Hoo: Director's Cut

There is a very noticeable difference between the two versions of the Blade Runner films. In my humble opinion the later version, Ridley Scott’s Director’s Cut is far superior to the original film released in 1982. The two versions can almost be seen as different films. It is interesting to note that Ridely Scott did not personally create the Director’s Cut. He actually provided extensive notes and consulted with Warner Bros. Film preservationist/restorer Michael Arick was then put in charge of creating the Director's Cut. Scott cites his time obligation to the film Thelma and Louise and money constrains as the reasons why he was not entirely able to rework the Director’s Cut to his full satisfaction. This being said, the most noticeable difference between the 1982 and Director’s Cut versions is the removal of the voiceovers in the Director’s Cut. I find that this difference definitely makes this version an overall better film. I found that the voiceover really served to insult the intelligence of the audience. Granted, the test audiences for the first version of the film were confused without the voiceovers. However, Ridley Scott has stated that the confusion form the lack of information was the effect he was looking for in the film. I believe that the audience should not be simply handed the background information, but rather they should be left thinking a bit. This is the role the removal of the voiceovers in the Director’s Cut serves. In addition to removing the voiceovers from the original version of the film, there is a dream sequence added. “Scott…insisted that the unicorn dream sequence be inserted into the film. Although the studio had originally vetoed the inclusion of the unicorn, this time Warner Bros. agreed” (Pfeiffer 127). In this sequence, the audience observes a dream of Deckard’s. In this scene there is a tracking shot of a unicorn running. The inclusion of this sequence implies a lot about Deckard and allows for the audience to speculate. The dream could imply that Deckard is actually a replicant. In connecting Gaff’s origami unicorn to the dream, Scott may be getting at the possibility that Deckard’s dreams are already known to him (his memories are artificial and therefore so is he). Another major difference between the original film and the Director’s Cut is the exclusion of the studio imposed happy ending. In the Director’s Cut the film simply ends with the closing of the elevator doors. I enjoyed the ambiguity of this ending far more than the original. The original ending was far too cheesy and removed any sense of mystery, as did the voiceovers. All in all, the Director’s Cut was a far better version of Blade Runner. The added uncertainty allowed for some mystery and the speculation of the audience.       

       

Cacique-Borja, No Sheep.

No Sheep.

The movie Blade Runner, 1982, portrayed Richard Deckard as a distant cousin of the Richard Deckard character in Phillip K. Dick’s novel. For starters, the Richard Deckard in the movie had already developed some sort of empathy towards the droid before the audience had even been introduced to him. The comparison point in the book, when Richard is informed of what happened to Dave and how he is being sent to test out the scale, Richard has just been introduced to this thought provoking idea. This first difference between both Deckard’s also ends up being one of the few similarities that both Deckard’s have.

Another prominent difference is the absence of the electric sheep. His obsession for acquiring a real animal in the book, which is the driving force behind the retirements, is nonexistent. Deckard in the movie does not have an electric sheep. The electric sheep in the book made it clear that society had a fixed idea of what was and what wasn’t. Everything else, the Sidney catalog, the specials and the nexus 6 were the little details that made the idea of there being a distinction between droids and human seem plausible. Instead, the movie relies on visuals to explain the book’s clear distinction between droid and human.

Following this time line, Richard in the movie is forced to entertain the request of his old boss while the Richard in the book embarks on the journey for the monetary value. As stated above, the ownership of live animals was a sign of power. Deckard in the book felt compelled to live up to the society’s standards which is why he was happy to have so many droids to retire because he could finally replace the electric sheep with a real animal.

The last eye sore difference between the two Deckard’s was the absence of Iran, Deckard’s wife. In the book, Deckard lives with his wife who is in a way, another role in Deckard’s ability to continue being a Blade Runner. He has to provide for his wife both financially and socially. With the bounty money he can buy her things (such as the real animal) and raise her from the miserable experience of being on earth. In the movie, Deckard does not have that reason to work hard which is where Rachel comes in and is completely transformed from the emotionless seducer to a soul mate. Someone had to take Iran’s spot to motivate Deckard and at the same time serve as the final say in Richard’s capability of sympathizing with droids.

