Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Run Zhora Run!! BLADE RUNNER Reshoots Famous Street Gundown!!

Merrick here… …with a supercool bit of news that should get Geeks going. For a long while, we’ve been hearing about the forthcoming mega DVD of BLADE RUNNER. We’ve heard all kindsa stories about what material the set would contain (like multiple versions of the film, including a new edit that addresses continuity gaffs, FX inconsistencies, etc.) But, we hadn’t heard much about just how extensive this undertaking might be. Now we have a sense… Joanna Cassidy (who played Replicant Zhora in the film – she’s the one Harrison Ford runs down on the street & shoots in the back) has just finished shooting new material for the forthcoming DVD restoration! Here's the original version of this scene (not in English)...
Joanna has just finished re-shooting her scenes from the original BLADE RUNNER movie. Joanna is wearing her original outfit (which she kept over from the first production). These new scenes will be part of the upcoming special BLADE RUNNER DVD re-release. Check back for more details.
…says HER OFFICIAL WEBSITE. You can glean a few more details HERE. Wonder if other scenes will be similarly adjusted/re-approached for the DVD set? It’s a safe bet wire removal (that Police Spinner lifting off from the street in the beginning of the film) and smoothing out the blending of some matte paintings are on the agenda. If you know more about what’s happening with this, please DROP ME A LINE!!!


By the way, if you’ve never seen a British documentary called ON THE EDGE OF BLADE RUNNER, it’s highly recommended. If I recall correctly (and I may not be right about this), this is the piece in which the filmmakers first revealed whether or not Deckard is a Replicant. It’s a remarkably honest & insightful look at the making of the film. Here it is for your viewing pleasure…via the peculiar wonder of YouTube!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 27, 2007, 10:59 a.m. CST


    by tomthumbstallywhacker


  • April 27, 2007, 11 a.m. CST

    Um Merrick ... it's Deckard

    by TheAFLACDuck

    Come'on now! ;)

  • April 27, 2007, 11 a.m. CST


    by Uridium

    A mega DVD of Bladerunner, my all time fave film. I am keeping my ear to the ground on this one!

  • April 27, 2007, 11 a.m. CST


    by sfgeek

    not a big talkbacker, but first

  • April 27, 2007, 11 a.m. CST

    It's not what it's cracked up to be.

    by tomthumbstallywhacker

    I immediately hated myself, and I apologise.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:01 a.m. CST

    so it's okay for for Ridley Scott, but not Lucas?

    by filmicdrummer17

    Where are the purists?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:02 a.m. CST

    ima dork

    by sfgeek

    welll, that is it for me having an ego. But in all seriousness, Bladerunner is the best Philip K. Dick adaptation, even though it is not a very accurate adaptation. Regardless, it remains one of my all time favorite SF films and I can't wait for the reshoot. Also, as an added tidbit, Olmos' best role ever, until Adama came around.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:04 a.m. CST

    Ugh! Youtube is unwatchable in long form.

    by BrowncoatJedi

    Google should be ashamed of itself about the low quality.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:04 a.m. CST

    Isn't this about 26 days late?

    by epitone

    I mean... um, Joanna Cassidy is 62 now. Of everyone in that movie, I bet only Sean Young looks remotely similar.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:05 a.m. CST


    by fimano


  • April 27, 2007, 11:05 a.m. CST

    How will they get around the age difference?

    by tomthumbstallywhacker

    The de-ageing in X3 was interesting, but I thought it gave the actors a weird airbrushed Vogue-cover look.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:08 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    olmos' performance in blade runner shits all over his performance in galactica.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:08 a.m. CST

    "This Year's 'Blade Runner!'" - Earl Dittman

    by Earl Dittman

    Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazine

  • April 27, 2007, 11:12 a.m. CST

    why don't they

    by Lane

    take out the music while they're at it.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Zhora shoots first!

    by Shoegeezer

    Can't they just let Harrison Ford's killing of other characters alone? Are they going to CGI a couple of guns onto the sword guy from Raiders?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:17 a.m. CST

    The greatest sci-fi film ever is finally getting the...

    by rbatty024

    treatment it deserves. I rarely fall for the double dip trap, but I already own the vhs director's cut and the DVD director's cut, so long as they make this worthwhile (and it sounds like they are) I'll be pumping more money into their grubby hands. It's the film that keeps on giving.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:17 a.m. CST

    I'm satisfied with the director's cut

    by Demosthenes2

    Just as with the Star Wars re-releases, adding new scenes to a twenty-five-year-old movie is just distracting. The new scenes are jarring and stick out like a sore thumb. Movies should reflect the time in which they were made, including the effects because it's interesting to see where effects technology was at the time from a historical perspective. Plus we associate the aesthetic of the film with the styles of the 80s, so you want to stay true to that. Besides, twenty years from now, effects will be even more advanced, so why bother updating it if it's eventually going to look aged anyway? Unless the studio forced creative decisions against the director's will, the directors should just move on and learn from any mistakes they feel they made. If they keep tweaking it, I doubt they'll ever feel satisfied.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Age Difference Will Show, No Matter...

    by KosherWookie

    ...How they try to hide it. What Exactly are they going to change, anyway? Is she gonna break her hip on the way down in this version?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Shia LeBoeuf is a replicant

    by kafka07

    And yes Ridley Scott can do this and not Georgey Lucas; besides, they're not adding that many changes to the film when you compare to how Lucas raped his first trilogy. And 'Decker' is looking his age these days, proof that he's not a replicant.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:20 a.m. CST

    So is Deckard a replicant?

