Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

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This discussion has been archived.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

(Another) Cut of Blade Runner

Comments Filter:
  • Poor Ridley Scott (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ViciousMark ( 550673 )
    It still gets me rather mad to think that Ridley Scott was denied any kind of Oscar because people thought the use of computers in movies "was cheating". Can't they give him some kind of honorary award for changing movies forever?
  • by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:00PM (#3061307) Homepage Journal
    Ridley Scott is just doing what George Lucas mastered a long time ago. Gouging the sucke... eh, fans.
  • Blade Runner (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kris_lang ( 466170 )
    Yes, there is a limit to how many re-edits an artiste ought to do of their work. But the limit is probably more in what the audience tolerates, not really in what they ought to do. Coding of software continues to fine tune the points. And we can't see the defects that Ridley Scott sees in his creation as major: it just doesn't create the story he wanted to tell. So why shouldn't he be allowed to do a re-write or re-edit and try it again? Even if it is just to get a bunch of fans and fanatics to buy yet another version.
  • uh oh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Navius Eurisko ( 322438 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:01PM (#3061313)
    New edit...present day digital technology...is anyone thinking what I'm thinking?

    Jar-Jar Binks: "Mesa not a replicant! Mesa a Gungan!" ::Falls down and starts farting::
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:01PM (#3061317) Homepage Journal
    I just bought the directors cut dvd a month ago. This is getting to be a bit like Pink Floyd CD's, every year or so they re-release with some special editon, gold plate, remaster, etc. I guess I'll just sit tight with what I've got and not bother to see the spiffy new cut. Sigh.

    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...

    • Worse, we're supporting the devils in the MPAA buy buying it

      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!
      • by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @06:41PM (#3062297)
        This would be the same post we see every time a DVD release is posted on slashdot. It's even more predictable than complaints about the Cowboyneal poll option. Get a clue - while theres a definite political slant, the Slashdot community isn't a homogonous opinioned political action group. We're just people who happen to read "News for Nerds". The people bashing the MPAA aren't nessecarily the ones buying the DVD's. This isn't the borg collective here.
    • I don't see why so many people are suprised at this new Blade Runner DVD version, since it was originally supposed to be released on November 2000, but was delayed because of Ridley Scott's commitments to movies he was making at the time.

      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.

    • Yah, but isn't Blade Runner all about *replicants*? Isn't its challenge one of "Which is the real Deckard... the human, or the android?"

      And now you endlessly debate "Which BladeRunner is the *real* BladeRunner?" :*)
  • by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:07PM (#3061339) Homepage Journal
    Damn if I am going to buy yet another DVD that is mostly silent. The theater version was so many times better than the Director's Cut. It seemed as if so much of the story was discarded.

    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?)

    • You and me are the only people who feel that way.
    • You mean the voiceovers with such gems as:

      "I'd had a belly-ful of killing!"
      and
      "they don't advertise for killers in the newspaper"
    • 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.

    • by cei ( 107343 )
      I'm all for having the voiceover around. To me, having the voice over adds a Daschell Hammett / film noir detective element that gets obliterated by the director's cut. With the different things that can be done in DVD authoring, there's absolutly no reason why both can't be on the same disc. The multi-threaded discs of The Abyss and T2 both show how you can jump in and out of different cuts seamlessly.

      The studio just needs to say, yes Mr. Scott, you can put your version on the disc, but we'll also have this.

    • For me, the voiceovers gave the movie its whole character. They were just so well done! Seeing the movie without them just leaves me cold.

      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
    • HEAR HEAR!!!!

      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

  • What? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Snafoo ( 38566 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:08PM (#3061341) Homepage
    Deckard was a REPLICANT?

    Oh my GOD...
    • Yeah, he was the drummer. He was also trying to shag Priss, but she was already engaged to Linna.

    • 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.

  • Needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by omega9 ( 138280 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:09PM (#3061348)
    Seriously, this is greatly needed. The director's cut DVD comes across as a template based, thrown-together piece of crap. The movie itself is fine but they paid zero attention unique menus, special features or anything else. Oh wait, it has scene selection... gee wiz.

    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)

      by AtaruMoroboshi ( 522293 ) <Anthony@o[ ]whelmed.org ['ver' in gap]> on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:39PM (#3061482) Homepage

      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)

        by Phexro ( 9814 )
        actually, you're both wrong. :)

        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)

      by ckedge ( 192996 )

      > 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.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:10PM (#3061349) Homepage
    I'm betting that the release is nothing but a rehash of the last laserdisc version with the director's commentary, the 4th side having tons of still photos and the outtakes.

