It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes, well part of the reason why I've held off on watching this film for so long is just because of that: there's so many goddamn cuts, where does one begin? Part of me gets rather annoyed with filmmakers and/or studios who constantly have to release different versions of their movies because they felt they didn't get it right the first few times. I'm find with the practice in cases like Orson Welles where the director actively gets screwed by the studio and their vision gets twisted, leading to their "true vision" being cut together decades after, but otherwise I'm less forgiving.
That is indeed the case with Blade Runner. The narration and "happy ending" replete with footage from The Shining were forced upon the film by the studio without Scott's approval (or even his involvement in the case of the narration).
The '92 Director's Cut was closer to his vision, but he had neither the time nor the funds to do a full job on it.
The '07 Final Cut is Scott's true vision of Blade Runner.
The Workprint and International Version are curiosities for the most hardcore of fans.
I've had the 5-disc Bluray set for a while. Saw the original release version in theaters, I'm okay with the variations for how it's presented. But that likely wouldn't be the case for most films. In some instances, like with Brazil, I appreciate the backstory of studio heavy-handedness for what I saw in the movie house plus the chance to see the director's vision years later.
What I am at odds with is Ridley Scott's notion of the unicorn and the possibilities for the Deckard character. I don't think that improves on the story in any way. And seeing the trailer for Blade Runner 2049 it looks fantastic, I'm bracing myself and trying to keep an open mind.
This is an amazing documentary most film lovers should see. Even if they have some knowledge of his contributions to film (Jaws, Dirty Harry, Apocalypse Now then his self-directed projects, check out the box for names he's worked with) it's shocking to review them all. More than that, it tells the story of what happened to John Milius that took him out of the public eye and movie productions, very surprising to me.
Not an easy film to see in the States. I originally saw it on Amazon Prime, where it's no longer available for viewing or purchase, there or on any other streaming venue I could find. The only DVD versions around are region coded for Europe--but I have a player for that so I bought this one from the UK so my brother can see it when he visits in the future. It will strike a chord with him.
Very, very recommended.
Just to clarify, the film wasn't designed for narration. Scott never intended narration to be part of the film at any point and fought against it. Ultimately the studio went ahead and wrote and recorded it without him. The narration wasn't even written by the film's writer.
And yes, I know the story of the narration that WAS used, and Harrison's rather flat reading of it only worked FOR the character IMO! ;)
I'm afraid I don't know what deleted narration you're referring to. Do you have any links? I can check on my own copy later I suppose. My guess would be it was simply narration the studio recorded for scenes that were ultimately cut. I know that all the recording happened over a very brief period—one or two sessions in as many days—with someone from the studio writing the stuff up on the spot and handing it to Ford, saying now read this.
(Or if not scenes that were cut, then the studio way overrecorded what they needed and pulled some of the extraneous narration from the final theatrical edit. There was no one directing Ford during the recording so I imagine it would be tonally sporadic.)
Although several different versions of the script had included a narration of some sort,
"When I first agreed to do the film, I told Ridley there was too much information given to the audience in narration." -Harrison Ford
http://bladerunner.wikia.com/wiki/Blade_Runner_versions
The unused narration I'm referring to is on the deleted scenes disk in the big set containing all the versions. It runs like a half hour, and most of it has narration that's very different than what ended up in the theatrically release movie in '82. I was in a test audience many months before the actual release, and what I saw was basically the theatrical version. I immediately pegged it as one of the finest science fiction movies I'd ever seen.
From how I've always heard it, the narration is usually something people don't like, not only for its clunkiness but for how overdone it gets. It's clear the studio was trying to ape the old noirs with their dramatic voice-overs, but because they were very much of their time in the 40s and 50s, their use in an 80s film was understandably weird for some. I'll have to see how I feel when I watch one of the versions, but I'll probably have to start with the final cut.
Whether that is true or not has nothing to do with my comment. My point was that the narration was very outdated for some audiences, nothing more, and that could be why Scott preferred a cut without it in there to make it more neo-noir and less noir.
I also don't want to get too much into the discussion because the film has already been spoiled quite heavily for me-another reason I've not bothered watching it all this time-and so I want to keep as fresh as I can be.
The narration was decided upon by the studio after the picture was first screened in Denver. So after the film had been shot. The audience said they couldn't follow the story. They didn't understand the "city-speak" spoken by Gaff, as if that even needed explaining. So the producers, Jerry Perenchio and Bud Yorkin, insisted on adding an explanatory voiceover. Perenchio reflects that Ridley never agreed to it and never liked the idea.
Nonetheless, Scott agreed the picture needed help. So he worked for a period on coming up with a solution to the request for a voiceover. Both of the screenwriters were asked independently (and without each other's knowledge) to come up with material for the voiceovers.
