Blade Runner - The Eight Different Versions EXPLAINED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2017
- Why are there multiple versions of Blade Runner, what are the differences between the eight different versions? There are eight different versions of Ridley Scott's 1982 cult hit film, including two different director’s cuts and several different endings. Here, we suggest which is the definitive version you should watch
#bladerunner #ridleyscott #scifi
| JOIN ME |
Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=16208853
Instagram: @FinalFrontierYT
Facebook: FinalFrontierYT
Twitter: @FinalFrontierYT
| OTHER VIDEOS |
Q LEAKED FOR STAR TREK: PICARD?
• LEAK: Q Confirmed For ...
TOP 10 STAR TREK Episodes of All Time
• TOP 10 STAR TREK Episo...
Final Frontier is your source for adventures in the world of science fiction and science fantasy. Subscribe and join me on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. 
Развлечения
No idea which version I saw back in the 90s but watched the Final Cut last week before watching the 2049. If you love the original, then you'll love this. Denis (silent 's') Villeneuve has done an amazing job! And Harrison ford puts in a great appearance.
i watched us theatrical
Recently or originally?
No I did not enjoy the Denis Villeneuve sequel at all ... he destroyed all the characters from the first movie, make them all uncool in one stroke ... I'll never accept Gaff as a bloated elderly sitting idly in an old folks facility without any unique accent talkatively yapping about a buddy cop friendship he never had with Deckard ... and Deckard in Tshirt and jeans as daddy with cgi Rachel looking dowdy and droopy face involved in soap drama concerned about a long lost child ... its not a true sci fi movie anymore, more like tv soap drama ...
@@88feji Lmfao the only character from the first movie who's in 2049 is Deckard (and a 30 second hologram appearance of Sean Young).
All the rest of them are original characters.
And dude, you just can't say that he destroyed the original movie. The mindsets aren't the same in 2017 thus 1982. Both Deckard and Ford have got old, so you can't ask them to act like if they were younger. It's just not possible.
This said, I can see why you didn't like 2049. But use better arguments than that.
@@chrisredfield2301
He did destroy the coolness of the original characters .... you do not even know what Gaff is from the first movie ....
Gaff was a mysterious shadowy figure in the first movie with a dandy dress style who spoke a type of multi-cultural city speak language, but in the stupid sequel the director decides its ok to completely remove all his defining styles, erase his city-speak dialect, change his man-of-few-words nature and boom ... now he's a bloated old guy who no longer speaks the language at all and dressed like a ball room waiter, talkatively remiscing about a buddy cop relationship which never happened (in the first movie he was cold and rude to Deckard, there wasn't any pat on the shoulders at all)....
Here's some arguments why 2049 is a bad sequel :
1) Lazy art direction
How can the entertainment district of Las Vegas be so empty with just a dew broken sculptures ? Where are all the tall street lamps, traffic signages, big ad displays, giant billboards, big neon signs ... they cannot be vaporised by radiation right ?
Where is the dystopian features of the casino ?? I mean it look so unscathed even though there's no maintenance for a long time ... where are the peeling walls, overgrown creepers, broken windows, gangrene pillars, loose hanging wires etc etc ?
2) Everyone on the streets of 2049 are dressed fashionably and cleanly without any indication of their cultures, profession or poverty leel ...... and they are doing nothing except just standing there idly or walking or at most eating somethign .... Its such a faceless bunch ...
Contrast that with the original movie with the arab merchants, the ostrich seller, the chinese cyclists, hare krishnans chanting, dwarf street urchins tearing car parts, japanese street hawkers, spiky haried street punks etc .... the original had such richly detailed lively streets buzzing with low life activities ....
The sequel looks really lazy in contrast ...
3) The actors in the sequel are typical acting Denis V puts in all his movies, including Dune too. They are always staring into space, like in deep thoughts, always posing, always talking slowly in a serious tone, etc ... its so one-dimensional, there's a lack of variation in his characterisations ... his movies always feel like a funeral procession throughout ... I mean neutral tone style of movie making but there should be some variation because too much makes it feel very emotionally hollow and unnaturalistic ....
And I thought Star Wars fans had it rough.
