 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 20, 2014 - 2:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
afn
(Member)
|
How exactly is it helping a "dumb audience" to understand the movie when Deckard says his wife called him "cold fish" or that a cop was the "niggers" type? This is pure atmosphere.
This clearly proves to me that the VO was indeed intended to produce a Chandleresque feel. And I totally agree with some posters here that it makes the Deckard character so much more likeable. Without the VO the film stays strangely "cold" and somehow "distant".
Oh, BTW: Only 5 years to go, folks, until it's really "LOS ANGELES, NOVEMBER 2019"!!!
Can you believe that?
But hey, what do you know: No replicants, no flying police cars. Kinda sad, isn't it?
And what's even more shocking: Only two months, and it's 2015. Remember? Self-drying jackets? Holographic movie marquees scaring passers-by? Hoverboards? (Oh well, they have actually been invented (well, sorta).) The "future" of BTTF II is HERE, folks. We're getting old...
http://www.october212015.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty certain the VO was written by a Columbo writer. It was the third times somebody had written VO lines for Blade Runner (Hampton Fancher and David Peoples also gave it a shot). Scott was the biggest champion of having a VO narration but he was never satisfied with the results.
About Ford not being told that he was a replicant: It's what he and Scott agreed upon during their first meeting. Scott told him was thinking about the idea to suggest that Deckard was a replicant but Ford said he didn't want that because he felt the audience needed someone to root for (ironically, a lot of viewers actually ended up rooting for Batty and Co anyway). There were more 'demands': Ford was also against the idea of doing a VO, he didn't want to wear a hat ,and he wanted his character to do more detective work. Scott granted Ford wishes and he signed the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 21, 2014 - 4:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
afn
(Member)
|
I'm pretty certain the VO was written by a Columbo writer. It was the third times somebody had written VO lines for Blade Runner (Hampton Fancher and David Peoples also gave it a shot). Scott was the biggest champion of having a VO narration but he was never satisfied with the results.
About Ford not being told that he was a replicant: It's what he and Scott agreed upon during their first meeting. Scott told him was thinking about the idea to suggest that Deckard was a replicant but Ford said he didn't want that because he felt the audience needed someone to root for (ironically, a lot of viewers actually ended up rooting for Batty and Co anyway). There were more 'demands': Ford was also against the idea of doing a VO, he didn't want to wear a hat ,and he wanted his character to do more detective work. Scott granted Ford wishes and he signed the contract.
This only proves my point again: Why should the "star" of a film be content with every story decision made by the filmmaker? After all, he's just one more part of the whole creative thing that is a "movie", even if it is a big part.
And I LOVE the "happy" ending - which is NO "happy ending" anyway! In his final VO Deckard says that nobody knows how much time there is left in your life so just go with it and enjoy it as long as you can. This is a most "human" ending, an upbeat ending but not a "happy ending" with smiling faces / hugs / kisses / wedding bells or something like that, including silly "happy" or "romantic comedy ending" music playing as score. Listen to Vangelis' end title, it's a catchy theme but in the end it stays quite ambiguous, neither "happy" nor "sad", and that's a big difference to a typical "happy ending".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's incongruous with all of the other cinematography in the film before it because it was footage cribbed from outtakes of the opening of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people hate the voice over because they found out it wasn't originally intended. Prior to finding that out, I doubt that anyone really hated it, because it very much seems of a piece with the film and the storytelling. I prefer it and feel that without it a good deal of the atmosphere goes out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people hate the voice over because they found out it wasn't originally intended. Prior to finding that out, I doubt that anyone really hated it, because it very much seems of a piece with the film and the storytelling. I prefer it and feel that without it a good deal of the atmosphere goes out the window.
I hated the voice over when I saw the film in the theater. It was cringe worthy every time that damn narration kicked in. I could sense from the audience a mild almost humorous groan, so others felt that way also. It's an artistic choice of course. There's no right or wrong. You either liked the approach or didn't.
Well, as you know, the truth is the film was not a hit - audiences didn't like it at all, in general - certainly the opening night crowd I saw it with pretty much wasn't having any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2014 - 5:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
afn
(Member)
|
Or "Indiana Jones"! The film was just way ahead of its time, and the combination of this dark fantasy theme, the dystopian future, the (then rather) strange and new-sounding "replicants" idea (who look and behave exactly like humans, making it even more difficult to make out any real difference to real people), combined with a super-stylish neo-noir setting, Rutger Hauer's character's philosophical / moral / religious undertones of the "father and son" angle with Tyrell and of course Vangelis' dreamlike and reverberating grand synth music - how could a "dumb" or "general" audience appreciate and, what is more, like and/or embrace BR in 1982? Their knowledge of human-looking artificial beings came straight from laughing about C3PO and being terrified by Ash's milk-spewing head from ALIEN, so what could you expect?
The only thing in the original version I could NEVER, NEVER get over with is the dove flying up into a blue daylight sky. Never understood that and it indeed sticks out like a rusty nail IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's incongruous with all of the other cinematography in the film before it because it was footage cribbed from outtakes of the opening of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.
