Which "Blade Runner" Cut Should I Watch? A Visual Explainer.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Fans and newcomers alike have faced an enduring question about Ridley Scott’s 1982 original: Which version of Blade Runner should I watch? Which one is the “correct” version?
Here you go, with some spoilers: How the different versions change the movie.
The dove shot in the Final cut looks so much better. I had no idea it wasn't the original - which instead looks like it was just filmed outside in the studio backlot.
It removes the entire point of the shot - flying up into a bleary, depressing sky rather than an open, beautiful one completely contrasts the reason that shot was even included. It fits the look of the rest of the film better, but that shot isn't meant to mesh with the rest of the film. They basically chose aesthetic value over visual storytelling, or to put it in simpler terms, they said, "It's the tail-end of the 2000's and emo rock and edgy films are currently really hip so we're going to throw the meaning of this shot out the window and make it more aesthetically bleak so 2007 audiences will like it more."
the green filter and the change of the dove shot in the end were horrible for the final cut.
I get your guys' points about the visual meaning of the scene, but the location in the director's cut just doesn't fit well at all. I think the bird flying off to escape the city still holds the same meaning in the final cut, but like with everything else in Blade Runner, there's a subtlety to it. I think that the subtlety of the final cut is much better, and on top of that, it looks like Deckard didn't just randomly leave the city he was in.
The final cut aesthatically looks like something out of a matrix sequel. Make of that what you want.
+ProfessorRaskolnikov - The color of the sky could have been closer matched to the original, obviously agreed on that. Really though, like you've already addressed; it restores some continuity, but the message is symbolism is diminished. Overall though, like +Gradius pointed out, I think it's a visually impressive update to what looked like a studio backlot in the original, I'm much happier to see it exist in a final form like this than it did as the symbolism isn't lost entirely...To each his own though.
“Which ‘Blade Runner’ Cut Should I Watch?”
*Spoils major points of the movie*
The movie is from '82 dude
@@hansplodalski4354 It's from 1982, but the title of the video clearly makes it sound as though this video is for a new viewer. Most people who would benefit most from knowing which version to watch wouldn't have seen the movie yet.
It'd be like making a Star Wars video about what order to watch the movies in, but they spoil the big reveal. Yeah, it's 40 years old. But the title clearly lures people in who don't know anything about the movie and want to watch for the first time.
@@ryanammenheuser4788 Sounds more like it's tailored for people who already know that there are different cuts of the movie. Also, it can be expected that they will show parts of the movie. How are they going to show the differences otherwise?
@@hansplodalski4354 you don't need a guide telling you which cut to see if you've seen it already
@@hansplodalski4354 there will always be someone who hasn't seen it yet.
Fun fact: the theatrical cut ending has shots that were originally made for the Shining.
I saw Scott mention that in a Director's roundtable not too long ago. Crazy! :)
Whatcha talkin’ bout Willis?
That's insane! Did actually think about that ending first time I saw shining though
It's a miracle those shots still existed. Stanley hated leaking anything that didn't make it into his movies. He ALWAYS had the final cut lol
Yah but the Shining part is the part that destroys the theatrical release version ... its so incongruent to the rest of the movie ... hate the financiers for insisting on it against the director's will ...
The director's cut wasn't even sanctioned by Scott. The Final Cut is the true directors cut. The fact they named the director's cut as such is very misleading.
I'm pretty sure Scott didn't want a green tinge in his film...
sixstanger00 you best friends with him and he told you that? How do you know what Scott did and did not want?
@@MattyDante *_How do you know what Scott did and did not want?_*
By comparing the final cut to the *_DIRECTOR'S CUT?_*
I dunno....just a hunch.
@@sixstanger00 You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You think just because it has the word "Director" in it that Scott had anything to do with that cut? He did not. The Final Cut is the only cut in which Scott was given complete creative control to realize his vision. Do a little more research before embarrassing yourself again.
@@MattyDante
After 10 seconds worth of research:
_Director's Cut:_
_"The Ridley Scott-approved Director's Cut (1992, 116 minutes)[12] was prompted by the unauthorized 1990 and 1991 theatrical release of the workprint version of the movie. The Director's Cut contained significant changes from the theatrical workprint version. Scott provided extensive notes and consultation to Warner Bros., although film preservationist/restorer Michael Arick was put in charge of creating the Director's Cut."_
Your original comment claimed it wasn't even sanctioned by Scott. Do a little more research before embarrassing yourself again.
Further skimpy research indicates that Scott's reasons for disowning the "Director's Cut" version was because it lacked a key scene and that the climax did not contain the score composed for it by Vangelis.
no matter how many times I see it, the opening shot of Los Angeles with the atmosphere of Vangelis' score still moves me to the core!
The first scene with Rachael.."Do you like our owl?"..the music and lighting is incredible. Chills me as well
Stephen Mackrill Preach it brother!
I even love the LADD Co. music beforehand..I know it's on other movies but I always relate it to this one
Quite literally the most Cyberpunk visual to ever Cyberpunk. It's perfection!
Blade Runner is simply the prototype Cyberpunk look that countless artists, directors, writers, painters, architects, product designers etc refer to when it comes to Cyberpunk look and atmosphere ... even till today, it does not look dated at all ..
“Too bad she won’t live but then again who does”
One of the most profound lines spoken in any movie!
I know right its like all all are living but are we really we are all slaves to the machine, its so good
@@ipoulter9765 I took it as meaning she won't live forever, but then again who does. Meaning we all face death, the great equalizer
@@Tamagumo I take it as both
@@Tamagumo considering the fact that Deckard is also a Replicant, this is an amazing line lmao
@@ipoulter9765
i just thought he was implying Deckard is a replicant too
I am one of the lucky people who saw this movie for the first time in the final cut version and for me, it's a masterpiece.
Soo much good stuff. I always liked the bit about the 'phantom thumb' fix. The DC fixed LOTS of things. Me loves Ridley!
Same. This is the only version I've seen and I LOVED it. So glad that was my introduction to the story.
I envy you
Something always prevented me from reaching for the VHS when I was a kid.. almost like I knew a better version was coming lol.
Very useful video honestly
yea just watched it yesterday for the first time (completely) great film, and utterly influenced anime and japanese film culture , ghost in a shell for example is just so similar, but in my opinion not as good, i still think alien is the masterpiece ridley scott film, even though the existential questions this film asks are more profound, i just found alien more polished and more thought provoking (and i know its not a competition) but blade runner is great, comeon ridley go back to this way of making film, look prometheus is pretty good, but you used to be the best.
