Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After watching all those cuts again, along with the theatrical cut for the first time, I still like these two cuts a lot better, and most people agree that the theatrical is the worst.
But out of the director's cut and the final, I think I would have to go for the director's cut, mostly because it doesn't have that green hue that is added on to it, as well as some other CGI added in, so the director's cut feels more 'authentic' if that makes sense.
The final cut also has a couple of scenes that show more, where as perhaps it feels a bit excessive, where as the director's cut left things up to the imagination more, which made the violence powerful as a result.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,649,867 times
Reputation: 14046
I've seen the most common of the theatrical cuts, as well as TFC. I like them both. I like the voice overs (though many don't), and I thought TFC was odd not having them. And I like both endings, though perhaps the theatrical ending slightly more (which I know is another unpopular opinion). Really glad TFC fixed the bizarre lip sync issue, the bad stuntwoman wig issue, etc. though.
As for the "I want more life, father/****er." debate, I have no opinion.
There are at least 5 versions of the movie. All great in their own way. My only real objection to the Final Cut is Ridley Scott trying to make Deckard a replicant, which destroys the moral heart of the story.
But didn't Ridley do that in the director's cut as well since that one also has the unicorn stuff going on?
Yup.
Which is just more proof that Ridley Scott should make the movie look great, which he can do like no other. But he shouldn't have anything to do with the story, because he is clueless when it comes to story.
Oh okay, I assumed that the unicorn thing was in the original script that Ridley didn't write, but they cut it out of the theatrical cut because of the producers' request.
Oh okay, I assumed that the unicorn thing was in the original script that Ridley didn't write, but they cut it out of the theatrical cut because of the producers' request.
No. It was not in the original script. In fact, when asked whether or not Deckard was a replicant, both screenwriters (Hampton Fancher and David Peoples) said, "No. That's stupid." Harrison Ford says Deckard is not a replicant. The producers said Deckard was not a replicant.
The only one who wants to make Deckard a replicant is Ridley Scott, who admitted he had no idea what the movie was about. After their first screening, he told the producer, "It's beautiful. What the hell does it mean?"
He had no idea, so he keeps trying to shoe horn in this gimmick of Deckard being a replicant. It's stupid, and it destroys the entire moral point of the movie.
Do you think that maybe Ridley was going for, the whole, main character must walk a mile in the antagonists' shoes sort of thing, when it comes to the moral of the story?
Kind like how like in District 9,
SPOILER FROM DISTRICT 9
the main character was persecuting towards the aliens, but then once he becomes one, he changes once he knows they are in their shoes?
Was Ridley going for something like that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
