ROTTEN TOMATOES: Ridley Scott on Blade Runner: The Final Cut: The RT Interview Comments

Ridley Scott on Blade Runner: The Final Cut: The RT Interview

by Tim Ryan | December 18, 2007

Summary

With the DVD release of Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Ridley Scott has once again revisited his masterpiece, subtly reframing one of the most hotly-discussed films of all time. In this roundtable interview, Scott talks about the different versions of Blade Runner, the lack of quality in recent sci-fi writing, and how the fanboys helped to champion the film. Back to Article

(1-50 of 50 posts) | Reply

Hamboner writes:
on Dec 18 2007 05:29 PM

Wow... no shortage of esteem for his own genius. Not here.

(Reply to this)

witherwings writes:
on Dec 18 2007 06:04 PM

He's taking credit for the story. PKD wrote it, and his version was pretty freaking genius and much better than the movie version of the story. So... I find all of this praise for Blade Runner quaint; multiply it times 100, and that's what "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" deserves.

(Reply to this)

witherwings writes:
on Dec 18 2007 06:09 PM

And before anyone lectures me about how books and movies are different mediums, I know. I just didn't like the movie because I felt it was SUB-PAR for sci-fi, not genius at all. The story was stripped of all the ethical undertones that makes sci-fi the uniquely poignant genre it is.

(Reply to this)

maidenman writes:
on Dec 18 2007 09:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#1372100)
Gotta be honest the poster above me has some good points but really falls short in terms of saying that the film fell short of the novel's ethical overtones. Blade Runner is one of the best films ever made not simply visually but for the sole fact that so many films that have come after it try so hard to do what Blade Runner did so easy which is ask the question: what makes us human? This is simply one of the most controversal and most polarizing questions of our time and Blade Runner the film is able to deliver in the fastest and best way possible. Blade Runner's success though isnt just asking the question but letting the audience have all the years to find the answer that in it of itself is great art.

(Reply to this)

harrismonkey writes:
on Dec 19 2007 02:01 AM

I haven't read enough PKD to have a fair opinion, but I have read some and almost all of what I read seems pretty dated. (I have not read do androids dream however)

Bladerunner continues to get under my skin after all these years.

That's just me. But I'm certainly not the only one who regards this film as a masterpiece.

(Reply to this)

harrismonkey writes:
on Dec 19 2007 02:05 AM

As far as Scott's opinion of himself- it's always very funny. Listen to his commentary tracks and it is very clear he thinks he's brilliant.

On the other hand the man's managed to have a 30 year career with consistently high grossing well received films and a handful of bonafied classics scattered across that career. It would be nice if he was a little more humble about it- but he's certainly got something figured out.

He's not the best and brightest we have, but he's up there.

(Reply to this)

citizenjames writes:
on Dec 19 2007 05:58 AM

WITHERWINGS makes excellent points but i agree with something roger ebert said years ago which is movies aren't bad because they are bad adaptations of books, movies are bad because they are bad movies. i just listened to a podcast from KRCW THE TREATMENT (highly recommended) and tony gilroy (screenwriter for the BOURNE TRILOGY) admits that after the scene in the safe deposit vault in the first IDENTITY, the movies have NOTHING to do with the books. at least he admits it and people love those movies (i, not so much, but people love them).

scott is fairly consistent and that any director is relevant thirty years into a career is mindboggling; at best most are good for fifteen. the truth is no one is clamoring for an anniversary special edition of ANDROIDS or let's make a new movie because that version sucked like their doing with HULK, PUNISHER, TOTAL RECALL or DUNE.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Dec 19 2007 06:47 AM

i saw the final cut in the theater a couple weeks ago. while some of the visuals had been nicely polished (not undermined by blatant cgi like the star wars special editions)and the sound mix was powerful, i still hated the score at certain points.

The movie is commended for being so far ahead of its time, but the blaring synthesizer in key moments (such as when that skin job chick in the plastic coat gets blasted and then falls through the glass panels) plants the film squarely in the 80's. While the appearance of the movie still holds up, the music is decidedly dated. That jarring synth is not only hard to listen to, it snaps you out of the future and back into the time of the film's creation.

(Reply to this)

BrianInSD writes:
on Dec 19 2007 09:52 AM

In reply to this comment (#1373757)
"the music is decidedly dated. That jarring synth is not only hard to listen to, it snaps you out of the future and back into the time of the film's creation"

To me the score evokes a combination of new age music and film noir scores from the 1940's, mirroring Blade Runner's Future Noir concept. IMHO, Vangelis's music works perfectly for this movie and it's one of my all-time favorite film scores.