Useful for idiots who have never heard of Blade Runner before....
Yes. Exactly my thoughts. Great video. Short, to the point and very informative.
TheDeadb3ar the new one was really bad... comparing to the original
Harkness78, how does not hearing of a movie make one an "idiot"?
I'm surprised they didn't mention the AMAZING creative solution they applied to address the Abdul Ben Hassan shop interrogation scene. The audio never matched the video, so they got Harrison's son to come in and lip sync the lines, capturing just his mouth and chin, then superimposed that new footage onto the face of his father. It looks INCREDIBLE!
You do stuff like this perfectly and there are still abominations like Henry Cavill's Superman CGI mouth out there😅
@@malaoh that was just a terrible decision made on the rush. There has been many options that could've worked so much better that what they did. Even an easy and cheap deap fake would've been so much better.
@@xuxon24 maybe, but I prefer the way they use.. It is more personal and make the final result more organic and don't change the film with actual technologies versus 80's ones too much
Wasn't a similar thing done to the death scene of Zora, whose body double face was clearly seen in the sequence where she is shot and falls though the glass panelling? They bought the actress back in and shot her face then superimposed it on the body double's face ...
@@TheUTubeTeamSucks Absolutely....these 2 examples should be used as a precedent when filmmakers are looking at "enhancing" their older films. It's the antithesis of the SW Special Editions.
Sounds like Mr. Ford didn’t want to read those narration lines.
That's actually true, according to the "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner" book at least. He was outright sabotaging, because he thought it was stupid idea and hoped that if it sounded shitty, the WB wouldn't use it. They did.
@Alan Torn Haha that's hilarious, definitively sounds like something Harrison would do
@@zworm99 yeah, I love this detail too, you can hear him trying his best to make the narration sound cheesy and tone deaf, and the fact they still decided to go with it is indeed hilarious.
@@dvizionfilmz smart man
In the Dangerous Days documentary, he explains he did it the best he could (he had already voiced his dislike of the voice over narration, but wasn't going to bother arguing against it anymore since it was studio imposed).
Never seen the Theatrical. That additional ending sequence looks and sounds corny. No voice over for the win.
I watched it once by accident (after having seen the Director's Cut the first time) and was so thrown off by the narration, I thought it might have been fan-made.
Shelby Robertson I saw it on a plane for the first time, got the wrong impression, then figured out the movie was better without it.
It depends on which you see first. I saw the original when it came out and thought it was great. Yet I do see that it could look corny.
@@tb45g It was just fine. And the sunshine on thire faces worth it.
The idea of using voice-over I suppose is meant to evoke film noir film conventions. If done right, it could have been great, but Harrison Ford's voice just falls flat. Very flat.
I watched Blade Runner in the cinema when it opened in 1982 and it instantly became my favourite movie INCLUDING the voice-over. It reminded me of the Hollywood Humprey Bogart type detective films and it seemed like a great way to connect modern sci-fi with those classic film noir movie.
X2
you are absolutely right
Was the theatrical cut color grade closer to the final cut or the earlier director's cut dvd?
I agree. The ending isn't great but hardly ruins the film, and the voice over is much more film noir than the other version. I'm a HUGE PKD fan, and the question of whether Deckard is a replicant is pedantic and misses the point. Whether they're human or not is what the question is.
@@09Sayandeep director's cut
I like the Director’s Cut for everything except for the implication that Deckard is a replicant. I personally think that it detracts from Rachel’s role and diminishes the tension and conflict between him and Roy at the end of the film. Not to mention that Roy’s death for Human Deckard signifies that he’s forgiving humanity for their flaws, and showcases that he’s more human than his own creators.
Agreed, Deckard being a replicant betrays his entire character development.
I am thinking that the 2049 film should answer the question of Deckard's humanity, or lack there of. Perhaps it will leave the question on the table. I think that may be better overall. Regardless of what Scott says about it, they could ignore that in this film to revive the mystery. Personally, I believe the intention was to let it be up to us to ponder, as we are here, rather than actually answer. I think if there is a definitive answer and that answer is that everyone is a replicant, than where does that leave them with this new film 2049? I don't really see the story continuing if that's the case.
Sounds like you'd like the work print cut man! It's got no narration just like the directors cut but doesn't have the unicorn dream implying Deckard is a replicant
Even if Deckard is a replicant, it doesn't change anything about the ending with Roy, as Roy would have no way of knowing that Deckard is not a regular human.
THANK YOU!!! I've been maintaining this for years. So glad to see others agree. The films much better if Deckard isn't a replicant.
That voice over makes it sound like something from the "Police Squad".
It was meant to be a nod to Raymond Chandler.
Or the video game Snatcher which is inspired by
its also like the old film noir movies from the 40s and 50s
MatiZ815 I think they were going for the dragnet gumshoe type of mood as you suggested. Actually, thats the main reason I prefer the theatrical release over the other two. ✌️
Exactly. Exposition sucks - always. Let the medium explain it
I’ve seen them all and like the Final Cut best. However, I wasn’t aware of the color shifting. Seeing the 2 side by side, I prefer the cooler colors.
Bluer / cooler coloring looks a little better but is worse for our eyes, so maybe the studios are trying to do us a favor in the long run
@@ibelieveicansoar i dont think so i noticed that alot of older movies that had blue tint in original in bluray or 4k have green tint i dont know why also green tint dont fit in Blade Runner in my opinion.
The added blue/Green colour grading was a trend at the time in other films as well. For me, I prefer the original more vibrant colours of film and less of the more digitised filtered look.
@@mich722 Neon lights aesthetic fits better for this world.But the dream with the unicorn is better in directors cut.
@@ibelieveicansoar blue color isn't bad for your eyes; blue light is. Blue light has no "color" to it; it refers to the properties of the light itself (wavelength, frequency, etc.)
Final cut for sure, it lends the most to the viewers own imagination by getting rid of the overly clunky exposition through forced narration, the narration thing always felt to me like a stylistic choice of a bygone age of cinema and when i first saw bladerunner i didn't like it very much or it didn't leave much of an impression, but after watching the final cut in prep for 2049 i really liked it.
pathetic thats the markings of a cult classic.
pathetic How did you like 2049? I think it's amazing, definitely going to be one of my all time favorites.
pathetic totally agree
haven't seen 2049 yet, still hounding my friend who "isn't really into that stuff" to come watch it with me haha
...soon though....soon :)
read the book instead.
it names the jew.
the final 2007 cut is good but the green filter takes away a lot of the feel of the ambiance, the original movie can go from dark browns to light electric blues to fiery subdued reds from scene to scene but in the last version its all just a sickly green
Truth. Actually, the dove flying to a blue sky has a much greater impact an fits perfectly the mood of the scene bringing it a perfect conclusion.
