'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."

Han shot first!

Oh, wait...

Re:Han shot first!

Wrong movie mate.

Um... That was my point. Don't you find it odd that there are two sci-fi classics starring Harrisson Ford where there are ongoing fanbase controversies about whether or not his character shot someone first? And, years after the initial theatrical release, "remastered" versions with possible story changes are coming out?

But then, maybe you don't see the ironic correlation. Sorry for disturbing you.

Re:Han shot first!

No.

I do not see the ironic correlation.

Oh an by the way. Dr. Jones shoots first. So does Prof. Ryan. So does President Marshall. So does...

Always shoot first, ask questions later. The right way of doing things.

Unfortunately no way to shoot the bastards who after that edit history to make it look like you shot second.

Cheers,

Re:About time

The DVD you already own has certain issues: it's not anamorphic (it was one of the first DVDs), is stereo, and is the 1992 DC only. Since Blade Runner is the best SF movie of all time, and was filmed for six-track Dolby, we need an anamorphic surround version badly. We should have got this set years ago, but the rights holders have blocked it until now.

The point of the new edition is quite simple: to give us BR fans a choice, in the way that Lucas won't give Star Wars fans a proper choice. The new edition should make everyone happy - do you like the voiceover? Then you've got the American theatrical and extra-violence Eurocut on disc 3. Do you prefer the 1992 DC to the new Final Cut (and some will, I'll hold off until I see it)? Then it's on Disc 2. All should be properly restored and anamorphic, and there will almost certainly be no new CGI cut into the original negative a la Coppola/Lucas. It is what Blade Runner has always needed and will, hopefully, finally get.

You Insensitive Clod!

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 [wikipedia.org]:

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 [wikipedia.org]! And that Harrison Ford is allowed to shoot it at the point in the duel when he originally did!

Re:Was He?

But you really lose a very powerful comment on the human condition if Deckard is a replicant. That the human seems to be the coldblooded, unfeeling killer while the androids are the ones that are filled with the desire to live and fully experience the full range that life has to offer is quite the ironic statement, and certainly in keeping with Dick's themes.

Dick, more than any other SF author, repeatedly asked what it meant to be human, what was identity, what was free will (vs. programming, rather than fate), what was true, what was false, what was a doppelganger of the real.

The ambiguity in Bladerunner (DC) is what makes the film true to Phillip K Dick; it is otherwise very different from Dick's handling of the material. It's not so much an adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep as it is Ridley Scott's collaboration with the text and his response to Dick.

Re:You Insensitive Clod!

Actually, in the book Deckard takes the Voigt-Kampff test and it fails to indicate that he is an android [wikipedia.org]. While the newest replicants (i.e., Nexus 6, e.g., Rachel) take many more questions to determine their status, the status is determined. Therefor, he wasn't a replicant until the plot was rewritten.

Re:You Insensitive Clod!

Harrison Ford, however, have stated that Deckard is human.

Of course he would say he was human. If the characer never knew that he was a replicant, why tell the actor? It makes the performance more authentic if the actor doesn't know either.

Re:You Insensitive Clod!

When the last book came out, a friend of mine swore that he was going to stagger around the Barnes & Noble for the midnight release crying and yelling, "Why?!? Why did you have to take Hermione!?!"

He's kind of evil that way.

The last DVD

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.

Re:The last DVD

Right, if you've already made an investment in a $5,000 TV that can really show off the difference between an upsampled DVD and an actual HD DVD. That way you can use one investment as an excuse for the other! Brilliant!

Re:The last DVD

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.

Not only that. First you'll be able to buy the HD-DVD version of the Director's Cut-Cut (i.e. the new one).
Then the HD-DVD Director's Cut, then the HD-DVD Original Theatrical Release,
then the HD-DVD Premium Edition containing the Director's Cut-Cut and the Director's Cut,
then the HD-DVD Anniversary Edition containing the Theatrical Release and the Director's Cut-Cut,
then the Ultimate Edition with all three in a digitally reremastered HD version.
Then you'll get the same for Blu-Ray plus a new BD exclusive Ultimegadition with all three plus a new Director's Theatrical-Re-Re-Cut
Rinse and repeat (in 4032x2048x1280 3D-MoreDefinitionThanHDEverHad - 3DMDTHDEH) for Blu-HD-RayVD the 5TB successor to BD and HDDVD, coming 2014

Re:The last DVD

No kidding. And this version itself is kinda pointless. Its nothing more than a money grab really. I mean, don't get me wrong, I LOVE Blade Runner, but there is really no reason to buy this movie if you own one of the others. And no point in getting it if you plan on getting HD when it comes out.

Kick ass flick and kind of amusing

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/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing

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.

It's all one big cult movie blur.

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?

Voiceover

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.

Not much Philip K. Dick left

I only hope that there's some stuff on Philip K. Dick there, I've seen one or two fascinating TV documentaries on him.

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

Re:Not much Philip K. Dick left

*SPOILER WARNING* (to a 25 year-old classic movie)

http://www.rot13.org/~dpavlin/br_review.html [rot13.org]

There's a much better review Spinrad did later in the November 1985 issue of Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, called "Books Into Movies". Can't find it online, but it was on the occasion of Dune, and Spinrad uses those two (and 2010) to create a 'literal-missing-the-boat vs. spiritually-faithful-while-adapting-to-a-completel y-different-medium' argument, while arguing that the *point* of Androids is the comparison between human and android, and saying that it's an essentially spiritual distinction.

"However they did it, Scott and Peeples did precisely right that which Lynch did so precisely wrong."

"Lynch had been mechanically faithful to Herbert's apparatus to the point of excruciation and so he ended up with everything but the real story, whereas Scott and Peeples threw out most of Dick's novelistic apparatus, replaced it with creative cinematic apparatus of their own, and so, by chopping down the necessary trees, attained a clear vision of the forest..."

"...But when the dying replicant Roy Baty, who moments before was slowly relishing the sadistic death he had been in the process of inflicting on Deckard in vengeance for Deckard's cold extermination of his comrades, reaches out his hand and saves Deckard's life after visible consideration at death's door, Blade Runner achieves the ultimate in true faithfulness to the novel."

Now, whether you agree with Spinrad's full tilt argument or not, I think he's quite correct that there's a lot of the book in the movie, though it's presented in different terms.

Voiceover reduces film to good-guy vs. bad-guy

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

Is this post a replicant?

Is this post a replicant? Or do I have to wait for the next one?

Blade Runner: The game

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.

Re:FINALLY!!!

I'm right there with you. I currently own 3 copies of Blade Runner: VHS, the horrid 20th Century Fox DVD (don't even get me started!), and a bootleg ripped from the laser disc.

I'll buy this as soon as it comes out. And when the extra-special-super-duper version with 8 extra frames of "lost" footage comes out I'll probably plunk down the cash for that too.

I hate to give any particular piece of media this much credit, but the world depicted in Blade Runner has been a huge influence on me. It's dirty, rainy, empoverished, violent, and I'd move there tomorrow if I could, even if it meant living on the street.

Yay for the original.

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.

You don't get you much, do you?

No human could survive the beating he takes.

Obviously you don't get out to the movies much. Action picture movie stars are really really tough!

The only true cyberpunk movie

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.

Editors exisit for a reason

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.

Re:Editors exisit for a reason

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.

Actually, for this fan

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

A new version...

The "Mo' Money" version?