(Reply to this)

Racer Z writes:
on Dec 19 2007 11:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1372095)
Witherwings, Ridley Scott never took credit for the story. He commented on the great writing, but never took credit for it. And Blade Runner is chock full of ethical undertones. That's part of the point to the story. I understand that the film isn't your cup of tea, and that's fine, but the simple fact is that BR has had a HUGE influence on science fiction in the last 25 years. For good of bad, there's no denying the impact this film had.

(Reply to this)

DON OF THE D.E.D writes:
on Dec 19 2007 12:42 PM

I'm just curious on how many times one movie needs to be cut or have or supposedly hbe different?

(Reply to this)

Mr.Enigma writes:
on Dec 19 2007 03:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1375142)
Well, the interview was based on Blade Runner, so I think it's safe to asume that when he talked about a great story, he was talking about Blade Runner, not Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep. And it's not like the guy makes super original stuff. Look at Kingdom Of Heaven, Black Hawk Down, and American Gangster. All based on real events. Not incredibly original. I'm not saying Blade Runner is a bad film, in fact, it's an excellent film. I just think the guy has a huge ego.

(Reply to this)

MC. writes:
on Dec 19 2007 04:26 PM

Synth is not 80's...as it will likely return.

(Reply to this)

SpencerBenedict writes:
on Dec 19 2007 06:03 PM

REMOVE THE VOICEOVER?!? Is it just me or is this possibly going to bother anybody else? When Deckard and Rachael are flying off together toward the end of the movie, Rick Deckard in a voiceover says what i consider, for me, one of the moist poignant and moving lines of the film. Pondering and questioning how long Rachael may live, he says something to the affect, "I don't know how much time we'll have left together," and answers himself with a simple, "Who does?" Every time i watch this movie, this line never ceases to hit me hard, making me ever grateful for the Love of my life, my beautiful daughter and all the days i am blessed to share with them. I remember very vividly seeing the 1st release in a theatre back in '82. I was a sophmore in High School and a bit of Sci-Fi & Horror fanatic, the Special Effects and atmosphere just blew me away. The look and mood of this movie was light years ahead of its time and i really can't think of anything comparable up and through today. Looking forward to buying what i hope is finally the last 'version.' If any BR fanatics out there have seen this newest 'cut', please let me know if my favorite line has been removed so i can prepare myself. -S.B.

(Reply to this)

sittingbison@codezed.com. writes:
on Dec 19 2007 07:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#1376516)
SpencerBenedict, I understand your view of the voice over, but unfortunately it was added at the behest of the studio who thought the story too difficult to understand for the average viewer. It completely negates the actual point of the film, namely is Rick the android (rather than Rachel). The vital unicorn dream and origami were also originally cut by execs, which didn't help matters.

cheers
bison

(Reply to this)

rt_hire_me writes:
on Dec 19 2007 10:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#1376817)
Sorry, I liked the voiceover too, and I've heard pundits rant about Ford's lazy and uninspired monotone. It helped me connect with the character. The detective was tired and overworked, so the voice was true to the character. I liked Sabrina too. I'm really losing credibility here.

(Reply to this)

overthehead writes:
on Dec 20 2007 10:58 AM

He didn't really say how it was different from the Director's Cut that's been available for over a decade.

That took out the voice-over and the tacked-on happy ending.

So how is this version any different from the one I rented on VHS in 1997? Yes, I got that on DVD too. I don't see why I'd buy this version.

(Reply to this)

w@velength writes:
on Dec 20 2007 01:53 PM

Philip Dick was a master storyteller, but not that great of a writer. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" was one of the most boring books I've ever read. Clumsy pacing and ridiculous plot twists. As usual, the film adaptations of his work vastly improve on what he started. If he were alive today I'm sure he would identify and appreciate this fact.

I think this was a very honest interview.

(Reply to this)

harrismonkey writes:
on Dec 20 2007 10:26 PM

As far as the voice over, I honestly can't remember it any more. I'm kinda looking forward to watching the original theatrical cut again (this is the first it's been available in at least 15 years).

I don't miss the voiceover, but I have noticed that most of the film's hardcore fans actually first saw the film WITH the voice over. Yes they all say it's better without it, but the fact that people who first saw the film without the voice over don't seem to like it anywhere near as much makes me suspicious that at least someone's first viewing perhaps should be with the voice over.

