So, I've known for a while that there are different versions of Blade Runner, one with narration, one without, and a few different edits of the ending. Which one is superior?
Preamble: I know more about Blade Runner than I do about Red Dawn. Know also that there's a 500 page book on the making of Blade Runner that isn't tedious, overly long or filled with esoteric details that are irrelevant to the story. So know that I'm trying to make this short. To the best of my knowledge, extant, available versions of Blade Runner include: - The Dallas workprint - The theatrical cut (USA) - The theatrical cut (foreign) - The VHS cut (Canada and other English-speaking regions) - The "director's cut" - The "Final Cut" This is in large part because Blade Runner was a pigfuck of a production. Ridley Scott actually moved the whole thing from Los Angeles to the UK just to get away from his crew, who towards the end were wearing shirts that said "Ridley Sucks." As far as "source material" none of the movies have anything whatsoever in common with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which, really, is fine... 'cuz it's a shit book. As are most Philip K. Dick novels. They make good source material for movies because he had some whacky ideas but in his own words, "I'm a science fiction writer with five mouths to feed. I do a lot of speed." PKD died in the middle of production of Blade Runner but not before disavowing the production and leveling a gun at not just Paul Sammon, but David Peeples in the course of interviews. It's also worth noting that the first Hollywood interest in Androids Dream came from Martin Scorsese, who wanted Robert DeNiro to star in it. Contrary to popular opinion, Blade Runner was always intended to have voiceover. The reason it sucks so hard in the original Theatrical Cut is that by the time Harrison Ford recorded it, the studio hated Ridley, Ridley hated the studio, everyone wanted it to die but they couldn't kill it because it was the most expensive movie made in 1981 ($12m, if I recall correctly, more than f'ing Empire Strikes Back or E.T.). And then they fired that writer and another producer took over and they re-cut it and Harrison Ford had to do the voiceover again. And then they fired THAT writer and ANOTHER producer took over and they re-cut it and Harrison Ford had to do the voiceover AGAIN. At this point Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford were hopeful that the movie would go out without voiceover. What Harrison recorded he recorded in one take while working on something else (can't remember what). The Dallas Workprint was Ridley's best edit delivered without voiceover. It did not, however, meet with universal acclaim. As such, the movie hit theaters with voiceover because frankly, you need the voiceover to understand what the fuck is going on. Ridley Scott has now had 30 years to polish his baby and I gotta tell ya - the "Final Cut" is pretty damn confusing still. I've read four different versions of the script. Long story short, Blade Runner was a $30m movie (in 1981) that was made for $10m by a studio in trouble. Imagine if someone took two thirds of Peter Jackson's money away after filming was underway on Lord of the Rings and also tried to replace him several times. The result would be similar to Blade Runner. It's still a masterpiece. You wanted a short answer. I didn't give you one. That's because all that preamble will hopefully cause you to watch the theatrical cut, forgive it its failings, and then watch the Final Cut.
Hmph! You know, I've read eight PKD novels this summer, and I'm still not sure whether to agree with you or not. Androids in script form -- Blade Runner -- is a marked improvement by any measure. And there's a sense of nausea that permeates all of Dick's novels. But on the other hand, Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch really hits you. So does Ubik, even if the prose is shitty because he wrote it in 30 minutes on speed. Man in the High Castle may've even deserved its Hugo. And there's something deeply disturbing about A Scanner Darkly that really makes it click ... when you learn it's a fucking autobiography. I want to say something like: if only PKD had been well-off he could have written 10 books in his life instead of 40 and the quality would be much higher, but I know that's not true. He was a one trick pony but sometimes it worked.'cuz it's a shit book. As are most Philip K. Dick novels.
If a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters for a million years will eventually produce Shakespeare, one monkey at one typewriter for forty years will eventually come up with "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale." That's pretty much where I am with Asimov and PKD - they wrote so goddamn much that one or two of their stories will be "Twilight" or "The Bicentennial Man." The rest of it is Dr. Bloodmoney. I've started maybe four PKD novels. I've finished two. Some day I'll do High Castle but fuck a duck, what I've read is not encouraging. It seemed like half of Androids was fuckin' Mercerism... and I just don't give a shit. I know Kilgore Trout was supposed to be Theodore Sturgeon, but I've always imagined him as Philip K. Dick.
