Murray- Blade Runner

The ending of Blade Runner was different by request of the producers. “Warner Brother’s was horrified to find that audiences had an overwhelming negative reaction to the sci-fi epic.” (Pfeiffer 123).  By doing so the directors changed the message of the film.  It became less of a story based in the struggle of what our current life will lead to and became a happily ever after tale.  Part of the entire plot was that this tale took place in a post-apocalyptic world.  Everything has died except for a few human who are slowly degrading away because of the radioactive dust.  By having Rick and Rachel drive off into the green wilderness greatly undermines this.  The world is no longer dead and reality is not inescapable.  In fact that is exactly what they are doing.  They are escaping the terrible reality and entering into a new life.  The tone is altered greatly.  There is hope in the ending the producers chose.  The tone of the film is lightened.  The green growth in comparison leaves a positive taste in the viewer’s mouth.  The lighting played a great deal into leaving this taste.  It is significantly brighter.  The rest of the film is extremely low key.  Even the few times an area is lit with a lower key of natural lighting.  The majority of the film is almost completely shot with borderline complete darkness.  The ending suddenly becomes a lighter natural lighting.  It is jarring in comparison to the rest of the film.  For the first time in the film the characters have light in their lives.  Light is the symbol of hope.  Therefore, for the first time the characters are engulfed by hope.  It surrounds them and because of the lighting in the hover car is also much brighter.  This makes it so that the light is literately infiltrating the remnants of the old dark life and filling it with light.  Lastly, effect the producer’s ending had an effect on the characters as well.  Rick does not have the sense desolation or the false sense of hope given to him by the electric toad.  Instead, again Rick is bestilled with hope.  

Sanderson - Blade Runner

           The decision to use the voice over for Blade Runner was something that I think most involved with the movie could agree that it didn’t go the way they wanted it to. In my opinion the creators thought they needed the voice over to help the audience follow the movie better and to also give us insight of what Fords character what thinking throughout the movie. It takes away from the movie in a lot of areas and also dumbs down the movie. The story and writing should have been good enough for the audience to follow the story line without Ford just telling the story.

          

          Despite his disapproval, Ford was contractually obligated to record the voiceover, (Pfeiffer, 124). It seems that even in Ford’s voice you can hear his dissatisfaction with the narration. He seems very monotonous and literally just seems to be reading lines. Ford’s unhappiness with the narrative most likely comes from the fact that he believes the acting from the film was enough to tell the story.

            If they had to insert the narrative it may have been helpful if it actually added to the story. I found it to be very corny most of the time and it really took away from the movie. The ending narrative was the worst part of it in my opinion. Whenever Deckard (Harrison Ford) is voicing his feelings at the end about Rachael being able to live forever is something that should have been incorporated into dialogue instead of just a voice telling us.

            Adding these unnecessary voice-overs makes the audience feel as though the creators didn’t think they were smart enough to figure the film out without literally being told what to think. Many times mystery and a bit of confusion in films can add to the film. The mystery keeps us thinking about the film after it has ended, instead the audience is just flat out told what to think and the movie ends.

            It’s unfortunate that they went back and added the voice over. It adds nothing and like most cases things are better the first time. When I watched the film without the voice over I didn’t feel like I was missing anything. Maybe it is Ford’s tone but if there has to be a voice over it maybe should have just been some unknown voice speaking. I feel as though an outside voice telling us the story might have added something instead of just completely taking away from the film, which is what Ford’s voice over does.

Hall: Blade Runner

Ridley Scott originally intended the film to be in the style of film noir, but he rejected the use of the classic detective voice over (a trademark of the genre). In an American television interview he stated that voice overs sometimes worked but that they didn't work in Blade Runner (Chapman). Despite Scott's active objections to voice overs, the studio insisted that they be added when Blade Runner recieved poor reception at sneak previews. The studio executives thought that the film was too confusing for the American people. They wanted the audience to simultaneously find Ford's character more relatable and the plot easier to follow. This desire for simplification of the film detracted from Scott's real motivations, "confusion was exactly what he hoped to create" (Pfeiffer 124). When a film ends up going against the director's desired intent, I think this automatically indicates that elements of the film will get lost to the wayside. 
I will admit that the voice over does something of its job in terms of telling the reader what is going on, but it is extremely repetitive at times. This repetitive quality of the voice over, sometimes detracts from the thematic message, a major example of this would be Roy Baty's death scene. After Roy's final monologue about the transience of time and memories, Rick Deckard's voice is heard proclaiming his relatibility to Roy's fear of death etc. This completely detracted from the feeling behind Roy's death and failed to allow the audience to come to their own conclusions regarding the affinity or lack there of when it came to the Blade Runner's androids. 

