Slashdot Mirror
'Final Edition' of Blade Runner to be Released
gevmage writes "CNN reports that a
new version of Blade Runner
will be released by Warner Home Video in a few months, for the 25th anniversary of the original film's release." From the article: "After a limited theatrical release, the newly spruced-up "Runner" will be released in a multidisc special edition DVD that also will include the original theatrical cut, the expanded international theatrical cut and the 1992 director's cut. Warner said specifics about the two DVD editions will be announced later."
Oh, wait...
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
It's about damn time! Now, I can FINALLY get my father the version he likes, and I can see what the hell he is talking about all the time.
Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
Watch how it's supposed to be done:
*SPOILER ALERT!*
From the Wikipedia Entry: I hope that the characters still get guns in this version! And that Harrison Ford is allowed to shoot it at the point in the duel when he originally did!
My work here is dung.
I want to see it again on a theatre screen in one of the better local theatres, the way it was when I first fell under the spell woven by Ridley Scott, Philip K. Dick, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Brion James, Daryl Hannah, Joe Turkel and Harrison Ford. Too much stock is put into "special editions", "directors cuts" ad nauseum DVD versions.
I was fortunate enough to see the Directors Cut of Blade Runner at the Maple Theatre in Troy, Michigan, several years ago with a great many college friends. It was magic all over again. I've seen it a couple times on DVD, but a tiny screen does this picture no justice. Stick with Adam Sandler rubbish on your plastic DVD-playing pal who's fun to be with.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Keep in mind that that only includes DVDs. HD-DVD will, of course, be available in the future. You can purchase your entire movie library all over again, just like going from LPs to CDs.
Will they contain more hints that Deckard was a replicant?
Any proof that Gaff was the actual Blade Runner?
I'd like to see the Channel 4 (UK) made documentary from years back? It was really rather good and I still have it on VHS.
I find it hillarious that the movie was portraying the future, 2019, as totally different and disturbing than the year it was made which was 1982. I guess thinking that 30+ years into the future it was possible that such a drastic change to occur. But here we are just 13 years away and LA doesn't look that bad... yet :)
Remember the predictions back in the 50s of flying cars be common-place in 2000 :)
http://religiousfreaks.com/But will they have the deleted prologue with Jamie Lee Curtis as Buckaroo's mom? And Old Biff fading out of existence in 2015? And Tron's love scene? And the original Ewok song? And the giant octopus in the cave with the pirate ship? And the old dodgy special effects where you can see the mattes shifting aroudn the flying tie fighters? And the bit where Servo and Crow save Mike's life? And the grown-up Wesley Crusher scene?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I really missed the Voiceover when I watched the directors cut, there was more meat to the "was Deckard a replicant" theory but I felt that it lost some of the 1940's detective movie in the future grittiness. The first time I watched the original version I was watching it in Black and White and could almost have seen Humphrey Bogart playing the lead. Still I'm definately going to get it - I only hope that there's some stuff on Philip K. Dick there, I've seen one or two fascinating TV documentaries on him.
Is this post a replicant? Or do I have to wait for the next one?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Deckard dies first.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I was one of those few weird geeks who went to see this odd-ball movie when all most people in the audience wanted to see was Han Solo or something else like Star Wars. Guess I can blame that on reading Heavy Metal back when it was a decent showcase for sci-fi/fantasy artwork.
My first exposure to a similar character was Good Night, Mr. James, a Clifford D. Simak short, which I read in the 70's and someone has made into a short film, which I saw on PBS probably 15 years ago.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If you like blade runner, the you should definately try the game (which runs well with wine btw). It is spot on regarding the spirit of the film and has 14 different endings, depending on what you do.
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Not sure there needs to be, there's precious little of his stuff in the film. Not that this makes it a bad film of course - in fact I think it's an excellent film. But the main points of "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", specifically the caring for live creatures and the collective shared belief in Wilburism transcending the reality of the origins of Wilburism are completely gone.
Enjoy the film. Enjoy the Philip K. Dick story. But never think they are even vaguely about the same subjects.
Cheers,
Ian
I still have my beaten up VHS copy that I bought when the movie was first released on video in 1982. It cost me $52 back then which was a lot of allowance money for a 12 year old. I was not happy with the Director's Cut and I also wasn't happy that the DVD version was so poorly done. I figured they'd hold out until the 25th anniversary to do something really nice with a box set. No matter how much it costs, I'll be buying it. This is THE movie that defined cyberpunk for me. The only thing that has me worried is the "limited release" sugegstion. That means that probably like the Critereon Laser Disc, this will be hard to find shortly was well. :(
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I got the old release on DVD, I'll wait for the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray release :P
I'm usually a huge fan of "director's cut" editions of movies. Often times, the stuff cut out of the original is really awesome stuff, such as John Lee Hooker's outstanding performance of "Boom Boom Boom" in "The Blues Brothers" (most of which was purged from the final theatrical release as being "too ethnic" for audiences of the time.) The restoration of that scene is a delight, and I no longer want to view the movie without it.
