The director’s cut is the only version I’ve seen. I’ve no real interest in the theatrical release, mostly because it fucks with the room for interpretation, The unicorn is not exactly screaming out that Deckard is a replicant, but you can take that from the film should you wish.
It’s a shame then, that Ridley Scott has pretty much committed the same sin in interviews as them meddling studio bosses did with his picture. There’s no room for interpretation in his version of events, which pretty much poops on the subtlety he tried so hard to establish. You’ve ultimately got to believe Ridley Scott; it’s not like he didn’t leave enough clues, even in the original.
The film introduced the possibility of replicants that don’t know they are replicants, which Deckard pretty much has to be for the replicant Deckard to work. It’s all there if you’re confident enough to make the assessment. I know people go apeshit over this movie, and I understand why. Just a bit gutted to have not been there at the time. It was one of the first DVDs I’d ever owned - that was the first time I ever saw it.
First off I’m amazed that it’s been covered, although really it is another interpretation of the novel.
Now looking forward to seeing it (and then watching the old/original pretty soon after and I bet most do.). Tried getting my partner to watch the first one so she can compare it to the new and she thought it was better not to watch the old one because she has no intention of watching the new. Fair do’s.
In all fainess it was brave of @cellone to tackle a remake of his original post after the first one has been held up by critics as a classic.
While this latest post clearly borrowed from the iconic original, I thought the subtle nods to nostalgia through lighting and plot, and the limited use of CGI gave the new post a fresh feel while remaining loyal to the spirit of the book - and in years to come, many may regard this remake as a worthy addition to the future forum boxsets.
So for me, not a classic like the first post, but a great remake.
Yes, Yes, I and I have 3 or 4 versions on DVD but what was the first original.
Was it really released in 1982? Wow, I seem to remember watching the original in the cinema but we were stationed in Germany at the time so it was either that or on VHS!!
I would like it known that the use of CGI was more of a subtle enhancement that I felt the original had lacked. The development of CGI over those eighteen hours was considerable and I felt that the changes brought more of the book to life.
I can understand why anyone would question the idea off a remake and in truth I’m the same. It was more of a board decision taken by my cunt of a phone.
Rumours of a third Director’s cut version are true but at the moment I’m working on other projects, so anything like that will have to remain on the back burner for now.
In all honesty I’m just glad the second version has been recieved so well.
Already collected tickets + purchased suitably loud and annoying snacks, but saving my voice so I can loudly commentate for everyone and smugly point out subtle references to the original.
It more than matched my expectations. Visually just incredible, if Roger Deakins again misses out on an Oscar then it’s a farce. First hour is kind of scene setting but absorbing, the story really kicks in the last hour. Jared Leto’s acting was a little OTT, just my opinion. Harrison Ford has a smaller role than I expected, he’s really, unexpectably good. I always thought of him as a kind of one note cynical action type. He nails this role and considering he’s in his 70’s it’s kudos to the director.
It was always a brave move to make a sequel to Blade Runner and i’m not sure any director other than Villeneuve could have done it.