Sorry to be a karma-whore, but I wanted to add a quote also listed in the FAQ about the issue from Ridley 'why yes, i am full of it' Scott:
"The Blade Cuts", Starburst (UK) no. 51, November 1982.
Scott:...did you see the version [of the script] with the unicorn?
McKenzie: No...
S: I think the idea of the unicorn was a terrific idea...
M: The obvious inference is that Deckard is a replicant himself.
S: Sure. To me it's entirely logical, particularly when you are doing a
film noire, you may as well go right through with that theme, and the
central character could in fact be what he is chasing...
M: Did you actually shoot the sequence in the glade with the unicorn?
S: Absolutely. It was cut into the picture, and I think it worked
wonderfully. Deckard was sitting, playing the piano rather badly
because he was drunk, and there's a moment where he gets absorbed
and goes off a little at a tangent and we went into the shot of the
unicorn plunging out of the forest. It's not subliminal, but it's a
brief shot. Cut back to Deckard and there's absolutely no reaction
to that, and he just carries on with the scene. That's where the
whole idea of the character of Gaff with his origami figures -- the
chicken and the little stick-figure man, so the origami figure of the
unicorn tells you that Gaff has been there. One of the layers of the
film has been talking about private thoughts and memories, so how
would Gaff have known that a private thought of Deckard was of a
unicorn? That's why Deckard shook his head like that [referring to
Deckard nodding his head after picking up the paper unicorn]."
Scott goes on to talk about how he decided to make the photograph of the little girl with her mother come alive for a second, then later in the interview we have:
M: Are you disappointed that the references to Deckard being a replicant
are no longer there?
S: The innuendo is still there. The French get it immediately! I
think it's interesting that he could be.
Scott intended the unicorn scene to be in the 1982 theatrical release, but the producers vetoed the idea as "too arty".
US Denver/Dallas Sneak Preview [aka the Workprint] (113 minutes): * no voiceover except at the end (and it was different from the release) * no happy ending
US San Diego Sneak Preview (115 minutes): * happy ending inserted
Euro Theatrical Release/Criterion LD/VHS (117 minutes): * more violence
The First Director's Cut [aka BRDC] (117 minutes): * no voiceover * more violence * no happy ending
This doesn't include at least 7 "known" LD versions and 2 official DVDs.
Are they earth-shatteringly different? In most cases, no, it's the same movie, right? The violence is a pretty minor omission from the US release. However, with the addition and the removal of both voiceovers and happy endings, these 'cuts' can seriously change the entire tone of the film.
You're not the only one that feels this way. Harrison Ford thought so too. As a long time reader and poster to alt.cult-movies (before the bladerunner group was incepted) Murray Chapman was *the* guru, and collected some great info in his FAQ. Google Groups scares me sometimes...here's the relevant info from my original post in Jan 1997:
Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have *stated* that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. In _Details_ magazine Oct 92 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
Actually, this is called the "Blade Runner Curse".
All the companies shown in the film didn't go bankrupt completely, but many of them had serious financial difficulties coincidentally appearing after the film release.
More specificially:
In 1982 Bell lost its monopoly.
In 1982 Atari had 70% of the home console market.
Pan-Am filed for bankruptcy in 1991, and Cusinart in July 1999.
Schlitz beer floundered and was later sold to Stroh's, then to Pabst.
Kinney Shoes was axed in 1997.
Coca-Cola lost millions when they released their "new formula".
TDK, Budweiser, RCA & Bulova also suffered losses after the release in 1982.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to be a karma-whore, but I wanted to add a quote also listed in the FAQ about the issue from Ridley 'why yes, i am full of it' Scott:
...did you see the version [of the script] with the unicorn?
"The Blade Cuts", Starburst (UK) no. 51, November 1982.
Scott:
McKenzie: No...
S: I think the idea of the unicorn was a terrific idea...
M: The obvious inference is that Deckard is a replicant himself.
S: Sure. To me it's entirely logical, particularly when you are doing a
film noire, you may as well go right through with that theme, and the
central character could in fact be what he is chasing...
M: Did you actually shoot the sequence in the glade with the unicorn?
S: Absolutely. It was cut into the picture, and I think it worked
wonderfully. Deckard was sitting, playing the piano rather badly
because he was drunk, and there's a moment where he gets absorbed
and goes off a little at a tangent and we went into the shot of the
unicorn plunging out of the forest. It's not subliminal, but it's a
brief shot. Cut back to Deckard and there's absolutely no reaction
to that, and he just carries on with the scene. That's where the
whole idea of the character of Gaff with his origami figures -- the
chicken and the little stick-figure man, so the origami figure of the
unicorn tells you that Gaff has been there. One of the layers of the
film has been talking about private thoughts and memories, so how
would Gaff have known that a private thought of Deckard was of a
unicorn? That's why Deckard shook his head like that [referring to
Deckard nodding his head after picking up the paper unicorn]."
Scott goes on to talk about how he decided to make the photograph of the
little girl with her mother come alive for a second, then later in the
interview we have:
M: Are you disappointed that the references to Deckard being a replicant
are no longer there?
S: The innuendo is still there. The French get it immediately! I
think it's interesting that he could be.
Scott intended the unicorn scene to be in the 1982 theatrical release, but
the producers vetoed the idea as "too arty".
There are five significant releases of the film:
US Denver/Dallas Sneak Preview [aka the Workprint] (113 minutes):
* no voiceover except at the end (and it was different from the release)
* no happy ending
US San Diego Sneak Preview (115 minutes):
* happy ending inserted
US Theatrical Release (115 minutes):
* voiceover appears
* happy ending stays
Euro Theatrical Release/Criterion LD/VHS (117 minutes):
* more violence
The First Director's Cut [aka BRDC] (117 minutes):
* no voiceover
* more violence
* no happy ending
This doesn't include at least 7 "known" LD versions and 2 official DVDs.
Are they earth-shatteringly different? In most cases, no, it's the same movie, right? The violence is a pretty minor omission from the US release. However, with the addition and the removal of both voiceovers and happy endings, these 'cuts' can seriously change the entire tone of the film.
You're not the only one that feels this way. Harrison Ford thought so too. As a long time reader and poster to alt.cult-movies (before the bladerunner group was incepted) Murray Chapman was *the* guru, and collected some great info in his FAQ. Google Groups scares me sometimes...here's the relevant info from my original post in Jan 1997:
Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have *stated* that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. In _Details_ magazine Oct 92 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
Actually, this is called the "Blade Runner Curse".
All the companies shown in the film didn't go bankrupt completely, but many of them had serious financial difficulties coincidentally appearing after the film release.
More specificially:
In 1982 Bell lost its monopoly.
In 1982 Atari had 70% of the home console market.
Pan-Am filed for bankruptcy in 1991, and Cusinart in July 1999.
Schlitz beer floundered and was later sold to Stroh's, then to Pabst.
Kinney Shoes was axed in 1997.
Coca-Cola lost millions when they released their "new formula".
TDK, Budweiser, RCA & Bulova also suffered losses after the release in 1982.