Huck Finn being surprised that black folks care for their kin like white folks do. "It don't seem natrual, but I reckon it's so."

I'm a voice-over fan too - mjl probably put it much better than I can but to me it gave more insight and information about Deckard plus just made the film a lot more interesting, I doubt I would have got as much out of the film if I had only seen the Director's Cut. Maybe that says more about me though :-|

Note: it is my favourite movie, still.

Empathy, compassion, mercy equals humanity. If a person has lost their humanity, what are they? Decker has lost his humanity (or maybe he never had any)... Does Decker feel empathy for Roy? If so Decker regains his humanity (or gains humanity).

Nope. Animals can, and do display empathy and compassion all the time. There's nothing uniquely human about those qualities, mercy being the possible exception. Even if they were inherently human, why aren't cruelty, selfishness, bigotry, or any other nasty exhibition of human behavior?

If, by humanity, you mean being humane, I still don't buy it. Empathizing with a person who has just saved your life, for the last 30 seconds before he dies, is not exactly a convincing show of benevolence.

Roy, the christ figure, dies.

Say what? What the hell bible have you been reading?

Christ willingly accepted his death. Roy doesn't. In fact, he kills anyone he needs to in order to extend his life. When he finds out that isn't possible, he kills the man who made him. That's slightly out of sync with the whole "he who loves his life will lose it" thing, wouldn't you say? Now, even if Deckard is redeemed (and I don't buy that he is), it isn't because Roy gave his life to do it. Roy was dead either way.

A Christ figure is not simply a nice guy that dies. There has to be some kind of self sacrifice which is tied directly to someone's redemption.

I never took away at that Rachel was immortal in the screen version - just the opposite - that she has a due date no one else knows just like the rest of us.

In film school, everyone always moaned about the theatrical version but I also prefer the voice over because it belongs so strongly to Noir (Ford said he purposely did a bad job on the voice overs? You can't hear it).

Not a fan of director's cuts in general -- it's a paradox but a lot of time constraints and compromise force directors to make a better film. When they go back, they often fuck it up by over indulging. Not saying this is the case with Blade Runner but it certainly is the case with something like Amadeus, where Froman's director's cut stinks. More of Salieri moaning and cursing to God, etc. Not needed, and the added scenes only dilute the film and make it less crisp and sharp.

Also - just curious - anyone NOT like the tears like rain improv (I believe I read somewhere) at the end by Rutger Hauer? I love him in the role but after so many repeatd watchings I have grown to fucking hate that overly-flowery poetic language at the end.