    by trombone

    I thought the whole movie would fall apart if he were. The point is that these "fake-men" are more human than the "real man". And they serve as Deckard's retribution--he goes from being an android hunter to--at the end of the "director's cut" the one that is trying to save a life. Gosh that film is fantastic. I will also DEFINITELY be shelling it out.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by Merrick

    If I recall correctly, the original (i.e. WITH narration) version *will* be included, along with the subsequent "Director's Cut", this new version, and (as I understand it) there's talk of including a very early cut of the film. Don't know that they've actually decided to do so.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:22 a.m. CST

    I'm sure her breasts look just as good 25 yrs later

    by Rupee88

    This sounds dumb and why would they even reshoot her scenes to begin with? I don't remember anything especially wrong with them...probably just a gimmick to get some media attention and sell DVDs.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Hang on

    by iamjacksleftball

    This kooky lady sells tape of her own laugh for $4.99?? HAHAHAHAHA - You owe me 50 bucks right there..

  • April 27, 2007, 11:25 a.m. CST

    It's Zhora, not Zorah

    by Shan

    ... as correctly stated in a previous post. In an added bit of trivia, did you know that Joanna Cassidy provided her own snake for the movie.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Finally it will be as Ridley Scott always imagined it

    by Vern

    with the ages of the characters changing back and forth by 20 years. That's how he originally envisioned the robots to age.<p> I'm not sure why we're supposed to be excited about this. I mean BLADE RUNNER isn't as sacred to me as you guys (it's no ALIEN), but isn't the whole reason we're even talking about it now that people like the movie already? So doesn't it stand to reason they should just release the old theatrical version on DVD like peoiple want?<p> Also, has there ever been a rejiggering like this that went over well? ALIEN 3 is the only one I can think of, and that's because everyone admits it's a flawed film to begin with. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is widely hated, STAR WARS TRILOGY is still making people cry, maybe SUPERMAN 2 DIRECTOR OF GOONIES CUT but I haven't heard much about that since it came out.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST


    by Shan

    + ?.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Stunt woman used in '82 for glass crash. Not Cassidy

    by Herman Snerd

    The re-shoot most likely would be for the crash thru the glass and the dead Zorah on the ground. A stunt woman was used originally and does not look like Cassidy. Re-shoot could be via green screen, for safety, and cgi glass. Also the 3-D photo of Zorah that Decakrd analyzes in his computer is not Cassidy either. So a photo replacement of her, aged younger, could be done as well.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:28 a.m. CST

    trombone is really Ridley Scott

    by kafka07

    "I will also DEFINITELY be shelling it out." Come on, that was an undercover shameless plug.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Kermode is da bomb

    by Fried Gold

    I've been recommending that doc for ages.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:30 a.m. CST


    by Merrick

    ...but in case you missed it earlier:

  • April 27, 2007, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Any idea if....

    by Dimpy

    ... the "new Director's cut" will include the missing scene where Deckard visits Holden in hospital..? And will the lip synching in the Animoid Row section be cleaned up?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Whats next John Candy reshooting deleted parts of

    by Chiziola79

    Uncle Buck where he bangs the whore neighbour and the stuck up daughter, I know hes worm food but if weta can create king kong then they can make a fat man fuck bitches

  • April 27, 2007, 11:36 a.m. CST

    the real Oscar Wilde

    by kafka07

    would have liked the theatrical release best. Anything else is plebeian.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:38 a.m. CST

    P.s She should be in a nursing home rather

    by Chiziola79

    than trying to recapture her past glory, she looks like Mr Burns now, Ill send her a tape of my laughing at her trying to play a 25 year old age 70 for free the sad old cow

  • April 27, 2007, 11:38 a.m. CST

    As Herman Snerd said...

    by The Real McCoy

    ...the reshoot has gotta be for the very distracting and very obvious stuntwoman crashing through the planes of glass. I'm excited at the prospect that they're paying this much attention to the new DVD. Does that mean we get a correct audio track with the correct number of replicants spoken by Bryant? As for the Lucas/Scott question - most of us Blade Runner fans never liked the original theatrical version anyway. We had to bitch and moan for years for our director's cut. I'm happy to see a new version that cleans up this near perfect film and brings it even closer to perfection.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:42 a.m. CST


    by trombone

    and while I'm at it I'll pick up 10 copies of Alien, 20 copies of Gladiator and 20 copies of Kingdom of Heaven. Seriously, is Deckard a replicant? It really doesn't make sense. If he's a replicant, then NO life in the movie is worth anything.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Did Indy just murder that nice woman, daddy?

    by -guyinthebackrow

    Yes, son. Yes, he did.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:45 a.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    The special edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is actually an improvement over the theatrical cut, which, thanks to a limited effects schedule, was pretty much just the Enterprise boldly floating in front of a psychedelic screensaver for 2 1/2 hours. As for the Donner Cut of Superman II, it managed to be much ado about not a whole hell of a lot. I love Donner, but it's pretty much the same movie, only with a few different (and not necessarily better) scenes.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Haven't seen the version with Ford's narration, but...

    by Chief Redcock

    ...Ridley Scott's director's cut is about as close to filmic perfection as a film can get. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with that film, NOTHING... it is absolutely friggin' perfect. Nothing needs to be added or tinkered with... we don't need new, more "modern" f/x or to replace the matt paintings. EVERYTHING WORKS. The movie is never for a SECOND unconvincing... and Blade Runner is one of the few films in the history of cinema that you can say that about. LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Here's some old news

