(Another) Cut of Blade Runner

dereferenced writes "Director Ridley Scott is set, once again, to re-edit Blade Runner for the Special Edition DVD due for release later this year. He discusses his plans for the new version briefly in an interview in Empire Magazine, excerpts of which can be read here. It's getting so it's hard to count all the different versions of Blade Runner out there; We have the original theatrical release, the Home Video version originally released on VHS, the Director's Cut, and now the Special Edition DVD, to say nothing of the various LaserDiscs, and pre-release screenings. I can't wait for the next version where, in addition to being a replicant, we find that Deckard was actually the first female president of the United States."

Comments

Poor Ridley Scott

[ViciousMark]

It still gets me rather mad to think that Ridley Scott was denied any kind of Oscar because people thought the use of computers in movies "was cheating". Can't they give him some kind of honorary award for changing movies forever?

Re:Poor Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be kidding right?

Since Star Wars [1977] won 7 Oscars, I think the Academy had come to terms with "computers in movies" by the time of Blade Runner [1982]

Re:Poor Ridley Scott

[dmv]

What computers in Star Wars.

And I thought the reference was for Tron,
around the same time, which _was_ denied
oscars for FX because computers were considered
cheating...

Re:Poor Ridley Scott

[Alan Partridge]

you know, I wish it WAS just Blade Runner that had bee repeatedly revised over the last 20 years - at least Scott had a case for doing so - WTF is Spielberg's excuse with ET 20? And Star Wars? Don't even get me started on that bouffant twat Lucas.

Re:Poor Ridley Scott

[shokk]

Must be great releasing the same movie over and over again. Most people in the business have to bust their ass to claw their way just to mediocrity. I guess when you get one or two hits under your belt you are at the point where you can do some filler and just re-release the hits 10 or 20 years later to rake in some more bucks. Then it's on to re-releasing another...

Re:Poor Ridley Scott

[spongman]

r2-d2's death-star plans?

I know there was only one CG shot in the film, was that it?

Yawn.

[wmono]

The headline's right: It's just another cut of Blade Runner. This must be a serious cash cow for them!

Re:Yawn.

[Golias]

The problem I have with the many cuts of Bladerunner, is that I've never been completely satisfied with any of them.

Spoliers ahoy! If you have not seen the film, read no further.

I rather liked the voice-overs that Scott can't stop telling us he hates. Yes, a few of the lines over-explain a little too much, but it adds to the "Noir" feel that made Bladerunner such a unique sci-fi flick. The line "I didn't know how much time we would have, but then again, who does?" was a pretty good closer for the film, too. That said, the narration does get annoying after you've seen the movie a few times and just want to take in all the eye candy.

The "Director's Cut" seemed to be a case of addition by subtraction. The narration was taken out, but without revisiting the music or pacing of the film, making the experience very slow and ponderous. People who did not see the original theatrical version first did not enjoy it nearly as much as we geeks did. Also, you can't possibly tell me that the close-up of Deckard as the elevator door closed could possibly be the shot that Scott really inteded to end on. It leaves the viewer hanging, and not in a good way. Also, the "Unicorn Dream" seemed to be stock footage from Legend, or something. (Yea, yea... I know... the original ending used leftover footage from The Shining... but at least it was a less obvious recycle job.)

For all of Scott's protests about how the producers of Bladerunner screwed up his movie, it became a classic, and was well loved long before he ever got around to re-doing it. Besides, whenever he's allowed to make a movie his way you end up with stuff like that piece of shit "1492: Conquest of Paradise." Maybe a strong hand from the studio is what he really needs to do good work.

Re:Yawn.

[jo42]

I'd give my left nut for a DVD version of the original theatrical release. The so called directors cut was total wank. Give me back the voice over!!

George Lucas

[October_30th]

Ridley Scott is just doing what George Lucas mastered a long time ago. Gouging the sucke... eh, fans.

Re:George Lucas

[JCC7274]

So why don't you tell us what you really think? If you don't like the movies you can always go make your own.

Re:George Lucas

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to milking, Disney is still the king. That why I haven't bother to see a Disney movie since the 80's.

Re:George Lucas

[Anonymous Coward]

No he cant

In his case its hard to work a camera with your hand on your dick

Ridley Scott

[rosewood]

Did anyone watch the director's commentary on Hannibal or The Gladiator and listen to Mr. Scott go on and on and on? Seriously, I thought he had the script and print of the movie and was fapping onto them. It was such blatent self masturbation that I have really been turned off of him as a director. What makes Ridley Scott *soooo* great? Imho, he ruined Hannibal (and the directory commentary made that abundently clear). Also - what is with all the versions of this movie? Can he not "get it right?" Maybe he is anal retentive, maybe hes loco!

Re:Ridley Scott

[jeroenb]

First of all, Blade Runner's importance is obvious from the influence it has had on other more recent major Sci-Fi movies. Think about The Fifth Element (the huge cityscape with flying cars, seen it in BR) and The Matrix (Gothic style buildings, lots of rain, style of clothing.)

And he got it right the very first time, but the PHBs didn't like the unicorn dream that is so vital to the story (they thought it would be deemed "too artsy" by the general public), the open ending (it's supposed to end when they step into the elevator, not the ridiculous happy ending... I mean why would anybody live in cities like those when other places still exist and are within reasonable distance?) and they also forced him to put in the stupid voiceover, which just doesn't fit here.

So then he did the Director's Cut, which fixes these issues but is still not perfect (especially the parts where they're messing with how many replicants they're looking for - this has to do with some original scenes where Deckard chases some other replicants, they were removed because of budget but in scenes shot earlier they're mentioned in the dialogue. Supposedly there were fixed retakes of those scenes but somehow they didn't make it into both the original and the Director's Cut...) So more PHB messing, this time involving budget :)

The other versions of the movie were the broadcast version which removes some profanity, an international version which is more violent (more gore when Batty kills his creator for instance) and some workprint versions which were shown to test audiences' responses - which is probably why so much was changed before the movie made it to release.

All in all I think Ridley Scott had a clear vision of how he wanted this movie to be straight from the start. So what if it took him a while to get it into a final product? Is Linux finished yet? :) (Besides, I don't mind seeing it in a theater again :))

Re:Ridley Scott

[rosewood]

I think almost every director of a movie could tweak and retweak his movies. That has come even more so aparent after listening to more and more director's commentary.

At some point, it needs to be "final" - but since I dont own any version, I dont mind.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, wait, wait... let me get this straight. Ridley Scott invented gothic buildings, rain, big cities, and flying cars?

Re:Ridley Scott

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

We have this exciting new DVD technology... is there some way we can have one
damn DVD that has all the edits, and you just choose which one you want at the beginning?
You'd think a lot of the footage would be common, you'd just have certain branch-points on the
video and the audio (perhaps independantly).

I guess the audio would probably have to be entirely duplicated for each version, because of
the narration and so on would just be vastly different.

-If

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The Unicorn dream is incredibly out of place.
2. The 5th element brought "bad, cliche moviemaking" to new levels.
I completely agree on the similarities to the Matrix though. There are many, many holes in the movie (Ryan having to explain replicants to a returning Decker who was supposedly a Blade Runner already, the aforementioned replicant count, etc). The "Director's Cut" did nothing to fix these holes, RS has had his chance. At this point he is just trying to bilk the movie for more dough. IMesHO.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Leto-II]

I mean why would anybody live in cities like those when other places still exist and are within reasonable distance?

Uhm... Have you been to LA or NY recently?

Re:Ridley Scott

[SW6]

First of all, Blade Runner's importance is obvious from the influence it has had on other more recent major Sci-Fi movies. Think about The Fifth Element (the huge cityscape with flying cars, seen it in BR) [etc]

Have you not seen a film called Metropolis? It's one of the first films ever made and (I think) the first sci-fi film made. It's in black and white with no sound, so it's not quite the CGI masterpiece modern sci-fi is :) It does however have a lot of the standard features: evil overlords, flying cars, etc, etc.

Blade Runner is a well-presented film in its own right, but in the scale of things, it's just another step in the genre. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Galvatron]

Actually, the best part of the stupid happy ending was how the entire movie has flying cars, and then all of a sudden they're driving what looks like a new Lexus down a well-maintained highway! Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there another ending where he takes her out into the snow and shoots her?

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

and they also forced him to put in the stupid voiceover, which just doesn't fit here.

Actually I liked the voice over done by Harrison in the original movie. It kind of gave the movie that 50's film noir feel. When the directors cut was released the movie lost something without the voice over IMHO.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot dark city.

Anyways, I seriously doubt that there is anymore footage or audio enhancement that would yet another tiresome release of Bladerunner. If anything, lets see a sequel not yet another rehash of a movie which I doubt that the studios kept any more footage of than they had to, which would be the director's cut which is NOT that much different than the original release.

Re:Ridley Scott

[spongman]

check out the recent anime version of Metropilis. It's on limited release, but well worth it if you can make it.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was Gore, along with the internet et. al...

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Blade Runner's importance is obvious from the influence it has had on other more recent major Sci-Fi movies. Think about The Fifth Element (the huge cityscape with flying cars, seen it in BR) and The Matrix (Gothic style buildings, lots of rain, style of clothing.)

Only if your idea of movie history starts in 1980 or so. There is, as they say, nothing new under the sun.

The whole "big city, flying cars" motif has been done so many times (before BR) it's a cliche. The original AFAIK was Fritz Langs "Metropolis" in the 1920s, which was a legitemate original influence on a wide array of subsequent moviemakers. The dystopian landscape (rain, buildings, etc.) is similarly been there, done that. Hell...there are probably a dozen examples of flim noir from the 1940s that has imposing buildings and lots of rain a la BR.

I like BR an awful lot, but if you get a bit beyond the what's-new-this-week at Blockbusters, you wouldn't sound like such a fanboi pinhead.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

"I mean why would anybody live in cities like those when other places still exist and are within reasonable distance?"

Sounds like real life to me. Why would anybody choose to love in the Peoples Republik of California? Because they just don't know any better.

Re:Ridley Scott

[Anonymous Coward]

TNT was showing Blade Runner a few weeks ago. I think it was the directors cut b/c at the end Decker goes to get the secretary replicant that he is in love with, and finds the paper unicorn in the hall, then the step into the elevator. This is the director's cut, right?

Blade Runner

[kris_lang]

Yes, there is a limit to how many re-edits an artiste ought to do of their work. But the limit is probably more in what the audience tolerates, not really in what they ought to do. Coding of software continues to fine tune the points. And we can't see the defects that Ridley Scott sees in his creation as major: it just doesn't create the story he wanted to tell. So why shouldn't he be allowed to do a re-write or re-edit and try it again? Even if it is just to get a bunch of fans and fanatics to buy yet another version.

uh oh...

[Navius Eurisko]

New edit...present day digital technology...is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?

Jar-Jar Binks: "Mesa not a replicant! Mesa a Gungan!" ::Falls down and starts farting::

Re:uh oh...

[Kewlhand`tek]

domo-kun?

Re:uh oh...

[Kewlhand`tek]

Domo-kun? japanese farting monster

Re:uh oh...

[GigsVT]

"Mesa OpenGL replicant!"

Sorry :)

Damn, damn and double damn.

[ackthpt]

I just bought the directors cut dvd a month ago. This is getting to be a bit like Pink Floyd CD's, every year or so they re-release with some special editon, gold plate, remaster, etc. I guess I'll just sit tight with what I've got and not bother to see the spiffy new cut. Sigh.

They know they've got fans and they do this to us. Worse, we're supporting the devils in the MPAA buy buying it. Damn...

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[ender81b]

Worse, we're supporting the devils in the MPAA buy buying it

Slashdot: MPAA IS EVIL, EVIL I TELLS YOU!! They are going to destroy us, eat our children, sacrifice us to the gods of greed, destroy the very fabric of this country...... Ohhhhhhhhhhhh Whats that?

MPAA: New BladeRunner Directors Cut

Slashdot: Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[denzo]

I don't see why so many people are suprised at this new Blade Runner DVD version, since it was originally supposed to be released on November 2000, but was delayed because of Ridley Scott's commitments to movies he was making at the time.

This new DVD is badly needed. There has been only one Blade Runner DVD released to date, and that's the Director's Cut, which was released back in March 1997, which is very short on features. At that time, it was worth its price tag, but with the new Special Edition DVD being in the works for the past two years is hardly a good buy for the money.

So let's stop whining about the good movies that were originally released five years ago when a new edition with way more features is released.

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[Anonymous Coward]

bill_dinger@yahoo.com - it would be a whole lot funnier if it was hum_dinger@yahoo.com - maybe that one is still available?

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[Rasta Prefect]

This would be the same post we see every time a DVD release is posted on slashdot. It's even more predictable than complaints about the Cowboyneal poll option. Get a clue - while theres a definite political slant, the Slashdot community isn't a homogonous opinioned political action group. We're just people who happen to read "News for Nerds". The people bashing the MPAA aren't nessecarily the ones buying the DVD's. This isn't the borg collective here.

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[pod]

As much as I love DVDs (have almost 200 of them by now), it's annoying to plunk down $30 for a silver (or gold) disc only to have 2 special editions come out a couple months later. So do you spend some more for the extras (it's ridiculous interactive menus and trailers count as extras) and try to pawn off your 'old' DVDs, or what? Then of course you have to be careful, as some 'special edition' DVDs are letterboxed, which means an extra-special anamorphic edition is just around the corner.

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[FFFish]

Yah, but isn't Blade Runner all about *replicants*? Isn't its challenge one of "Which is the real Deckard... the human, or the android?"

And now you endlessly debate "Which BladeRunner is the *real* BladeRunner?" :*)

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[fferreres]

The people bashing the MPAA aren't nessecarily the ones buying the DVD's

More likely, they are the ones ripping/trading the DVDs :) (just a joke, eh!). Now, seriously, your point is definitely accurate IMHO...

Re:Damn, damn and double damn.

[ender81b]

This isn't the borg collective here

Speak for yourself - I was assimilated years ago.

At any rate, the simple fact is that 90% or so (and that is probably too low) of Slashdot readers hate the MPAA and the RIAA, or at least disapprove of their tactics and goals. Yet everytime a new 'geeky' film comes out we desperately want it. It's hypocritical. If you hate the MPAA why are we supporting it by buying their movies?