This didn't age well
@Music-vr7sz Nah, the franchise will have its ups and downs but it'll always recover, no matter what the doomers say.
@Double-R-Nothing that's not how it works in reality actually. Ignoring that the people in charge are the ones actively ruining it with no accountability. Ignoring the franchise breaking changes to canonical lore. There's also precedent in literally every major franchise out there. Star Wars isn't an exception.
I saw the Theatrical Cut in the cinema and loved it. But I also saw the Director's Cut in the cinema and loved it. The Final Cut is great. Sometimes I prefer the color grade of the Director's Cut, but overall, the Final Cut is my favorite.
I enjoy the Director's Cut more than Final Cut ... Dir Cut just feels richer in the visual's colors (Final Cut seems to have gone a little overboard in color corrections to set a very one side color cast in many places) and I don't like the Final Cut's replacement shot for the pigeon flying away, it looks like a badly executed photoshop composite of many different visual elements awkwardly squashed together and its lighting is way too different from the turquoise blue cast reflected off the wet rooftop ...
@@88feji But a blue sky instead of a night sky in the DC... It's not immersive IMO, and it's not supposed to be a coloful movie, but a neo-noir thriller, so the night sky is way more credible than a blue sky.
@@chrisredfield2301
Here's why :
1) During both the scene where Roy dies and Gaff arriving, the overall tone is very clearly BLUE-ish, thats why the Dir's Cut's blue-ish sky is atmospherically more fitting than the gray charcoal sky of the Final Cut
2) The chimney blue sky works very well with Vangelis's deep industrial rumbling sound effect when the pigeon flew away
3) What I hate about the Final Cut's building montage is that the building styles are so different from the building styles shown in the earlier scenes of the movie where the skyscrapers have an almost gotham city style (like in the movie Metropolis) of architecture, the replacement shot buildings looks too squarish... nothing like the earlier buildings at all ... very out of place...
4) Its silly to say the movie is not "supposed" to be colorful, its also silly to say it should be "neo-noir"...
Blade Runner's visual style is a unique style of its own, in fact its the defining style for a whole new genre called CYBERPUNK. It does not belong to noir, it merely happens to share some characteristics of noir in some scenes.
You're color blind if you cannot see how richly colorful most of the movie is ....what it shares with noir is the detective, femme fatale, melancholic music, rainy, night time, foggy aspects ... but its also has difference with noir in that many scenes are colorful, multi-cultural, futuristic contrasting with low life poverty ...
I like the voice over. It adds to the film noir feeling. the lack luster delivery make Deckard sound jaded
That's an interesting take on it!
Harrison Ford wasn't interested in doing a voice over so you've got his pissed off voice.
in europe you basically can only get the Final Cut, almost impossible to watch the US theatrical cut, you either need a VPN with a payment method accepted in the US, which is only credit card who nobody owns in the EU or you buy a big collectors edition with all the versions for 60+ €
The video game had all endings...
I've got 1992 directors cut and Final Cut and can happily put either on, barely noticing any difference apart from maybe some picture quality
Director's Cut rules !
@@88feji quality mate
So glad I saw the directors cut on my first viewing. I wouldn't have known any better lol and only discovered so after.
I was worried about the sequel when it was announced,. and then again when it was released.. BOY WAS I WRONG !!!! 2049 was GREAT !!!
It's totally brilliant, which is why I have such high hopes for 'Dune' as it's by the same director
As I sat in the theatre watching the sequel .... every passing second I was waiting for the movie to blow me a way like the original did (and the original still do blow me away everytime I rewatch it catching new meaningful details and implications), I stayed underwhelmed in the theatre throughout as my heart sank at what how the sequel seems a lot more pretentious and emotionally hollow .... when the movie ended, I tried to tell myself maybe I should give it a second chance so I bought another ticket a week later and the second viewing was even worse, I felt emotionally hollow and upset .. and I went about figuring out why the sequel felt so underwhelming and there's a whole long list of legitimate reasons ..
I do not think any decent director will fail at directing the sequel because the visual style of the original is so strong that even a pale imitation of it will still wow people and thats exactly what the sequel felt like, its the bare minimal ...thats credits to Ridley Scott for providing such a strong fully realised cyberpunk world as a guide, rather than denis Villeneuve ...
