Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Final Edition' of Blade Runner to be Released

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the he-was-a-replicant dept.

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."

cancel ×

425 comments

Han shot first! (5, Funny)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428601)

Oh, wait...

Re:Han shot first! (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428657)

Wrong movie mate.

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! (4, Informative)

jdray (645332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428692)

Wrong movie mate.

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

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

Re:Han shot first! (3, Funny)

arivanov (12034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428735)

No.

I do not see the ironic correlation.

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

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

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

Cheers,

Re:Han shot first! (1)

LouisZepher (643097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428977)

However, Henry Turner doesn't even shoot at all...

I'll tell you about my mother (1)

el cisne (135112) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428803)

Actually....Leon shoots first....

Re:Han shot first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428855)

Han shot last.

And first. Greedo never got a shot off.

Not that it has anything to do with this movie.

Re:Han shot first! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428945)

All that goes to show is that Han had lousy endurance. A gentleman would have at least waited for the other, uh, "participant" to get their shot off :-P

And the special editon just makes Greedo look like he was faking it...

About time (2, Interesting)

electronerdz (838825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428607)

It's about damn time! Now, I can FINALLY get my father the version he likes, and I can see what the hell he is talking about all the time.

Re:About time (1)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428774)

He's talking about the scene where Roy pushes his thumbs into Tyrell's eyeballs, of course!

You Insensitive Clod! (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428609)

from the he-was-a-replicant dept.
Way to ruin it for me! I had planned on seeing that movie but now, what's the point!

Watch how it's supposed to be done:

*SPOILER ALERT!*

From the Wikipedia Entry [wikipedia.org] :
Among fans of the film, the question of whether Deckard is human or replicant has been an ongoing controversy since the film's release. Ridley Scott, after remaining coy on the subject for twenty years, stated in 2002 that Deckard is a replicant. Hampton Fancher and Harrison Ford, however, have stated that Deckard is human. The rough consensus among fans is that in the original version of the film Deckard is probably human, whereas in the Director's Cut he is a replicant. Specifically, the Director's Cut shows a dream of Deckard's that features a unicorn; Gaff leaves Deckard an origami unicorn at the end of the film. This suggests Gaff knew about the dream and implies that Deckard is, like Rachael, a replicant with implanted memories.
I hope that the characters still get guns in this version [wikipedia.org] ! And that Harrison Ford is allowed to shoot it at the point in the duel when he originally did!

Was He? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428674)

I never knew that, thanks for point it out.

I was one of those few weird geeks who went to see this odd-ball movie when all most people in the audience wanted to see was Han Solo or something else like Star Wars. Guess I can blame that on reading Heavy Metal back when it was a decent showcase for sci-fi/fantasy artwork.

My first exposure to a similar character was Good Night, Mr. James, a Clifford D. Simak short, which I read in the 70's and someone has made into a short film, which I saw on PBS probably 15 years ago.

Re:You Insensitive Clod! (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428678)

> Way to ruin it for me! I had planned on seeing that movie but now, what's the
> point!

How does that spoil it? It's not like whether he is or not is important to the film, giving that the spoiler was revealed long after the book and first version of the film appeared on the market. A spoiler would be something like "the butler did it" in a whodunnit. Whether or not Ford's character is a replicant is irrelevant.

Re:You Insensitive Clod! (2, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428801)

Whoosh.

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! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428900)

And Jean Grey is a lesbian.

Well, actually I made this up but it would be nice. Jean Grey/Storm slash anyone?

The Lone Gunmen Are Dead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428816)

You must be new here. [slashdot.org]

Re:You Insensitive Clod! (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:You Insensitive Clod! (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428950)

> 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.

How? Do you think Harrison Ford would subconciously act a little bit like a robot if he knew he was secretly playing one?

Re:You Insensitive Clod! (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428831)

Read the book save your money. Please dont be a moron and support the movie patch cycle.

the question is irrelevant (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429047)

The bloody point of the story is that, in the end, it is irrelevant whether Dekard (or Rachel...) is a replicant.

New DVD? Phooey? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428620)


I want to see it again on a theatre screen in one of the better local theatres, the way it was when I first fell under the spell woven by Ridley Scott, Philip K. Dick, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young, Edward James Olmos, Brion James, Daryl Hannah, Joe Turkel and Harrison Ford. Too much stock is put into "special editions", "directors cuts" ad nauseum DVD versions.