                             

This is why I don't think the voice over was effective in helping to convey the thematic messages of the film or the book. Both mediums seem to be seeking a response cultivated from careful thought. They don't want to simply hand over answers about the worlds they have created, they want the audience to think about the questions they pose and get confused, realize that answers (if even obtainable) are not easy to come by. The first time I ever saw this film, it was actually the director's cut. Watching the 1982 version, was considerably more boring and less evocative than the first time I viewed it. The confusion in the director's version of Blade Runner allows the film to be a more faithful translation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. At some points during the original film, it is even harder to discern the difference between androids and humans to the point where (like in the novel) it is difficult to know whether Deckard himself is an android or a human. 

When researching opinons regarding the voice over track of the 1982 version of Blade Runner it becomes quickly evident that almost no one involved in the film liked the new product. "Like" is a rather diplomatic word when describing what seems to be the mutual hatred of Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, and even the film's producers. Despite his objections, Ford was contractually obligated to record the voice over (Pfiffer 124). Harrison Ford's reading, however, was so uninspired and unenthusiastic, many team members continue to believe to this day that Ford, "consciously or not, did an uninspired reading of it in the hopes it wouldn't be used" (Chapman). I like to believe that Harrison's dull monotone was completely on purpose. 

Oh and the happy ending was complete bullcrap too. It is true that audience members are more likely to respond to a film that results in a happy ending, but when this sacrifices the films intentions and artistry, it is complete baloney. 

Works Cited

Chapman, Murry. "BLADE RUNNER Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)."BLADE RUNNER 

             Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). FAQS, 1992-1995. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.

Pfeiffer, Lee, and Michael Lewis. The Films of Harrison Ford. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Pub. Group, 

             1996. Print.

Hoo: Bladerunner: Let the Voice be Over

            The voiceover track that supplemented Ridley Scott’s 1982 film, Bladerunner, was a very interesting addition to the film as a whole. And by interesting, I definitely do not mean good. The decision to add the voiceover track was made by the producers at Tandem Productions Inc. The reason for this change was the negative audience reaction to the test screenings. “Clearly, the public was expecting another ‘feel good’ space movie with Harrison Ford cracking jokes in between blasting aliens with a ray gun. What they got was an antiseptic, downbeat detective story that apparently would not play in New York or Los Angeles, let alone those all important drive-ins in the Midwest” (Pfeiffer 124). It is understandable that the producers wanted to make as much money as possible, but it came at the cost of the art and visions of Ridley Scott as well as Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford was not particularly pleased with the producers’ decision to make him narrate the voiceovers. Much to Ford’s chagrin, he was contractually obligated to do the narration. Ford went on to state, "When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests" (Ford).

            However, it was the folly of the masses that caused the voiceover to be put in place. Perhaps the average American movie viewer is not clever enough to pick up on the subtleties provided in the film. Perhaps the film would have done even worse at the box-office if the narration were not added in post-production. Regardless, the tweaks made by the producers clearly had a negative effect on the film as a piece of art. The incredibly cheesy, poorly written narration does no good to the film. Ford’s attitude towards the narration is made evident in his almost sarcastic monotone. “Confidants of Ford argue that the actor intentionally made a mockery of the narration in the hopes that the studio would find it unusable” (Pfeiffer 124). An even more interesting and hilarious tidbit is that a document recently surfaced that revealed that the producers themselves did not even care for the voiceover:

My attitude towards the voiceover is as follows: if one is not smart enough to pick up on what is going on in the film sans the narration, then, he or she does not deserve to have the thematic messages simply handed to them. I did not find that the narration even helped convey the thematic messages of the film. The voiceover simply stated the obvious with the use of very cheesy diction. The narration at the end of the film sounded like it was read from a fortune cookie. I find that the degradation of a film for the sake of making money can never be justified.                    

Lam: Blade Runner and the Voiceover

Blade Runner (1982) and the Role of the Voiceover

                In Blade Runner (1982), I feel that the voice over played almost no purpose. However, the producer severely underestimated the audience and almost insults the audience by essentially telling them that they need a narrator to tell them the story or else they would never understand the film. The director, actor Harrison Ford, and original creator expressed that they did not want a voice over (Pfeiffer 120). Therefore, Harrison Ford narrated the part poorly in an attempt to sway the producer from using the narrative. However, the producer intended the purpose of the voiceover to inform the audience on background information that supposedly could not be attained via the context of the film.

                Viewers do learn a few facts in the beginning of the film, but one can argue that these facts are almost erroneous and not exactly needed. One scene in particular where a voiceover was employed was during a panning of the settings of the city. Harrison Ford's character narrated during this pan and enlightened the audience about the language that was being spoken. He explained that the language was the language of the little people and was a mish-mash of Spanish, French, Japanese, and several other languages. One could argue that this fact is erroneous because all of the dialogue in the film was in English. Also, the settings definitely indicated a Japanese area using signs, but even if the audience could not distinguish Japanese from other Asian languages, which is often the case, audience members could still most likely recognize that the language was of Asian descent. The narrative at the end of the film also felt rather unnecessary as the audience does not learn anything new. The last narrative was basically a repetition of what Roy said at his time of death. If the producer was worried that the audience would not understand that Deckard also finally understood Roy's final words, then putting the ending in would help. The voiceover made the final scene just ridiculous and almost unreal and unnecessary.