    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.
    )
    • IANAVP (... videophile), but I think presently the big downfall to the (ANALOG) laserdisc [audiovideo101.com] format is its direct encoding of composite video [audiovideo101.com]. The signal has been succeeded by S-Video [audiovideo101.com], which offers unique channels for chrominance and luminance, and more recently component video [audiovideo101.com], taking things further with multiple luminance-to-color based channels.

      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 ;)) to swap discs with DVD. ;)

      Not getting into the audio differences. More information:
      LD vs CD under microscope [cs.tut.fi]
      Home Video Format Comparison [cs.tut.fi]

      Jason Fisher
      :P [colonpee.com]

  • by Chrimble ( 7748 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:10PM (#3061351) Homepage
    Another director's cut? But I want the *original* theatrical release on DVD! Complete with voiceover!

    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...
    • I second that. I think the original was better b/c it was easier to follow. I've shown the director's cut to people who'd never seen Blade Runner before, and they were slightly lost.

      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.
  • guess there is something to be said about Lucas waiting eons to release on dvd. see this is why I wait till a prolific author is dead before I start readin their series. Look at the foundation series. not that I'm very glad asimov is dead but at least when I finished reading the foundation series I knew it was finally done. course then you have thigns like herbert's son writing prequels. just can't win.
    • Not entirely accurate, I'm sad to say. Greg Bear and a few other hacks wrote crappy Foundation prequels like "Foundation and Chaos".

      *After* Asimov the Meek passed away, of course. Vultures.
  • Damn. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bnavarro ( 172692 )
    I was really looking forward to this special edition. I had been under the impression that he was going to make this like the Terminator 2 SE DVD -- that is, make most or all of the multiple cuts of the movie availible via seamless branching, Harrison Ford voiceover on a second audio track, etc., etc.

    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.
  • From the interview, it seems the only actual video editing (ie, taking stuff out/putting it in) will be sot shorten the scenes with the voice over. He does make a good point, why would Ford be staring up at a ballon with no voiceover? He's just removing/shortening scenes that were purposefully lenghtened for something that's not there anymore.
  • 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.

  • Same stuff, different cover.


    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".

  • while (people.buy()) remaster(blade_runner); if (blade_runner.findCharacter("Jar Jar")) ::YouShouldNotMessWithClassics = true;
  • Thank God for DVD, because DVD at least resurrects the thing to the original sound and picture quality. ... The happy ending and Harrison Ford's voice-over, both forced upon Scott back in 1982, will vanish.

    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)

    by Satai ( 111172 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:20PM (#3061396)
    Yeah, I tend to agree with most of the other comments here - he seems to be getting more and more self-indulgent, more and more self-enthralled. Let's see if we can take a look at his filmography, courtesy of the IMDB.

    Black Hawk Down (2001)

    Hannibal (2001)
    Gladiator (2000)
    G.I. Jane (1997)
    White Squall (1996)
    1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)
    ... aka 1492: Christophe Colomb (1992) (France)
    ... aka 1492: La conquête du paradis (1992)
    ... aka 1492: la conquista del paraíso (1992) (Spain)
    Thelma & Louise (1991)
    Black Rain (1989)
    Someone to Watch Over Me (1987)
    Legend (1985)
    Blade Runner (1982)
    Alien (1979)
    Duellists, The (1977)
    "Informer, The" (1966) TV Series
    "Adam Adamant Lives!" (1966) TV Series
    "Z Cars" (1962) TV Series


    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?
    • 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)

      by solendril ( 415296 )
      What are you talking about? To begin with, the concept of "Good Movie" is pretty subjective. Diffrent people like diffrent things.

      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.
  • by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:23PM (#3061412) Homepage Journal
    Are all gone and dead I heard. My father called it the blade runner kiss of death, and I think there were a few articles about it. Basically all the big skyscrapers with the company logo's on them (i.e. Atari) all went extinct. Just something interesting I wanted to point out.
    • There are coca-cola ads on the electronic billboards in blade runner as I recall. I think rumours of coca-cola going out of business are greatly exaggerated. :)
    • Sadly the only example you quoted is still in business [atari.com] so I think you might want to go back to your sources on this one...

      Perhaps you could post a link to one of these articles you mention and we could find out what was really said.
      • Actually,

        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.
    • Although the company we once knew as Atari is long gone, they do still exist [atari.com], and several games have been released recently on various platforms under the Atari brand. The company's assets (mainly the name and rights to various Atari properties) have been passed around several times over the years, from JTS to Hasbro and now Infogrames.
  • ...which is unfortunate, because I was hoping for more. :D

    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)

    by astinus ( 560894 )
    DVDs are supposed to have all the stuff that VHS does not; in other words, everything you can't experience by just watching the movie alone.

    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. . .
  • I wish they would recut more movies just to so I could buy them to enjoy.