That said, there are five films where I strongly believe that the original is worth owning (if you plan on owning any version at all, that is):
Blade Runner. Yes, I know Ridley Scott hated having to add the film-noir style overdubs. But we're talking about the asshole who made "Legend" here. He's far from perfect. The pacing in the "Director's Cut" makes it quite obvious that it was filmed to make room for those dubs, and rather than actually re-edit those scenes, he simply removed the offending dub track. Probably because he didn't have enough other footage to keep a worthwhile run-time, especially after chopping off the ending he didn't like. The so-called Director's Cut feels like an unfinished movie, because that's kind of what it is. It's almost the film he would have made, had he not lost a few arguments with his producers.
Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi While the DVD re-edits of these are slightly better than the theatrical re-edits from a couple years before, they are still deeply flawed. Han still "dodges" a laser. The Jabba scene is still redunandant, still repeats dialog from the Greedo scene, and still has that stupid slapstick moment of Han stepping on Jabba's tail. Empire's re-edit fares slightly better, but syncing the Emperor with the one from Jedi and the prequels was, I feel, a bad choice, necessitated only by a need to keep things consistant with the prequels. The new ending sequence in Jedi was a mess... The Death Star effect was changed for the worse, and the tribal festivities of the corny "Yub Nub" song was replaced with something considerably less inspiring.
Blood Simple Nothing wrong with the Director's Cut of this one. You could argue that the pace was slightly better, but most of the changes the Coen Brothers made were actually cuts from the original. The first release is totally worth seeing, if you get the chance.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I hope they fix that horrible scene of the female replicant running through the glass windows. The one where they used a stunt double that looks NOTHING like the actress (Think guy in drag bad).
No human could survive the beating he takes. Don't need the director to spell it out.
we will end no whine before its time
The "Final Edition" features a previously unseen clue to Deckard's replicant-ness. It's not that Deckard shoots second, rather that they shoot at the same time. Thus he's got to be a replicant. That plus the glowing penis.
--- What?
I have wanted the theatrical release on DVD for a long time. I think that the narration adds to the movie. I understand Ridley Scott's reasoning for removing the narration I just don't agree.
My humor is probably your flamebait
I hope they're not calling this one "Special Edition" and making sure that Harrison Ford doesn't shoot someone first or whatever. Please, tell me it's not ruined!
we are going to delay the boycott for the last time? And this time we mean it, right? I just don't get it. People hate the ??AAs and yet they continue to feed the beast. Well, I guess if a boycott was successful and they died off, we wouldn't have anything to complain about now, would we? Is there such a small amount of news that the page has to be filled ads in such flimsy disguises? Is this the shareholders talking? What a bizarre world. Complain bitch pay, Complain bitch pay, pay, pay, pay
What?
Nice ad for yet another release of a 25 year old (excellent) movie. First wrapped in a CNN story, then in a Slashdot story. Without any of the distinguishing features of "news", like details, or something actually happening (not just an announcement). Comparisons to the original, or the DVD revision? No - just wait until you see it! While supplies last!
For example, is the notorious voiceover narration in the theatrical rerelease? Which "extra" scenes are retained or dropped from the Director's Cut DVD version, or any others? Other than "new standard formatting", how is the release different from the past ones? Even
This is just PR, including promotion of other Hollywooded PK Dick stories. Watch for the next phase of ads, which dwell on "whether or not Ford's Deckard is actually a replicant", without reporting any info of what the new releases are like compared to the long history of the movie.
If copyrights were fair, this artifact of a generation ago would be producing lots of new versions and independent reporting of how people treat its fascinating story, in the hands of the public. New voiceovers/lines, new/deleted scenes, different framing edits, the rest of the story from the book, splicings with other movies like Dick's _Running Man_ or even _Alien_ or _The Matrix_...
Instead, we've got a giant rehash propaganda machine. At least this one's hitched to a movie that's worth seeing again. Even though its treatment as a product diminishes it, and us.
--
make install -not war
Actually....Leon shoots first....
Watch the eyes in this movie. It's all about the eyes.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
From the preceived damage done to the environment due to Acid Rain, then the global warning panic of the 80's?
You must be new here.
Hollywood has (almost) no new ideas.