What about new movies?

[TexTex]

I'm getting a little sick of this trend where director's recut their new movies for DVD, forcing more sales (kinda like the theater re-release trick when the movie less than a year old). Sure Scott is a talented director and I'd like to see what new stuff he adds, but how REALLY different can this new Bladerunner be?

At most you figure there should be three versions of a movie...the theater release, the "director's cut" which allows one to do what the studios wouldn't allow, and the "everything found on the cutting room floor" version. Shouldn't the stuff that wasn't right or didn't work the first time around hold true today as well? Just because a scene didn't fit or was crappy 20 years ago doesn't make it magically better today because it's being played back on DVD. Completeness is one thing but inability to actually finish a film is somewhere between greed and ignorance.

Re:What about new movies?

[SWPadnos]

Well, I'd say you've got some of this right and some wrong.

Yes, the director's cut should be the version that the director wanted to make, rather than the one the studios / MPAA / marketroids required. The director's cut should probably also have alternate versions (different beginnings / endings, directors version vs. released version, etc.) - but you can only fit so much on a DVD.

Also, you need to realize that things end up on the cutting room floor for a number of reasons, not just because they suck. Even on high budget movies, they are always trying to cut costs. (I worked on an effect on the new Spike Jonze movie, Adaptation, and even though it's a $100M+ budget, they still needed (or wanted) to cut out as much as possible from the cost of the effect. They need the money to pay the actors' exorbitant wages and the myriad little expenses that crop up in a production.) So the "junk" that gets put into the special edition may be scenes (or visual effects, or surround effects...) that couldn't be used for reasons other than artistic failings. Actually, one of the main drivers for cutting pieces of a film is the overall duration of the movie. The longer the movie, the a) more it costs to print, b) less the theaters can show it (since there are a fixed number of hours per day), and c) less today's 8-minute-attention-span teenagers will want to see it.

So, it's possible that Mr. Scott et. al. are just trying to milk a successful franchise fora ll it's worth, but there may be true artistic reasons for making a revised version of the movie.

Re:What about new movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time the big diff was that they had removed Dekkers voice-over. Maybe he will remove the music this time? Or make it black and white? (That will make Rachels eyes look kinda booring in the first though...)

Re:What about new movies?

[schlach]

...and c) less today's 8-minute-attention-span teenagers will want to see it.

Whoah, eight minutes? I think you gest.

The last teenager I saw that sat still for eight minutes turned out to be dead. And twenty-four.

Re:What about new movies?

[Nitar]

How are they forcing more sales? People are not forced to by this new DVD. If they buy it, it is because they choose to. Feel free to to NOT purchase the new Blade Runner DVD. I however, will be buying it. I have been holding out on getting the original director's cut, and it looks like it paid off. I'll just get this one instead.

You can still see the new scenes that were added. Check out your local Blockbuster, when it is released.

-Nitar

Re:What about new movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "jest"...

Re:What about new movies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! I ...

President

[Wire Tap]

I can't wait for the next version where, in addition to being a replicant, we find that Deckard was actually the first female president of the United States.

Don't let Hillary Clinton hear that. *snicker*

Re:President

[llamalicious]

Right. Because Hilary is a replicant. She needs to find her creator soon too, she's only got a couple years in the Senate.

Why?

[Walterk]

After seeing Blade Runner a few times I don't really see what's so good about it. Am I missing something about the movie? Is there some hidden plotline? Or is it just wrong of me to think that just 'cause it's about androids, doesn't mean it's a good movie?

Re:Why?

[angel'o'sphere]

Blade Runner has an "atmosphere".

A lot of later made SF movies had some "great" aspects or are even best selling movies like Star Wars but lack that atmospheric density.

However there are only two or three movies for me which are relay awesome: Blade Runner, Dune and Allien.

For me those movies are not beaten so far in the way they create a "mood" or an atmosphere for the visitor.

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bladerunner owes a lot of its success to the book it's based off of(Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick) IMNSHO. A good deal of what the prev. poster calls atmosphere is, I think, due to the background in that book. Read it ...

Re:Why?

[Geekwad]

Actually, the atmosphere isn't as much due to the book as it is due to Ridley Scott's friggen obsessive nature. (Sure, the book inspired him, but he would've gone nuts anyway) -- And as for what's "so good about it" ... I won't go as far as to say that it's one of those love/hate movies (Like Moulin Rouge) but it is valid to say that if you don't like it, if it rubs you the wrong way, if you just don't dig the atmosphere and story and flying cars, well.. then there's really not much anyone can do to sway you.

But I will say this: Blade Runner is border-line masterpiece because it managed to morph sci-fi, neo-noir and a script about 'what makes us human?' into a tight and engaging film.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably are missing the point of the movie.

Blade Runner isn't just about androids. It's an important social commentary for the future.

In the movie, the replicants were created to be used as slaves and given a very short lifespan, which was the equivalent of murdering them after they are worn out and unable to work.

The problem was they were sentient beings.

Re:Why?

[Walterk]

Doesn't humanity do that anytime all the time? I don't think I missed the point of the movie, but I personally find it more offending that as recently as the early 1900s actual human beings were still commenly used as slaves.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you forget the great line by Rutger Hower: "I want more LIFE, FUCKER!"

It's just poetic, that's all.

Also, I prefered the Harrison Ford voiceover version.

Re:Why?

[Turing Machine]

as recently as the early 1900s actual human beings were still commenly used as slaves.

The early 1900s? Try the early 2000s. Slavery still exists, mores the pity.

Re:Why?

[Alan Partridge]

and not even just in the 3rd world either. a couple of years ago a french woman was discovered to have kept an unpaid servant living in a shed for something like 40 years. difficult as it may be to admit, I think enslaving of others is a basic facet of human nature.

Re:Why?

[Walterk]

It's Rutger Hauer btw :)

Re:Why?

[Walterk]

But I believe my point was that humanity should learn for the past, for a change.

Re:Why?

[technohead]

If you ever want to know where he got Bladerunner's atmostphere from it's from his upbringing in the North East of England, particularly his time studying in Hartlepool. The seal sands were a particular inspiration, it's miles upon miles of chemical plants. When you drive through at night it's just like being in his LA of the future, particularly the flames shooting into the sky.

His nothern upbringing propably also explains why it's always raining in his films...:-)

Finally - BladeRunner on DVD

[JohnCC]

Cool - finally a decent version that I can use on my DVD player. I didn't think much of the Director's Cut, so I never bourght it on DVD. They did a great misjustice with the picture quality and sound on the DC DVD - and I hope this is a chance to rectify that mistake, because BladeRunner is a landmark film, oozing in plot and atmosphere - and frankly, deserved much more!

Give us the voice over.

[Shivetya]

Damn if I am going to buy yet another DVD that is mostly silent. The theater version was so many times better than the Director's Cut. It seemed as if so much of the story was discarded.

The voice over advances the story, gives the audience something to latch on to. All I see is a director who feels more important that his film.

Let him have his version, but at least give us the choice. I don't need to have more of the movie hacked out because of the silence (as he comments on the blimp scene... yes it would drag if you left it in without voiceover... shouldn't that be a clue?)

Re:Give us the voice over.

[ywwg]

You mean the voiceovers with such gems as:

"I'd had a belly-ful of killing!"
and
"they don't advertise for killers in the newspaper"

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Reality Master 101]

Hard to say. All I can say is that I remember the movie being really good in the theatre, but when I recently saw the Director's Cut DVD, I found my self saying, "This is it? Is this the movie that I saw? This movie is kind of..., well, dull."

I don't know if it's me, or if it's the movie.

On the other hand, it might be a case of "Citizen Kane"-itis where a movie is brilliant and original when it comes out in it's time, but does not age well against modern movies.

Re:Give us the voice over.

[cei]

I'm all for having the voiceover around. To me, having the voice over adds a Daschell Hammett / film noir detective element that gets obliterated by the director's cut. With the different things that can be done in DVD authoring, there's absolutly no reason why both can't be on the same disc. The multi-threaded discs of The Abyss and T2 both show how you can jump in and out of different cuts seamlessly.

The studio just needs to say, yes Mr. Scott, you can put your version on the disc, but we'll also have this.

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you 100%. Put all the stuff they took out back in! Then add anything else he wanted. I thought the voice over was great in the original version. I didn't really care for the ending but...

It's better than not knowing about the "mishmash" of languages etc.

Re:Give us the voice over.

[the_verb]

I agree wholeheartedly. The classic noiry pulp detective feel that I thought gave BR its roots the first time I saw it is all but nonexistant in the director's cut.

My dream version includes the voicover, omits the stupid ending (the mountian scenes are outtakes from Dr. Zhivago, no kidding) and includes the unicorn dream.

Yeah. Thaaaaat'll happen.

--the verb

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Jungleland]

>The multi-threaded discs of The Abyss and T2 both show how you can jump in and out of different cuts seamlessly.

Agreed, I have both of those disks and I think it's great that I can watch either version (Theatrical or directors cut) depending on how the mood takes me. All special edition DVDs should be like this!!

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Galvatron]

I've heard that Harrison Ford was really against the voiceovers, and there has been some suggestion that he intentionally read them in a dull monotone to try to influence them not to put them in. He failed for the theatrical version, but succeeded for the director's cut, I guess.

That being said, I tended to like the voiceovers too. They were cheesy in a sort of detective movie way (sort of like Tracer Bullet in those Calvin and Hobbes comics), and they made you feel more like you were inside Deckard's head, rather than just watching a movie about a Blade Runner. Still, in a dvd, there's no reason why they can't have two language tracks, one of which throws in the voiceovers. They even ought to be able to make the multiple endings a menu option :)

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Provocateur]

There probably is a version of "your" dream BR floating out there on the internet right now, courtesy of the same spooks that gave us a Jar-Jar-less-less Phantom Menace download version

thanks to the wonders of DVD+Linux+Bawls

Re:Give us the voice over.

[tempfile]

Well, the voice over is an improvement, but I'd rather have no voice over than the theatrical version's cheesy happy end. The DC ending is how it's got to be - elevator goes SLAM, black screen. Summary: DC + voiceover - unicorn = perfect version

Re:Give us the voice over.

[frodoze]

yes I agree, the voice over makes the movie

this absolutly no reason they cannot include the original version on dvd, do it as a 2 disc set even

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only a happy ending if you weren't paying attention. Deckard might not have grasped it, but he was a replicant, and probably only had a year or two of life left himself. He was going off to die with his robot lover.

Re:Give us the voice over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Voice over, yes!

As someone once said, everybody needs an editor*, as it often happens that authors may loose focus, and somehow forget the point of what they are doing.

So let's have Blade Runner in the DC version, with inorogue and ending, but add to that the voiceovers.

* I think it was said regarding Hitler's "Mein Kampf" whose original title was something like "Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice"

Re:Give us the voice over.

[jo42]

Another vote for the original theatrical release on DVD. The voice over added to the movie, taking it out leaves the audience guessing as to WTF is going on and why.

What?

[Snafoo]

Deckard was a REPLICANT?

Oh my GOD...

Re:What?

[Glytch]

Yeah, he was the drummer. He was also trying to shag Priss, but she was already engaged to Linna.

Re:What?

[Tomcat666]

It was an interesting story-twist in the game Blade Runner, where you actually faced the same situation. You are in Deckard's job... you hunt some replicants... after some time you get fired and accused to be a replicant.

Whether you play as a replicant, accept it, or deny it, and play as a human is the choice of the player. Your actions decide how the story ends. I have played it around 10 times now, and I know that there's still one ending I've never seen.

If you like a good adventure you should get it - plus, if you like Blade Runner, there'll be some scenes known from the movie... whether you're analyzing a photo and see Deckard somewhere in it, or investigate the case in the same hotel Deckard was in, or visit J.F. Sebastian...

Needed

[omega9]

Seriously, this is greatly needed. The director's cut DVD comes across as a template based, thrown-together piece of crap. The movie itself is fine but they paid zero attention unique menus, special features or anything else. Oh wait, it has scene selection... gee wiz.

What I would like to see is packaging similar to the Brazil collector's edition:
It has THREE DVDs:
- Original theatrical release
- Terry Gilliam's intended release
- An entire disc of extras

Maybe there isn't enough behing-the-scenes footage to support extra material, but damnit the menus could be more then texture maps.

Re:Needed

[AtaruMoroboshi]

Actually, you've got that wrong.

The Criterion Collection edition of Brazil has three discs:

1. Terry Giliam's directors cut, which WAS the theatrical release!

2. Disc of extras, including some great documentaries on the controversy surrounding Brazil.

3. The studio's version, which ended up being sold to the TV markets!

The Director's cut has commentary from Giliam, while the TV cut has commentary from a film critic, who discusses all the differences between the two cuts and how the film's meaning changes because of the different edits.

Great set, it was the first thing I bought on dvd.

.

Re:Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I would really like to see the original release again. I miss the narration. Maybe it wasn't what Ridley Scott wanted but it worked. Now it's just dropped off the face of the earth.

Re:Needed

[grahams]

That's exactly what the original message said.. The original poster was commenting that they would like to see a release of Blade Runner on par with the Criterion Brazil release...

Re:Needed

[Phexro]

actually, you're both wrong. :)

the theatrical release was 131 minutes long, the criterion edition is sometimes referred to as the "final final cut" (142 minutes), and it also has the 93-minute "love conquers all" version - the one that was hacked to bits by the studio for TV.

the normal 131-minute cut is available on dvd as well as the criterion edition.

Re:Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'd buy it?

And would you post your boycott-the-MPAA/RIAA crap on the same day, or wait a week or so out of guilt?

Re:Needed

[ckedge]

> The movie itself is fine

No it's not! It's universally reviewed as the worst quality DVD ever made!

There's VISIBLE JITTER and "fuzzies"! It's like they played back a third generation copy that had been in the theaters for 5 years on an old projector without aligning the film, and so it "vibrated" the entire time. You can't notice it in the motion shots because it's drowned out a bit in the overall motion, but ANYTIME the action stops and you see a static scene, you can see the jitter.

First and last DVD I ever bought.

