Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News


Merrick here...
With Darwin's take on BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT. You can read another perspective on the film HERE. I can't believe they changed Roy's "I want more life, fucker" to "I want more life, father." The "fucker" says so much more...shows so much more simmering anger, etc. Maybe they were trying to soften him a little? Aw, well - I'm told FINAL CUT is truly amazing & truly a site to behold. Wish it were being released more widely (it's currently screening in only LA and NYC), but the DVDs hit in mid-December for those not in either city (which would be like, ummm, most of the United States).
Here's Darwin...
So I went to the 10:30pm screening tonight which was sold out, as were the other showings I believe. The ushers claimed that people had flown in from all over to see the FINAL CUT since it's only screening in LA and NY. The crowd was definitely buzzing and folks seemed very keyed up. I realized that it's been 15 years since the Director's Cut was last seen in theaters, so it was a real treat to see it again on the big screen -- and possibly for the last time. Luckily the Landmark has state of the art equipment so we were able to watch the film in 4K digital projection, which was absolutely stunning -- the best it's ever looked. I can't even look at my Director's Cut disc now, the quality of the new restoration is so superior. I've gotten so used to how mushy and grainy the film has looked all these years, but tonight I saw an amazing clarity I never knew was there. The colors and detail of the film really popped off the screen, which only enhanced the original groundbreaking effects and model work (rather than reveal any flaws). There was no dirt or hairs or any other artifacts -- finally, a pristine version! (Spoilers ahead) So here is the list of changes that I noticed in the Final Cut. I think these are all the big ones, but there may be other little nips and tucks that escaped my attention (I was, after all, still trying to enjoy the film!) * The opening titles were the same -- the "new" version that popped up on YouTube is totally bogus * Captain Bryant's line about the number of Replicants has been altered: in this version he states that 2 of the 6 who escaped were killed, while in the original version it was only 1 (a continuity error that resulted in much speculation about who the 5th Replicant was) * Bryant has additional dialogue while the headshots of the Replicants are on screen. Leon now gets a description like the others ("The only way to hurt him is to kill him") * The cables that lifted the Spinners into the air have all been digitally removed. * The unicorn sequence is slightly different -- there are now close-ups of Deckard's face inserted before and after the scene of the unicorn running, making it appear more like a vision or waking dream. It clearly inspires him to investigate Leon's photo more closely. * The dialogue during Deckard's interrogation of Adbul Hassan (the snake guy) is now in sync with the picture, whereas before it was horribly mismatched. Looks like they finally found the right take and matched it up. * The famous shot of the go-go dancers wearing hockey masks has been re-inserted before the nightclub scene (that got some applause). * Joanna Cassidy did apparently re-do the stunt sequence where she crashes through the glass windows. All of the shots that clearly showed the stunt double in a wig have been replaced with new shots of Joanna; you can tell she's a little older but overall the whole sequence looks so much better. * Roy clearly says "I want more life... father" instead of "f@cker" when talking to Tyrell * Several seconds of gore have been re-inserted into Tyrell's death scene. We see Roy really stick his thumbs in and blood gushing out of the eye sockets. * After killing Tyrell, Roy turns to Sebastian and says "Sorry" then "come Sebastian, come" as he stalks him (before there was only music). * When Pris attacks Deckard and has his head locked between her thighs, she sticks her fingers into his nostrils and holds him up like that for a moment before dropping him to the floor. This now explains why Deckard's nose is bleeding seconds later. * Pris' death was slightly more violent, as Deckard shoots her at least one additional time. * The dove flying into the bright blue sky with smokestacks is no more! A more realistic background that shows a night sky behind futuristic rooftops has been added, matching the color and tone of the previous scene. * The ending is the same as the 92 Director's Cut: Deckard picks up the unicorn origami and enters the elevator with Rachael, as Gaff's words echo in his head ("It's too bad she won't live...") * There was no further evidence to indicate that Deckard was a Replicant, although it seems so much more heavily implied (maybe that's just me). The unicorn, the matching obsession with photographs and memory, and that one scene in his kitchen when Deckard's eyes glowed like Rachael's (if that was a mistake then it was NOT corrected in this version). And that's it. Don't go into the theater expecting a radical re-working of the film with tons of new scenes added; this is still very much the Blade Runner you know and love, with just a few tweaks and continuity fixes that have been sorely needed (and beautifully remastered as well). I think some people in the crowd were expecting a lot more, as it wasn't met with thunderous applause at the end. Which was ridiculous because THIS is how a re-release should be done. No extraneous deleted scenes reinserted, no digital magic added just because the technology is there (I'm looking at you, Mr. Lucas). Just clean it up and fix the continuity errors and let people enjoy seeing it on the big screen one more time. You can call me... Darwin. All the best!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Is Sean Young still hot in this version?

    by Garbageman33

    I loved her in the 80s. Hearing that she's crazy just makes me love her more.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST

    I want to see this

    by Bloo

    and it sucks that I won't be able to until Dec. when it hits DVD. I would go to Denveror Kansas City, possibably even St. Louis or somewhere to see this movie. I hate LA/NYC screenigns because you hear about this kinda stuff but can't see it till it hits DVD

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Deckard is NOT a replicant

    by rev_skarekroe

    Because I said so, that's why.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Extra scene?

    by sinus111

    Didn't Scott talk about adding a scene where Deckard sees Holden (the guy that interviews Leon) in a hospital? I think from a previous interview, Scott said they had the footage but no sound or something?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST

    I concur, simple fixes with the movie is all that would be neede

    by Datascream

    fuck the overly cartoonish, out of place CG shots on an old movie. Fix what needs to be fixed and release it.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:28 a.m. CST

    That damned dove shot has always bothered me

    by skimn

    so much as to ruin the ending just a tad for me. Thank God its gone. How Scott ever let that remain in the finished film is beyond me.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:30 a.m. CST

    I'm apparently in the minority...

    by Breotan

    ...but I really liked the narration. It lent a pulp novel feel that really complimented the noir visuals.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Re: Extra scene?

    by Darth Scourge

    Yeah, the hospital scene exists, with sound... Saw it on a documentary about the making of BR a few years ago. But I don't know if Scott ever seriously considered putting it back into the movie.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:33 a.m. CST

    I saw it...

    by epitone

    Ridley Scott fixed so many things, he even threw in a shot of Deckard shooting Greedo.<br><br> No, seriously, it looks amazing and I'm lucky enough to live walking distance from the Landmark (beats flying).

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Why can't these ever be released wider than NY/LA?

    by spaceghost1818

    They know there is a fan-base, they know we'll go see it. I'd give almost anything to see this on the big screen just once. Some movies were just meant by God to be seen on a 30-foot screen. Christ, I'd even drive a couple of hours to Pittsburgh or Cleveland to see this. But I guess like the rest of the poor huddled masses, I have to wait until December. What an f'ing cock-tease this is.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Great Movie

    by skydemon

    And I'm really glad it's finally getting a DVD treatment It deserves.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Snake Guy Scene

    by PinkyLee

    "The dialogue during Deckard's interrogation of Adbul Hassan (the snake guy) is now in sync with the picture, whereas before it was horribly mismatched. Looks like they finally found the right take and matched it up." They shot Harrison Ford's son Ben's mouth and pasted it on Harrison's face. It looks great. You are correct this IS the way to do a rerelease of this film. It looks and SOUNDS incredible.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:40 a.m. CST


    by christian66

    Film looked great but I would prefer to see it in 70 MM as it was originally seen. I was surprised at how little tinkering had been done. I was expecting CG spinners etc. The Holden hospital scene is all over youtube. It's neat but awkward. As for the "Father" line, that makes more sense story wise but the "Fucker" was cyberpunk. And Sean Young is not crazy. As if James Woods is sane. Check out Ian Grey's incredible must-read, "Sex Stupidity and Greed: Inside the American Movie Industry." He has a brilliant interview with the very normal Young and she goes into depth on how easy it is for a male-dominated town to destroy reputations.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Glad they didn't put the hospital scene back in. It sucked

    by Stormwatcher

    You can watch it on YouTube and the acting and whatnot cleary shows why it was cut. Can't wait for the DVD.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:57 a.m. CST

    The ending

    by Geronimo Jackson

    If you look at the doc on YouTube (which I think will be included on the DVD re-issue), Scott admits that Deckard is a Replicant.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:06 p.m. CST

    As part of my final year at high school...

    by Monkey Butler

    English class we had to do an analysis of Blade Runner and what it said about 'the natural order of the world'. I wrote an entire essay on how the father/fucker (because although it was 'fucker', it sounded a bit like 'father) could be a metaphor for the whole 'is he a replicant?' thing. Mostly I just liked being able to write fucker in a high school essay about a dozen times.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Deckerd was not a replicant in the original version

    by Rupee88

    Sure if you add a bunch of scenes that changee the movie, then maybe he is, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't in the original. This new director's cut is just a money grab. I can't believe they are changing so much of it...almost as bad as what Lucas did, although not quite to that scale of shamelessness/stupidity.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Screw Scott, Deckard was NOT a replicant...

    by Bill Clay

    I don't care what Ridley Scott said, it makes zero sense for Deckard to be a replicant. First off, as the beginning says, they are illegal to possess on Earth under penalty of death. Deckard exhibits no super strength or agility like the replicants do. Why would they send a weaker inferior model to catch combat models? Did we ever see the replicants eating? We watched Deckard eat his Oriental noodles, then later get drunk on Jack Daniels. Can replicants get drunk? The whole Deckard=replicant theory is full of holes. And Harrison Ford himself says that Deckard was not a replicant. That's good enough for me.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:14 p.m. CST

    I'm dumb. Does this cut have the narration or no?