Aside from remaking '50s and '60s sitcoms as feature-length films, and making the umpteenth sequel of a previously successful franchise, the only possibility left that uses even LESS imagination would be the wholesale re-release of films.
Look, I loved Blade Runner. It's still one of my very favorite movies. BUT ENOUGH ALREADY.
We need a "Death with Dignity" movement for plot lines.
-Styopa
There's a quite rare version of the flick with Harrison Ford doing a sort of voice-over. The voice over is in character and more or less clues you in to what Deckard is thinking - i.e. not a director/actor commentary. I bought the VHS on ebay a few years ago and had it converted to svcd but I'd love to have an original dvd version of it.
Obviously you don't get out to the movies much. Action picture movie stars are really really tough!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
"Mein Voigt-Kampf".
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
I remember way back when DVD players were new: A lot of people bought them for Blade Runner. If it were HDVD-Ray (Ray-o-Blue-dvd?) it might make people buy PS3's. Sony must not have the rights to it.
There are so many idiotic comments about Bladerunner in this thread there's no point in trying to set anyone straight. It's pretty clear the posters are not in the target audience for this DVD and would prefer to stay in the basement and watch 'Teletubbies.'
Greed.
...don't fix it. The Director's Cut is as good as it gets.
In view of the huge financial incentives studios have to continue releasing repackaged original content ad nauseum, and with no end to this phenomenon in sight given the impending DVD format war, I move for an indefinite moratorium on the use of the term "final edition."
All in favor?
Except for the flying cars, the future predicted in "Blade Runner" is correct; it's just not LA. It's Detroit, or possibly a 'burb of Philly.
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
The directors cut is the only thing worth watching. Someone mentioned that it looks awkward because the film was made for dubbing... baloney, Scott was furious when the studio MADE him dub it because it was too complex for americana to understand. While somewhat slow, the movie is so stunningly beautiful that your eyes can just wander on screen in delight. Also, the most 'accurate' looking portrayed future I have yet seen on film. That is, 25 years after the film has been released, many parts still look plausible. Once again, spare yourself from watching the theatrical version, it sucks compared to the directors cut.
Is this post a replicant? Or do I have to wait for the next one?
"Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
I ready have 3 versions of Star Wars and 2 versions of the Fifth Element (which is Carbon, BTW). Now I have to get another version of Blade Runner too? *sigh* if you insist....
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
I'm still wating for the 1988 prequel "Blade Run"
and the 1990 sequel "Blade Runnest"
They were the awesomest movies yet.
They're using their grammar skills there.
This is the only true cyberpunk movie that captured the spirit set mainly by Gibson in e.g. Neuromancer and by others. Stuff like the Matrix is pale in comparison, a riduculous mix of cyberpunk and tech-singularity concepts, aimed at providing cool but even more ridiculous fighting scenes (no, the computer will NOT fight you by generating a character aimed at your perceptive brain). What's particulary interesting about Neuromancer was, apart from the fact it was a book on many levels such as romatic or 80ties gloom thinking, it was also a warning or investigation in what tech can do to humanity. But in the nineties, when the internet needed jargon words such as cyberspace or matrix, much stuff was modelled and named after Gibson cyberspace concepts, because of the "coolness" factor, in fact turning his warning into a self-fullfilling prophecy. Yuck. Back to Blade Runner, it was a brave attempt at capturing some of the spirit. It is sometimes shallow and clearly the same issues play as with other movies after books, e.g. the Da Vinci Code, and I think it was handled particularly well here on a whole. How cynical it is, that the choices they have made (voice-over etc.) now endlessly hount us in "final" and "director" cuts and other such marketing ploys aimed only at getting my money. Guys, it is JUST a movie, no ones live will get any better by watching the same story told a bit different, except the guys who are selling it.
Seriously I am getting tired of this "Is he human or replicate" crap. For the story to work, he needs to be human. Otherwise all kinds of plot problems open up. Like if he was a replicate, how come he sucks so much in a fight? All the other models kick the shit out of him--including the so called pleasure models. And does not explain if he escaped with the other models on the spaceship, why don't they know him? And if he is a special model like Rachel, why the hell does Tyrell not know this? As great as certain writers/directors/artists are, editors/media engineers exist for a reason. There are times when the "creative vision/crack pipe dream" needs to be reeled in to make something work. For Blade runner, seeing Deckard as human is critical because it explores the question more deeply of what it is to be human. Putting in Ridley's directory cuts takes away the internal dialogue of the voiceover and makes Deckard some kind of action hero. Really changes the movie too much in my opinion. Personally I think voice over adds a lot to the story, I would even go far as to say it makes the real crux of the story possible with the internal dialogue we have of the characters. The editing done to the original film makes it what it is. It will be the only version of the film for me. Nice that I can finally buy it a decent format. Film is a collaborative process, and in this case the sum did indeed produce something better than the single vision of the director. Ridley needs to let it go at that and stop stirring the shit.