Yes, that was an idea of producer Powell after their own footage (shot by a second unit) turned out to be unusable and there was no more time or money to do it all over again. I think it would've made more sense if the coda started with 'Off World 2019'. And I might prefer the alternate take where Rachael says: You know what, Deckard? I think we are made for each other.
Or is that one hint too many? 
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 23, 2014 - 7:07 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
Most people hate the voice over because they found out it wasn't originally intended. Prior to finding that out, I doubt that anyone really hated it, because it very much seems of a piece with the film and the storytelling. I prefer it and feel that without it a good deal of the atmosphere goes out the window.
I hated the voice over when I saw the film in the theater. It was cringe worthy every time that damn narration kicked in. I could sense from the audience a mild almost humorous groan, so others felt that way also. It's an artistic choice of course. There's no right or wrong. You either liked the approach or didn't.
Well, as you know, the truth is the film was not a hit - audiences didn't like it at all, in general - certainly the opening night crowd I saw it with pretty much wasn't having any of it.
I like the idea of the voice over very much, but overall the execution in the movie doesn't work as well as it should have . There are key moments ( shooting Zora, Batty's death ) where for me, the narration is good. Scott has never really been an emotional movie maker, and what Blade Runner needed was that infusion of emotion as Rachel and Batty discover their humanity , and Deckard finds his again. But the narration-free version doesn't give us this, at least in a form that pays off as the movie's climax.
As clumsy as most of the narration is, those last few lines "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." are perfect.
Either way, narration or no narration, the movie is still entertaining, fascinating, but still creaky and flawed. I love it but admit to a significant degree, its a misfire. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As clumsy as most of the narration is, those last few lines "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." are perfect.
Or it kills the moment and quite possibly the ambiguity of the act, or so the 'no narration' camp says.
I love it but admit to a significant degree, its a misfire.
It's really difficult to agee with this. Today (well, for a very long time now), Blade Runner is universally seen as one of the most important and best science fiction movies ever made. It's even in almost every best movies (no matter what genre) list ever compiled. A misfire, you say?
Does it have flaws? Absolutely. Heck, it's probably the root of the Blade Runner magic.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 23, 2014 - 9:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
As clumsy as most of the narration is, those last few lines "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." are perfect.
Or it kills the moment and quite possibly the ambiguity of the act, or so the 'no narration' camp says.
I love it but admit to a significant degree, its a misfire.
It's really difficult to agee with this. Today (well, for a very long time now), Blade Runner is universally seen as one of the most important and best science fiction movies ever made. It's even in almost every best movies (no matter what genre) list ever compiled. A misfire, you say?
Does it have flaws? Absolutely. Heck, it's probably the root of the Blade Runner magic.
Alex
Don't get me wrong, I love the movie. But it is full of creaky moments, awkward line deliveries and clumsy storytelling. My view is that it IS a misfire in that there is no doubt, no argument that the movie was troubled during production and in post, and the endless tinkering hasn't made it into a masterpiece. Brilliant visuals and a brave, unusual take on studio science fiction at the time, but no matter how influential is has been ( and it has been tremendously so ), and even though it does deserve special attention and the existing fanbase, no matter what version you watch, you're watching a movie that doesn't quite come together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did Philip K. Dick write the original "Do Androids..." story with the Marlowesque Detective narration?
The noir influences in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are more apparent in the plot than they are in the prose. The novel is written in the third-person. Someone else might be able to find a connection, but I can't recall any passages that resemble Chandler's writing. It's very similar to the style of Philip K. Dick, though! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hated the voice over when I saw the film in the theater. It was cringe worthy every time that damn narration kicked in. I could sense from the audience a mild almost humorous groan, so others felt that way also. It's an artistic choice of course. There's no right or wrong. You either liked the approach or didn't.
I agree with everything you say here with the possible exception of "artistic choice" which by all accounts was a "suits" imposed choice (you know the $$ people) which the "artists" clearly preferred not to have anything to do with. I do not disagree with those who say the narration gives a noir feel to the proceedings but that it is so badly performed and written, it's dumbed down plot wise adding nothing, only reinforces the fact that Deckard doesn't really like what he's doing (so then why is he doing it? "no choice pal" and "you're little people" is lazy writing and not enough of a reason), and detracts from the movie's strength which is its unique environmental feel and atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's dumbed down plot wise adding nothing, only reinforces the fact that Deckard doesn't really like what he's doing (so then why is he doing it? "no choice pal" and "you're little people" is lazy writing and not enough of a reason), and detracts from the movie's strength which is its unique environmental feel and atmosphere.
Actually, a lot of people wonder what Bryant meant by "little people". Keeping things vague or obscure is often more intriguing than stating explanations and reasons. This lack of 'finality' is something I value very much and it's something you can also see it in Scott's beautiful debut film The Duellists. You call it lazy, I call it smart and enticing. Prior to the voiceover, everything in the movie was written and designed in such a way that could be either this or that. The result is that we all complete the movie in our own way. This is only possible because it allows for this interaction to take place. It's one of the many strengths of Blade Runner besides the atmosphere.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
