Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

'Final Edition' of Blade Runner to be Released 425

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Final Edition' of Blade Runner to be Released

Comments Filter:
  • by jdray (645332) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:51AM (#15428601) Homepage Journal
    Oh, wait...
    • Wrong movie mate.

      Just in case, here you can check up if you show any of the indicators [] that WB will be successful to get some more money extorted from you for nothing.

      Oh, and Deckard shoots first.

      • Re:Han shot first! (Score:5, Informative)

        by jdray (645332) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:01AM (#15428692) Homepage Journal
        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.

    • Don't worry... Mr. Blade Runner Guy Who I Don't Remember His Name (played by Harrison Ford) shoots first in Blade Runner.
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * < minus math_god> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:51AM (#15428609) Journal
    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:


    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!
    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:16AM (#15428826)
      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.

      • 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.

        That only makes sense if being-a-replicant alone wouldn't affect his behavior at all. It implies that a real human is indistinguishable from a replicant-that-thinks-its-human -- but there is a difference.
    • by fieria (977901)
      Can you really give a spoiler for a movie that's been out almost 25 years? I mean, c'mon--how long do we give Harry Potter books before we remove their spoiler alerts in discussions? 2 months, max. It's a bit of a given that something this old won't contain many surprises, especially considering that Blade Runner's an underground cult film and has semi-iconic status in pop culture. Also, on a slightly different note there's a pretty easy to discern that Deckard is a replicant: all replicants have "animal e
      • I don't think spoilers should ever be given for movies. Not everyone has seen every movie and you can ruin their first viewing experience if you give away major plot points. For example, I was going to watch Titanic for the first time last week, when the clerk at the video store ruined it for me by telling me that the ship sinks! Bastard!
  • The last DVD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:52AM (#15428623)
    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.
    • Keep in mind that that only includes DVDs. HD-DVD will, of course, be available in the future.
      No doubt the content owners are loving this, to be paid (again) for the same same !@%!? content all over again.
    • by nutshell42 (557890) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:31AM (#15428937) Journal
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:50AM (#15429071) Homepage
      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.

      • Re:The last DVD (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kafka47 (801886)
        ...but there is really no reason to buy this movie if you own one of the others.

        Other than the fact that this version will likely have a Director's commentary track and perhaps some added material? No, no reason at all.

        I've only been waiting years for this. Speak for yourself!


      • Re:The last DVD (Score:3, Insightful)

        by blincoln (592401)
        but there is really no reason to buy this movie if you own one of the others.

        If you take a little while to research this, you'll find that the new version is something that Ridley Scott has been working on for some time. There was a *ton* of unused footage for the film.

        So yes, there is a good reason to buy it - it could be very different than either version we're familiar with.
    • yeah, but hopefully nobody actually WILL, and the HD-DVD market will crash and burn ;-)
  • Yes but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JoeLinux (20366)
    Will they contain more hints that Deckard was a replicant?

    Any proof that Gaff was the actual Blade Runner?
  • by gasmonso (929871) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:55AM (#15428640) Homepage

    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 :) []
    • by Golias (176380) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:13AM (#15428796)
      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.
    • From the preceived damage done to the environment due to Acid Rain, then the global warning panic of the 80's?

    • I live in LA, and maybe we're not at the Blade Runner future yet, but there are definitely trends in that direction. They are yuppifying Downtown. Spanglish is the trend in slang. We had a really wet rainy season last winter, and the winter that just ended leaked into spring with rain as late as a couple of weeks ago. We don't have replicants as servants, or flying cars, but the general feel of our society is such that Philip K. Dick (author of original short story) and Syd Mead (conceptual artist on Blade
    • I don't quite understand what makes you think Los Angeles in the movie is particularly "disturbing", or what you mean "L.A. doesn't look that bad yet". The L.A. in Blade Runner was inspired by Hong Kong and Tokyo, it isn't supposed to be some sort of distopia. The future Los Angeles doesn't seem a particularly unpleasant place to live - I would probably prefer the Hong Kong version of L.A. to the real-life modern version.
    • Sci-fi (at least good sci fi) is not about predicting the future.

