What do people think of the different versions ? I prefer the original one, with the narration. All the good old detective movies are narrated by the disillusioned and often cynical investigator.

I disagree I'm afraid. I thought the narration was awful and unnecessary to be honest, and the directors cut was a huge improvement. Even Harrison Ford hated it and tried to make it sound as boring as possible in the hope it might be cut..... thankfully it was.

Any other opinions?

I'm with Stewart.

The voice-over just over eggs things, telling you things you already know. Without it you get wonderful moments of pause and thought, allowing you to abosorb the events and emotions.

Plus without it you don't need to hear the awful, clunky lines after Roy's beautiful death speech with Deckard saying 'Maybe he knew more about life blah blah blah' which anyone with an ounce of intelligence is already well aware of.

Not enough people value breathing space in films, just moments where nothing is happening, nothing is being revealed or told to you where you can just absorb and sink further into the film's world and the characters minds and emotions.

I'm a huge fan of the orginal film noirs and in a lot of them the voiceover works but in Blade Runner it just feels so unnecessary. To me anyway!

Ok, but let me ask. I much would people know about what is going on in the film if they had not seen the version with the narration in the first place ? An interesting experiment would be to find someone who never saw Blade Runner at all (nor read it). You show that person the modern version without the narration, let them rate the movie, talk about it, etc. Later, you show them the original version. I'll try it as soon as I can find someone.
I remember seeing the first director's cut in theater, I think it was fall 1992, I was with a friend who had not seen the movie in perhaps 5 years and he said that without the narration Deckard looks like a careless assassin.
By the way, Rutger Hauer also hates the narration, seems everyone hates it but me.

I first saw the version without narration.

You're not the only person who likes it. I argue constantly with a friend who likes it. Plus on the Dangerous Days documentary no less a director than Guillermo Del Toro, of Pan's Labyrinth fame, says he loves it.

It's always going to be a matter of personal taste and there's no definitive right or wrong opinion.

Apart from mine.

Subtle as ever Steve!

I would like to think that the average person would have the intelligence to follow what's going on without the monotonous and frankly badly scripted explanations...... but then I'm from Scotland and everyone know's we have the best educational system in the First World.

We also have the worst accents to make up for that.

I love the original theatrical version - with the narration and without the director changing the story.

Out of interest Brian, how do you think the story changed between the original theatrical version and the later ones?

I've been reading about the different versions on IMDB.com and Wikipedia. There are so much of them, it makes my head spin. Ridley Scott himself said he didn't like the 1993 version. It seems to mean that the only good version, to Ridley, is the 2007. I can't help but wonder why this movie achieved cult status if the 1982 and 1993 versions are so bad to the eyes of Mr Scott. OK he didn't like the narration and the "happy ending" imposed by the studio, if we can call that a happy ending, in the original version, but what was so wrong with the version of 1993 ? I guess I'm gonna have to see the 2007 release now.

I'm just thankful that most directors don't mess around with their movies 10 and 20 years after they made them.

The changes in the most recent version compared to the 'Director's Cut' are fairly minimal, mostly tidying up and a wonderful job of remastering it.

I think the fact that Blade Runner has become popular despite Scott's unhappiness with any versions up until now shows how a truly great film can shine through all the outside interference.

I think the reason Scott was unhappy with the Director's Cut was that it was a compromise between the theatrical version and what he really wanted it to be.

Remember most of the changes were enforced by financiers and an audience who weren't ready for what they saw rather than Scott himself.

We've argued about this before Steve.

The narration, no matter how hammy, does make this more of a film noir than without it.

The release of the different versions (I'm sorry to say I've not been through the rest yet, although I've already seen the original cut obviously) is only going to fuel this debate more and more as it's almost possible now to make your own perfect cut from all the extra content.

The one change I am most upset about is the removal of the one swear-word. Perfectly ridiculous.

Disagree re the narration (soz) but with you big time on the "fucker" to "father" stupidity! Pointless unnecessary and bizarre!

It might make it more of a film noir but it doesn't make it a better film!

Bring it on Haughie.

changing the line from 'fucker' to 'father' is not pointless and bizarre. Roy Batty is supposed to be the prodigal son, a fallen angel from heaven who has returned to his creator, his father, god, and asks him 'i want more life, father'. the little changes made in the final cut of the film, as little as they are, are quite crucial for delivering some of the less discussed themes of the movie, and for making it more obvious that deckard is in fact a replicant.

this movie did not need a narration to make it seem more 'noir', it is an extreme exercise in film noir as is.

favorite movie of all time.

final cut is my favorite version.

It is so obvious that he is the prodigal son that the line need never have been changed in my opinion, and the line lost it's impact by removing the only swear word in the film. To me it emphasised Roy's frustration at his Maker's inability to 'fix' what he had created.

I like the voiceover version best because it adds another dimension to the film. Voiceover or not it is the best film ever so its not such a massive debate. I think we should be pleased that there are different versions - it makes it much more interesting for the fans don't you think ;)

I love it either way and as a die hard fan, thats the way it should be

x

I'm firmly on the side of the non-narrated version.

A film is not MORE "noir" because of the narration, if anything it's less so. Film Noir is a cinematic style most typcially of stark imagery, characterised by themes of moral ambiguity. Blade Runner has that in spades already; cheesey narration simply serves to diminish that, not add to it.

Whilst narration CAN work sometimes to obviate a lot of additional sequences that would otherwise just bloat the film--e.g. the narration in Shawshank Redemption to segue events without diminishing the impact of the slow passage of time upon the inmates--it's too often overused and unecessary.

