'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."
Han shot first! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Han shot first! (Score:2)
Just in case, here you can check up if you show any of the indicators [brmovie.com] 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)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
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:Han shot first! (Score:3, Funny)
Cool! I didn't know the president of the US had a /. account!
Re:Han shot first! (Score:2)
You Insensitive Clod! (Score:5, Interesting)
Watch how it's supposed to be done:
*SPOILER ALERT!*
From the Wikipedia Entry [wikipedia.org]: 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:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
R2D2 (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. Take R2D2 for example.
Oh wait..
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:5, Funny)
He's kind of evil that way.
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:3, Funny)
I can see how the theatrical release made it ambiguous since it cut some of the obvious clues, but anyone who doesn't know Deckard is a replicant by the end of the director's cut is a moron.
By the way, the chick in The Crying Game is really a man.
And Darth Vader is Luke's Father.
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:3, Funny)
They have spoiler tags for a reason!
Re:You Insensitive Clod! (Score:2)
Re:Was He? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The last DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The last DVD (Score:2)
Re:The last DVD (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:The last DVD (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:The last DVD (Score:2)
Re:The last DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The last DVD (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I own a nice HDTV. Yes, I am aware that cost a big pile of cash that I will never get back.
Re:The last DVD (Score:2)
The original Beatles White Album I have disagrees with you, not to mentioh my older MoFi CDs, which now fetch up to 10 times what they originally cost.
Oh, and the Blade Runner laserdisc too, which has become quite valuable.
Regards,
--
*Art
Yes but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Any proof that Gaff was the actual Blade Runner?
Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it hillarious that the movie was portraying the future, 2019, as totally different and disturbing than the year it was made which was 1982. I guess thinking that 30+ years into the future it was possible that such a drastic change to occur. But here we are just 13 years away and LA doesn't look that bad... yet :)
Remember the predictions back in the 50s of flying cars be common-place in 2000 :)
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (Score:2)
Cold war, massive nuclear arsenal, MAD
Space program, imminent moon landing
ubiquitous TV transformed American culture
The Pill, sexual revolution, Woman's Lib, Black rights movement
You'll notice I don't have to say "check."
Re:Are you guys joking? (Score:3, Funny)
Wasn't the Non-Stop Rain in the Movie... (Score:2)
Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (Score:2)
Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (Score:2)
Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (Score:2)
It's about avoiding it
It's all one big cult movie blur. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (Score:2)
Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (Score:2)
Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (Score:3, Funny)
Voiceover (Score:4, Insightful)
Not much Philip K. Dick left (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not much Philip K. Dick left (Score:5, Informative)
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-complete
"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.
Ditto on the VO (Score:2)
I miss the voiceover too (Score:2)
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
Voiceover reduces film to good-guy vs. bad-guy (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Voiceover (Score:2)
Re:Voiceover (Score:2)
Is this post a replicant? (Score:4, Funny)
I hear in this version (Score:2)
Blade Runner: The game (Score:3, Interesting)
FINALLY!!! (Score:2)
Re:FINALLY!!! (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Next generation? (Score:2)
Yay for the original. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yay for the original. (Score:2)
"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
Re:Yay for the original. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Deckard has to be a replicant (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't get you much, do you? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously you don't get out to the movies much. Action picture movie stars are really really tough!
Re:Deckard has to be a replicant (Score:2)
New clue (Score:2)
Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
Special Edition (Score:2)
Eyes (Score:2)
Breaking News.... (Score:2)
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.
So you don't think (Score:2)
Re:Breaking News.... (Score:2)
That's why I'm eagerly awaiting the release of A Scanner Darkly [dvara.net] at the end of July [apple.com]
They should call it... (Score:2, Funny)
Too bad about the DVD (Score:2)
Blade Runner was the first DVD I bought. (Score:2)
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.
Too much idiocy in this thread (Score:2)
Re:Too much idiocy in this thread (Score:3, Funny)
Greed? (Score:2, Informative)
The only true cyberpunk movie (Score:4, Insightful)
Editors exisit for a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Editors exisit for a reason (Score:3, Interesting)
I always took this as Tyrell knowing they were both Replicants.
