Choosing a movie, do you take notice to whether it is a Director’s cut, the original version, or simply grab the chosen movie and pop it in taking no notice of which version is in hand? Is there even a difference? Because a director’s cut is simply a version of a movie with various cuts made by the director’s choosing, if watching both versions of Ridley Scott’s, “Blade Runner,” the subtle differences in several of the scenes will become apparent, although the scene layout and plot remains the same throughout both versions.
The very first difference is probably the most noticeable and important difference between the two versions of the film: the narration of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) at various spots throughout the original version. Scott chose to keep this out for a really good reason. Most think that having a narration is simply a way of cheating in your movie. Narration is pretty much saying that the movie sucks, so you it has to have a narrator tell the audience what is going on. Scott wanted his movie to speak for itself, not have a narrator do it. Also, he was probably trying to save his reputation as kind of an abstract guy. The narration tells us many things, such as that Deckard has an ex-wife. Deckard also tells us why he quit being a blade runner, saying that the killing was starting to get to him, but he decided to go back when asked, because he’d rather kill than be a victim. The narration also lets us know for a fact that Deckard has feelings for Rachael (Sean Young). This happens after he kills the exotic dancer. He says something about shooting a lady in the back, and also says how she reminded him of Rachael.
Another difference between the two versions is in the director’s cut, when Deckard is playing, or attempting to play the piano. It’s a little hard for him to play when he’s drunk from drowning his sorrows, and while he is doing this he has a strange dream. The dream starts out in a forest with a beautiful white unicorn running on a path through the trees. The whole dream is in a type of slow-motion, with the unicorn’s mane flowing in the air. There is also a brilliant white light shining down through the canopy, which heightens the whiteness of the unicorn. This is a very vivid and detailed dream. The dream also explains the finding of the ...
... middle of paper ...
... to have a happy ending as closure, he wanted them to be left wondering, thinking, about what might happen to the two of them.
As I previously mentioned, although the director’s cut and the original versions of a movie are generally the same, there are slight differences. Since a director’s cut excludes certain details from the original version, you may be missing out on some of what Hollywood loves to portray to their audiences. If you like to be challenged in your movie experience by having to think about what’s going on, or simply like seeing all the violence and gore of a viscous fight, piercing nail, or bloody eye-balls, you may want to take a second look at what version you are about to watch.
Works Cited
Begley, Varun. “Blade Runner and the Postmodern: A Reconsideration.” Literature
Film Quarterly: 32.3 (2004): 186-193
Galagher, Nola. “Bleak Visions: Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, Director’s Cut.”
Australian Screen Education; 29 Winter (2002): 169-174
Leong, Anthony. “Blade Runner: A Retrospective.” Frontier issue 19. 09 April 2005
Scott, Ridley. Blade Runner Director’s Cut version DVD
Scott, Ridley. Blade Runner Original Version VHS
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
The differences that were made from the short story create a more detailed plot for the movie. There were many subtle changes that also made drastic changes to the movie for example, the man at the desk. In the movie the man at the desk did not talk much however, in the short story the man played a big part to the plot of the short story. At the beginning of the short story the man explains how Keith was elected for president instead of deutscher but after the incident the man reveals the change in history by talking about how deutscher was elected. Another important difference from the short story and the movie is the one who caused the change in history. In the short story Eckles is the one who stepped on the butterfly however in the movie Middleton is the one who steps on the butterfly. A key difference in the movie compared to
This is quite a literal example of closure in a movie. The endings of films in classical Hollywood almost always seems inevitable. The audience’s expectations and desires that they have had since the start of the film are fulfilled and given
I'd be working in a place like this if I could afford a real snake?"
... to find his wife..as characters find what they are looking for they leave the boarding house..thus the audience can predict what's going to happen as they read.." ( Ross 37).