Re:Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

And this would be opposed to you waiting till someone has converted it to DIV-x and then downloading it from a warez site for free all whilst proclaiming its fighting the MPAA ?

Face it youre a pirate, a troll and a loser

and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[Lumpy]

I'm betting that the release is nothing but a rehash of the last laserdisc version with the director's commentary, the 4th side having tons of still photos and the outtakes.

Hmmm, and I have no pesky region coding or CSS to hamper my biewing pleasure :-)
and because I bought a used commercial laserdisc player last year I dont have macrovision either.

What is the advantage of DVD's again? other than not getting laser-rot on the discs?
(note: they are STILL pressing new releases on laserdisc.. I have to mail order them from Japan, but hey, I had episode one in english 2 weeks after it hit VHS.
)

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[AtaruMoroboshi]

How do you like the Japanese subtitles on your episode one laser?

That is one of the real joys of DVD, the removable subtitles.

Also, find me an anamorphic widescreen laserdisc. They may exist, I just don't know about them. Watching eXistenZ in 16:9 on a friend's widescreen tv with a 6.1 dts system was incredible.

Also, the price point on dvds is substantially lower than it was with laserdisc.

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[justinstreufert]

How about not having to change discs? And oh yes, not worrying about CAV versus CLV, etc, etc..

Did I forget to mention the vastly superior horizontal resolution of DVD?

Sorry, some media do wonderfully in analog (Music on LPs, for example) but this isn't one of them. :)

Justin

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[mandelbaum]

I have a Pioneer LD-W1 laserdisc player that can switch 4 sides without having to get up. I find these days LaserDiscs are really best for getting old Criterion editions of movies they don't have the rights to anymore and getting the commentaries or extras that were produced that they won't give up. Also, you can't beat the big covers.

-aaron

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[Lumpy]

Ummm I like the fact that they aren't therequte a bit (I was a smart shopper and bought one without subtitles). in fact unless I turn on the subtitles function (a Pioneer Laserdisc Exclusive!) I never see them.

Kinda nice that feature :-)

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[Lumpy]

Wow where did you get a analog Laserdisc player? All my laserdiscs have Mpeg2 digital video at the same resolution you get out of most consumer DVD players.

Please let me know where to get a analog Laserdisc player.. I'd love to see one. Unless you are mistaken and thinking about the super old videodisc that was a true record with 5 needles.. a clever hack for 1982.

Oh any my Laserdisc player play's dvd.s and has a line doubler.. I get a better picture from my laserdiscs and dvd's than 70% of dvd owners do.

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[Pope]

You are mistaken.

Laserdiscs are not MPEG anything! That's why there are no compression artifacts, like on any DVD I've seen that fades to black, the posterizing is terrible! (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as well as The Crimson Rivers)

I have Laserdiscs from 1984, when MPEG didn't exist.

Re:and yet again laserdisc owners benefit..

[Rakarra]

Laserdiscs are not MPEG anything! That's why there are no compression artifacts, like on any DVD I've seen that fades to black, the posterizing is terrible! (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as well as The Crimson Rivers)

BTW, this is usually the fault of the DVD player instead of the DVD. My old Apex 600a had terrible picture quality -- like you said when fading to black, showing a flat image that's almost monochromatic (like a clear sky), the artifacts were very noticable. On my PS2, however, I can't see any of these problems.

I want the original theatrical release!

[Chrimble]

Another director's cut? But I want the *original* theatrical release on DVD! Complete with voiceover!

If for no other reason than to confirm my suspicions that the original was better than the later cut.

Of course, I'm probably wrong, but it'd be nice to find out for sure...

Re:I want the original theatrical release!

[xonker]

I second that. I think the original was better b/c it was easier to follow. I've shown the director's cut to people who'd never seen Blade Runner before, and they were slightly lost.

It's nice that a director can go back and "fix" a movie in a special edition set or something, but it should never replace the original theatrical release. Usually that's the experience that people want to relive through a video. It really pisses me off that I can't get a DVD of the original release.

Re:I want the original theatrical release!

[gl4ss]

me too!
i have seen the movie at a movie_theatre_, from real film, but i have not seen the original version(i saw the directors cut at the theatre, and was born too late to see the original)

though, i _really_really_ like the directors cut, and seeing it on the bigscreen really added lots of things i hadnt noticed from dvd or from vhs.(mostly fine detail things though).
the plot is not shown straight to your face on the directors cut, which is good IMHO. you can make your own assumptions and think it over, like you can do with a good book..

but really, if you want more value for money you just should get the original novel than another dvd(it's not too long either, so go read it!).

do slashdotters dream of slashed sheep?
(or dotted?-)

Re:I want the original theatrical release!

[JCC7274]

I agree I was lucky enough to see it in the theater. I was ten but have a mom who really loves sci fi movies. I like the voiceover version. I believe it enhances the movie. I also have a copy taped from cable with the voiceover and the gory scene when Batty kills Tyrel.

Re:I want the original theatrical release!

[xeer0]

Another vote for the original

Re:I want the original theatrical release!

[Pedro44]

I agree. THAT is why all the people still watch Blade Runner on tapes ! The director's cut without the voiceover just doesn't match the quality of the theatre and VHS release !!! The voiceover, especially in the final scene with Roy Batty, raises the humanity of Deckard and makes the moral of this film and what I so like on it. The missing voiceover degrades the story of the film pretty much to an a-bit-over-average sci-fi of the 80's. So if he's going to make just another director's cut without the voiceover, I'm definitely not going to buy it, as probably none of the Blader Runner fans !

wait till they're dead

[RestiffBard]

guess there is something to be said about Lucas waiting eons to release on dvd. see this is why I wait till a prolific author is dead before I start readin their series. Look at the foundation series. not that I'm very glad asimov is dead but at least when I finished reading the foundation series I knew it was finally done. course then you have thigns like herbert's son writing prequels. just can't win.

Re:wait till they're dead

[Glytch]

Not entirely accurate, I'm sad to say. Greg Bear and a few other hacks wrote crappy Foundation prequels like "Foundation and Chaos".

*After* Asimov the Meek passed away, of course. Vultures.

Damn.

[bnavarro]

I was really looking forward to this special edition. I had been under the impression that he was going to make this like the Terminator 2 SE DVD -- that is, make most or all of the multiple cuts of the movie availible via seamless branching, Harrison Ford voiceover on a second audio track, etc., etc.

Now this looks like it will just be Yet Another Director's Cut(TM), with maybe some EPK shit thrown in for good measure. Maybe this rant is right after all, and quality DVD special editions are on their way out the door as DVDs continue to get dumbed down for non movie connoisseurs.

Legend of the Replicants...

[Monthenor]

In this version, Deckard reaches out to his dream unicorn and touches it, allowing a horned Tim Curry to begin his diabolical scheme to corrupt the Light forever. There's also a deleted scene where Rachael uses her Replicant powers to change into a very becoming dress and Deckard and Rachael get it on robot-style during a brief respite from the MCP's pursuit.

Seriously, why not just make a sequel already?

Not a major change, but a good one!

[Marx_Mrvelous]

From the interview, it seems the only actual video editing (ie, taking stuff out/putting it in) will be sot shorten the scenes with the voice over. He does make a good point, why would Ford be staring up at a ballon with no voiceover? He's just removing/shortening scenes that were purposefully lenghtened for something that's not there anymore.

No big deal

[Gromer]

Read the articles- the only changes he's even considering making are to shorten some shots and sequences that only existed to give time for the Harrison Ford voice-over (which has been deservedly gone since the director's cut). Doing a new digital transfer and a new sound mix really doesn't count as a new edition- it's par for the course for new releases of older movies.

If you want to see movies with too many pointless versions, look at the Star Wars films- not only is the DVD edition of episode I different from the theatrical release, but Lucas has confirmed that he will be modifying and adding to the original trilogy again before they, in turn, are released on DVD.

Jethro Tull of Movies

[HiyaPower]

Same stuff, different cover.

When it it was first released, it was impressive. Now its not. I enjoyed it back when, but now, its time to move on. Why anyone who has any of the earlier versions would buy this is beyond me. Why anyone who does not have an earlier version would buy this is also beyond me. Its not like its even a different rendition of "Thick as a Brick".

Re:Jethro Tull of Movies

[g3po]

There are five significant releases of the film:

US Denver/Dallas Sneak Preview [aka the Workprint] (113 minutes):
* no voiceover except at the end (and it was different from the release)
* no happy ending

US San Diego Sneak Preview (115 minutes):
* happy ending inserted

US Theatrical Release (115 minutes):
* voiceover appears
* happy ending stays

Euro Theatrical Release/Criterion LD/VHS (117 minutes):
* more violence

The First Director's Cut [aka BRDC] (117 minutes):
* no voiceover
* more violence
* no happy ending

This doesn't include at least 7 "known" LD versions and 2 official DVDs.

Are they earth-shatteringly different? In most cases, no, it's the same movie, right? The violence is a pretty minor omission from the US release. However, with the addition and the removal of both voiceovers and happy endings, these 'cuts' can seriously change the entire tone of the film.

I'm still waiting

[stega]

For the DVD release of _Legend_, as Director's cut is rumored. Would be nice to see an un-hacked version of that one.

Is this one the dance remix?

[americanFatCat]

while (people.buy()) remaster(blade_runner); if (blade_runner.findCharacter("Jar Jar")) ::YouShouldNotMessWithClassics = true;

multiple sound tracks

[JoshuaDFranklin]

Thank God for DVD, because DVD at least resurrects the thing to the original sound and picture quality. ... The happy ending and Harrison Ford's voice-over, both forced upon Scott back in 1982, will vanish.

The voice-over is what made the film intelligible to first-time viewers. That's why you get both the original and director's cut. The real beauty of a DVD would be BOTH tracks on one disc, but it doesn't sound like he's doing this. :(

Slashdot poll

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a lemon?

* Yes, buy this DVD and give them one more reason to keep rearranging old movies instead of making good new ones.

* No, refuse that crap and wait for something damn new!

* Cowboyneal, take the best of the above: wait some time and fire up your gnutella client;*)

Ridley

[Satai]

Yeah, I tend to agree with most of the other comments here - he seems to be getting more and more self-indulgent, more and more self-enthralled. Let's see if we can take a look at his filmography, courtesy of the IMDB.

Black Hawk Down (2001)
Hannibal (2001)
Gladiator (2000)
G.I. Jane (1997)
White Squall (1996)
1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)
... aka 1492: Christophe Colomb (1992) (France)
... aka 1492: La conquête du paradis (1992)
... aka 1492: la conquista del paraíso (1992) (Spain)
Thelma & Louise (1991)
Black Rain (1989)
Someone to Watch Over Me (1987)
Legend (1985)
Blade Runner (1982)
Alien (1979)
Duellists, The (1977)
"Informer, The" (1966) TV Series
"Adam Adamant Lives!" (1966) TV Series
"Z Cars" (1962) TV Series

The only ones of those that I can even stand to watch are Blade Runner, Alien, and to a lesser extent Hannibal. Yeah - BR and Alien are outstanding, utter masterpieces. But why the hell does he have such a reputation for 'excellence' when he hasn't made a drop-dead, universally recognized classic since 1982?

Then again, maybe I'm missing something. Did anybody else absolutely love any of his other movies?

Re:Ridley

[Reality Master 101]

To be honest, I though Hannibal mostly sucked. On the other hand, the book wasn't much better, so it's not entirely Ridley Scott's fault. Both were gravy training Silence of the Lambs.

Gladiator is hardly a classic, but it was at least entertaining compared to his other recent efforts.

Re:Ridley

[hoser]

I went and saw Black Hawk Down last week. It's a solid war flick that deserves a viewing.
What is significant is that it's a Jerry Bruckheimer production, but there's no Ben Affleck, no Aerosmith love ballads, and no American flag waving every 30 seconds. Truly a first in a Bruckheimer film. Bravo, Ridley Scott!

Re:Ridley

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the award winning Apple Superbowl commercial to launch the Macintosh in 1983/84.

Maybe we'll see the Director's Cut of that one :-)

Re:Ridley

[solendril]

What are you talking about? To begin with, the concept of "Good Movie" is pretty subjective. Diffrent people like diffrent things.

I for one am a visual/director lover, and this is where Scott delivers. 1492 was BEAUTIFUL, Thelma & Louise, Someone to Watch Over Me, and the newer ones such as Black Hawk Down and Gladitor are equally spectacular.

This is what makes BR famous, not the dialogue, not the acting (although its good) it's the atmosphere, the visuals. Ridley Scott is a master at delivering eye candy on steroids. This is what makes him a great director.

The trick is to find the balance between visual flair and substance of acting and script.

Look at Spielburg for example, no art, no style, but great movies. Two of his movies even come close to Scott's in terms of cinematography. I'm thinking of Schindler's List and The Color Purple. But I have to say that Spielburg has made more good movies than Scott.

Sometimes, sometimes, Scott achives the perfect mixture of art and substance, such as Gladiator and Blade Runner and Alien. His work is certainly hit and miss, but when he hits....wow.

Re:Ridley

[mgblst]

Directors have very little to do with a movie. I hate all this crap about directors, they are just ego maniacs, dont do much, get a lot off money.

Re:Ridley

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Gladiator is excellent. The opening scenes where the Romans battle the Germanic tribes is probably one of the best scenes in recent war movie history.

SPOILERS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who's seen the director's cut probably knows he's a replicant, but not everyone here has scene the movie. Don't ruin it for them.

Ridley Scott not to add new scenes

[boa13]

Mr. Scott never says in his interview that he will add new scenes, or "everything that was found on the cutroom's floor" as another Slashdotter thought. He is concerned about image quality and intends to restore the material of the film from the original tapes.

I find this very interesting. When I bought the Director's Cut, a long time ago, it was one of my first DVDs, and still, I was quite disappointed. Not turned off or whatever, disappointed. The image quality wasn't that great, the DVD contained no bonuses except 2341 languages and subtitles, like most European Warner Bros DVDs. These guys just seem to throw all bonuses trough the windows to leave room for subtitles and dubs, I thought at that time. At least I'm happy, the U.S. version seems to be as crappy, from what Slashdotters say.