I was fortunate enough to see the Directors Cut of Blade Runner at the Maple Theatre in Troy, Michigan, several years ago with a great many college friends. It was magic all over again. I've seen it a couple times on DVD, but a tiny screen does this picture no justice. Stick with Adam Sandler rubbish on your plastic DVD-playing pal who's fun to be with.

Re:New DVD? Phooey? (2, Interesting)

pweent (411565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428682)

If the DVD is inadeqate for your needs, you may still be in luck. From Sci Fi's version of the story at http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category= 0&id=36328 [scifi.com] :

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 chance to see it on a big screen again.

Re:New DVD? Phooey? (1)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428904)

"Limited" probably means it will run until the ticket sales decline and not a day more. And you're not allowed to film the theater screen with your camcorder :)

I agree -- you must see this in a theater (1)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429020)

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 Vangelis score creates a mood that is unsurpassed. You really, truly get a sense of what it would be like to live like Deckard in a burned-out hull of a crumbling world, doing a job that you know is morally wrong. For those of you who have never seen this in the theater, I urge you to pounce on any opportunity to do so. It's an incredible experience.

For all those insipid ads from the MPAA going on about the 'great movie experience', this is the one rare film where it is completely true. Of course, it helps that highschool gangbanger-wannabes aren't going to be attending this film...

GMD

The last DVD (5, Insightful)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:The last DVD (1)

Go MSFT, stop Linux! (977883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428660)

Yes, but you will benefit from the higher quality media, which more than justifies the investment.

Re:The last DVD (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428885)

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

Re:The last DVD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428797)

yea but will it be available on VHS?

Re:The last DVD (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428903)

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.

Re:The last DVD (1)

jean-guy69 (445459) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428932)

Your CD player couldn't play your vynils. Your HD-DVD/BD player will play your DVDs

This time ascending compatibility is here, much less pain for this transition.

You won't have to rebuy your DVD, you'll be able to enjoy them as if HD-DVD/BD never existed.

DVDs will be available for a long time and buy the time movies aren't published on DVD and you have to replace your DVD player, BD player won't cost much. (HD-DVD format will have died by this time)

The only negative I see is that we have two competing ormats, I just hope that HD-DVD is quickly eradicated.

Re:The last DVD (4, Funny)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428937)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428989)

You can purchase your entire movie library all over again, just like going from LPs to CDs.
Now with even more stupid changes!

Yes but... (1, Interesting)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428630)

Will they contain more hints that Deckard was a replicant?

Any proof that Gaff was the actual Blade Runner?

Does Deckard shoot first? (-1, Offtopic)

keesh (202812) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428631)

Enquiring minds want to know.

Making of documentary? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428633)

I'd like to see the Channel 4 (UK) made documentary from years back? It was really rather good and I still have it on VHS.

Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (3, Interesting)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428640)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428754)

Just give the Governator and the Bush clan another few years and I'm pretty sure LA will seem a lot more like the one depicted in the movie. Or possibly like the world of the future that was predicted in A.I.

Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428777)

put your personal links in your sig where they belong. You little site that no one cares about is already linked below your name. We don't need to it linked a second time.

Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (5, Interesting)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (1)

Br._Fjordhr (849213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428967)

Okay, I am contrasting them

airplane: check

helicopter: check (the hilers was not in service, however it did exist)

auto: check

penicillin: okay, I think it was a wartime developmet

television: check (not common, but did exist)

I think I could go on, almost all of the real big developments, other than the computer, which to the average person was not that important in '68, were WWII developments. There were not that many real big developments there. The rocketry was a growth of the pre WWII rocket clubs that were sponsored in germany as a result of the prohibition on artillery in the treaty of Versailles.

The biggest difference was not the existence of these technologies, it was the accessibility of these technologies.

Wasn't the Non-Stop Rain in the Movie... (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428815)

From the preceived damage done to the environment due to Acid Rain, then the global warning panic of the 80's?

Re:Kick ass flick and kind of amusing (1)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428907)

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 Runner) have to be acknowledged as having insight into LA's future.

We might not get there in 2019, but we might get there a bit later. We may never have a replicant problem but crime will always be with us. We may never migrate Off-World but the environment seems to be permanently, irreparably knocked out of balance. The wild climate oscillations foreseen by Philip K. Dick and his protege KW Jeter, who wrote an excellent "sequel" novel to Blade Runner "The Edge Of Human" have begun, and will probably only get worse.

