(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?

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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?)

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.

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: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

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: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.

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.

[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.