I've seen various short films, illustrations inspired by the original moview and most of them are better looking than the sequel's visuals ...
2049 is great just for the brainless Gen-Z, it’s a lazy edgy stylish empty movie without a soul, Jared Leto was embarrassing, and the old Deckard punching people was pathetic.
Final cut definitely as that in Ridley Scott's own words is the definitive version.
Of course he did he was trying to sell it
"I want more life, f**ker!"
There is another cut ! It being totally unique . A Internet only edition by a fan . It is the best version ?
No voice over .
Holden doesn't die and rick visits him in hospital , though it is quite a long scene and slows the pace .
Unicorn dream sequence included to make sense of the random gaff unicorn in other versions .
Deckard eye glow , when getting up in bed after Rachel stays over . A planned move by Tyrell to see if these special reps can reproduce ? Gaff knowing the score of rick meeting rach after being put on the case by his boss , that was ordered by Tyrell .
Extended Bradbury building search in bathrooms and blaster gun reload magazine after shootout.
Nail to palm of hand insertion to get the adrenaline pumping that simulates the crustifiction of Christ .
The suggestion that Tyrell is the rep and father to rich & rach and looking to be a grandfather like a real human .
The real Tyrell being dead many years and he being in charge of the company , pushing it forward for profits and gain & seeing his product thrive in the galaxy as a type of Hitler inspired master.
Good analysis - however one small point of disagreement, Re: 'The Final Cut' - the inclusion of the extra violence in the scene where Roy Batty meets Eldon Tyrell is contradicted by the change in Roy's dialogue of 'fucker' to 'father' and the violence diluted and diminished the dialogue - we KNOW it was violent and the scene grew in length for no discernible benefit
*_"A 4 hour version"?? Where is all that extra footage, was it ever added to ANY Home Video Release?_*
I really love blade runner and had seen it several times when in the thrift store I bought a DVD labeled directors cut. That version was so superior to the version I had seen up to that point that I’ve been running around for years telling people not to waste time on anything but the directors cut. Now I find out that that version was not really a directors cut and I have to see the final cut! If The final cut is as much superior to the fake directors cut as the fake directors cut was to the theatrical release I’m in for a big thrill. I truly can’t wait. By the way the elimination of the VoiceOver is one of the biggest improvements in the fake directors cut that I’ve liked the best up to this point
That voiceover is diabolical
*_So...what were the three scenes in the San Diego Cut??_*
Yep. Huge miss
@@geoffhoutman1557 *_Huh?_*
@@RPRsChannel The narrator says there were three additional scenes in the San Diego cut, then carries on to a different point.
That would be the perfect place to say "the three scenes were..." or "those present said..." or "we have been unable to prove this...".but none of those things happen, hence leaving the giant unanswered question.
There was another cut I saw it in school about a year after it came out. It was on the old film projectors it had different scenes then all the others I have seen since then.
How did you see it in school? Maybe the test cut with all scenes included?
@@finalfrontier My teacher brought it to class they could rent them through the school board. We watched it once had no idea what we saw lol so he let us watch it again the next day. Bin a fan ever since never saw that cut again and I have the box set.
@@ronkemp9528 Could it be the broadcast cut?
@@brandonacevedo9574 What ever it was its not on any of my DVDs.
Was it on VHS or DVD >
Awesome !
Thanks!
Any news on that 4 hr cut ...seems interesting but alas.... In 2050s as ULTIMATE EDITION OF REDEFINED ERA I guess 😡
I doubt it exists anymore. It would have been an incomplete cut before post-production was complete. Most films probably have such extended rough cuts
When in the Final Cut is the unicorn dream sequence and how does it differ from the other version(s) that have it?
Unicorn sequence is in the Directors and Final Cuts only, and occurs when Deckard falls asleep in his apartment (after fighting with Rachael). The sequence is a little longer in the Final Cut
I love this movie and am grateful to have seen it with Deckard's dialogue included. I have seen several versions and the truth all have redeemable details, but Deckard's voice of thoughts are vital to such a delicately complete and complex plot.
can u tell me how or where you watched the different versions? I've watched the final cut but dying to watch the rest of the versions hehe
The most recent collectors edition has multiple versions
I'm glad that they removed it in the Final Cut version, because it enhances the ambiguity and moodiness of the movie.
