Blade Runner: Final Cut

chad
writes, Blade Runner is turning into the
white album of movies. According to Scif
Fi Wire
, there will be a remastered DVD release of
the director’s cut, followed by a new theatrical
release, followed by a comprehensive DVD release with
all four versions of the movie. It’ll be
interesting to see if the final cut has any
substantial differences from the director’s cut.

Scott says his goal with this cut is to make it more
obvious that Deckerd is a replicant. Personally, I
like the ambiguity, especially since the star and
screenwriter consider the character to be human.

15 replies on “Blade Runner: Final Cut”

  1. vanyel says:

    Probably needs it
    I hate to say it, but the idea never even occurred to me until I read some of the speculation many years after the movie came out. Sometimes I need a sledgehammer too ;-)

    • Timeshredder says:

      I liked the ambiguity, too….
      But it’s Scott’s move, and they’re making the others available.

      Just as long as there isn’t a version where Zhora shoots first.

      • Jethro says:

        Re: I liked the ambiguity, too….

        Just as long as there isn’t a version where Zhora shoots first.

        Oh fabulous, give him ideas!

      • TechnoGirl says:

        Re: I liked the ambiguity, too….

        Just as long as there isn’t a version where Zhora shoots first.

        LOL !
        Actually I think they’re trying to do some more product placement in this version. You know, like where Decker is eating at that noodle stand they’ll have a big steaming mug of "Maxwell House"® coffee beside him.

  2. Jethro says:

    Hmm
    I watched Blade Runner when I was very young. I didn’t really get it, I guess. I’ve been meaning to watch it again for ages, but then there’s all these different versions and I don’t know which one I should watch!

    I did read the book it’s very very very VERY loosely based on though (:

    • vanyel says:

      Re: Hmm

      there’s all these different versions and I don’t know which one I should watch!

      Watch the current director’s cut, it doesn’t have the cheesy "happy" ending they tacked onto the release version, won’t have whatever tinkering they’re going to do with it to mess it up…

  3. J_W_W says:

    This phone conversation must have taken place
    George Lucas: Hello.
    Ridley Scott: George, hi, Ridley Scott here. I need you advice on how to release Bladerunner on DVD…..

  4. Amanda Hugandkiss says:

    Deckard a replicant?
    Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

    • chad says:

      Re: Deckard a replicant?

      Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

      Yeah, it was announced some time back, by Ridley Scott, that he intended for Deckard to be a replicant.

    • chad says:

      Re: Deckard a replicant?

      Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

      It also puts a few things into perspective. For instance, towards the beginning, when Deckard is talking with his police boss, they have a count of replicants. But if you add them all up, the count is one short. Also, the boss’ comment about "if you’re not with us, then you’re the enemy" (paraphrased) makes more sense now.

      • Timeshredder says:

        Re: Deckard a replicant?

        Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

        This also explains the origami unicorn. Gaff knew what his dream was, the same way he knew Rachael’s memories.

    • hck says:

      Re: Deckard a replicant?

      Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

      I have never gone for Deckard as a replicant. It’s the eyes. Every bot has those odd reflections from the eyes. The only time we see that in Deckard is when he says the line "I won’t come after you, but somebody would." His eyes only kinda get that reflection. That to me was saying Humans can be as robotic as the replacants.

      • J_W_W says:

        Re: Deckard a replicant?

        Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

        I have never gone for Deckard as a replicant. It’s the eyes. Every bot has those odd reflections from the eyes. The only time we see that in Deckard is when he says the line "I won’t come after you, but somebody would." His eyes only kinda get that reflection. That to me was saying Humans can be as robotic as the replacants.

        The other thing that bugs me about this is that Deckard really gets his ass kicked by the replicants in the movie. Why can’t he hold his own if he too is a replicant?

        • Amanda Hugandkiss says:

          Re: Deckard a replicant?

          Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

          I have never gone for Deckard as a replicant. It’s the eyes. Every bot has those odd reflections from the eyes. The only time we see that in Deckard is when he says the line "I won’t come after you, but somebody would." His eyes only kinda get that reflection. That to me was saying Humans can be as robotic as the replacants.

          The other thing that bugs me about this is that Deckard really gets his ass kicked by the replicants in the movie. Why can’t he hold his own if he too is a replicant?

          Well, I’m guessing that if we accept that he’s a replicant, we can surmise that he’s been programmed to tolerate less than the combat replicants he’s hunting down, though putting him in that line of job with reduced skills doesn’t make much sense.

          Still, I prefer to think of him as a human. There’s something about the way he acts — he doesn’t feel like a robot. Perhaps that was the point, but I don’t really like it. Or maybe it’s just because he’s Harrison Ford. :D (Indy a replicant? That makes more sense than this…).

          • hck says:

            Re: Deckard a replicant?

            Sheesh, I’ve seen this movie several times over, but I never figured Deckard for a bot. Hmf.

            I have never gone for Deckard as a replicant. It’s the eyes. Every bot has those odd reflections from the eyes. The only time we see that in Deckard is when he says the line "I won’t come after you, but somebody would." His eyes only kinda get that reflection. That to me was saying Humans can be as robotic as the replacants.

            The other thing that bugs me about this is that Deckard really gets his ass kicked by the replicants in the movie. Why can’t he hold his own if he too is a replicant?

            Well, I’m guessing that if we accept that he’s a replicant, we can surmise that he’s been programmed to tolerate less than the combat replicants he’s hunting down, though putting him in that line of job with reduced skills doesn’t make much sense.

            Still, I prefer to think of him as a human. There’s something about the way he acts — he doesn’t feel like a robot. Perhaps that was the point, but I don’t really like it. Or maybe it’s just because he’s Harrison Ford. :D (Indy a replicant? That makes more sense than this…).

            In the book he’s human, and I thought the point of the movie was that the replicants and humans were not that different. It was PKD’s big question "How do you define human?" We see humans be pointless killers and replicants being deeply emotional. Also I loved the original voice over. It gave the whole movie a "film noir / Mike Hammer" feel. I loved it.
            It might have been a lack of insight by the producers, who thought it would be too far out for the public, but, it was the hard work plus a little serendipity, that made the magic happen.

Comments are closed.