    I liked the narration. So sue me.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:14 p.m. CST

    the original narration holds your hand like you're a 5 year-old

    by George Newman

    It over-explains everything.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:15 p.m. CST

    This just in from the desk of Ridley Scott 'Screw you, Bill Clay

    by Geronimo Jackson

    Scott's movie, not yours. How do you know that wasn't Scott's original intention, before studio interference? Did you notice how much the blade runner at the beginning of the film looks like Deckard?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:16 p.m. CST

    The narration also keeps me from falling asleep.


    I like the hand-holding in this one. I don't know why. I know it's a movie sin but I find the movie boring without it.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST

    can't argue with that.

    by George Newman

    I've definitely fallen asleep while watching the movie. Multiple times in one viewing. I remember once: I fell asleep, woke up, rewound the movie to the moment I last remembered, and then fell asleep again. It must have been a long day.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:22 p.m. CST

    I don't know why he saved my life...

    by Bill Clay

    Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life; anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us wanted, where do I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Gaff had been there... and let her live...

    by Bill Clay

    Four years, he figured... he was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special. No termination date. I didn't know how long we'd have together... who does?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:29 p.m. CST

    narration:"I thought I'd go to a bar a look for the robot." Deck

    by George Newman

    Sometimes it's really heavyhanded in its effort to string events together from A to B to C. The problem is that the narration becomes redundant because 99% of people who have seen a movie before Can follow A to B to C without any additional help.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Dang it: the SubjectLines still have a limit but it dont stop yo

    by George Newman

    i think my trunkated grammar allowed all that to fit

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Ford's Son?!

    by codymr

    Re: "* The dialogue during Deckard's interrogation of Adbul Hassan (the snake guy) is now in sync with the picture, whereas before it was horribly mismatched. Looks like they finally found the right take and matched it up." Read somewhere that along with reshooting Joanna Cassidy, Ford's son was used to double for Deckard in the snake guy interrogation scene. Any truth to this?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST

    ...still ahve limit but it dont stop you from typing. BALLS

    by George Newman

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:35 p.m. CST

    narration:"I thought I'd go to a bar a look for the robot."

    by George Newman

    Deckard in bar: "Have you seen any robots around?"

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Deckard in bar: "Have you seen any robots around?"

    by George Newman

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:38 p.m. CST

    See? See how that's better? Oh...wait....


    Maybe I'll have to check 'em both out again. I just remember trying not to snooze through the director's cut.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:51 p.m. CST

    They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper...

    by Bill Clay

    That was my profession. Ex-cop. Ex-blade runner. Ex-killer.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:52 p.m. CST

    It was great to see this on the big screen

    by Mullah Omar

    I saw the 7pm show in NYC last Friday, and it was an outstanding experience - this is the type of film you NEED to see on a big screen with a top-notch sound system. It had been a long time since I'd seen Blade Runner, and I don't obsess over the various changes, so what counts to me is that everything about the movie succeeds. Viewers can argue over which version of the film is superior, but to me, The Final Cut is completely satisfying, and I don't feel compelled to seek out any of the others. If any AICNers are out there and have a chance to see this in a cinema, go out of your way to do so - it's worth it.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 12:57 p.m. CST

    re: Why can't these ever be released wider than NY/LA?

    by rev_skarekroe

    Because only toothless yokels live in the flyover states. Duh.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 1:04 p.m. CST

    There was THUNDEROUS applause at the packed Sat. night...

    by Captain Happy

    ...screening at the Ziegfeld, before & AFTER the movie; I guess we just like our movies better in N.Y.; we aren't as big'a snobs as those in L.A. Beautiful print, vibrant colors that rival or flat out beat most of what's been released since 1982. If you like film you must RUN out & see this print. It's exhilarating. My wife saw it for the first time (I've seen it dozens of times) & LOVED it - she's not even a sci-fi fan. So bring your girlfriends, wives, sheep or whatever. PS, Rutger Hauer's beautifully nuanced performance is still the most luminous thing in the film. Also, check out his autobio, ALL THOSE MOMENTS, it has some great anecdotes about the prep he did for BR, & how he wrote the next to final line in his death scene, my favorite from the film, "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain". Beautiful. What a movie.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 1:05 p.m. CST

    I can't believe they are changing so much of it...

    by PurityOfEssence

    They are hardly changing any of it most of it is in the 1992 cut. If you take issue with the changes between the 1992 release and the theatrical version I can understand that. But don't act as if this is some radical departure or major overhaul of the film. Did you think Scott was going to keep the voice overs and studio ending?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 1:23 p.m. CST

    The report would be "Routine retirement of a replicant"...

    by Bill Clay

    That didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 1:29 p.m. CST

    "i spit on metaphysics , sir"

    by hurushott

    so I'm guessing that line from Gaff isn't it the movie?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Father / F*cker

    by Dark Knight Lite

    They shot it both ways, with the intent of using "Father" on TV prints. From a narrative point of view, "Father" works better, but "F*cker has more impact dramatically. Dark Knight out.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Sounds like they dint fuck with wots not broke too much but...