    I bet someone with talent could turn Home Alone into a dark action flick...
  • by pedro ( 1613 )
    I personally think that the final installment should resolve the question that I've had in my head since I saw the first in '79.
    Where the hell did these critters *evolve* ferkrissake? What predator types would eat _them_?
    An adventure on THAT planet would be really cool!
    • 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.

  • by Tickenest ( 544722 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @03:59PM (#3061575) Homepage Journal

    This sounds an awful lot like Valve's marketing strategy for Half-Life. You know, the various editions and all, including:

    Half-Life
    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

    But hey, whatever works....
  • I liked the voice-over. It's the hard-boiled detective genre, dammit. I WANT MY VOICE-OVER!
  • As an excellent example of selling the same !@#! thing over and over again, perhaps the copyright holders of abandoned software could take a lesson?

  • by DoctaWatson ( 38667 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @04:11PM (#3061632)
    Which one of these versions of the movie is closest to the Philip K. Dick novel, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

    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.

  • Someone, somewhere, is thinking about a remake.

    Lord, please stop them.
  • Despite most Slashdot posters negative response to this, I for one shall jump on Mr. Scott's bandwagon, and buy it. It's a great story, retold...again. But a great story non the less.
  • I though the next release was going to show Al Gore as the actual inventer of Replicants.

    hardy har-har
  • First question: Will you include the original theatrical release on the new DVD?

    :)

    Cheers,
    Winton
  • Dammit, a half-dozen versions of the movie available for home viewing, and the only (real) soundtrack available are pirates from Eastern Euro. Thanks God for MP3: I nearly wet myself when, a couple of years ago ago, wnile browsing some of the alt.binary.sounds.mp3 hierarchy I stumbled across the entire set. I'd waited for years for that music. However, although they sound good, I believe they were ripped from vinyl or, at most, from Audio CDs based on sub-standard originals. If we could just get Vangelis's originals remastered..... Not sure what it was that set Vangelis and Scott at odds, but sure wish they'd bury the hatchet and give the public a chance to enjoy (legally) one of the greatest soundtracks of all time (second, at least, to "The Graduate").

    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)

      by bnavarro ( 172692 )
      Uh, the original soundtrack [amazon.com] by Vangelis IS out -- at least in the U.S. It came out in '94

      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.
      • Ooh, I just remembered this little anecdote!

        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)

        by Pope ( 17780 )
        He's talking about the bootlegs, usually called "Bladerunner: Extended Score." I have one version with 21 tracks and an 86 minute running time, vs. 12 tracks and 57 minutes for the Official Vangelis version. I'm pretty sure it's every single music cue in the film: "Bladerunner Blues" is almost 2 minutes longer than the released version, and there's another piece called "Wounded Animals" over 11 minutes!

        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 :)
  • by Dan Crash ( 22904 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @06:50PM (#3062348) Journal
    Am I the only one who feels that Ridley's stupid obsession with making Deckard a replicant ruins the whole plot arc of the movie?

    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?"

    • I don't buy it. I believe this idea only blossomed in Ridley's head long after the movie was released.

      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.

    • by barawn ( 25691 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @08:43PM (#3062856) Homepage
      Wait, I'm confused: Blade Runner is based on Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", right? Dick left it completely open as to whether or not Deckard was a replicant - or so he says. Honestly, it's fairly clear in the book that Deckard was a replicant.

      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.
    • read the book - Deckard is a replicant, dick was making the point of the hypocrisy of deckard killing his own kind and not ebing aware of it, yet the morality that he displays is a comment on the humanity of humans, in many ways deckard is a vulnerable and weak character (especially in the book) yet he turns out to have a human and moral core that supercedes his weakness. The concept of humanity and intelligence is one recurring thru this boo.

      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.
    • I can't comment about the book, but I've seen the movie and read one of those "making of" books. That "making of" book talks about Ridley Scott and one of the other guys... writer or producer, I forget... arguing about whether to make Deckard a replicant or not. Scott wanted him to be a replicant, the other guy felt he was definitely human. Scott made the ending a little more ambiguous than he was gonna and that's how it ended up.

      -l
    • The original story was the origin of the obsession on whether Deckard was a replicant or not.

      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.
  • by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @06:57PM (#3062381)

    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. :P
  • by SpotBug ( 228742 ) on Sunday February 24, 2002 @07:06PM (#3062425)

    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.
  • In a related news: Philip K. Dick announced that he would rewrite the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." to make sure it would come along the lines of the new Ridley Scott's director's cut release.

    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.
  • I've always liked the original release of this film... and it still blows me away to this day. Every rehash since has generally offended me as crap... I would only consider the DVD if they did for it like Scott is planning to do for Legend... (basically the same thing Criterion did for Brazil). As disc set with the original print and the final directors cut included...

    oh well...

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN

Working...