another generation would enjoy it?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually, this should be a pretty incredible release. Ridley and his team have gone through and re done fx shots, fixed continuity, added a bunch of new footage (including the scene of Deckard visiting Holden in the hospital after being shot by Leon) and added a new ending. According to Ridley, they also found a pallette of original footage in a warehouse in the San Fernando Valley that was supposed to have been destroyed. So they went through it, and cleaned up what they could to be included in this 3 to 4 disc set. Apparently it has been done for quite some time, but they have been in legal battles with Jerry Perenchio (producer).
I've got the original theatrical release on VHS. I don't care for the director's cut so I never bought the DVD. Now I'm glad I didn't.
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
I know it's a great film but for goodness sake how long are we going to keep falling for this? I've already got two versions of this film and will not be buying a third. It seems that every director under the sun is releasing director's cuts and special editions - it's a shameless cash in. As a creative I am very familiar with the need to have your work as you want it but this is Ridley Scott's third go at it. If he was that talented he would have got it right first time. Possibly the only honest director's cut I've seen was the alternative Alien Resurrection, where Jean-Pierre Jeunet explains that he was perfectly happy with the final cut but here's something they've done anyway.
I liked it - watching the 2nd version felt oddly empty.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Wakatte kudasai yo!
yuo spin me rite round ababy rite roudn leika record baby
I've seen it a couple times on DVD, but a tiny screen does this picture no justice.
I was fortunate enough to first see this as a Midnight Movie when I was a sophomore in college. Jesus, it just blew me away. I've seen in plenty of times since (it's probably my favorite movie) but it's never had quite the same emotional effect on me as it did that first time. I completely agree that a huge screen in a dark room with an awesome sound system is the best way to see this film. Ridley's visuals with the Vangelis score creates a mood that is unsurpassed. You really, truly get a sense of what it would be like to live like Deckard in a burned-out hull of a crumbling world, doing a job that you know is morally wrong. For those of you who have never seen this in the theater, I urge you to pounce on any opportunity to do so. It's an incredible experience.
For all those insipid ads from the MPAA going on about the 'great movie experience', this is the one rare film where it is completely true. Of course, it helps that highschool gangbanger-wannabes aren't going to be attending this film...
GMD
watch this
Are you kidding me? As someone who lives in the Detroit area, I'd happily welcome a "Blade Runner" make-over. It'd be a improvement. As Patton Oswalt said on his website recently about Detroit "I think ROBOCOP might have been a documentary. Yikes."
Take a tour youreslf.
My player came out so early, that it came with 4 movies. 2 for kids, "In the Line of Fire" and some music video.
:-)
I bought my DVD player in 1997, because Star Wars would certainly come out right away to make use of this technology.
Good thing I didn't sell my Laserdisk player.
My mom says I'm cool.
From the article:
... [i]t is the only 'big' sci-fi spectacle currently unavailable on DVD," Pratt said.
... better bet I'm shelling out the bucks.
The director's cut first came out on DVD before optimal formatting standards had been established, said Doug Pratt, editor of the DVD-LaserDisc Newsletter.
"Shortly afterwards, it went into moratorium
Huh? A search on Amazon shows it availale for under ten bucks. It's in every store I visit. Never been OOP AFAIK.
Still, remastered and cleaned up
The bloody point of the story is that, in the end, it is irrelevant whether Dekard (or Rachel...) is a replicant.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I know there are a lot of people who really hate it, and say that it ruins the movie. Well, Ok, that's a point of personal preference. My problem with that is that without the voicover, you have to see the film three times before you understand what's going on.
In my article submission, I also had a couple of sentences about that. I said something like "no word on whether the voice-over is a separate audio track", but the editor just kept the very basics.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Until the HD versions that is
This IS important, slashdot worthy news, and the reissue most likely WILL be worth buying.
Blade Runner has been practically MIA for years. The DVD was extremely poorly made, and had very few if any extras, meanwhile a ton of extras exist on various VHS and laserdisc editions. Not to mention an archival quality definitive digital film transfer that was made for this project several years ago but not released due to legal issues. And of course the original vs. the Director's Cut are such different movies they both have their merits. A lot of people like the voiceover and "happy ending" in the original cinematic release. To have both in one disc set softens the contentious "which is best" issue - now it's a question of which version are you going to select from the DVD menu this time.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
I bought the director's cut version on dvd and thought it was ridiculous that the bonus features was "interactive menus". No commentary, I don't remember them even including a trailer. A movie as important as this (to the sci-fi community) deserves a great dvd. Don't they have any production stills? Can't they get some cast and directors together to talk about the movie? How about the soundtrack... landmark soundtrack, how about the members of the band and the score director. Are these people all dead? If they put out a package as good as the Criterion version of Brazil.. they would sell a ton of them. It would be huge.
