I watched the 1992 Director' s Cut a few years ago, and had a similar reaction to Brad. I was surprised that the movie has the staying power that it does.

I would love to remake a more authentic version of the novel, which Scott did not read:

[QUOTE]
Wired: Is it true that you didn't read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the book on which Blade Runner was based, before making the movie?

Scott:I honestly couldn't get into it. It's so dense, by page 32 there's about 17 story lines. So one of the problems is distilling it down into a three-act play that can be filmed.

davidfrank said: I thought she dressed herself up as a doll-like toy to help manipulate Sebastion since he obviously has a thing for toys and dolls.

I can see that, the only reason I would say otherwise is because I was under the impression they had just escaped and wouldn't be changing clothes, which would mean they would be in the clothing they escaped in.

I will say that I am 100% with Brad on the original cut (which I only saw for the first time a few months ago by accident on TV). It is TERRIBLE. Ford's narration is AWFUL. I can't believe they even air that version. I think it was on USA. It needs to be banned. It's that bad.

Also, I am reading some of what you guys have said and it helps in understanding why some folks enjoy it. Domenic's statement saying, "think of it as a noir, not a sci-fi epic" makes sense and I see where it can be compared to 2001, but only slightly… let me explain…

Where I bought into 2001 and did not buy into Blade Runner is in the whole computers having a survival instinct part. This may seem odd considering in Blade Runner the computers are actually humanoid robots and in 2001 it's an actually computer represented by a red dot, but for some reason I buy HAL way more than I do these Replicants. I thought Rutger Hauer was great, Sean Young is a'ight, and Daryl Hannah stinks up the room.

SIDE NOTE: BTW, Dre, are you sure she was supposed to be a toy? I was under the impression a "pleasure model" would be for sex and therefore be dressed up to look sexy, especially since she doesn't have the black makeup across her face the whole time, she changes it after we first meet her.

Going back to the noir thing, I am wondering if those that really dig it for its noir aspects would actually prefer the narration to still be in the film. It is a very noirish reading and fits that genre. As bad as it is, it actually works when looked at like that.

Oh, and is Deckard a Replicant? I know in my article I said he is, but in all seriousness the first time I saw it I didn't think he was and it wasn't until Ridley began hammering the idea into my head that I even considered it. It makes the film more interesting, and I think this is an interesting film, just not an entertaining one. The entertainment is discussing it like this, especially since so many people really love it.

Oh, and no, I didn't like A.I. However, I can't honestly say I gave it a fair shot and now that I think about it I should give it another chance.

A few random things:

—I don't completely disagree with you about the theatrical cut. The narration is God-awful and the ending is extraordinarily lameass. However, I can still understand why the original version developed a devoted following despite those flaws; everything good about the film is still there (plus the narration almost disappears during the last 3rd, although the chunk right after Roy Batty dies is as, Frank Durabont says, a kick to the nuts)–overall, the original cut is like a supreme pizza with a few very bad black olives in it.

–One of things I love about the film is how rich it is on ideas and themes (and I'm not speaking of the tired debate of whether Deckard is a replicant–I don't think he is despite what Ridley Scott says, and I agree with Devin Faraci at chud that it appears more like an idea Scott grafted onto the film years after its release). Anyways. Everytime I watch it I find some new reading of it. Heck, it wasn't until my recent theatrical viewing until I realized one of the more obvious ideas in the film is how Roy Batty is portrayed as a Christ-like figure.

–Whether one finds the movie (or any movie for that matter) boring or not is particular to that individual's taste.

–I just got through the 3 and a half hour Dangerous Days doc on the 5-disc set (which is one of the few dvd sets to give the Lord of the Rings extended editions a run for their money). Fantastic doc. Leaves no stone left unturned. But I got to ask: WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE HACK ASSHAT DIRECTOR OF TORQUE DOING ON THE DOC AND WHY DO THEY GIVE THIS BOZO SIGNIFICANT SCREENTIME!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Seriously, I was floored. I could careless if he made a Blade Runner homage music video, for George Michael of all people. This guy should only being giving his opinions on how good the soup of the day is at Applebees when I'm ordering my dinner from him. WTF?!?!?!?!?!

—Yeah, I wouldn't pop the score the into my CD player (well, the closing credits music is pretty cool). However, the film's score goes a long way in setting the film's mood. And at the end of the day, it's the film's mood that sets it apart. SO MANY FILMS HAVE COPIED BLADE RUNNER'S VISUALS, BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE REPLICATED THE FILM'S LOW-KEY, MEDITATIVE, EERIE MOOD. Really, I think it's the film's detached tone–which a lot of people slam the film for–that just wins me over in the end, b/c really no other film is quite like it in that regard (although I consider 2001 a cousin).

–And to compliment my previous comment, I leave off with a quote from Roger Ebert from when he added Blade Runner to his Great Movies this fall:

"In an earlier review of "Blade Runner," I wrote; "It looks fabulous, it uses special effects to create a new world of its own, but it is thin in its human story." This seems a strange complaint, given that so much of the movie concerns who is, and is not, human, and what it means to be human anyway."

1. Darryl Hannah is good in the movie and the makeup is meant for her to appear as a toy
2. Ford's character does have a definite character arc and is pretty fleshed for a film noir. The genre isnt exactly known for huge dynamics. But all things considered, he has an arc.
3. Rutger Hauer is a full flesh and blood being. He just began life out of machine parts and here is where I find the film interesting and you probably are bored to tears because you can't get past the outset of the idea that the replicant emotions are real (i'm assuming you hated A.I. as well if this is the case). I get your thinking, I understand where it comes from. I just disagree.

When he (Rutger Hauer) says:
[I] "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the tanhauser gate.
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
Time to die"[/I]

(come on, that's poetry)

… he's saying a couple things: I've lived more of a life that you have, Deckard, and its being cut short. His desire to live is not something programmed. I'd assume they would have done something to program them not to care (unless they were stupid which is possible). But instinct to live takes over. if there is a divine creator, then maybe all that is needed to live is information. information to make a cell, to make skin, to make energy etc.. For Christ's sake, we can clone beings now which is a form of creation in itself. The replicants are not just machine parts. The point being that man has tapped into something through science. Call it a soul or a simple desire to live or artificial intelligence times 10, whatever. It's not unlike what happened to HAL in 2001.

Obviously, if you disagree none of the film is interesting to you which is likely what happened. I personally like A.I. even more as a study into this arena.

BRING IT!!!! haha

I can recognize that maybe it's a film classic, but it's just so unbelievably boring.

However, since them my tastes have changed quite a bit over the years I'm not sure what to expect this time around.

Just so you know I actually enjoyed Borat on some level, refused to watch Blades of Glory and did not like A Good Year.