                The thematic messages of the film were portrayed very well without the need for a voiceover. All of the thematic messages could have been understood via the settings, the dialogue, or the actions of the actors and actresses. Having a voiceover convey thematic messages would be terribly underwhelming to the audience because if the audience learns everything via a voiceover, then the audience does not even get the chance to become invested into the film and organically learn through the film about its thematic messages. Again, a film contains so many other aspects that could do the same job as a voiceover does. Even in the beginning of the film during the on-screen text, if the producer really doubted the audience's intelligence, this would have been a better place to provide more information-- not via a very badly done and lackasadical voiceover.

Munoz: Blade Runner and the Voice Over

         Blade Runner (1982) film gives a typical happily ever after ending which the producer thought it was going to help with the sales and considering that Hollywood at that time was targeting audiences that wanted that happy ending where the hero or protagonist always wins and in this case Deckard and Rachel survive and run away to live the last minutes they have, though Rachel in the film is considered to be special from all the other androids and that she has no four years of life limitation. But the ending isn’t the only thing there is also a voice over as to narrate Deckard’s thoughts on certain moments that are pretty clear making the voice overs be redundant and unnecessary. The only thing that the audience learns from the voice-overs is who are the androids considering that the audience “doesn’t” realize that the people being chased are because they are the androids. The same reason that the voice over is unnecessary the director and the actors hated the idea of putting the voice over because it took away the mystery and the flexibility to let the audience guess and portray by the characters actions and facial characteristics showing what they were thinking without a narration. I believe that there is an audience for everything and that some could like the voice over considering it ties and asserts what people may or not be confused about. So for some people they may agree that voice overs especially at the end was helpful when making it clear that Deckard has finally realized that androids do have emotions, could even say empathy towards Rick Deckard’s life and finally that they also live have a life and what Roy wants to show with the Dove that they have also a soul. The voice over did conveyed the thematic message of the film though it had no effectiveness regarding that we already knew from what the characters said throughout the movie in search for the androids and then the speech of Roy when fighting Deckard explaining how they just wanted to live a free and fearless life and then peacefully dyeing making Deckard reflect and without the voice over we see how he goes back for Rachel to escape with her which could easily ended with the closing elevator door. Therefore not showing them leaving to this green magical place and without them telling you that Rachel was different this wasn’t the point of the Novel taking away the real thematic message.

Kunzig – Rick Deckard in Blade Runner vs. Rick Deckard in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep

There are many ways in which Blade Runner's interpretation of Philip Dick's Rick Deckard differs from the original. To start with, Scott basically inverted Deckard's basic background information: in the book, Rick Deckard is married, and currently employed as a cop, more specifically a bounty hunter. In the movie however, Deckard is divorced, as we learn through the voice over, and he is an ex-cop, no longer a bounty hunter. These are two basic, obvious characteristics that separate them; but there are some more important ones that make a bigger difference in the character.
The first is that Dick's Rick Deckard seems to only be a mediocre bounty hunter. He is only given the cases that Holden, the senior bounty hunter, believes he can handle. The only reason he is assigned to the specific escaped androids the story centers around is that Holden was shot by one of them, was hospitalized and therefore unable to complete the mission. But since they represented more of a challenge, Holden had planned on taking care of them himself.
In the movie however, Rick Deckard is presented as the best blade runner (or bounty hunter), pulled out of retirement to work his magic by his old boss, because Holden was unable to handle the replicants. Holden got the first shot at them only because he still worked as a blade runner, whereas Deckard had quit.
The second important difference is that the book's Deckard wants to be assigned to more cases, because he gets payed for every android he retires, and he needs the money, specifically so he can purchase a real animal. Blade Runner Deckard does not wish to do this job, but his boss doesn't give him a choice, threatening him.
A third important difference, revealed to us as were the others within the first 20 minutes of the film, is in the attitude each Deckard has towards the job. In the beginning of the book, Rick Deckard doesn't appear to particularly mind his job – he is simply retiring androids, and doesn't start to think of it as killing until much later. But from the beginning of the movie, Deckard dislikes retiring the replicants, because he already sees it as killing, which is why he quit.
I think a main way in which they are alike is that they are both lonely. Even though Dick's Deckard is married, him and his wife don't always connect that much, and most of the time he seems to be alienated from whomever he is with, as does Deckard in the movie. But they both experience a change – Dick's Deckard begins to feel empathy for androids when the opera singer is killed, and Scott's Deckard begins to feel empathy for replicants (more specifically for Rachel) when he realizes they might actually have feelings. And both Deckards develop a soft spot for Rachel despite themselves.