The "Mo' Money" version?
>>Do you think Harrison Ford would subconciously act a little bit like a robot if he knew he was secretly playing one?
Yes. Take R2D2 for example.
Oh wait..
I think the voiceover is useful when seeing the film for the first time because it helps you get into the story a bit more. There's a lot going on and I think the average movie-goer doesn't pick up on it without a helping hand.
Now that having been said, I think the non-voiceover version is better for later viewings. The problem is that you subconsciously identify with Deckard a bit more because he is narrating and "helping" you along. But Deckard is not really a "hero" in any real sense. He may be the main character but he is a drunk who kills escaped slaves -- hardly a noble profession. My feeling is that the voiceover tends to shift the story more into a good-guy-bad-guy dynamic when the point of the story is really that there aren't any good guys or bad guys -- just guys who do what they can to survive. Batty isn't evil; he's desperate. He does terrible things but that's because he's on the edge and trying to find a way to keep himself and the others (Pris) alive in a society where they are viewed as objects instead of beings. Deckard is much the same way. He knows his job is evil and yet he continues to do it because he can't make a living any other way. Deckard and Batty are remarkably similar and the voiceover prevents you from seeing this since you tend to sympathize with someone who's thoughts you can hear.
GMD
watch this
" but a tiny screen does this picture no justice."
http://www.tvcity.tv/productview.aspx?ID=1518
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Maybe this time they will ditch the overdub errors that remain in the "Director's Cut" version.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
(Unless it would look totally crap in IMAX, in which case, nevermind....)
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Speaking of... Will we get the eurominutes, or will this be yet another sanitised US version? In my opinion, it doesn't help much to put "Unrated - Director's Cut" on a cover, if it's still been censored to not upset bible belt watchers.
Regards,
--
*Art
I have an old director's cut copy, and the only thing I never liked about it were the visible wires holding up the flying cop cars, etc. Seriously, would it have been THAT hard to remove those at some point? Is there a version of the movie where the wires aren't visible? Is it something that will be taken care of in the latest super-duper-ooper deluxe version of the movie? I love the movie, and to this day the imagery portrayed in it still works and wraps you up in the idea of such a future, that is, till you see a flying being hoisted up with cables. The suspension of disbelief is destroyed for a few seconds. It's nothing huge, but it's annoying.
>>Remember the predictions back in the 50s of flying cars be common-place in 2000
Wait.. so "The Fifth Element" was not real?
Then we get Final HD edition (in HD-DVD) and Ultimate Final HD Edition: Blue (in Blu-Ray with additional DRM).
Eat it.
Uh, all films that weren't explicitly shot and edited for imax look like
crap on an imax screen. Trying to put 16:9 content on a nearly 1:1 screen
means that you either get the whole thing in tiny form, or that you cut off
nearly half the content.
But then again, who does?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I move for an indefinite moratorium on the use of the term "final edition."
All in favor?
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
The timing of this reissue is funny to me. I recently went back and reread some of the original cyberpunk novels, ie Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson and Neouromancer by William Gibson. Neither novel lost any ot their relevance as far as the internet/computer outlook. The technology is different, but the ideas are the same. I hated the director's cut of Blade Runner. I thought the original vision with the whole film noir thing was great. Without the voice over that feeling was lost. I hope that the new release will have both versions. People around here can piss and moan about which was better, but I think that the play to film noir was really cool. I have not seen the theater version since it was in the theater, but I do remember it having a big influence on me.
this edition has been in the works since before 2002...there has been a mountain of legal difficulty in obtaining the rights for release.
Essentially, for anyone who cares, the BR workprint was being previewed in some houses in California being billed as "The Director's Cut". Ridley Scott / Warner was extremely unhappy at this notion, and after witnessing the large audiences it was drawing decided to release a real Director's cut in theatres, pressure from Warner made Scott rush it, and some of the footage he wanted at the time to use could not be found.
This is essentially the director's cut he wanted to release before...there's a lot of information on what is different and has been added here:
http://www.brmovie.com/BR_Special_Edition.htm
While you're entitled to your opinion
I couldn't diagree more. The Voiceover was added to hold the hands of people who can't follow a plot without some assistance in my opinion.