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    but I thought there was supposedly a fourth version as well. Additionally, I thought they were going to stagger the releases, milk-maid style, and then release some massive ultimate six disc boxed set. Anyone else here this? below is some old news <P><P>Warner Home Video will issue a new remastered director's cut of the classic SF movie Blade Runner in September now that it has cleared up rights issues, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly director Ridley Scott's final cut, Variety reported. Warner's rights to Blade Runner lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license. The movie has a troubled history. When Scott ran over budget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voice-over and a happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention. Scott started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues. The restored "director's cut" will debut on home video in September and will remain on sale for only four months, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. 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. Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:52 a.m. CST

    What was wrong with that scene?

    by I Dunno

    Were her breasts not saggy enough?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Vern is clearly out of the loop...

    by Karl Hungus

    It was announced LAST YEAR that the original theatrical version, along with the international version and the 1992 Director's Cut would be released in this new DVD set. THIS is how you do it. Not like Lucas.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:52 a.m. CST

    On The Edge of Bladerunner

    by lodgepole

    Google video have a higher quality and complete version of the doc at They have a lot of Kermode's work, most of it is worth watching.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST

    They'll get around the age difference...

    by slone13

    ...the same way they got around it in those awful DirectTV commercials with Charlie Sheen reprising his role of Rick Vaughn from Major League.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST

    even as a little kid I hated the voice over

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    drunk narration. I do want the full eye-gouging scene back though.....

  • April 27, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST

    I dig both versions!

    by kinghenryVIII

    The narration doesn't bother me at all. And without it .... it's all good.<p>I said it before and I'll say it again - the Directors Cut of Kingdom of Heaven rules. RULES! If Ridley wants to add / subtract things from his movie, awsome. They're great to begin with! <p>And the Lucas thing .... that fat fuck has only a handful of movies that, minus what, 3, are all the same. That bitch is beating a dead horse. He can't direct for shit. Can't write for shit ..... Lucas is like a cat and plays with things till their dead - DEAD! FAT NECK, come up with an idea and then shut the fuck up before you kill it.<p>Maybe we'll get the Directors cut of "A Good Year" where, in a drunken state, Maxi-pad slices Frenchies with stale bread?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST

    But what about all the unfilmed scenes?

    by Kizeesh

    Like The frozen eye doctor getting knocked over by Deckard and smashing on the floor? They're hardly going to be able to shoot that with Ford, et al. Still I'm sure it'll be good

  • April 27, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Uhmmmm.....Shia Labouf????

    by Forestal

    Already bought Blade Runner on DVD. I might pick up the special edition still though.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Oscar Wilde 4 Prez

    by trombone

    No no no. Because that means Deckard can only relate to the replicants because he is one of them, and NOT because he realizes that they possess a greater degree of humanity, being artificial. If he is a replicant, then we, as viewers say "poor widdew wobot" and happily move along treating each other like trash. But the empathy he achieves as a HUMAN overcoming his own monstrosities by receiving mercy from Roy invites us to overcome our own prejudices. And anyway, that Unicorn scene was from a FRICKING TOM CRUISE movie!! Made AFTER Blade Runner! Not even part of the original. And it doesn't matter what Ridley Scott said in 1994, once he signs off on the movie, it's not HIS anymore--it takes on a life of its own. It doesn't matter what he may have been THINKING. It matters what he MADE. If Deckard, in the end, is a skin-job, then WE ALL are. And ALL life washes down the drain with Roy's tears.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:06 p.m. CST

    OK, there are two arguments in there that don't add up

    by trombone

    The second one is better, I withdraw the "poor widdow wobot" part

  • April 27, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST

    I try to cut directors some slack.

    by BillyPilgrim

    They have to battle with the corporate goons when filming and editing the theatrical release. So if they have a chance to go back and refilm for a DVD to complete their original "vision" then I say bully for them. That does not mean I'm going to drool over the new version like its a New York Strip. The Director runs the risk of fans preferring the original release. In the case of Lucas's additions they were horrible and distracting. Like someone just took a shit on tasty juicy steak. Nobody likes a shit steak. Not even with A1 on it.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by Fecal Debris

    ...that's called "remaking a movie." Reshoots 25 years after the fact? No.<p> "You'd be amazed at what some guys will go through to get a glimpse at a beautiful body."<p> Which reminds me, pillow, please send Ashley Judd over to do these f*cking dishes.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:19 p.m. CST

    From what I've heard...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...the set will contain both the director's cut, the unrated theatrical cut and a new "definitve cut" of the film with the reinstated scenes, polish-ups and new footage. Not to mention a shitload of extras. Oh yes.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Oh and if they don't include Mark Kermode's...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...excellent documentary, it's easily obtained on the internets via the wonder of something that rhymes with "tit borrent".

  • April 27, 2007, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Oscar Wilde 4 Prez--you don't get off that easy

    by trombone

    The reason is that we identify with Deckard. We're inside his head. So if he's a skin-job, then we ALL are. You're statement "If you have a tendency to see meaningless, existential futility--then that's what you'll see. If you have a tendency to see interconnectedness or enlightenment--then that's what you'll see." Does not hold up. We are talking about what the film itself is saying. I am not a proponent (and neither was PK Dick) of Relativism. Especially in art. If you have an opinion, support it with evidence from the film--that way, the discussion becomes fun. It's not so much fun to be right (or painful to be wrong--and I may be wrong: not be seeing everything in the film) if "anything you see is OK".

  • April 27, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Thanks, Merrick!

    by Anti-fanboy

    Really enjoyed the videos!