I just want those cool little biological "toys" that JR Sebastian built for himself. "Home again, home again, jiggity-jig! GOOOOOOD evening, Mr. Sebastian!" Where can I find the living teddy bear and the living toy soldiers?

Re:Future Transposed (1)

Frumious Wombat (845680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428919)

Except for the flying cars, the future predicted in "Blade Runner" is correct; it's just not LA. It's Detroit, or possibly a 'burb of Philly.

Re:Future Transposed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429026)

Are you kidding me? As someone who lives in the Detroit area, I'd happily welcome a "Blade Runner" make-over. It'd be a improvement. As Patton Oswalt said on his website recently about Detroit "I think ROBOCOP might have been a documentary. Yikes."

Take a tour youreslf [forgottendetroit.com] .

It's all one big cult movie blur. (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428643)

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?

Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428718)

Oh man, I would absolutely kill to see that movie!

Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428751)

..and the bit where Tweedle Dum (or was it Tweedle Dee?) accidentally cut off Bruce Dern's leg while trying to repair it..oh and the version where Kahn says "No hard feelings, Kirk - you were just doing your job"

Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (1)

Arnos (91951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428773)

GAHHHHHHH !!!! My minds about to explode of shame due to the fact that I knew all those references!!

Re:It's all one big cult movie blur. (2, Funny)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428881)

There's one of those "nerd rock" songs in there with just a bit of editing...

Voiceover (4, Insightful)

evilorphan (730433) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Not much Philip K. Dick left (4, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428684)

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

Not sure there needs to be, there's precious little of his stuff in the film. Not that this makes it a bad film of course - in fact I think it's an excellent film. But the main points of "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", specifically the caring for live creatures and the collective shared belief in Wilburism transcending the reality of the origins of Wilburism are completely gone.

Enjoy the film. Enjoy the Philip K. Dick story. But never think they are even vaguely about the same subjects.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Not much Philip K. Dick left (2, Insightful)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428723)

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.

Re:Not much Philip K. Dick left (1)

evilorphan (730433) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428828)

There where still a couple of bit's left - the presence of the mechanical fake owl in the office for instance. But I don't think that if Deckard followed Wilburism and called in a fake vet to care for his malfunctioning sheep then it would be quite as easy for the audience to question his authenticity. The whole fake police thing would have been pretty difficult to translate to the movie format as well - interesting when it got there though. For the true lack of the Philip K. Dick spirit you probably have to go to Total Recall - surprisingly good film but not really in touch with "We'll Remember It For You Wholesale". PS For the ultimate exploration of his mind have you read "I Am Alive and You Are Dead" by Emmanuel Carrere? Now out in paperback, £5.39 from Amazon UK. Reading it late at night almost managed to convert me to a new religion...

Re:Not much Philip K. Dick left (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428978)

Well "We Can Remember It For You, Wholesale" is scarcely a novella length and, IIRC, completely fucking hatstand. I say this as a huge PKD fan: Total Recall has much better plot than WCRIFYW.

Ditto on the VO (1)

jpellino (202698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429012)

I liked it - watching the 2nd version felt oddly empty.

I miss the voiceover too (1)

gevmage (213603) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429050)

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 submission, I also had a couple of sentences about that. I said something like "no word on whether the voice-over is a separate audio track", but the editor just kept the very basics.

Is this post a replicant? (3, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428653)

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

Is this post a replicant? (1)

tapo (855172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428931)

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

I hear in this version (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428656)

Deckard dies first.

Blade Runner: The game (2, Interesting)

gnarlin (696263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428679)

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.

FINALLY!!! (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428685)

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 worried is the "limited release" sugegstion. That means that probably like the Critereon Laser Disc, this will be hard to find shortly was well. :(

Re:FINALLY!!! (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428808)

"Limited Release" means they will make dozens of millions of copies available for 5 years before they stop making them just to ensure people like you will pay full price for it in the first week. Its a marketing gimmick designed to make you feel you need to rush out and buy it for whatever price they slap on it.
The Star Wars DVD box set was limited edition, did you have troubles finding it? Are you still able to buy it today? What exactly is limiting about this edition?

