Blade Runner: which cut is best?

[Perd Hapley]

Do you prefer the Director's Cut or the, um, other one?

My wife just found me an old VHS of the DC, but I think that is the only edition I have seen.  Do I need to see the other edition to fully appreciate the film? 

I saw it once, several years ago.  I liked it, but I didn't really understand why it is so iconic.  But I'm the same way about Star Wars.  I expect it is because I didn't know what film or sci-fi was like before those two films came out, so they didn't have the same effect on me. 

Disclaimer: I am NOT knocking either film.  I'm just saying that I don't fully understand the impact they have had.

[Ben]

Personally, though with most all other movies I would go with the director's cut, I like the original theatrical release of Bladerunner better. Normally the extra footage in a Director's cut fills holes and tightens the movie. In this case it just, I don't know... didn't work.

[Perd Hapley]

On that note, DO NOT waste time with the director's cut (or whatever they called it) of Chronicles of Riddick.  It really stunk things up. 

[Bogie]

The original replaced footage with some sort of voice over, if I recall correctly.
 
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
 

[roo_ster]

Both are good, but hte original, with the voiceover, is easier on folks who will not make a cult out of it to squeeze out every detail.

That said, I bough the director's cut, because it was on sale for something like $7.

[Regolith]

I saw it for the first time earlier this month.  I pretty much give it a solid meh.  For some reason, the story just didn't grip me.  It wasn't bad, it just didn't seem to live up to the hype.

For what it's worth, I watched the theatrical release.

[Sindawe]

Of the two version of Blade Runner I've seen (theatrical & a director's cut from the early 90s) I prefer the theatrical version.  The voice over narrative helps move the story along and give context to the scenes.  I do hear that the most recent directors cut special edition is better than the first though.

DO NOT waste time with the director's cut (or whatever they called it) of Chronicles of Riddick.  It really stunk things up.

I have to disagree.  The additional footage in the director's cut of The Chronicles of Riddick sews the story together and give motive for a lot of the actions of the characters, like why the Purifier aids and eventually takes his final actions with respect to Riddick.

[Ben]

I do hear that the most recent directors cut special edition is better than the first though.

I didn't know there was another variation of the Director's cut. Does this one keep the narration?

[dogmush]

I have the newest directors cut, and it's my favorite.  I thought the voice over was hokey, and a little insulting, and I thought the last scene with Deckerd and Rachel that the studio added on destroyed the whole movie.  It was a dark movie for two hours, to suddenlly tack on a sunny, happy ending was just wierd.

Also, for the new cut they went back and remastered it, so it's all clear and pretty.  Visually, Blade Runner STILL looks good, almost 30 years later.  It was the high water mark of in camera special effects.  Also I've always thought it was both Ford's and Hauer's best performance's.  It takes a lot of attention to watch and get the whole thing, but it's worth it.

But Director's Cut, all the way.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I like the directors cut better.  I haven't seen the new director's cut, though.

As for enjoying it, well, meh.  I think you have to really dig the sci fi noir thing to fall in love with this movie.  Being a Philip K dick fan also helps.  If that's not you, then it won't move you all that much.

Dogmush is right.  You have to watch it closely to catch all of the details.  For instance, all of the androids and synthetic animals have eyes that glow and reflect, like cat eyes at night. Half of the movie is carried by little details like that.

[gunsmith]

"I'll tell you about my mother"

[zahc]

The '92 directors cut for sure. Although I haven't seen the newest 'final cut' which is supposed to be a true directors cut.

[Manedwolf]

For me, it's the detail. I just STARE at some of the scenes, all the tiny little details in the background that make it real, so much more viscerally so than CG-fests.

The rain and the noodle stand, all the details there. The city in the overflights and the streets, the crumbling deco architecture, the endless gloom. The black market biotech bazaar. The chase through the busy street with all the slow-moving traffic, all the bored people in fluorescent-lit diesel buses with open sides moving barely at all, with the walk and don't-walk monotone and all the mixed sounds. You can go through those scenes over and over and see new details of realism and grit and just absolute suspension of disbelief each time.

[roo_ster]

For me, it's the detail. I just STARE at some of the scenes, all the tiny little details in the background that make it real, so much more viscerally so than CG-fests.

The rain and the noodle stand, all the details there. The city in the overflights and the streets, the crumbling deco architecture, the endless gloom. The black market biotech bazaar. The chase through the busy street with all the slow-moving traffic, all the bored people in fluorescent-lit diesel buses with open sides moving barely at all, with the walk and don't-walk monotone and all the mixed sounds. You can go through those scenes over and over and see new details of realism and grit and just absolute suspension of disbelief each time.

What MW wrote.

[Ron]

I saw both on the big screen. Columbia College in downtown Chicago screened the directors cut when it first came out and I had the chance to catch it one afternoon. I remembered thinking at the time that it seemed even darker and thought provoking than the original. Of course having already seen the theatrical release I wasn't in need of the narration.

Thanks for the heads up on the new directors cut.

[buzz_knox]

I like the version with the voiceover (which Ford deliberately tried to screw up as he hated the idea) and the version without.  They both serve different purposes (the former to introduce you to the world and the latter to let you immerse yourself in it).  The DO version does clear up some mysteries, but adds one:  is Decker a skinjob himself?

[K Frame]

They ALL rock! I love Blade Runner.

[Balog]

Partly it's because the effects were amazing at the time (and are still better than a lot of crap that comes out). Partly it's dependent on how much you like that gritty, realistic noir feel.

[Brad Johnson]

The '92 directors cut for sure. Although I haven't seen the newest 'final cut' which is supposed to be a true directors cut.

The .92 "directors cut" was nothing of the sort.  It was the studio's attempt to capitalize on the then-new "Director's Cut" marketing craze.

The new cut is a true director's cut, fully supervised and given the final OK by Ridley Scott.  It is a much better movie overall.  The restoration is stunning, especially if your only exposure to the film was the grainy VHS or less-than-stellar previous DVD releases.

Brad

[wingnutx]

Director's Cut, hands down.

The voiceovers & the slapped-on ending in the theatrical release really hurt the film.

[Cromlech]

I love the 'Final Cut', which is what Brad is referring to.