I own the four disc collectors edition which has all cuts except for the workprint. I have viewed all of the versions I have, yet I don't know which cut I want to show to a friend of mine who is interested in seeing it.My personal favorite cut is the Final Cut because it corrects continuity mistakes, looks amazing, has the full unicorn scene, and lets you really think deeply about if But the Final Cut is vague at explaining characters names and such, so I'm thinking about showing him the International cut because it has the narration which will definitly help a newcomer (I started with the Director's Cut and I was lost). The only issues I have with it is that the Unicorn dream isn't there (anyone who's seen it will understand) and the happy ending is there, so I'm totally torn. Which cut of Blade Runner is best to show to a new viewer: US Theatrical Cut, International Cut, Director's Cut, or The Final Cut?

the Final Cut. if you have a hard time remembering names...it's you, not the movie. it doesn't need to say their names many times.

Original theatrical cut...it's still my favorite of the various versions and it's still the one that's the most ambigious about Deckard being a replicant. And, dammit, I LOVE those voiceovers (I don't care what you say!).

Most names are said in the Final Cut except for Gaff (not knowing his name does add mystery). I am fine with names but I was just saying that some characters never have their names said. There wasn't a moment in any cut of the film that said the Deckard's first name is Rick.

Seconded. The voiceovers were actually a good edition to the film from the perspective of making the film accessible to viewers.

Final Cut.


/thread

The Final Cut. It moves a bit faster (early Ridley can plod a bit) and smoother than the choppier 1992 "Director's Cut".

No too mention they fix the stuntwoman wig double thing with the actual actress who played Zora. Man, Joanna Cassidy is a cougar now.

Have him/her watch the Theatrical version first. This is the version that became a cult classic in the first place, the one that long-time fans first fell in love with and garnered a strong following of die-hard, ardent devotees years before there was any inkling of an idea for a "Director's Cut". Before any CGI doves or color fine-tuning. It's an important piece of cinema, like the original theatrical Star Wars films, not to mention the most ambiguous and Noir-ish of all the versions. After that, recommend they watch The Final Cut. This is the best way for a newcomer to experience Blade Runner imo. But really, you can't go wrong with any of the half-dozen versions. They are all fantastic and each have their own specific merits, even the Workprint.

I love the voiceovers because it's makes it a futuristic pulp novel, a 21st century Philip Marlowe noir tale.

Bryant mentions his name shortly after Zhora is retired. "Could learn from this guy, Gaff. He's a goddamned one-man slaughterhouse, that's what he is." Doesn't take anything from the mystery of the character though, I agree. Always found him a fascinating character who raises numerous questions with only a couple of lines and ambiguous looks, like where his taunting and initial animosity for Deckard comes from.

Which theatrical cut? From what I recall, the International Theatrical just adds back in some violence that was cut from the US Theatrical for ratings purposes.

It's perhaps more ambiguous about Dekard's nature, but it's less ambiguous about other things. Happy ending anyone? Not to mention that the voiceover narration makes some subtext explicit.

Ridley Scott liked the idea of a voiceover too, and actually had 3 different voiceover scripts recorded before largely abandoning the idea. Then the producers locked Scott out of the recording studio and wrote and recorded a new voiceover script, which is what was used in the theatrical cuts.

I think people like the idea of the voiceover more than what the voiceover script adds to the story. I'm not sue why people think that it needs a voiceover to feel like a noir. Chinatown is the prototypical neo-noir, and it does fine without a voiceover.

For the Theatrical Cut, some scenes ran long in order to fit the voiceover narration. For the '92 Director's Cut they removed the voiceover, but didn't have time to trim down the scenes to flow better without it. The '92 cut was okay as a stopgap measure, but with the Final Cut out now, I don't see a reason for anyone to watch it as their first viewing of Blade Runner, or even 3rd or 4th.

I agree!

Well being the worlds biggest fan of this movie i have to say start with the Final Cut. Then after show the original Theatrical Cut. No need then for the International or Directors Cut.

I personally would have loved to see the Final Cut with the voice over kept in. I am one of the few who really liked the voice over. Because Harrison Ford did not want to do the recording and in doing so read the words in a fashion he felt would never make it into the movie he seemed to actually make it fit the character. Deckard is a man (or replicant) who is tired of existing and has no purpose. The voice over matches this perfectly.

And for some reason that happy ending drive makes me smile because it makes me think of the request that they put in to Stanley Kubrick for some footage of mountains that he had taken for "The Shining" and he sent them a ridiculous amount of film to go through. All just for some happy end credits. Good footage though all the same.

Depends on the person. If they like noirish movies, then go with the theatrical version, as it fits the mold better IMO. But still show them the Final Cut. It's really neat to see how one movie can be two different films.

I'd go with the watercolor version:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KiPNMTKgn0Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I agree with this. Watch the US theatrical first.

Then the Final Cut to see what it was transformed in to.

The Final Cut really is the best version of the film, but it's impossible to appreciate the improvements unless you've seen the first cut.

well in a bit of interesting - really cool news for anyone interested in seeing the US theatrical cut, the 'Director's Cut' ... and the Final Cut: next month's Environmental Film Festival in the Nation's Capital is showing all three cuts at the AFI Silver (March 20: US cut [7:15pm] / 'Director's Cut' [9:45pm] and 21st 'Final Cut' [9:00])

When he's right, he's right.

The thread is old but I'd say go with the international cut, and skip forward to the credits after the elevator door closes.

I hate the voiceover one and always go to Frank Darabont, as he eloquently explains why it sucks, too.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iTndn5v2xKo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Does he explain why SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION sucks also?

The Final Cut is the greatest film of all time, why bother watching an inferior version?

Still glad the other versions are available, however.

Your face sucks. Also, if Morgan Freeman had narrated then I would take my post back.