I don't know much about the new cut (I'll see it soon), but I'm not hearing indications it's that different from the last cut. Honestly I'm far more excited about seeing the workprint (which is why I ordered the expensive version). It sounds like there's a lot of very cool stuff in there that appears no where else (unless maybe they're included as deleted scenes?).

(Reply to this)

features1 writes:
on Dec 21 2007 07:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#1376516)
I'm sure that Harrison Ford must make his trademark smirk to himself every time he reads about his voiceover in BR. Because the studio forced the issue and made Scott add that element, Ford admitted at the time that he purposefully read the lines with as much of a dry, laconic read as possible. He never thought (he claims) that the studio would go for it because of his terrible performance of the voiceover. FYI

(Reply to this)

features1 writes:
on Dec 21 2007 07:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#1376516)
I'm sure that Harrison Ford must make his trademark smirk to himself every time he reads about his voiceover in BR. Because the studio forced the issue and made Scott add that element, Ford admitted at the time that he purposefully read the lines with as much of a dry, laconic interpretation as possible. He never thought (he claims) that the studio would go for it because of his terrible performance of the voiceover. FYI--no judgment.

(Reply to this)

features1 writes:
on Dec 21 2007 10:40 AM

Sorry about the repeat above--first timer.

(Reply to this)

rekroom writes:
on Dec 21 2007 10:45 AM

Renegade replicants who senselessly terrorize and murder their makers. You can't wait for Deckard to snuff out these robots. This is standard bounty hunter material. What makes it transcendent is when you discover why these replicants are killing their makers. Suddenly, the script is flipped, and you actually sympathize with their plight. And then Deckard falls in love with one...and realizes that he may be a replicant himself. All of this unfolds with seemless pacing. What's not genius about this material?

(Reply to this)

SpencerBenedict writes:
on Dec 21 2007 12:40 PM

sittingbison, i appreciate your comments and it will be nice to view the film as Scott truely envisioned it, then or now, without studio heads/execs interference.

(Reply to this)

peterius writes:
on Dec 21 2007 12:57 PM

Witherwings is on the mark with this one. Blade Runner was a decent movie, even a classic great movie but it doesn't deserve a second re-edit/re-release 25 years later. This is clearly just for money.

The PKD story was much deeper. All the stuff about Mercerism (sp?) was completely absent from bladerunner which came down to a standard action movie with bits of philosophy thrown in.

I won't say that Ridley Scott is hyping this at the expense of PKD's story simply because the movie was such a totally free interpretation. But at the same time, any lasting value the movie has did come from the book.

(Reply to this)

Filmguy450 writes:
on Dec 21 2007 04:09 PM

In reply to this comment (#1382983)
Any lasting value this movie has comes from the book? No, not at all. As a huge sci-fi fan (in TV, books and movies) I do disagree, mainly because this film also has a lasting value in terms of look, atmosphere, and mood. Not only has this film insired pretty much all sci-fi films since it's release, it's the only one that has gotten it really really right.

(Reply to this)

Filmguy450 writes:
on Dec 21 2007 04:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#1382983)
Any lasting value this movie has comes from the book? No, not at all. As a huge sci-fi fan (in TV, books and movies) I do disagree, mainly because this film also has a lasting value in terms of look, atmosphere, and mood. Not only has this film insired pretty much all sci-fi films since it's release, it's the only one that has gotten it really really right.

(Reply to this)

Heckboy writes:
on Dec 22 2007 03:32 PM

I agree with w@velength. I've read a few PKD novels, among them "Do Androids Dream...", and I saw (only) the original version of Blade Runner. I found the book tedious, due mainly to the religious subplot. Removing that element and concentrating on the gritty, futuristic action element was IMHO a vast improvement. I think this is one of those rare cases where the movie was better than the book.

(Reply to this)

Pleomax writes:
on Jan 01 2008 06:27 PM

I find Tony Scott the more fascinating of the bros.

Ridley scott is rather cocky, and rather overrated. Alien, man go see it again, dumbest movie ever, it's dumb people making dumb decisions at every corner, even the Alien makes dumb decisions.

Ever wondered why every horror movie seems to rely on stupidity? Because Alien was a hit. Aliens beats the crap out of it.

