As mentioned previously, it was only found in the "director's cut" version that came out in the mid 1990's. Here is the original:



and a fan based one that is better:

Yeah and the unicorn inclusion totally screws up Deckard's character, implying that he himself is a replicant, too.

I agree, it isn't necessary and doesn't fit the story. To really take that route, they would have to establish that his time as a blade runner was a memory, maybe from another city, but he's got history at the department. They give the impression he's one of the most experienced, but he's been out of the game for a while now or he and Gaff would know each other. As it is, he just knew "of" Gaff but also that he could give him a bit of a hard time about the language. It can't just be a memory, and they wouldn't stand for him being a replicant if they were in on it. Rachel was the newest model, an experiment, so he would've still had the short lifespan. It also doesn't make sense due to the fact that replicants are outlawed. What, Tyrell just turned one loose to see what happens? Nah, the original is far superior for me to believe it. Maybe Ridley wanted the movie to be something else, but he should've made more of an effort to change it than the little he did. The re-cut takes a great movie and makes it disjointed and silly.

Also, he says "I dreamt music" not "I dreamt unicorns". Half-assed effort.

Ridley never intended a Director's cut. He was kinda forced into it.

The way I heard it, someone found an early cut of the movie, and thinking it was an international release, they showed it at a cinema festival. The surprise was, that that cut did not have the voiceover added yet, and had a few extended scenes that were cut from the theatrical print. People who disliked the original voiceover went bonkers for this version. That one was then released as a Director's cut, much to the chagrin of Ridley Scott, who had little to do with it.

He then decided that if that was the version people liked, there were a lot of things he had to change in order to make it work from his perspective, and the product of that is The Final Cut.

Maybe most people like that version better, or maybe they got little access to the original and this is how they got to experience it for the first time.

I rewatched the final cut around August, and one thing I kept thinking is how unconfortable were all those long scenes with no dialog.

What bugs me the most about the theatrical version is not so much the droning voice-over by Ford but the "happy ending" which is a total copout Hollywood type of ending.

That I can understand. Where the hell are they going? LOL

Watched the 1982 version yesterday, and did some reading as to why there were multiple editions. This seems an adequate summary.

He may have got it out and moved on, but I'm curious, did Scott ever say that the 1982 version was his preferred?

that looks like a great article, but I can't tell because it keeps popping up screen asking me to pay for ads or whitelist an ad blocker...grrr

v6,
boNes

In the extras he said the 2007 version was the best, hence the term "final cut". He left the other 2 versions there for purists and people who think that whatever was done first was best, flaws and all.

There's really not too much difference between the 92 and 07 versions besides some effects cleanup and the replacement of Joanna Cassidy's stunt double with the actress herself in the scene where she crashes through the window (because the wig was horrible and the stunt performer was way too obviously not her).
Any other changes I've since forgotten, haven't seen the set in a few years now.



The Jedi Master

As I remember it, just some wire removal and a change in the dove-release upshot (so it doesn't fly into a blue sky despite it raining :/ )

Oh yes, the dove shot. Now that you mention it I do remember that one clearly. That was important because it took you out of what was arguably the most emotional scene of the film.



The Jedi Master

My 12 year old (or whatever) self looked at that and thought "So his muscles relaxed to release the pigeon as he died. Ha ha! He just crapped himself!"

That was a bit over the top symbolism for my tastes, the only overt cliche that made my eye roll.

But I guess having him let a bird go is better than a bunch of fart and crap noises. It might have taken away somewhat from the gravity of the situation.

When I first saw it, all I thought was "oh so he didn't kill the bird." It was probably when I saw it again a decade later that I got it was supposed to be some sort of soul metaphor thing.

I only get symbolism when I consciously make an effort to recognize it is there and decipher it.

Robert Langdon may have said "symbols have power," but not to me. Never has. That's why I just shrug when people talk about flags or swastikas or whatever. They're there, they're not there, whatever. Doesn't mean anything to me.



The Jedi Master

Little bit of trivia: The exterior shots of the car driving scene at the end of the theatrical version was actually unused footage from "The Shining".

I just watched "Blade Runner" on the big screen last night at a special showing. It was the first time I've seen it on the big screen since I was a kid when it came out, and that was in a drive-in theatre! So it was pretty cool to see it this way again.

They didn't say which version they were showing per se, only Blade Runner (1982)" but what they did show was the original theatrical cut, with the voice-over. It's funny watching it again after reading those script notes. But, at some points, I couldn't help but think what it would be like without the narration for things like when Gaff first speaks with him in that language. How would we know it was a hybrid street-tongue, and that Deckard was purposely feigning ignorance on it? I do have the other versions (I have the limited edition "Blade Runner" DVD set that comes in a Voight-Kampff case with a mini Spinner and die-cast origami unicorn, heh)...but haven't watched them in a while to appreciate the differences. I do recall from watching this again how disappointed I was in the Pris fight scene...I was hoping for so much more and it was over in a somewhat ridiculous second. I do like the Japanese (International) version of the fight better, quite a number on his nose!

Also, in watching more intently, I'm not sure that one can say that Deckard is a replicant. I think there was only one scene where it may have suggested it, which is when Rachel asks him if he ever took the Voight-Kampff...plus, yes, what about the 4 year lifespan thing? I think I would like it better as Deckard not a replicant...but I guess that's part of the whole mystique of the thing, like what was in the box that Tom Hanks brought back to that house in "Castaway" or what was in the case in "Ronin."

I dunno...

v6,
boNes

I personally like it when a film has some element of an unsolved mystery that is left up to the audience to think about. The spinning top at the end of "Inception" immediately comes to mind.

IIRC, isn't the 4 year lifespan only mentioned in the narration? I don't recall hearing it mentioned once in the final cut which had none.



The Jedi Master

Nope. The police chief mentions the 4 year life span to Deckard while they are watching the profile video on the escaped replicants.

4 year lifespan did not apply to Rachel, as she was a prototype, and presumably does not apply to Deckard either for the same reason.

I do not remember anything in the movie regarding Rachel's lifespan (much less Deckard). I think Rachel was a prototype in the sense that she believed she was human.

In the book there is very specific indication of her lifespan though,



Also, the book describes what is Rachel's ultimate fate after she runs away with Deckard. I am hoping they use this in the sequel.