O'Connell: Blade Runner (Director's Cut)

The changes of the Director’s Cut are immediately noticeable with the emotionally significant “radio silence” from Deckard as his thoughts are no longer broadcast to the viewers with all the subtlety of a baseball bat to the head. The lack of narration was an important change from the original cut that was roundly disliked as: “Critics scoffed at having the script explained to them by the Deckard character-- especially since most of the narration simply stated the obvious.” (Pfeiffer 124) Ridley Scott’s original vision of the film without voiceover restored the understated poignant nuances of Deckard’s character, which Ford’s acting effectively captures. We as the viewers are not Deckard’s conscience, nor is he providing us with a record of the events. We are simply witness to them, and must make our own judgements.

As the Director’s Cut restores the subtlety and grace to the character of Deckard, it also opens up sections of the film to interpretation. By not hearing exactly what Deckard is thinking verbatim, the viewer is free to form their own perceptions of his mindset and intentions. The scene in which Deckard, at his piano surrounded by photographs of his now-questionable memories, dreams of a unicorn running through the forest is an example of the film’s unspoken message that requires some viewer input to unpack, and begin to ask questions like: how does Deckard see himself? How did Gaff know about the dream? Even Gaff’s final scene gets pulled into question in the director’s cut. When he applauds Deckard by stating “you’ve done a man’s job!” is he in fact referring to Deckard as not a man? Such questions provide thought and depth the the film, as it becomes not simply a blockbuster Hollywood action film, but a complex puzzle to which one continues to return.

Arguably the most important change from the 1982 cut is the end of the film. The Director’s Cut no longer gives the audience a neatly wrapped happy ending, and not only is Rachel’s future called into question, but Deckard’s as well. As he finds the origami unicorn, two important points are made. The first being that Gaff has been to the apartment and spared Rachel (and Deckard), which was the only message in the original cut. And second, that Deckard’s inner thoughts and memories are not the private nor random; Gaff knows Deckard better than he knows himself. Deckard makes the connection quickly, as he nods slowly and crumples the unicorn, remembering Gaff’s words. The Director’s Cut then ends the film on another abrupt door-closing with more questions than answers, in an appropriate reflection of Deckard’s future. Such a drastic change from the “peace at last” ending of the 1982 version changes the film entirely, and in my opinion, for the better.

Cacique-Borja, Oversimplified

Oversimplified

 

 

The 1991 film was a bad example of “American” movies. While Hollywood’s signature films require happy endings, there has to be something else to the movie in order for it to be a successful blockbuster. The 1991 film felt, for lack of a better word, dumbed down. The placement of the voice over was more annoying than helpful and the movie could have been more faithful to the book. In comparison to the 1991 film, the Director’s cut had some crucial cuts that were made explicitly to improve the quality of the movie. The major quality improvement was the omission of the voice over by Harrison Ford. The omission allowed the audience to make their own interpretation of what was happening in the film which also engaged the audience more.

The second improvement was the addition of an 11 second segment of a unicorn running through a forest. The unicorn was the visual representation of one of the book’s main points, the value of “real” animals. Throughout the movie it’s hinted and talked about the high price of “real” animals but it’s never explicitly explained why the prices are so high. Thus the unicorn is able to pull all those thoughts together to show that the “real” animals don’t particularly exist anymore but they are dreamed about just like a unicorn is.

The last main change between the 1991 and the Director’s cut was the last scene. The Director’s cut omitted the most of the country side shot while the 1991 showed Deckard and Racheal head into uncertainty in a car along a beautiful country road. Ridley Scott must have omitted that scene because the book did not have a happy ending. The book left the reader in an uncertain phase where nobody knew if Deckard was happy accepting androids and electrical animals as beings. The ending of 1991 was not true to the book which must have received a lot of criticism by the fans of Dick’s novel.

In my opinion the Director’s cut was a better movie because it didn’t try to over emphasize the importance of Rick Deckard’s feelings. At the same time I only saw the Director’s cut as a first draft to a movie that could have been a lot better. Scott was able to compress a lot of themes into either one character or short scenes but Mercerism and Friendly should have not been taken out of the equation. Blade Runner is a Lord of the Rings type of movie because the book demands obscene amounts of time to develop the plot correctly. I think the 1991 version should be completely erased from everybody’s memories and have the Director’s Cut be the baseline.

