Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)

[solaris72]

When I first heard the initial VO attempts - and there was a bit of it still toward the end after Batty's death - I maintained that that was the correct way if VO was going to be used. The big problem I have with the VO they ended up using for the initial 1982 theatrical release is that it belongs not only in another movie but for another character. The VO sounds way too confident and too cocky* and there's nothing really in the film that justifies Deckard sounding like that, even Deckard biting back at Bryan or him bluntly telling Rachel she's really a replicant. Then there's the final VO for Batty's death, which sounds *way* too OTN (Frank Darabont described it best). This also indicates that the VO was initially thought of as fulfilling stylistic convention rather than serving another purpose (Scott's initial frustration with it; Ford's disgust of it).

One big problem I have with it is that when you put VO on a movie you're sort of implying that the movie is being narrated by the VO character. But Blade Runner is decidedly not only from Deckard's perspective; he isn't even a part of the opening scene, but then he shows up narrating right after it. Obviously it's a different matter when you have multiple narrators, but of course that's not the case here.

[flyonthewall2983]

I read that the soundtrack wasn't released along with the film, because it didn't fit some of those stylistic conventions. That's surprising considering it's Vangelis, who was just coming off Chariots of Fire which was big for him and also a Warner Brothers movie. But one wouldn't come out until the '92 DC.

For what it's worth, The New American Orchestra release is good, but quite the curiosity. It came out a year later I believe, so it wasn't really meant to promote it properly.

[flyonthewall2983]

Happy incept date.

[Drucker]

Is it true that there were no prints struck of the final cut release? That it was only shown digitally?

[Brian C]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure - about 85% so - that I saw a 35mm print in Dallas in 2007. I don't believe the Inwood had digital projection yet back then.

[solaris72]

I saw the final cut in 35mm in 2007, and again in a now-weathered 35mm print just last year.

[Trees]

I think "Final Cut" negatives were scanned at 4K, but was the DI finished at 4K or 2K? I guess one advantage of optical and in-camera VFX is that, at least in theory, they would transfer over with a 4K DI, unlike most of the digital VFX done nowadays, which have been rendered at 2K originally, and would need to be re-rendered at 4K for a true 4K restoration.

"Final Cut" looks amazing at 1080p, that's for sure.

[flyonthewall2983]

I prefer the "Final Cut". I'd only seen the '92 cut just the year before so I didn't have the long-term attachment some here do which is understandable. I've not really ever been too tempted to look at the other cuts. I'm not a big fan of seeing multiple cuts of the same movie, I'd much rather see the extra footage as deleted scenes.

[Drucker]

I saw the final cut in 35mm in 2007, and again in a now-weathered 35mm print just last year.

Thank you. Someone in the Facebook thread insisted there were no prints of the Final Cut, just digital projection, which sounded absurd for 2007. I'll happily hold out and wait for it to come around!

[oh yeah]

I don't like the ridiculous teal tint that Scott put on the Final cut. It totally ruins the gorgeous golden look to some of the scenes in the film (e.g. the scenes with Rachael in the Tyrell building at sunset) and generally de-saturates and dampens the colorful and rich palette that was originally there. I'd much rather watch the Director's Cut or even one of the original Theatical cuts, "happy" ending and all. I was lucky enough to see a good 35mm print of the International Theatrical cut in Dec 2014 and it looked fantastic. I actually kind of like the original ending in a weird way, if only for the beauty of the footage -- it's not that much weaker than the ending of the Director's or Final cuts, which always seemed too abrupt to me. But the main flaw of the Theatrical versions is simply the unnecessary and lifeless narration from Ford.

[Trees]

This is a very informative, 3+ hour-long podcast about Blade Runner from the Projection Booth. Even for those with significant knowledge about the picture, you will likely still get something out of it.

[impossiblefunky]

Thanks for the shout out!

[AndreiTruffaut]

The first time I saw Blade Runner was some years ago, back in the mid-2000's. I was a high school teenager back then, and the film caught my attention for some reason, maybe it was the amazing visuals for its time, maybe I thought the concept was interesting or the characters, but I decided one Saturday to rent it and watch it that night.
The first time I saw it, there were some things I didn't understand, and it didn't really excite me or made me feel anything too deep, so back then, it wasn't my favorite, though I still kind of liked it due to its very sci-fi and even mystical feel to it.
I re-watched it again some years later, and it finally grew on me, to the point that I understood it better and liked it even more.
I think my favorite scene and the one that makes me feel some emotion from the movie is the "Like tears in rain" scene.
Not sure if I should post the SPOILER warning at this point, but just the way Roy Batty jumped over the building with ease and decided to save Deckard, the final speech Roy gave him, the music playing in the scene and the way he finally accepted death, it kind of speaks to me.
Over time, it has become a special scene to me.

[flyonthewall2983]

Happy Leon incept date

[flyonthewall2983]

Bill Hunt at thedigitalbits.com wrote that he heard from several sources that this will be released on 4K UHD by the end of the year, likely coinciding with the release of 2049

[flyonthewall2983]

"This Future Looks Familiar: Watching Blade Runner in 2017"

[flyonthewall2983]

Does anyone know why The Final Cut didn't get a larger theatrical release? One at the time, on the level of something like the one Apocalypse Now Redux did several years earlier, could have been a good gauge for Warner Brothers if a sequel is something that could have been warranted.

[flyonthewall2983]

Paul Sammon's making-of book Future Noir, which was recently re-released in time with 2049, is on sale on Kindle for 1.99

[flyonthewall2983]

I wonder how different Deckard winds up if Dustin Hoffman played the role. I wonder if he would have rejected the notion of him being a Replicant the same as Ford has.