  • April 27, 2007, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott raped my childhood

    by Doctor_Sin

    This jiggery-pokery has got to stop somewhere. What's next? Reshooting an entire film?!?!?<p>LEAVE THE FILMS ALONE AND RELEASE THEM.<p>Assclowns.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Am I the only one...

    by TheContinentalOp

    ...who just can't get into Blade Runner? I try, dammit. I really do. I want to like it. It looks great, I love Phillip K. Dick, Harrison Ford, Rutger Haur (on the fence about Ridley Scott, though), but every time I sit down to watch it, I get distracted. I find myself reading a magazine or something. It's not because I don't "get" it, and it's not because I'm an ADD-addled teenager (I'll be 30 this year). I respect the movie, but for whatever reason, it just doesn't hold my interest, no matter how hard I try. I don't want to be the only one left out in the cold by what I agree is a modern classic. Somebody please tell me that I'm not alone.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:33 p.m. CST


    by longshot7

    1. The Theatrical Cut is better. The film NEEDS the narration. See Noir 101. 2. Deckard is NOT a replicant. He can't be. I don't care what Ridley Scott says. 3. Home again home again jiggily jig.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Then again...

    by TheContinentalOp

    Maybe it's because I've only ever seen the director's cut. There are those who say the theatrical version is better. Maybe this new DVD will clear things up for me.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:37 p.m. CST


    by trombone

    Just try looking at the movie like a beautiful painting. Don't try to "get it", just admire the amazing shots. It may not be your thing.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Will the DVD have the Work Print?

    by modlight

    Thats the version I want, and I'd love it if they ad in the microscopic city scene that Pris sees in Sebastians place. I'm so super excited about a good DVD of this.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Wasn't Deckard a replicant in the book

    by Lovecraftfan

    I seem to remember thats where a lot of the power of the novel comes from.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:39 p.m. CST

    I didn't wait this long to get *reshoots*

    by Doctor_Sin

    I better have the option of watching the film without new, added crap. What's the point? Hasn't anyone learned from the Lucas debacle?

  • April 27, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST

    For those who can't get into it, see it on a Big Screen

    by modlight

    It went from being a movie I liked to my favorite movie when I saw it at the 75th Warner Bros film festival. It takes on a different meaning, feel, awesomeness. And I had kind of noticed the replicant eye reflection thing on video, but seeing Deckard's eyes glow in that one shot on a big screen sold it to me that he's a replicant.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    Like I said, it's not a matter of getting it. I've read the book, which I like. I think it's the pacing that I find offputting. Normally, I don't mind a slow, dream-like movie, but there's something about Blade Runner that just will not let me in. But sometimes it's all about the time and place when you watch a movie. Maybe I'll watch it again and this will be the time that me and Blade Runner connect. Thanks for your civil comments, though. I was expecting to get yelled at.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:42 p.m. CST

    You're not the only one, Continental

    by thebearovingian

    I don't think Blade Runner is a good movie. I've tried watching it several times but I've never felt that it was time well spent. AND APPARENTLY Mr. Ridley Scott ain't satisfied with it either.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Please, for the love of fuck sake,

    by Stuntcock Mike

    include the release WITH NARRATION. End of line.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Cool, but is she still going to be TOPLESS?

    by Proman1984

    I guess not.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:51 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched sea beams glitter in the dark at the Tanhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost rain."<P>I have to say, I'm really looking forward to this release. I'm surprised to hear about the Zhora re-shoots. But if they're looking to touch up the street/shooting scene, so be it. As far as "errors" go, I was always more interested in the discrepancy with the number of Replicants Bryant addresses in the beginning. Isn't there one unaccounted for?<P>I was never a big fan of the "Deckard is a Replicant Theory". In fact, I was always under the impression that Scott denied this. He even denied the existence of an alleged scene at the end of the film where Deckard is being treated in an ambulance and a machine is declaring him a Replicant (hello? Voigt-Kampf???).<P>There are strengths and weaknesses to both versions of the film. I'm just excited that we finally get an all encompassing set.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Shears in the rain...

    by Billy Caspar

    get rusty

  • April 27, 2007, 12:57 p.m. CST

    I like both

    by SpikeTBB

    The theatrical and director's cut. I will be getting this so I can have all three versions and watch which ever when ever the mood strikes me.<p> It may sound strange since it is the same movie, but each version feels like a distinct film. I liked getting inside Deckard's head and hearing his outlook on things. It's been years since I heard it but I think he had a line like "The report would read 'lawful retirement of a replicant': which didn't make me feel any better about shooting an unarmed woman in the back." That and some of the other lines from the narration stayed with me, such as Deckard's thoughts as he watched the final moments of Roy Batty, I've missed hearing them. Also, i think the reason they added the narration was concern over what TheContinentalOp is talking about. With out the narration there are long stretches of visuals and music with out dialogue that set the tone, mood and pace. It gives it an unique style. But it can also seem plodding, it feels 'heavy' and sluggish to some people. HOWEVER, the directors cut also has an impact all it's own. That same scene, with Deckard just staring at the broken glass and the woman he's gunned down has a different feel and is also very moving in a different way. The seemingly emptiness of existence as Deckard stares at Batty, only to be lifted by the ray of hope as the bird takes flight is beautiful when uninterrupted by narration.<p> I feel both versions have unique merits and it is natural each would appeal to different viewers. No one view is right or wrong or superior or inferior, it just depends on what you want from the movie. And with this DVD we don't have to choose one way or the other.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Oscar Wilde 4 Prez

    by trombone

    Which philosophy of art?

  • April 27, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Seeing as we're talking about LEGEND

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Tim Curry was great as Deckard the Unicorn.