    Why not just remake it! What you doing Hollywood! why you never remade this one!? people know the name so you'll get your younger audience saying ''that was much better than the really boring original and Shia Le Beuf was Awesome as Deckard'' <P>You'll get all the punters who didn't think the first one was all that great going to see if this one's any better <P>and you'll get a big percentage of actual Bladerunner fans drawn to it like a car crash out of morbid curiosity,<P>So get it Fucking made already and put me out my misery and while you're at it greenlight remakes of Alien, Robocop and Predator!

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Dear Warner Bros. this movie Grossed

    by ZoeFan

    Over $89,000 at 2 theaters for 3 days!!!!! Imagine what you'd make if you just released it in 10 more cities (Source: BoxOfficeMojo).

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:19 p.m. CST


    by Hairy Potter

    can't wait

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Deckard is a replicant

    by surfsup22

    even Ridley Scott said so and since he's the director I'll take his word for it.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:34 p.m. CST

    This deserves a broader Theatrical release...

    by KillaKane

    There's nothing like seeing BR in all it's glory on the big screen, this definitive edition must surely have an audience (the previous theatrical re-release of Alien and Blade Runner did respectible business in Europe)

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Deckard is not a replicant...

    by fitzcarraldo2

    If he is, then how come he gets outsmarted/beaten up by every other replicant he's hunting? He is just a weary, cold human being who has become so dehumanised that he now has less emotion than the replicants he kills.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Harrison Ford was a replicant in 'Six Days Seven Nights'.

    by Garbageman33

    It's true.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Yeah, but it's funny how NOBODY else who worked on the film (from Ford to the screenwriters) believed Deckard was or should be a Replicant. The idea is nothing more than a clumsy effort by Scott to work in something he thinks is clever.<P>As a tremendous fan of the film (both the theatrical and director's cut), I prefer the notion that Deckard is human. That's how it was in the book. That's how it was in the original release. And that's what makes the story more profound. While I can handle Scott's opinion, I don't think his "Deckard is a Replicant" revisionism is handled very well.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST

    glowing eyes = replicant

    by mansep

    glowing eyes was always what made me think that deckard was a replicant. just like Rachel, and just like the artificial owl. the unicorn just confirms it., but i wish they'd left all the unicorn stuff out and just kept it subtle.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 2:58 p.m. CST

    RE: glowing eyes

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    If it were that easy to spot a Replicant, they would just shine the laser from the V.K. machine on everyone's eyeballs. (That effect with the owl occurs in nature - no artificial owl needed.)

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3 p.m. CST


    by Geronimo Jackson

    Just because he doesn't have super-human strength does not mean he is not a replicant. Did Rachel display any of these abilities? I'm sure there would be several varieties of models. Perhaps I don't know enough about the history of the production to see how Scott is second-guessing himself. The crew might not have known for the same reasons the crew on Empire weren't in on the Vader=Father secret.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:16 p.m. CST

    The Unicorn is Rachael, NOT Deckard...

    by Zardoz

    That's what I always thought it meant. Why? Deckard dreams of the unicorn after talking with Rachael about her memories, and Gaff's line at the end when Deckard finds the origami Unicorn, "It's too bad she won't live; but then again who does?" She's unique and one-of-a-kind, like a unicorn. For me, the movie just doesn't work at all if Deckard's a replicant. Why would he be allowed to be on Earth and hunt other "Skin-Jobs"? He has an ex-wife, people know who he is. His banter and relationship with Bryant is real, not forced; they have a history of working together. His past is REAL, not imagined or manipulated. They KNOW each other. Anyway, I saw the film in L.A. on Sunday, and it is brilliant. The corrections are good, and the film looks and sounds awesome. I liked that Roy's line to Tyrell was changed to "Father" instead of "Fucker". Zhora's death scene looks really good, but you could tell that it was digitally manipulated in a couple of shots, as her head just didn't look quite right. (a vast improvement over the original scene, though) The audience really enjoyed the film and applauded loudly at the end. This was the third time I've seen the film on the big screen: once for the original release, once for the DC, and now this time. Well, the third time's definitely the charm! (although I still like the VO from the original release; it just helps explain so much....)

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Glad Scott didn't try to oversell

    by Gilkuliehe

    The Deckard is a replicant bullshit. I was really afraid he would add some nonsense crap about it, thus making this cut, THE BULLSHIT CUT. He can say whatever the fuck he wants, but don't mess with the Runner. Deckard being human = Masterpiece. Deckard being a replicant = Senile dude don't understanding his own movie.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:35 p.m. CST

    It was "father" in the work print version

    by Dr Lizardo

    I saw a screening many years ago and laughed about this with a friend afterward. "Fucker" always sounded as if it wanted to be "father", but actually hearing it delivered as "father" in the workprint version just seemed way too pointed and made me glad the line had been changed. Oh well.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Why not change "Tyrell" to "Focker".

    by Gilkuliehe

    And change the guy for a CGI Dustin Hoffman taking a shit.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott, "Because, well, Dekard IS a Replicant."


