^ "It's too bad she won't live... but then again, who does?"
Blade Runner 2
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
It does, at least to me.
Personally, I find the narration-free cuts -- the so-called Director's Cut (which isn't) and the Final Cut (which is a director's cut) -- naked without the narration. They're missing an essential part of their film-noir-ness, imho.
Gotta disagree. I hated the narration from Day One, and I love old detective movies and film noirs. The narration in the original theatrical cut drove me nuts because it was all too obviously intended to "explain" things that, to my mind, didn't need explained. It insulted my intelligence by assuming that we the audience couldn't figure out the story and the world without it having spoon-fed to us.
One moment in particular turned me against the narration early on: Edward James Olmos derisively refers to the replicants as "skin jobs" and the narrator feels obliged to helpfully explain that "skin job" is basically akin to a racial slur where replicants are concerned.
Well . . . d'oh. I picked that up from context. I didn't need a narrator spelling it out for me just in case I was too slow to grasp that "subtle" bit of world-building.
That's not setting a mood. That's just dumbing down the movie.
Well, yes, but still ... movies is magic. If "they" want Rachel to live, guess what? That is correct: the beautiful., classy, exceptional Rachel will not only still be around ... but she'll have plenty of Life. And besides, in the original version, Deckard's voiceover expressly states that her lifespan was in no way limited ...
That makes me happy.
Really? I always thought that Deckard and Rachel were the least interesting characters in the movie. BLADERUNNER is a movie that is positively stolen by its supporting cast, who are almost universally more interesting and alive than the rather wooden couple we're supposed to care about.
And the idea that Rachel is some sort of "special" model who doesn't have an expiration date always struck me as a cop-out imposed on the movie by a nervous studio who insisted on a tacked-on happy ending (via leftover footage from THE SHINING no less).
"... the least interesting" you say?
As Rachel, Sean Young is spellbinding! Harrison Ford delivers a solid performance and his narration in the original theatrical release makes Blade Runner unique amongst his film credits. And you're right about the supporting cast, they're memorable and elevate the screenplay with very nuanced performances. But I don't feel that they overshadow Deckard & Rachel, in fact, I find that argument very difficult to understand.
I love how Deckard doesn't seem to 'get' that Rachel needs to be treated like a (young) Lady, and his callousness pisses her off - and even hurts her - a couple of times. He even invites her to some dive bar, because he's so oblivious. And then there's that absolutely amazing follow up, where they're both at the piano, playing some classical piece ... brilliant! It's so elegant, how they finally arrive at an understanding of eachother, how they fit together. They do belong together and it works, now. And, as I say, if this sequel can't be bothered to feature Rachel, then it's not worth the effort.
The teaser looks good. If nothing else, the aesthetic is appealing while not trying to (pardon the pun) replicate the original's style. But it's a pity they reused dialogue and music from the original. Yeah, yeah, I know it's just a teaser and I understand why the teaser uses them, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
I'm sure Jóhann Jóhannsson's will be just as gorgeous and unique as Vangelis' and I'm really looking forward to hearing it, perhaps even more than this film considering I'm still only cautiously optimistic (and only optimistic because of Denis Villeneuve).
Sorry, Allyn, I have to agree with everyone else: The narration is awful, and while I get where you're coming from regarding film noir, Blade Runner works far, far better without the narration.
I'm sure Jóhann Jóhannsson's will be just as gorgeous and unique as Vangelis' and I'm really looking forward to hearing it, perhaps even more than this film considering I'm still only cautiously optimistic (and only optimistic because of Denis Villeneuve).
To be fair, Harrison Ford deliberately recorded a bad narration because he (and Ridley) didn't want to do it and was forced to do it by the studio.
Sorry, Allyn, I have to agree with everyone else: The narration is awful, and while I get where you're coming from regarding film noir, Blade Runner works far, far better without the narration.
No, he didn't.
Yes, he did. It's on record.
M. Emmet Walsh. (I know it doesn't matter, but I can't help myself.
)
The only on the record quotes I can find from Ford say that he didn't want to do it but he never indicates he deliberately did a bad job.
Tell that to the haters of Lucas's SW prequels. TFA and RO prove that fans want the same old same old and that they end up being more successful.
As JoeZhang says, that's disputed. And I've heard Ford do equally stiff and clumsy voiceover work elsewhere. He's just not a good narrator.
That's absurd. People didn't dislike the prequels because they were different, they disliked the prequels because they were bad. George Lucas is not that good a writer or director. The best Star Wars movies have always been the ones scripted and directed by other people. Even the first one benefitted from an uncredited rewrite by Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, and Gary Kurtz functioned almost as an uncredited co-director.
