I just hope it’s better than the original.
So I’m not the only one who thinks it’s not that good of a film?
I can understand why it might not be enjoyable, but it is a technically good film.
It’s good looking but I found a lot of the characters to be flat and the pacing to be too slow and the payoff wasn’t enough to warrant the slow pacing. The first hour of Alien was slow too but it was well worth it when the shit hit the fan. I didn’t feel that with Blade Runner.
Yeah. I totally understand. I felt the same way when I saw it first. It wasn’t at all what I was expecting, it was much more slow and subdued than I was led on to believe it would be. But the cinematography is amazing, the soundtrack is great, and it’s rife with symbolism and themes begging to be picked apart. It’s less a movie to enjoy and more a movie to admire.
I still have The Final Cut on Blu Ray so I’ll probably watch it some time in the near future. What is your preferred version?
Only ever seen the Final Cut.
I already have it so I’ll probably just stick with that. Exactly how different are the 10,000 versions of this movie anyway?
1982 Original workprint (failed in audience tests, not released):
- no voice over
- no happy ending
- no unicorn dream
1982 US theatrical release:
- voice overs
- happy ending (Deckard and Rachel drive through the countryside)
- no unicorn dream
1982 International release:
- more violence in certain scenes
1992 Director’s Cut (not done by Scott, but approved by him):
- no voice overs
- no happy ending (Deckard and Rachel just leave Deckard’s flat)
- unicorn dream (suggesting that Deckard could be a replicant)
2007 Final Cut (Scott’s final version):
- same content as Director’s Cut
- many technical improvements