Bladerunner: the Final Cut

[shapinglight]

Okay, so probably most of you have seen this, but I hadn't. Until today, when, for some reason, my local cinema had a one-off showing of it in the early evening.

Blown away all over again, not least by my own nerdiness about this film.

Spoilers behind cut.



Not sure if I've mentioned ever that I'm a big Bladerunner fan? Have been since it first came out in 1982, in the version with the voiceover and the tacked-on happy ending. I loved it - so much, in fact, that I went to see it at the cinema ten times, dragging everyone I could think of to see it with me (even my mum, who later confessed to my sister that she'd hated it), and when I couldn't find anyone, going by myself.

I loved it so much that it inspired me to write fanfic. I wrote three stories set in my own take on the Bladerunnerverse, which at the time I was very pleased with (no idea what happened to them, btw, I suspect the only copies are on an old 5 and a quarter inch floppy disc).

In short, I knew the film inside-out.

Which is something that added an extra layer to tonight's experience. Yes, I've seen the original Director's Cut, but never this final version. And I could see every single thing that had been changed or improved. The only change I wouldn't call an improvement is the added footage of Batty's murder of Tyrell. That was too horrific for me twenty two years ago, let alone now when I'm a lot more squeamish.

Still and all, at least knowing the film as well as I do, I knew when to look away.

(Must admit, too, that the Deckard/Rachael love scene, though unchanged, is pretty disturbing, very much verging on non-con (and yes, I did realise this all those years ago too). Now, I think that Scott directed the scene the way he did because he had this idea that Deckard, too, was a replicant, and wanted to make it look like neither Deckard nor Rachael really knew what they were doing.

Maybe not. The whole Deckard-as-replicant never worked for me anyway).

But everything else that was changed - yeah, an improvement, and it's still a fantastic looking film with beautifully realised world-building and great special effects that don't rely on CGI at all, and yet still look magnificent.

So, so impressed still.

Comments

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

You remember the book better than I do. Actually I think you remember both better...of course I read the book over 10 years ago.
And I did not enjoy it. Philip K Dick is hit or miss for me. I liked The Three Stigmata of Palmer K. Eldritch but Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep felt sort of..dull? Odd, since I liked the movie.

Yeah, according to Wiki's plot synopsis, the book had a huge section on animated pets and Deckard's desire for a pet, which does pop up in the movie, but doesn't make sense, since that part was edited out or not explored. Rachel apparently kills the pet that Deckard finally manages to obtain in the book.

Regarding Young? Oh she had quite a bit of a career in the 1980s, but sort of crashed and burned in the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Young

Nasty business. Nasty, nasty. Possibly the worst industry you can work in next to the publishing and gaming industries. Weird. My brother and his wife have some harrowing stories, as do many of my friends who work or have worked in it.

[shapinglight]

Actually I think you remember both better...of course I read the book over 10 years ago.

Probably. As I said, I'm a complete nerd about this film.

I like some of Dick's novels quite a lot, some a lot less. This one is sort of in the middle. My favourite is probably The Man in the High Castle.

As for Sean Young, oh dear. As you say, nasty business, and an awful lot of very unstable people working in the field.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I always felt sort of sorry for Scean Young. The more I learn about the studio exec's and Directors...(shudder). My brother told me once not to take up screenwriting - to stick with novel writing or theater. Theater is actually the best of the collaborative mediums, mainly because, unless you are doing Broadway or West End, it doesn't tend to be as commercial or marketing oriented. So you have more freedom to play...and a lot more positive interaction. As with all things - bring lots of money into the picture and things go south in a jiffy.

Haven't read Man in the High Castle - which I've heard good things about and I do happen to own. Have read a few of the short stories, which are quite good, and The Three Stigmata of Palmer K. Eldritch...along with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (which admittedly disappointed, it was more philosophical and speculative than noirish. And I was expecting something closer to the one of the film. Not sure what I'd have thought of it, if I'd read it first. (shrugs). )

[shapinglight]

There are several others of his novels I like very much, including Clans of the Alphane Moon (and what a great title), and Doctor Bloodmoney, but all the novels post-The Man in the High Castle are worth a look, I think. Not so much the earlier ones.