Each version also has the main characters boarding up the windows. Anyone who thought the birds won’t attack are usually found dead, but in the movie they are found with their eyes pecked out. Also, both the story and the movie have REALLY bad endings! They aren’t very similar, but they both leave you hanging. When you see a movie or read a book you want to know what happens to the main characters. In these two, you didn’t get an ending. They left you hanging and for some people that ruins it all.
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
Although I will always love the original, the script, the movie was so fun to watch. We got know why lady bracknell is who she is since she apparently was a dancer and got life by having a baby. We found out instead of hugging miss prism got engaged to dr. chasuble which was interesting. Although I want to say what the real change was in the movie compared to the script you got have to watch the movie all the way through. It will be the biggest surprise of your
One of the differences include when Jem and Scout had had decided to sneak out to go over to Boo Radleys. Jem and Scout heard Nathan Radley come out and load a shotgun they then ran back home. Once home, Jem was caught without pants and questioned about it. Later that night Jem ran back to get them and found them folded and crookedly patched up as if someone knew he would be coming back for them. In the movie right after this happened Jem ran back for his pants, but he didn't wait like in the book. Instead in the movie, it shows Jem coming back right after to retrieve his pants, this is when Radley came out with his shotgun. This scene should have been acted out as it was in the book b...
Of the many changes made between the book and the movie, most were made to keep the audience interested in the story. Most people who watch TV don’t have a long attention span. Executives at NBC didn’t want to spend millions to produce a movie and then have nobody watch it. The screenwriters had to throw in some clever plot twists to keep people interested. Another reason the movie was different from the book was the material in the book was a little too racy for network TV. Take the ending, for example, nobody wants to see a grown man hang himself. This was a reason the producers had to change some material in the movie.
Blade Runner as a Classic Film Noir and a Science Fiction Film Blade Runner, a well known 80’s science-fiction film, begins in 2019, set in the industrial city of L.A., the scene lit only by the many neon lights and molten guisers. We draw in from a panoramic long shot to Deckard, ‘ex-cop, ex-killer, ex-blade-runner’, who is at the heart of this film. Blade Runner is, definitively, a science fiction film, but the traits of Film Noir are the bread and butter, bringing it the dark, desperate atmosphere that is the very beauty of the film. Ridley Scott plants shrapnels of Film Noir throughout, from the subtle (cigars), to the downright blatant (the washed-up cop of main man). The genre itself developed in the post-war era, thriving upon the depression that had settled upon the world, and the new technology.
At a point in the story, the stranger asks why the couple had two children. It made the parents outraged, and the dad continued asking "why?" until the unknown man would give him a clear answer. The stranger then goes on to say, "But you love them of course, otherwise, it would all come to an end." Implying that maybe that is what happened to him and his family.
This essay shows the subtle differences that can occur between directors, even when they are basing the movie off of almost the exact same script. Almost no two movies are exactly alike, no matter how hard the directors and actors might try. Minor personality differences and scene changes greatly affect the atmosphere and meaning of the same movie. One example of this is the movie Romeo and Juliet. This movie tells the gripping story of two young lovers who are forbade to see each other because of a viscous feud between the two families. I'll be looking at the older 50's version of Romeo and Juliet and comparing it to the newer version of Romeo and Juliet.
Boyle captures this thought as well when he wrote “the last thing he said to her, just as they were pulled apart … you told me to get rid of it”. Death has come. The death of the couple's relationship with the death of the
Film editing by definition is part of the creative postproduction process of filmmaking. In today’s modern world, film has made use of advanced digital technology to help with the editing. The editor or editors are usually given a complete compilation of all the footage. These various separate shots that can be regarded as ‘ raw’ footage. Their task is to create a finished motion picture through combining and selecting shots and putting them into a coherent sequence of events. Whenever we are viewing a film it is extremely difficult to consciously perceive all the editing that has been undertaken. Every single time there is a change from one image to another, this is an edit. For editors, it could be a possible annoyance or perhaps a blessing that critics and the audience never specifically point out the editor’s contribution. However it must be noted that film editors aren’t the only ones that will contribute to a films editing.