    He said it as plain as day at the ComiCon07 Blade Runner panel. Let the bitching finally be put to rest. Him being a Replicant is par for the course for the P.K. Dick meets "Metal Hurlant" world Ridley was creating. In fact even tho it doesn't match Dick's Sheep novel, it does fit right in with his other works. I personaly think it's poetic and beautiful.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Of COURSE Deckard's not a replicant.

    by slone13

    It really doesn't matter what Ridley SAYS. It is quite obvious it's not what he intended back in the day. It's kind of like Spielberg changing guns to walkie talkies. Or Greedo shooting first. We know what is was supposed to be. Changing it NOW doesn't really do anything. Deckard's a human, guns are guns, and Greedo shot first. End of story.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 3:55 p.m. CST

    The Sixth Replicant...

    by Phantm_Cruisr

    There was a sixth Replicant, and whether Deckard is one or not, he wasn't the sixth. Actress Stacey Nelkin (Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Bullets Over Broadway), according to, "was originally cast as "Mary", the infamous "Sixth Replicant" in Blade Runner (1982), but due to the film's escalating budget, her part was cut just before shooting began."

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Who cares what Ridley Scott says.

    by rbatty024

    I actually think that Deckard is a replicant, but I like the fact that it's somewhat ambiguous and people can have multiple interpretations. Even if Scott says that Deckard is a replicant this doesn't mean it's true. Even if Deckard intended to make a film where Deckard is a replicant it doesn't make it so. The director's intent is not the sole interpretation of a film and once he puts it out there into the public then other interpretations can be put onto the movie. If there's a reasonable argument that Deckard isn't a replicant (and there is) then that interpretations is perfectly valid, just as valid as the director's own interpretation. Most people don't know why they do things on a day to day basis (thanks to a little something called the subconscious) so why should we trust a director when he gives his view of he film when he subconsciously could be making an entirely different film than he planned.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 4:15 p.m. CST

    "Deckard is a replicant" comes from a misunderstanding by Scott

    by wookie1972

    In one of David Peoples' draft of the screenplay, he had a narration (both Peoples' and Hampton Fancher's versions had narratio, btw) in which Deckard observes that he, too, is mortal, like Batty, and he says "Roy Batty and I were brothers." It was clearly meant to be a metaphor, and Scott didn't understand it. The irony is that not only was there never any intention in PKD's original book to make Deckard an android (the word "replicant" is a creation of the screenwriters), there is a (very funny) scene in the book in which a rival detective ("Blade Runner" is also only in the movie) tests Deckard (it may have been called Voight-Kampf, it's been awhile since I've read it). The thing is, I personally find it silly to suggest that Deckard is a replicant. IMHO, it ruins the point of the movie, which is that Deckard is, in fact, less human than his prey.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Holy Crap! Who cares anymore...this Blade Runner topic and revie

    by future help

    have been beaten to death. move on! AND please! NO MORE shots of buildings and cars from Hulk sets either.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Saw this Saturday night at the Landmark

    by Mattyboy122

    And maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention but I didn't notice Deckard's eyes glow in any of the scenes. The flick looked absolutely amazing, the touch-ups/changes were great, I'd say. I personally prefer Deckard not being a replicant, and while I think Zardoz's idea that Rachel is the unicorn might be pushing it, I think it's also a great idea. Can anyone who saw it confirm that Deckard's eyes did, in fact, glow in the Final Cut?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Sounds cool, but really

    by Wrecks

    i wish they woulda left it the fuck alone. Narration, bad wigs, continuity errors and all. I want less re-cutting fucker!

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST

    How many editions of Blade Runner have there been?

    by Tal111

    I've heard that Gary Coleman is working on a cut- so we still have Blade Runner- The Different Strokes Edition and then that should be it. So, thirteen including my own version in which I digitally inserted Phoebe Cates in her Fast Times bikini walking through Deckards apartment.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:04 p.m. CST

    All My Life With the BLADERUNNER

    by Hikaru Ichijo

    From what I'm reading, BLADE RUNNER is possibly the one example of perpetually tinkering with a film and actually getting it right. The movie blew my mind as a kid in the eighties, then again in the nineties with the Replicant twist, I don't think I could take it one more time as an adult. That said, the wide release in '92 met with a reasonable box office response, but critical indifference, including audiences who didn't like the Replicant thing they added. Home entertainment wasn't all it is today, either. I myself would like to hear a report regarding all the companies featured in this movie that went out of business. Wasn't that supposed to be a curse? I'll watch this just to see if there are any left. Was anyone paying attention to this? PAN AM anyone?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Does Hauer fart first?

    by JackPumpkinhead

    Or does the greedy one pass gas before him now?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Screening anywhere in L.A. right now?

    by Tired Eagle

    Is this cut screening anywhere in Los Angeles now, or in the near future?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:28 p.m. CST

    This site needs more news about the new Trek movie...