.

Miller: Blade Runner v. Blade Runner Director's Cut

Michael D. Miller

Blade Runner, 1991, Blog

Blade Runner v. Blade Runner Director’s Cut

In the 1982 version of Blade Runner, there is the most obvious voice over throughout the film. The voice over is used to explain to the audience what Deckard is thinking and what he assumes is going on in the scene. This is used to further explain some of the ideas and concepts that the director Ridley Scott wanted to use the film sequences itself to explain. Ridley Scott objected to the overt use of the voice over as did Harrison Ford. 

            The happy ending in the 1982 film with Deckard and Rachael driving through the countryside on their way to presumably live a long and happy life together leaves the audience with a very definite conclusion to the film. There are no suppositions to be made about the fate of Deckard and Rachael. However, one might assume that the origami unicorn, typically used to depict a sign of purity, innocence, and childlike, left in the hallway outside of Deckard’s apartment could mean that Gaff approves of their relationship and he is not going to pursue Rachael. On the other hand, it could also mean that Gaff is well aware that Deckard had Rachael and that the unicorn, sometimes viewed as a sign of strength was hunted because it was untamable, is a sign that he will hunt her down and kill just as the mythological creature because she was not willing to serve humans. 

            The 1982 film did not contain the unicorn dream experienced by Deckard as he sat drunk playing the piano. The brief scene depicts a unicorn running out of the woods possibly trying to escape its hunters. The significance of the unicorn is not fully explored as Deckard’s character does not react to the dream sequence. 

The tapestries show pagan and Christian symbolism. The pagan themes emphasize the medieval lore of beguiled lovers, whereas Christian writings interpret the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ. The unicorn has long been identified as a symbol of Christ by Christian writers, allowing the traditionally pagan symbolism of the unicorn to become acceptable within religious doctrine. The original pagan myths about The Hunt of the Unicorn refer to an animal with a single horn that can only be tamed by a virgin; Christian scholars translated this into an allegory for Christ's relationship with the Virgin Mary. (Wikipedia 28 March 2014)

            The director’s cut of the film Blade Runner does not include the voice over done by Harrison Ford. Significantly, the newly discovered Blade Runner did not have the narration which incited such hostility among the critics, the public, and the filmmakers (Pfeiffer 126). This leaves the audience to draw any explanations for the actions or motivations of the characters from the film sequence itself. However, Ridley Scott took great pains in creating such an explanation through his film shots that some of the meaning was lost in the exotic set designs and cryptic direction of the characters. 

            The final scene of the director’s cut omitted the happily ever after sequence. Ridley Scott wanted the audience to wonder about the future of Rachael and Deckard. This scene works well with the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn left by Gaff outside of Deckard’s apartment. It hinted that Deckard was possibly a replicant because how would Gaff know about Deckard’s dream of the unicorn. The possibility of Deckard possibly being a Nexus-7 replicant would certainly have leave the audience puzzled and would cause the viewer the rethink the entire film. However, the film could not explain that if Deckard was the next generation replicant, how was he so easily defeated or overpowered by every replicant he encountered? Why didn’t Tyrell make mention of his origins in the beginning of the film when they met? One would certainly think that Tyrell himself would know whether or not Deckard was a replicant.

As they leave Deckard’s apartment, presumably to escape authorities and find a new life together, the elevator door simply closes on them, and we see the credits. While this version clearly leaves the audience hanging regarding the fate of the lovers, this is precisely what Scott had hoped to achieve. Gone was the infamous studio-imposed “happy ending,” with Deckard absurdly reassuring the audience that Rachael was the only replicant not programmed for short life span as the couple literally fly off into the sunset. (Pfeiffer 126)  

            

            Ridley Scott may have taken on a project that was far too complicated for him to put into film. Between the Blade Runner movies and the book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Scott seemed to miss the mark on the entire empathy theme. Scott chose to use the most subtle of tactics to touch on the subject of empathy and when he did so, he showed it coming from the replicants rather than the humans. 