Blade Runner is one of the few films for which I badly want bonuses. I want a mega making-of. I want all the trivia. I want shots of the stage, I want to see the special effects explained, I want the script, I want everything. The special Abbyss edition has all of this, though I'm not interested that much. The Abbyss is great, but not enough for me to read its script. Blade Runner is so great, that I don't mind paying a lot of money for three or four DVDs.

And come on guys, release the two versions in the same box, so that people can compare.

Re:Ridley Scott not to add new scenes

[MtViewGuy]

Ah, what you suggest makes way more sense.

I think what Ridley Scott will do is an edition with maximum-quality images, and also might even include a lot a bonus materials along with it.

Let's call this the Definite Edition and end it at that.

The companies in Blade Runner

[t0qer]

Are all gone and dead I heard. My father called it the blade runner kiss of death, and I think there were a few articles about it. Basically all the big skyscrapers with the company logo's on them (i.e. Atari) all went extinct. Just something interesting I wanted to point out.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Obasan]

There are coca-cola ads on the electronic billboards in blade runner as I recall. I think rumours of coca-cola going out of business are greatly exaggerated. :)

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[gwernol]

Sadly the only example you quoted is still in business so I think you might want to go back to your sources on this one...

Perhaps you could post a link to one of these articles you mention and we could find out what was really said.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[TheAlchemist]

Although the company we once knew as Atari is long gone, they do still exist, and several games have been released recently on various platforms under the Atari brand. The company's assets (mainly the name and rights to various Atari properties) have been passed around several times over the years, from JTS to Hasbro and now Infogrames.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[deepsky]

Not true. The giant red neon logo in one of the most famous scenes in the movie belongs to a well-known company that is still in very good health.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[t0qer]

Actually,

Atari was owned by Nolan Bushnell up till 1976 when time warner bought them.

Then atari was sold to jack tramiel around 83'
1986 Jack Tram sells off the coin op division to namco.
1989 Tramiel tries to do a saving throw for the company by hiring lawers and suing nintendo, sega over copyright infringements.
After a series of bad products and bad decisions, Tramiel sold Atari to JTS, a floppy drive manufacturer in 1990.

Hasbro bought out JTS in 1996, and tried to reintroduce classic atari games to the marketplace.

Fairly accurate I think. Point is atari in its old capacity is gone, dead, finito. Atari only exists as intellectual property which has been sold off to so many different companies, opinions on who actually owns the right to it is confused.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[^MB^]

Only a couple of the companies have disappeared, e.g. Atari, Pan Am.
Others like Coca Cola aren't in any imminent danger of going bankrupt.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[SoLoatWork]

Well that's not right since there are Coke ads all over in the movie... and Coke will last as long as the US government lasts...

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you know the truth about Coke and the CeeEyeAy?

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

...and then Hasbro sold the name to Infogrammes, who look like they might
actually *use* it. And for more than cheap rehashes of pre-82 arcade games,
even.

And the history of the Atari Games (coin-op) division is just as fscked up,
except sadly I don't think the name is planned on being used.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

I LOVE THOSE GIANT VIDEO BILLBOARDS! We have those in Seattle but they are only about 20' wide. Not nearly as big or cool as the ones in BR. They arent mounted on arcologies either. ):

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[g3po]

Actually, this is called the "Blade Runner Curse".

All the companies shown in the film didn't go bankrupt completely, but many of them had serious financial difficulties coincidentally appearing after the film release.

More specificially:

In 1982 Bell lost its monopoly.

In 1982 Atari had 70% of the home console market.

Pan-Am filed for bankruptcy in 1991, and Cusinart in July 1999.

Schlitz beer floundered and was later sold to Stroh's, then to Pabst.

Kinney Shoes was axed in 1997.

Coca-Cola lost millions when they released their "new formula".

TDK, Budweiser, RCA & Bulova also suffered losses after the release in 1982.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

All the companies shown in the film didn't go bankrupt completely, but many of them had serious financial difficulties coincidentally appearing after the film release.

I'm sure the recession of 1982 had nothing to do with that...

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Ubergrendle]

Yes, but remember -- shortly after BR Coke released "New Coke"...it hurt the company for years and allowed Pepsi, who was on the ropes, to bounce back and solidly define their #2 position.

Re:The companies in Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the recession of 1982 had nothing to do with that...

AKA The Blade Runner Curse.

;)

Doesn't really say a lot...

[sleeperservice]

...which is unfortunate, because I was hoping for more. :D

However, I'm glad he's gotten the chance to re-do it, yet again. Blade Runner is one of those movies which so truly thrives off of the director's vision, it has been unfortunate to have Scott's vision somewhat confounded by various industry restrictions.

On a related note: Vangelis, who did the music for Blade Runner (to me, a truly impressive score), was finally able to release his version of the soundtrack in 1994. If it is still available, try to pick up a copy if you love the movie. I'm not sure how CDs are catalogued, but the number on the disc is 4509-96574-2. Vangelis had this to say about this soundtrack (CD liner notes):

Most of the music contained in this album originates from recordings I made in London in 1982, whilst working on the score for the film BLADE RUNNER. Finding myself unable to release these recordings at the time, it is wih great pleasure that I am able to do so now. Some of the pieces contained will be known to you from the Original Soundtrack of the film, whilst others are appearing here for the first time. Looking back at RIDLEY SCOTT'S powerful and evocative pictures left me as stimulated as before, and made the recompiling of this music, today, an enjoyable experience. - Vangelis, Athens, April 1994.

Re:Doesn't really say a lot...

[Captain Large Face]

Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002 IZ M/o/qid=1014639349/sr=2-5/ref=sr_bt_5/202-6302158- 7886207

I think

[wiredog]

You and me are the only people who feel that way.

Re:I think

[jstadler]

Well, no.
There are at least three of us.

Re:I think

[YeeHarr]

Make that four.

Also the original version was much better paced than the long slow version.

Like others however I prefer the more ambiguous ending than the original version.

I like hard boiled detective styled things.

I really liked the pace of the original version.

Re:I think

[belroth]

I'm not really one for 'Me too' posts, but er, well, make this another vote for the original theatrical release. I am a serious fan of noir and sc-fi, so put the two together....

And I don't really buy the auteur business, In the case of Blade Runner I think the studio kept Scott under control. And for all you people who think Scott has the answers don't forget HE was changing PKDs vision.....

Scott is a doofus

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever listened to Scott blather about Blade Runner? He has no clue why the movie is interesting and successful.

The movie is what it is in spite of the actions (or lack thereof) of Scott and with every recut he removes more of what made the movie wonderful...

From an interview:
Q: When did you get the idea to make Deckard a replicant?
A: In 1990 after somebody showed me a post from usenet suggesting the point. It makes for a nice theme of the film... Policeman kills replicants and then it turns out that HE is a replicant... Isnt that GREAT, especially since the film really didn't have a theme before -- hence the voiceover.

Q: But didnt most people like the movie for its theming on what is reality vs. what is illusion and the belief that it is the "now" that is important when contrasted with the brevity of life?
A: You sound like all those fools that think a deadpan voiceover belongs in a detective film noir.. It is all my idea, MINE -- this is why I will not include multiple cuts of the film (which I could do) and why I will NOT include additional Vangelis music -- This is about my film, not about some damn Greek's music. Bill and George taught me that people are sheep and will eat what they are fed, they are to like nothing except what I give them.

The 'beauty' of DVDs

[astinus]

DVDs are supposed to have all the stuff that VHS does not; in other words, everything you can't experience by just watching the movie alone.

In this vein of thought, if Scott is going to do a re-release of Blade Runner, it should be some kind of mega consolidation, with everything you could possible want for BR: audio tracks with Deckard's voice-over AND without; deleted scenes, commentary, behind-the-scenes footage, etc.

If Ridley Scott is releasing a new DVD, it had better be because he wants to include/improve all these things, not just because he feels "some scenes are too long" and wants to second-guess a great movie 20 years later. Personally, I love BR, and I like the scenes at their current pacing (without the voice-over). And no amount of promotion is going to make me buy a DVD just to see some random artistic air-brushing without the previously mentioned additional features.

But then again, some people will buy just about anything, as long as it has a sticker that says "NEW!!!!" on it. . .

Wow

[NiftyNews]

I wish they would recut more movies just to so I could buy them to enjoy.

I bet someone with talent could turn Home Alone into a dark action flick...

Re:Wow

[Turing Machine]

I bet someone with talent could turn Home Alone into a dark action flick...

Do it, dude! I'm serious. This is well within the capability of an individual nowadays.

Getting it legally distributed is another matter, of course, but the guy who recut The Phantom Menace didn't let that stop him.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt someone with talent could even manage to turn Home Alone into a decent light comedy...

I love Blade Runner but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No way I'll even rent this. If it's on cable, I won't watch it. I'm sick of people milking decade old movies. If it takes you 5 tries to finish a movie.. you know what... you're not a very good director.

PLEASE include both versions!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be absolutely terrible for them not to include both versions on the DVD, as well as soundtrack, behind-the-scenes, cutting room, etc.

The great thing about DVD's is that you get all these extras, and to not include them on the DVD of one of the greatest movies ever would be a HUGE mistake.

speaking of Alien..

[pedro]

I personally think that the final installment should resolve the question that I've had in my head since I saw the first in '79.
Where the hell did these critters *evolve* ferkrissake? What predator types would eat _them_?
An adventure on THAT planet would be really cool!

Re:speaking of Alien..

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think you'll find that not everything needs a predator; the clever thing about the food chain is that the things at the top don't have anything above them to worry about.

Take another look at the original comment:

"Where the hell did these critters *evolve* ferkrissake? What predator types would eat _them_?"

Poster was wondering about the earlier forms of Alien, and what environmental forces pushed them on the path to becoming the xenomorphs we all know and love today.

Re:speaking of Alien..

[Angry Toad]

I'm sure someone out there has an elaborate and consistent backstory for the aliens, but just for myself I was always under the impression that they didn't evolve, as such. They're the biological equivalent of a partially buried landmine sitting next to a schoolyard - nasty bioweapons, remnants of some former conflict that had nothing to do with us.

Re:speaking of Alien..

[Demonix]

Well, and I don't know how well this fits in the entire alien universe, but it was discovered during one of the comic series that Dark Horse Comics put out that the 'Alien' as we know it is actually a biological terraforming device for yet another alien race.

Some of the evidence in the movies also points toward this possibility, notably where they found them in the first place (i.e. the wrecked alien ship with allthose eggs in the hold.)

In Alien, what they thought was a distress signal was actually a warning that they didn't translate until it was too late. I think, unless i'm mixing up Alien with Event Horizon again.

Re:speaking of Alien..

[Sloppy]

HAMLET: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING: What dost thou mean by this?

HAMLET: Nothing but to show you how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

Re:speaking of Alien..

[mikael_j]

I don't know what would eat them, but in Predator II there is a alien "skeleton" in the spaceship...

/Mikael

Re:speaking of Alien..

[SpotBug]

That fits with Ridley Scott's commentary on the Alien DVD.

Re:speaking of Alien..

[heideggier]

The thing is Alien is a remake of the classic "Dark Star" by John Carpentar, If you were to watch that movie and then Alien you would realise how much has been lifted from the earlier movie. These include, the uniforms, the whole truckers in space theme, the interface's on the computers, The alien in that movie (although that was more comical) and (if you count Aliens) the knife between the fingers scean (there are loads more but that part of the fun of watching that movie so I wont ruin it for you). I believe that one of the writers on that movie worked on the orignal Alien and has said in interviews that " I just whated to do a straght version of Dark Star". Although to be fair Alien was the first to use Gregor's art as an inspiration.

This goes along way into explaining why there have been a lot of disappointing sequals to that movie and tie in's (vs anyone?). For some reason t seems ok to do a remake of a remake to absolute death (like Alien has). Although Dark Star has also been a great influence on things like Red Drawf.

Btw, I can understand how peeved JC must have been in the 80's when he did his first and only commerical movie "the thing" (which to be fair was also a remake) that was thrown to the wolves by critics for just being *cough* a Alien remake *cough*. For some reason noone at the time seemed to remember that he had invented to whole thing to begin with in the first place. In the same way that he had invented slasher movies. Although, it was released in the same year as ET so I guess nasty Aliens were just out of fashion (he went on to release the forgetable "Starman").

JC is really a genius, and deserves more credit for making highly influentual movies outside of the hollywood scean, unlike some old pom who's lasted claim to fame is a stinker like "Hannibal" (which really ruined to book for me).

Re:speaking of Alien..

[gowen]

The thing is Alien is a remake of the classic "Dark Star" by John Carpentar, If you were to watch that movie and then Alien you would realise how much has been lifted from the earlier movie

"Remake" is way too strong. The plots are almost completely different and the stylistic similarities you mention can be explained by the fact that Dan O'Bannon wrote them both.

Negatives?

[njord]

I don't know what the hell Ridley was talking about in that article - he said he was making the new edition "off the negatives". I'm no film expert, but who the hell shoots a movie on negative film? If you tried to show it, it would look pretty stupid - inverted. I'm pretty sure that all moves are (or maybe were, in this digital age) shot using ECM film (color revseral, like slide film) Is Ridley just "dumming it down" for us or what?

Re:Negatives?

[quinto2000]

Nope.

35 mm film is a negative. That's why you hear people talking about the early "prints" and why there are only a limited number of prints made -- you don't want to damage the negative. How do you think that you would get multiple copies of a film for distribution if it was photographed onto a postive emulsion? With slide film, you have no original to make copies off of. Copies of slide film lose quality. With a negative, you make a print, and then another print, and each print has the same potential quality.

Re:Negatives?

[njord]

To quote you, "Nope"

I was being reserved when I said "Wouldn't it be silly" because I know that positive film (of which there are many varieties, including E-6 7-step, E-6 4-step, Kodachrome, and ECM) was (and still is, in some places) to capture movies.

Your argument is flawed in three main ways - first of all "35mm" and "negative" are not always found togther. Most consumer cameras today are 35mm, so the slide or negative film that you buy for your 35mm camera is, not surprisingly, 35mm. However, both types of film can be found in a variety of formats; to name a few, there is 110, 126, 120, APS, 8mm, 16mm, 4x5, 2x2, and disc (ug).

