Slashdot Mirror


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?"

33 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. That's nothing. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    When "Tron - Final Cut" is released, it's gonna smash every box office record for the next 10 years. Just you wait.

    1. Re:That's nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Lets establish a timeline for these movies:

      Theatrical Release > Extended Version > Uncut Version > Director's Cut > Aniversary Edition > Remastered Edition > Final Cut > Final Cut: Pro

      I hate films with more versions than the software used to edit them.

    2. Re:That's nothing. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought Tron totally rocked when I was a kid. It was full of stupid stuff, like the Master Control Program's AI, and the laser that digitizes Flynn and sucks him into the computer. The "kiss" scene was gross. (I've written plenty of "ugly chicks" that I hope aren't making out with anybody in the hidden cyberworld.) Even I knew that an arcade game that took quarters wouldn't be interfaced to the Master Control Program at Dillinger's headquarters (this was the early 80s). And while the "bit" was an interesting character, it wouldn't be able to emphasize no as "no no no no" in a tight situation. Talk about TMI.

      But what a pretty movie it was, even if it was stupid. The old 3D graphics were actually pretty cool- it was a weird world full of square clouds and straight blue lines. You just don't see stuff like that anymore. The quality of today's CGI is so good and so photorealistic that anything produced now is unimpressive and boring. It's evolved into junk for commercials: whales jumping up out of freshwater lakes where financially secure guys are fishing, expensive cars performing risky ballet moves while cruising down empty superhighways, etc. It's sucked the magic out of almost everything you see- if it looks incredible, you know instantly you're looking at CGI crap. Soon, even pornography will be ruined.

      I wanted to see Tron again but my mother didn't care for it, so I dragged my father (mainframe programmer) to see it. He hates movies. But he liked it so much he dragged me there to see it again so I saw it three times. END OF LINE

    3. Re:That's nothing. by xSauronx · · Score: 4, Funny
      Soon, even pornography will be ruined.

      You blasphemous motherfucker, take it back!

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    4. Re:That's nothing. by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally, I'm waiting for Duke Nukem Forever: The Now Cut.

    5. Re:That's nothing. by the_fat_kid · · Score: 5, Funny

      ha, ha jokes on you, she has a virus!

      wait...

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    6. Re:That's nothing. by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Soon we'll have auto update functions in the movies.

      Please wait.. the movie is being updated

      The updates will fix visual bugs as well as plot holes.

  2. Doesn't matter. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    1. Re:Doesn't matter. by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Doesn't matter. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:Doesn't matter. by blzabub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Doesn't matter. by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. The obvious question... by mrsam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does Han shoot first in this one?






    (...sorry)

    1. Re:The obvious question... by Robber+Baron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does Han shoot first in this one? It could be worse...

      "Meesa seen things, yousa wouldn believe!"
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

  4. Re:Riddle me this: by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

    IMHO, watch the one with the voiceover. Certainly watch that one first. Like most Hollywood movies, the transition from book to movie was made clumsily, protestations of "art" notwithstanding. Deckard's voiceover is done tastefully and serves to focus the movie in many places where it becomes meaningless and context-free in the "director's cut."

    One of the best 2-3 SF movies ever made in the voiceover version.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  5. Changed or not? by Thornae · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 ...

    --
    |>
    Here be Dragons
  6. I want more life "father"?? by NotZed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    _ // `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
    \\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
  7. Personally I'm holding out for the by sammyo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Revised Ultra Final Re-Revisited Very Very Final Directors Special Absolutely Final Cut

  8. Re:Riddle me this: by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  9. Re:Riddle me this: by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some people recommend watching the theatrical release first, presumably because they agree with the studio that the film was too hard to follow otherwise. Unfortunately that version also loses much of the atmosphere of the film, as the voice-over added interrupts and masks the music and visual work that you can appreciate better in the director's cut (or this final version). As long as you can follow the plot this final cut should be the best version yet to watch. So as I see it, this turns into a slightly different question: how to lower the risk that you may get annoyed at not knowing what's going on when you watch the movie?

    Watching the voice-over version first is one way to do that, but if you like it you really need to turn right around and watch the final one to get the good version. What I suggest instead to those who like reading Science Fiction books anyway is to read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" first, then see the best available version without the voice-over--that will now be this Final Cut version. That way you will know what's going on but won't have your first viewing distracted by the voice-over. The book and movie have many shared elements but plenty of things that are different between the two; both have unique elements worth experiencing, and it's not the case that the book "ruins" the movie or anything.