    by Bono Luthor

    so it does.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:33 p.m. CST

    BR is playing at the Landmark Theater in West L.A.

    by Forestal


  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Third unicorn = Deckard is a Replicant.

    by lutz

    JF Sebastian has a model unicorn on his desk which has been there since the original theatrical release of the film. JF does design work on replicants. So the added THIRD unicorn from the directors cut says that. a) Gaff knew about Deckard's unicorn dream b) JF Sebastian designed Deckard's unicorn dream. You can see this unicorn on the right hand side of the screen when JF is sleeping at his desk just after Pris paints her eyes.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:51 p.m. CST

    more deckard/replicant clues in original release

    by Anakin722

    Yeah, I know that the unicorn dream sequence in the Director's Cut spells is out pretty specifically (Gaff knows Deckard's thoughts and dreams, which he only could if Deckard was a replicant, same way Deckard proved to Rachael that SHE was a replicant), but there are still some things in the original theatrical version that hint at Deckard being a replicant: 1. The scene with the glowing eyes as lots have mentioned 2. The pointed question from Rachael about whether Deckard has ever taken the test himself 3. During the scene where Batty grabs Deckard and saves his life, Batty says something but it is obscured by the loud music beat. Turn on your DVD subtitles and you'll see that what Batty says is "kinship."

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 5:59 p.m. CST

    It was my old teacher

    by dalbatron

    Heres a cool but of pointless info. Back at art college we had a guy come in for a few weeks and teach us the art of origami. He was really cool. On the last day he inforemd us all that its his hands you see doing all the origami work in Blade Runner.. How cool is that??? replicant not replicant. Ridley is on film saying he IS a replicant.. shouldnt that be the end of it??

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST

    No digital magic?

    by kuguy3000

    So...inserting freshly shot live-action scenes into a 25+ year old movie doesn't constitute digital magic? Then going on to stab a pointy finger at Lucas? Wow...<BR> <BR> Myopia is indeed a strange thing! At least he's no biased (wink)

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 6:08 p.m. CST

    more ridley scott enhancements to come....

    by dalbatron

    He's doing 'a good year' hes digitally removing all the russel crowe bits and inserting a piece of 4 x 2 timber. He says it gives a better preformance...

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Can we lay off George Lucas for shit's sake?

    by Racer Z

    Good god, let it go for crying out loud! The SW: Special Editions are done and passed. You've been pissing and moaning about it for 10 years. Whine for 10 more and he's still not going to change them back. MOVE ON!!

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Is Gaff really the replicant?

    by CrushKillDestroy

    I've been away from this movie for a while. I saw it first run and saw the 1st Director's Cut in West LA over a decade ago and never really bought the idea that Deckard was a replicant although the unicorn thing was oddly done. Always thought it was Gaff's way of saying I knew how to find you but you both earned a right to be happy for at least a while. All the talk of Gaff knowing Deckard's unicorn dream could imply that Gaff is a replicant that couldn't do the job so they had to bring in Deckard to finish it up. Gaff is cripled but the best they got outside of Deckard. Gaff was given some of Deckard's memories to flesh out his life. That is why he knows about the unicorn sequence. Gaff was to kill Rachel but he saw that Deckard was changed in how he looked at replicants so he let her live as his parting gift to him for his humanity.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 6:33 p.m. CST

    The "I Want more life" line...

    by Judge Doom

    In brazil, all versions of blade runner always translated that line as "I Want more life, father". Guess it will finally be rigth. Pretty stupid, if you sak me :P

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 6:54 p.m. CST

    If Deckard Is Supposed to be a Replicant....

    by nexxus7

    Then he'd have just been a little inside joke for the department --A custom-made replicant to hunt replicants-- because everyone would have known about it. Think about it... 4-year lifespan. Let's say he worked for the dept for 2 years even, how did he get the credentials to become a detective. And any detective or officer would have been hooked up to a Voight-Kampff machine and tested nine ways from Sunday. Not to mention he's slower, weaker and can't do flips like the other replicants. One of the themes of the movie is that Deckard begins to realize that replicants have an inner humanity. The fact that he dreams of a unicorn doesn't mean diddly. Who hasn't had a weird dream with crazy images (on time I had a dream about long-haired candy colored talking cats, but that doesn't make me a replicant. Or does it? Now if he dreamed of electric sheep, that might be something different. Anyway, while some folks might think it's a cool ambiguity, there are enough holes in that theory to drive a truck through. Make Deckard a replicant, and he comes down the hero ladder about 5 rungs, because then he's just a droid working for the man.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by Mockingbuddha

    Read the book again. It is not at all conclusive that Deckard is a human or a android. PKD could surely have made it clear one way or the other, but he chose not to. There were several instances where they edged up to telling for sure whether he was a android, but then didn't say either way (like with the Voight-Kampf test Wookie1972) . I think the Deckard/Replicant question is a rorschach test of peoples attitudes toward alien or different forms of life. I personally like the book so much better with Deckard as an android because it seems to take on a much darker despairing tone. The last scene in the book works so much better for me with Deckard as an android. But as much as I dug through the book, I could find nothing conclusive either way. I have noticed also that people who think Deckard should be human seem very passionate about denying the android/replicant possibility. What's that about?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Fucker vs father

    by otto maddox

    who the father cares? also is Deckard a replicant? - that was resolved 15 years ago

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 7:49 p.m. CST



    You almost made me piss with the Focker line!<P>And I think your ''Deckard being a replicant = Senile dude don't understanding his own movie.'' puts that one nicely to bed.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 7:50 p.m. CST

    is the panther in 2001 a replicant as well then?