      It's about avoiding it ;-)
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:56AM (#15428643) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilorphan (730433) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:56AM (#15428647)
    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.
    • by mccalli (323026) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:00AM (#15428684) Homepage
      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.


      • There are a couple of bits in the film that reflect the attitude toward animals - for instance, when one of the replicants says something to the effect of "do I look like I could afford a real snake?", the fact that the test includes turning a turtle on its back, etc. The film is much more like the book than it seems from a superficial reading of both. So I wouldn't say there is "precious little" of Dick in the film. There's a lot of his spirit, some of his words and plot points, and of course his name.
      • by bonkeroo buzzeye (711311) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @01:04PM (#15429705) Journal
        *SPOILER WARNING* (to a 25 year-old classic movie) []

        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.
    • I liked it - watching the 2nd version felt oddly empty.
    • Yup. I miss the voiceover too. For one thing, Harrison Ford's voice is enough different from the "film noir" blokes that did them that it's not cheesey, it's different. And I like hearing what the character is thinking.

      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 submiss

    • by GuyMannDude (574364) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:53AM (#15429099) Journal

      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.


    • Ditto. It would be sweet if they did a new voiceover'd soundtrack edited for the directors cut and provided it as a optional audio track on the DVD. I might actually consider buying it even though I already have the first DVD.
    • While I enjoyed the voiceover version of Blade Runner, when I finally saw the director's cut I was blown away. The movie works on a whole different level without the voiceover. The voiceover pulls you out of the picture, making you feel like an outside observer. But the way the movie was filmed, being immersed in the visuals and the moods makes for a much more engrossing experience.
  • by Dareth (47614) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @10:57AM (#15428653)
    Is this post a replicant? Or do I have to wait for the next one?
  • Deckard dies first.
  • by gnarlin (696263) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:00AM (#15428679) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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
    • by Cybrex (156654) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @01:18PM (#15429874)
      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.
  • I got the old release on DVD, I'll wait for the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray release :P

  • by Golias (176380) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:05AM (#15428714)
    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.
    • 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.

      "Chopping off" or "removing the Scotch tape with which it was applied in the first place"? I could go either way on the voiceover (personally prefer without, it seemed 'noir' enough for me without the cliche expository monologue), but that ending was the most blantant and pathetic attempt to shoehorn a happy ending into a downer movie I've ever seen. From the stock mo
      • by Golias (176380)
        I agree that it was a somewhat weak ending, but the Director's Cut has no ending.

        Deckard and Rachel get in an elevator, as the door closes Deckard looks around in case they are being followed, brandishing his gun, and then... nothing. Credits roll.

        It feels like a movie that stops five minutes before the story ends. That's because it is. If Scott had any real intention of ending the movie differently than the mountan ride, he never filmed what he needed in order to do so.

        Also, the addition of the "unicor
  • No human could survive the beating he takes. Don't need the director to spell it out.
  • 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.
  • Finally (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.
  • 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!
  • Watch the eyes in this movie. It's all about the eyes.
  • 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.
  • "Mein Voigt-Kampf".
  • 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.
    • 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. :-)
  • 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? (Score:2, Informative)

    by ikejam (821818)
  • by PietjeJantje (917584) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:35AM (#15428960)
    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.
  • by Karna99 (784157) <`dthiara' `at' `'> on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:35AM (#15428965)
    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.
    • 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.
    • by mihalis (28146) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @12:12PM (#15429258) Homepage

      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.

      • As I recall, Pris knocks him down easily - at which point any experienced street fighter would simply kick him in the head a few times. End of "fight". (Or she could just pick up his gun and walk away with it). What does Pris do? She races away into the distance, allowing him time to recover, sit up, and find his *long range* weapon. Then she comes springing towards him, making an ideal target. She isn't a "pleasure" model - she's a "suicidal cannon fodder" model.
    • 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.

      While I agree Deckard should be human, your analysis is not up to snuff. Note my comments below:

      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.

      This has been heavily discussed. First off, during the scene where Deckard is being shown the replic
    • 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 thei
  • 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 directo
  • by mihalis (28146) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:49AM (#15429065) Homepage

    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 t
  • by no_opinion (148098) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @11:51AM (#15429082)
    The "Mo' Money" version?

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.