And on top of that, the narration voice is IMO the result of studio meddling that damaged the final product.
Agree. Far too 'in your face'
The Deckard spoken narrative is lying. In the Final Cut, you can see Deckard has no clue of what Gaff is saying when he is speaking that hybrid language, but in the voice-over he assures us he does. Further, the voice-over says using 'skin-job' is a slur, but this is inappropriate for Deckard, because he doesn't yet consider replicants as fully sentient people, so he wouldn't think skin-job is any more of a slur than calling an iPad an overgrown phone. The voice-over narration is done badly, and it does not belong in the film. Plus, it dates the film terribly.
Final cut very good.
Looks amazing with the remastering; has barely dated after all these years...
I've see The Final Cut and enjoyed it. Not sure I'll bother seeing the rest lol unless, if someone suggests there is another better.
You chose... wisely. Would suggest listening to a minute of voiceover from the theatrical release just to see how awful it was!
@@finalfrontier lol may be I won't then
The Director's Cut is more or less the same. Some of the color grading in that cut are better in my opinion, but some scenes look better in the Final Cut. I'd recommend seeing the voiceover version because it's what came 1st in the cinema.
watch the workprint.
I saw the Theatrical Cut first and I liked it. Then I saw the Director's Cut and I really liked it. Then I saw the Final Cut and fell in love.
That's me, anyways
5:32 alicia vikander?
In my opinion that stupid unicorn scene knocks the whole film down a peg. So it's definitely the theatrical version for me. It's not subtle at all, it's scott beating you over the head with his interpretation of the story
But without the scene does the film even ask the question?
@@finalfrontier It doesn't need to because the story only works if Deckard is human. It is about him rediscovering his own humanity through these replicants that are more human than him. Several other people in the production said Deckard being a replicant was really stupid and all Ridley's idea.
@@happiness1772 100% agree.
Maybe you are too stupid and lazy to understand the most important scene 😂😂😂😂😂
exactly, theatrical is the best and what made people fall in love with the movie, not the 90's crappy changes from Riddley Scott(kinda similar with crazy looney George Lucas and his specialized editions that ruined the original movies). Theatrical release is the best after listening to people saying they didn't liked that ending, and the director again did that stupid, negative, dull, ending. My father saw the original theatrical international version several times, I went with him to see the director's cut at the cinema, I kinda liked it but was expecting more from what he was always telling me, that it was so great, but my father was like "I remember it being different..." he didn't like it one bit this time. Stupid directors changing cinema history it's like if Picasso or Leonardo Da Vinci would come back and change their paintings, it's just stupid and idiotic, only millennial zoomers love this nonsense and idiot's age we're living in.
I’ve heard their were 5 or 7 and now 8. Can someone tell me the true amount of how many there really are.
If you watch the video...???
Final Frontier I did but I was talking about on other videos and articles.
8. But one is a 4-hour cut never released in theaters.
How to get original version via torrent
No need. Either get the 5 disc DVD or BD set from 2007 or the 3 disc BD set from 2012.
82 us cut . it helps that was the first for me but i like the narration bit . i was given a 5 disc collectors set a few years back so i may have watched all but its love at first view .tomorrow i think its time for the next story .has anyone seen the short stories ? i have not sure if i seen them in the right order ,
I watched 2049 over the weekend - you won't be disappointed! I skipped on the short stories as I didn't want to potentially spoil the film. I watched the Alien Covenant short after watching the film and realised it gave away a major plot point - so glad I skipped it at the time...
i have seen the shorts before the movie , fills a small gap but i think most would figure it out as the story goes along . great movie i will watch over and over again when i can stop rewind and control the volume that theater was loud.
there are 17 blader runner type endings from the 90's mostly cgi.
What was the 8th version
Was wondering that myself. I think it was just before the "official" directors edition and right after the censored for tv cut. When they released the original work print as a "directors edition", but then he also already mention that as part of the 1st one in the original work print version.
Edit; Just realized in the beginning he mentions a 4 hour cut only shown to studio personnel.