I feel this is true of almost all films released today. Instead of rich, dynamic colour palettes, we get yellow or green or grey-brown. This “steel-green” colour grading trend is terrible and robs films of so much aesthetic value.
I mostly agree, Director's cut colours look so much more 'noir', however the dove looks more dramatic in the dark skies... At the same time Roy looks much better in 'director's' scene with all his silvery hues. Swampy green was a strange choice and evokes the imagery of rotting and something unhealthy overall.
To me the green color correction fits with the cyberpunk style of a degradated city and with the futuristic scenes that we see in the film.with a neutral color correction it doesn t look like bladerunner but just like any other film.
I definitely prefer the directors cut, I grew up watching the theatrical cut which I recorded on vhs on the tv back in the 90’s. I loved it then and it took a little getting used to without the narration. I only own the final cut at the moment but I plan on buying the other cuts in the blade runner 4K box set. The natural colours of the directors cut is what I prefer though. It’s like the goldie locks version, right in the middle and just perfect
Ngl, Rachel's smoking scene is the best smocking scene ever filmed.
Cliff Tao Marla smoking in Fight Club
Smocking
Ohh my god this is the truest thing I’ve ever read. It solidified my homosexuality 😂
Smocking hard
She's smocking hot, that's for sure. Back when smoking was seen as good.
Watched this movie hundreds of times. I like all the cuts and I kind of like the Voice Over narrative in the theatrical cut because it makes the film very much a detective noir film which is what it was written and made as and some of the exposition expands the world a bit more in interesting ways. Harrison Ford hated doing it, but his disinterested tone due to not wanting to do it actually works really well for the character. But the ambiguity of the Director's and Final Cuts is just as satisfying.
Paulusjaponicus well said, I too have watched this film (mostly original) hundreds of times. It is truly a classic to be savored!
Exactly, Harrison Ford's disinterested tone is in fact perfect for the character and the world he's trapped in.
I always considered the "happy ending" of this movie like the "happy ending" of the movie Brazil.
(Spooky music)
It's all in his mind....
I don't know about that, but I agree with the inverted commas. It was not a literal ending, it was a metaphor (one piece of the soundtrack is called Memories Of Green).
you shouldn't lol
Or 28 Days Later.
I did, too. It was corny but made for an (almost cynically hyper-real) contrast to the pervasive bleakness of the film. And as such, structurally, it kind of worked.
There's a "happy ending" one, the "Love Conquers All" one.
I prefer without the Escape ending.
In Blade Runner's world, Earth is dead/dying. There are no more forests in the mountains; no 'oasis' left untouched in the desert of a collapsing civilization.
Mauricio Morais it is set in 2019.
If you don‘t like it, it‘s easy: just press the stop-button at the right time.
@@audionmusic3628 Yeah, but BR universe is after the nuclear war.
It was never expressed nor implied that the BR world was post-nuclear holocaust. It was also never stated that Earth was dying, or that there were no forests left, or that the world outside of Los Angeles was a barren wasteland...
@@NCBikerBoy Movie and the book are different, but i thing that's one thing they have in common.
Watch both. Watch the Final Cut, then go back and watch the Theatrical Cut. The voiceover changes the feel of the movie a LOT, but it also gives some added information to parts of the movie that are interesting.
TheGreatMunky that's a good point. Never seen theatrical, but since I've seen final cut so many times i might as well check out theatrical
kratosmaycry
It's definitely worth a watch. I saw a clip of it on TV and the voiceover intrigued me, so I went back and watched it.
Not sure if it's still being sold, but when I got it I bought a blu-ray box set with every version of the film, including the Workprint version for $20.
That's one of my favorite things about Ridley Scott, he lets you watch whichever version of his movies you prefer. Unlike some directors. *cough* Lucas *cough*
TheGreatMunky i still feel that either version won't fix Rachel/Deckard "Love relationship". That felt super rushed and kinda made it seem obtuse. Lol
jdcompas
Yeah, that was probably the most awkward part of the film.
I would watch the theatrical release first. If its your first time seeing it, it helps out alot. After, I would suggest the final cut, seeing the vision of Scott at its greatest. Whichever version you choose, however, is nonetheless a brilliant work of art. Savour it.
Jesus christ. The theatrical cut is awful, especially due to the voice- off narration.
It is awful for a reason.
If watcher didn't care much it's OK too.
Even Harrison Ford himself admitted he half-assed the narration because he (and everyone in production) hated how the studio interfered with the movie production.
@@StrixLuke Damn. Maybe that's why he didn't gave his best at performing Deckard.
studio is like...we have to dumb it down for us audience...aaaaaand we cant have an ending without a conclusion, audience cant think.
You have to watch Final Cut with Director's Cut colors.
That would be perfect.
Look 2:43 final cut present the correct situation of the city (contamination)
Agreed
In the final cut Ridley Scott also messed with Deckard’s eyes in a few scenes, using CGI to add reflection effects just like those seen in some of the Replicant’s eyes. He was using it as another way to hammer home his claim that Deckard is a replicant.
Thing is though, if you can spot a replicant by the way light reflects in their eyes, then why bother inventing a machine and barraging potential replicants with zillions of questions?!
@@chrisyin1310 This is true, actually
@Vinicius Villela >director 'forcing' his perspective in his own movie
ok
@Vinicius Villela "Are you dumb?" Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is a different work. The work 'Blade Runner' may be based on that work, but it is not a straight adaptation, but a transformative interpretation, like most movies. If you are referring to screenwriter Hampton Fancher, you should realize that the ultimate decision of story with a film lies with the director (or oftentimes, and unfortunately, executive producers) not the screenwriter. The screenwriter produces the script, yes, but directors change the script all the time to better fit where the vision of the film ultimately lies.
@@chrisyin1310 Not suprised, after all everything seems to need to be spelled out to everyone these days.
@Vinicius Villela isn't the screenwriter doing the same thing by saying that he isn't a replicant?
in which version does he shoot first?
6th
they were all shot at the same time. the differences are all in the editing
@@John-bq1lp wooosh
John pls say you understand the joke. pls.
@@John-bq1lp THE JOKE
...
YOU
Watched the Final Cut in 4K HDR two weeks ago. Brilliant picture. One of the best movies ever made. There are many little hints that Deckard may be a Replicant. Also maybe Tyrell made Rachel and Deckard capable to become own children. Becoming this masterpiece a dystopian movie with one of the best Happyends ever.