            The director in the Blade Runner films was unhappy with the version that was produced. Many alluded to Scott’s almost obsessive nature in overseeing every little detail of the film that viewing much of the film through the camera lens. Ford griped, “Scott like to watch the performance through the lens…watching the edges to be sure where everything is” (Pfeiffer 122). A potential metaphor for how narrow Scott’s vision was for this film. Scott worked to present a top notch sci-fi film but he lost sight of the message the film. An enormous amount of time was spent on preproduction; building futuristic vehicles and commissioning paintings and storyboards as models for the big-budget set designs (Pfeiffer 120).  

In the end, he had to work with what he had already filmed and there is a good possibility that he had not filmed the proper sequences to convey the films meaning thoroughly. Therefore, he was stuck with what he had and he tried to revive the film any way he could. The many different version of this film clearly reveal that Ridley Scott was not happy with the version that was released and he was likely none too thrilled about the “Director’s Cut.” The central flaw in the film is that not of the characters is very interesting--- including Deckard, from whose viewpoint all of the strange developments unfold (Pfeiffer 123).  It might have been a good idea to scrap the whole film and start over from scratch with a new screenplay; fewer set designs and sci-fi special effects, and maybe even another director. Then the film might have scored big at the box office and not be a blemish on the face of all those who worked so hard to make the film. 

In my opinion and with my limited knowledge of movie making, I found that the 1982 version of Blade Runner worked best for me. I did however enjoy both versions very much, because the ill-fated voice over explained things to me that I definitely missed through the visual metaphors. Furthermore, reading the book Do Androids Dream of electric Sheep helped me put the entire project into focus. I am in no way qualified to criticize this film or any other film. All I can say is that I believed it might have been better, because of the end result, that another director might have been a better choice. But can the director alone be blamed for the films shortcomings? I think not. The producers have to trust their director to put together a film that expresses the message of the book. The screenwriter also is responsible for putting his twist on the film. This cookie cutter idea that Hollywood producers have is boring and in need of drastic change. That change of course would come in the form of Independent Films. Directors and producers, who are willing to push the envelope of cinema, are attracting a great deal of audiences, which in turn mean great big profits for those willing to do something outside of the Hollywood film making box.   

Oria, Blade Runner Director's Cut

            Many changes were made when the Director’s Cut of Blade Runner was released in 1991.  Ridley Scott was unhappy with the way that the 1982 original theatrical release of the film.  The original cut of the film included an unenthusiastic voiceover done by Harrison Ford.  The ending also showed Rachel and Deckard driving off into a lush mountain as they began their new life together.  The voiceover and the ending were two things that Scott did not want to include.  The producers of the film made the choice because they were worried that the film was not going to make money otherwise.  Scott was unhappy with the original version.  He was quoted saying that, "The final version was something that I was completely unhappy with. The movie obviously has a strong following, but it could have been more than a cult picture” (Pfeiffer 119).  This unhappiness led Ridley Scott to buy the rights of the film and release a Director’s Cut.  While it may seem like there were no major changes made, the removal of the voiceover and ending the film sooner, completely alter the meaning of the film and how it was perceived. 

         I think that Ridley Scott felt as though his vision of the film was not fully realized in the original theatrical release.  When it comes to films, it seems as though everyone has a different motive.  Speaking from a directorial and artistic standpoint, actors and directors tend to get into the business to make art as opposed to money.  Producers on the other hand are usually looking to make the most money.  These two motives tend to clash when it comes to certain decisions.  In the case of the 1982 Blade Runner, it is clear which side had the final say.  Hollywood producers do not have much faith with American audiences.  Producers believe that people need to be told exactly what is happening (the voiceover) and they desire a happy ending (Rachel and Deckard driving off into the sunset).  When Ridley Scott got his hands on the right to the film, he was able to truly fulfill his vision.

        

         In my opinion, the film was able to stand alone without the “happy ending” or the voiceover.  The 1991 Director’s Cut allowed for moments to resonate with the audience because it lacked the redundant voiceover.  Like I said in my last blog, the first time I watched Blade Runner, it did not have a voiceover and it ended after Rachel and Deckard entered the elevator.  This is probably why I feel the way I do.  I understood everything that was going on and still enjoyed the ending.  This film is a clear example of how greed and money can taint the meaning of a movie negatively.  