  • Oct. 9, 2007, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Now will somebody please address all the continuity errors in Gr

    by Pound Sand

    I mean, that whole scene with Adrian Zmed at the talent was nothing short of an abomination.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 7:51 p.m. CST


    by Pound Sand

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 8:03 p.m. CST

    I don't know...

    by wampa 1

    ...but it sure smells good!

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 8:11 p.m. CST

    The extra violence was on the pre-DC VHS release

    by Drath

    I'm looking forward to seeing the original version of the movie again frankly as I don't like that it has been unavailable, flaws and all. Give me the flat narration! It's not like it's been replaced by a flawless version either. I can't say that I ever thought the line was actually "I want more life, fucker." Frankly "father" was a lot more dramatic considering that you knew damn well he was going to kill the guy, and that he was a machine who was more human than this detached man who made him. The only people who I recall were all hyped up that he might have said "fucker" were the 12-year-olds who had followed Ford from Star Wars and had just discovered the word. Oh hell, I think I just described like 75% of the people here.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 8:24 p.m. CST


    by one9deuce

    I flew down to L.A. to see this and I couldn't be happier with the experience. I managed to miss the original release AND the director's cut in theaters, so I was determined to see it on the big screen finally. It looks and sounds unbelievable, and I am glad that there are only subtle changes to the film. The Landmark is an awesome theater, and the crowd applauded after the saturday 7:50 showing. <p> As far as Deckard being a replicant, why? The story is about a man who has become less than human hunting replicants that are becoming more and more human. <p> Roy gaines the empathy to let the man who has been trying to kill him live. That says it all. Deckard being a replicant says nothing.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Idiots: Scott had nothing to do with the BR script

    by Cyberfury

    He says so early on in Channel 4's 'On The Edge Of Blade Runner' documentary (sadly it seems to be gone from Google Video now). Scott brought in a second screenwriter to work on the script but also admits he had his hand full with 'being creative' film-wise to be bothered with the story. One should look to the 2 screenwriters for answers. It's not even interesting in the grand scheme of things whether Deckard's is a human or a toaster IMO. The Channel 4 doc is a truly fascinating piece btw, if only for the segment where Rutger Hauer disses on Ford big time. I didn't even know Hauer wrote Roy's 'Tears in the rain' speech himself on set! I Hope they put this one on the new DVD (where, incidentally, you will also have the choice to turn the narration on or off).

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 8:41 p.m. CST


    by lutz

    Deckard is definately not a android in the book. The only way to tell for sure if someone is not a android is if they under go a bone-marrow test which is how they identify the androids after they have been killed. Deckard has one of these tests in the middle of the book and it shows that he is human.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 8:41 p.m. CST

    ..oh and

    by Cyberfury

    In that same doc Scott also states that Deckard IS a replicant (and the dream sequence is the proof). Bare in mind that Scott is a true chauvinist and this was a long time ago, I bet he believes his own 'bullshit' by now. He should give credit where credit is due and give the writers/staff some respect.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 9 p.m. CST

    Deckard has an "eyeshine" scene in "The Final Cut"

    by Mullah Omar

    I don't mind the ambiguity of whether or not Deckard was/wasn't a replicant. (If he WAS a replicant, he clearly didn't have super strength, but damned if he didn't take a lot of severe beatings without much effect.) One of many clues in "The Final Cut" comes during a scene in Deckard's apartment where Rachael is in focus in the foreground while Deckard is out of focus in the background. Rachael clearly has the trademark replicant eyeshine, and in the background, you can also - very clearly, if you're looking at him and not her - see the same eyeshine in Deckard's eyes. I don't have DVDs of any versions to prove whether the same eyeshine is there, but for "The Final Cut," I was sitting in the 4th row in front of a huge screen, and it seemed VERY clear. Now of course you could argue that this was done in the background to make it even more ambiguous that it already was - because I didn't see the effect on Deckard at any other time during the movie (and he may have been in focus during every other scene; I don't know). And maybe the real-life special effect that targeted Sean Young inadvertently, unintentionally affected Harrison Ford in the background of the same scene. But I definitely saw the eyeshine on Deckard, and I thought that, if intentional, it made for a nice bit of ambiguity and a very strong hint that Deckard was a replicant. To everyone else who saw "The Final Cut" - did you notice this scene? And if so, did you see what I saw?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 9:34 p.m. CST

    Brand new RIDLEY SCOTT interview from Wired Magazine

    by yassoo

    here you go people. deckard is a replicant. enough. Scott: It was, actually [in the original script, that Deckard was a replicant]. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard, and we don't really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let's say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it's a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard's daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn't normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it's Gaff's message to say, "I've read your file, mate." That relates to Deckard's first speech to Rachael when he says, "That's not your imagination, that's Tyrell's niece's daydream." And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Was the transparent Spinner fixed????????????

    by Orionsangels

    When the Spinner flies in front of the giant digital billboard with the asian lady. You can see through the Spinner.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 10:26 p.m. CST

    The actual line is "Fucker, I'm your father."

    by Bronx Cheer

    Because Vader hated the whiny brat that Luke turned out to be.

