(Another) Cut of Blade Runner 314
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."
Poor Ridley Scott (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poor Ridley Scott (Score:2, Informative)
And I thought the reference was for Tron,
around the same time, which _was_ denied
oscars for FX because computers were considered
cheating...
Re:Poor Ridley Scott (Score:2)
I know there was only one CG shot in the film, was that it?
George Lucas (Score:3, Funny)
Blade Runner (Score:2, Insightful)
uh oh... (Score:5, Funny)
Jar-Jar Binks: "Mesa not a replicant! Mesa a Gungan!"
Re:uh oh... (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry
Damn, damn and double damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot: MPAA IS EVIL, EVIL I TELLS YOU!! They are going to destroy us, eat our children, sacrifice us to the gods of greed, destroy the very fabric of this country...... Ohhhhhhhhhhhh Whats that?
MPAA: New BladeRunner Directors Cut
Slashdot: Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
Re:Damn, damn and double damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn, damn and double damn. (Score:3, Interesting)
This new DVD is badly needed. There has been only one Blade Runner DVD released to date, and that's the Director's Cut, which was released back in March 1997, which is very short on features. At that time, it was worth its price tag, but with the new Special Edition DVD being in the works for the past two years is hardly a good buy for the money.
So let's stop whining about the good movies that were originally released five years ago when a new edition with way more features is released.
Re:Damn, damn and double damn. (Score:2)
And now you endlessly debate "Which BladeRunner is the *real* BladeRunner?"
Give us the voice over. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?)
I think (Score:2)
Re:This gives me hope! (Score:2)
It lost a *lot* of the flavor. Bizarrely, the later cut didn't come across as dark as the original; even having read the book, the voiceover set the tone--somethings are justplain better (and more clearly) done with words than images . .
hawk
Re:Give us the voice over. (Score:2, Funny)
"I'd had a belly-ful of killing!"
and
"they don't advertise for killers in the newspaper"
Re:Give us the voice over. (Score:2)
Hard to say. All I can say is that I remember the movie being really good in the theatre, but when I recently saw the Director's Cut DVD, I found my self saying, "This is it? Is this the movie that I saw? This movie is kind of..., well, dull."
I don't know if it's me, or if it's the movie.
On the other hand, it might be a case of "Citizen Kane"-itis where a movie is brilliant and original when it comes out in it's time, but does not age well against modern movies.
Re:Give us the voice over. (Score:2, Interesting)
The studio just needs to say, yes Mr. Scott, you can put your version on the disc, but we'll also have this.
The voice over made that movie. (Score:2)
I've tried to track down the laserdisc of the original, but it's long gone.
If they put the original version on the new DVD, I'll buy it. If they don't, it's no deal.
Jon Acheson
Then I guess Harrison Ford can do no wrong... ;) (Score:2)
Ford does sound grumpy, maybe like he doesn't want to be there, but that actually dovetails with Deckert's situation, and intentionally or not, really sells the character.
Jon Acheson
Amen. With DVD, give us the Option at least! (Score:2)
I watched the original Video so often that I can actually hear the Voice Over in the Directors Cut. It is so much part of making it sound like a Raymond Chandler novel.... I don't know what the heck he was thinking about. I can't believe this is a case where the Studio knew better than the Director
Winton
Re:Studio knows better than the director? (Score:2)
Perhaps, but that would be a pity--given that his version was correct
>Second, you haven't seen the Original Theatrical
>Release since it came out some twenty years ago.
Neither have I, but . .
>Are you sure you remember it all that well?
Ahh, swell. Now I'm admitting to remembering things that occurred before the average slashdot reader was born . .
ANyway, I also haven't seen a video of it since the director's cut first came out--what, 10 years ago?
My preferred reading is dystopian science fiction. At times I (briefly and not seriously) regret the fall of the Evil Empire and the recovery of western culture in the U.S., if only because it put an end to what Pournelle wrote so well in the 70's [but I realize the futility of regretting the win because we miss the struggle.].
I'm one of those fanatics that turns the chromo controls down to eliminate color on colorized movis [Ok, so I once did this on a movie that turned out to have won an award for its use of color, because I thought it *looked* colorized . . . ]
With the voiceovers, this movie was a far better dystopian work. Maybe something *could* have effectively replaced them, but the tone was *far* too light without them.
hawk
The mind does funny
things sometimes... given those are your real memories.
What? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh my GOD...
Re:What? (Score:3)
Kurt Russell's "Soldier" in same story universe (Score:2)
Soldier [imdb.com], starring Kurt Russell, is one of those action movies that's not supposed to be funny, but turns out to be hilarious. (This is the one where "I'm going to kill them all!" is Kurt's longest line in the whole movie.)
One of the directors is on record -- on the DVD, I believe -- as saying the movie takes place in the same universe as Bladerunner. There are some references, but you have to be quick to catch 'em.
Re:What? it's in the book... (Score:2, Informative)
In the book, Deckard starts doubting where he is or not a replicant. Of course, he never takes the test himself but IMHO that's the ultimate argument of the book.
Um... are you SURE you actually read the book? That's certainly not what happens in DADOES... maybe you read that horrific "sequel" written by Jeter (which is one of the worst pieces of crap I've ever read, and has little more than the title and character names in common with either the movie or the book).
Deckard DOES take the test in DADOES, and passes it. Additionally, the entire subplot involving Mercerism is absolute proof that Deckard is human. Replicants cannot use the empathy boxes that are the key to Mercerism, and Deckard is shown to use them in several instances throughout the book.
--The Rizz
"You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity." --Philip K. Dick
Re:What? it's in the book... (Score:2, Informative)
The name of the book is indeed "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" which is a pretty far cry from "Blade Runner". The story [wsu.edu] is:
When Ridley Scott made his 1982 film based loosely on the novel he eliminated the electric sheep (along with much else), and Dick's title no longer made sense (nor would it have been very effective on a marquee). The film company bought the rights to another novel by a different author and threw away everything but the title--Blade Runner--a term which occurs nowhere in the book. The film eventually gained great fame, and the novel was eventually retitled to match.
I can't really decide which title I like better. Considering the differences between the book and the film, I actually like the fact that Ridley Scott (or whoever) chose a different title.
BTW, as fan of PKD it bothers me that I don't recognize the qoute in your sig. Where's it from?
Re:What? it's in the book... (Score:2, Informative)
Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Needed (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you've got that wrong.
The Criterion Collection edition of Brazil has three discs:
1. Terry Giliam's directors cut, which WAS the theatrical release!
2. Disc of extras, including some great documentaries on the controversy surrounding Brazil.
3. The studio's version, which ended up being sold to the TV markets!
The Director's cut has commentary from Giliam, while the TV cut has commentary from a film critic, who discusses all the differences between the two cuts and how the film's meaning changes because of the different edits.
Great set, it was the first thing I bought on dvd.
.
Re:Needed (Score:3, Informative)
the theatrical release was 131 minutes long, the criterion edition is sometimes referred to as the "final final cut" (142 minutes), and it also has the 93-minute "love conquers all" version - the one that was hacked to bits by the studio for TV.
the normal 131-minute cut is available on dvd as well as the criterion edition.
Re:Needed (Score:2, Informative)
> The movie itself is fine
No it's not! It's universally reviewed as the worst quality DVD ever made!
There's VISIBLE JITTER and "fuzzies"! It's like they played back a third generation copy that had been in the theaters for 5 years on an old projector without aligning the film, and so it "vibrated" the entire time. You can't notice it in the motion shots because it's drowned out a bit in the overall motion, but ANYTIME the action stops and you see a static scene, you can see the jitter.
First and last DVD I ever bought.
and yet again laserdisc owners benefit.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
)
LaserDisc vs DVD - IANAVP (Score:2, Interesting)
You can argue that a laserdisc only has 480 horizontal lines, compared to a standard 525 lines for DVD [audiovideo101.com] (it supports more using various techniques, but most movies still even only use 480). Yes, there are laserdisc players with S-Video out--these are nothing more than filters. You cannot get around the fact that the video is stored as a true composite signal on the disc. Inversely, you cannot get around the fact that a DVD, being compressed, will have artifacting--you may even be able to argue that this artifacting hurts the luminance quality more so than being limited to a composite signal (I would wager that in this scenario, component video would only serve to remind you further of the artifacts!).
