Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: bladerunner.jpg (34KB, 297x446px) Image search:
[Google]
34KB, 297x446px
I'm about to watch pic related for the first time. I plan on watching the theatrical and final cut, but I had a quick question.
I hear that they are very different, and I have a yearly tradition where I watch 52 movies a year and write them all down. Should I write down Blade Runner once or twice? I hear that they're so radically different and it made me feel like I should write down their own entry for the two cuts I'm watching.
>>
any version that doesn't have the voice-over, one of which i sthe threatrical version IIRC.
final and directors are pretty similar, just a few scenes that are differentand give more or less evidence to whether deckard is a replicant
>>
You don't want to watch theatrical - has a shitty voice over that is universally disliked. Just get the Final Cut or anything that doesn't have the voice over.
>>
>>82536540
Read the wiki on it instead of making stupid threads.
>>
>>82536912
>>82536724
You sure? I think I'd like to watch the theatrical version just to see what it's all about. This thread is more a "should I list them as two separate movies in my list" and not a "what versions should I watch".
>>
>>82537215
Autism
>>
>>82537324
This is the biggest conundrum my list has faced since I was unsure if I should add "Fantastic Beasts" to the list since I left the theater 30 minutes before it ended because I had to poop really bad.
>>
>>82537215
i see what you're getting at OP. to answer your question, i'd say they are different enough to almost be considered 2 different films. watch the final cut first, then the theatrical cut as a novelty. don't bother with the director's cut.
>>
they're all shit
>>
>>82537415
This
>>
>>82536540
Dont fall asleep
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1