Having seen the Final Cut only once, I'll say I prefer the Director's Cut
It has a darker image, more appropriate to the tone of story, and the beautiful soundtrack is played upfront in key sky city scenes, leaving the sound effects way in the back.
The Final Cut has a greener image, and sometimes the sound effects are enhanced to the detriment of the soundtrack, that looks subdued in some moments
Am I the only one who noticed this?
No, you're not alone. The Final Cut left me unimpressed. The image looked artificial and missing the magic of the Director's Cut. I first thought I was sentimental, but the differences are really there.
No, you're not the only one who noticed. Modern Hollywood prefers cool sounds over music, and insists on having a green-teal tint on a great majority of modern films. It's not an artistic choice, it's an attempt to mass appeal and prey on the familiarity of newer films in order to widen the appeal to young people who ignorantly think this movie looks "old".
you are a nostalgia fanboy
The Final Cut did put back in the "gore" I remember seeing at the movie theaters in the 1980s! That were crushing the eye balls of Tyrell shown and crackling sound and flesh ripping as both the replicant put nails in his hand! Also Deckard realignment of his fingers from being socket torn. Movies of the 1980s thought adding gore helped complete any misunderstanding about what painful intense moments viewers had to see (much like adult mature interests of that time going to drive-ins and movie theaters)! For VHS tapes "theatrical releases" and cable of the 1980s the gore had to be removed because of censorship for new audiences!
@korrok ... To remove "George Romero" edits made me VHS and DVD movie edits ... Believe a real Blade Runner fan from seeing this movie, fresh at the movie theater experience! The gore did not detract as editors fear from the story! I understood that Tyrell had to pay the ultimate price for his "monster" I felt once that happened ... Until eventually swaying to "heart felt admiration" of that replicant once he saves Deckard to live his full life! Editors destroying the versions up to that didn't allow a full fan experience!
I like The Final Cut but some of the colouring in The Director's Cut definitely looks better in these clips, which is annoying.
The digital colour grading tech was a bit new when Final Cut was done. So it went overboard, with teal and orange, and yellow skin, and a lot of the shots now look like Instagram filters.
@@BrendanBrady7 it looks so bad. Super generic nowdays,
The final cut's green hue over the entire film ruins it, 100%.
I was thinking the same, I'd prefer the colour of directors cut.
The green grading was done because of the popularity of "The Matrix" (let's get on the steel-green bandwagon!, etc.) - it was entirely unnecessary and the blue-red, natural tones are much better. I wish someone would make a fan edit that corrected the color tones in the Final Cut version.
Visually, my favourite is the Theatrical Release. It has the best film colour grading. The Final Cut added a blueish green filter to the film which takes away the vibrancy of the other colours, especially the neon.
Agreed. They have done the same thing with Star Trek The Motion Picture.
I was just thinking how much I like the coloration in the Director's Cut more than in the Final Cut, based on the comparison. I wish I knew which version I watched (for the first time) last year. I'm guessing it was the Final Cut, as I don't remember the unicorn scene...
Would be really cool if there was a Final Cut version with the theatrical coloration.
@@terrapinflyer273I'm guessing it can be made, using audio track from Final/Dir Cut but video from Theatrical Rel, possibly with light use of scissors and tape ;)
I much prefer the color and audio of the Director's Cut over the Final Cut, but I also prefer the added gore of the Final Cut over the Director's Cut. Would love to see a fan edit with the color palette and audio mixing of the Director's Cut, but with Final Cut's more gory scene edits.
You might wanna check out “The Analogue Cut” then. Sounds like it’s exactly what you’re looking for.
Just enjoy Director's cut, sick freak
@@emersonriedler can I get more info?
If all else fails, you can make the fan edit yourself.
The shot in the thumbnail had director's cut colours when I watched it, yet the rest of the film had Final Cut colours.
The Final Cut is the one that leaves the biggest impact on me.
I'm also a viewer that believes Deckard is a Human.
Deckard is human. 2049 answered that. Wallace is looking for the child of a replicant to study its code for the “secret” within its replicant parent that would solve his Procreation problem.
Wallace scans Deckard , if Deckard was a replicant in that moment Wallace would need to look no further for the child for his answer would be within Deckard a replicant that can reproduce. Once his scan revealed that Deckard was in fact human he was worthless to Wallace other than potentially having information on the whereabouts of the child.
How can you possilby like that they put a GREEN TINT over the entire final cut? Its horrible and ruins the entire noir vibes of the original and directors cut.
Philip K. Dick was VERY clear that Deckard is human, in multiple interviews - even in a 1982 Starlog interview after he read the final version of the script by David Peoples. Of course he's human. The entire theme of the film doesn't work if he isn't. Not to mention, Batty specifically says, "you people", referring to Deckard, etc.
There's no point to make Deckard anything but human.
@@kamuelalee Wrong.
I actually really liked Deckard’s narration in the original release. I can watch any of the cuts and enjoy them, but I do miss the narration when watching the other cuts just since I had watched the original release so many times before.
Yeah me too. Like after Bryant says Skinjob, and Deckard's character says, he would be the same type of person that used the N word.
I prefer the directors cut, because it solves in editing all the changes that the studio made to his original vision, without adding anything inauthentic to the initial shoot.
the original shot of the dove taking flight into a blue sky in the directors cut works much better as a metaphor of roy's soul, and to show that at the very end he was able to somewhat redeem himself because he could finally understand the true value of life. that's the only time you see a clear sky, and it works great. the sfx shot they added for the final cut doesn't even match the surrounding scenery, and doesn't match texturally with the actual hand painted mattes in the shots that precede and follow it.
I don't like the color correction in the final cut
Yeah it isn't very nice at all, I found a way that helps a bit, most modern tv's have a colour balance setting in picture settings if you switch it to cool it brings out more blue & if you then go to tint settings & move it to the right a few steps it brings out even more blue not perfect but I found it to be betterer
That would make no sense to adjust your tv's tint just because of one movie. And btw it's not the color correction it's color grading.
I didn't say it was perfect you just can't take the tint too far or skin tones get messed up, but for me it looks better than that awful green look it has, plus it takes about 30 sec to do once you get the hang of it, & the same for changing it back for normal viewing, There are fan edits out there that have re colour graded it, would be nice to have a look at one
I'm ok with the green, I prefer the 80's look but there's something very sci fi about the green/teal filter. I'm glad BR 2049 stayed more true to the color timing of the first movie instead of teal.