So what's the real issue here? Don't get me wrong, I find everything about the LaserDisc to be very ingenious, but the fact is: I don't have to get my lazy ass off the couch, or potentially ruin a special 'moment' (either with myself or someone else
Not getting into the audio differences. More information:
:P [colonpee.com]
LD vs CD under microscope [cs.tut.fi]
Home Video Format Comparison [cs.tut.fi]
Jason Fisher
I want the original theatrical release! (Score:3, Insightful)
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! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
wait till they're dead (Score:2)
Re:wait till they're dead (Score:2)
*After* Asimov the Meek passed away, of course. Vultures.
Damn. (Score:2, Interesting)
Now this looks like it will just be Yet Another Director's Cut(TM), with maybe some EPK shit thrown in for good measure. Maybe this rant [thedigitalbits.com] is right after all, and quality DVD special editions are on their way out the door as DVDs continue to get dumbed down for non movie connoisseurs.
Not a major change, but a good one! (Score:2)
No big deal (Score:2)
Read the articles- the only changes he's even considering making are to shorten some shots and sequences that only existed to give time for the Harrison Ford voice-over (which has been deservedly gone since the director's cut). Doing a new digital transfer and a new sound mix really doesn't count as a new edition- it's par for the course for new releases of older movies.
If you want to see movies with too many pointless versions, look at the Star Wars films- not only is the DVD edition of episode I different from the theatrical release, but Lucas has confirmed that he will be modifying and adding to the original trilogy again before they, in turn, are released on DVD.
Jethro Tull of Movies (Score:2)
When it it was first released, it was impressive. Now its not. I enjoyed it back when, but now, its time to move on. Why anyone who has any of the earlier versions would buy this is beyond me. Why anyone who does not have an earlier version would buy this is also beyond me. Its not like its even a different rendition of "Thick as a Brick".
Is this one the dance remix? (Score:2, Funny)
multiple sound tracks (Score:2)
The voice-over is what made the film intelligible to first-time viewers. That's why you get both the original and director's cut. The real beauty of a DVD would be BOTH tracks on one disc, but it doesn't sound like he's doing this. :(
Ridley (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Ridley (Score:2)
To be honest, I though Hannibal mostly sucked. On the other hand, the book wasn't much better, so it's not entirely Ridley Scott's fault. Both were gravy training Silence of the Lambs.
Gladiator is hardly a classic, but it was at least entertaining compared to his other recent efforts.
Re:Ridley (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
My 2 cents worth on his recent work (Score:2)
Gladiator was a beautiful looking flick. (4/5 Movielens)
GI Jane was kind of sucky
Winton
The companies in Blade Runner (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The companies in Blade Runner (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The companies in Blade Runner (Score:2)
Perhaps you could post a link to one of these articles you mention and we could find out what was really said.
Re:The companies in Blade Runner (Score:2)
Atari was owned by Nolan Bushnell up till 1976 when time warner bought them.
Then atari was sold to jack tramiel around 83'
1986 Jack Tram sells off the coin op division to namco.
1989 Tramiel tries to do a saving throw for the company by hiring lawers and suing nintendo, sega over copyright infringements.
After a series of bad products and bad decisions, Tramiel sold Atari to JTS, a floppy drive manufacturer in 1990.
Hasbro bought out JTS in 1996, and tried to reintroduce classic atari games to the marketplace.
Fairly accurate I think. Point is atari in its old capacity is gone, dead, finito. Atari only exists as intellectual property which has been sold off to so many different companies, opinions on who actually owns the right to it is confused.
Re:The companies in Blade Runner (Score:2, Informative)
Doesn't really say a lot... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
The 'beauty' of DVDs (Score:2, Interesting)
In this vein of thought, if Scott is going to do a re-release of Blade Runner, it should be some kind of mega consolidation, with everything you could possible want for BR: audio tracks with Deckard's voice-over AND without; deleted scenes, commentary, behind-the-scenes footage, etc.
If Ridley Scott is releasing a new DVD, it had better be because he wants to include/improve all these things, not just because he feels "some scenes are too long" and wants to second-guess a great movie 20 years later. Personally, I love BR, and I like the scenes at their current pacing (without the voice-over). And no amount of promotion is going to make me buy a DVD just to see some random artistic air-brushing without the previously mentioned additional features.
