Blade Runner is a good film, but not a perfect film. A couple of days ago I viewed the Workprint - in its entirety without viewing any other versions (the other time I watched it was following a viewing of the Final Cut, and as a part of watching the other versions). This time I watched it on its own, having not watched (any version of) the film for many months. Firstly let's establish where we're starting from - there are three distinct release versions of the film - The theatrical cut/s, the director's cut and the final cut. This is a pre-release version that has been restored for DVD presentation, but was not originally intended for wide-release.
And it shows.
If you had not seen the movie before, and this was the first version you viewed you would be very confused by the end of the film. It is clear to see why Scott put in the voice over narration, and why the ending was changed. It's also clear why the Director's Cut was released in 1992 as this version of the film cannot hold a candle to it, or to the theatrical versions. This version can claim getting the number of replicants right ("two go fried through the electrical field") but is otherwise an unfinished job, and in dire need of adjustment. This is one of only a couple of things re-incorporated into the Final Cut. And it put an end to the silly notion that Deckard was one of the six replicants.
During Ridley Scott's introduction the film can clearly be seen being restored from a 70mm print that is missing around 1/4 of the picture from the top and bottom. I'm not confused as to why this is - the process involves converting an anamorphic image into an non-anamorphic image, and for some reason it can hold the full width but not the height - what does confuse me is how they restored the missing picture, unless the entire movie was restored scene-by-scene using the original 35mm negatives? Or maybe they used the 35mm master print that was blown-up to 70mm? In any case the technical quality is certainly acceptable for what this is - an old workprint.
When the Final Cut was made Harrison's son, Ben, lip-synced for the scene where Deckard talks to Abdul (the snake maker) because they "couldn't find any audio that synced correctly". This is probably because the scene wasn't originally intended to incorporate the full conversation, as in the Workprint it is truncated with most of the dialogue "silent". This is an example of what must have been a last-minute change to the theatrical version, realizing they'd made a mistake in trying to obscure the scene in the Workprint.
The entire second-half of the movie is quite rough, and the movie ends abruptly with Deckard helping Rachael to escape, and then finding the unicorn origami. In this version it doesn't mean Deckard is a replicant - but it does mean that Gaff has been in his apartment while he was out - similar to the Theatrical version, except that it's a much darker ending without the "escape into the sunset".
It is abundantly clear why this version was radically changed for theatrical release, I imagine the number one response from the unsuspecting "public" viewers was "what?" I do agree that the Final Cut of the film is the best version, however I do like the Theatrical version in its own right. It was, I believe, the first version I saw - and although I prefer the film without the narration, and without the happy ending - and with the unicorn scene - it is still a good cut, and much better than this workprint version. It has helped me to understand why the voice over was fully incorporated into the film. And yes the v/o is largely a failure for what it was intended to do, but it did provide some level of substance. At least now we can see why it was edited the way it was for theatre - they were trying to fix all the problems they had in the workprint.
And it shows.
If you had not seen the movie before, and this was the first version you viewed you would be very confused by the end of the film. It is clear to see why Scott put in the voice over narration, and why the ending was changed. It's also clear why the Director's Cut was released in 1992 as this version of the film cannot hold a candle to it, or to the theatrical versions. This version can claim getting the number of replicants right ("two go fried through the electrical field") but is otherwise an unfinished job, and in dire need of adjustment. This is one of only a couple of things re-incorporated into the Final Cut. And it put an end to the silly notion that Deckard was one of the six replicants.
During Ridley Scott's introduction the film can clearly be seen being restored from a 70mm print that is missing around 1/4 of the picture from the top and bottom. I'm not confused as to why this is - the process involves converting an anamorphic image into an non-anamorphic image, and for some reason it can hold the full width but not the height - what does confuse me is how they restored the missing picture, unless the entire movie was restored scene-by-scene using the original 35mm negatives? Or maybe they used the 35mm master print that was blown-up to 70mm? In any case the technical quality is certainly acceptable for what this is - an old workprint.
When the Final Cut was made Harrison's son, Ben, lip-synced for the scene where Deckard talks to Abdul (the snake maker) because they "couldn't find any audio that synced correctly". This is probably because the scene wasn't originally intended to incorporate the full conversation, as in the Workprint it is truncated with most of the dialogue "silent". This is an example of what must have been a last-minute change to the theatrical version, realizing they'd made a mistake in trying to obscure the scene in the Workprint.
The entire second-half of the movie is quite rough, and the movie ends abruptly with Deckard helping Rachael to escape, and then finding the unicorn origami. In this version it doesn't mean Deckard is a replicant - but it does mean that Gaff has been in his apartment while he was out - similar to the Theatrical version, except that it's a much darker ending without the "escape into the sunset".
It is abundantly clear why this version was radically changed for theatrical release, I imagine the number one response from the unsuspecting "public" viewers was "what?" I do agree that the Final Cut of the film is the best version, however I do like the Theatrical version in its own right. It was, I believe, the first version I saw - and although I prefer the film without the narration, and without the happy ending - and with the unicorn scene - it is still a good cut, and much better than this workprint version. It has helped me to understand why the voice over was fully incorporated into the film. And yes the v/o is largely a failure for what it was intended to do, but it did provide some level of substance. At least now we can see why it was edited the way it was for theatre - they were trying to fix all the problems they had in the workprint.
)