I bought a limited edition box set for E.T. on it's 20th anniversary for $80. A couple of years later I could have bought the original sealed box for $15 on a discount rack at some dive video store. Go to amazon and there is 50 new and used to buy right now.
-
- A sucker is born every second, and marketing knows it.

Re:FINALLY!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428947)

The limited release does not refer to the multidisc edition with the new cut 'final cut' on it, it refers to the brief re-issue of the directors cut DVD.

From TFA - "The DVD, featuring the 1992 "director's cut," will be deleted after four months, and replaced by a 25th-anniversary "final cut,"

Next generation? (1)

shadowlight1 (77239) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428702)

I got the old release on DVD, I'll wait for the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray release :P

Yay for the original. (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Re:Yay for the original. (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428822)

The problem with the 92 DC of Blade Runner is that it still technically isn't a DC. Scott was rushed while making it and wasn't able to complete it as he wanted to. He was finally able to go back and finish it proper in 2000.

The so-called Director's Cut feels like an unfinished movie, because that's kind of what it is. is accurate, but not for the reason you give afterwards. He just didn't have time.

I'll withhold judgment til I see the 'Final Cut.'

It's also nice studios are realizing that in some cases it's more important to get the director's vision out there than just leaving it be. It would suck to have a Magnificient Ambersons from this era.

Re:Yay for the original. (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428954)

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 mountain footage stolen from The Shining to the pathetic "Oh by the way she's special and won't die in four years and what do you mean 'what about Deckard?'" cop out.

But thank you for reminding me how "far from perfect" Mr. Scott can be as epitomized by Legend. I thought I'd killed the brain cells that remembered that crapfest with beer. Oh well, I'll try again tonight...

Hope they fix this (1)

partridge (207872) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428730)

I hope they fix that horrible scene of the female replicant running through the glass windows. The one where they used a stunt double that looks NOTHING like the actress (Think guy in drag bad).

Deckard has to be a replicant (2, Insightful)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428750)

No human could survive the beating he takes. Don't need the director to spell it out.

You don't get you much, do you? (4, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428844)

No human could survive the beating he takes.

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

New clue (1)

sjonke (457707) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428757)

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 (2, Interesting)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428761)

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.

Special Edition (1)

PixelSlut (620954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428784)

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!

I take it (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428786)

we are going to delay the boycott for the last time? And this time we mean it, right? I just don't get it. People hate the ??AAs and yet they continue to feed the beast. Well, I guess if a boycott was successful and they died off, we wouldn't have anything to complain about now, would we? Is there such a small amount of news that the page has to be filled ads in such flimsy disguises? Is this the shareholders talking? What a bizarre world. Complain bitch pay, Complain bitch pay, pay, pay, pay [66.102.7.104]

Skin Jobs (0)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428790)

Nice ad for yet another release of a 25 year old (excellent) movie. First wrapped in a CNN story, then in a Slashdot story. Without any of the distinguishing features of "news", like details, or something actually happening (not just an announcement). Comparisons to the original, or the DVD revision? No - just wait until you see it! While supplies last!

For example, is the notorious voiceover narration in the theatrical rerelease? Which "extra" scenes are retained or dropped from the Director's Cut DVD version, or any others? Other than "new standard formatting", how is the release different from the past ones? Even

This is just PR, including promotion of other Hollywooded PK Dick stories. Watch for the next phase of ads, which dwell on "whether or not Ford's Deckard is actually a replicant", without reporting any info of what the new releases are like compared to the long history of the movie.

If copyrights were fair, this artifact of a generation ago would be producing lots of new versions and independent reporting of how people treat its fascinating story, in the hands of the public. New voiceovers/lines, new/deleted scenes, different framing edits, the rest of the story from the book, splicings with other movies like Dick's _Running Man_ or even _Alien_ or _The Matrix_...

Instead, we've got a giant rehash propaganda machine. At least this one's hitched to a movie that's worth seeing again. Even though its treatment as a product diminishes it, and us.

Eyes (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428807)

Watch the eyes in this movie. It's all about the eyes.

Breaking News.... (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428823)

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.

So you don't think (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428968)

another generation would enjoy it?

Re:Breaking News.... (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428970)

Hollywood has (almost) no new ideas.