I think ever since Blade Runner that Ridley scott hasn't pushed the envelope once, so it's funny to see him mock other's on their lack of originality. Get over yourself.

(Reply to this)

bateman619 writes:
on Jan 02 2008 09:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#1417299)
Pleomax writes:
on Jan 01 2008 06:27 PM

>>>I find Tony Scott the more fascinating of the bros.

(Reply to this)

bateman619 writes:
on Jan 02 2008 09:17 PM

In reply to this comment (#1417299)
Oh really? Tony Scott (Top Gun, Man on Fire, Spy Game) more fascinating than his more prolific and genre-spanning brother who did, just for starters, Alien, Thelma and Louise, and Gladiator?

OK, both cashed in with sequels, but at least Ridley Scott did the sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Tony Scott did the sequel to Beverly Hills Cop! Doh!

(Reply to this)

bryonpav writes:
on Jan 02 2008 11:19 PM

Ridley Scott is such a joke... he thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

(Reply to this)

thetruebastard writes:
on Jan 03 2008 08:49 PM

Blade Runner literally changed the way many movies look. Arguing against its visual innovation and genius is almost denying the existence of hundreds of latter films, some of which were very good ("Dark City" comes to mind, as does "Batman").

(Reply to this)

thetruebastard writes:
on Jan 03 2008 10:08 PM

Also, I started reading "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and couldn't get past the first couple of pages. The book was so self-important and self-conscious about its thematic material that it seemed like a community college paper.

(Reply to this)

RainNIU writes:
on Jan 04 2008 09:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1382045)
LoL, that's awesome. It's funny when you try to do your worst and some idiot thinks your brilliant.

...kind of like emo music.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Jan 07 2008 03:47 AM

Blade Runner's significance and impact can not be debated. Many films were influenced or copied its look - as mentioned by other posters. Ridley Scott's ego, the score, and how successful the film was/is can be debated. I think it was successful on all counts. Sure, Ridley has a big ego - but for my money - with only a few misses, he does great work. Also, I like the non-VO much better.

(Reply to this)

flipflap writes:
on Jan 07 2008 05:57 AM

Deckard is a replicant

(Reply to this)

Tektoy writes:
on Jan 07 2008 09:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#1382983)
Of course the other good reason for a re-release, is to drum up money and/or support for a sequel, if I recall Mr Scott was laughed out of the room by studio heads over a BR sequel shortly after the originals release.
So who knows, maybe someone in movieland has decided its finally time to let him make it.

(Reply to this)

skysaxon writes:
on Jan 08 2008 03:57 PM

Androids was easy. It told you what to think. Blade Runner makes you feel, probe and wonder. Very hard for book readers to understand.

(Reply to this)

motar22001 writes:
on Jan 08 2008 06:35 PM

I never really was a big fan of the film's rather lethargic pacing, but I love the way that the story played out, and I like the fact that, while it is indicated pretty clearly, it's possible to watch the movie without even realizing that Deckard is a replicant.

(Reply to this)

thunderlippps writes:
on Jan 09 2008 06:00 AM

In reply to this comment (#1445217)
"Androids was easy. It told you what to think. Blade Runner makes you feel, probe and wonder. Very hard for book readers to understand. "

Lol @ hard for readers to understand. Sounds more like books are difficult for MTV kids.

(Reply to this)

darklordwhite writes:
on Jan 09 2008 09:33 AM

In reply to this comment (#1372100)
Ridley Scott is a wanker for trying to take credit for the story of Blade Runner. He talks about originality, but there's little originality in this script. The BOOK is cutting edge and very fresh, even if the writing is obvious and at times clunky. The movie, however, has to be one of the most overrated in history--even moreso than the grossly inflated Gladiator. Scott seems like a walking stereotype of Hollywood ego and self-importance. I read another interview with him in which he claims to never have even read the book, an attitude that reeks of arrogance and ignorance. While the book raises real, interesting, philosophical and metaphysical issues, the movie is a simple hunt with a couple of twists. There is nothing mind-bending about the movie.

(Reply to this)

Aragorn_499 writes:
on Jan 09 2008 02:33 PM

I have long loved Blade Runner. I loved it first in its theatrical version, voice-over and all. When the director's cut was later released, I could not make up my mind which version I preferred. The voice-over gave the movie an old-fashioned feel, and I sentimentally liked the hopeful ending. I also didn't know what to make of the unicorn scene and all the "Is Deckard a replicant?" questions which that scene provokes.