The 8th was a 4-hour cut never shown in theaters
Thank you. That's the one; mentioned early on in the video
Isn't this seven versions?
1. 1982 workprint prototype
2. 1982 San Diego sneak preview
3. 1982 theatrical release
4. 1982 International release
5. 1986 CBS broadcast release
6. 1992 Director's cut
7. 2007 The Final Cut
What's the 8th version?
There was also a 4-hour early cut shown to the studio (probably something that happens with most films)
@@finalfrontier Yeah, that's the workprint prototype. Were there three versions before the theatrical release?
This 4-h early cut wasn't the workprint prototype; it was just for studio execs. Whereas the workprint prototype was shown to test audiences
Well there's also a hurriedly put together cut containing Vangelis's previous album's music which the producers showed to Philip K Dick (the source novel's author) when he demanded to see whats going on with the movie ...
... and PKD was instantly blown away by what he saw, since then he had nothing but glowing praises for the movie ( in contrast to his unhappiness before seeing the rough cut) ...
why not just go through the versions available...according to Ridley Scott there were even more cuts - but it dosn't make sense if they arn't available .
You should do your own video, and it will be much more popular.
@@franciscanstudent i wont
CBS is the best version only because of the trailer
I've seen nothing but dislike of the VO version. I've always thought it added a film noir/Chandleresque vibe to the movie.
It might have been OK if Ford didn't sound like he was sleeping through it
Is that the only version with the pretty misty happy ending?
*Final Cut (2007)* no questions asked.
Here here!
There is so many of the original , I own the final cut but enjoy the voice over too in the other version since it gives it that Film Noir feel . I haven't yet seen 2049 yet . So I cant comment any more than this now .
I've only ever seen the Final Cut, and it wasn't until a full year after watching it that I heard of the "Is Deckard a replicant?" question. Nothing in the Final Cut indicates he is a replicant.
His eyes glow when talking to Rachel and getting emotional, something that only happens to replicants. In addition, the unicorn origami indicates that Gaff knows his dreams/memories, just like Dekkard knew of Rachel's... which was only possible because she is a replicant. In fact, a major criticism of the final cut is that it pushes too far towards "Dekkard is a replicant" instead of keeping him human or making it more ambiguous.
Then you weren’t paying attention. The Final Cut more or less proves that Deckard is in fact a replicant.
@@surindersingh724 You say that, yet this debate still exists.
@@Riley_Mundt But how is it a debate? How else would Gaff know about Deckard’s dreams? There is literally no other explanation. The only people who think this is still up for debate are the ones who have either seen one of the 7 other versions or don’t understand the reference of the origami.
@@surindersingh724 Really? So the actor who played Deckard, the film's producer, and the film's lead scriptwriter don't understand the film that they made. Harrison Ford and Michael Deeley both maintain that Deckard is a human and that Ridley Scott is an idiot, while Hampton Fancher specifically wrote the script to make it ambiguous and up to audience interpretation.
The final cut is by far better. The addition of questioning Decker's humanity makes it a completely different movie... and the narration in the theatrical is lazy and awkward.
The Original was the best all other versions suck.
With the voiceover?! Really?
Final Frontier yes with the voice over
Some people like it. I liked it when I saw it, but liked the film better without it.
Director's Cut has richer colors ... the overall atmosphere is really more beautifully dazzling and dreamy looking ...
I think the Final Cut overdid the color corrections to make a lot of scene have a very one-sided color cast, some people like that kind of simplicity but to me it takes away the dazzling richness of the visuals ...
NOT A REPLICENT!!!!!!
The sequel literally proves he's a replicant lol
@@clyax113 The first movie literally bombs you with clues about that. The sequel is better than the original imo.
Theatrical gang rise up
Hear, hear!
I think the original theatrical release is the most appropriate to be seen before watching 2049's sequel. You'd know what happens with Rachel's lifespan and you'd see Deckart as a human, not a replicant, which is how 2049 portrays him.
The director's cut and Final cut are just artificial modifications by a senile Ridley Scott failing to make his film more "interesting" (confusing)...
TheStone 2049 didn’t portray him like that
I still like the original the best because of the voiceovers. I like to think that he was human and I love noir films.