That's why I'm eagerly awaiting the release of A Scanner Darkly [dvara.net] at the end of July [apple.com]

Re:Breaking News.... (1)

heck (609097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429014)

Hollywood has (almost) no new ideas

Iger (the new Disney CEO) stated that one of the reasons he wanted to buy Pixar is that he watched the parade at the newest Disney and realized all of the characters were older than 10 years. Disney had created no new characters in 10 years. Pixar had.

Interview was in Fortune for those who want to RTFA.

They're still not rereleasing the best version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428824)

There's a quite rare version of the flick with Harrison Ford doing a sort of voice-over. The voice over is in character and more or less clues you in to what Deckard is thinking - i.e. not a director/actor commentary. I bought the VHS on ebay a few years ago and had it converted to svcd but I'd love to have an original dvd version of it.

They should call it... (1, Funny)

Illbay (700081) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428854)

"Mein Voigt-Kampf".

Too bad about the DVD (1)

amcdiarmid (856796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428866)

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.

Blade Runner was the first DVD I bought. (1)

attemptedgoalie (634133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15429032)

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. :-)

Too much idiocy in this thread (1)

rbanzai (596355) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428877)

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? (2, Informative)

ikejam (821818) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428884)

Greed.

If it ain't broken... (1)

Explorador (627887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428887)

...don't fix it. The Director's Cut is as good as it gets.

Nothing final here. (1)

BaronHethorSamedi (970820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428918)

In view of the huge financial incentives studios have to continue releasing repackaged original content ad nauseum, and with no end to this phenomenon in sight given the impending DVD format war, I move for an indefinite moratorium on the use of the term "final edition."

All in favor?

Directors Cut Only (1)

Arketype (958431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428920)

The directors cut is the only thing worth watching. Someone mentioned that it looks awkward because the film was made for dubbing... baloney, Scott was furious when the studio MADE him dub it because it was too complex for americana to understand. While somewhat slow, the movie is so stunningly beautiful that your eyes can just wander on screen in delight. Also, the most 'accurate' looking portrayed future I have yet seen on film. That is, 25 years after the film has been released, many parts still look plausible. Once again, spare yourself from watching the theatrical version, it sucks compared to the directors cut.

The release you have been waiting for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15428986)

Actually, this should be a pretty incredible release. Ridley and his team have gone through and re done fx shots, fixed continuity, added a bunch of new footage (including the scene of Deckard visiting Holden in the hospital after being shot by Leon) and added a new ending. According to Ridley, they also found a pallette of original footage in a warehouse in the San Fernando Valley that was supposed to have been destroyed. So they went through it, and cleaned up what they could to be included in this 3 to 4 disc set. Apparently it has been done for quite some time, but they have been in legal battles with Jerry Perenchio (producer).

Do androids dream of electric cash cows? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428948)

I ready have 3 versions of Star Wars and 2 versions of the Fifth Element (which is Carbon, BTW). Now I have to get another version of Blade Runner too? *sigh* if you insist....

when are they releasing the prequel? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428958)

I'm still wating for the 1988 prequel "Blade Run"

and the 1990 sequel "Blade Runnest"

They were the awesomest movies yet.

The only true cyberpunk movie (3, Insightful)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

Editors exisit for a reason (5, Insightful)

Karna99 (784157) | more than 8 years ago | (#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.

I'll be buying it (1)

dar (15755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428991)

I've got the original theatrical release on VHS. I don't care for the director's cut so I never bought the DVD. Now I'm glad I didn't.

Enough with the shameless cash-in remixes! (1)

99luftballon (838486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15428998)

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 director's cut I've seen was the alternative Alien Resurrection, where Jean-Pierre Jeunet explains that he was perfectly happy with the final cut but here's something they've done anyway.

Futatsu de juubun desu yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429013)

Wakatte kudasai yo!

orlYy??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429019)

yuo spin me rite round ababy rite roudn leika record baby

Who is this Doug Pratt guy, anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15429044)

From the article:

The director's cut first came out on DVD before optimal formatting standards had been established, said Doug Pratt, editor of the DVD-LaserDisc Newsletter.

"Shortly afterwards, it went into moratorium ... [i]t is the only 'big' sci-fi spectacle currently unavailable on DVD," Pratt said.

Huh? A search on Amazon shows it availale for under ten bucks. It's in every store I visit. Never been OOP AFAIK.

Still, remastered and cleaned up ... better bet I'm shelling out the bucks.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...