Quote
Originally posted by Mark_H:
Am I the only person that thinks the narrated version is vastly more enjoyable than the director's cut without the narration?
No, though it's been so long since I've seen the original. IMO, both versions have their merits.

I know that Ford (allegedly) tried to do the voiceover as badly as possible to ensure it got cut, but I never had a problem with it - voiceovers can add atmosphere. Likewise the stock footage ending doesn't bother me even though the studio forced it - I never found it unrealistic to suggest that there was life and hope outside of the dreary cities because the same is true today. My recollection of the first time I saw the Director's Cut is that the extended scenes generally made sense.

However, I have a strong feeling that the "Director's Cut" was never what Scott originally intended when filming, but contained his response to all of the speculation and mythology that had grown since the original cinematic release. In that sense, it was disappointing. I think this is why the unicorn sequence doesn't work for me - it's just too obvious and clumsily done, though clearly required to suggest Dekkard is a replicant*. It's worth noting though that the origame unicorn works *very* well - in the original cut - as the plot device to show that Olmos' character had been to the apartment...

Every time I watch either version I always think the "tears in the rain" scene is cliche'd, but then I remember that it's completely original. Roll on the HD DVD!

* Personally, I prefer the ambiguity in the Dekkard human or replicant question and concentration on the idea that we are *all* made from the sum of our memories, replicant and human, so what's the difference. I think Scott *made* Dekkard a replicant in the second cut.

Roon Developer and ex-moderator of this Forum
I am #25 in the HH1 photo of fame.