I've never seen Blade Runner and the Theatrical Cut is on Netflix: Should I bother?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ElectricBlanketFire

Member
Title says it all.

It has the voice over. Most people I know say not to watch this version.

Should I watch this one or track down the Director's/Final Cut version?

Here's a wrestling gif:

d0jQfaCM.gif


Thanks.
 
I wouldn't watch the Theatrical Version first. It has voiceover, and it's interesting because of that. But you should see Final Cut first.
 
The theatrical cut sucks comparatively, but even it is a pretty good movie on its own right. Do it.

Then watch the final cut.
 
It's still an excellent movie but the narration is terrible at times and it's not the best version out there. If the option is watching this version or not ever watching Blade Runner, go ahead.
 
Blade Runner is a top five film for me, and even I'd say skip the theatrical.

If I had started with the theatrical release I doubt I'd rate the film so highly in the first place. It's that bad. At best it's an interesting curiosity after you've seen the 'real' thing. The voice over is bad, but in my eyes it's the ending that's the real issue. Totally sucks away any power from the film.
 
Yeah, just watch it.

Keep in mind, this is the version that caused such a cult following in the first place. For over a decade, this is what people meant when they said they liked Blade Runner.

The movie is like, 95% the same as the Final Cut. People who consider the theatrical "bad?" I don't get that. It's more or less the same movie, with the same performances, and the same pacing. The voiceover isn't great. It's also not so diminishing as to significantly drag down the rest of the film's quality down to a level where using words like "bad" could apply.

Plus, if you're like a large number of its fans that I know, it doesn't matter what cut you watch for the first time, you're gonna need to rewatch it like, twice before it starts to actually work on you.

(twice I've had to say this today, too - Workprint Cut is best cut)
 
George Oscar Bluth II said:
I've only seen The Final Cut and am slightly familiar with the differences between versions. Why do you think the Workprint cut is better?
Click to expand...

It's basically a less polished Director's Cut, but without Ridley Scott's shoving in his stupid "Deckard might maybe be a Replicant" shit.

Makes the film feel a little more ragged. Gives it some extra energy, without losing the ambiguity, or gaining Ridley's confused bullshit.

Just watch ANY cut of Blade Runner if you can. And then watch one of the others. And then one of the others. Somewhere in there, it's gonna get its hooks in you. But it (in my experience) rarely happens the first time - no matter which cut it is you're watching.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
It's basically a less polished Director's Cut, but without Ridley Scott's shoving in his stupid "Deckard might maybe be a Replicant" shit.

Makes the film feel a little more ragged. Gives it some extra energy, without losing the ambiguity, or gaining Ridley's confused bullshit.

Just watch ANY cut of Blade Runner if you can. And then watch one of the others. And then one of the others. Somewhere in there, it's gonna get its hooks in you. But it (in my experience) rarely happens the first time - no matter which cut it is you're watching.
Click to expand...
Hmm... I think I'm gonna try and get me one of those 30th anniversary sets then.

I always thought the unicorn dream took away nearly all ambiguity which made me wonder what the hell everyone was arguing about; Deckard is clearly a replicant. Then I found out it was inserted into one of the later cuts so it was pretty ambiguous before then. Gonna be interesting to see how not having it in there changes the film.
 
Two common signs you may be cinematically deficient:

1. You find any parts of Blade Runner boring.

2. You find any parts of 2001 boring.
 
I've had the blu-ray final cut of this for about a year now, still haven't watched it. I guess I'm missing out. Will probably watch this weekend.
 
A sure sign the youth is degenerate and lost is the belief that Blade Runner is boring.

I just can't with that nonexistent attention span.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Yeah, just watch it.

Keep in mind, this is the version that caused such a cult following in the first place. For over a decade, this is what people meant when they said they liked Blade Runner.

The movie is like, 95% the same as the Final Cut. People who consider the theatrical "bad?" I don't get that. It's more or less the same movie, with the same performances, and the same pacing. The voiceover isn't great. It's also not so diminishing as to significantly drag down the rest of the film's quality down to a level where using words like "bad" could apply.

Plus, if you're like a large number of its fans that I know, it doesn't matter what cut you watch for the first time, you're gonna need to rewatch it like, twice before it starts to actually work on you.

(twice I've had to say this today, too - Workprint Cut is best cut)
Click to expand...

A completely reasonable answer. Just listen to this advice. Watch it in whatever version you can. If you like it, watch the other versions as you can.
 
Dennis said:
Two common signs you may be cinematically deficient:

1. You find any parts of Blade Runner boring.

2. You find any parts of 2001 boring.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand how someone could find Blade Runner boring.
 
biggersmaller said:
Theatrical cut is fine as it's very similar to any other cut. This isn't Watchmen we're talking about here.
Click to expand...
Have any of you theatrical defenders actually watched it recently? It has a tacked-on ending that completely reverses the themes of the film. If anything the theatrical version of Blade Runner is closer to Brazil's Love Conquers All cut, it's a complete betrayal of the source material.