Jordan-Director's Cut is Far Superior

After watching two different versions of Blade Runner: Blade Runner(1982) and Blade Runner: Director's Cut (1991), i can honestly say that the Director's Cut is far superior to the original. The Directors Cut shares a closer feel to story because it leaves the audience in a state of questioning whether Deckard is a replicant. It also gives more thought to question the true thoughts and feelings that Deckard experienced . The Director's Cut provides better reasoning to question the thin and blurred line of what truly separates humans and replicates. Unlike the first release of the film in 1982, which tried to simply the movie by adding the "Hollywood ending", the 1991 rendition leads the audience to question whether or not Deckard is a replicant. This is a huge change from the original because, although it gave hints of Deckard being a replicant, the ending completely destroyed this because it changed the meaning of the film. The original ending concludes with the fact the Deckard realizing that he loves Rachel and him learning to see replicants in a new and better life. 

The director's cut also gets rid of the voice over. The voice over in my opinion was, in my opinion, very unnecessary and unwanted. 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 Deckard's 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. Despite the overall disapproval, by both Scott and Ford, Ford was contractually obligated to record the voice over, (Pfeiffer, 124).

Ridley Scott most likely thought it was necessary to change the film because the original was not his project, it was a struggle of power between him and the executive producers. Scott, like most artist are in there crafts of work to make art for their peers and the rest if the population to admire. Unlike directors, producers are in the business to make a profit. They may still greatly care about the project, but their job is to make the company profit. 

Carter: Director's cut

The directors cut in 1991 of Blade Runner changes the meaning of the 1982 movie in a couple of ways which I believe benefitted the movie, resulting in overall a better movie. The first movie showed the director's themselves might not have had faith in the production and writing of the movie in respect to the actual book because it involved a narrator. The removal of the happy ending was another big change between the two movies, I believe this was a necessary action in bringing the movie back into a closer relation with the book. The happy ending changed the meaning of the movie in my eyes because the book ended on some what of a cliff hanger for the audience to construct their own beliefs or opinions on what the true meaning was.

The movie Blade Runner was not very successful even though it had a strong following the message of the movie was somewhat difficult and the movie didn't show enough support in following along with the book. This is the main reason I believe the plot didn't turn out the way Ford hopedit would. Ford himself was very unhappy with the movie being quoted saying "The final version was something that I was completely unhappy with. The movie obviously has a strong following, but it could have been more than a cult picture” (Pfeiffer 119). The ending change between the director cut and the 1982 version showed that rachel was truly a replicant that had a life span and that it would expire, which changed the meaning between the two movies drastically. The audience was then left to ponder what Deckard would do in terms of this problem because he was falling for her. 

I think Ridley Scott believed it was necessary to change these aspects of the film to closely relate the movie to the response the book left us with as an audience, which was one of confusion, this was why the book was so powerful. The second movie left me thinking more deeply about the meaning of the term "human" and how we characterize this as anything that we are similar to when in reality everyone in the movie has some robotic aspects.

 The second movie was a better rendition in my opinion because the same feelings I got while reading the book returned, if I had  never seen the 1982 cut of the movie I would have an even better reaction. The first movie really ruined the experience of the movie for me, the narrating was the biggest problem in my eyes. The ending wasn't much of a problem when I first witnessed the movie but Ford leaving it out of the second movie was very interesting and I believe a brilliant move that mended a lot of unnecessary questions and critiques.

Lam: Blade Runner Comparison

Which Blade Runner Version is Best?

                I feel that the Director's Cut does not really change the meaning of the film too much. All of the main themes were still prevalent in the film, but the biggest change was most likely the medium that these themes were presented. Taking out the voice overs really forced the audience to think more deeply about the film instead of being spoon-fed all of the information, and eventually losing all of the mystery of figuring out events in the film. This was echoed by the staff in which the subtleties of the film were possibly destroyed by the narration (Pfeiffer 124). These subtleties were what made the film more enticing, in my opinion.

