Original Ending of Blade Runner

Filmic travesty or filmic horror? You decide.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• blade
• runner
• cyberpunk
• harrison
• ford
• ridley
• scott
• phillip
• k
• dick

[Buteyboy]

the reason why this ending isn't as good is because it ruins the noir element of the film....the whole film up to this point has been concerned with hero's with flaws (a bit like an anti-hero) and so to add happiness to the ending makes it too obvious....the shadyness of the real original ending (ie the one that ends outside the elevator) gives a final kick as the momementum is built up to create another plot line that can be constructed by the viewer as soon as the credits start rolling

[truetoon]

glad i've never seen this ending or i blocked it out :)

[desertengineer1]

I kind of liked the original detective narration. The director's cut simplified it down to watching Deckard get his a** kicked repeatedly for two hours, and a less cerebral storyline.

[Mi436]

what a crappy ending.Stupid Hollywood

[k9platnum68]

This the worst thing I have ever seen.

[steamednotfried]

lol, yup, that sucks.

[MadHighway]

@Superfreaxx

Two wrongs don't make a right!

[Superfreaxx]

@MadHighway

The DC was the studios attempt to cash in a sold out screening of the workprint in 1990. They offered Scott the chance to do the edit DC himself, however he was too busy with Thelma & Louise and 1492. So as a compromise, the studio did the editing on their own with Scotts approval.

[MadHighway]

@Superfreaxx

Hmmm, the film I saw in 1992 in the theatre was called 'Blade Runner - The Director's Cut' and was touted as Ridley Scott's 'original intention' by Scott himself.

[Superfreaxx]

@MadHighway

Scott did not do the DC though. DC was a rush job by the studios.

[MadHighway]

@lycia69

Scott had his vision, and that vision got tweaked, and the studio released 'BR' in 1982, and that is the original, definitive version. There was no 'BR' before that release date.

[lycia69]

@MadHighway You can argue all you want about what is released to theaters. But the simple fact remains, the director is the true vision, whether you like it or not, behind each movie. NOT the producers, not the finance people, and not the studio. I know some movies do this, but how many times have you watched a movie based on the fact that it was produced by someone vs who directed it? Scott had a vision, the studio farked it and released. That was not his movie.