That green colour tint reminds me of the first Alien film.
The Final Cut reminds me of 2049 with the color correction
With how beautiful that movie looks, that's a good thing
Eh.
That movie was better. I bought a Blu Ray packet with five versions of the original before I saw it, and one of the only reasons I understood its staying power after watching was the production design. Voice over, no voice over, didn't matter, it wasn't as interesting to me as people make it out to be. 2049 had a great story, told well.
@@futurestoryteller did 2049 have interesting production design tho?
@@kingsley3208 I mean, yeah, I guess, a bit derivative by necessity though, yeah?
@@kingsley3208 it 100% did. Villeneuve took what Ridley Scott helped bring to life in the first movie and cranked it up to 11 for 2049. Villeneuve took full advantage of the script taking place 30 years later, using it to show how technology improved since the last movie. Visually fantastic.
loved the narration, gives it that hard-boiled detective story feeling
Two reasons I prefer the Director's Cut over the Final Cut, I hate the green tint and secondly the Blade Runner end theme credits music is shortened on the Final Cut.
P Ferreira cutting Vangelis short? Thats a crime against both music and humanity
@T. M. Shannon Yep. It's a nitpick but if you love the film through and through it's pretty noticeable. I can live with the digital stuff added to the Final Cut but the colour grading and end credits music change was not an improvement.
Green tint makes things more atmospheric
2:42 This scene was so cheap in the older version, I was shocked too.
Final Cut was the only edition that Scott had full control over. The Director’s Cut wasn’t controlled by Scott.
@@stevewalker6240 I understand your point and your preference for the director cut over the final cut. However, majority of the filmmakers who made great films in the past prefer to have their old films remastered or mordernized and would much rather watch it in 1080p on a television screen instead of going to the cinema to watch the 35 mm film version of it. William Friedkin (director of The Exorcist, French Connection, Sorcerer) said in one of the podcasts that Tarantino showcases the film Sorcerer (35 mm film) in one of Tarantino's theatres; Friedkin appreciates the gestures but gave him permission under one condition: that he will not go to the theatre to watch it. Friedkin elaborated his point by comparing it with great music made in the 40s and 50s. Would you still listen to those old songs in their original version with all the scratches and background noise?
AZ DarkSide I agree with Rian about the director’s cut but I love the hell out of you for having a Grendel avatar.
I’m not saying my preference, just pointing out the video is incorrect stating Scott did the Directors Cut. They fired him after shooting was done and didn’t even let him edit the film originally.
Rian Sahabat me too
Ridley Scott did have control over the Director's Cut ... all the editing was done according to his written instructions, the editor simply do not have any creative power to add or remove anything , its all done STRICTLY according to Scott's intentions ...
The Director's Cut was done long after the theatrical release of the movie... it was produced because the owners saw an opportunity to cash in due to renewed interests on the movie as the response to various unofficial cuts was overwhelming, so they asked Ridley Scott to comeback to make his preferred version of the movie he had always wanted to make.
Even in the making of documentaries, the financiers are willing to admit apologetically that they failed to understand Scott's vision for the movie ...
So please stop spreading false rumores, there's enough falsehoods regarding the movie already ...
(another falsehood about BR is that the unicorn scene is an afterthought after the relase of the movie, NO ITS NOT. Ridley Scott has shot both the unicorn scene and the final origami scene during the original production for the movie, but those scenes were forcefully cut out by the demands of the financiers ... and no, the unicorn scenes were not taken from another movie called Legend, how can it be taken from Legend when Legend has not even begun filming at all !)
Though I have seen all the versions of "Bladerunner" and enjoyed them--I even have the complete set on DVD--I still prefer the original theatrical release. The Film Noir narration helps give an atmosphere to this one that the others don't quite have.
Absolutely loved Ford's voice over... that hard-boiled noir vibe of a burnt out hired gun, still good at his job (and sought after) but so sick of it all. And I submit that it is in fact proof of Deckard NOT being a replicant; you had to have been around a lot more years than the 4 year life span of Roy Batty.
Same. The dogged, down at heel, put upon tone Ford adopts is perfect for the film. Exactly right.
My perfect version would be if someone made the "FINAL CUT" version *without* the unicorn moment interrupting Deckard's moment at the piano and WITHOUT the "steel-green grading", leaving the original color tones as they were in the Director's Cut, as I prefer them (and I think the green grading was primarily done because of the popularity of the "Matrix" at the time; the original blue/red natural tones are so much better) - but still leaving in all of the edits and footage of the "Final Cut" (in other words, re-grading the color back to the natural blue/red tones). That would be my perfect version. I'm sure it's possible to do it, I just haven't seen that done yet.
Closest to that is the workprint cut
I 100% agree
I agree. The unicorn scene took me out of the movie just as much as the original driving away scene. It was so forced.
100% agree
The directors cut looks way better.
No matter what version you pick, it’s a great movie and it will leave an impression if you think deep about it.
2:18 Sean Young's beauty was exceptional
Like yours x
She still is
@@michaelservice2355 lmao smells like desperation in here
Was it? Not in my opinion. She was cute. That's all.
Gavin Blain It was desperate, guys a simp and was clearly looking for puss
I've seen them all and my favorite remains the original theatrical. The narration bothered me as a kid but I grew to love it.
Thats why its so good to have so many cuts of the movie, a lot of people do not like the theatrical cut with the voice over, ending etc as opposed to people like you who do .... making all these cuts available lets people chose which one they want to watch ...
I think it should be noted that the "Deckard is a replicant" allusion is something that was shoehorned into the movie via the Director's Cut, and was never part of the original script. In fact, it undercuts the whole arc of the movie, which is about a human who has suppressed his empathy rediscovering it by learning to empathise with those he's been conditioned to think of as inhuman objects. If Deckard is a replicant, this arc is meaningless.
Which is to say: I wish there was a cut of this movie that was like the Final Cut, only without the unicorn dream sequence.
Idk about that... K had a similar arc in some ways. He also killed replicants and had a change of heart by the end of it. Though honestly, K is WAY more interesting as a character to me. And his romance with Jo is honestly a lot more tragic since she's not even able to physically interact with him. And some might also question if her love for K is actually real or just programmed. I believe it was real though. And honestly pretty beautiful, in a sad way. The sequel in many ways is even better than the original, largely because the main character is a replicant blade runner. He's despised by humans AND his own kind. He doesn't belong anywhere, and he's forced to obey orders to kill his own kind, and only disobeyed because it was a child.
