Dear Mister Ridley Scott
Sir, how dare you?
You have taken liberty with one of the classics of American 20th Century cinema, yet again. The first Blade Runner movie you made was a work of not just genius but inspirational art. Then you just had to come out with a director's cut. Fine, we could see what you were trying to portray with that by removing the voice overs, which to my own liking added quite a bit to the movie. But the removal of them did not diminish the overall impact. But now, you have gone too far.
I made time to check my facts before I posted this unlike many of my kneejerk reactionary statements I may or may not have made over time. Acording to IMDB.com the writers were Philip K. Dick (novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?") Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples (as David Peoples). No where does it list your name. Only as a director are you mentioned, not even as a co-contributor but only as an uncredited co-producer. Nice job by your agent by the way, letting you take uncredited credit for something you may or may not have done. Any more vague and you might as well run for public office. Here is where the second problem lies. The count was "5 skinjobs" not 4 as you had edited in. 5 count them 5, not 4. Why did you take it upon yourself to change the script? Was it because with the Writers Guild of America being on strike you thought no one would notice? Here begins the lone voice in the darkness. I did notice the small (almost microscopic) changes from the directors cut, a far superior film to what you just released. Is there some sort of problem in Hollywood with Harrison Ford and his charicters? This needs to end. Here it is sweetheart : Han shot first, Decker could be a Replicant. Deal. Maybe your next endeavor should be a re-cut of Aliens as well. I am sure you could make a chunk of money off of it if you could somehow work NASCAR into it , as I am sure you originally intended. Perhaps a big number 3 on the rear of the escape ship or maybe a NASCAR logo tattooed on Ripley's behind.
I believe you do not deserve an Oscar for this re-cut but instead a swift, hard kick with a steel toed boot in the soft parts of your neither regions.
I am glad I took the time to mellow out a bit before posting.
Till next time,
Be mindful and awake
You have taken liberty with one of the classics of American 20th Century cinema, yet again. The first Blade Runner movie you made was a work of not just genius but inspirational art. Then you just had to come out with a director's cut. Fine, we could see what you were trying to portray with that by removing the voice overs, which to my own liking added quite a bit to the movie. But the removal of them did not diminish the overall impact. But now, you have gone too far.
I made time to check my facts before I posted this unlike many of my kneejerk reactionary statements I may or may not have made over time. Acording to IMDB.com the writers were Philip K. Dick (novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?") Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples (as David Peoples). No where does it list your name. Only as a director are you mentioned, not even as a co-contributor but only as an uncredited co-producer. Nice job by your agent by the way, letting you take uncredited credit for something you may or may not have done. Any more vague and you might as well run for public office. Here is where the second problem lies. The count was "5 skinjobs" not 4 as you had edited in. 5 count them 5, not 4. Why did you take it upon yourself to change the script? Was it because with the Writers Guild of America being on strike you thought no one would notice? Here begins the lone voice in the darkness. I did notice the small (almost microscopic) changes from the directors cut, a far superior film to what you just released. Is there some sort of problem in Hollywood with Harrison Ford and his charicters? This needs to end. Here it is sweetheart : Han shot first, Decker could be a Replicant. Deal. Maybe your next endeavor should be a re-cut of Aliens as well. I am sure you could make a chunk of money off of it if you could somehow work NASCAR into it , as I am sure you originally intended. Perhaps a big number 3 on the rear of the escape ship or maybe a NASCAR logo tattooed on Ripley's behind.
I believe you do not deserve an Oscar for this re-cut but instead a swift, hard kick with a steel toed boot in the soft parts of your neither regions.
I am glad I took the time to mellow out a bit before posting.
Till next time,
Be mindful and awake
posted by Bryian at 12:03 PM
1 Comments:
Haven't yet seen the new release, but I can address a couple things.
The whole thing with changing it from 5 to 4 skinjobs walking the streets had a lot to do with the fact that in the shooting script, there was another Replicant named Mary, (I believe...Would make sense considering all of the Messiah imagery that Scott added to the Replicants.)
Her scenes were never shot. It's somewhat apocryphal that either the scene was cut AFTER they shot the scene with Deckard and Bryant, OR that the revision never made it into the shooting script, and they never relooped Bryant's dialog.
As to writing credit, there were SEVERAL uncredited writers on BladeRunner, and Ridley DID have an INCREDIBLE amount of input on the script, but received no writing credit because he is not a WGA member, (and we shall see what THAT is worth in the next few months,) and his contract CLEARLY STIPULATED EXACTLY how he would be credited long before he micromanaged the fuck out the film.
As to the voiceover removal, Ridley NEVER wanted that. When he showed his workprint to the studio, they couldn't follow the story, and so they insisted that it be added to the theatrical release.
Harrison was 100% against it as well, and purposefully gave a rather bored, uninspired reading, hoping that the studio would change their minds. Instead, as you have observed, it adds to the somewhat world-weary Noir Dectective Story feel the film already had.
So, it was naturally cut from Ridley's original director's cut.
Ridley ALWAYS liked the idea of Deckard being a replicant. He's never given a real answer to the question, but has repeatedly said, "it's an interesting idea." Ultimate in Post-Modern Noir. Guy hunts down and kills things that he is completely unaware that he himself is.
It's also somewhat apocryphal to state that the IMPLICATION that Deckard himself was a replicant was even intentional. The whole error with "4/5 skinjobs" was a mistake, and the thought that perhaps the shot in the director's cut where Rachael has come to Deckard's apartment and there is a brief shot in which Deckard's eyes reflect in the same way that the replicant's do might have been unintentional as well.
Harrison NEVER liked the idea. He believed it was impossible for an audience to sympathize with a character that wasn't even real. But I think that's part of what makes Bladerunner the brilliant film that it is;
All of these different interpretations might never have been intended by the producers, but have been retrofitted into continuity, allowing audiences to draw even deeper meaning from Ridley's manic, somewhat ambiguous imagery. And they have left their mark on the industry forever.
Without that Post-Modern, Deconstructionist Neo-Noir idea of Deckard hunting down something that he is himself, but it unaware of set the foundations for other brilliant films like "The Sixth Sense," "Memento" and countless others.
Most of my source material for the above was culled many moons ago from the Bladerunner Usenet Newsgroup, and also from the book "Future Noir: The Making of Bladerunner" by Paul Sammon. Very good read for Bladerunner fans, (and if you want to borrow it, Bry. Let me know, and I'll dig it up.)
Post a Comment
<< Home