Interesting. I think the voiceover version is too obvious and really badly voiced
The voiceover might work if it was done better. I like how the ambient noise in the non vo versions adds depth to the environment. I don't think the movie is confusing without it. Everything is explained already in the story and some of the vo is just cheesy. My opinion. I still love it even with the vo.
The narration is annoyingly smart alecky .... it really distracts from those beautifully atmospheric visuals, you cannot properly hear Vangelis's wonderful sounds and music because of it ...
The final cut is as flat as the Director’s cut and Deckard is not a Rep.
Watch the original US narration version and the Workprint.....BEST!!!!
Director's Cut is the best version ... color wise its richer looking, a lot more dazzling visually ... despite the a few technical flaws ...
I don't like the narration for the simple fact that it distracts me from hearing Vangelis gorgeous music and sound effects, I want to hear the rain drizzling in the dystopian world, but there's a smart alecky voice yapping away ...
We don't need the NPC reviews / opinion of Bladerunner 2049 - we know its garbage, please edit that part out of this old ass video.
The sequel sucked
No way!
Original is yet remembered as genre defining, while the sequel, is wholly forgettable.
Why do older people hate BR2049? It's a way better movie
@@finalfrontier
The sequel is nice but any directors could have made something at least of that quality given the original BR as a guide, its the bare minimal quality for a sequel ..... the director Villeneuve depends on way too many big empty spaces to wow shallow audiences who will easily be impressed by big empty spaces, but its a sign of laziness in art direction to chicken out of adding the proper descriptive details and textures to make a scene richer visually ... the original had extremely rich visuals where you will catch new details almost everytime you go back and rewatch it, its a very rewarding rewatching experience with the original ... the sequel, lesser so ....
@@user-zk2kv2qt1q
You know why older people prefers the original ?
Because they are wiser and more mature in their aesthetic sense ... in general ...
The original BR was regarded as a monumental sci fi masterpiece because countless great directors, artists, scientists, technopreneurs, writers, philosophers, animes, designers, etc etc cites it as a great inspiration and influence .... and the younger people tends to not appreciate it as much ... its obvious it has something to do with life experiences and maturity level ....
The sequel is awful.
Bad taste
Everything about the sequel is inferior to the original, its embarrassing considering its made so many decades later ....
Example, the police HQ rooftop exterior of 2049 is so boring looking compared to the gorgeous one (those landing pads !) in the 1982 original ....
Everyone in 2049 dresses the same clean look without any descriptive details about their cultures or poverty .... its so lazy in art direction compare to the rich multi-cultural descriptions of a wide variety of poverty level races in the original (arab merchants, chinese cyclists, japanese food stall, indians, hare krishnans, punks, dwarf street urchins, ostrich sellers, etc etc) ....
2049… what a pointless sequel, all esthetic and no soul.
For me 2049 is in the top five sequels of all time. The only other sequel I can think of to equal it is Godfather 2
@@richardhowell7040 Godfather 2 is a better sequel. Rocky 2 is a better sequel. Better than 2049 I mean, and I do like 2049.
Maybe we oughta give 2049 another look? Even die hard fans say that it’s a similar case to the original, where some of us just don’t get it
Although for now I agree with you 😬
What's with this guy's fake accent? "Rotten toe-MAH-toes"
2049 is a disgrace to Blade Runner in general. A waste of everybody’s time. Flat, wooden acting, disgusting score filled with grinding metal and traces of Vangelis’ notes here and there. 2049...rotten to the core.
1/Deckard is human.
2/Gaff is a Nexus 7
3/the US theatrical cut should be remastered frame by frame, include 20 odd minutes from the 4 hour version and also release it in Sepia-tone.
Now THAT’S a worthy release for its 41st Anniversary!!!
This, Villeneuve claims that the original BR got him into cinema and he took a shit on the IP, unnecessary sequel, destructive
4 hour version? can you point me to that?
Has anyone made a fanedit of the Final Cut but with the voice-over ?
You like the voice over ?
@@ozmond The voice-over just adds a little something to the narrative, the nonchalant sound of the voice blends perfectly with the bleak atmosphere of the visuals.
got the LaserDisc (the criterion collection) and i was searching if somebody took the effort to rip and upload it. Seems nobody. I got a mission in my life...