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.
Blade Runner is a film that seems to haunt the director Ridley Scott, and us, the fans of the film also. I saw the movie in a cinema over 30 years ago. I left knowing I had seen something extraordinary.
It is a beautifully shot film full of unanswered questions, and is one of the few movies I can revisit every once in a while.
Ridley Scott made the film in very difficult circumstances. The film workers deliberately tried to impede the director in what he was trying to achieve, and the money men leaned on him to finish the film when he felt there was still work to be done.
I think the the reason Ridley has tinkered with this film over the years, is he must feel it isn't complete as the work he intended it to be.
Whatever version I have seen, it is a masterpiece that lives on through the years.
It is a masterpiece, but the more I've read about it, the more I think it was largely an accidental masterpiece. Even Scott seemed a bit baffled by it. After he'd finished watching it for the first time, he said, "It's glorious. But what the hell does it mean?"
I think he has continued to tinker with it over the years because he still doesn't know the answer to his own question.
Just as one example, his Final Cut certainly seems to confirm that Deckard is a replicant, which is a titanic mistake for the story. Which is why I am very nervous about this proposed sequel. I'm afraid it's going to be a mess.
My thing is - the original was the masterpiece. So leave it be. Yes Scott wanted something different, etc., but what he ended up with is what people consider the masterpiece. No matter how many cuts he makes I always end up watching the original (I have the mutli-disc dealy). That's what caught peoples imagination.
My thing is - the original was the masterpiece. So leave it be. Yes Scott wanted something different, etc., but what he ended up with is what people consider the masterpiece. No matter how many cuts he makes I always end up watching the original (I have the mutli-disc dealy). That's what caught peoples imagination.
I agree with that. A "Final Cut" doesn't supercede the years of discussion and analysis that took place between 1982 and 2007.
Hampton Fancher, who doesn't agree with Ridley Scott's take on the replicant theory (neither does Ford for that matter), co-wrote the screenplay. It will be interesting to see what kinds of debates spark up following the release of the sequel.
(but it will be even more interesting if the movie actually turns out to be worth a damn)
Re: 'Whatever version I have seen, it is a masterpiece that lives on through the years'
That's it. Ridley's the master of that masterpiece. Arguably one of the greatest ever made.
I like to watch every now and then to watch and get more out of it. The film in a way is so great because there are so many avenues that it has to explore. It's of the 'classic' for all time.
Also will put in a plug for an earlier 'masterpiece' of his and that' 'The Duellists'. Visually, a beautifully shot film. Ever frame is a gem. Ridley started out I believe in advertising shoots. We are sure lucky he went into directing.
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.
