Which cut of Blade Runner is best for a beginner?

BLADE?

Theatrical. Regardless of which cut it is, it's a cut of one of the best movies ever made. A beginner wouldn't really notice the difference except the big one in the directors one.

>>81712068
The theatrical is fucked up.

>>81712068
Absolutely fucking WRONG
Do not listen to this guy. The narration in the theatrical version is legendarily bad.

Always watch the director's preferred cut. Which for BR is the final cut.

File: 1492187390050.gif (2MB, 235x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 235x240px

>>81711989
Final Cut. It's the best version regardless in my opinion.

There are things I like about all versions, but Final is where it's at for me personally.

>>81711989
Directors cut always regardless of experience

>>81712068
Disregard this retard opinion
There's a reason why the Theatrical Cut got bad reviews when it came out. The narration added in by the studio is atrocious, it wasn't Ridley Scott's idea nor was Harrison Ford passionate about revisiting the production for that. The "happy" ending they gave the film is bullshit.

Just watch the Final Cut. It's the truest version of the film. The other cuts can be seen afterwards to view the movie as a work in process.

>>81712159
The "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner is not a true directors cut. It is based on notes from Scott but made without his real involvement. Only the Final Cut was made with the director's full supervision and approval.

Op all you need to know is, the studio forced them to add a bunch of narration no one wanted into the theatrical version. Harrison Ford even read it poorly because he was doing it under protest and was hoping they wouldn't use it. So you want to see any version of than that one. I'd go with Final Cut, it looks great.

>>81712068
Leave fucking now REEEEEEEEEEE

File: Blade-Runner-Whiskey-Glass1.jpg (195KB, 647x516px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 647x516px

>>81712137
>>81711989
Oh, and another thing, check out Dangerous Days after you watch the film. It's a great making of doc.

File: Androids_Dream.jpg (255KB, 850x1264px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 850x1264px

>>81712130
Not true. Everyone involved had a different opinion of what the film really meant, ie Ford says Deckard was human while Scott says he was replicant. The screenwriters will never confirm which they meant because they want to keep the film alive.

I would recommend the THEATRICAL version, either American or European as they're pretty close. This version treats the movie as a film noir rather than a sci-fi flick. Because the philosophy of the book was mostly dropped, what you are left with from Dick's original framework is not a story about the future, but a detective story set in a futuristic world. The voiceovers that >>81712271 whines about brings Deckard closer to his novel counterpart and cements the film noir style.

tl;dr:
>Final Cut if you're a pleb who only cares about muh robots
>Theatrical if you want to see the story as it was intended

>>81712607
Theatrical cut was butchered, nobody intended that but focus groups.

>>81712197
>>81712260
>Final Cut
This is the one to watch, and desu I don't even like the movie. It's the best one. It's Ridley Scott's final version, and includes everything (extra narration, dream sequence). There are:

Workprint prototype version (1982)
San Diego Sneak Preview version (1982)
US theatrical release (1982)
International theatrical release (1982)
US broadcast version (1986)
The Director's Cut (1992)
The Final Cut (2007)

Scott wasn't in charge with the "Director's Cut, he even took legal action because he hated it. Once the legal shit was over he made the Final Cut, which is by far the best. There's a wiki on it all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Blade_Runner#The_Final_Cut_.282007.29

>>81711989
Final cut. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a contrarian.

You've got the bad narration and that god awful shot of the dove flying up into a clear blue sky during a scene that takes place on a rainy night???

>read DADoES as a 15 y/o
>can't remember a word of it
Anyone else experience this with books? I never remember them at all

>>81712607
this is just not true. I cannot tell if this is a good troll or else.
They did not meant the movie like that. Only the production ordered the butchering after the focus group sperged.

File: vlcsnap-2017-04-16-20h36m31s7.png (2MB, 1920x796px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x796px

We hype?

>>81712068
Shit and wrong opinion.

>>81711989
Final Cut is what you want to see.

>>81712607
>Final Cut for plebs
>Theatrical is as intended
Smh being this fucking contrarian...
Nobody actual intended for the movie to be as the theatrical is. The studio forced the narration in to please focus groups. The writers didn't write the narration, Scott didn't direct it, Harrison only performed it out of contractual obligation.
>muh film noir
You are the real pleb. Poorly written and acted narration that states the obvious or completely irrelevant information =/= noir
The film has a film noir atmosphere thanks to its visual aesthetic, that's all it needs. Would you prefer the studio make the movie B/W to make it more obvious to your microbrain?

>>81712965
no, resigned. maybe it won't suck.

>>81713008
>Villeneuve and Deakins
could be worse

bane

>>81714090

>>81712993
truth