                I personally think Ridley Scott thought that it was necessary to change the film because as a filmmaker, he wanted to probably reach the audience through film techniques and communicate through them instead of being straight up told the details of the film. This almost seems insulting to a filmmaker in that one can surmise that the filmmaker might be so bad that a narration was needed to communicate the main themes. Additionally, the narration was poorly done by Harrison Ford, and in order to improve the film, only two options remained: either delete the narration out completely or have Harrison Ford redo the voice over with possibly different dialogue in order to allow more focus to shift towards the film techniques. This deletion of the voice over narration is the most essential difference in the 1991 film, but also the deletion of the final ending scene was just as impactful. The ending scene seemed like an unnecessary ending, and in my opinion, took away from the mystique of the film. By leaving the ending at the elevator door closing scene in the film, it accentuated the close of the film and left room for wonder.

                In my opinion, the 1991 Director's Cut rendition communicated the film's thematic messages more inherently to the audience. I say inherently because if a person more organically learns a concept, it gets embedded in a deeper part of the brain. This is similar to hands-on interactive learning versus learning from a lecture. Therefore, if the audience is told via narration of information that could be subliminally learned, then the audience will not have as strong as a reaction that they could. Ironically, the audience would not be able to empathize too well with the film and its characters or even develop along with the characters. To have a more effective result from the film, a filmmaker needs to get the audience invested in the characters or the plot. The characters and plot were very well thought out, but the execution eventually ended up poorly. 

Hall: Director's Cut, Hands Down.

As previously discussed in the previous blog, the Blade Runner producers added the voice over when the film received poor reviews in the initial sneak previews. They thought the film was too confusing for the common American people and they wanted the audience to simultaneously find Ford's character more relatable and the plot easier to follow. They went against Scott's purposeful decision to film Blade Runner in the style of a film noir, but without the customary detective voice over. The resulting film went against the director's desired intent. When this happens, it is extremely evident that elements of the film will get lost to the wayside, including the director's overarching message and dream for the flim. 
Okay, so at this point it is clear that the producer's desire for simplification of the film detracted from Scott's real motivations, "confusion was exactly what he hoped to create" (Pfeiffer 124). I really like this quote and think it not only plays into what Scott wanted to create but also what Dick endeavored to create in his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. If an idea(s) confuses you, the hopefully natural inclination is to think about them. This leads to a new interpretation and a closer look at what an artist is trying to convey. 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 lack of the voice over in the director's cut, allowed the audeince to develop  personal feeling behind scenes such as Roy's death and allowed them to come to their own conclusions regarding the affinity or lack there of when it came to the emotion of and emotion concerning the Blade Runner's androids. 
This commonality of confusion is why I thought that the director's cut was a much more faithful translation of Dick's 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. 
Ridley Scott adds to this with the addition and extension of certain scenes, such as the addition of dream scenes involving a unicorn. The addition of these scenes simultaneously contributes to the confusion, and possibly lends itself to a greater level of interpretation.One of the most crucial differences between the two is the differences between the ending. In the 1982 version, Rick Deckard and Rachel are seen driving off into the sunshine, a lush green landscape around them. This is what detracts most from the commonality between the novel and the film. The earth is supposed to be deslotate and a wasteland, yet a couple miles outside of the city there is fertile land? I don't think so. The director's cut version is a lot more similar to the novel in that you aren't given the satisfaction of a happy ending, things are left off rather suddenly without any clear resolution. The misdirection of both the novel and of the director's cut is why I think the 1991 version is much more effective. 

Fisher - Blade Runner 1991 vs. 1982

Although I am admittedly still not the hugest fan of the Blade Runner movies, I did prefer Ridley Scott’s directorial cut over the theatrical 1982 release. The most notable differences between the two films were the removal of Harrison Ford’s voice over and the cut of the escapade ending in the 1991 version. 

Without the voice over, the film did move at a slower pace, with many moments of drawn out, silent pauses between points of highly heated action. However, the lack of added commentary provided these scenes with a calm intensity as viewers stretch to discern how Rick must feel and compare his ideas with their own feelings of the strange world he lives in. I will say that Ridley Scott did choose to stretch out some of these periods for too long, almost to the point that thy were on the verge than the of being rendered meaningless, but overall I think the effect was to make the film more of a think piece theatrical cut. 