Second, I'm certain that nobody (especially a Hollywood studio) shoots a movie with 35mm film. There are a number of reasons, but one of the biggest is that movie film has to be greased to run through a movie camera and not get mangled by the shutter. For instance, ECM film has a layer of graphite on the base to make it slick (this comes off in ECM development). I don't know all of the types used, but 8 and 16mm film are pretty common.

Third, negative film isn't suited for projection; like I said, it would look pretty strange. A movie is shot in one of the aformentioned formats with a positive emulsion (who wants to edit negatives, anyway?). After the master is developed, there's no problem using it to expose other positive film, and you'll get a good copy. Copies of slide film do lose quality, but it's not as bad as the transition from a negative to a print. Color matching is very difficult to achieve with color prints (which is almost always C-41, a negative process). Any photography-savvy person will tell you that the dynamic range on positive is much better than negative film, and that both of them are a LOT better than paper.

I don't really understand what you mean by putting prints in quotes, or that there was a higher risk of damaging older negatives. If you're talking about daguerrotype, those were positives (and there were fragile, but consider that they were prints and that the technology was very primitive). You couldn't make duplicates of those prints unless you did something akin to a copy negative - which was no fun, because the damn things were printed with iodine and mercury vapors! That's why they are so valuble now; there were'nt many made.

Well, that's certainly long and I'm sure I'll get about a billion "off topic" mods, but I just hope this is informative.

Njord

Re:Negatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fairly certain very few Hollywood feature films are filmed in 8mm or 16mm. IMDB seems to confirm BR was done in 35mm, using the anamorphic Panavision processes. Only mega-low budget (non-Hollywood) movies like Clerks tend to use 16mm. I would be very impressed if you have seen a film shot entirely in 8mm; IMDB lists a whopping 154 films with those specs, and many of them are just effects shots, intentionally looking grainy. But what do I know; I can't even be bothered to create a /. login.

Re:Negatives?

[quinto2000]

Wrong. Most film is shot on 35 mm negatives, and then printed to a positive 35mm film that is then run through the projector.

my point was that it is easier to make many prints from a negative image than a positive, as if you first make a positive, you will need to make a negative anyhow before the final printing.

have you ever done any chemical photography? it doesn't sound like it. i've shot 16 mm film myself, and done far more with video. 16 mm is the cheapest film, but naturally, as you increase the size of the film, the quality also increases. That is why IMAX is a such a huge format. I don't recall the exact size, but it it a couple of inches across if you ever see it outside a projector booth.

Re:Negatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The format of Imax is 70mm wide, generally using Kodak 4542 Technical colour negative. From there, postives are created for projection in the theatre. The most widely used format in Hollywood is 35mm - with 70mm being used for some ultra high budget productions, back in the late sixties. When Stanley Kubrick shot 2001 - it was in 70mm Ultrawide format, which in 1968 was the state of the art, but expensive. As a side note - the soundtrack was recorded on a new 6 track recording system which was devised by a fellow named Thomas Dolby.

Re:Negatives?

[Turing Machine]

nobody (especially a Hollywood studio) shoots a movie with 35mm film

Almost all non-huge-budget Hollywood movies are shot on 35mm negative film (though the frame aspect ratio is not the same as 35mm still film). Epics are shot on 70mm. The only movies shot on 16mm are really, really low-budget stuff and indies. 8mm is limited to amateurs (most of whom are using video nowadays) and the occasional experimentalist who wants the, let's face it, crappy image quality for artistic reasons.

And yes, it is overwhelmingly negative film. The only real inroad reversal film ever made into motion photography was for TV news back in the days before portable video cameras. Since you could project the camera original rather than taking the time to strike a print.

Yes, this does differ from the situation in still photography, where pros and serious amateurs tend to use reversal film. That's the way it is, though.

Re:Negatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridley was not "dumming down" anything. Who shoots a movie on negative film? EVERYONE. All professional films are shot on negative stock. The reels that are projected in theaters are prints made from what was actually exposed in the camera. Remastering from negative means going back to the original source rather than transfering from a copy (or a copy of a copy of a copy...).

I've shot both negative and reversal stock and the biggest benefit of reversal is you can develope and then project the same strip you shot on without added cost of having a print made. This can save struggling would-be-directors from going even MORE bankrupt on class assignments. This is BAD for professional film because I'm sure we all know how crappy and scratched film gets after being played many times (hence discount theaters). Reversal is less forgiving in latitude so it helps students to learn good exposure.

Quinto said,"35 mm film is a negative." This is only half true. 35mm is only the size of the strip of film, it can be either negative OR reversal just as other sizes (8mm, 16mm, or super 16mm) can be either. Kodak's reversal film are used primarily for projects which are intended to be released to video/digital and will not need prints made. The reversal (ie "positive") image is placed on a telecine machine and results in very crisp, vibrant scan. More about reversal stocks here.

njord commented that "I'm certain that nobody (especially a Hollywood studio) shoots a movie with 35mm film... I don't know all of the types used, but 8 and 16mm film are pretty common."

8mm and 16mm are never used in feature films except for low-budget, independent, or "stylistic" purposes. 35mm is the standard, often times even larger (65mm, or 70mm IMAX). In fact, 35mm is even used in many different ways to produce a variety of aspect ratios (bonus geek points if you recognize the movie shown in the 1.85:1 example).

njord also claimed "negative film isn't suited for projection; ...A movie is shot in one of the aformentioned formats with a positive emulsion." True, negative film is not suited for projection. That does not mean negative film isn't used in the camera. Your home snapshots are on negative film. Does that mean your photo album is full of funky reversed colors? No. A print is made from the negative. NO ONE would ever allow the original roll of exposed film to be projected.

So what new ground will it cover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it going to fill in why Deckard stopped chasing replicants and started chasing the A-Team?

Screw This

[dTd]

I don't want to see another director's cut rehash. How about the original theater realease huh? As far as I'm concerned Ridley ruined what was one of the best movies in it's time with the DC. BladeRuner has endured and the fans have talked about it for so long because the original version left some things to your imagination, not spoonfeeding and helping you to see Deckard as a replicant. Without the question, or even the initial realization for some, that Deckard could be a replicant, the movie loses any of it's curiousity and interest. Just another futuristic holocost action flick.

Re:Screw This

[crush]

original version left some things to your imagination, not spoonfeeding and helping you to see Deckard as a replicant.

No, no no!! The original version had an intrusive irritating voice-over that spoon-fed the audience and ruined the mystery and ambience of the story. It also left out the "unicorn scene" which /might/ have indicated that Deckard was a replicant.

As far as being JAFHAF it is still miles better in atmosphere than most of the genre, mainly due to the great Vangelis soundtrack.....but also due to the wonderful cinematography. I can't get enough of the "do you like our owl?" scene with the huge bars of sunlight slanting into the massive, almost Mayan room.

Re:Screw This

[dTd]

While I wholeheartedly agree about the ambiance, it was the original that made this movie famous, not the DC. If not for the original, BladeRunner would have been mearly passe, an art critics delite maybe, but not the hit that it was, and later became.

Re:Screw This

[crush]

Perhaps, perhaps. At least we both enjoy it in our preferred versions and they are powerful enough to stimulate strong emotions in us both! Each to his own!
Cheers
crush

Ah, following the Valve model...

[Tickenest]

This sounds an awful lot like Valve's marketing strategy for Half-Life. You know, the various editions and all, including:

Half-Life
Half-Life: Game of the Year Edition
Half-Life: Opposing Force
Half-Life: Blue Shift
Half-Life: Counter-Strike
Half-Life: Platinum Edition
Half-Life: Let's Make Some More Money Edition
Half-Life: Wait, Let's Just Release the Same Game with a Slightly Changed Name Edition

But hey, whatever works....

Re:Ah, following the Valve model...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:

Half-Life: 3 Year Anniversary and it's the same bleedin' code Edition...

and

Half-Life: Who the hell needs Half-Life 2? Edition

Re:Ah, following the Valve model...

[Anonymous Coward]

Half Life : Revenge of the Killer Zombies
Half Life : Return to Planet Shite
Half Life : Resident Scientist 1
Half Life : Resident Scientist 2
Half Life : Resident Scientist 3
Half Life : Resident Scientist Turbo Fucked Up Totally Edition 1

Kernel analogy

[felipeal]

It's getting so it's hard to count all the different versions of Blade Runner out there

Are all those versions going to be merged in a near future? Gee, the movie is from the 80's, it should have only a stable release, not that much trees...

Talk about flogging a dead horse!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scott made one good movie (Blade Runner) and he has made it worse ever since it was first showed on the screen. Why destroy a super movie further? The fact is, Scott suck at making movies! He was a one (Well, two, Alien was good) hit wonder that should leave his old work alone and try to make something new instead of cashing in on old fame!

What, no voice-over?

[GSV NegotiableEthics]

I liked the voice-over. It's the hard-boiled detective genre, dammit. I WANT MY VOICE-OVER!

LaserDisc vs DVD - IANAVP

[jfisherwa]

IANAVP (... videophile), but I think presently the big downfall to the (ANALOG) laserdisc format is its direct encoding of composite video. The signal has been succeeded by S-Video, which offers unique channels for chrominance and luminance, and more recently component video, taking things further with multiple luminance-to-color based channels.

You can argue that a laserdisc only has 480 horizontal lines, compared to a standard 525 lines for DVD (it supports more using various techniques, but most movies still even only use 480). Yes, there are laserdisc players with S-Video out--these are nothing more than filters. You cannot get around the fact that the video is stored as a true composite signal on the disc. Inversely, you cannot get around the fact that a DVD, being compressed, will have artifacting--you may even be able to argue that this artifacting hurts the luminance quality more so than being limited to a composite signal (I would wager that in this scenario, component video would only serve to remind you further of the artifacts!).

So what's the real issue here? Don't get me wrong, I find everything about the LaserDisc to be very ingenious, but the fact is: I don't have to get my lazy ass off the couch, or potentially ruin a special 'moment' (either with myself or someone else ;)) to swap discs with DVD. ;)

Not getting into the audio differences. More information:
LD vs CD under microscope
Home Video Format Comparison

Jason Fisher
:P

Re:LaserDisc vs DVD - IANAVP

[Lumpy]

First off please get a better link on the Laserdisc. as it is misleading. The ANALOG signal is converted to DIGITAL for the disc and then back to ANALOG for playback.. Just like every DVD player on the planet. Mpeg2 encoding is just taking an ANALOG signal and converting it to digital for the storage and then back to analog for playback. Unless you have a purely digital tv and the film was shot on purely digital format... otherwise you still do the analog-digital-analog dance..

Production of the newer Laserdisc discs has went digital... but one important note is... Barely any DVD's are carefully mastered and more than likely are just a component video into the encoder.. I know that for the commercial production that is done at my office we do NOT use discreet video for encoding, as the $500,000.00USD betacam recorder doesnt lay video onto the tape as anything but composite. (DVpro just put's that component video from the CCD's onto the tape as a digital Component video...RGB all mixed together)

As for your problem with having to flip the disc, I haven't had to flip a disc cince 1999.. The player I bought to replace my dead one play's both sides from within the player... as all modern (1997-present) players do.

Videophile is worse than audiophile... claiming that certian proceedures are better than others and ignore that the industry doesn't follow anything they claim. Just like the guys that swear that $40.00 a foot speaker cable sounds better than $0.29 a foor lamp cord. It doesn't unless you were the one that bought it.

So be sure to take videophile sites and magazines with a grain of salt.. most of the time the arguments are just theory, and the overpriced solutions are rarely worth it.. (A line doubler.. there's one item I reccomend everyone get.)

Re:LaserDisc vs DVD - IANAVP

[ejasons]

First off please get a better link on the Laserdisc. as it is misleading. The ANALOG signal is converted to DIGITAL for the disc and then back to ANALOG for playback..

You totally don't understand how laserdiscs are encoded, so it's difficult to take any of your other arguments seriously.

Laserdiscs are encoded as PWM (pulse width modulation), which is a distinctly analog process.

The original poster's link: How do LDs Look Like (sic) is the best I've seen. Note how the pits are of varying length -- directly relating to the voltage at the point. If the pit's length should change at all, even minutely, the output voltage will also change; that is the definition of an analog process!

Add to this the fact that the laserdisc video is encoded as composite. The conversion from the original Y/C component to composite video is a lossy conversion -- a high-quality 3D comb filter can do a somewhat decent job of converting back, but it has to make assumptions about the original video (and has to sample the signal over time to form a basis in order to make its prediction).

I have over 150 laserdiscs, and it was by far the best format for the time, but a well-encoded anamorphic DVD will blow laserdisc away for video quality...

Blade Runner bombed

[WickedClean]

Damn! Since Blade Runner bombed at the theatre, they have been trying really hard to make their money back in video and DVD sales. How many more versions of this are they going to put out?

Re:Blade Runner bombed

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno, but if they do the same with Waterworld, I'm friggin' moving planets...

Re:What? it's in the book...

[fferreres]

I didn't thought about that posibility until i read Phillip K. Dick's "Do ...something (strange i can't remember the word...maybe im a replicant myself) dream of electric sheep"...

In the book, Deckard starts doubting where he is or not a replicant. Of course, he never takes the test himself but IMHO that's the ultimate argument of the book.

In the film they give you a clue to it when Deckard is taking the test to our nice and loved brunette replicant...

In the book it's more obvious because he think HE may be a replicant...and he suffers from that though (not only getting killed, but being a fake: which IMHO is what Phillip wants to show with all the animal-loving stuff in the book, which is not reflected in the movie).

ABANDONWARE VENDORS TAKE NOTE!

[mcrbids]

As an excellent example of selling the same !@#! thing over and over again, perhaps the copyright holders of abandoned software could take a lesson?

Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[DoctaWatson]

Which one of these versions of the movie is closest to the Philip K. Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

It's been years since I read the book or watched the movie, but I remember being appalled at how butchered the storyline was, especially the much-maligned ending.

Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Bomb Regardless]

Probably none. I saw BR first and I love the atmsphere/set design/costume design/what not, but Dick's story is so much better. (But I love PKD's work[1], so I'm probably biased.)

[1]Yes, I made a conscious effort not to say, 'I love Dick.'

Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Anonymous Coward]

None! The only similarity between DADOES and BR is a few names and a vague similarity in some locations. Ridely, Where the _HELL_ is the kippel?!?!

Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Salsaman]

Yeah, and the book has that whole weird cyberspace religion thing as well (what was it called - 'Fosterism' or something ?) which is not in the film at all.

Maybe they thought the film was bizarre enough already without having that in it as well.

Another thing which was missed really was the attitude to biological animals and their rarity, which we only glimpse when Deckard asks if the owl is real, and Rachael answers 'of course not'.

Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Dirtside]

Fosterism is, as I recall, from Stranger in a Strange Land (Heinlein). I could be wrong though.

Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Salsaman]

You could be right. I should cut down on the smoking...;-)

Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

[BuffPustule]

Actually the topic of fake vs. real animals comes up when Deckard visits the snake woman/replicant in her dressing room. She replies that if the snake were real she wouldn't be working there... (implication is that only rich people can afford real animals).

Re: reissuing more versions of movies, if people keep buying them, let the directors keep reissuing!

How about an update to the audio ?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that nobody has mentioned or seems to realize that the current Director's Cut DVD only offers Dolby Stereo Surround !

Sure it would be nice to have the original cut, outtakes, making of, interviews & audio commentaries, etc... but I would happily shell out $25 for a Directors Cut with improved picture quality and Dolby 5.1 or DTS 5.1 !!!

They fixed the movie with the Director's Cut. Now they need to fix the DVD with a proper 5.1 soundtrack. Sure, it would have been nice if they'd done it right the first time, but they didn't. Now they are doing it right, and you people are complaining !?!?!

Re:What? FBI

[fferreres]

Not only Deckard was a replicant, Phillip K. Dick was a replicant. Why else would he be under surveillance by the FBI? There's no file for Deckard though ...

Re:What? it's in the book...

[The Rizz]

The book's title is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

In the book, Deckard starts doubting where he is or not a replicant. Of course, he never takes the test himself but IMHO that's the ultimate argument of the book.

Um... are you SURE you actually read the book? That's certainly not what happens in DADOES... maybe you read that horrific "sequel" written by Jeter (which is one of the worst pieces of crap I've ever read, and has little more than the title and character names in common with either the movie or the book).
Deckard DOES take the test in DADOES, and passes it. Additionally, the entire subplot involving Mercerism is absolute proof that Deckard is human. Replicants cannot use the empathy boxes that are the key to Mercerism, and Deckard is shown to use them in several instances throughout the book.

--The Rizz

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity." --Philip K. Dick

Will it be...

[Daftspaniel]

Blade Runner 1.0 Somewhere, a Unicorn dreams of a Gecko running through the forest. Please raise all character flaws, continuity problems, visual gaffs and scene requests on Bladezilla.

It could be worse.

[the bluebrain]

Someone, somewhere, is thinking about a remake.

Lord, please stop them.

Re:It could be worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

n'Sync could be in the remake as the replicants.

Re:It could be worse.

[the bluebrain]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaarg!

:)

(ugh ... I thought I was painting a vivid worst-case scenario there ... but noooo )

The voice over made that movie.

[Thag]

For me, the voiceovers gave the movie its whole character. They were just so well done! Seeing the movie without them just leaves me cold.

I've tried to track down the laserdisc of the original, but it's long gone.

If they put the original version on the new DVD, I'll buy it. If they don't, it's no deal.

Jon Acheson

Re:The voice over made that movie.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised this comment hasn't been modded humorous; it is generally accepted that Ford intentionally did a poor voiceover to prevent it from being used in the movie.

Re:What? it's in the book...

[fferreres]

Thanks for asking me if i read the book so i could double check on that one: i read it. But i think you are right, he takes the test. Maybe that was on my mind is the part where he's argued about what the test proves: that the test can detect a replicant, but if the test fails, it doesn't necesarilly mean you are human, you could still be a replicant...(and Deckard had to ask 5 fold the usual questions to detect the girl)

I could try and find the interesting parts if someone thinks it's worth the trouble. IMHO it's very clear Deckard is afraid of beign a Replicant...

We'll know the answer when we can finally see the forthcoming "Blade Runner - The Replicant's cut" :-)

Well I For One...blah blah blah

[petesmart]

Despite most Slashdot posters negative response to this, I for one shall jump on Mr. Scott's bandwagon, and buy it. It's a great story, retold...again. But a great story non the less.

Amen. With DVD, give us the Option at least!

[wdavies]

HEAR HEAR!!!!

I watched the original Video so often that I can actually hear the Voice Over in the Directors Cut. It is so much part of making it sound like a Raymond Chandler novel.... I don't know what the heck he was thinking about. I can't believe this is a case where the Studio knew better than the Director :)

Winton

so old this probably isn't funny anymore

[eyeball]

I though the next release was going to show Al Gore as the actual inventer of Replicants.

hardy har-har

Re:so old this probably isn't funny anymore

[daeley]

so old this probably isn't funny anymore

You were right! ;-)

Slashdot Interview with Ridley Scott?

[wdavies]

First question: Will you include the original theatrical release on the new DVD?

:)

Cheers,
Winton

My 2 cents worth on his recent work

[wdavies]

Black Hawk Down is a return to form if you ask me. (5/5 for Movielens)

Gladiator was a beautiful looking flick. (4/5 Movielens)

GI Jane was kind of sucky :-) (2/5 Movielens)

Winton

Blade Runner on IMAX

[Bart]

Here in Bristol UK our Imax cinema decided to show Blade Runner last month for one night only - it sold out instantly. They then arranged to show it again a few days later - sold out again. They put it on the next night - guess what - sold out and people being turned away at the doors.
I missed it - couldn't get tickets for the one advertised show, didn't hear about the reprogrammings till later, sigh - how big is an Imax screen anyway.

Re:Blade Runner on IMAX

[pldms]

I went to see this on the Saturday (erm - was that the first showing?). Happily it was the director's cut - none of that 'my-name-is-deckard-and-I-catch-androids-blah-blah ' foolishness.

Pluses: Boy, those models were detailed. I expected the city to look a little dodgy, but they held up well at the increased size.

Minuses: Optically intense. IMAX films are (duh ;-) filmed with the size in mind. Bladerunner was not. Amusing example: whole cinema seemed to be watching tennis when the text came up at the start - they spanned a good 150 degrees of my vision. I came out literally wide eyed and feeling rather strange, as did several friends. Beer was the cure :-)

Re:Blade Runner on IMAX

[freeweed]

The local IMAX here plays 'Hollywood Classics' as they call them every weekend. seeing as the IMAX screen is almost square, and movies aren't, you get a mixed bag: shows done in 16:9 take up almost the entire width of the screen, and it's like watching a letterboxed/WS dvd on a tv, but really BIG. Movies that are more square (DVD buffs fill in the proper terminology) tend to actually take up less of the screen, especially the older and more deteriorated prints (Ghostbusters was a particular disappointment).

Points of interest:

Matrix is far and away the most popular to be shown so far. It sells out for every showing they've done (and they've had it at least 10 weekends now).

The screen (at least here in Winnipeg, Canada) is something like 5 stories high, well over 70 feet. Even if the movie frame doesn't entirely fill it, a good print plus the AMAZING audio systems they have really make for an experience (Saving Private Ryan anyone?)

The obvious choice, the Star Wars trilogy, has never been shown. I assume Lucas and his cash machine figure they can't make enough here, so why give the fans something they'd love?

Re:Blade Runner on IMAX

[mewsenews]

Hey, a Winnipegger!

Aren't you in some of my comp sci classes? (I'm Dave Kiddell)

I saw Apocalypse Now Redux at the IMAX. It was amazing.

I heard something about the Star Wars trilogy being shown privately by people who rented the place, but this was a long time ago (before ep1).

Re:Blade Runner on IMAX

[Pope]

Nothing, I repeat, nothing, is shot or matted in a 16:9 aspect ratio. That was made for HDTV.
True widescreen formats are usually 1.85:1or 2.35:1.

16/9 = 1.78

But When Are We Gonna Get that Soundtrack?

[hfk]

Dammit, a half-dozen versions of the movie available for home viewing, and the only (real) soundtrack available are pirates from Eastern Euro. Thanks God for MP3: I nearly wet myself when, a couple of years ago ago, wnile browsing some of the alt.binary.sounds.mp3 hierarchy I stumbled across the entire set. I'd waited for years for that music. However, although they sound good, I believe they were ripped from vinyl or, at most, from Audio CDs based on sub-standard originals. If we could just get Vangelis's originals remastered..... Not sure what it was that set Vangelis and Scott at odds, but sure wish they'd bury the hatchet and give the public a chance to enjoy (legally) one of the greatest soundtracks of all time (second, at least, to "The Graduate").

A side note: I enjoy Japanese traditional music and, several years ago I purchased a CD by Ensemble Nipponia (can't remember the name). After listening to it I was certain that I'd heard one of the tracks before, but couldn't place it. It wasn't untill I next saw Bladerunner (at an old theater in Waterloo, Canada that specialized in classic/cult movies) did I realize that it was exact same vocal track from the "Blimp Advertising" song sung by a Japanese female. Very haunting, and perfect as a device to complement the heavy asian influence of Scott's future LA.

Re:What? it's in the book...

[proxybyproxy]

Just to comment a bit on what you wrote.

The name of the book is indeed "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" which is a pretty far cry from "Blade Runner". The story is:

When Ridley Scott made his 1982 film based loosely on the novel he eliminated the electric sheep (along with much else), and Dick's title no longer made sense (nor would it have been very effective on a marquee). The film company bought the rights to another novel by a different author and threw away everything but the title--Blade Runner--a term which occurs nowhere in the book. The film eventually gained great fame, and the novel was eventually retitled to match.

I can't really decide which title I like better. Considering the differences between the book and the film, I actually like the fact that Ridley Scott (or whoever) chose a different title.

BTW, as fan of PKD it bothers me that I don't recognize the qoute in your sig. Where's it from?

Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Dan Crash]

Am I the only one who feels that Ridley's stupid obsession with making Deckard a replicant ruins the whole plot arc of the movie?

For years, Scott was silent on the subject, then in the '90s he began telling anyone who asked that, yes, Deckard was definitely a replicant. I don't buy it. I believe this idea only blossomed in Ridley's head long after the movie was released.

Part of what made Blade Runner powerful for me is that Deckard redeems himself in the end by rejecting the idea that replicants are morally less than human. Make Deckard a replicant and his moral victory becomes nothing more than faulty programming.

It's a shame Ridley seems hellbent on destroying the philosophical significance of his work just for the sake of an idea on par with, "Wouldn't it be cool if Superman and Batman fought?"

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[freeweed]

I don't buy it. I believe this idea only blossomed in Ridley's head long after the movie was released.

I, and most people I know, figured this out the first time we saw the movie back in 1982. And I was 8 years old at the time.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Xtifr]

I don't think "figured it out" is the right term. It wasn't actually in the original movie, and it definitely wasn't in the novel. But it was, indeed, an obvious (and IMO extremely cheesy) way they could have gone. We already had the idea that replicants might not know they're replicants (from Rachel). No need to beat it into the ground by making Deckard a replicant too.

Watching the movie for the first time, I was afraid they were going to make Deckard a replicant, and I was very glad they didn't take the easy, cheap way out.

Look at it this way -- even if you drop the original cheesy ending, if Deckard is a replicant, then he's been lied to / brainwashed / programmed, and plus, he has a kinship with Rachel, and so there's no reason for him not to save her. So, even with the original ending dropped, you can still assume he does The Right Thing(TM). If, however, she's a replicant, and he's human, then the new ending becomes far more ambiguous and powerful.

Or to put it another way, if Deckard is human, we have a powerful movie about how humans react to the unhuman. If he's a replicant, we have a cheesy Hollywood thriller about robots killing each other.

Honestly, making Deckard a replicant is a mistake that no one over the (mental) age of eight should have made. Phil Dick didn't make that mistake. Unfortunately Ridley Scott ain't so smart.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Dan Crash]

My thoughts exactly. Thanks.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[barawn]

Wait, I'm confused: Blade Runner is based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", right? Dick left it completely open as to whether or not Deckard was a replicant - or so he says. Honestly, it's fairly clear in the book that Deckard was a replicant.

Suggesting that somehow that demeans the meaning of the book is a little bit weak. Deckard realized that the replicants could be morally equivalent to humans, and therefore, by extension, so can he, so again, it's still a moral victory. It's not faulty programming, it's just simple logic on his part. It's an allusion to prejudice, really, and is essentially trying to ask, in a Biblical sense, whether or not those without sin are throwing the stones.

It really has nothing to do with Ridley's obsession, in this case: whether or not Deckard is a replicant is really one of the constant questions about the book, which has been out longer than the movie (10 years!) If it's Ridley's obsession, then it's thousands of thousands of other people's (including myself) obsessions as well, many of whom have never seen the movie.

The fact that Ridley chose sides in this isn't a big deal. I doubt that Dick himself is completely agnostic as to whether or not Deckard was a replicant. I don't think ANYONE can be truly agnostic on this argument - everyone who's read the book has an opinion.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[barawn]

OK, so see my other reply, but...

I don't think you can nearly put the strength on "definitely not in the novel" - whether or not Deckard is a replicant is one of the big open questions in that book. Honestly, I thought it was fairly obvious Deckard was a replicant (it was hinted at quite often enough - Rachael, and then the not-included other police station was a strong hint IMHO anyway, along with Deckard's dispassionate approach, AND his only -slight- moral trepidations. It would've been much harder for me!). To me, Deckard definitely was a replicant, even from the book.

I again say that I don't see how it changes the ending. The book then becomes less about how humans deal with the unhuman and more about what IS human, and what is the 'moral superiority' that humans have over replicants?

If you want the "ambiguous and powerful" bit back, start then thinking about Deckard's place in the world around him. Why choose a replicant? Surely the replicant would find out that he is a replicant and do exactly what Deckard did, right? And the goal is to stop replicants. What if humans were *unable* to do the job Deckard did, because of exactly the same problem - because they couldn't justify killing the replicants in their mind either - it just wasn't right. So they figured that they could program a replicant who wouldn't have the same moral trepidations, because replicants don't. Unfortunately, as it turns out, they were wrong in that case as well.

