What's New in Blade Runner - The Final Cut?

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?"

Comments

Doesn't matter.

[bigstrat2003]

The man is releasing different versions of his film. If the changes aren't to your liking, fortunately for you, there's still the original right at your fingertips. What does it matter, then, if he's cashing in or trying to perfect his work?

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.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[CRCulver]

The original version isn't always kept available. The original ending of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove is available only on an old laserdisc; no subsequent DVD issue had it. The only version of Star Wars available on DVD is the Special Edition. Now, you are right that the changes are few, but they are infuriating. Lucas claimed that in adding digital special effects he was only making the film closer to his 1970s dreams, that's fine. But having Greedo shoot first was a significant change to Han Solo's characterization, and really it seems that Lucas was looking more to direct marketing of the film towards a gullible child market than preserve a solid artistic vision.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[ScrewMaster]

George Lucas never had a solid artistic vision in his life, and I agree that he was going for the action-figure market, particularly in the last three films and the re-releases of the original trilogy.

That said, however, this is the Age of the Tracker. Everything is available, and if you can't get if from legitimate channels, well ... there are other means. That often plays hob with the studio's desire to control the re-release of films in order to target the next generation of moviegoers, but that's just too bad.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[vux984]

It moves his motive from self-defense to murder. If you can't see that being a difference I can't help you.

But at least ask yourself this: if it makes no difference why did they change the order?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAL, but it has been a while since I did criminal work

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.

[blzabub]

I would offer this argument: Lucas is a student of various American and World film genres, in this case I spotlight the American Western. If you've watched lots of Westerns as I have, you come to see certain concepts of morality in the old west codified and mythologized. One of those concepts is justice by the gun, self-made justice because the law is not available to protect you. Whoever "draws" first in a Western matters a great deal. Most of the heroes in Westerns had to follow a code whereby they waited until the other fellow made a move, and then they drew quicker and shot straighter. People who drew first without warning, without making it clear they were challenging you were considered killers and were subject to posse justice or retribution. Many characters plead "he drew first" as a socially accepted alibi. The fact that Han deceitfully plans the removal of his gun from his holster, misdirects Greedo and fires first in cold blood IMO was a very specific coded message from Lucas: Han was very much an anti-hero, redeemed only when he came flying with a star at his back (classic combat tactic) and saved Luke's bacon. If you remove the meaning of that scene with Greedo, you eliminate the arc of the character, there is no character development which IMO reduces the beauty and significance of the artist's vision.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

And just to add on to your frigging genius comment (me without mod points... grr!), keep in mind that when Han flies in with the star at his back he's also the classic western character of the stealing, smuggling, black-hatted bandit who has always been the self-directed, rootless loner, yet has now found himself in the center of something far out of his control. The local authority has given him a badge which now legitimizes his previously criminal actions, and at the last second he decides to do the right thing, which erases his previous life and gives him a second shot in life as a reluctant hero with a checkered past.

Changed or not?

[Thornae]

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".

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"??

[NotZed]

WTF? The guys' gonna die and he goes to the arsehole who made him and calls him father? Why cut out 'fucker', it makes much more sense.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Enderandrew]

Harrison Ford openly tanked the voice-over because he fought with the director on doing it. He thought it was stupid, and mailed in a poor performance in that regard. Many fans hate the voice-over, and thusly it was thankfully later removed.

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

[ludomancer]

You may be a Sci-Fi nut but I am pretty certain the Film Noir genre has to appeal to you a great deal too in order to enjoy this (assuming it doesn't already).
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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Stlll boring, I bet

[Zarjazz]

Being a sci-fi nut myself, along with most of /. readers at a guess, I have to admit that while I appreciate the film it never blew my away when I first saw it - good but not great.

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

[podperson]

I loved the original movie, but always thought it should end when the elevator doors close (which the first "Director's Cut" did) and should lose the voice overs. With those two changes, I'd be happy.

That said, when I watch the first "Director's Cut" I hear the voiceovers in my head ... so there's no point. I can't tell whether the movie would hang together well without the voice overs because I can't get them out of my head. And I don't think the voice overs make the movie easy to understand the first time through because I can remember not understanding it the first time I saw it. It seems to me the one thing they could have done with the voiceovers and didn't was patch the continuity error caused by cutting the original opening scene (where Deckard "retires" the mysterious fifth replicant).

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 ... or whatever ... which would make perfect sense.

Re:It's hard to imagine not hearing the voiceovers

[cozziewozzie]

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.

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?

Counting replicants

[starglider29a]

Since we have the Spoiler Alert above, I can say this...

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*

[MillionthMonkey]

IMHO, "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die." is the best line in just about any film ever.

Arrrgh where were you when Roy Batty uttered his last words as his biological clock killed him right before that in the same scene?

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those memories will be lost in time like tears in the rain... Time to die.

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

[hyades1]

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*

[fyngyrz]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

monkey balls roasting on an open fire...

Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS*

[Fallen Seraph]

All that proves is that Deckard is a god damned idiot. The reason he saved him was so that he'd REMEMBER HIM. So that he'd remember that there was a man named Roy Baty, who was as much a man as he was, regardless of his origins. By saving him, he guaranteed that he will never be forgotten in Deckard's eyes, and that, in and of itself is as close to immortality as anyone can truly get: to be remembered. Also, Roy's line before his death was far better imo.

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.

Narration Version for me

[gadlaw]

That's the first way I saw it, I liked the movie as it was, narration and possible happy ending intact. I'm not an idiot for liking that ending, you're not superior or an idiot for liking whichever of the other endings or versions you like. It's an interesting story how the movie was changed in the first place and it's journey to today but at least Scott didn't go and lock the version he didn't like away like that other clown did. And what the heck, in a couple of years they'll be selling another version with a copy of Final Cut Pro so you can cut it the way you want like a NIN CD.