This theme of creating a thought-provoking environment for the reader is reinforced by the open-ended conclusion to the director’s cut. By not handing audiences a happy conclusion that clears up any doubts about the future of Rick and Rachel’s relationship, the unresolved ending leaves people wondering how Rick and Rachel will make things work. It invites questions into the nature of the lovers’ relationship, from its questionable beginning to the two’s fundamental physical differences to whether or not Rachel will even live long enough for any major disparities to occur. 

Although I feel fairly confident that I would prefer the director’s cut over the first version we watched in class, I would be interested to see what my opinion would have been if we had watched the 1991 version before the 1982 one and before reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Despite the fact that the voice over created an artificial mood for the movie because of its blatant attempts to pander to the audience’s needs, I feel that without it or without having read the book, I would have felt hopelessly lost at certain points in the film. For instance, when Gaff first speaks to Rick at the outdoor restaurant, without the short explanation of what CitySpeak is, I would not have understood why another human was speaking a different language. Another example of this occurs when Bryant calls the Replicants “skinjobs.” With no explanation, it would have taken me until almost halfway through the film when Rick and Bryant are speaking with each other after Rick has retired Zhora to understand that he was referring to the androids in a derogatory manner. Ultimately though, I prefer the director’s cut to the theatrical version.

Kunzig – Blade Runner 1982 vs. 1991

The main difference between the two versions of Blade Runner (the original released in 1982 and the Director's cut released in 1991) is Harrison Ford's voice-over. Although the director, Ridley Scott, had decided not to include a voice-over the first time, adding instead some scenes to provide the information, the producers demanded there be one after getting feedback that people were having trouble following the movie.

The result, in my opinion, is that in the first movie there is too much information, and in the second there isn't enough. I accidentally watched the Director's cut first – actually, it wasn't really the Director's cut because there was no unicorn dream so I'm not entirely sure what it was – without the voice over, and I felt like things were just happening for no apparent reason and with no connection to what had happened before. I felt that if I hadn't read the book, I wouldn't understand what was going on, and I thought there was just a little too much silence, a little too many long, heavy shots of a character's face. But then again, when I saw the original version, I realized it was much better to lack information than to have too much – the voice-over did not fit with the film at all. It just sounded dull, instead of mysterious and dark, which is what I think they were going for. I, personally, really did not want to hear his thoughts, even though they provided some information that I desperately wanted before.
That pretty much explains why Scott felt the need to fix his movie – because it was released under his name, as though the voice-over and the 'happily ever after' ending were his choices, and because they were terrible choices. It wasn't his vision and he probably thought his version would be more successful, which I believe it was.
While I didn't really enjoy the movie the first time I saw it, I did after watching it again, probably in part because I picked up on more subtle clues, but also because the voice-over provided more information, terrible as it was. So I would say that overall, the Director's cut was more effective, but only because it came after the original one with the voice-over. Without having seen the original one, I wouldn't have been able to appreciate the Director's cut, because there simply wasn't enough information in it. It didn't need much more, just a teeny tiny bit.

Szklarski- Director's Cut

The Directors Cut shapes the story line into a more apt reflection of the book's lingering cliffhanger of the humanity of Deckard. The most salient meaning of the film is the blurring of the line between androids and humans. Unlike the first realese of the film in 1982, to the director Ridley Scott's dismay, the 1991 version leads the audience to question whether or not Deckard is a replicant. The definition of humanity is not easily stated. The culture of the future city of Los Angeles in the movie structurally defines humanity very different from than the functional definition which is measured by the Voight-Komff test. As Rachel remarks, Deckard has never taken the test himself. It is totally possible that Rachel passes this test with more flying colors than Deckard ever could, provided that Deckard really has been an android all this time. 

