06-08-2018, 01:09 PM
Blade Runner was released in 1982, but Ridley Scott re-edited it into this, his preferred version, in 2007.
It was intriguing, watching this and trying to compare it to my 1982 viewing. Most apparent is the total lack of voice-over. It works surprisingly well for me. But it's hard to compare it to the original without revisiting that one, and if I did that, I'd have to revisit this one again, and so on. But I'm curious now, what the voice-over does for the viewing. Maybe I'll check out the original.
Putting aside version differences, I was surprised at all the Asian tropes and trappings permeating the cityscape and people. Considering that Shaw Brothers was one of the production companies, this shouldn't be so surprising.
The movie greatly simplifies the book, making good decisions all the way. I miss some of the eccentricities in the book, but they were the right things to cut. In the book, the replicants didn't have a four-year lifespan, and I liked the fact that they could live their lives out among us if not found out. However, for the movie, giving them an expiration date does motivate them to seek out their creator in hopes of getting a "cure." So it helps drive the plot.
Lady Cranefly watched this with me, and afterwards she wondered why Rutger Hauer never got an Oscar for his performance. He is such an absolute stand-out, the most alive, the most human, while Harrison Ford is more the automaton in how he lives, thinks, and how he dispatches replicants. I suppose this was done by intent. Anyway, Rutger Hauer was robbed.
Yeah, there's this eternal debate about whether Deckard is himself a replicant, and there are pundits out there proclaiming that this scene or this version provides irrefutable proof one way or the other. But Lady Cranefly and I just aren't seeing anything so definitive in any of this.
It was intriguing, watching this and trying to compare it to my 1982 viewing. Most apparent is the total lack of voice-over. It works surprisingly well for me. But it's hard to compare it to the original without revisiting that one, and if I did that, I'd have to revisit this one again, and so on. But I'm curious now, what the voice-over does for the viewing. Maybe I'll check out the original.
Putting aside version differences, I was surprised at all the Asian tropes and trappings permeating the cityscape and people. Considering that Shaw Brothers was one of the production companies, this shouldn't be so surprising.
The movie greatly simplifies the book, making good decisions all the way. I miss some of the eccentricities in the book, but they were the right things to cut. In the book, the replicants didn't have a four-year lifespan, and I liked the fact that they could live their lives out among us if not found out. However, for the movie, giving them an expiration date does motivate them to seek out their creator in hopes of getting a "cure." So it helps drive the plot.
Lady Cranefly watched this with me, and afterwards she wondered why Rutger Hauer never got an Oscar for his performance. He is such an absolute stand-out, the most alive, the most human, while Harrison Ford is more the automaton in how he lives, thinks, and how he dispatches replicants. I suppose this was done by intent. Anyway, Rutger Hauer was robbed.
Yeah, there's this eternal debate about whether Deckard is himself a replicant, and there are pundits out there proclaiming that this scene or this version provides irrefutable proof one way or the other. But Lady Cranefly and I just aren't seeing anything so definitive in any of this.
I'm nobody's pony.