Oooh! A Blade Runner discussion. Too bad I really need to get some sleep. I'll just add this point for now.

I prefer BLADE RUNNER without the narration, but I'm not sure I would have gotten as much out of it seeing that version the first time. I saw the original, w/narration, happy ending, etc., in the theater, and the voice-over does tell you a few things you might not figure out the first time seeing it cold.

This is me. I remember being blown away by the original version, then hearing about a version without the narration and a different ending, and wondering what that was like. Then, they realeased the "director's cut" in the late 80's (or early 90's, my memory is hazy), and when I saw that in the theaters, I distinctly remember thinking "I wish I could have seen this version first, just to evaluate it on its own merits".

You just can't unremember the information that was given in the narration, so it's impossible for me to know if there is enough information in the "director's cut" to thoroughly understand the movie. I also seem to remember more focus on the eyes in the re-released version, but that may be because I was paying more attention on the re-watch.

Ooh, you know, Blade Runner is one of those movies I've never seen and always meant to. Tell me which to watch! A special edition dvd? Show me the way!

it probably cuts out all the fun sex

Aww. As long as its regular fun sex, not some freaky tentacle sex.

and the tongue-through-the-head.

Eh, I think I'm good for now. The memory of Michelle Williams bumpy face did me in.

What the shit? Please tell me that's not Ben Kingsley.

ETA: Just saw a preview for The Village. What's Shyamalan's beef with red?

Please tell me that's not Ben Kingsley.

But I don't like lying.

But I don't like lying.

What the heck did they have on him?

What the heck did they have on him?

They must have had pictures of him having sex with Anthony Hopkins, which is the only way to explain his appearance in Mission: Impossible II.

Was that Alex Ross work

Yes it was.

You just can't unremember the information that was given in the narration, so it's impossible for me to know if there is enough information in the "director's cut" to thoroughly understand the movie. I also seem to remember more focus on the eyes in the re-released version, but that may be because I was paying more attention on the re-watch.

Yes, this. This sums up the BLADE RUNNER conundrum for me on which is the preferable version. In actuality, it's the one version conflated in my brain that's definitive. I am glad I still have a copy of the original VHS release, though.

eta Insert obligatory recommendation of the book FUTURE NOIR here - it's a big book on the making of BLADE RUNNER from novel through the director's cut re-release.

Last night I rewatched Blade Runer (Director's cut) and I agree with much of what people have said. I have not seen the voice-over version in ages and I've forgotten what additional info the voice-over gives you.

So, um, what's the extra info?

I saw a version of the narrated BR on TV a couple of months ago, and the only detail that stands out in my mind is the fact Deckard is divorced. (His wife called him a cold fish.) But, you know, looking at him, did you really think he was happily married?

I think the other problem with the voiceover is that film noir tended, at first, to use it in surprising ways; but the VO legacy is of irritating summary and annoyingly obvious rhetoric. It's still possible to have a VO be the exact right tool to use (see Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard ) to convey that intimately mannered viewpoint without being dull, but I think that VO tends to be used carelessly more often than not.

Apparently the movie of The Oddyssey is going to be a fantasy film but from Telemachus' p.o.v.