Overall, there were a couple of main “beings” that were not in the movies that slightly altered the meaning of the movie to the book, but through the shifting of elements, the lack of beings were accounted for.

Smith - Blade Runner Blog #2

      Blade Runner (1982) also has a voice over track put in after the film was finished. What is the purpose of this voiceover; what do viewers learn from the voiceover; and how effective is it in conveying the thematic messages of the film?

            What constitutes reality vs. fake, and who decides?

            What makes us human?

            How does social control work to create reality?

Blade Runner (1982) _ Blog

      The 1982 happy ending consisted of Deckard and Rachel leaving the city, driving into the wilds with the Deckard (Ford) voiceover saying that Tyrell told Deckard and Rachel could live happy ever after. This does not mirror Deckard’s feelings in the book. There are some of the opposite feelings as well that Deckard is able to understand the happily ever after better because of his divorce in the movie vs. the marriage in the book.

      “Among all the movies in which Harrison Ford has starred, it remains the only one in which the actor has repeatedly stated his dissatisfaction” (Pfeiffer 119). This is mainly because of the voiceover and the harassment of the producers against Ford. The Directors and Ford were in agreement that the voice over was not necessary and in fact took away from the movie. When the voice over is on we can almost hear the distaste and unapproved of Harrison Ford.

      The closing and opening of the doors were symbolic of major parts of the movie ending or beginning. When he comes out and the elevator door closes there is a mystery to what is going to happen. Now we have been told that she is going to live forever and that they will have time together. It gives us the happily ever after that people want and that the producers are looking for. He knows he loves her even though she is a Replicant. Before he wouldn’t have seen her as real and would not have given a second thought to love her. In the book he comes to the conclusion that there are many more forms of reality and to say that something is real and something isn’t real is not a good definition of the meaning. It is a real electric sheep.

      We hear that even the Torrel Corporation doesn’t have a real animal. All the real animals are gone and even the rich will be scorned for having too many electric animals. The animals do not represent the same degree of fascination as they did in the book. This shows how in the ending when he viewed the toad as a real electric animal, this ended showed the view that Rachel is a real electric human and is a Replicant.

       A director wants to make good movies that also see their work as art. Directors have to be a team played because they have to work with screenwriters, cinematographers, sound etc. Film is a collaborative effort. Producers want money and Blade Runner according to them was too complicated and was not going to make enough money unless they explained everything with a voice over. Both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford hated the idea of a voice over and you can almost hear it in his tone of the voice as I stated before. Producers think that American audiences are dumb and producers want a happy ending.

      This conflict between the actors and directors who want to make an artistically sound film and the producers who just want money leads to the political expediency theory. This theory states that movies should not alienate any one group too much. That is breaking down because movies cost far too much now so there is less free reign for the directors and actors. The second thing that is ruining film today is the availability of other forms of entertainment. The third thing is the cost to go to the movie theatre. Independent films are gaining speed in the industry, more cheap, they can make back much more easily what it cost to produce them. Hollywood is in trouble. Sympathetic producers give more freedom. This movie was a bust at first, however, there was always an underground cult that said that it had a lot of potential and it had a kind of dystopian feel and had recognition that this kind of world was possible.
      The director’s cut came out and it actually made it to the top 100. Ridley Scott did not want to use the voice over and he was completely correct that it made all the difference in the world. Producers thought that people would not understand Blade Runner unless it was told to them by a voice over. It explains the obvious, and explains what he is thinking in other parts of the film. We could have received any of that information from just what is going on in the film.

Smith - Blade Runner Blog #1

The 1982 version of Blade Runner has a different ending from the Director's Cut. It was demanded by the producers. What effect does the ending have on the rest of the film. Discuss tone, lighting, and character.

Blade Runner (1982) _ Blog

            Blade Runner as a movie cannot be completely explained by the book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep because it is a combination of a loose and faithful representation of the book. There were similarities in the scenes and it does follow the main themes brought up in the book.