  10. Five versions by magunning · · Score: 5, Informative

    The box set released in a few weeks will contain five versions of the movie.

    Workprint version - pre-release test screening version
    US original cinematic version
    International original cinematic version
    Directors cut - 1992 version - approved by Scott, but he was not directly involved
    Final cut - Scott had complete control over this version

  11. Re:Stlll boring, I bet by Zarjazz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. The Digital Bits' Review by antdude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yesterday, The Digital Bits posted its long review on this set.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  13. It's hard to imagine not hearing the voiceovers by podperson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Counting replicants by starglider29a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  15. Re:Riddle me this: by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are some great articles around that detail the whole Blade Runner saga--definitely worth looking up. In short, due to the original production being over-budget, ownership of the movie went to the underwriters, who decided to add in the voiceover and happy ending after the movie tested poorly. This was a rush job, and both Ford and Scott were against the changes. When the first Director's Cut came out, they reverted some of the stuff back, but again, it was a rush job, so Scott didn't get an opportunity to really go back over it the way he wanted to (apparently he wasn't even really involved in this). There was supposed to be a big 20th anniversary release, but there were still legal wranglings over ownership. Finally, for the 25th anniversary, the ownership issues were sorted out, and Scott was given ample time to really sit down and polish the movie the way he wanted to originally. Since technology had advanced so much, they took the opportunity to clean up the effects a bit (using the original assets--no Special Edition crap here). The end result of all of this is the Final Cut.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  16. Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* by east+coast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
     
    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.
     
    This one line makes anything else in the film worth enduring (not that the film isn't good without the line) and is the crux of the entire film. I guess other people see it in other lights but it's hard for me not to see the entire film leading up to this one line. I just can not accept that this film is about anything outside of the questions that artificial life will dwell on in the future when we produce it. I think it's great that science fiction discusses these questions. All of the robot/alien junk is just crap in comparison to the hard questions that will arise from our journey from natural human beings into a synthetic society where anything goes. With the stem cell debate being what it is we are kinda starting to ask these questions today in a round about way.
     
    Still, see the film for what it is but it's still fantastic that all of the crap about cops and killing skin jobs and the Tyrell corporation comes down to one beautifully made point about our inevitable future. These questions are neat to address in fiction but warns us of the moral puzzles we will have to solve in the future.
     
    I'm left wondering everytime after the movie; what will we decide and who will we answer to when the question becomes more than hypothetical.
     
    That's science fiction to me. Again, just my humble opinion.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  17. Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  18. Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* by Fallen+Seraph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. More info that isn't in this article... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to an industry mag that I just took a peek at, there were two radical re-stagings of shots from the original production. First was the re-shoot of the "retirement" of Joanna Cassidy where the original shot was so horribly obviously a stunt double. The final moment where she gets hit was reproduced from 25-year-old production design and recreated to make the scene work. Even better was the through-the-window shot of Deckard in the noodle shop. The original cut had horribly de-synched picture and audio, so the restoration team had Harrison Ford's *son* stand in to say the intended lines. The image of his mouth doing the lines was digitally patched over the original footage of his father speaking to repair the scene.

  20. Re:Riddle me this: by jo42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The movie stands up quite well without the narration. Horse poop. You've already seen the version with the voice over, so you know what is going on in the director's cut. If you watch the director's cut for the first time ever, you have absolutely no clue WTF is going on. Only after watching the original, do you know what was going on in the director's cut.

    IMO, the voice over gives the movie the right character. Someday soon, when the technology is there, we the fans will do our own version with Harrison's voice in a fan voice over cut.
  21. Re:And the opposing opinion... by MsGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There was one good line in that freaking voiceover. Just one. Here it is:

    Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish.

    There is another voiceover, however, and you will become acquainted with it in a whole movie's worth of deleted scenes. It's not bad.

    Here, let me link you to something on YouTube:
    Alternate version of Batty's death scene.

    I still am a partisan against voiceovers in Blade Runner. But that's one beautiful rejoinder from Deckard to Batty's classic soliloquy. And dig what Gaff says at the end.

    There are going to be some pretty spectacular fan-edits out there once this is out. It might wind up being that people can choose the edit of Blade Runner they prefer.

    I am awaiting my 5 disk set breathlessly.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.