  • April 27, 2007, 12:59 p.m. CST

    when exactly will this set be available...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    and - whats this "deckard is a replicant" stuff - did i miss something - i dont remember him turning out to be one - unless i didnt get it

  • April 27, 2007, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Given that the upcoming boxed set...

    by Sledge Hammer

    ...Has already been confirmed as going to contain the (international version) of the original theatrical cut, as well as the 90's directors cut, I don't much care what Scott does with this new version. Good, bad or indifferent, it'll be an interesting curiosity, and unlike with Lucas and the Original Trilogy, it's not being released at the expense of previous versions, nor is it seeking to arbitrarily replace them, so that, to me, is the big difference here. <p>To me this is no different than Scott's alternate version of Alien, it's an interesting version, and it's great to have on dvd along with the original, but it in no way replaces the original (nor does it even try to), and it's the original that I go back to.<p>Anyway I can't wait until the end of the year when this set *finally* sees the light of day.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:04 p.m. CST

    This is for Zhora...

    by disfigurehead

    *crack* and this is for Pris...*crunch* Classic flick

  • April 27, 2007, 1:14 p.m. CST


    by SpikeTBB

    THAT scene in particular really showed the debt of the film. I felt bad for Deckard, of course, but I also felt bad for Batty and sympathized with both of them. Both men had understandable motivations and both had done, as Batty put it, "questionable things" as well as "extraordinary things" Damn, now I want to go watch it again

  • April 27, 2007, 1:19 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky

    by trombone

    Some people got it into their heads that he is one. Aparently Ridley Scott is one of them. Don't worry about it. He's not. he's human just like you me and Vern.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:24 p.m. CST

    sounds like good TB material

    by AllieJamison

    I just recently noticed that Brenda's mom was in fact the naked snake lady choking vulnerable as ever Harrison Ford. This news is fucking weird! It's like author vs. property round II. Let the TB hilarity ensue.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:25 p.m. CST

    I'm with the band wagon about the movie

    by Datascream

    in that it doesn't hold my attention. To me the movie always puts me to sleep. Everytime I catch it on the scifi channel or what-not. I can never stay awake during it. But honestly, the movie is amazing in all fronts to me, the story, the characters, the acting, the effects are all fantastic. However it's the dull saxophone score that does absolutely nothing for me. Everything in the movie is great except for the score. I think that's what ruins the film for me.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:25 p.m. CST

    it seems that some people dont like it because...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    of its pace - its slow and demands that the viewer just watch with patience as the story and events play out in real time - its pace is that of reality - long scenes that draw out slowly with just characters talking - very realistic - like a lot of movies made in the 1970s - which probably initially hurt it considering when it was released - everyone at the time was in love with indiana jones and quick cutting - even the chase at the end is done realistically - thats why its such a tense scary chase - i feel the panic deckard feels when hes desperately trying to get some distance between himself and batty - i still get pissed when i see him drop his gun while climbing through that hole in the ceiling - i think the people that dont like this movie just dont have the patience required for it to work on them - no offense - blade runner is a movie for movie lovers - a long warm bath with big crescendo pay offs - as opposed to a jacuzzi with a hand job - i havent seen anything like it since 1982 - i first saw it with a fresh cast on my leg - car accident - very distracting - it ruined the movie - but it quickly became a favorite in the years that followed - its one of the best movies ever made

  • April 27, 2007, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Datascream... no love for the Vangelis score?

    by modlight

    dude, its one of the best film scores of all time. And much like the film it comes in many many different forms and is widely talked about and mysterious. Jimmy Joe nailed it, it takes patience and concentration. It gets lumped in with SciFi action flicks, but it really isn't. Same problem I'm sure some people had with Children of Men. It defy's it's genre, which in today's film world is very very dangerous.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:36 p.m. CST


    by AllieJamison

    hach...and I soooo love that scene in which Deckard shoots her. His shock and exhaustion. The image of her tumbling in the midst of neon lights, artificial snow and glass. the music. beauty.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST

    I don't find it slow at all,

    by Stuntcock Mike

    the spaces in the story give you time to check out the amazing backgrounds. Now I want to watch it again.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    its one f the first (and only) movies to successfully combine genre elements - scifi, drama, action, horror - (scott had aleady done this with alien) - blade runner was a perfect follow up - its a scfi movie, but if you think about it it - it has some horror-movie elements working (quite well) - batty is a very scary villain - he is a horror-movie villain - looks human but isnt, smarter and stronger than us, hard to kill, psychotic, takes pleasure in scaring his victims (before killing them) - and i love his "frankenstein"-hand - his hour glass

  • April 27, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST

    I like the narrated version

    by Nozoki

    Maybe they could add a new narration as well, with old man Deckard telling the story, so instead of a film noir in the moment type narration it could be more of a "let me tell bout the time I had to retire a group of replicants" type thing.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST

    One of the best films ever.

    by Captain Mal

    Meaty enough that people still debate it's meaning after this many years (and, more to the point, that they still *care to*).<p> This flick is an amazing, haunting, mysterious meditation on life, death, god, violence, loneliness, fulfillment and redemption. Most filmmakers today feel pretty smug if they manage to sneak a superficial philosophical question into the villain's monologue.<p> Coupled with visuals that set the standard for the genre, a soundtrack that still has power after three decades, and you've got yourself one hell of a movie. I'll be dead surprised if a bette sci-fi flick is ever produced.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:47 p.m. CST

    one of my favorite scenes...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    is when roy shows up at jf's place unannounced - acting so friendly - "look at all these wonderful toys" - its played out so realistically - its still one of the scariest scenes to me - because you know that at anytime roy and priss could easily rip jf apart - and jf knows this - hes twitching with fear but trying hard to act calm - he knew by then that he was fucked - he shouldve designed the kaiser to double as a security-bot - with hidden weapons etc.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST

    I loved both

    by thefreeagents

    versions of the movie, but I prefer the original cut with Ford's voice over. Which, judging from this TB puts me in a small select group. The original one feels more noir-ish ( is that a word?) with a lone detective, a convuluted plot and theres even a femme fatale thrown in. The director's cut feels more sci-fi and artsy. Almost like 2 seperate distinct movies. Also, theres no way in HELL Deckard is a replicant.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:54 p.m. CST

    I had to watch it twice to get it, but I enjoyed it

    by Mr Incredible

    It was a good movie, but I just don't get all the excitment. You might as well be talking about a special Director's Cut of REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS. Who cares?

