Anyone else think that the original version with the narration and with out the Unicorn is the best version?

hmmmmmmmmmm no

the remastered version is stunning tho

Nope. The narration is dumb.

I much preferred the directors cut. It was actually the first version I saw. When I saw the original, I hated it. Kind of thought the narration was a bit patronising and unnecessary.

The unicorn is very important, the narrative isn’t. Simples.

😯 what is wrong with you people 😆

The thing about the directors cut is that it makes it so obvious Deckard is a replicant.

What is significant about the unicorn? (hangs head in shame).

Implanted memory and that Gaff knows this hence origami Unicorn as Deckard and Rachel run away, I think.

Only seen the directors cut once and wasn’t paying full attention.
Hadn’t even suspected that Deckard was a replicant.
Another one to re-watch.

I like the directors cut best, but I’ve enjoyed all versions of the film I’ve seen.

I kind of agree with the OP. Its partly a detective story and the narration harks back to the old Bogart B&W detective movies like the Maltese Falcon. Also as far as I can remember in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? it was never revealed that Deckard was a replicant. I’d rather have been left wondering.

rob2 – Gaff knew the dreams Deckard had been implanted with ormore arty explination

Harrison Ford – swears he was never told ‘he was a replicant ‘ -so felt a bit put out he didn’t get to act it(?)

Stuey – that is very interesting. Enjoyed reading that

Harrison Ford – swears he was never told ‘he was a replicant ‘ -so felt a bit put out he didn’t get to act it(?)

Which is a masterstroke, since Deckard in the film has no idea. Also, all the replicants have the same red-eyed flash at various points in the film, if you watch carefully.

I like the fact that at the end, Roy Batty is more or less human.

The original ending was incredibly ropey, and no wonder. So nah, director’s cut for me.

The narration was put in after initial screenings with test audiences showed that people were confused by the story and couldn’t follow what was going on. The narration was supposed to solve that which it does but I prefer it without. That said I didn’t see the version without it before the one with it so I can’t say if my prefernce for the one without is because I have the benefit of the explanation.

sobriety – Member
I like the fact that at the end, Roy Batty is more or less human.

That’s the beauty of the film for me – in the end it’s not really about who is or isn’t a replicant, it’s a meditation on what it means to be human.

It’s also a great detective film noir and a stunning piece of (both artistic and technical) film making – I don’t know many other 80s sci-fi films that have aged as well – it still looks like the future to me.

My only niggle is that compared to the others, Deckard is such a piss-poor replicant.

slainte 😆 rob

Contrary to popular belief Ridley Scott wanted a voice over, but he didn’t like how it was executed – he referred to it as ‘Irving the Explainer’. RS didn’t want the storyline to be dependent on the narration – he wanted the voice over to reflect the cynical tones in the Humphrey Bogart movies, which was a time honoured device for film noir.

It was thought in the end that the narration made it more accessible to a general audience.

Philip K Dick didn’t want it.

It was RS’s idea to include the live unicorn in the DC. The bit when Deckard picks up the foil sculpture, with Gaffs words in the background ‘It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does? Deckard nods, acknowledging that he realises Gaff let her live – yet when the live dream Unicorn is included in the DC it takes on a different complexion – the nod that he’s a Replicant – superb.

Simply the best film ever made.

That’s the beauty of the film for me – in the end it’s not really about who is or isn’t a replicant, it’s a meditation on what it means to be human.

– and that’s probably the best summation you will get of the film.

I think my understanding of Blade Runner may have been ruined by errr…where’s that dope thread gone???

I don’t like any cuts of the film
😐

deluded – “Simply the best film ever made.” – now you’ve said that, I’ve realised I own four(?) versions – and seen it more times than any other movie ( though Totoro comes close second 😉 – according to my 4 yr old.

Totoro was originally shown as a double bill with grave of the fireflies second, as if it wasn’t harrowing enough to watch already.

Always the final directors cut, still love the image of the police station with all the rubbish on top of the offices, it’s just detail geeky stuff, but I love it

Anyone else think that the original version with the narration and with out the Unicorn is the best version?

I do as well, the fact of the Unicorn dream and all that is too subtle for me to get that it means he was a replicant.

As i say every time we have this debate [ mates] if he is a replicant why does he spend the entire film getting battered by them all?

FWIW I am not always sure the directors cut is always best, it is not for Cinema Paradiso either IMHO

Totoro is class. My kids love anastasia too

+1 for one of the best films ever made. My older brother chose it as part of his film degree to do a discertation on. More versions and books than I care to count.

For me Rutger Hauer steals the show.

How long before we see an Earth like that? Just look at the bloody rain we’ve had this year!

If you’re a fan, the US Blu Ray box-set is worth picking up. Contains 5 cuts of the movie. Final Cut, US Theatrical Cut, International Theatrical Cut, Director’s Cut and the work-print. Also the excellent Dangerous Days documentary. It’s region free so plays on UK players.

How long before we see an Earth like that?

it has aged very well except for when he gets out the flying car for the phone call

Directors cut for me. Not because it suggests more that Deckard is a replicant but because it’s runs together better. Deckard makes a piss poor replicant *because* he doesn’t know. He thinks he’s human so he acts human. This explains why they keep beating him up easily.

However, what nothing in the film or book explains unless I’ve missed it is why the hell is he a replicant?

However, what nothing in the film or book explains unless I’ve missed it is why the hell is he a replicant?

I thought it was because a standard human wouldn’t be able to take the beating/wasn’t expendable enough?

Isn’t this a non question?

People see the directors cut after the narrated original and knowing Ridley Scott’s explanation. So the real question is – would the directors cut be a decent stand alone film? And, by what the original test screen audiences thought, no it wouldn’t.

So is it better or is it just a part of the journey.

Personally, I like both versions. The narration adds texture to some scenes.

ummm!!!Ridley Scott has stated that Deckard is not a replicant.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w[/video]

Cubed – when ? is he just spinning ?

If I was Scott I’d be saying yes then no each time I was asked that question. Confusion generates a lot of conversation.

I’ve only see the directors cut and don’t really get what all the fuss is about. Maybe I should watch the original, I might appreciate it all a bit more.

The film is about what it means to be human. After all this time, I have still not found a movie I love more than this one. It’s perfect sci-fi.

This thread proves that we are all just total nerds.

flamejob – Member
This thread proves that we are all just total nerds.

Yep. But then it is the best movie ever made. I never get tired of watching it. And always see something new.

Is Deckard a replicant ?

For me thats one of lifes eternal cinematic questions …….

as far as I know there is no definitive answer to this from his creator Phillip Dicks so Ridley Scott hints that he may be ….

and will now have to watch it again to see if I can finally decide … although I know I won’t 🙁