Why isn't it technically exposition? I just read about Rutger Hauer and this scene here. Dark City is another film with voice-over exposition that kicks the story "right in the nuts." I couldn't find any clips. The director's cut removed the exposition. P.S. Voice-over would be another good daily dialog theme. Has it been done?

Ditto. Why isn't this exposition?

If you consider exposition to be the transmission of data, facts, information, I'm not sure this qualifies. This is a guy revealing his thoughts. I guess I'd look at this as revelation.

Ugh. You may have changed my mind. Externalizing the internal through unnecessary dialogue always strikes me as bad exposition, though. "I feel terrible. He obviously feels happy." As opposed to: "Eat a d*ck, smiley." I think the V.O. is being flagged as bad exposition more for the lack of subtext than what's actually said. Honestly, hadn't even occurred to me that this might not qualify as exposition in the first place. What's funny, is I think we prompted http://www.bang2write.com/ to write about exposition. :p

Come back to the dark side, James. This reeks of exposition. It's the thudding exposition of Roy's motivation for saving Deckard even though it's in Rick's voice. Essentially, he's speaking for Roy. As if Roy were to say: "Time to die." A moment. He doesn't die. Then -- "Oh wait. Maybe I saved your life because in these last moments I love life more than ever I ever have before." I think it was very clearly directed at the audience which is what prevents it from being revelation for me. It was a heavy attempt to give resolution by answering the question before you even had a chance to ask it.

I've never seen the original version with the voiceover...and I'm SO glad I haven't. Based on this one example, I fear it might affect my enjoyment of the film.