Christopher Nolan: BLADE RUNNER's Theatrical Cut Is "The Best Version"

[AndyDursin]

Interesting comments from Nolan, which you can find in a bunch of places -- https://www.slashfilm.com/767976/christ ... de-runner/

"It is the best version of the film. It's imperfect – and it seems presumptuous and I'm a huge fan of Ridley Scott, so I don't want to go up against his view in a sense – but the reality is, that tension between the marketplace, between the studios, between the fights, the creative stuff that happens when a film goes out, unless they literally pull the film out of the director's hands and recut it, and bastardize it in some way, I think really the authoritative version of the film tends to be the one that goes out there in theaters.Even with the voice-over, all the rest, there are all these defining things to it that I realized I'd missed over the years in coming to the other versions.

My personal feeling is also that theatrical cut IS the best edit of BLADE RUNNER for 3 key reasons:

1) As poorly worded as much of the dialogue is, the voice-over sets too much mood, atmosphere and also clarifies story -- especially for 1st time viewers -- that's lacking from Scott's myriad of other edits. There's just something lacking from the non-narration versions, and since the movie was always intended to have a voice-over, it wasn't constructed to work without one. Watching The Final Cut is like watching a film that's kind of missing its soul. And I certainly miss Ford's voice-over when Batty dies at the end. Not ALL of it is badly written.

2) I also like the happy ending (sorry!). The abrupt "doors closing" ambiguous finale of the "Final Cut" and other versions isn't as satisfying for me.

3) In "The Final Cut," Scott goes "all the way" with the "Deckard is a Replicant" plot line -- which doesn't work for me at all. The beauty of the film's effectiveness is that a soulless human discovers humanity from a mechanical being. If Deckard is always a replicant -- what the hell is the point of the movie? At least keep it ambiguous -- which Scott's other versions DON'T do. The Final Cut basically spells it all out for the audience (which is funny because even BLADE RUNNER 2049 kept it ambiguous).

Everyone has their own take on it, but I was happy to see someone at least pledge support for the original 1982 release version.

[mkaroly]

I am not sure which cut I prefer, to be honest. I used to like the Director's Cut and liked the implication (or clearly stated fact) that Deckard was a Replicant. However, after reading the original novel upon which the film was based and after viewing the movies several times over the years (like, way more than several times), I think it is more interesting if Deckard is NOT a Replicant but a human being. In fact, that is why I liked BLADE RUNNER 2049 so much on second viewing. It is much more powerful to suggest that a human and Replicant producing a child is the real miracle of it all, and I think that makes sense of both stories. Deckard as a Replicant is not really as moving or interesting a storyline, so now I look at BLADE RUNNER and feel Scott's vision is clouded where The Final Cut is concerned.

Still...I don't care which version I watch. BLADE RUNNER is such a unique and well made film that it doesn't bother me to watch any of them.

[Paul MacLean]

I agree the narration helps to clarify things. Yeah, it is corny (and sometimes superfluous -- like when Deckard explains Bryant "is one of those cops who used to call...")

A lot of Blade Runner fans prefer the Final Cut's lack of narration -- but since they originally saw the film with the narration, it is already clarified for them.

And sorry, yeah, I prefer the "happy ending" too -- and I refute the idea that it "isn't believable". When I lived in LA I had a conversation with someone who insisted the happy ending isn't believable because there would be no wilderness (or even non-urban regions) remaining in the world. And yet, twenty miles north of where I was having this conversation (in one of the world's largest -- and most polluted -- cites on Earth) lay the vast wilderness of the Angeles National Forest, and about 50 to the east was the Mojave Desert.

Agreed, the "Deckard is a replicant" notion is silly -- and obliterates the whole concept of his character arc.

Also, if the Tyrell Corporation wanted to design a "killer replicant" to do away with Roy Batty and the others, isn't it kind of stupid to design one who is pushing middle-age -- and physically weaker than the replicants he is supposed to execute?

Also, the "spruced-up" shot of the ascending dove near the end of the film doesn't really work for me. Yes, it is "fancier" -- but the style of the CGI buildings doesn't really fit-in with the look of the rest of the film. It looks like what it is -- a 2007-style CGI effects dropped into a 1982 movie.

And in any case -- as Nolan infers, there isn't a huge difference between the two films. The story is still the same. 95% of the scenes are the same, it is edited the same way, Vangelis' score is the same, etc.