  • April 27, 2007, 1:54 p.m. CST

    one of the beautifully effective elements...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    of blade runner - almost at the same time, you sympathize with the repicants' situation and the fact that theyre hunted and discriminated against... but fear and hate them for their malevolence and want them dead asap

  • April 27, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    "i think the people that dont like this movie just dont have the patience required for it to work on them - no offense - blade runner is a movie for movie lovers" Sorry, but I do take offense to the idea that I'm not a movie lover if I don't love Blade Runner. If I'm not a movie lover, I don't know who is. I just don't happen to love this particular movie, and it's not because it's slow--it's because it's curiously distant and alienating. I'm not knocking it for this, as a warm and fuzzy Blade Runner would not work. But for whatever reason, I just don't connect to it. I don't think it's fair to say that this automatically makes me an impatient film-watcher.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:56 p.m. CST

    I know it's been said, but...

    by flossygomez

    Keep the directors cut the same but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE replace that horrible obvious stunt woman (man?) crashing through the glass in the BLACK wig and doing that sillee monkey dance on all fours before keeling over. It REALLY takes me out of the movie every time. ...oh, and the zoom in to the obvious plastic model of the Tyrell building at the very beginning. and keep out the Holden was deleted for a reason. BAD ACTING.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:56 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky

    by trombone

    Yes JF is AWESOME!! The human alone with artificial toys who desperately wants another "friend". "They're my friends, I made them" How sick is that? Freak hanging out at home with is equivalent of blow-up dolls. And he gets swatted by Batty like fly!!! Perfect!!! I think I have to go home and watch that movie again tonight. And whoever doesn't like the Vangelis score, I just feel sorry for you. That glissando at the end of the opening melody is deliciousness and gorgosity in sound. I bet all the people on this talkbalk who don't like Blade Runner don't like 2001: a space Odyssey either! And Matrix, as a sci-fi film, DID come CLOSE to topping Blade Runner.

  • April 27, 2007, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    I like 2001. I hate generalizations.

  • April 27, 2007, 2 p.m. CST

    It's o.k. when Ridley Scott does it because...

    by dcut75

    He's a genius and Lucas is a talentless hack.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Vangelis walks the line between

    by flossygomez

    Hauntingly beautiful, and cornball sentimentality. But when he's on, HE'S ON!

  • April 27, 2007, 2:04 p.m. CST


    by trombone

    Do you hate ALL generalizations?

  • April 27, 2007, 2:09 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    sorry - but if you find it "curiously distant and alienating" and "cant connect to it" for that reason, you just proved my point - i felt that way about it when i first saw it in 1982 (i was 17 yrs old)

  • April 27, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST

    It's OK if you don't like Blade Runner...

    by trombone

    Just step into my office and take the Voight-Kampff test.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:12 p.m. CST


    by CorpseRide

    I'll be buying this.<br> I saw the original several times before the "Director's Cut" (which Scott was never completely happy with, just 'more' happy) came out. The DC *is* much better. Maybe people with a big fetish for noir conventions can love the hokey dialogue. They'll be in the minority, but ok. Maybe people can dislike the stronger suggestion that Deckard is a replicant, and the way the film moves beyond limited definitions of humanity when it does that - that's fine, I disagree, but whatever. But no-one... NO-ONE... can claim that the original version, with it's tacked-on ending drawn from leftover footage from "The Shining", is better. There is just NO DOUBT that the closing elevator door is the way to go.<br> In fact, the ending of the original is SO INFERIOR to the DC ending that it renders all talk of voice-over and unicorns irrelevent. The DC doesn't have the dumb ending. Therefore it is enormously better, whether you like the other changes or not. I was so psyched the first time I watched the DC, in the '92 cinema-re-release. When the credits hit, I jumped out of my seat I was so happy.<br> As for the re-shoots, we'll see. If it works, great, if not, still got the originals. <br>As for what they changed - she puts on high heels, then runs through the street in pumps. They'll change that, she'll be running in high heels in the reshoots. <br>Also, she spins around from the force of the first bullet, and take the second one in the chest rather than in the back. This ain't Greedo shooting first revisionism to make Deckard look better, though - she still takes the first bullet in the back.<br> We'll see about her age. The makeup, "big hair", shadows/lighting, editing etc and a little cgi may make it all ok. But like I say, there's always the DC. Or the original, if you like your movies to come served with a side order of crappy ending.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:13 p.m. CST


    by kadayi

    The chase scene was always a bit ropey but I'm sceptical that re shooting it 25 years later is going to improve things...I'll be holding out for the reviews to see if this mega DVD is really worth picking up, and even then I might hold out for when it hits budget.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Filmic Prozac Endings

    by flossygomez

    The people that liked the bullshit ending on the original verison must have liked the completely insane version of Brazil where the magic movie leprechaun made everyone happy there too.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:17 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Dude, the fucking Kaiser scared me more than Roy or Pris.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Original Verizon?

    by flossygomez

    damnit! editing function pleeeeeeeez!