This past Christmas I was given a copy of the Final Edition. This version is now my favorite version. The movie is more visually beautiful than ever, and the "correction" of Zhora's death scene is seamlessly achieved. The stunt double was so obvious in the original and always bothered me. Now it is clear that Johanna Cassidy is the one who is crashing through the windows. Was Deckard a replicant? Certainly Ridley Scott believes that he was--he even goes so far as to say that with the release of the final edition that the signs are so obvious that only a moron could not see them--but though the hints are there, they remain subtle. Blade Runner lovers will continue to debate the matter. I highly recommend the final edition.

Does Ridley Scott have a huge ego? Absolutely! The man is a genius and he knows it. But only a person with a huge ego could have created this movie within the Hollywood system.

(Reply to this)

thunderlippps writes:
on Jan 10 2008 04:22 AM

I wouldn't give ridley to hard of a time. What he did visually was groundbreaking and unique among his peers. He has not aged well creatively and I suspect he has lost his mind when he stated that deckard is a replicant and MTV is responsible for the films continued popularity. But having 2 or arguably more classics on your resume is still better than a lot of directors can say. And as far as some peoples assertion that the movie is greater than the book,
thats not true.
The book is superior in many ways and the movie is superior in its own way. In fact its really sandpaper and apples. The movie is barely based on the book at all except for surface details. The various scripts were actually very interesting in a more cyberpunk way than the novel was, but a lot of that was omitted before it got to screen by interference from the hollywood producers. I think BR could have been twice the movie it turned out to be if it had been filmed in england or canada.

(Reply to this)

TheSpaniard writes:
on Jan 11 2008 07:00 PM

The opening of this article is aweful. I mean, down right negligent.

A bounty hunter?....Androids?.....A cult following?...When was this Tim guy born, two weeks ago? Has he even seen this movie or simply looked at the log lines of the DVD album?

Replicants, or artificially created humans, not androids. A big deal because it is the main point of the film... Without that clear distinction, the ending of the films makes no sense.

Bounty Hunter? No, a retired Blade Runner...It is the TITLE of the film for crying out loud.

And a cult following?...A cult following is what John Waters gets or people who listens to The Resident are. This film , back in the 1980's was HUGE. I mean, not Star Wars huge, but very big. There was nothing "cultish" about a major Hollywood film with famous actors (back on those days Harrison Ford ruled the world), directed by a main stream director at the peak of his career. And in Europe at the time, Vangelis was as well known as Van Halen.

Nothing I hate most that poor writen online fluff that passes for journalism. Lazy slackers.

(Reply to this)

Orbius writes:
on Jan 12 2008 12:00 PM

No wonder Ridley gave him a hard time, and boosted himself. The guy interviewing him was a douchebag.

(Reply to this)

DON OF THE D.E.D writes:
on Jan 14 2008 01:18 PM

No wonder this movie sucks, it makes you feel, probe and wonder!How gay!

(Reply to this)

mjkoos writes:
on Jan 14 2008 02:19 PM

saw the movie in theaters years ago and must agree w/ the above poster who mentions this was not a movie w/ cult-like following. it was fairly mainstream, very popular, and starred actors who were already well known "stars". a real cult movie: rocky horror picture show. also don't agree with the so-called impact this film had on others in its genre that would follow. if that were true, then all the subsequent movies of the same genre would have equally moving production design, subtle characterizations and underlying tones and messages. but not so...most are drivel because, like it or not, that's what sells. simple-minded, easily discernible storylines with sets that are all CGI w/ little actual tone or feeling just like the most recent star wars efforts (I,II & III). actually the PKD books when translated to film are good sci-fi and arguably (in my opinion) the best available. but they need to keep all sci-fi out of Spielbergs hands as he just wants to "disney-fy" all the endings like he did w/ "A.I." and "Minority Report", both of which would have been much better (though darker) w/o the happy endings tacked on.

(Reply to this)

Chromatose writes:
on Jan 19 2008 05:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#1372095)
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" genius?!

I read the book a couple years before i saw the movie and the film was refreshing. The book was one of the slowest, most tedious i've ever read. I was bored rigid.

(Reply to this)

00101001 writes:
on Jan 25 2008 12:36 PM

I loved this movie...with the voice-over. I always thought that it added a hard-boiled pulp detective feel to the film, and was disappointed when the 90's video release ditched it.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Blade Runner - The Final Cut

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links