            In the ending the scene shows the almost happily ever after forced by the producers. The closing and opening of the doors were symbolic of major parts of the movie ending or beginning. “The depressing atmosphere is unrelenting, and the script does not provide any humor whatsoever” (Pfeiffer 123). This quote shows how the atmosphere on set was like and what Harrison Ford was dealing with while shooting this film. It could be why he contested many ideas that the producers had which includes the voiceover.

            While watching this version of the film I noticed that some of the attacks between Replicants and Deckard could be seen as self-defense, he has to change his view on how to treat a situation. In the beginning he killed Zora and just held up his card and said “Blade Runner” and then pointed and said “Replicant”. There was no empathy or hesitation. As the film progresses he become more and more aware of the ethics of what he is doing. In the ending this is apparent, as he has ideally fallen in love with his enemy. The backdrop of the 2019 Los Angeles immediately sets the tone for the movie as a film noir type movie. It allows for the tone to show the detective and contemplative theory of a blade runner. 

            Deckard is the protagonist in the film and it is his character. One of the points of a protagonist is to have them change in some way. What happens with Rick Deckard is that he becomes more empathic to the Replicants and the revelation in the end is that the main bad character saves him and he even says at that point that he values life more and realizes what is important. That is an implication of empathy even in Replicants. 

            He accepts something artificial into his life. He has begun to respect all of the things that he never saw as really living. The ending of the 1982 version occurs when the elevator door closes with. He gets into a spacecraft and drives off into the fresh green breast of the new world. If there is nothing left in the book, how can you have a forest and a blue sky suddenly out of nowhere? It seemed fake and does represent hope. It shows the idea that the earth isn’t really dead and that there is a chance to save the planet. Rachel has no termination date and this can be seen as both a good and bad thing.

            There is a religious aspect in the movie, however, not to the extent as in the book. Mercerism is a religion and is a big part of the book, but in the movie one of the only times religion is brought into it occurs when the dove flies off in the end of the film. That dove represents his spirit leaving the body and the sense that there is an intangible, spiritual element to every being, which can be seen as a visual metaphor for the soul. The lighting in the ending is very futuristic and allows for the imagination to run wild. It is mainly dim lighting with flickers of bright lighting key. The flickers of bring lighting emphasizes the importance of that scene. For example, the dove. Social control is revealed in the film, in order to maintain your status in the community you have to listen to and do whatever the boss tells you. People had an excuse because they did what they were told to do and they were just following orders. Money gives power to change people’s views on what is right and what should be followed.

             

Jordan-Voice Over?

Blade Runner (1982) is a film that has been released in multiple different versions but the original 1982 released was viewed as the most controversial. Aspects of this include many reasons but some such as the "loosely-faithful" adaptation and ending could have been forgiven but the voice over in the film is nonredeemable. The purpose of the voice over was to explain the ongoing events to the audience while also adding a noir-style feel to the movie. The decision to use the voice over for Blade Runner(1982) was something that was clearly wanted by the producers of the film. Producers are in the film business to make money and to ensure profit they usually target the lowest common denominator. This lowest denominator will pay for most things and are not the hardcore fans of the subject material. To garner to one demographic group would be financial suicide by a production company. It takes away from the movie in a lot of areas and also dumbs the movie down tremendously. Despite the overall disapproval, by both Scott and Ford, Ford was contractually obligated to record the voice over, (Pfeiffer, 124). Ford’s voice is very monotone and the audience can tell that he did not want to do this. 

      Another reason for the voice over was that it was meant to provide valuable insight of what Deckard was thinking throughout the film. The story and writing should have been good enough for the audience to follow the story line without Deckard just telling the story. At many times, Deckard is simply telling the audience the obvious and it gets extremely annoying to an audience to have their intelligence constantly insulted. From the voice over the audience is expected to gain Deckards inner thoughts and "emotions" but these are both adequately displays by the repealed reactionary personal shots of Deckard's face. I do not think that the viewers learn anything from the voice over other than that the producers think they are idiots.

It’s unfortunate that the voice over was actually added because it does not add anything to the movie in my opinion. When I watched the film without the voice over I didn't feel like I was missing anything. The voice over is something that should not have been added.
   