I found the film flowed so much better without the voiceover (and forced you to piece together things as you went). It just felt too damned pedantic with the narration.
Almost without exception (*cough* Lucas *cough*) I always buy director's cuts since they tend to be the movie they wanted to make, and not what the studio made them chop it into. The theatrical release will have relevant stuff snipped, and junky irrelevant stuff inserted.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This was exactly my take. It makes more sense to tell the actor that the "truth" is whatever the character beleives to be the truth-- regardless of whether that's what you have chosen for the objective truth.
Yes, if Decker is intended to be a replicant, Harrison Ford is certainly a good enough actor to play a replicant-who-beleives-himself-to-be-human properly even if he knew he was playing a replicant. But it still makes more sense, from a director's perspective, to tell the actor what the character beleives, rather than what you have chosen as the objective truth for the world you are creating. Why muddy the waters?
So would this be the definitive "blood out of the turnip" -edition?
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
and the 1990 sequel "Blade Runnest"
I think you mean Blade Runnerer
I haven't been to LA in years, but Toronto is certainly starting to remind me of Blade Runner's LA.
I remember seeing this in the 80s and thinking the cars were absurdly round and bulbous, and now here we are in 2006, and I think 13 years is more than enough to turn this into this.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Just how long will it be before they don't even have to bother with lousy remakes *cough* Poseidon Adventure *cough* and can just resell their film vaults over and over again?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was really disappointed that Ridley Scott included the date at the begining. It just seemed way too soon. And i saw it when it was first released.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
You forgot the flash animated version at www.bladestarrunner.com
Pah! And you call yourself a fan?
I think putting the date -- any date -- at the begining was a serious lapse in judgement. He should have left it open to interpretation.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
I would say there's a definite difference acting-wise between a playing a human and a replicant-who-believes-himself-to-be-human. If Ford knew he was playing a replicant, he could have added bits to his performance that foreshadowed it. And if you trust Harrison Ford enough to play the part, you should tell him exactly what part he's playing. Otherwise, what's the point of even having Decker be a replicant at all?
It's like having an actor play a person who has cancer but doesn't know it yet, and not telling the actor "your character is eventually going to be diagnosed with cancer." In that situation, you're not giving the actor the opportunity to have their character "exhibit symptoms," since he doesn't even know his character is supposed to have any symptoms. If Ford knew he was a replicant, he could have exhibited subconscious "symptoms" of being a replicant, and done so knowingly and intelligently.
Wikileaks, no DNS
I once heard that music and movie companies preferred one-hit wonders, or blockbusters, that would bring in a big wad of cash immediately, instead of bands or movies that would have a moderate yet sustainable horde of followers.
...I say, as I shuffle through Best of the Ramones, Ramones: All the Stuff (and more) volumes 1 and 2, Ramones Mania, Ramones: NYC 1978, etc...
It looks like maybe now they've figured out how to cash in on the long-term hordes of followers: Re-releases every few years. Haha, all you Star Wars and Blade Runner suckers!
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
Harrison Ford is a replicant! Didn't you see Raiders of the Lost Ark? Any of them? How about Star Wars - any of them?
And he didn't take a beating in it, but he certainly seemed a bit robotic in American Graffitti.
Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwartzenwhatsisname are obviously replicants, as well. You never saw Die Hard or Running Man?
If Deckard were a replicant, he would have had an easier time of the whole damned movie, from getting his gun slapped out of his hand to getting his ass thoroughly kicked. Plus, his fear was palpable (good acting). None of the replicants showed fear at all, even when dying.
Plus, both the book's author and the original screenwriter's author say he's human.
(This post's capcha is lame. Lame, I tell you! Singable? WTF is that supposed to mean? Bring back the MRC!)
in this version he'll have a wife?
maybe someone will push a goat off a building??
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Well, that, and it probably wasn't given the detail work necessary to have it examined at such large magnification.
I couldn't deal with the only IMAX blowup I've ever seen because the animator's lines were swimming in space instead of clean-looking like they were in the 35mm distribution print.
If you want an IMAX film, you need to shoot it as such.
Gentoo Sucks
Read this story and then hop over to half.com and buy the 1982 orginal VHS of Blade Runner for 3.95 +2.95 shipping&handling did I? Yes. Yes, I did. Nerd? I've had the "directors cut" for years and always thought there was something wrong with it that I couldn't put my finger on. I'm a nerdy, nerd.
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Then there's Dark Star. Personally, I prefer the longer version there, even though it was padded out to make it long enough for movie theaters.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Tyrell: Would you like to be modified? Roy: I had in mind something a little more radical. Tyrell: What seems to be the problem? Roy: Death. Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my jurisdiction, you... Roy: I want more life, - and a new version of Blade Runner to be released father...
