Just recently watched the Making of Documentary called DANGEROUS DAYS all about BLADE RUNNER.
Fascinating stuff. So it brought up the question. Do you prefer versions with no Voice Over Narration by Harrison Ford or with? And what are your thoughts of the film in general and Vangelis' score?
And did the Unicorn really mean something in the story or was Scott just using BLADE RUNNER money to shoot LEGEND Unicorn tests?
With narration of course, since the whole movie is basically the classic Chandleresque "hardboiled detective" story of the 40s, which is evident in almost every scene and setting (costumes / music etc., or do you think "One more kiss dear" is coincidence?)
Ford's narration sets the scene perfectly and furthermore gives "atmospheric information" which otherwise would simply not be there ("He was the type of cop who used to call black people niggers", for example).
With narration of course, since the whole movie is basically the classic Chandleresque "hardboiled detective" story of the 40s, which is evident in almost every scene and setting (costumes / music etc., or do you think "One more kiss dear" is coincidence?)
Ford's narration sets the scene perfectly and furthermore gives "atmospheric information" which otherwise would simply not be there ("He was the type of cop who used to to call black people niggers", for example).
I finally found someone that agrees with me on this. The world is full of Blade Runner narration haters, but I think it makes the movie much better and more atmospheric all around. Hands down - the better version of the picture.
In 2006 Ford reflected on the production of the film saying: "What I remember more than anything else when I see Blade Runner is not the 50 nights of shooting in the rain, but the voiceover ... I was still obliged to work for these clowns that came in writing one bad voiceover after another." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner
I have seen the theatrical "voiveover" version once some 18-20 years ago, and the final cut 2 times during the last 6-7 years. Although I appreciate and I'm very impressed by the aesthetics of this film, the story and characters haven't touched me still.. But i still consider it a masterpiece. maybe I should watch again the theatrical cut. It doesn't look too bad to me..
I never liked that style of narration regardless if it was from a 40's film or an 80's scifi film. I find it tedious and annoying. The voice over comes across as uninvolved, cold and analytical. Personally I think it's a lazy storytelling gimmick.
The score was certainly fresh and unique and like Jerry Goldsmith's STTMP carry's the film a lot more than intended.
Not a fan of the voice-over. Ford's reading sounds clunky and borderline sarcastic. You could try to interpret it as his character being exhausted by his line of work, but as Konstantinos mentioned, really it's because Ford didn't want to do the voice-overs and thought they were completely pointless for the film (which they are), and that attitude is exactly what comes out in his narration. They also weren't approved of or directed by Ridley Scott. And the intrusion of the voice-over after Hauer's "Tears in Rain" speech is particularly egregious. Frank Darabont sums up my thoughts on it perfectly here:
I suppose though I can still find a certain kind of pulp noir value in the theatrical version's voice-overs (on the occasions I watch that version as an alternate Blade Runner experience), but what I really can't stand about the theatrical cut is the bright, sunshiney drive off into the green paradise with leftover footage from Kubrick's The Shining. It completely takes away from the atmosphere of the film. It completely takes away from the perfect ending of the elevator doors closing. It completely takes away from the wholeness and uniqueness of Blade Runner as a work of art.
Ridley Scott's 2007 Final Cut is the definitive version of Blade Runner for me. I don't think the little bits of violence here and there were absolutely necessary to reinsert and I would have preferred if Hauer's distorted "father/f***er" line had remained ambiguous. Otherwise, I find this cut perfect. It's very similar to the "Director's Cut" of the early '90s, but with all the minor technical imperfections cleaned up.
Oh, and on the unicorn footage, yeah, Scott clearly intended it for Blade Runner from the beginning. The final scene with Gaff's origami makes no sense otherwise. Without the unicorn dream, what reason would he possibly have for leaving Deckard a unicorn origami? Just for kicks? Gaff's origami comment on Deckard's emotional state throughout the film (the chicken, the man with an erection) and the final unicorn he leaves is to let Deckard know that he knows what he dreams and therefore also knows he is a replicant, but that he will let him live out his few remaining days anyway. The final scene simply can't be explained without the unicorn dream.
The voiceover was something ordered by the studio, wasn't it? Ford said he hated recording it (I think there were four seperate ADR takes) and they used the last one, which is very tired sounding.
The Final Cut doesn't add much to the series and truth be told I find the sound mix deeply irritating. I'll stick to the DC.
And I think someone dug up dated receipts proving the unicorn footage was shot for Blade Runner and not leftover from Legend? It's been a while since I read the book about thr making of BR (the author is a horses's ass) but I remember it put to rest a lot of things about the picture.
Didn't Harrison Ford claim to be in the dark about the unicorn thing as well? It seems like Scott would have told his lead actor what the story was, especially once principal photography was under way (or even finished).
And does any existing draft of the script make this unicorn connection? I'm not saying one doesn't; I'm just asking because I've never heard of one being referred to or published. You'd think one would have been by now, what with all the controversy.
Harrison Ford says he was always told that Deckard is human.
Ridley Scott says Deckard was always a replicant.
There's no reason to believe they aren't both telling the truth. I believe Scott intentionally led Ford to believe his character was human so that he would play Deckard like a human and not like the other replicants in the film, which all had their own peculiar mannerisms, Rachel included. Wouldn't be the first or last time a director has withheld information from or somehow manipulated their star for the sake of the performance.
Harrison Ford says he was always told that Deckard is human.
Ridley Scott says Deckard was always a replicant.
There's no reason to believe they aren't both telling the truth. I believe Scott intentionally led Ford to believe his character was human so that he would play Deckard like a human and not like the other replicants in the film, which all had their own peculiar mannerisms, Rachel included. Wouldn't be the first or last time a director has withheld information from or somehow manipulated their star for the sake of the performance.
Good and interesting points. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
Harrison Ford says he was always told that Deckard is human.
Ridley Scott says Deckard was always a replicant.
There's no reason to believe they aren't both telling the truth. I believe Scott intentionally led Ford to believe his character was human so that he would play Deckard like a human and not like the other replicants in the film, which all had their own peculiar mannerisms, Rachel included. Wouldn't be the first or last time a director has withheld information from or somehow manipulated their star for the sake of the performance.
Didn't replicants have superhuman strength and tired less easily? Kinda like Cylon's. Everything about Deckard said human.
Didn't replicants have superhuman strength and tired less easily? Kinda like Cylon's. Everything about Deckard said human.
Well, he manages to figjt Batty until the end... and he has a house full of photographs, which we are told are a way for replicants to tie with a past they don't actually have... I always thought he was one.
Rachel didn't have superhuman strength either. That's what was becoming tricky about the Voight-Kampf test: the replicants were becoming virtually indistinguishable from people. More human than human. Everything about Deckard does say human, but just that much more says replicant.
92's director's cut. The theatrical cut is okay but the voiceover sucks, the hardboiled feel would work were it not written as if it was explaining everything to a second-grade class. The removal of the narration allows the story to breathe.
