'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."

Re:Han shot first!

[jdray]

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.

Greed?

[ikejam]

Greed.

Re:You Insensitive Clod!

[civilizedINTENSITY]

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:The last DVD

[Blikkie]

Except no part of the movie was shot in HD

No, it was shot on an entirely different medium. Allow me to introduce you with the fantastic phenomenom film. It is heavy, cumbersome, in the old days it was prone to burn, but gosh, the resolution it captures is just great. All they have to do is scan in the old master, brush it up and it looks great. It probably will require some brushing up, but I guess that isn't a problem if they will cut a new movie out of the material anyway.

Re:Not much Philip K. Dick left

[bonkeroo buzzeye]

*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.

Re:The last DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there is. The last dvd is just a port of the laserdisc transfer, which wasn't very good (and, IIRC, isn't even anamorphic). There's room for a much better transfer.

And then there are extras... Ridley Scott gives good commentary.

Re:Because there's a difference!

[zentinal]

Ahhh, but there's a lot to be said for either surprising or misleading your actors, in order to get the reaction you want on screen. Another example I can think of is the alien birth scene in the first "Alien". Ridley Scott didn't let the actors in on that page of the script. The surprise, shock, and disgust you see onscreen is genuine and unscripted. I can't find a transcript online, so you'll have to see the film.

Some directors are infamous for witholding information from actors, to keep precisely what you describe from happening.

I'd love to see a reverse angle shot disclosing what the hell Scott has his sfx crew work up to get that reaction.