The theatrical release was also widely derided, poorly reviewed, and performed badly in theaters. Just because some small group of folks were able to look past all of its problems to admire the stunning visuals and sounds doesn't somehow negate that. The theatrical release of Blade Runner is a bad movie, straight up.

It's also so easy to see the non-theatrical versions nowadays that there's really no excuse. I'd agree that the workprint, Director's Cut, and Final Cut are all similar enough that people could see any of them. Final Cut is probably most approachable with its tighter editing, but they're broadly similar movies.
 
I wouldn't watch the Theatrical Cut as a first view.
Real homo sapiens watch the Workprint Cut, but again, not for the initial viewing.

Director's or Final cut are fine for a first time viewing, however.
 
deadscreensky said:
Have any of you theatrical defenders actually watched it recently?
Click to expand...

Yeah.

Sorry but I'm not gonna be convinced that the differences are enough to make the theatrical a "bad movie." It's largely the same picture. There are changes yes. Some are to the good. Some are not.

If anything the theatrical version of Blade Runner is closer to Brazil's Love Conquers All cut
Click to expand...

This is a pretty big overstatement, not just in terms of the content, but in the circumstances that led to the cuts in question. It's really not comparable, and certainly not a "complete betrayal" of the source material. The theatrical version of Blade Runner is the source material. That it was improved upon (or rather, that an earlier version proved to be a better template from which to alter the film) doesn't negate its status as the original.

(unless you're trying to argue that the source material in question is "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," in which case ALL the cuts of Blade Runner are complete betrayals, as it's not really a faithful adaptation of that short story)

The theatrical release was also widely derided, poorly reviewed, and performed badly in theaters.
Click to expand...

So? Most of those critics, when they reversed their previous critical assessments, did so upon rewatching the same theatrical cut they derided. The film's reputation as a sci-fi classic happened in slow-motion, over the course of the 10 years between its release and the Workprint turning into the Director's Cut and getting re-released.

Again, if you're a fan of this movie already, and you've gone so far as to study it beyond a simple rewatch or two, I have a hard time seeing how in the hell you can call the Theatrical a "bad movie" in comparison to the other two. I can see having a preference, easily. Hell, I do too, and it's not for the theatrical. But the theatrical of Blade Runner is not far enough removed from Workprint/European/DC/FC to become "bad." There simply aren't enough differences between them all to create the sort of gulf between "Bonafide fucking sci-fi classic" and "shit" you're trying to say is there.

It's just memetic hyperbole more often than it isn't.

Dude wants to watch Blade Runner, right now, because it's on Netflix? Fuck it. Watch it. If there's enough in there that piques his curiosity (and there's probably gonna be) then he's got about 4 other options he can pursue at that point. But it's not like there's anything wrong with starting at the Theatrical if it's staring you in the face just waiting for a single button press to get it started.

Again - most of the reason the film is as revered as it is, is due to people being able to do JUST THAT on VHS and Laserdisc for a decade.
 
Bobby Roberts said:
Yeah, just watch it.

Keep in mind, this is the version that caused such a cult following in the first place. For over a decade, this is what people meant when they said they liked Blade Runner.

The movie is like, 95% the same as the Final Cut. People who consider the theatrical "bad?" I don't get that. It's more or less the same movie, with the same performances, and the same pacing. The voiceover isn't great. It's also not so diminishing as to significantly drag down the rest of the film's quality down to a level where using words like "bad" could apply.

Plus, if you're like a large number of its fans that I know, it doesn't matter what cut you watch for the first time, you're gonna need to rewatch it like, twice before it starts to actually work on you.

(twice I've had to say this today, too - Workprint Cut is best cut)
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that the voiceover was only done to placate studio execs and Harrison Ford intentionally did it as poorly as possible in an effort to keep it out.
 
For someone who hasn't seen the movie ever before, go for it. The narration may be bad in places but the film was always constructed to have a voice over. Even some of the earliest drafts of the script had it.

Despite its poot delivery it does provide a film noir feel but more importantly makes the first viewing more accessible for someone who has never seen it. I think fans who have seen the movie repeatedly lose the fact that the story isnt very accessible and plot points are clarified with the voice over...along with some tepid dialogue flatly delivered by Harrison Ford. Lol.

That said I've always been partial to the TC for a number of reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Adolescence on Netflix is the best TV series I've seen in years
NSFW  2 3 4
194
11K
AJUMP23 replied
With Love, Meghan (Netflix) is everything I dreamed of and more
44
3K
Days like these... replied
should I use twitter
40
121
forsakkenSoul replied
Asterix & Obelix: The Big Fight | April 30 on Netflix
24
631
Dazrael replied
Gattaca is free on Amazon Prime Video now. You should watch it.
20
296
jonnyp replied
Top Bottom