While I disagree about Androids, that line made me laugh pretty fukn hard...enough to make my office mate look at me awkwardly. I will never dispute that PKD couldn't write for shit (his famous line about speed that you quote is evidence enough that even he admitted as much). I'm no expert on his work but I've read four or five of his novels and probably 15 or so short stories. Anyway, enough to get a sense of him. My take is that there's often signal in the noise. What I love about Androids is the human attentiveness to animals. That whole thing is almost never talked about when reflecting on the story, as we're perpetually stuck in the human/fabricant dichotomy, but I think the story was more about the search for empathy in a destroyed world. And how even empathy can be co-opted by corporate interests when it serves their bottom line. If I were you (and I had a few days to read a story), I would give High Castle a try. It's a vastly different book than any of his others, as it was penned before he was nuts and apparetly still cared about being coherent. It's also not a sci-fi so much as an alternate history. It certainly won't be Earth shattering, but it's a very good read, IMO.I know Kilgore Trout was supposed to be Theodore Sturgeon, but I've always imagined him as Philip K. Dick.
Agree. In the 12 or so of his books I've read, there's (almost) always one really neat idea -- Ubik being the prime example. Sometimes, as in Scanner, there's actually some half-funny prose to accompany the central idea. Not usually.My take is that there's often signal in the noise.
Oh, absolutely. He was not a talentless hack - I just haven't seen any examples where he can get out of his own way. Your take on empathy in Androids, for example: I agree with it completely but at the same time, Deckerd is a wholly un-empathetic character. He's without sentimentality. And then when we see a replicant version of Deckerd, you're like "so what?" Personality-wise, they're indistinguishable. Yet the replicants act irrationally vindictive towards humans. The humans, by comparison, are matter-of-factly committing genocide against the androids. So yeah, "empathy." But the humans are the ones who act dispassionately while the androids are just mean. So yeah- signal in there somewhere. But it's positively buried under conflicting narratives and inexpert metaphor. Too much noise to get anything out of it unless you're looking for faces in the clouds.My take is that there's often signal in the noise.
Asimov wrote more, yeah, but also his peak -- Foundation -- is better in some indefinable way than any of those others. My opinion, course. That said I'm short-handed when it comes to having read enough Zelazney (have you read the book he did with PKD? Should I?) and Ellison.
By the way, did you know they offered PKD the chance to rewrite Androids as Blade Runner -- not a script, an actual novel -- for re-release in conjunction-ish with the movie? They offered him a pile, too. He said no and of course he might've died without finishing it anyway.PKD died in the middle of production of Blade Runner but not before disavowing the production and leveling a gun at not just Paul Sammon, but David Peeples in the course of interviews.
He was pretty much insane at that point, and in failing health. I suspect they offered him a lot of money because they knew he'd never finish it and it would keep him out of their hair. There's a reason nobody successfully adapted any of his works until he was dead and buried.
I've seen the theatrical version and (I believe) the director's cut. The difference to me is pretty subtle - but I haven't studied it. Spoiler tag added for the poor souls who haven't seen this yet.
In the director's cut, which has the unicorn dream scene, it seems to me that the meaning of Gaff's origami is clearer - I believe they all apply to Deckard (chicken, man, and unicorn), and thus it shows that Gaff knows that Deckard is a replicant, because he has no way to know of Deckard's dream otherwise. Without the dream scene, the audience might believe the unicorn was meant to represent Rachel and her uniqueness.
You're missing the "eye thing", which not even Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford can agree upon. In fact, in the Theatrical Cut there's an error in the logic. Besides which, the scene you're talking about was lifted from Legend. Ridley denies this but it's totally legend. There's more to do with Ridley Scott saying "fuck you" to the studio than any sort of narrative brilliance.
Not sure what you mean by "eye thing". Related to the eye maker who leads them to Sebastion?
I was really just pointing out that the unicorn scene is (I believe) completely missing in the theatrical version, which sorta precludes any connection between that and Gaff's unicorn origami.
Okay. SPOILERS BELOW FOR BLADE RUNNER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . According to Ridley Scott, every replicant in Blade Runner has a "cat eye" flash upon light. google "owl blade runner" and know that every replicant in it - Pris, Rachel, Roy, the owl, Zhora, all of them, including Deckerd - show cat eyes at some point. However, there's a shot in the Final Cut where Deckerd most assuredly is not flashing a cat eye. It doesn't exactly cement things. The unicorn "scene" is missing in the theatrical version, but Gaff makes an origami Unicorn shortly before the voiceover talks about how "unique" Rachel is. Ridley cut some footage from Legend back into the film when he got to do his "director's Cut."