"he is a drunk who kills escaped slaves"
He's a guy who shuts down machines that go berserk.
Just from this article's discussion I think it can clearly be seen that you are wrong about this.
The dream of the unicorn and the origami at the end of the movie pretty much settles the question of whether Deckard is a replicant.
I take it you've never heard of symbolism.
Unicorn = man-made (mythical) animal
Rachel = man-made (bio-engineered) animal
In the movie, the unicorn is a symbol for Rachel. Deckard only dreams of the unicorn after he falls in love with Rachel. At the end of the movie, Gaff leaves a unicorn not because he knows Deckard's dreams, but because the same symbol was being used consistently in the movie.
As for whether or not Deckard is a replicant - the actor, producers, writers, and original book all say that he is defeinitely not a replicant.
ABOUT fargin TIME I've been waiting years for this. The directors cut sucked IMO, Harrison Ford's narration is part of the movie and gave it that eerie dark, bleak rainy future.
Bladerunner Director's Enhanced Laser Master Final Final cut will be out in HD-DVD for you to buy all over again.
Just watch the movie closely (any version). Toward the end, when Batty is chasing Deckard through the Bradbury building, he calls Deckard BY NAME. They've never met formally in the movie before this point, so how does Batty know Deckard's name, hmm? This and the many other great points others have brought up prove that DECKARD IS A REPLICANT.
By the way, everything you all have been discussing in this thread has already been well hashed over in great detail, in the great 1996 book "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner" by Paul M. Sammon (Harper Prism Paperbacks ISBN # 0-06-105314-7).
From this book:
Currently, there are a total of FIVE different versions of this film (the upcoming new 2006 re-release would be # 6):
1. The Denver/ Dallas / San Diego sneak previews (only shown once and never released on any media).
2. The 'domestic' cut (widely available domestically on VHS and LaserDisc). The original domestic theatrical release from 1982.
3. The 'international' cut (only available on Criterion Colection LaserDisc). This is the version with the extra violence of Tyrell's and Pris' deaths that was only shown in Europe.
4. The 'workprint'. This was a reduction of the original 70mm print that was shown at a few art house theaters in 1991 to test the waters for demand for a director's cut.
5. The director's cut. Theatrically released in 1992 (also released on DVD and LD in May 1993). We all know about this one (no voiceover, etc.)
There are flying cars in Blade Runner because the urban environment has become so dense that taking transportation 3D is the only way to alleviate congestion.
The last 30 years, though, have seen a decrease in the density of major urban areas. Big, flat, box retailers have won over the multi-story mall. Parking lots have won over parking garages, and high-rise offices and apartment building starts have dropped like a rock.
There will be no mass adoption of flying cars until the cost of land increases to the point where building up once again is economically viable.
It is not a tech issue, it is an economic one. There is no economic pressure for flying cars.
It's Mercerism, not Wilburism.
I guess the Workprint will NEVER see the light of day again...
Well at least I was one of the lucky handful that saw it during its 2 week run at the Castro Theater in San Francisco in 1991.
Alright everone hold on, cuase its time to make money before HD! That's right, master everything in HD and then down sample to D1 so that we can make one last push to SD before we can sell the same thing to the HD crowd again!!. Lucas is ready, are you?
I'd have to read it again, but wiki notes aside, I'm about 99 percent positive that it is never implicitly stated in the book or movie that Deckard is or is not a replicant.
*mulitple spoilers*
But in the novel, he is convinced that his neighbor has a real live pet, but it, *like all living things left on the earth (*this is implied) is a facsimile. Also, while Deckard eventually concludes that Rachel is a Replicant, it is based in the end on a guess. I believe that is implicit, I think Deckard says as much to Tyrell when he outs her. Further, I'm pretty sure that the implication at the end of the day was that the other Blade Runner officers weren't real(tm) either.
Naturally, in this new and improved version, Deckard uses a flashlight instead of a gun. And he never turns it on first.
before HD-DVD/ BlueRay version
The compression on your pathetic DVD is nothing compared to the power of the .. uh .. nothing close to the quality of the original film. Too much banding and pixilating to suit me. Film in that regard still blows away digital media.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I thought they finished shooting on this moving a couple of decades ago...
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
The book and the movie have the same theme: Dick's question of what it means to be human. They also share an answer to the question: to be human means to have compassion. They differ on whether or not replicants have the capacity or possibility to develop compassion, and of course on many specific plot points, but the core meaning of both is the same.