Laypeople (and executives, unfortunately) don't understand technique -- they just understand what they see on the surface. And so they assume that the success or failure of a movie is about what it features on the surface, rather than the underlying technique. Which is kind of like seeing a high-quality red race car outperform a cheap green clunker and concluding that painting a car red makes it faster.
OK. To be fair here's all the Harrison Ford quotes I could find regarding the Blade Runner voiceovers so that everyone can read them and come to their own conclusions.
"When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests." -Harrison Ford
"I contested it mightily at the time. It was not an organic part of the film." -Harrison Ford
"I delivered it to the best of my ability, given that I had no input. I never thought they'd use it. But I didn't try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration." -Harrison Ford
"I went kicking and screaming to the studio to record it." -Harrison Ford
"What I remember more than anything else when I see Blade Runner is not the 50 nights of shooting in the rain, but the voiceover... I was still obliged to work for these clowns that came in writing one bad voiceover after another." -Harrison Ford
"When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests." -Harrison Ford
"I contested it mightily at the time. It was not an organic part of the film." -Harrison Ford
"I delivered it to the best of my ability, given that I had no input. I never thought they'd use it. But I didn't try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration." -Harrison Ford
"I went kicking and screaming to the studio to record it." -Harrison Ford
"What I remember more than anything else when I see Blade Runner is not the 50 nights of shooting in the rain, but the voiceover... I was still obliged to work for these clowns that came in writing one bad voiceover after another." -Harrison Ford
I think you are mistaken about that, the final cut has fixed some nice production holes (Zohra, the tattoo, the lip syncs in animoid row.) but the original 'happy ending' and voice over actually make more sense, and were always planned in some form to be there (especially the voice over.) Everything since the directors cut in the Deckarep vein misses the point of the story far far more.
It's in the script from day one. Whether they aimed to drop it later, its there, and it's also the only explanation for a lot of story and world building not anywhere else. Everything around the voice over and deckarep stuff is post 'directors cut' revisionism. People may like that version, and great for them, but pretending it's the 'true' version isn't supported by any of the information around the making of the film. And I don't trust Ridley on it either, because he's probably changed his mind...directors tend to, George Lucas is exhibit a. The script writers are of the opinion Deckard is a human, and they wrote voiceovers into many opening drafts as befits a film noir detective tale. Happy ending...well...ymmv. Yes it's outakes from the shining, but it's also got scenes shot for it, and by that point, they were out of time and money.
I think you probably interpreted the narration differently to how I did. The narration shows you the mirror....deckard is a human who lost everything integral to that through becoming just a killer (his marriage, his independence, even his freedom when he's gets drafted when he is threatened by gaff) and gets his humanity back through Rachael and his realisation about what he is through Batty, Batty is designed as that killer that Deckard has become, but reaches beyond that to having a family, reaching for his freedom and in that last scene becomes human for a few moments through empathy. They both overcome their programmed and enforced violence, and become human (more than, because the humans commit violent acts against the replicants, and the replicants commit violent acts against humans....through the characters of Rick and Roy.) through finally stopping the violence against each other's 'side'
It's impossible to one hundred percent side with either, because both are committing violence against the other for murky survival reasons. (Roy killing Sebastian is the most obvious point in this, but the whole thing is also framed in quasi religious and classical symbology)
Without the narration, and particularly if Deckard is a replicant, then the story has almost no meaning left.
It is too subtle though....films tell us repeatedly it's ok to have derogatory names for the enemy. No narration, and the replicants are just an enemy figure. The skin jobs thing is particularly poignant, especially when all the BSG reboot stuff starts throwing it around years later. That bit of narration tells you exactly how sympathetic Deckard already is, hints at why he quit the job, and starts his journey. It also spells out for you what the replicants are....which in the milieu of SF at the time would not have been obvious. Who has a problem with Sexbots? Terminators? They are all over the place in SF with no moral judgement. It's brilliant, we have replaced the opressed with machines....except in that one bit of narration, it is shown that is not brilliant, and not OK. The problem is viewing the narration just as exposition, when it's much more than that.
The umbrellas went from having futuristic light sticks for the handles in the original to being plain old umbrellas you can get in out timeline. I bet the clothes in this version will no longer have that blade runner look and will be the same style you can get in our stores. Harrison is already wearing a gray t-shirt and jeans. Gosling looks like hes wearing his regular clothes.