But then again, some people will buy just about anything, as long as it has a sticker that says "NEW!!!!" on it. .
Wow (Score:2)
I bet someone with talent could turn Home Alone into a dark action flick...
speaking of Alien.. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Where the hell did these critters *evolve* ferkrissake? What predator types would eat _them_?
An adventure on THAT planet would be really cool!
Re:speaking of Alien.. (Score:2)
I'm sure someone out there has an elaborate and consistent backstory for the aliens, but just for myself I was always under the impression that they didn't evolve, as such. They're the biological equivalent of a partially buried landmine sitting next to a schoolyard - nasty bioweapons, remnants of some former conflict that had nothing to do with us.
Ah, following the Valve model... (Score:3, Funny)
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
What, no voice-over? (Score:2, Interesting)
ABANDONWARE VENDORS TAKE NOTE! (Score:2)
Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep? (Score:2)
Maybe they thought the film was bizarre enough already without having that in it as well.
Another thing which was missed really was the attitude to biological animals and their rarity, which we only glimpse when Deckard asks if the owl is real, and Rachael answers 'of course not'.
Re:Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep? (Score:2)
It could be worse. (Score:2, Funny)
Someone, somewhere, is thinking about a remake.
Lord, please stop them.
Well I For One...blah blah blah (Score:2, Interesting)
so old this probably isn't funny anymore (Score:2)
hardy har-har
Re:so old this probably isn't funny anymore (Score:2)
You were right!
Slashdot Interview with Ridley Scott? (Score:2)
:)
Cheers,
Winton
But When Are We Gonna Get that Soundtrack? (Score:2, Informative)
A side note: I enjoy Japanese traditional music and, several years ago I purchased a CD by Ensemble Nipponia (can't remember the name). After listening to it I was certain that I'd heard one of the tracks before, but couldn't place it. It wasn't untill I next saw Bladerunner (at an old theater in Waterloo, Canada that specialized in classic/cult movies) did I realize that it was exact same vocal track from the "Blimp Advertising" song sung by a Japanese female. Very haunting, and perfect as a device to complement the heavy asian influence of Scott's future LA.
Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, I own it, yes, it IS the Vangelis one and not the crappy New American Orchestra rendition [amazon.com] (The booklet even has a statement by Vangelis saying how glad he is to finally be able to release this), and yes, it kicks ass.
If you don't see it under the soundtracks section, try the New Age section under Vangelis.
FWIW, Vangelis has an alternate version of the End Titles on his album titled Themes [amazon.com] which is pretty good also. That album also has the Love Theme and Memories of Green (The song from the Unicorn dream sequence if I remember correctly), both of which are on the soundtrack as well.
An interesting side note about Memories of Green (Score:2, Informative)
If you listen carefully, you can hear some beeping in the background of the piece. When I first heard this, I was stunned: It was the sound from the very first handheld video game I ever owned (and still do!): The UFO Master Blaster Station [ev1.net] by Bambino.
How cool is that!
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Dune, Alien and Aliens are also available in extended score versions, often including demos and in the case of Alien, a complete copy of a score by Jerry Goldsmith that was rejected by Scott, and only included on the DVD as a seperate track!
It pays to hang around in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.soundtracks
Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:3)
I, and most people I know, figured this out the first time we saw the movie back in 1982. And I was 8 years old at the time.
Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:2)
Of course, the modern way of doing this (Sixth Sense, The Others) is to explcitly state the 'surprise', but in my mind BR was one of the first I saw that used this twist on the main character, and did it very well at that.
Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:2)
the thing is if you read the book a few times things will jump out that tell you that deckard suspects he's a replicant but isnt willing to look deeper into it - the fact he passes the Voight Kampf and other occurences are there to keep us guessing - and the Voight Kampf isn't perfect (this is mentioned in the book) if Deckard is a Nexus 6 then he can show real emotion or a facsimilie of such.
The hints in the movie - More Human Than Human, "how can it no know what it is" are ironies that point us toward it from the start
Read some of the works on the making of the movie and it becomes clear ridley didnt want Deckard to be a replicant but the fact that he is hinges the entire story - he's a doomed man walking thru a doomed world yet he doesnt stop caring and dreaming and striving for more.
Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:2)
-l
Re:Deckard will never be a replicant to me. (Score:2)
That's because the original story was written by Philip K. Dick. In case you don't know who PKD was, he was a remarkable science-fiction author who was obsessed with those kinds of questions himself.
Am I human? Is what I think is human human? What is human? Does human feel? Does non-human feel? How do I know I'm human? Am I human just because others tell me I'm human?.
I don't think those questions are trivial from a philosophical point of view. What defines you as human is definitely not on the level of a superhero deathmatch.
I think the reasons why Scott was silent on the subject until the 90s are more or less the following:
- He expected people to stop asking him about that damn movie at some point; he would refer them to the original story and just shut up. At some point, he realized Blade Runner fans, like most people, don't really like to read.
- PKD became insanely popular in the 90s among certain circles (Gnostic revival, I think). That probably motivated him to answer to certain versions of the question. News propagate.
- I'm not sure if it fits the timeline, but new video/Laserdisc/DVD releases would make the studios press him a little to talk about the damn movie again.
Really, if you have any doubts about where the obsession with Deckard's humanity was invented by the fans read some of PKD's stories. You'll find it's one of his typical patterns, along with "what is reality?" and "where does this god concept come from", and it's much much more obvious than in the movie in part because that story was not one of his best.
As a matter of fact, just read some PKD for the sake of it. You might find some interesting works of philosophical significance that meet your standards.
About the voice over... (Score:4, Funny)
EVERYONE HERE IS RIGHT... if you have ever tried to watch Blade Runner with somone that never has seen it before, then you become the voice over when your girlfriend keeps yammering in a shrewlike voice, "Now why did he shoot her again?"
"She didn't look that dangerous!"
"WhyyyYYYYY is he scared when he sticks his hand in the cold jar?"
TRUST ME. IF THEY RELEASED A BLADERUNNER WITH A BIG SHINY STICKER THAT SAID 'Voiceover INSIDE!'
Well lets say, for my sanity, I'd be all over it.
Current DVD has terrible video quality... (Score:3, Informative)
I own the current director's cut DVD.
It is the worst DVD for picture quality I have ever seen. It looks, to my eye, like somebody digitally captured the VHS version. Seriously. It looks as if they cued-up the VHS version (in a VCR, of course), sent the output to a computer and then created the MPEG video.
I'd say a new version with much higher quality video (at the least - extra features would be nice, too) is required.
I know I'll buy it... after I find out that it looks better than a dub from a VHS player.
Re:Current DVD has terrible video quality... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. I concur and my version of Dune is like that too - if not worse. Horrible picture quality like a digital version of the VHS tape.
And Ridley, if you're reading this, INCLUDE THE FUCKING VOICE OVER. Use one of the other tracks... instead of a Polish audio version or your inane babbling do us all a favor, hey?
-Russ
Not the only one... (Score:2)
Seriously: Fuck you Ridley Scott! Why don't you show us something new rather than adding 3 frames every years to your 1982 movie.
Do I have an opportunity to work on the piece of software that I wrote 20 years ago? No, so get a f...ing life Man.
PPA, the anime girl next door.
Case for keeping my Criterion LD release! (Score:2, Interesting)
oh well...
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ridley Scott (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Ridley Scott (Score:2)
At some point, it needs to be "final" - but since I dont own any version, I dont mind.
Re:Ridley Scott (Score:2)
Have you not seen a film called Metropolis? It's one of the first films ever made and (I think) the first sci-fi film made. It's in black and white with no sound, so it's not quite the CGI masterpiece modern sci-fi is :) It does however have a lot of the standard features: evil overlords, flying cars, etc, etc.
Blade Runner is a well-presented film in its own right, but in the scale of things, it's just another step in the genre. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.
Re:Ridley Scott (Score:2)
Re:Ridley Scott (Score:2)
Re:What about new movies? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:movie lengths (Score:2)
Ahhh, but don't get me started on LOTR, it had some serious scenes that could have been wrapped up in seconds, but instead droned on for minutes.
For instance, the 'fellowship getting together and deciding to go scene'... I was saying, "oh, shut the fuck up and get on the horses, assholes. You're holding up the mystery, action, and suspense."
I could have slapped Peter Jackson for making me sit through that yakkity-yak crap. If I wanted to talk about the intricacies of the elves and dwarves, I would have read the book, now wouldn't I?
