Slashdot Mirror
(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."
Ridley Scott is just doing what George Lucas mastered a long time ago. Gouging the sucke... eh, fans.
The owls are not what they seem
New edit...present day digital technology...is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?
::Falls down and starts farting::
Jar-Jar Binks: "Mesa not a replicant! Mesa a Gungan!"
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...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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?)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Deckard was a REPLICANT?
Oh my GOD...
- undoware.ca
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'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
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.
)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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...
Read my online journal: http://chris.carline.org
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
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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?
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.)
:)
:) (Besides, I don't mind seeing it in a theater again :))
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?
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.
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.
- The Sigless Wonder
This sounds an awful lot like Valve's marketing strategy for Half-Life. You know, the various editions and all, including:
Half-Life
But hey, whatever works....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
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
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.
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?"
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
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?
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.