There really is nothing here that benefits from further explanation! Far from adding something to the film, it takes something from it, as Steve said above, it occupies the space best left to the viewers imagination. This particularly so when it's at the expense of that hauntingly beautiful music, which is, to my mind, one of the major reasons this film is just so bloody good.

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

original ending x

From someone else who had not seen the film until last week - and therefore the first version I saw of the film was the Final Cut and it is definitely my favorite. The worst thing about the original cut was not the narration (though I do prefer it without the narration because silence says more than words) but the stupid hollywood ending which was not at all related to the rest of the film and used footage from 'The Shining'.

And Brian, you say you like the original version better 'without the director changing the story'. But in any case, the director CREATED the story. Scott not only had David Peoples rewrite Hampton Fancher's script, he had him rewrite it the way that HE wanted to make it. And the Final Cut is not him coming back 25 years later and deciding to change the movie to make it better, he simply wanted to "restore" it to what he originally intended to do (before the studio and others intervened with their worries for the IQ-challenged people who would see this movie). So I don't think you can say that the original cut was closer to what Ridley had wanted to do in 1982, that it simply not true - and that fact does not at all stop you from preferring the original cut :)

the first time i saw blade runner was the directors cut version and i got what was going on from the get go...i have also seen the original narrated version and OMG what a ton of crap....the directors cut is just so much better and the ending is how it should have ended not some fairy tale happy ending ...this is a dark sci fi mystery thriller not snow white..what were warner bros thinking with the first version? i dont know....the directors cut is ridley scotts true vision of the movie and to me is the only version .

I am definitively in favour of the Ridley Scott version in the last DVD coffret.
And the explanations of Riddley are a little diamond..
This movie doesn't need narration in my opinion and the "dark" end is much more better than in the first version...

Well, as for messing around on films, there is also George Lucas with Star Wars... :-)

As for the different endings: the 1982 was "happy" since it stated that Rachel had no expiry date, while with this part, and the voice over, deleted, nobody says something similar. We can think about something particular about Rachel from the fact that Mr. Tyrell tells Deckard she is a prototype, an experiment, and since the "memories" way of controlling the emotions had already been used (Leon), maybe there is something different about Rachel. But we don't know exactly...

I saw Blade Runner at the cinema when it first came out, its amazing how it has eveolved over the years, I liked the narration version, but can watch any version, its a brilliant film. When i watch the latest version i put in the narration my self in my head. Its a fantastic film, i have loved it from the first time i saw it. Its so atmospheric and poingnant. I would love part of Battys end speach on my gravestone. " Ive seen things you people wouldnt believe"
Simply amazing. Lee

Lee, can you remember how the film was received in the cinema at the time? I know it's widely stated that the reaction was pretty ambivalent, but was that your experience too?

Many thanks.

Hi Ross, i think i remember it being recieved as just another sci fi movie at the time, there were films out around the same time that were similar. The great thing about Blade Runner is that it has evolved over the years and people get it now and appreciate how great it is more. I loved it and saw it quite a few times at the time of release, it was like something i had never seen before, and i loved the music too.
Lee

Definitely. I think one of the many unique aspects of the film is how utterly integral the soundtrack and visuals are to one another; I find it impossible to think of a few seconds of one without remembering the other. The first scene in the Tyrell Corporation is the most beautiful looking and sounding piece of cinema I've ever seen - and I still hope in vain that the British Army will procure a piece of defence technology that makes a noise like the Espers machine!

I love all of the versions. I know the narration was a late addition to the original & Harrison Ford resented having to do it, but it does make it more a "private dick" story, which is fun. it also brings the story together a bit for the uninitiated.

The Director's cut is just beautiful & dreamy without the narration.

I refuse to pick a favourite. Both are superb and I'll continue to watch both (and the "Final Cut" too).

Saw the original version with narration when it first came out - at 15 probably needed the narration as it wasn't exactly ghostbusters or Star Wars and a lot of Han Solo fans got a bit of a shock but even then and with the talk over I knew I was seeing something very very special

the voice over was tacked on cos original preview audiences didn't understand it! dear oh dear - how much better it was without it - more subtle and though provoking and I suppose a few years down the line I was more appreciative of the film as a whole and didn't need the voice over anyway

have probably seem directors cut about 4 times in cinema and countless times on dvd
and recently saw the final cut when it came out.

they all have their place - but for a majestic cinematic experience you must go to see the final cut.

In Spain, unfortunately, the film was dubbed, that means that the off voice is not the original, but anyway, in my opinion, both versions are different. In the narrated one, the voice adds part of the atmosphere for the looser Dekkar, and reflects his progressive empathy with the replicants. In the director's cut, the action is enhanced without the narration, but I think we loose something. Anyway, it is an opinion, and I think that the selection depends too much on the version that everyone saw first time.

I think they all have there place as it is important to view them all as a whole. Each version gives that little bit of extra detail that the others leave out. However that being said I prefer the one without the voice- over but its kinda cool because if you're in the mood for a tacked on Hollywood ending you just select the original you can tailor the version you watch according to what mood you're in. I'm glad they took the "Fucker" line out of the final cut, even though its a memorable moment, it felt like they were swearing for the sake of it and the "Father" line carries more resonance as it tells us what Batty is seeking. Stay tuned for the Ultimate Final Cut Seriously: The version of the futuristic masterpiece that will be released in 2019 because Ridley Scott's family want MORE MONEY seriously Ridley enough is enough lol