Wrong. Go back and watch the theatrical cut. And then consider this: Tyrell was a replicant as well. That was the intention, in the original film. Roy killed replicant Tyrell. They just couldn't finish everything necessary for this reveal. But that was what Roy was to discover right after his death, he wasn't going after Sebastian. He finds Tyrell's dead body in a sarcophagus in a chamber up higher in the Tyrell pyramid. He calls back to these intentions in Prometheus with Weyland.
Deckard being a replicant makes nothing meaningless. It was never about a human who has suppressed his empathy, lol, it was about what it was to be human and how the replicants had the capacity for humanity, because they were just a new race of human after all. Roy was the ultimate example of this because in his final act, even without the upbringing and socialization (or the illusion of it) he made a conscious decision to save Deckard. Didn't matter what Deckard was. He saved him, defying his own nature, with not an ounce of nurture. It's Roy's story that proves the humanity of replicants. And ultimately that's more important than whether Deckard somehow found something that wasn't really lost.
Deckard already showed he had empathy towards replicants when he decided to save Rachel. Continuing to go after Roy and the rest of them wasn't about empathy it was about doing his job. He was still a cop and they were murdering people. Granted, they were more or less justified, like a slave killing their master and other slavers in their quest for freedom, but Deckard still felt obligated to complete his case because their motivation and intentions were unknown to him.
Just fastforward through that bit
It's literally in the original script. The entire point of the story is that he's a replicant, and it was always there.
"Deckard's voice over.
DECKARD (V.O.)
I knew it on the roof that night.
We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!
Combat models of the highest order.
We had fought in wars not yet
dreamed of... in vast nightmares
still unnamed. We were the new
people... Roy and me and Rachael!
We were made for this world. It
was ours!"
www.dailyscript.com/scripts/blade-runner_shooting.html
Taken from the end of the script.
Yes, I agree. Apparently Ford and Scott really disagreed over this possibility, and so Scott beefed up the evidence in his later versions. I prefer Deckard being human, not that I don't love Ridley Scott tho'!
Watch all the versions! And then watch all of them again. :)
And where can I get all the versions?
Eduardo Montes de Oca ... the internet? eBay? Amazon? Look it up
Best advice ever!
Yes. Good advice. Then each person can decide which version they like more.
Having seen and loved the original in the cinema when it came out, I'm naturally biased towards this one. When I saw the director's cut on dvd I was disappointed that there was no voice-over, and at the abrupt ending.
Today however, I can see how the newer versions are better, however nostalgia still brings me back to the original.
Bruce Smith When they released the director‘s cut in cinema, I couldn‘t wait to see it. When the voice over didn‘t come, I left the theater. I tried it later on VHS and never saw a movie so badly cut down like this.
I liked the voice over too. It gave it that”noir” feel. I’ve seen all the “cuts” and prefer the theatrical release best. I feel I’m one of a few tho
@@rickhunter6513 Nah I totally agree with you, I think a lot of people bought into the way this video essentially told everyone how to feel about the different versions.
The Final Cut is definitely my favorite
*2:10* That is so true. I like the Directors cut and the final cut. I think the Directors cut just nudges it as the gore does take away one thing that all versions had in common to an extent... subtlety.
First version I saw was the Theatrical several years ago by my uncle who thought the voice over added more character to Decker and theme to the noir style. Watched the Final Cut last night and I missed hearing the classic detective voice over.
I can't get into it without the narration
He´s a crappy replicant then. He always gets his ass kicked by replicants. Much weaker and slower.
well, if deckard is in fact a replicant he is an older, worse version
What´s the point if he´s going to be just a regular human with no abilities. I think they included this narrative to make people wonder. He was probably just a human in Scott´s mind.
fmcr Scott has stated he believes that deckard is a replicant, but it's open to interpretation
and deckard ain't no regular human with no abilities
He sucks in the movie. Kills one replicant running away by shooting her in the back. Then another while she´s doing stupid backflips like an idiot in front of him. The other female replicant saves his life when he´s being choked by the bald one. Then runs away from the main villain who saves his life. What abilities does he have?
If he wasn´t Harrison Ford people would just think he sucks at his job.
I enjoy the ambiguity of it all. And the theatrical version has a very special place in my heart, an homage to film noir from simpler times.
The first 'Theatrical release' with the narration (IMO added because Most people hadn't read 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep), in my mind can never be bettered.
First impressions are the Strongest memories!
And yes, I do have the 5 disc, Collectors Edition.
"Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me - cold fish." I loved these narrations. I think it binds the movie closer to the book.
The movie has almost nothing to do with the book.
You may like narrations for your own reasons but objectively they didn't fit the film at all.
@@RIDDICK0911 Dude get over your way of looking at it.
One of the best things they "fixed" in the final cut were the scenes where Zhora is getting shot while crashing through glass. In the original version it was very obvious that it was a stunt double wearing an awful mismatched wig. Its much better now.
If Deckart was a "terminator " of some sort, why then would he say "i didn't feel good about shooting a woman in the back" my vote: human
@@davmil2002Replicants aren’t robots, just genetically modified humans. They can differ greatly from each other, just because Deckard feels compassion doesn’t mean he isn’t a replicant.
I saw this film when it first came out and I fell in love with that version. So US Theatrical for me EXCEPT it turns out that the International Version is just the uncut version or original cut whereas the US Theatrical got cut for an R rating. So if you like the original watch the International version. It is how the film would have been released in the US if not cut to get an 'R' rating. It has the voice over and all the additional bits of violence and gore. And yes, I like the voice over and the "tacked on" happy ending.
Same, the theatrical version shows off why giving complete control over to a director doesn't always make something better. The voice overs make it feel more like a classic film noir which gives the film a more appealing feel IMO. Didn't know how the international version is what the theatrical could have been.
I too saw it when it first came out and was immediately a huge fan, so I never minded the narration and happy ending. I loathe the unicorn in subsequent versions.
That said, there is actually another cut that is rarely acknowledged that made the rounds in some theaters back when I was in college in the early 90’s. Apparently some people found some lost footage and inserted it, while also removing the narration and happy ending. It was superb, even though the quality was questionable as it wasn’t sanctioned. It also didn’t have the unicorn dream. That would be the version I’d like to own.
Hey.
It's been 2 year's since you wrote this comment, but can an international version be bought on r found?
Least there are "Re-graded" Copies floating around that remove that nasty green tint.
And the UHD 4k Ver. has much better color but the soundtrack is screwed.
screwed? how? what did they do?