Re:Editors exisit for a reason (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to have a go at these issues, not to argue, but because it is fun to speculate and I'm sure Ridley wont reply...
For the story to work, he needs to be human. Otherwise all kinds of plot problems open up. Like if he was a replicate, how come he sucks so much in a fight? All the other models kick the shit out of him--including the so called pleasure models.
Clearly the military models are stronger and deadlier than the other models, so he is not going to win against the male replicants. The pleasure model was Pris (Darryl Hannah) and he blows her away with his gun whereas she resorts to gymnastics, so he is smarter and better with weapons, but she is more ... athletic. That seems to fit. Similarly, Zhora is an assassin model, nearly strangling him with a surprise attack using his tie - not too unrealistic
And does not explain if he escaped with the other models on the spaceship, why don't they know him? And if he is a special model like Rachel, why the hell does Tyrell not know this?
Tyrell knows Rachel is special, but doesn't let her know, he plays along with the pretense that the "replicant test" is being tested first on a negative (i.e. human) subject. So it is not a big stretch that he's playing mindgames with Deckard too. Perhaps he has only recently let both Rachel and Deckard out into the world with their implanted memories. He wants to reinforce that he knows they are human, so he has Deckard come to test Rachel (letting Deckard, therefore, believe he is human) and conspicuously asserts that Rachel is also human by using her as the negative subject.
Re:Editors exisit for a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Editors exisit for a reason (Score:2)
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
Re:Editors exisit for a reason (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Editors exisit for a reason (Score:3, Interesting)
That's been my assumption. Roy and Rachel both considered Deckard to be at least some type of equal.
(by the way, the 'if Deckard's a replicant, why did he get the crap beat out of him' question could also be asked of Rachel during the, well, date rape scene, for lack of a better way of dealing with that unsettling bit. I've assumed in the past that since Deckard doesn't know he's a replicant but does know she is, that's some weird sort of
Enough with the shameless cash-in remixes! (Score:2)
Actually, for this fan (Score:4, Insightful)
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
hopefully more extras than "interactive menus" (Score:2)
A new version... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New DVD? Phooey? (Score:2, Interesting)
Blade Runner: Final Cut will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th-anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special-edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing.
We'll see how "limited" that limited release is, but certainly if you're in a major city (or if you're dedicated enough to travel), you should have the cha
Re:New DVD? Phooey? (Score:2)
IMAX Blowups Blow (Score:3, Insightful)
I couldn't deal with the only IMAX blowup I've ever seen because the animator's lines were swimming in space instead of clean-looking like they were in the 35mm distribution print.
If you want an IMAX film, you need to shoot it as such.
I agree -- you must see this in a theater (Score:2)
I've seen it a couple times on DVD, but a tiny screen does this picture no justice.
I was fortunate enough to first see this as a Midnight Movie when I was a sophomore in college. Jesus, it just blew me away. I've seen in plenty of times since (it's probably my favorite movie) but it's never had quite the same emotional effect on me as it did that first time. I completely agree that a huge screen in a dark room with an awesome sound system is the best way to see this film. Ridley's visuals with the Va
Good News! (Score:2)
http://www.tvcity.tv/productview.aspx?ID=1518 [tvcity.tv]
Re:New DVD? Phooey? (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:2)
Eurominutes? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Speaking of... Will we get the eurominutes, or will this be yet another sanitised US version? In my opinion, it doesn't help much to put "Unrated - Director's Cut" on a cover, if it's still been censored to not upset bible belt watchers.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:About time (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm having a hard time understanding what I should get all excited about here. Yes, this may be the best sci-fi flick of all time, but I'm not sure what seeing a slightly different version is going to do for me.
Will it invalidate all my other viewings by being so far-and-above superior? Will it help me feel smug in the fact that
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:About time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Skin Jobs (Score:2)
Stephen King wrote 'The Running Man'. I think you are confusing it with another Schwatzenager movie 'Total Recall' which is based on Dick's short story 'We Can Remember It For You Wholesale'.