Why would Deckard have difficulty choosing to save her? Because of the difficulty it presents inside himself. He doesn't know he's a replicant. Saving her, in some sense, strengthens the possibility that he's a replicant. Killing her returns him to blissful ignorance, but at her sacrifice. Note again, saving her means that he's admitting that what he's been told is wrong, and that there is no difference, morally, between replicants and humans (and then, of course, he has to start wondering just what IS human - after all, remember - they stress that is the only difference).

This really is the beauty of the original book, and it carries through to the movie as well, mostly, because the story is powerful EITHER WAY. Either decision is perfectly valid, although, as we've both proven, those who believe one answer will vehemently declare that it was obvious, and they can't see how anyone could have come to the other conclusion.

In any case, I don't think you should blame Ridley for leaning one way in this argument - I think everyone does. You obviously do. I obviously do. I'll bet Dick does as well (so, in an X-Filian sort of way, the truth may be out there).

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[freeweed]

I guess to me I've always thought about it this way, there were just too many hints leading towards it, without holding your hand and spelling it out for you.

Of course, the modern way of doing this (Sixth Sense, The Others) is to explcitly state the 'surprise', but in my mind BR was one of the first I saw that used this twist on the main character, and did it very well at that.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[mysta]

I would have thought Scott kept quiet about whether or not Deckard was a replicant because, either:

• He wanted people to think for themselves first, or
• The distribution company wanted him to keep quiet about it.

Also, I very much doubt he thought up the possibility of Deckard ipso facto. The book he based Bladerunner on, Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", explores that idea in depth.

I'm surprised you think the philosophical side of the movie is better with a human Deckard. Finding out he is a replicant drives home your point of "rejecting the idea that replicants are morally less than human". After all, until the closing scenes you believed Deckard was a human, and one that had to make several difficult moral decisions.

Obligatory On-topic: I'm glad they bringing out a new DVD. I received one as a gift and was very disappointed to find a shoddily put together interface with no extras. Even the film's quality seemed no better than a VHS version.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think everyone does. You obviously do. I obviously do. I'll bet Dick does as well"

Yes, except that Dick's been dead for 20 years now.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[q-soe]

read the book - Deckard is a replicant, dick was making the point of the hypocrisy of deckard killing his own kind and not ebing aware of it, yet the morality that he displays is a comment on the humanity of humans, in many ways deckard is a vulnerable and weak character (especially in the book) yet he turns out to have a human and moral core that supercedes his weakness. The concept of humanity and intelligence is one recurring thru this boo.

the thing is if you read the book a few times things will jump out that tell you that deckard suspects he's a replicant but isnt willing to look deeper into it - the fact he passes the Voight Kampf and other occurences are there to keep us guessing - and the Voight Kampf isn't perfect (this is mentioned in the book) if Deckard is a Nexus 6 then he can show real emotion or a facsimilie of such.

The hints in the movie - More Human Than Human, "how can it no know what it is" are ironies that point us toward it from the start

Read some of the works on the making of the movie and it becomes clear ridley didnt want Deckard to be a replicant but the fact that he is hinges the entire story - he's a doomed man walking thru a doomed world yet he doesnt stop caring and dreaming and striving for more.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Luyseyal]

I can't comment about the book, but I've seen the movie and read one of those "making of" books. That "making of" book talks about Ridley Scott and one of the other guys... writer or producer, I forget... arguing about whether to make Deckard a replicant or not. Scott wanted him to be a replicant, the other guy felt he was definitely human. Scott made the ending a little more ambiguous than he was gonna and that's how it ended up.

-l

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Bodrius]

The original story was the origin of the obsession on whether Deckard was a replicant or not.

That's because the original story was written by Philip K. Dick. In case you don't know who PKD was, he was a remarkable science-fiction author who was obsessed with those kinds of questions himself.

Am I human? Is what I think is human human? What is human? Does human feel? Does non-human feel? How do I know I'm human? Am I human just because others tell me I'm human?.

I don't think those questions are trivial from a philosophical point of view. What defines you as human is definitely not on the level of a superhero deathmatch.

I think the reasons why Scott was silent on the subject until the 90s are more or less the following:
- He expected people to stop asking him about that damn movie at some point; he would refer them to the original story and just shut up. At some point, he realized Blade Runner fans, like most people, don't really like to read.
- PKD became insanely popular in the 90s among certain circles (Gnostic revival, I think). That probably motivated him to answer to certain versions of the question. News propagate.
- I'm not sure if it fits the timeline, but new video/Laserdisc/DVD releases would make the studios press him a little to talk about the damn movie again.

Really, if you have any doubts about where the obsession with Deckard's humanity was invented by the fans read some of PKD's stories. You'll find it's one of his typical patterns, along with "what is reality?" and "where does this god concept come from", and it's much much more obvious than in the movie in part because that story was not one of his best.

As a matter of fact, just read some PKD for the sake of it. You might find some interesting works of philosophical significance that meet your standards.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[g3po]

You're not the only one that feels this way. Harrison Ford thought so too. As a long time reader and poster to alt.cult-movies (before the bladerunner group was incepted) Murray Chapman was *the* guru, and collected some great info in his FAQ. Google Groups scares me sometimes...here's the relevant info from my original post in Jan 1997:

Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have *stated* that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. In _Details_ magazine Oct 92 Ford says:

"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[fferreres]

Make Deckard a replicant and his moral victory becomes nothing more than faulty programming.

Strange, i thought just the opposite. That Deckard was more human and a "better" soul that us humans, which are always calculating everything and trying to explot whatever we can. We are selfish bastards even when we do good.

That message reached my heart and moves me some times. Spielberg tryed to do that with AI, but it didn't reach me. AI is too artificialy engeniered. It leaks...BR does not.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[DuctTape]

Okay, I give. What were the hints? (movie only, please, not the book -- movies sometime have nothing to do with the books)

Of course, other than the eyes thingie (was that the director's cut only, or also theatrical release?).

Deckard did have a problem with pain, seemed to have normal human strength, etc. So, to me, nothing was obvious. I'm still in the he added it afterwards camp.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[Dirtside]

Funny, it sounds like this post was written 10 years ago. :)

Blade Runner was released in 1982 -- 20 years ago, not 10 -- and DADOES was released in 1968 (34 years ago). Also, Philip K. Dick died in 1982.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[barawn]

Sorry, the last copyright I saw on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was 1972, not 1968 (probably a second printing) - the 10 years was the time that the book had been out before the movie was released. I was off by 4 years. :)

As for the past/present tense re: Dick, when discussing authors' works, I tend to use present tense - so "I doubt Dick himself is completely agnostic" means that I doubt Dick is completely agnostic in the writing of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The writing still exists in the present day, so to me, it's present tense. I agree it did sound like Dick was still alive, though.

I actually was going to reply to this myself explaining the present/past tense thing, but I figured someone else would point it out. Beauty of Slashdot.

Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me.

[barawn]

See other comment. Beauty of being an author is that your ideas live on even after you die, and can be reinterpreted later on. Someone may come up with a very convincing argument later on that Dick clearly stated that Deckard was a replicant.

I'm not arguing it wasn't clear - after I read the comment the third or fourth time, I decided that it sounded like I was placing Dick in the present tense, but it didn't sound THAT bad...

For instance,
"In his work, LOTR, JRR Tolkien tells the story..." even though Tolkien's been dead for quite a while. Same idea.

(though again, I do agree that it kinda wasn't clear)

Studio knows better than the director?

[kolevam]

What the hell are you talking about? That's like saying the guy paying for Picasso's paint was right in adding smiley faces onto Guernica. If I had the choice between a Director's vision and a Studio's lust for money, I'll back the director any day!

Re:Studio knows better than the director?

[belroth]

And I'll take the better movie - in this case the Original Theatrical Release.

Re:Studio knows better than the director?

[kolevam]

And I'll take the better movie - in this case the Original Theatrical Release.

First, I'm sure you meant to say "I'll take the movie I consider to be better..."

Second, you haven't seen the Original Theatrical Release since it came out some twenty years ago. Are you sure you remember it all that well? The mind does funny things sometimes... given those are your real memories.

Re:Studio knows better than the director?

[belroth]

Anything I say on /. shouldn't really be considered Objective Truth, and I get tired of adding IMNSHO, but really I was being mischevious in response to the way I perceived the tone of your previous post :-)

And I bought the VHS version as soon as it came out, and assuming that is close enough to the theatrical release I am way more familiar with that than I am with the DC (yes I have that on DVD). I was considering a VHS-mpeg4 transfer, I may still do it if I can't get the 'proper' version on DVD.

All comments tongue-in cheek, but expressing my real views of the film.

And I haven't had any dreams of Electric Sheep........

Re:Studio knows better than the director?

[hawk]

>First, I'm sure you meant to say "I'll take the movie I consider to be better..."

Perhaps, but that would be a pity--given that his version was correct :)

>Second, you haven't seen the Original Theatrical
>Release since it came out some twenty years ago.

Neither have I, but . . .
>Are you sure you remember it all that well?

Ahh, swell. Now I'm admitting to remembering things that occurred before the average slashdot reader was born . . .

ANyway, I also haven't seen a video of it since the director's cut first came out--what, 10 years ago?

My preferred reading is dystopian science fiction. At times I (briefly and not seriously) regret the fall of the Evil Empire and the recovery of western culture in the U.S., if only because it put an end to what Pournelle wrote so well in the 70's [but I realize the futility of regretting the win because we miss the struggle.].

I'm one of those fanatics that turns the chromo controls down to eliminate color on colorized movis [Ok, so I once did this on a movie that turned out to have won an award for its use of color, because I thought it *looked* colorized . . . ]

With the voiceovers, this movie was a far better dystopian work. Maybe something *could* have effectively replaced them, but the tone was *far* too light without them.

hawk

The mind does funny
things sometimes... given those are your real memories.

Re:Studio knows better than the director?

[kolevam]

Second, you haven't seen the Original Theatrical Release since it came out some twenty years ago.

You know, this is lame of me to say, because BR has been shown in small revival houses like the New Beverly Cinema in LA since it first came out (I saw it back-to-back with CHINATOWN - LA's past and future). And those prints must be from the print-run for the original release.

Now, as I mentioned in a previous post, there was a version which played at the NUART in LA a few years prior to the release of the Director's Cut. Kenneth Turan later wrote an article about it in LA TIMES MAGAZINE, but it looks like you have to pay on their website to get a copy of it. Anyway, some interesting points from what I can remember of it:

1. Main Title (orange w/horizontal pinstripe) started split in half and met in middle of the screen.

2. Music was all messed up in final Roy/Deckard confrontation. I think article said it was from PLANET OF THE APES?

3. During one of the downtown scenes with Leon or Zora, there were distinct shots of dancing girls in these huge verticle plexiglass tubes!

4. Some of the dialog was screwed up when refering to the replicant shuttle-jacking and how many came to earth - I think they were still trying to reconcile the housewife replicant which was eventually cut out of script.

5. Webster's Dictionary definition - jeez it's been so long since I last saw regular version of BR I can't remember if this is unique or not - Oh well, I know at the NUART screening that either before or in lieu of the scrolling Replicant intro they displayed what would have been a Webster's entry for the word Replicant.

6. Nothing to do with the film - but the dude who plays Checkov in Star Trek was in line. He was all scruffy like he'd just gotten up and was politely waving to those who passed and recognized him.

I'm sure there's a whole bunch of other junk I can't remember. I distinctly got the feeling that this was just some rough cut made during post, or a collection of all the crap that got left on the floor. Whatever it was, it was pretty neat!

Huh?

[bnavarro]

Uh, the original soundtrack by Vangelis IS out -- at least in the U.S. It came out in '94

Yes, I own it, yes, it IS the Vangelis one and not the crappy New American Orchestra rendition (The booklet even has a statement by Vangelis saying how glad he is to finally be able to release this), and yes, it kicks ass.

If you don't see it under the soundtracks section, try the New Age section under Vangelis.

FWIW, Vangelis has an alternate version of the End Titles on his album titled Themes which is pretty good also. That album also has the Love Theme and Memories of Green (The song from the Unicorn dream sequence if I remember correctly), both of which are on the soundtrack as well.

Re:Huh?

[Pope]

He's talking about the bootlegs, usually called "Bladerunner: Extended Score." I have one version with 21 tracks and an 86 minute running time, vs. 12 tracks and 57 minutes for the Official Vangelis version. I'm pretty sure it's every single music cue in the film: "Bladerunner Blues" is almost 2 minutes longer than the released version, and there's another piece called "Wounded Animals" over 11 minutes!

Dune, Alien and Aliens are also available in extended score versions, often including demos and in the case of Alien, a complete copy of a score by Jerry Goldsmith that was rejected by Scott, and only included on the DVD as a seperate track!

It pays to hang around in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.soundtracks :)

Re:What? it's in the book...

[Coy0t3]

"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity." --Philip K. Dick

It's either Ubick or We Can Build You, I'm leaning towards the latter....

An interesting side note about Memories of Green

[bnavarro]

Ooh, I just remembered this little anecdote!

If you listen carefully, you can hear some beeping in the background of the piece. When I first heard this, I was stunned: It was the sound from the very first handheld video game I ever owned (and still do!): The UFO Master Blaster Station by Bambino.

How cool is that!

Then I guess Harrison Ford can do no wrong... ;)

[Thag]

...because I still really like the voiceovers.

Ford does sound grumpy, maybe like he doesn't want to be there, but that actually dovetails with Deckert's situation, and intentionally or not, really sells the character.

Jon Acheson

Re:What? it's in the book...

[scotch]

I've don't think I've read either of those, and I know I've read the quote - are you sure it's not in "The Man in the High Castle"?

Re:What? it's in the book...

[scotch]

No, wait - it's in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", right? Mercer says that to Deckard, near the end of the book, no? Shit, I must have read it 3 times. Goddamn old age.

This gives me hope!

[Jaycatt]

I've only seen the DC version of Blade Runner, and I almost fell asleep. I figured it being slow was part of it's charm (I also had some trouble staying awake with Dune though, so maybe it's just me). I'll have to check the non-DC version now... I'd really like to enjoy this movie.

Re:This gives me hope!