  • April 27, 2007, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by Stuntcock Mike

    Well put.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Have to say, the Directors Cut SUCKS!!!!!

    by jojo-pimp

    Its really just not the same without the narration by Ford. I mean, to me, that was some of the most interesting shit in the original cut. Thank god that version will finally be released on dvd..cannot frickin wait!

  • April 27, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i have more in common with jf than with any other character in the movie - i hated that he was killed - no witnesses i guess - i disagree about the matrix - its great, but its no blade runner - all of its karate and gunfire prevented it from reaching blade runner status - but its story is brilliant - it shined brightest in its quieter moments(all the action and noise is cool, but its really just candy) - for what they are, i think "dark city" is better than "the matrix" (i like it more) - very similar themes, very different executions

  • April 27, 2007, 2:23 p.m. CST

    That Kaiser WAS fucking scary

    by trombone

    That's part of the scary part of the movie. This guy who makes THINGS that are more human than human. You come out of the film with the question: what's human about me?

  • April 27, 2007, 2:25 p.m. CST

    You got me there, Trombone

    by TheContinentalOp

    Yes, I hate generalizations in general. But for real, all I'm trying to say is that, while I appreciate Blade Runner on an intellectual and aestethic level, it doesn't do much for me (in the version I've seen, anyway) on the level of entertainment. Which is surprising, even to me, because it certainly seems like something I'd love (if you know what my name means, then you know that I like noir). Believe me, I get no joy out of this. I'm not trying to be the guy who hates something just because everybody else loves it. Not enjoying Blade Runner is just about the uncoolest thing I can think of, but I'm not going to pretend to like something if I don't. I just don't think it's fair for me to get lumped in with the ringtone-and-Ritalin crowd just because I don't care for one particular movie. If you like the movie, I'm honestly happy for you. But if you know in your heart that it is an amazing work of art, why must you (well, more specifically Redsky) work so hard to discredit my honest opinion? I am a lifelong film fan with wide-ranging interests. I also don't like Blade Runner. Amazingly, these two things can coexist.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Stuntcock Mike...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    i know what you mean - when i watch the wizard of oz, i find the residents of munchkin city scarier than the wicked witch (and her monkeys)

  • April 27, 2007, 2:33 p.m. CST


    by KillaKane

    Can't wait for this, sounds like Ridley won't dissappoint with this uber cool ultimate ed DVD. Was dubious it was ever going to happen, super stoked it's finally coming.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:38 p.m. CST

    They only had enough money to do the Zhora gets shot ..

    by Shan

    scene once apparently, so it was that take or no take at all.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Oh, and by the way...

    by Sledge Hammer

    ...I'm guessing the reshooting that Scott is doing with Cassidy is just so he can digitally replace the stunt woman's head with hers Tom-Cruise/Mission: Impossible style, just to spruce up the scene where Zhora gets shot. We'll see though.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:41 p.m. CST


    by trombone

    Oh man, you got to get all nice on me, just when i thought we could have a good ol' adolescent talkback fight. Rats! Your line "Not enjoying Blade Runner is just about the uncoolest thing I can think of" and this is an all-time talk-back classic: "I am a life-long film fan with wide-ranging interests. I also don't like Blade Runner. Amazingly, these two things can coexist."

  • April 27, 2007, 2:43 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you said - "I appreciate Blade Runner on an intellectual and aestethic level, it doesn't do much for me (in the version I've seen, anyway) on the level of entertainment" - ? - i like my entertainment/movies (not all but a lot) to be "intellectually" and "aesthetically" stimulating - that defines "entertaining" - to be fair, i like a lot of crap too - no brainer movies - guilty pleasures - its a matter of taste i guess - i dont mean good vs. bad - just different, i understand

  • April 27, 2007, 2:43 p.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    I kill with kindness. It's so much meaner that way.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Peace out to TheContinentalOp and JimmyJoe RedSky

    by trombone

    Time for this talk backer to get back to work...

  • April 27, 2007, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Sledge Hammer...

    by CorpseRide

    ...the re-shoot changes her footwear from pumps to heels, and makes her take the second bullet in the chest instead of the back. See my previous post, above.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:50 p.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    I like stuff that feeds my head, but that doesn't necessarily translate into the emotion of enjoyment, know what I mean? It often does, but sometimes there's a disconnect somewhere between the head and the heart. But it's cool. I'm not trying to change anybody's opinion. I just want mine to be respected, that's all.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:51 p.m. CST

    RE: Modlight

    by Datascream

    dude I agree with you. I have patience to watch lengthy movies, but something about the score (and it IS a beautiful score I should have mentioned) that just puts me to sleep EVERYtime I watch it. I desperately want to watch this movie all the way through non-stop, because I constantly feel as if I'm missing out on a LOT of great ideas. And yeah the score is beautiful! I agree 100%, but at the same time it works along the same way with the pace of the movie. I am a movie lover, trust me. And I love cyberpunk, futuristic movies as much as the next guy. But for some strange reason something in the movie just doesn't hold me. and I stayed awake and loved the HELL outta Children of Men, just to let you know ;)

  • April 27, 2007, 2:52 p.m. CST


    by TheContinentalOp

    Later, bruh. Thanks for the discussion. I should probably think about accomplishing something today too.

  • April 27, 2007, 2:58 p.m. CST

    George Michael - Freeek video

    by HarryBlackPotter

    That had a fantastic CGI future metropolis which also had the Blade Runner building in it. I hope for this super-special edition release they've given the city a big CGI make-over.

