What cut am I supposed to watch?

What cut am I supposed to watch?

There's hardly any differences between ost cuts
but Final cut is the best version,

Theatrical should only be watched if you want to see the sappy happy ending and get bad Harrison Ford narration

The final cut. It's pretty much the same as the director's cut but Ridley used modern technology to subtly fix glaring production flaws that all of the other cuts have.

The one that omits the unicorn dream

The final cut and director's cut have the unicorn dream and both of those cuts are far better than the other cuts. The theatrical cuts have clunky narration and a dumb happy ending.

Final Cut.

I like redlettermedia, but their Blade Runner video was terrible.

Honestly, any movie where they can't decide of a fucking ending after 5 times and just change 11 seconds of footage is bound to be shit and just pure virgin bait

Just move on and watch Iron Man again or something

I wouldn't say terrible but a lot of Jay's criticisms were bullshit. When I saw Colin was in the episode I thought "oh good, he'll defend the film" but he let Jay run the show and only disagreed with a couple of Jay's criticisms.

That's some really shitty bait, user. Anyway, it's not Ridley Scott's fault there are 50 cuts of the film. If the studio hadn't interfered there would only be one or two cuts.

a movie with this many versions just means it was an editing room disaster and no one could agree on what to do with the footage

Studio this, studio that. I always hear this excuse. Movies have to make money, not just provide an escape to acne lords

The Final Cut.

>just give me what the jews want to give me

Deckard is human.

No

Why the fuck are people so wound up about Deckard possibly being a replicant?

How about him, muh eyes apologist?

Because it makes no sense, the writer every said it's bull and if he's a replicate he's the worst model ever. Not to mention it makes no sense from how others act and know him. The Chief even talks about how they worked together for years and years.

because it's an EBIN TWIST

Final Cut then theatrical to compare if you like it.

>muh unicorn twist
>i kno yo dreams
>disregard whole film

Director's cut, it's basically the final cut but it has doesn't have a green digital matrix filter over everything so it has more color, and it has the great I WANT MORE LIFE FUCKER line

Is Deckard a replicant?
The question matters but not the answer.

Deckard is an audience stand-in, so the real question is; Are we replicants?
Can we influence the world we live in or are we just slaves to the ones at power / technology?

That doesn't really matter since they could all just be hired to deceive Deckard and study his behaviour.
The "he must be the worst model" argument is also weak, since Tyrell's intention with Rachael was clearly to make a replicant that is indistinguishable from humans and Deckard might be the upgraded version on a field test.

But like I said, it doesn't actually matter if he is a replicant or not.

I found it pretty surprising that they completely missed the film's themes and subtext,
after they did their decent Eraserhead review.

Is Josh the secret brain of RLM?

>They could be hired to study him!

Look, if you have to create fanfiction that doesn't even have the slightest hint of being in the film, your position is shit tier and doesn't deserve to even be laughed at.

Of course we're slaves to technology. Technology is what separates us from every other species on the planet. It's what makes us human. The only other species that even comes close is primates using fucking sticks to get ants out of trees and shit.

But only a vast conspiracy that isn't even hinted at in the film can explain all of the plot holes! It MUST be true!

>Deckard is an audience stand-in, so the real question is; Are we replicants?
>Can we influence the world we live in or are we just slaves to the ones at power / technology?

no, you're incredibly stupid.

Well, in that case I guess we can only look at evidence that's in the movie, in which case Deckard being a replicant is a fact.

There's a deleted scene where the chief and gaff secretly watch Deckard visit Holden in the hospital.
Gaff also clearly monitors Deckards behaviour and always knows how he feels.
You're a clown.

Cool argument, pal.

You don't know what you're talking about. The US theatrical cut and international theatrical cut are exactly the same except the studio cut some violence out of the US theatrical cut because they were afraid of the MPAA. The workprint cut wasn't supposed to be released to the public, what happened is back in the early 90s the studio dug it up and blindly assumed it was Ridley's preferred cut of the film so they threw it in theaters. The director's cut and final cut are exactly the same except in the final cut Ridley used modern technology to fix some glaring production flaws. If the studio had just let Ridley have his way back in 1982 there would only be one or two cuts of the film.

Whichever you want, but Blade Runner is a bad movie. I get it, people want to sit here and believe that it's a good movie because it's based on a good book, or because of the soundtrack, but as a movie it is SHIT. No matter how hard to try to like something, if it's bad it'll always be bad.

If the studio hadn't fucked with Blade Runner it might not have flopped so hard. Back when Blade Runner was released two of the biggest criticisms were the clunky narration and the dumb happy ending and guess who forced those things into the film?

>My deleted scene trumps the writer

Not an argument, just kys

The writer also wrote that deleted scene, you dumbass.

>I don't know anything about this movie. Should I do some research? Nah, I'll just assume it was an editing room disaster. What's that, the studio fucked up? That can't be true, my blind assumption is obviously the truth.
Are you fucking retarded?

The Final Cut, as that's Ridley's definitive edition of the movie. But you can also watch either one of the theatrical cuts in order to see the differences.

Scott also said that the engineers hate humans because they killed Jesus. He's a hack.

too bad the studios got it right and the theatrical version is superior than scotts autism cut

Removed the vo and it really is better

voice over is kino, you're just a pleb

>horrible narration
>dumb happy ending
Nope, Ridley's cuts are superior.

The narration adds some old school noir charm to the film but it damages the emotional impact of Batty's death scene.

Deckard being human or replicant isn't really important. What is important is humanity, not if that said humanity is a trait in a man or a machine.

In the end the replicants are more human than the humans who hunt them. The Blade Runners have lost their humanity as they refuse to see the sentience in the replicants, who have grown past of being mere machines.

Deckard finds the humanity from himself, when a machine he hunts ends up saving him, valuing life more than he had. While he had doubts about his job before this case, he is now truly finished and is able to leave the old world behind.

>take the final cut
>remove the unicorn scene
There now everyone is happy. It's a pretty easy fix.

>take the finale cut
>throw it in a fire
>watch a superior movie like wonder woman
there now everyone is happy. it's a pretty easy fix

Scott probably has George Lucas syndrome.
Or maybe he's getting too old.

holy shit just ignore this guy
it has to be bait noone is this stupid right?

The point is that it doesn't matter

...

You're mixing in something that was a lot more prominent in the book but didn't have as much of a place in the movie. The point isn't just that the Blade Runners have lost their humanity in their blind assassination of replicants but that at this point, replicants are just as human as any human being. If what separated man from machine was empathy but the latter has bridged that gap, is there a difference? Does it matter? The movie doesn't really answer the question, it just poses it. The viewer is left to decide to himself whether or not hunting down replicants is right or wrong at that point. Deckard gives his answer when he leaves with Rachel, but that's just the culmination of his development and it's not framed in such a way that the audience is forced to agree with it.

The ambiguity of Deckard's own origin and nature adds on to this theme. Does it really matter if he's a replicants or if he's human? Does that change the events we witnessed him experienced? Does it mean his thoughts and emotions matter any less than the next person's?

I don't think a work should answer the philosophical questions it raises in an absolute manner. Obviously it should give an answer or even a few, but when there is no empirically evident answer it's better not to answer at all than force your own world-view or ideology on the viewer.

>Every single faggot nowadays boils this whole movie down to "le dickurd is/isn't le replicant le le xD"

Fucking kill yourselves.

So wait the replicants all were going to die at the end of the film anyways?

Wasn't Batty the oldest of the bunch? If he was then the others wouldn't have died at the end.

What's your point?