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."

14 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. About time by electronerdz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:About time by Total_Wimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've seen the movie. I've seen it a lot. I've seen the origional US release with the voice overs, I've seen the directors cut with the unicorn. I own the director's cut on DVD.

      I'm having a hard time understanding what I should get all excited about here. Yes, this may be the best sci-fi flick of all time, but I'm not sure what seeing a slightly different version is going to do for me.

      Will it invalidate all my other viewings by being so far-and-above superior? Will it help me feel smug in the fact that I've actualy been watching the "best" version all these years? Will it make me want to re-watch a flick for the 15th time even though I know in my heart of hearts I still have at least a year more to go before I'll actually be interested in seeing it again?

      Maybe I'm not really the kind of geek I thought I was. Maybe I _should_ be interested in 6 hours of viewing (not counting comentary) that amounts to about 2 hours 20 minutes worth of unique footage. I know I'm starting to belabor the point, but if I really want to see the movie again, I don't think I'll be disapointed with the DVD I already own. After all, it _is_, IMHO, the best sci-fi flick ever.

      TW

    2. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, quite. Either way, I'm not about to shell out on ANOTHER version of Blade Runner with HD-DVD/Blu-Ray around the corner. I want my dystopian futureworld in 1080p, goddammit!

      Whichever HD disc format gets this Blade Runner in 1080p first wins my vote.

  2. You Insensitive Clod! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    from the he-was-a-replicant dept.
    Way to ruin it for me! I had planned on seeing that movie but now, what's the point!

    Watch how it's supposed to be done:

    *SPOILER ALERT!*

    From the Wikipedia Entry:
    Among fans of the film, the question of whether Deckard is human or replicant has been an ongoing controversy since the film's release. Ridley Scott, after remaining coy on the subject for twenty years, stated in 2002 that Deckard is a replicant. Hampton Fancher and Harrison Ford, however, have stated that Deckard is human. The rough consensus among fans is that in the original version of the film Deckard is probably human, whereas in the Director's Cut he is a replicant. Specifically, the Director's Cut shows a dream of Deckard's that features a unicorn; Gaff leaves Deckard an origami unicorn at the end of the film. This suggests Gaff knew about the dream and implies that Deckard is, like Rachael, a replicant with implanted memories.
    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.
  3. Yes but... by JoeLinux · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Will they contain more hints that Deckard was a replicant?

    Any proof that Gaff was the actual Blade Runner?

  4. Kick ass flick and kind of amusing by gasmonso · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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/
    1. Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess thinking that 30+ years into the future it was possible that such a drastic change to occur.

      Contrast America of 1938 with America of 1968, and it's easy to see why Sci-Fi writers made the mistake of thinking that radical transformaiton of both technology and culture is to be expected in the span of a few decades.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  5. Blade Runner: The game by gnarlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  6. Re:New DVD? Phooey? by pweent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the DVD is inadeqate for your needs, you may still be in luck. From Sci Fi's version of the story at http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category= 0&id=36328:

    Blade Runner: Final Cut will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th-anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special-edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing.

    We'll see how "limited" that limited release is, but certainly if you're in a major city (or if you're dedicated enough to travel), you should have the chance to see it on a big screen again.

  7. Finally by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  8. Re:Editors exisit for a reason by NoseSocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The first time Deckard meets Rachel, they have an interesting dialogue, which Tyrell interrupts with "Is this to be an empathy test?".
    I always took this as Tyrell knowing they were both Replicants.

  9. Re:Editors exisit for a reason by mihalis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to have a go at these issues, not to argue, but because it is fun to speculate and I'm sure Ridley wont reply...

    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.

    Clearly the military models are stronger and deadlier than the other models, so he is not going to win against the male replicants. The pleasure model was Pris (Darryl Hannah) and he blows her away with his gun whereas she resorts to gymnastics, so he is smarter and better with weapons, but she is more ... athletic. That seems to fit. Similarly, Zhora is an assassin model, nearly strangling him with a surprise attack using his tie - not too unrealistic

    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?

    Tyrell knows Rachel is special, but doesn't let her know, he plays along with the pretense that the "replicant test" is being tested first on a negative (i.e. human) subject. So it is not a big stretch that he's playing mindgames with Deckard too. Perhaps he has only recently let both Rachel and Deckard out into the world with their implanted memories. He wants to reinforce that he knows they are human, so he has Deckard come to test Rachel (letting Deckard, therefore, believe he is human) and conspicuously asserts that Rachel is also human by using her as the negative subject.

  10. Re:Editors exisit for a reason by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >I've often sort of wondered if Roy knew Deckard was a replicant.

    That's been my assumption. Roy and Rachel both considered Deckard to be at least some type of equal.

    (by the way, the 'if Deckard's a replicant, why did he get the crap beat out of him' question could also be asked of Rachel during the, well, date rape scene, for lack of a better way of dealing with that unsettling bit. I've assumed in the past that since Deckard doesn't know he's a replicant but does know she is, that's some weird sort of assertion of himself -- since he can't bring himself to kill her, he rapes her instead, as an assertion of power.)

    So, in the book, there were almost no actual animals in the world: sheep were unbelievably valuable. I've often wondered if, in the movie, most all the humans were actually replicants, if humans were as rare as all the other animals and it was only Tyrell and a few others, who were repopulating the whole world with replicants, and nobody knew.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  11. Re:Editors exisit for a reason by naoursla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Others have answered your questions pretty well. Here is my interpretation of the story behind the scenes.

    Replicants are illegal on Earth. The Tyrell Corporation does research into replicants and is allowed special exceptions for research purposes. Racheal is one such exception created using new memory implantation technology. Because she is a prototype, she may or may not have a built-in shortened lifespan.

    Several replicants escape their servitude off world and make it to Earth to find a way to extend their preset lifespan. One of them is caught breaking into Tyrell. This is Decker. Tyrell sees an opportunity to field test his new memory technology and convinced the police to allow him to reprogram the replicant so that he thinks he is a retired Bladerunner and hunt down the other replicants. The reprogram him. Release him on the streets, then bring him into the police station and coerce him into coming out of retirement. This elaborate story is needed so that he doesn't have to remember everyone at the police force and everyone doesn't have to pretend to know him. Bryant is very nervous talking to Decker. He is afraid the programming didn't take and Decker will suddenly turn and kill him. Gaff is cooly standing by reading to send him back into retirement should this happen.

    Decker is then sent back to Tyrell for evaluation before the experiment is fully put into effect.

    Decker goes out to hunt down his comrads. They are weirded out when they see him because they know he was captured, but try to play along until they get an advantage. Gaff always shows up after a kill. He is evaluating Decker and standing by to end the experiment if it goes bad. The experiment is a complete success and Gaff declares, "You've done a man's job."

    I'm not really sure why Gaff lets him go at the end. Maybe Gaff has sympathies for the replicants. Maybe as a Bladerunner he doesn't retire the replicants, but helps them go into hiding. I don't know what happens next.

    Who does?