Ridley Scott thought it was necessary to change the film. As mentioned in class, he stated what most should consider as the most ginormous spoiler alert of all time in an interview shortly before the movie came out. Clearly his motive in investing so much, financially and temporally, into the film was to make the movie come off showing that Deckard was a replicant, or android, himself all along. Deckard was being forced into false pretenses of his own existence to be able to kill get rid of whatever replicant the humans decided was not longer allowed to exist. If this is the case, then the forced retirement/murder of his own kind appears to be absolutely heinous. Evoking that emotion from the audience leads to the questioning of the self as to if the skewed notion that killing someone/something of a different kind is any more 'ok.' Rachel even asks at one point whether or not Deckard has killed a human. Here, it seems like Scott is actually asking the viewers which is better; android to android death, or human android murder? Another huge hint at this alternate meaning of the film comes in the last scene of the 1991 version of Blade Runner. The unicorn dream and origami unicorn make the decision even harder for the audience. "[This] confusion was exactly what [Scott] hoped to create, and reminded the studio brass that the delicate subtleties which he labored to create would be destroyed by the narration” (Pfeiffer 124).

The essential difference for changing the perception of Deckard in this manner to me is the removal of the voice over. The presence of the voice over evokes a connection between the audience and Deckard. He becomes more human to the audience as they hear his thoughts, no matter how annoyingly and blatantly obvious the script is. Removing the voice over aids in separating the sort of human connection that it created in the original 1982 version. In my mind, the 1991 version is much more effective in eliciting the sorts of moral questions that the book raise, which is ultimately the point of science-fiction. The toying of the empathy of the viewer toward the androids is much more interesting and thought-provoking. The film is supposed to be entertaining. On top of the entertaining and 'happy-ending' rubbish provided from the 1982 version, the Director's Cut offers a version with much more substance.

Emily Szklarski

Munoz: Blade Runner 1982/1991

Both Blade Runner renditions represent in someway the novel of Philip K. Dick though the one that best represents and conveys the message is the directors cut. “Blade runner had overcome the stigma of its disappointing performance”(Pfeiffer 126) Ridley Scott felt a great disappointment with the ending scene and having the voice overs of Rick Deckard’s beliefs and what he was thinking throughout the film. Scott as well added something’s that hinted on the whole mystery of Deckard being either human or android.

            I believe that in the novel Deckard is no doubt a human considering his passion of getting an animal to change his status and the care and passion he has towards them. As well as the relationship he has with his wife gives us the idea of him as a human, rather in the movie the wife is not present making us believe that the memory of her wife can be just planted to his brain but in reality never had a wife, thus the connection he has with Rachel.

            In the Directors cut film Scott adds a dream of a unicorn, which Deckard has after killing an android and later drinking, in his piano. This dream helps us understand what later in the movie is revealed. Gaff the other agent loves to make origami from matches and paper and leaves it in the rooms that he has been in as saying “I’ve been here”. The last origami he made was a unicorn and it was left at Deckard’s place before he escapes with Rachel to somewhere they can’t get to her and kill her. In the original film 1982 there wasn’t this dream which the unicorn origami was meaningless just showing that Gaff was alright with the relationship, but in the directors cut it hints” Deckard was indeed a replicant, because Gaff had access to his programmed dream and memories” (Pfeiffer 126) this for one ruined my whole intrigue of Deckard being a human or an android which the best part is not knowing.

            The voice over is one thing that I didn’t mind it was taken off. Voice over unless it isn’t at all clear then it shouldn’t be in a movie because it just makes it very annoying that they have to tell you things that are pretty clear to the audience. If they cant portray it by acting and expressing it out then I guess they aren’t doing a good job if they can’t convey the message without having a voice over.

            Finally the last scene in the 1982 film is something illogical for the whole idea of a post apocalyptic world and after nuclear radiation ruining the whole world how can there be still green and a happy paradise outside that dark and gloomy place if everyone would see that that is how its outside that environment everyone would jus pick their hovering car and leave. Anyway I do understand that it was made for the whole purpose of having the happy ending and making Rachel be different and perhaps having longer than four years just changes the whole fact of reality and fakeness and what made it for someone to differentiate. Thus the better ending is of the directors’ cut where it ends with the closing elevator leaving the mystery to the audience. I guess I prefer the Directors cut though I’m not that fascinated for the fact that they are showing Deckard as an android instead of leaving us with the mystery.