[hawk]

I saw the original release in the theater, and then rented the director'scut years later.

It lost a *lot* of the flavor. Bizarrely, the later cut didn't come across as dark as the original; even having read the book, the voiceover set the tone--somethings are justplain better (and more clearly) done with words than images . . .

hawk

movie lengths

[Max the Merciless]

It seems to me that Movies are getting longer, not shorter. Take Lord of the Rings for instance! MOst of the movies I've seen lately could have finished in half the time to no ill effect on the story line. If anything the marketroids seem to be adding on time to make everything damn obvious or get in more product placements. Wrapping up an ending neatly sucks, it takes something away from the viewer. Sometimes more is said by not saying it.

For example - Star Wars should never have had that stupid medal presentation scene at the end. It was completely unecessary.

Re:movie lengths

[El Camino SS]

Ahhh, but don't get me started on LOTR, it had some serious scenes that could have been wrapped up in seconds, but instead droned on for minutes.

For instance, the 'fellowship getting together and deciding to go scene'... I was saying, "oh, shut the fuck up and get on the horses, assholes. You're holding up the mystery, action, and suspense."

I could have slapped Peter Jackson for making me sit through that yakkity-yak crap. If I wanted to talk about the intricacies of the elves and dwarves, I would have read the book, now wouldn't I?

The 'elven love scenec' should have been put in the next movie, it did nothing for the plot.

There is no use putting in footage in for people who could probably quote the novel in their heads, and bore the ones that could care less and just want to see Frodo triumph in an adventure. A good director knows when to get to the point.

-Alex

Re:movie lengths

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding up the suspense, hehe thats good....

NOW THAT"S FUNNY!

[Anonymous Coward]

nice job. +5 rating.
i like the farting bit at the end - nice touch.

Titles and quotes.

[The Rizz]

I can't really decide which title I like better. Considering the differences between the book and the film, I actually like the fact that Ridley Scott (or whoever) chose a different title.

I prefer Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep as the title of the book, myself. With all the of symbolim behind the ownership of animals in the story, I like the original title for the novel more.
For the movie, I prefer Blade Runner though. The movie concentrates more on Deckard than the book did, so it makes more sense to have the title be a reference to his character.

BTW, as fan of PKD it bothers me that I don't recognize the qoute in your sig. Where's it from?

It's from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It's near the end, when Deckard is questioning whether it is right to kill the replicants. It is part of what Mercer tells Deckard when convincing him that although it is wrong to do it, he must do it anyway.

--The Rizz

"Everything is true. Everything anybody has ever thought." --Philip K. Dick

Re:Titles and quotes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until they make a movie of "Valis"!

Re:Titles and quotes.

[proxybyproxy]

I have been thinking that ever since I read the book too! And then I found out that they have already made an Opera (!!) based on Valis.

Even better, I would like to see the movie IN Valis, but AFAIK it doesn't exist.

Kurt Russell's "Soldier" in same story universe

[devphil]

Soldier, starring Kurt Russell, is one of those action movies that's not supposed to be funny, but turns out to be hilarious. (This is the one where "I'm going to kill them all!" is Kurt's longest line in the whole movie.)

One of the directors is on record -- on the DVD, I believe -- as saying the movie takes place in the same universe as Bladerunner. There are some references, but you have to be quick to catch 'em.

Ridley Scott works for the CIA

[bovril]

Ridley Scott started being a spin-doctor for Uncle Sam when he realised he couldn't cut it as a real unicorn fetishist... *cough* I mean director. Black Hawk Down is nothing but a propaganda flick.

N.B. Legend is an underrated movie. Evil and sexy like a good fairy tale should be. ;-)

Re:Ridley Scott works for the CIA

[acb]

After 9-11, that's what the public wants; it's hardly surprising that the Patriotic Thriller has become the top genre.

Expenses

[Snover]

and the myriad little expenses that crop up in a production.

What, you mean things like Pamela Anderson getting her breast implants put in^H^H^H^H^H^Hremoved^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hput in?

Not the only one...

[pinkpineapple]

In a related news: Philip K. Dick announced that he would rewrite the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." to make sure it would come along the lines of the new Ridley Scott's director's cut release.

Seriously: Fuck you Ridley Scott! Why don't you show us something new rather than adding 3 frames every years to your 1982 movie.

Do I have an opportunity to work on the piece of software that I wrote 20 years ago? No, so get a f...ing life Man.

PPA, the anime girl next door.

Re:Not the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a related news: Philip K. Dick announced that he would rewrite the book..."

How? via Seance?

PKD is DEAD.

Let me repeat myself: HE'S DEAD.

Re:Not the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who knows PKD knows that PKD lives in the pink laser light.

Case for keeping my Criterion LD release!

[gmezero]

I've always liked the original release of this film... and it still blows me away to this day. Every rehash since has generally offended me as crap... I would only consider the DVD if they did for it like Scott is planning to do for Legend... (basically the same thing Criterion did for Brazil). As disc set with the original print and the final directors cut included...

oh well...

Re:What? FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

He was under surveiilance for suspected unamerican activities and subversive actions - do a bit of reading about the time and the paranoia in the world and the USA - and about dick - some of his public comments and actions rang alarm bells in washington.

I will point out that all paranoia fades in importance when you look at the hysteria and paranoia in the USA after sept 11.

Re:I like the narration

[cheese_wallet]

I guess I must be in the minority on this view, but I actually liked the voice over. I thought it added a tremendous amount to the story.

Some things just aren't conveyed that well with pictures alone. Narration provides the bridge.

In most books that I read, dialog is minimal. The author is narrating the entire story, with sparse character dialog! Or internal character dialog, which is difficult to do in a movie without some sort of voice over.

It seems that the picture portion of a movie does a great job of providing a setting, and a mood, but nothing beats good verbage.

Snatcher

[Anonymous Coward]

ironic that the movie with the most version is also the model of one of the console game with the more version!!

Snatcher from konami (hideo kojima, metal gear creator).

The game have version all different:
-original on MSX
-a PC engine version
-a sega CD version (the best because the only one with light gun support)
-a 3DO version
-a saturn version (the 1 with the best box)
-a PSX version
- then another MSX version, this time a superdeformed japanese RPG rendition.

The game also have a prequel (policenaut) released on Saturn and PSX.

Each game a VERY different from each other :)

AlienSoldier

Blade Runner DVD?

[xylon]

The Terminator 2: Judgement Day Ultimate Edition DVD had this. Upon loading, you could choose whether to view the theatrical release, or the special edition.

The Special Edition used most of the theatrical release's chapters and inserted chapters where necessary. Audio must have been separate, I'm not entirely sure.

That said, I don't know about whether this could be used in Blade Runner... the differences between the edits are much greater than between the T2 editions.

Could be done, I suppose.

Or perhaps they could release one of those double sided discs.. That might make things a bit easier, though more cumbersome.

Try a spoiler warning!

[joe630]

Deker was a replicant? Dammit, I haven't seen the movie yet. Thanks for ruining it for me.

Re:Try a spoiler warning!

[nagora]

Deker was a replicant? Dammit, I haven't seen the movie yet. Thanks for ruining it for me.

He wasn't; he hasn't.

Re:What? FBI

[fferreres]

It was supposed to be *funny* not *insigtfull*. Of course, it may be the language gap or me being not funny. Anyway, the G-file is there for anyone to see :)

Re:Deckard will never be French to me.

[g3po]

Sorry to be a karma-whore, but I wanted to add a quote also listed in the FAQ about the issue from Ridley 'why yes, i am full of it' Scott:

"The Blade Cuts", Starburst (UK) no. 51, November 1982.

Scott: ...did you see the version [of the script] with the unicorn?

McKenzie: No...

S: I think the idea of the unicorn was a terrific idea...

M: The obvious inference is that Deckard is a replicant himself.

S: Sure. To me it's entirely logical, particularly when you are doing a
film noire, you may as well go right through with that theme, and the
central character could in fact be what he is chasing...

M: Did you actually shoot the sequence in the glade with the unicorn?

S: Absolutely. It was cut into the picture, and I think it worked
wonderfully. Deckard was sitting, playing the piano rather badly
because he was drunk, and there's a moment where he gets absorbed
and goes off a little at a tangent and we went into the shot of the
unicorn plunging out of the forest. It's not subliminal, but it's a
brief shot. Cut back to Deckard and there's absolutely no reaction
to that, and he just carries on with the scene. That's where the
whole idea of the character of Gaff with his origami figures -- the
chicken and the little stick-figure man, so the origami figure of the
unicorn tells you that Gaff has been there. One of the layers of the
film has been talking about private thoughts and memories, so how
would Gaff have known that a private thought of Deckard was of a
unicorn? That's why Deckard shook his head like that [referring to
Deckard nodding his head after picking up the paper unicorn]."

Scott goes on to talk about how he decided to make the photograph of the
little girl with her mother come alive for a second, then later in the
interview we have:

M: Are you disappointed that the references to Deckard being a replicant
are no longer there?

S: The innuendo is still there. The French get it immediately! I
think it's interesting that he could be.

Scott intended the unicorn scene to be in the 1982 theatrical release, but
the producers vetoed the idea as "too arty".

Re:yeah coca cola is dead

[fferreres]

Come on...some companies are dead some others are not...

So my evil twin, at last we meet.

[Kibo]

While I never actually hated the voice overs, they added nothing to the film. Certainly, they did not add as much as the scene extensions and the true ending.

Deckard seeing Gaff's little calling card, the elevator doors close and, bam, credits. That's the perfect ending to the movie.

He found his humanity with a little help from technology and chooses an uncertain life, over quiet wait for the grave. As opposed to some fruity fly by, and silly voice over as epilogue, it's no contest.

I think Ridley's statements that the unicorn dream was intended to show that Deckard was really a replicant are a little suspect. (After all, the rest of the movie doesn't really support that view, the interaction with Gaff and Captain Bryant (I think), but there is certainly nothing wrong with using the dream to suggest it, and the unicorn, particularly in that part of the film can be interprited to have other symbolic significance.) But that said, while the dream isn't exactly what I would consider anything remotely like a dream as I have experienced them, I don't think it particularly detracts from the movie. I must say I can't recall a movie I've ever seen that did what I would call an accurate depiction of a dream.

I and the other Good Twins agree, the director's cut of Bladerunner is vastly superior, mostly due to the true ending. And it's a damn shame that the studio interfered, but I consider myself fortunate that as hobbled by studio fools as it was, Bladerunner gathered enough of a following, and ment enough to Scott that I eventually got to see it done right. Look at what the studio system did to Fincher with Alien 3. The movie as released is fairly unremarkable, but if you've ever had the good fortune, or perhaps misfortune, to see the work print for the movie, you'll see what you missed out on. Even incomplete and lacking a score, Fincher actually accomplished the impossible, with inadaquate resources no less, only to have executives, who appearently don't watch movies for recreation, ruin parts of it for no discernable reason.

I could point out your foolish assumption by saying that when Steven Speilberg is allowed to make a movie his way you end up with stuff like that piece of shit 1941. But really, what's the point?

Good!

[Scooter]

I don't care if he tweaks it some more - the DVD I have is the most appalling transfer to DVD I have ever seen - the picture is too small, and the edges are not masked. The sound level's too low too.

So Many Versions, So Little DVD Space....

[LittleGuy]

Somewhere down the road, and with sufficient advances in technology, *all* of the little nuances and versions will be available in one complete set (whether on DVD or the sucessor to DVD) to market.

(I was going to expand that thought with the availablity of new revised versions of BR to upgrade without buying a new DVD/Whatever, but images of M$ and its Security Patches started to float in my mind.)

Anywho, I may break down and get the Special Edition, if only because the CowboyNeal/Lego version isn't in the forseeable future.

Countdown to DivX

[Aaron Lake]

I'll wait for the SBC 2CD AC3 5.1 DivX thank you very much.

Actually, there are only minor changes

[nedron]

If you read the article, Ridley Scott is not talking about making any significant structural changes to the film or adding any thematic elements.

When he says "I'm going back to the original negative and reorganising all the elements..." He's obviously talking only about the mastering from the original film and sound elements. That will allow him to make some modifications to the length of several scenes that were deliberately cut long to allow the narration (which is no longer part of the film).

The way he's proposed to do it (using the original elements) is really the only way to do it properly, as he'll be able to make new transitions work properly, from both a scene cut beat and, more importantly, for the sound mix.

"New" versions every few months

[Carnivore24]

Is it me or is it a little strange to see a "New" version of a movie appearing every few months?? A.I. is getting ready to come out in a few weeks and I predict within 3 months there will be a special director cut or special edition come out. Im still a bit mad because I purchased the "regular" version of Dogma only to see 2 weeks later a special "gold" version come out. :(

Sometimes a Unicorn is just a Unicorn

[HenryWirz]

Sometimes a Unicorn is just a Unicorn

mead skecthes/designs

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope there's a portion of the disc devoted to syd mead's designs for the production, I just love the guy's work.

http://www.sydmead.com/v/01/splash/

Objective Truth

[kolevam]

Anything I say on /. shouldn't really be considered Objective Truth, and I get tired of adding IMNSHO, but really I was being mischevious in response to the way I perceived the tone of your previous post :-)

Yeah, I know. I just got a pet peeve about, well... comparing OS's on /. is one thing... but discussing ART?!?!?! It's not like this is some HTML standard that IE and Netscape are feuding over. Do people freak out when live versions or remixes of music get released? Sheesh.

I don't suppose you saw that freaky cut that played at the NUART a few years before the DC was officially released? I suppose I should read the rest of these posts. Someone's got to have mentioned it. IMNSHO, that was by far the most interesting version of the film I've seen, but not my favorite.

How about something NEW?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, for the most part, Ridley Scott is a great director. I, personally, liked both versions of Blade Runner. The impact of any movie is strongest the first time I see it, so any remake wouldn't have the effect on me that seeing it for the first time did. So I'm left asking, what's the point? I suppose there are some individuals who haven't seen it before, but really, is it all that different from the original?
If you had to sum up the movie in a hundred words or less, would the summary work for any version? Probably. So my conclusion here, is I would probably enjoy something NEW from Mister Scott much more than a 'remake', even it were half as good as the original and great Blade Runner.