[flyonthewall2983]

I would rather suggest it like the kiss between Michael and Fredo in "Godfather - Part 2", where Michael also grabs Fredo by the head and kisses him on the mouth, then says, "I know it was you".

I have always read the death of both Tyrell and later Roy as an perverted religious trope, because of the dove. In Greek mythology, the dove represents renewal of life, in Christian mythology it represents Gods forgiveness, and in terms the Holy Spirit.

As Tyrell, thru his implants, controls life and death, he can be seen as a God-like figure, before killing Tyrell, Roy infact calls him "The God of Biomechanics", and Roy as his first his son, then later when confronting Deckard as a God-like figure himself, controlling life and death, and as Roy forgave Tyrell for his sins, he now forgives Deckard.

I am quite glad the death of J.F. Sebastian is merely implied rather than dwelt upon with another gruesome eye gouging. Painful enough it is to consider his isolated existence, that we briefly see the terror as he runs out of the room and Roy approaches him. That moment which follows, the only moment in either this or 2049 when we get a good look at the stars.

[The Curious Sofa]

I wonder how different Deckard winds up if Dustin Hoffman played the role. I wonder if he would have rejected the notion of him being a Replicant the same as Ford has.

Hoffman probably would have given a more intense performance. Ford's performance at the time was criticized for him sleepwalking through the movie, maybe because not playing a lovable rogue, didn't give his charisma a lot of room to shine. But as with the film itself, time has been kind to his performance. His subdued, weary nature works with the melancholy mood of the movie and it puts more emphasis on the replicants, they appear both more alive than Deckard and more hungry for life.

So much of the online discussion of the film revolves around whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant. I always felt this works better as a suggestion rather than a certainty, which many claim it is. Deckard being a replicant doesn't fit with what I always saw as the theme of artificial beings becoming more human than humans. I can see why Ford objected because that's how he appears to be playing it.

[colinr0380]

I agree with you Curious Sofa, and also lean more towards the idea that Deckard is human mostly because it adds into that sense that we are witnessing end-stage humanity, and that the 'human beings' of the tale are mostly corrupt, cynical and brutally unfeeling, or just generally weary of life; whilst the Replicants are in the full flush of excitement about experiencing everything that the universe has to offer, even if it means being punished for it. I also sometimes like to imagine the Rachel character as 'playacting' that human dispassionate behaviour so as to better fit in (or mimic. or hide in plain sight) with the real human beings, but eventually she herself turns from dispassionate power-suited corporate drone into full fledged bundled in furs woman fleeing to an unknown future along with Deckard, like they are a pair of neo-cyber-Romanovs on the run.

And questions of Deckard being a Replicant or not would perhaps go against the final moments of the film (or at least the 90s "Director's Cut" version, which is the one I am most familiar with that reiterates the line: "It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?"), which underlines the 'lessons' being taught to Deckard throughout the film as he kills each member of the gang about whether it really matters or not if you are 'real' anyway when you are so close to being a living, breathing and feeling human being to be functionally indistinguishable from each other. The most important thing is to appreciate the wonders of your existence whilst you still have the chance.

(All the above though should be considered in the light of my not having seen the 2007 cut of Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049 as yet!)

[captveg]

The reviews in 1982 for Ford's performance as sleepwalking/bored wasn't helped by the voice over narration reinforcing that vibe. Removing the voice over requires the viewer to rely more on his more subtle moments in each scene, which has only been in favor of Ford in the re-evaluations.

[hearthesilence]

The reviews in 1982 for Ford's performance as sleepwalking/bored wasn't helped by the voice over narration reinforcing that vibe. Removing the voice over requires the viewer to rely more on his more subtle moments in each scene, which has only been in favor of Ford in the re-evaluations.

Absolutely. I've seen the film so many times, but the last time I saw it, I focused mostly on Ford's performance, and it really is great. It's arguably the first lead performance where he is able to show his full potential. He had been growing as an actor - he''s much better in The Empire Strikes Back than in Star Wars and obviously a memorable action hero as Indiana Jones - but Blade Runner demands much more of him, particularly when he's alone or in moments where there's no dialogue or action to rely on, and when there's a richer and more ambiguous interior that needs to be explored or at least suggested.

One of the pleasant surprises of MoMI's "snubbed" series this year was The Fugitive - this year's series focused on performances overlooked by the Oscars, and not long before they announced the line-up I actually used that performance as an example of Ford's ability to deliver a great film performance. (Not the first time I've made that argument using that film either.) I think too many people just took him for granted for so long, and to be fair, when I watched The Fugitive over and over as a kid, it was mainly for the entertainment value of an action film. Even then though, I picked up on how great Ford was in that role. Large parts of the film seem ludicrous now but Ford's performance holds up even better when you realize what a trap it could've been for any other actor. You have long scenes where there's no dialogue, little to no interaction with anyone else, and it's all by design given the plot of the film. Acting-wise, he's really on his own and it would've been easy to just throw in the towel and sleepwalk through those scenes, letting the score do all the work for him. But even though he hated working on the film (he told his co-stars during the filming "this could be my Hudson Hawk") he comes off as fully invested in the character - there's not a moment where he doesn't seem to have a lot going through his mind. Every time he's on-screen, he comes off as anguished or on edge without being too conspicuous about it.

[captveg]

That's a great example. I immediately think of something as simple as how he delivers the "Every time I look in the mirror, pal - except for the beard, of course" line with the smallest hint of a nervous laugh that still isn't quite enough to tip off the security guard.