Annnnnnnnd whilst we're here.

Deckard... Replicant or not?!?!? and does it vary between the narrative version and the directors cut of the film?

OK, I'll state the obvious and say the Director's cut is clearly superior, although I didn't find the original narration by Harrison Ford to be that bad, despite his later admission of trying to do as bad a job as possible. The original lacks some of the finer detail that makes the director's cut so special (the whole Unicorn thing for starters). While I didn't dislike the narration in the original, removing it does allow for a darker (and less cheesy) atmosphere in the film.

As for Decker - I can't believe people are still debating whether he was a replicant or not - seems clear to me that he was. The only thing missing to confirm this would be if Gaff's parting words had been 'oh, and you do realize you're a replicant too, don't you?'

Director's Cut everytime, as for the above reasons.

I do have 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?' and I keep meaning to get round to reading it.

I'm sure i read somewhere on another board that Ridley Scott has definately said that Deckard was a replicant. Which does take some of the fun out of discussing it, though the directors cut does make it pretty clear that he is, i thought.
Not entirely sure i've ever seen the original, so i shall plump for the directors cut too. I have seen it at the cinema, which was very impressive, and failed to go see it at the Imax screen round here during the Brum film festival last year, which i'm still kicking myself about.

Haven't read the novel in a while, but i think it was pretty different from the film, with a lot more of Philip K Dick's religious ideas running through it. Not what i expected from knowing the film, but you can't read enough Dick... i need to nick more from my brother, who has just about everything he ever wrote.

---

by Watcher girl
I'm sure i read somewhere on another board that Ridley Scott has definately said that Deckard was a replicant. Which does take some of the fun out of discussing it, though the directors cut does make it pretty clear that he is, i thought.

---

I think this came from a TV special in which Scott said Deckard was a Replicant and someone else very importnat to the film, I think maybe even Harrison Ford said he wasn't or something like that.

I mean afterall what does Scott know, he was what something insignificant like the director or the writer or...

---

by Watcher girl
but you can't read enough Dick...

---

While I am admittedly ROTFLMFSO (my choice of variant), I whole heartedly concur.

I try not to count Bladerunner & do androuids dream of electric sheep as the same thing. It gets far too confusing.

I prefer the directors cut as well for the usual reasons.


There are a bunch of novels out that are sequels to the film
(by someone called Jetter I seem to remember) They are utter tosh & I really wish that I had never read them as they totally spoil the (non)ending of the directors cut.

(Edited by Tycho 02/05/2002 00:15)

---

by Jayjay
While I am admittedly ROTFLMFSO (my choice of variant), I whole heartedly concur.

---

Nice variant I realised that i was providing a nice feed line after i posted, but thought i'd be the straight man around here for a change, or something

I must confess I've never actually seen the original version. I'm not even sure if you can get hold of it these days, and it's always the directors' cut you see on TV.

A quick check on Amazon reveals that you can't get the original. Some rather amusing comments about the directors cut being too slow and impossible to follow.

Me, I like dark and confusing films, so I suspect I wouldn't like the original version as much.

---

by In a State of Dan
I must confess I've never actually seen the original version. I'm not even sure if you can get hold of it these days, and it's always the directors' cut you see on TV.

Me, I like dark and confusing films, so I suspect I wouldn't like the original version as much.

---

The occasionally show the narrative version, I think I have it on tape somewhere, who knows But if you've not seen the narrative, there are some folk who'd suggest you keep it that way

A few years ago it got quite trendy to say that actually you preferred the original version to the directors cut.

I never held with that myself.

I don't know if this is confirmed or not yet, but the stuff i read said that on the special edition Blade Runner DVD, it would have the original, the director's cut and possibly a new version too.

Hummmmmmmmmm.

Original Blade Runner = Blade Runner for Dummies

(I prefer the director's cut!)

---

by MonSTeR
I mean afterall what does Scott know, he was what something insignificant like the director or the writer or...

---

Arguably, whilst authorial intention is relevant, it is not the be all and end all of interpretation. Once any artefact (be it song, novel, film etc) is experienced, it exists in the mind of the reader (watcher etc) and so their understanding of it has personal validity.

It has been a very long time since I saw the original, but I do remember enjoying it at the time. Whatever else may be said of the voiceover, it does have a nicely retro noir feel to it. I also find the 'unicorn' excerpts from Legend in the director's cut annoying. That said, they are nowhere near as irritating as the off cuts from the Shining used for the final sequence in the original version.

---

by MonSTeR
Deckard... Replicant or not?!?!? and does it vary between the narrative version and the directors cut of the film?

---

Well the clues are there in the original. Obviously there is the name Deckard (Descartes). However, the point is made far more strongly in the director's cut.

As far as the book is concerned ... I read it 6 or 7 years ago, and thematically the two are very similar I think, concerning themselves with the nature of humanity/soul etc. The book is much drier though whilst the film gives the audience sufficient spectacle to sneak the philosphical stuff in through the back door.

Perhaps it is not relevant whether Deckard is a replicant or not? The film is concerned with what it means to be human at a metaphysical level not a physical one. Replicant or not, Deckard qualifies, as does Batty in the final analysis.