Was the internal monologue in the original at the studio's request, "dumbing down" the film for the general audience who might otherwise not keep up with the plot?

Director's cut, absolutely. Voiceovers bug the crap out of me.

I want a Spinner for Xmas.

The voice-over was a panicked last minute addition by the studio who were afraid that the audience would be too lost to follow the story. They added the moronic "escaping to the pine woods" ending at the same time.

It's an interesting question, shane. The two (now three) different versions are almost like different movies.

Like you I enjoy the film noir down-on-his-luck gumshoe aspect of the voice over... but I was blown away by the first director's cut (haven't seen the latest one yet). If anything the lack of voice over made the movie, for me at least, easier to follow. Although the story did seem to change. The first director's cut really made it more clear that Deckard is the 6th replicant (Edward James Olmos's orgami unicorn scene).

Quick question: does anyone remember if Deckard is a replicant in the Philip K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

According to Wikipedia, "studio executives rewrote and reinserted narration during post-production after test audience members indicated difficulty understanding the film."

I don't mind the narration as much as most people seem to because of the noir aspect, but I prefer the director's cut(s).

Blade Runner (Four-Disc Collector's Edition), which is being released on December 18, has the original version with the narration, as well as the latest Final Cut version, according to So you'd like to...Find Out Which Version of "Blade Runner" to Buy.

It's been a while since I've read the book, but Wikipedia says "in the novel, Deckard appears more certain not to be an android" due to his having passed the Voight-Kampff test.

Wikipedia lists seven Blade Runner versions, but they include a couple of unofficial workprint releases.

Thanks, kirkaracha. That's more or less how I remembered it.

I'm going to have to re-read that book.

still waiting to see the director's cut.....

This newest one is my favorite by far, though I don't remember the previous director's cut well enough to point out more than 2-3 differences between them.

I really don't like narrators. (Nothing personal to all you narrators out there.)

Webpage discussing all things Blade Runner. Fairly comprehensive.

Quick question: does anyone remember if Deckard is a replicant in the Philip K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

No, he is not. The androids in the book (and they are androids, not replicants) are quite a bit more obvious in their lack of empathy. I wouldn't let the book inform your view of the film, because Scott has admitted "he didn't get" the book. As an aside, the title Blade Runner has absolutely nothing to do with anything Dick wrote, I believe they took the term from a doctor and science fiction author who wrote as Alan E Nourse, the term Blade Runner was someone who smuggled medical supplies. I read one of his books many years ago called "Star Surgeon" and it was a wacky mix.

Now, with the following, keep in mind that I love Blade Runner, a lot, but that doesn't mean I think it is perfect, in fact I am sure it is NOT. I think I have seen every version except the 70mm workprint (the movie was not shot in 70mm, some of the effects were, and therefore a roughcut had to be 70mm) and I ultimately think that whatever Ridley Scott claims now, that he was hedging his bets when shooting. For all your unicorn dream sequences (nothing can ever convince me that is not lame)there is so much empirical evidence that Deckard is NOT a replicant. The incredible physical disparity between the replicants and Deckard would be one prime example. To put it simply, he wouldn't get his ass beat so much. He would have to be a new model to have the memory implants, and I don't credit Bryant as being bright enough to string Deckard along. Deadcowdan and I were discussing this yesterday, and he pointed out something I had also thought of and totally agree with, that if the replicants could physically do what they did, you wouldn't need any empathy test to identify them.* There are a lot more reasons I could go through, but it is quarter to four in the morning and I am too tired to marshal good arguments. So, his "he was always a replicant" stance is a little too convenient and revisionist for my taste. The new cut at least makes that stance a bit easier to swallow, but I still don't think he "proves the case". Not that a little ambiguity in a film is a bad thing. He should have kept his mouth shut and said, "figure it out for yourself", that way everyone could have been happy.


* A sin the new Battlestar Galactica is guilty of, undetectable Cylons who can suddenly be incredibly strong, etc.