David Peoples was apparently against the idea, saying, "That just sounds awful when you start telling the audience what's going on."
This is likely where the "unused narration" comes from. In the documentary, they play a few clips labeled "Unused Voiceover Sessions." They even keep in some of Harrison's exasperated commentary after finishing some of his lines: "Pretty weird, pretty weird..." and "This is biz-zarre. Goddamn, this is bizarre."
Ford says: "I never believed it was going to be used, and when I started talking to Ridley about it it turned out that they were things that he was not out of sympathy with."
Ford said it didn't sound right. Ridley agreed it didn't sound right. Ridley says they tried to rewrite it every way they could and it never worked.
According to Ford, "the final versions of the narration were done without Ridley, and I missed him."
Producer Michael Deeley says they all went away to London for postproduction, and when they were away that's when the studio "sneaked in and did the voiceover."
Ford was obliged by his contract to supply it. He says that when he went in, there was nobody there but a guy in a nearby room with a pipe hammering away at a typewriter, who furiously waved him off. Fifteen minutes later the guy comes back with the narration for Ford to read. And Ford says this guy was obviously so far removed from the process he wasn't even going to bother trying to discuss it with him.
Ford: "I had arduously argued through other versions to try to get the best voiceover we could of the narration, even though I didn't think it was necessary."
The studio had enormous control over the film, and this extended to far more than the voiceover when it comes to the original vision vs. the theatrical version.
Editor Terry Rawlings says: "I remember them saying, if it doesn't really mean anything we're going to cut it out. So they were throwing away things that were there for reasons. I mean it's all tied together in the final frames of the film when he lifts up the unicorn. The fact that they know... [spoiler, spoiler, spoiler]. All the subtleties were taken out. That's the terrible thing about filmmaking anyway. Most of the things that go first when they think the thing's too long are the subtleties. But you know the terrible thing about Blade Runner is that it was being made for people who didn't understand what it was about."
So, was there at some point voiceover written by David Peoples and Hampton Fancher? Yes. Did Ridley work on the process? Yes. Did any of this make it into the final film? In some form, quite possibly. Did material written on the fly by somebody who had zero understanding of the film make it into the film? Yes. Was David Peoples in favor of doing voiceover? No. Was Ridley, at any point? No. Was Harrison? No.
Ridley also oversaw the filming of the studio-ordered "happy ending." But he speaks disparagingly of it on the documentary, calling it "schlocky stuff," and says he did it because he thought it could potentially affect the outcome of the movie negatively so he "better deal with it" himself.
At the end of the day, that's perfectly fine if you like the narration. That version of the film exists for anyone who enjoys it. But it wasn't the vision of anyone creatively involved with the picture; it was ordered by the studio and the filmmakers worked to oblige them (and eventually, in the end, the studio went ahead to complete the process without the filmmakers).
Hey, I like the theatrical version of Alien 3, and the assembly cut, despite neither being David Fincher's true vision of that film. It's all good. In fact, the strength of Alien 3 despite studio meddling speaks volumes to Fincher's inherent craftsmanship. I think Blade Runner can be viewed much the same way.
The Spanish psychological thriller Abre los ojos is much higher rated on IMDB than Cameron Crowe's remake Vanilla Sky. I saw Vanilla Sky first and absolutely fell in love with the film. Much later I saw the original and couldn't see what the big deal was. The remake far exceeded the original in every way in my eyes. Am I right? Is the majority right? It doesn't matter at the end of the day. I regularly rewatch Vanilla Sky because I love the film, and have only seen Abre los ojos once. That's all that matters to me.
@Some_Kind_Of_Hero, I have a feeling it will be what I enjoy in films, and I will love the noir elements without doubt. I will definitely seek out all the versions I can if I enjoy it, and spend a lot of time in the future experiencing them. As a film fan, I must.
Yes, Brel's last concert, at the Olympia in Paris in 1966. Afterwards, he changed careers and became an actor. A really good one too.
Thank you!
Typical though that I then go and see these, soon to be released, beauties.
https://t.co/XcaEDHc5Dh
Island of Terror (1966)
Tower of Screaming Virgins (1968)
The Paul Naschy Collection containing...
Horror Rises from the Tomb
Vengeance of the Zombies
Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll
Human Beasts
Night of the Werewolf
I have been wanting to get more Nachy films. I have managed to track down copies of Crimson (Man With The Severed Head), Panic Beats, and Frankenstein's Bloody Terror. I wish more of his films were more available. Do let me know what the collection is like.
NOTE: This new collection is a Region A [North American] Blu-ray release... Here's the Amazon page:
https://amazon.com/Paul-Naschy-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B06XHSN8X4/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1498227764&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+naschy+collection+blu+ray