Richard: Blade Runner

Blade Runner was a powerful film.  It was also portrayed in an interesting light, much different from the book.  One part of the film that contributed to its effectiveness was the voiceover track.  I think it’s interesting how a voiceover can actually have a big impact on the audience while watching the film. 

The purpose of voiceovers in general is to tell a story from a different view.  It is almost like having access to the inside of what someone is thinking or some type of exclusive information.  Voiceovers tend to create a separate story log in itself because it is something that is needed for the film.  Voiceovers do not work in every film, but it worked effectively in Blade Runner. 

The purpose of the voiceover in Blade Runner is to give the audience an inside view of what Deckard is thinking.  We can see his actions, but it makes it even better when we know his thoughts.  Knowing his thoughts and seeing his actions helps the audience put the whole story together in a better way. 

Imagine Blade Runner without a voiceover track.  It can be possible to understand the movie, but the audience would miss underlying meanings.  The audience would be left to guess how Deckard feels at a certain point.  Some points would be unclear if it were not for the voiceover.  Without the voiceover, there would appear to be missing parts in the film. 

The voiceover is effective in conveying thematic messages throughout the film because it touches on parts that just pictures could not convey.  It gives the audience the sense that they have the inside scoop or all around access to some of the thoughts in the movie.  Knowing what is going on in someone’s mind is like a cheat sheet because it sheds light on other scenes throughout the movie.

It was especially helpful towards the end because various conclusions could have been drawn from the end, but because we know what was in Deckard’s thoughts at the time, the audience was better able to understand the situation and Deckard himself.

Szklarski Blade Runner

In the first release of Blade Runner into theaters in 1982, a few drastic elements were added by the producers. The one addition that received the most attention, criticism, and opposition from the cast and directors is without a doubt the voiceover. I will not call it the god awful, monotone disaster of a voiceover as there might be many a viewer out there who would not understand what was going on without it. Granted, in class discussions, we thoroughly sorted through all of the possible themes to expect and knew the basic plot structure after reading the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Dick. The themes and messages from this movie are universally important and rather essential to be pondered by audiences as it examines the human experience. Personally, all I gained from the voiceover is an understanding of why more versions of the film needed to be created.  The voiceover was supposedly added on the intention it would facilitate more money to be made off this movie. The producers can be quoted on that. Ironically enough, in the end, this 1982 US Theatrical release earned the least out of all versions even with inflation and date adjustments.

Digressing from that, the purpose of the voiceover is to allow the audience to get to know Rick Deckard better. In the novel, readers know Deckard's thoughts. Readers can clearly see where the ethical lines between human and android begin to blur inside Deckard's mind. However, in my opinion, the filmmakers had better avenues to portray these thoughts then slapping on a voiceover. Harrison Ford does not even sound like he is pleased with the voiceover as it was being recorded. "I was desperately unhappy with it. i was compelled by contract to record five or six different versions of the narration, each of which was found wanting on a storytelling basis. The final version was something that I was completely unhappy with" (Pfeiffer 119). The audience is spoon-fed everything that should be understood through the actions in the film, at least to anyone actually paying attention and competent enough to know what is going on. In the very least, I contend that the narration serves the purpose of conveying the tumultuous ethics spinning in Deckard's mind to the audience. The film version of Deckard could be passed off as a rather flat character. He is not unique or exciting. This character is nearly upstaged by the replicant Roy Batty. Without the narration, the audience would know less than what the readers would suspect out of the film Deckard. As the once stoic, isolated killer, Deckard begins to respect the things he once saw as not real. By the end of the film, Deckard is totally infatuated with Rachael and does not retire her in a similar way that Deckard from the novel cares for the electric toad. The narration conveys Deckard's change in ethics. He becomes more aware of the situation he is in of killing these android creatures as the story progresses. The ethics of it are wrong. At first he recognizes it in Rachael. Then, as Roy Batty dies on the roof, Deckard recognizes it through him as well. This would not be very apparent in the 1982 film without the voiceover.