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."
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
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.
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
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.
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).