2049 was great. But the original is untouchable. Fantastic film
The ending to the theatrical cut reminds me of the American "love wins it all" ending of Brazil
I found the happy ending of the TR deeply disturbing, and far more impactful than the deadly earnest later versions.
I thought it would be The International Cut that's one of three popular ones.
The US Theatrical Cut but with more violence? Yes, please.
The International Cut would have been the one you saw on Home Video for all those years, essentially the first time an Unrated version of a film came to video in lieu of the Theatrical Cut.
Its better without the extra violence honestly
Is there any extra violence apart from the Pris scenes?
Thanks for the platform, but I have watched all many many times. My personal favorite is the theatrical release. It's the one I bonded with when it was released in theaters. I love everything about the theatrical release and now is the only one I watch. I am a fanatic regarding this movie. Can't watch it enough.
Thank you for posting and giving fans an opportunity to voice their personal preference. 👍
Hey.
I totally agree.
I just can't get into the version's without the narration or voice over.
I love the final cut, but dear god that green filter just kills the look of the original.
yeah, I can't understand why they did that. It has now the same green touch as in Matrix!
director's cut color is better! It is more natural!
I think the color grading helps make an important dissociation for the audience: that the rampant technological and corporate expansion creates not just a social toll, but an environmental one as well, as it is wholly unnatural. Not just is there a complete lack of plants or animals (in the Director's and Final Cuts), but also a lack of natural lighting. Almost in a way that classical film noir cinema used stark, contrasting black and white lighting to enhance emotional expression, Bladerunner cynically uses its blueish-green tint to alienate the audience atmospherically from feelings of comfort or familiarity in its dystopian cyber-scape. That's just my hot take.
@@Apelles42069 no man, it's the seemingly endless curse of 'orange&teal' color grading that has plagued Hollywood for more than a decade. The original had some of the most beautiful use of color, emphasizing the neon signage and overall futuristic metropolitan look. The Final Cut destroys Blade Runner's iconic colors and makes it bland and interchangeable. It will not age well.
I'm tired of orange&teal - so very, very tired.
@@Apelles42069 sure maybe as a backstory as to why, but aesthetically the director's cut looks more natural and hence better for me than final cut
I've always thought the unicorn sequence was proof Deckard was not a replicant. Just like one of Tyrells implanted memories the image of a unicorn is something we all imagine but have never seen. I think it's about how ideas or mythology passed down through ages shapes how we think, despite none of it being real. I think this is the moment Deckard accepts replicants as human, now asking himself 'what's the difference?'.
Unicorns were real tho. Hello
Still prefer the voice over version, thought the unicorn scene was a bit over the top and I liked the voice over ending, it was a happy ending to what was really a very sad but beautiful film, it is still my all time favorite film even at the age of 78.
The final cut has an addition of a visual of the two dancers at the club where Zhora worked that isn’t in either the other two versions. I personally like the directors cut the best
Why is that??
Man, I LOVE that visual. It really sets up the scene at Taffey's club (The Snake Pit). Bizarre it was left out before
According to the book Deckard is NOT a replicant..
and I like this movie (and 2049) more when thinking of him as a human.
Yeah in the book he's just a guy and it feels like the writers of the film were going with this too, but of course Ridly Scott got pretentious.
for a little while in the book it is ambiguous though, and the ambiguity is what counts. In the end it's not supposed to matter whether or not he is a replicant
@@GlitzPixie It questions the humanity of him, but not weather he is a literal robot. It's been a while maybe I don't remember but while reading I don't recall any replicant ambiguity.
@@Xegethra nah there's a whole section dedicated to his realization that the police station he's detained at is filled with androids with implanted memories and how it makes him question his own humanity literally and figuratively. Even after he confirms he's not a robot the question is just as relevant like you say, it's just the distinction between the question of biological humanity and psychological/emotional humanity is less important because he realizes it doesn't really matter
@@GlitzPixie There is? Wow it has been a while haha. Oh well. But yeah, he's human in the books and I think he is in the film too. I think Scott was trying to make it deeper than it was really. Especially with the lazy writing where he doesn't answer it until saying after the film, not during it....well if it meant that much to him he should have just done it in the film more solidly...which leads me to believe that the film didn't initially want him to be replicant.
I like the one everybody hates, with the voiceover and the happy ending.
I like this movie so much that I won't pick one over the other. Both represent what Ridley Scott was trying to achieve. The fact that the producers and the studio forced his hand over money and made changes he didn't like doesn't diminish the original version for me at all. The directors cut is a refreshing revelation of Scott's vision and I'm glad fans have been able to see both.
actually the theatrical cut with the happy ending seems to be what the sequel builds on 2049. & I prefer it. Just ending w/ a shut door gives insufficient or absence resolution of the conflict of the story. This story needed a ending. IMHO & the story makes better sense as Ford claims, he was not a replicant making an ironic contrast between an inhumane human and a more humane replicant
Yes, seems like that the version used for Blade Runner 2049.
I know lot of people dont like it but i like the original theatrical cut because that is how i saw it first and i loved it still to this day
I prefer the studio meddling theatrical cut for a first watch, honestly as it explains a LOT of important points. I saw it in the theater in 1982.
Why should it be "explained" on points that are ultimately subject to interpretation? Viewers need to be both given more credit, and made to give it more thought. It's understandable enough without dumbing it down for the audience, and a much better story when explanations aren't spoonfed as if there's only one "right" way to read the movie.
'Fucker' instead of 'father'
Fucker is better
They both have the same connotations
No way. Father made way more sense for that scene.
From what I have read, it was intentionally ambiguous.
That was one change I would change back. And I would drop Roy apologising to JF.
According to Scott in recent interviews , the voiceover wasn’t from studio meddling and he wanted it. Harrison just could,’t deliver it the way he wanted. He felt it was necessary to clarify plot points.
I had the rare privalege to see it before the box office release, as my mom was friends with many of the stunt people involved. It spoke to me as much as a 10 year old as it does now, regardless of the version.
Amazing! Do you know if you saw the Theatrical release, or a workprint-type version?
As I saw it in the theater, that is the best version for me. I actually enjoy the narration - in the style of old film noire detective movies.
I love the Theatrical Version. Love the film Noir Voiceover and the Happy Ending with Sunshine at the end. Deckard was not a Replicant!!....Ridley Scott can go stuff it with his Directors Cut!!!