The DVD has actually been unavailable in Australia for a long time now. I tried to find a new copy to no avail, and ended up having to breach my MPAA programming and copy it from someone who bought it in its (extremely) limited first release here.
The quality is as bad as VHS - I suspect it might actually be from VHS. The sound is stereo. It is, at least, the 'director's' cut, although that version wasn't Scott's final vision for the film (it remains to be seen how the new 'definitive' cut pans out on that front).
My understanding is that the re-release has been blocked for a long time by some asshole with some of the IP rights to the film. I guess Time Warner finally had him 'retired' so they could go ahead with the release.
I really, really hope it has properly remastered footage (memo Time Warner: look at the remastered version of Twin Peaks season 1 as a guide to how good remastered vision and sound can be) and cinematic sound - I assume it was in more than stereo when it came out, though this may not be the case.
I also hope they don't mess with the essential plot elements a la Star Wars and ET... that would be a crime against art beyond any mutilation of a kids space fantasy...
Read Pynchon.
I'm still ticked that the version I bought several years ago didn't have the Harrison Ford dialogue. His dialogue gave the movie a sort of pulp-fiction detective story mood that was missing in the director's cut.
I converted my LD version (non directors cut) to DVD long ago - but Im still game for an improved 16:9 version of the theatrical version,
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
What if no one shot first, then there would be no shooting.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Provided it's got a theater gamma and a minimum of those top-right-corner blackburn QQs for TV commercials, maybe. The real theatrical release had a Sam Spade underlogue and a nice upbeat fantasy ending, just like Original Release Brazil. Pris rolled her eyes in appreciation of Sebastian's toy soldiers in a nicely realized bit of big screen cinematography, and Daryl Hannah's death scene in theaters was awesome -- Pris was designed to be an android soldier's sex toy after all, and her tastes, scents, joy, hormones and lust for life were absolutely nailed by Hannah in the original cut, with its original pace, original frame count and original timing. If this "original cut" is just another salvage job from somebody's 3-inch television studio tape (like the $9 edition of 16 Candles), I'm not sanguine.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
From the provided link:
Jonathan Grant, London, UK:
When the Alien erupted from John Hurt is it true that the other actors had not been warned and that their looks of horror were genuine or is this a movie myth?
Ridley Scott:
No it is true. I figured that once you had seen it - it is a bit like telling a joke, once you have heard it, it is only half as funny when you hear it again. I thought there was absolutely no future in showing them the baby and therefore he came in literally under wraps - under Roger Dickins' wrapped wrist and was covered in a cloth. John Hurt hadn't seen it either - who was about to give birth to it. He was bent double under the table with his head back with a false chest. The chest was screwed to the table with a hole in the middle where we had to weaken the threads of his tee-shirt because I figured that when the head came through it wouldn't burst the tee-shirt.
We had all the actors around playing and we ended the scene at the moment when it would appear and they were all starting to look a bit concerned about the fact he was now thrashing on the table as if he had swallowed something.
Newshost:
And they didn't know what was happening at all?
Ridley Scott:
No. Well they knew something ghastly was about to happen and then there it was. I had several lines under high pressure of blood - which was actually raspberry juice - that was rigged all around the table and I had about seven cameras. I figured it would make such a mess and I only wanted to do one take so I could look at it the next day - because it would take 12 hours to clean the set up. The line broke loose and Veronica Cartwright was sprayed with this blood - she went over the back of the sofa that she was sitting on and I used the shot - I used it all. Some were in disbelief - well you saw the reaction. I said fine let's look at the rushes and that was it - I only did it once.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
This was the movie that really made my intrested in philosophy, computers, human rights, artificial inteligence, and so on.
A really important movie that still feel fresh.
One recent cyberpunk movie caught my attention. It was Cypher. Try to see it. It doesn't have that dark cyberpunkish city (like Neuromancer's Chiba), but it does have enough mind games and a good story. And a good ending.
--Coder
Would it be really annoying if I mentioned they released BR DC in the UK in a big deluxe box with lobby cards, a filme frame and other bits and pieces?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Harrison Ford has said publicly that he thought the idea of a voiceover - which came in post-production from the studio executives after they had kicked out Ridley Scott and taken over editing the final cut - was a phenomenally bad idea, and he purposely did such a bad job on it that he thought it would be totally unusable. Unfortunately, they couldn't recognize massive suckitude if their lives depended on it, so it was put in anyway. He remains, to this day, totally embarrassed that such a terribly bad example of his work remains in circulation in such a high-profile work.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
...just read the book. Only one version. Play the mood organ. Kill some more inhuman replicant deserters. Try to afford another fake animal. Life (and DVDs) repeat.