The 'elven love scenec' should have been put in the next movie, it did nothing for the plot.
There is no use putting in footage in for people who could probably quote the novel in their heads, and bore the ones that could care less and just want to see Frodo triumph in an adventure. A good director knows when to get to the point.
-Alex
Re:Ridley Scott not to add new scenes (Score:2)
I think what Ridley Scott will do is an edition with maximum-quality images, and also might even include a lot a bonus materials along with it.
Let's call this the Definite Edition and end it at that.
Re:President (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Screw This (Score:2)
original version left some things to your imagination, not spoonfeeding and helping you to see Deckard as a replicant.
No, no no!! The original version had an intrusive irritating voice-over that spoon-fed the audience and ruined the mystery and ambience of the story. It also left out the "unicorn scene" which /might/ have indicated that Deckard was a replicant.
As far as being JAFHAF it is still miles better in atmosphere than most of the genre, mainly due to the great Vangelis soundtrack.....but also due to the wonderful cinematography. I can't get enough of the "do you like our owl?" scene with the huge bars of sunlight slanting into the massive, almost Mayan room.
Re:Blade Runner on IMAX (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Yawn. (Score:2)
Spoliers ahoy! If you have not seen the film, read no further.
I rather liked the voice-overs that Scott can't stop telling us he hates. Yes, a few of the lines over-explain a little too much, but it adds to the "Noir" feel that made Bladerunner such a unique sci-fi flick. The line "I didn't know how much time we would have, but then again, who does?" was a pretty good closer for the film, too. That said, the narration does get annoying after you've seen the movie a few times and just want to take in all the eye candy.
The "Director's Cut" seemed to be a case of addition by subtraction. The narration was taken out, but without revisiting the music or pacing of the film, making the experience very slow and ponderous. People who did not see the original theatrical version first did not enjoy it nearly as much as we geeks did. Also, you can't possibly tell me that the close-up of Deckard as the elevator door closed could possibly be the shot that Scott really inteded to end on. It leaves the viewer hanging, and not in a good way. Also, the "Unicorn Dream" seemed to be stock footage from Legend, or something. (Yea, yea... I know... the original ending used leftover footage from The Shining... but at least it was a less obvious recycle job.)
For all of Scott's protests about how the producers of Bladerunner screwed up his movie, it became a classic, and was well loved long before he ever got around to re-doing it. Besides, whenever he's allowed to make a movie his way you end up with stuff like that piece of shit "1492: Conquest of Paradise." Maybe a strong hand from the studio is what he really needs to do good work.
So my evil twin, at last we meet. (Score:2)
Deckard seeing Gaff's little calling card, the elevator doors close and, bam, credits. That's the perfect ending to the movie.
He found his humanity with a little help from technology and chooses an uncertain life, over quiet wait for the grave. As opposed to some fruity fly by, and silly voice over as epilogue, it's no contest.
I think Ridley's statements that the unicorn dream was intended to show that Deckard was really a replicant are a little suspect. (After all, the rest of the movie doesn't really support that view, the interaction with Gaff and Captain Bryant (I think), but there is certainly nothing wrong with using the dream to suggest it, and the unicorn, particularly in that part of the film can be interprited to have other symbolic significance.) But that said, while the dream isn't exactly what I would consider anything remotely like a dream as I have experienced them, I don't think it particularly detracts from the movie. I must say I can't recall a movie I've ever seen that did what I would call an accurate depiction of a dream.
I and the other Good Twins agree, the director's cut of Bladerunner is vastly superior, mostly due to the true ending. And it's a damn shame that the studio interfered, but I consider myself fortunate that as hobbled by studio fools as it was, Bladerunner gathered enough of a following, and ment enough to Scott that I eventually got to see it done right. Look at what the studio system did to Fincher with Alien 3. The movie as released is fairly unremarkable, but if you've ever had the good fortune, or perhaps misfortune, to see the work print for the movie, you'll see what you missed out on. Even incomplete and lacking a score, Fincher actually accomplished the impossible, with inadaquate resources no less, only to have executives, who appearently don't watch movies for recreation, ruin parts of it for no discernable reason.
I could point out your foolish assumption by saying that when Steven Speilberg is allowed to make a movie his way you end up with stuff like that piece of shit 1941. But really, what's the point?