This is an easy one for me. In my opinion the theatrical cut is the best version because it doesn't tell the audience whether Deckard is human or Replicant. The other cuts give clues to point the audience to the fact Deckard is a Replicant, which in my opinion makes things less interesting, so thats why i always preferred the theatrical cut, plus it was the version i grew up with back in the 80's. Scott always said he wanted Deckard to be a Replicant, but Hampton Fancher said its better to not know. I totally agree with Fancher.
Fancher said, The questions are interesting. The answers are boring.
I agree its better without the dream sequence for that reason, but the Final cut is better in every other way.. so its an impossible choice lol. But purely for story - 100%.
And it's not just 'more interesting' to leave it ambiguous.. imo it completely undermines the themes of the story for Deckard to be a replicant. Comparing his humanity with the replicants, especially Batty, is the whole point.
I wish they would just take every last second of footage, all those cut scenes and extended versions etc. and put it all into one 5 hour version of the movie. I love Blade Runner and can’t get enough of it!!!
One element that was thankfully taken out of the Director's Cut for the Final Cut were the highly visible cables holding up the spinner props.
I've always really felt like I despise the color grading on the Final Cut and that the Director's Cut colors are more striking and clean, but the other small differences in the cut and, especially, the very scant visual changes (Such as the background of Batty's first appearance and the Dove shot, both shown here) make it still superior. I almost wish we'd get a Despecialized-style version like some did with Star Wars on the grading, or maybe a "Really-the-Final-Cut-Really-Guys" without it.
Gamers rise up
@@tadpolegaming4510 ???
The final cut looks more like a Michael Mann movie with all the different filters.
Which one? ALL of them..each one has their own particular charms!
the theatrical cut is for me the best one, I love the final scene, the contrast created by its green and open landscape.
Yeah the narration also makes it feel closer to a classic film noir
At what point in the rest of the movie is a green and open landscape even hinted at? They even have artificial animals ffs.
I wish they would have released a version with an isolated score, so you could just listen to all the music and watch the visuals.
having the voice over seems like an old documentary vibe
I still think *some* of the voiceover works. It adds that film noir "Sam Spade" type overtone that sets a mood the later versions fail to achieve. I also hate the colour grade of the Final Cut.
tryptychUK I don't understand why people have a problem with the original blade runner film as is. It was and is perfect. And there wasn't that many voice-over scenes. I thought just enough. Blade runner, there is no other.
tryptychUK me too remember the scene near the beginning when they close the shade and you can see the sunset in the background? In the final cut it looks dull and shitty, in the original, the sun looks warm, bright and vibrant. Original looks better.
@@pyreeight8639 that is exactly what I think as well.
I was introduced through “directors cut” and hated it. Watched again with “final cut” and now absolutely love it.
Not entirely sure it was a result of the different cutting (maybe it just struck me differently) , but I definitely think I prefer final cut
The voiceover isn't inferior, it's just different. It's a callback to Sam Spade noir type fiction. People forget how corny some of the early cyberpunk stuff was. Director's and Final are better for this age, but the theatrical release with it's bizarre juxtapositions of tone was appropriate for the infancy of this genre.
By adding teal (too much, IMO) the final cut looks like a product of "the times" whereas the original color grading (in US theatrical and director's cut) is more unique; perhaps classic, but not cliched. The narration is closer to what film noirs do, they're typically not ambiguous in story, more in morality. Plus there's a few choice lines in the VO that make it worth an interesting curio. Violence & gore, yeah, we get the point, seems like it was added, again, to suit "the times" in which it revised (not restored). Scott talks about how "this is how it was meant to be" but no one, in 1981, could have imagined computer color grading and it shows; once "teal-orange" becomes a cliched aesthetic (the way 80s blue night is a cliched aesthetic), the "Final Cut" will look dated. Which the original never does. Sometimes this film feels like its been meddled with on the level of Star Wars IV. Also, I'd be more inclined to buy the unicorn sequence if that was material shot but then removed; but considering that it's footage from Scott's next film, LEGEND (with Tom Cruise), then it really seems to be Scott reconning the film's core story. If Dekkard is a replicant, then the 2049 sequel really makes no sense: two replicants produce a human child? And why no record of Dekkard on file in the Tyrell Corporation archives? Dekkard doesn't function as a replicant in the sequel, and Scott was heavy-handed in the development of the sequel and planned to direct it, if not for scheduling delays and a hard schedule to direct ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. Although, I hesitate to believe Scott would have directed the sequel in any event. The original film's failure derailed his career and his creative risk-taking as a filmmaker.
Scott is now an old man. Color grading on Final Cut sucks so hard. Super generic.
I saw Blade Runner in 1982 when i would have been 13 or so. I'm good with the theatrical cut. And the epilogue where Deckard and Rachel escape Los Angeles and are somewhere north of it is an outstanding scene. At the end of the day, it is a sci fi, drama, action ... and romance film.
This is a really great video, no bloating just necessary info and the infusion of bladerunner vibes makes it very watchable.
The theatrical release will always be my favorite, because it was the one I saw when I was younger and sparked my imagination. In the 80s, you could BELIEVE that this is what 2019 would look like. I do like, however, how the Director's and Final cuts end.
I want to watch final cut but... It's green!!! You changed the entire color of the film?! That's so lame.
From this comparison I agree. It looks nauseating and not pleasant. Of all filters the green-tinted one is the worst. It doesn't create a mood and it doesn't look good. It just looks like a green tint is thrown on. It's also very generic.
I watched the Final Cut first, and didn't get it. I then watched the theatrical cut, and finally understood the world. Now I can go back to the Final Cut and enjoy it, but the narration really was helpful for a first-time view.
Directors cut. Always 😎
I grew up with the theatrical version with the Philip Marlowe-style voice-over narration, and I have always loved it. It gave the movie a true film noir flair, something that no other sci-fi movie ever tried. It was one of the many things that make the movie unique. I wonder why it's mentioned that the theatrical supposedly didn't have the unicorn sequence -- it definitely did have it in the European version that I've watched many times back in the 1980s. I also preferred the ending of the theatrical cut, especially now that I'm 50, went through enough experiences for multiple lives and don't need to see mood-killers anymore. I very much prefer good endings. The director's cut tried hard to kill one of my favorite movies from my youth, and I strongly recommend to avoid it at all costs and watch the 1982 theatrical release version of the movie - no matter if Ridley Scott or Harrison Ford tell you otherwise. The theatrical release still is the best version of the movie. PS: Also, if it weren't for the voice-over narration, nobody would know that the language Gaff speaks is called City Speak...
Same. I always loved the narration. Now we need a fan edit of all deleted scenes into this version.
I liked that film noir VoiceOver version and would like to see it again .