Murray- Blade Runner 2.0

Ridley Scott would have thought that the change to the film was necessary because the added ending changed the message of the original point of the novel and film.  There is meant to be no clear ending but instead an end to the viewer’s look into this life.  In my mind I agree with Scott because the added ending was too hopeful.  Things will not get better in the post-apocalyptic world.  Instead, the reality is that everything dies.  People die, humans die, and the earth dies.  That is the main difference between the two versions.  In the original cut the death was conquered.  Baty beat death by ascending into heaven through the imagery of the dove and Rachel has beaten death because she does not have an expiration date.  Deckard does not necessarily beat death but he does escape the death of the city.  He and Rachel go off into the green, life flooded mountains.  This death is an essential part of the message in the second film.  It is the acceptance that everything is dying that is most important.  Baty accepts his death and thee value of life.  Deckard and Rachel decide to look beyond the confines of death.  Instead of letting death dictate their actions, they chose to love each other even though there is literally an expiration date to their relationship.   One could construe this as beating death but it is not.  It is the acceptance to see beyond the end and to value the time granted.  The original version of the film is a classic story of they lived happily ever after.  It is a great addition to the depth of the film to not use such an easy ending.  

By getting rid of the voice over the viewer has to make their own conclusion.  This also adds to the power of the director’s cut of the film because it stimulates the mind more. Ridley Scott argued that “confusion was exactly what he 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 viewer is forced to be engaged in the film. It would be possible in the original cut to simply listen to the film with very little visual context and know what occurring.  The later cut forces attention to be given to the actual visual representation of what is occurring.  This power obviously strengthens the director’s cut over the original rendition.