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.
Yunuen Cacique-Borja
ReplyDeleteWatching the different versions of blade Runner was like buying a house. You have all these options that roughly fit your house model but each option lacks what the other one has or has what the other one doesn’t all adding up to one mediocre option after another. The worst part about it is that you must choose from the options provided and be prepared to live with them as the reincarnation to one of the mile stones of science fiction. I think Blade Runner is one of those movies that actually need a remake. There is a lot of potential in the pages that Philip K. Dick wrote that I do not see in Blade Runner. Not to mention that some of the technology appears outdates which does not give the movie the respect it deserves. Also as you previously mentioned, the “happily ever after” did not need to be. Science fiction is not a soft couch one lays on when wondering about the future of humanity. Science fiction is that rocky road we all find ourselves in when we speculate about the persistence of our questionable decisions. In other words, science fiction does not mean a happy ending, it means reality check that more often than not it ends up being more depressing than our expectations. The ending was a deal breaker for both movies that lead me as a buyer to retain my imagination and not settle for either version.