Blade Runner.....SPOILERS

[the_wildcard]

So I was watching Blade Runner again this past week. I saw the Final Cut, which is the version that did NOT feature the Harrison Ford voiceover at the end of the movie showing him and Sean Young driving away.

Now I read on Wikipedia that Harrison Ford hated that part of the movie (also saw him mention that in the "making the film" documentary on the 2nd dvd disc). I read that he actually purposely tried to do a "bad" job reading the voiceover for the ending sequence.

So I decided to Youtube that scene, since it has been many years since I saw it. And I gotta say, hahaha the voiceover is HORRIBLE. You can tell Harrison Ford is purposely reading it in some weird tone. He doesn't sound like that in the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCeH-WnJYM

As for this version of the ending, I have to say, other than the voiceover, I admittely like it more. Call it sappy, but I got a sore spot for the romantic stuff and I thought it was good to see Sean Young and Ford one last time driving off.

What did you guys think?

 

[Kirkman1987]

Ford was right, it's a terrible ending.

It was much better to leave questions unanswered.

The scene is a substantial break from the tone of the film, and is really out of left field. "Racheal was special, no termination date" Come on!

if there is anything about Blade Runner I dislike, It's the revelation about Deckard being a replicant. I've always felt it was a cheap way to shoehorn a "big twist ending" into the story. It works in that way, but in the process guts the story of it major theme of a man who learns humanity and the precious, fragile nature of life.

Further, It just never made sense as deckard constantly was beaten to a pulp by the replicants.

These are all minor complaints though, It's still my Favorite Science Fiction Film

 

[Deckerd]

It wasn't really a 'reveal' since it was only implied. You can take from the film what you wish, which is why it's a classic. Re the voiceover; HF would never consciously have done a bad job, which is why it was in the theatrical release. He's too much of a professional to do otherwise.

 

[Hermiod]

^In the Dangerous Days documentary on the Blu-Ray he talks about when he went in to record the voiceover. He clearly wasn't impressed with the whole business, especially the guy he'd never seen before frantically writing the dialogue for him.

The scene is a substantial break from the tone of the film, and is really out of left field. "Racheal was special, no termination date" Come on!

That one is right up there with "Poochie died on the way back to his home planet".

 

[Deckerd]

Doesn't mean he didn't act like a professional, though, does it?

 

[Hermiod]

Doesn't mean he didn't act like a professional, though, does it?

No, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just suspect that he might have been the only one involved in the process that did.

 

[Deckerd]

Who IS she? I know the face...

 

[Hermiod]

Who IS she? I know the face...

She ? If you're talking about my avatar, she is Felicia Day.

 

[Deckerd]

Right, mystery over. Phew.

 

[Reverend]

Thematic and plot issues aside, I have a logical issue with the theatrical ending. That is, if the countryside outside of LA is as green and alive and smog free as that, why the hell is everyone living in that kippel filled cesspool of a city or going offworld where apparantly, the only comfort is a psycotic hooker-bot?

Not that it bothers me that much, I only saw the "original" cut when the new DVDs came out, until then I'd only seen the DC from the early 90's.

 

[23skidoo]

I have a few problems with the "theatrical" ending. First and foremost was the fact it was forced upon the movie by studio officials. I hate studio interference, which has destroyed more good art over the years, not to mention careers, than I care to count. Check out how studio interference brought Terry Gilliam's Brazil to its knees.

Also, the ending simply breaks the tone of the movie. For 99% of the film Scott had crafted this ultra-urban, grimy, truly futuristic-looking look at future society (save for the one shot of the bird) and then we see Rick and Rachel driving through pristine countryside.

Granted, remembering this film is supposed to take place less than a decade from now, this is actually a more realistic depiction of the way the world has turned out (environmental concerns aside, while there are a few places on earth that are starting to resemble Blade Runner's LA, there are also still many areas that still look natural). But the real world is irrelevant - it's the tone of the movie that counts here.

I also think Harrison Ford shouldn't have intentionally botched the voiceover job (if that's indeed what he did). Regardless of his personal view, because of his narration he's often saddled with some of the blame for Blade Runner not doing better and for, in some critic's eyes, being a poor film. I've also seen Ford declared a bad actor based mostly upon his work on Blade Runner, and clearly this has to be because of the narration. His performance may have been a protest, but it backfired. He should have sucked it up.

Alex

 

[Hermiod]

^Ford most definitely did not deliberately botch the voiceover.

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.

 

[Deckerd]

In contrast, Six days and seven nights was a simple mistake.

 

[DestinyCaptain]

Hmmm, count me as one of those that believes the voiceover is part of what made the film better. Just cause the studio made them add it don't make it a wrong move. The added FX with Roy's death in the Final Cut was better. I think the idea that Deckard is a replicant is crap. The stuff wilth Holden in the deleted sceen nullifies the assertion that Rick was always a replicant and part of Roy's team. Oh, and yes I like the "happy ending". Not because it was happy, it wasn't. It never struck me as happy. It struck me as logical. Deckard didn't really know how long he had with her. Now one does.

 

[Hermiod]

^Whoever added it, the voiceover just serves to dumb the movie down for me and the suggestion that Rachael was "special" is no different to, as I said, Poochie dying on the way back to his home planet.

 

[Daneel]

You know, I still haven't watched the original theatrical cut of the movie... I'm almost afraid to. It is on the 5-disc set I've got, so perhaps I should check it out one of these days.

As for the narration, it's clear on the DVD extra features that Ford didn't think much of it (and rightfully so). I don't know if it affected his performance decisions while recording, but it probably didn't help.

Also, as much as I love the movie, I'm going to have to disagree with Ridley Scott on the "Deckard is a replicant" issue. I see no point to this revelation other than using it to provide a "twist" for the ending. Thematically, I think the film works better with Deckard being a human, and that's what I prefer to believe he is.

 

[Deckerd]

Much as I love Ridley Scott as a Lesser God, I agree with you. A lot of the bumff that came out after the movie matured into a classic was, dare I whisper it, prompted by the promise of mammon.

 

[Corran Horn]

Ending it with the elevator door is the best way. Especially since it is somewhat clear but not absolutely stated that Deckard is a replicant himself.

 

[Reverend]

Also, as much as I love the movie, I'm going to have to disagree with Ridley Scott on the "Deckard is a replicant" issue. I see no point to this revelation other than using it to provide a "twist" for the ending. Thematically, I think the film works better with Deckard being a human, and that's what I prefer to believe he is.

But there is no such revelation in the film, as far as I can tell. There's plenty of hints at the possibility but it doesn't say he is so much as ask the question "is he a replicant and would it matter?". Ridley Scott's opinion is his opinion and though I happen to agree with it, I don't think any answer can be "right".
For one thing, from what I recall neither Ford nor the screenwriter had any doubt that he was human. From a thematic stand point though, I think it's very important that the question be posed, since the difference between human and replicant was a central theme of PKD's original story. Of course in the original work, said difference was...different than what it was in the film, almost the exact opposite IMO. Still, the question remains a valid on.

 

[JonathonWally]

Isn't the only real tease of him possibly being a replicant the dream with the Unicorn and Olmos making the unicorn origami?

Otherwise, his comment "It won't last" could just mean her.

Or am I forgetting something?