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Stop arguing over whether he is a Replicant. He is, and has been

    by Bronx Cheer

    Can't you argue about things that are still debatable, such as whether Roy is a terribly name for a robot?

  • Oct. 9, 2007, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is NOT a replicant...

    by Bill Clay

    Harrison Ford disavowed the movie upon release, as he deemed it "style over substance". Ford was reportedly very unhappy with Ridley Scott during the shoot. He said once in an interview, that Scott was more interested in his fanciful images than directing the actors. In 2000, Harrison Ford gave his view on the Director’s Cut of the film saying, although he thought it “spectacular” it didn’t “move him at all”. He gave a brief reason: "They haven't put anything in, so it's still an exercise in design."

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 12:57 a.m. CST

    All this Hub-Bub for 30 Seconds Difference

    by redfist

    Paint me surprised.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Merrick, and the hospital sequence not in?

    by half vader

    Jeez Merrick, you really don't know why he says "father"?! To SOFTEN it???! <p> All these years I've been interested about the cool looking hospital sequemce where Deck visits Ford and I'd read they'd found good elements, but it's not back in? It was one of those famous lost scenes.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 3:34 a.m. CST

    BSG Season 4 Trailer

    by secretcylon AMAZING

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Decker: Weak, Puny, Killer

    by gothfae

    So, everyone says; He can't be a repilicant, he's not superhuman. But he sure managed to kill all of them, didn't he.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 5:57 a.m. CST

    "for those not in either city"

    by the ageless stranger

    "(which would be like, ummm, most of the United States)." That would actually be the rest of the world there, Mr. America. Some of us outside your fine country are waiting to see this as well......

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 6:58 a.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    They should remake Blade Runner. Then we can have some Talkback fun.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Deckard was not a Replicant, but the movie

    by BringingSexyBack

    was a dream. Spoiler!!!

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 7:01 a.m. CST

    Sean Young is Deckard's sister and this was her wet dream

    by BringingSexyBack

    Taboo. Feels so good. Taboo. Misunderstood.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Spoiler!!! Roy is Deckard's second cousin's roommate

    by BringingSexyBack

    Hence the conflict.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Why are the called "blade" runners?

    by BringingSexyBack

    Sounds wicked but makes no sense.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Deckard is a cyborg.

    by Dingbatty

    There, now everyone's happy.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Deckard being Replicant ruins Roy's best scene

    by MurderMostFowl

    If Deckard is a replicant, then Roy saves him in the end not because of his respect for life, morality, higher thinking, or any higher purpose. He saves him because he realizes a replicant too. That absolutely ruins the most powerful moment of the film. Did you think about that Mr. Scott when you keep trying to prove he is one?

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 9:29 a.m. CST

    deckard is a unicorn

    by ironic_name

    deleted post.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 10:05 a.m. CST

    Slone 13

    by Abominable Snowcone

    Greedo did NOT shoot first! Solo did. Lucas changed it to make Greedo shoot first.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Murdermost fowl...I agree with your interpretation

    by Abominable Snowcone

    Of the ending with the rooftop-hand grab and its implications.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Deckard is Luke's father -- and a Cylon! And a woman!

    by MrMysteryGuest

    HAHAHAAAAAAAA! I've spoiled the Final Cut ending! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Wrecks post: The final cut

    by zer0cool2k2

    i wish they woulda left it the fuck alone. Narration, bad wigs, continuity errors and all. I want less re-cutting FATHER!

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST

    You hit the nail on the head, MurderMostFowl...

    by Bill Clay

    How many movies have ended with the villain saving the hero's life, for noble reasons? Deckard, a human with no emotions (the 'cold fish') learned to live again thanks to robots who showed him how precious life is. And we're going to throw away this powerful ending for some pretentious director's Unicorn dream? I think not.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 3:41 p.m. CST

    fuck SCOTT

    by Prossor

    in this case.... fuck him up his ass, with a plastic unicorn.

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 3:54 p.m. CST

    how about, origami unicorn

    by half vader

    Ooh those anal papercuts!

  • Oct. 10, 2007, 4 p.m. CST

    They're called Blade Runners because

    by TheNorthlander

    the title of the movie was stolen from a completely different screenplay (based on a novella by someone completely different from PKD).