  • April 27, 2007, 3:01 p.m. CST

    I said it about a million times before....

    by Neo Zeed

    so why not say it again? Can we get a NEW cyberpunk movie from Ridley? He is obviously obsessed over this movie. However if Blade Runner is flawed in his eyes, he should just make a new movie. Just adapt one from the billion novels out there. Bottom many times can I watch the same friggin' movie?!

  • April 27, 2007, 3:05 p.m. CST

    New Ridley cyberpunk

    by TheContinentalOp

    It would be pretty great if he did Neuromancer. But then again, everybody would just assume that it was ripping off The Matrix, rather than vice versa.

  • April 27, 2007, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Datascream, gotcha. I see what you mean

    by modlight

    It is a mellow score. Its a mellow movie too. My advice is to watch it all the way through a few times, read Paul Sammon's book, and then watch it a few more times. It's like M.A.S.H. it gets better everytime you see it, and the first time you say, "its cool, but what's the big deal"

  • April 27, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Zhora is going to threaten Deckard with a Walkie-Talkie

    by Gorrister

    I've heard they are changing this scene for almost the EXACT reason Lucas changed the Han vs Greedo scene. Basically, Deckard shoots an unarmed woman in the back who isn't threatening his life. It was cool in the 80's, but the pussified 21st Century cannot allow such violence against women to exist (or to have EVER existed). So it's being reshot because, for some reason, Ridley Scott didn't ORIGINALLY envision a woman getting shot in the back by the hero of the movie. That scene just 'somehow' ended up in the film.

  • April 27, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Gorrister... if that's true, then its sad.

    by modlight

    But there is the problem that Deckard only kills and or beats women in Blade Runner.

  • April 27, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST

    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...

    by Dr. Frankenstein

    Attack ships on fire off the shores of Orion." Great line and one I've used myself to describe a good Imax 3D movie to my shleb friends who've never seen one ;o)

  • April 27, 2007, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Gorrister, re-read my post above...

    by CorpseRide

    ...she still takes the first bullet in the back. The force spins her around, so she takes the second one in the chest. So your point is void.

  • April 27, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST

    How will it affect continuity...

    by smackfu

    when suddenly Zhora's tits are swinging out and slapping her in the back like a congratulatory second set of arms while she runs?

  • April 27, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST

    RE: New Ridley cyberpunk

    by Neo Zeed

    Yeah, but there are other novels out there. Plus it would take place in the future with cool set opposed to the Matrix which was real world stuff/caves.

  • April 27, 2007, 4:40 p.m. CST

    "I'mnotsure why we're supposed tobe excited about this"

    by newc0253

    reshooting a chase sequence with the same actress 30 years on? i'm not sure we're supposed to be excited. i think we're just meant to be perplexed.

  • April 27, 2007, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Morgan Paull is AWFUL in that scene

    by ebolamonkey

    I mean, it looks like someone cut together their student film with some shots of Harrison Ford. I mean that's laughably bad acting there.

  • April 27, 2007, 4:55 p.m. CST

    The difference between Scott and Lucas

    by QuinnTheEskimo

    Is that Scott isn't making the new version the only available version. The director has the right to tinker with it all he wants, but only if we're allowed to have the cut we prefer. I heard this DVD will have the original, the direcors, the international, and the new cuts. I also heard they might release the new cut in theaters.

  • April 27, 2007, 4:59 p.m. CST

    gorrister and modlight

    by ebolamonkey

    Actually he only shoots replicants. We sympathize with the replicants because what we see is women. You are left with the question - is it murder, or simply destroying a machine, with no more moral implications than breaking a toaster. That's the whole point of the film.

  • April 27, 2007, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by BannedOnTheRun

    Anything is preferred to a remake.

  • April 27, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Hope I didn't start the debate

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    over voice-over or no voice-over. I just know and can hear Ford's hate during every line of the studio forced voice-over. Didn't he say he did it drunk too or is that a myth? Regardless, I think both versions are great and belong in the set. I just prefer the DC now with the superior ending. Keep in mind though that we didn't get the DC until, what, 92? I have been watching the original on VHS for years before that.....Sorry about the narration complaint if I set anyone off. Bring on all versions I say...Classic. Fucking Legendary.

  • April 27, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST


    by wackybantha


  • April 27, 2007, 6:14 p.m. CST

    coockylamoo & anchorite...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    people dont move out of big crowded cities because - 1.they cant for any number of reasons(not everyone is free to just pick up and roam the country) - 2.they like it there(usually the wealthier you are, the nicer large crowded cities seem, eldon tyrell had it pretty good) -- gorrister, modlight and ebolamonkey... these replicants are not only renegades on earth illegally, theyre murderers - being a blade runner is an ugly job, but the job needs to be done - it raises the question... how do you define "human"? - the reason the blade runner unit was implemented was because, unchecked, replicants could easily get away with far more than humans(criminally speaking) - being that they are superior in every sense(except longevity) - humans have always felt the need to control that which could potentially control them - depending on who you ask, this can be a good thing or a bad thing - on that note, i think being a sandman would be harder than being a blade runner, they kill real people

  • April 27, 2007, 6:14 p.m. CST

    So, this is a classic that's ok to fuck with?

    by Doctor_Sin

    Spielberg and Lucas jack with their flicks and everyone shits pineapple rinds. Face it, any tinkering is tinkering and you either allow it or not. Not just the ones you think are 'cool.'

  • April 27, 2007, 6:17 p.m. CST

    My Other Brother Darrell

    by holyguacamole

    So Han Solo with a bur kills the mermaid who the guy from Newhart had a crush on. Meanwhile, the Hitcher goes Fonzy in the eyeballs of the chess dude. Then Commander Adama makes a paper jack-ass, leaves it on the ground, and disappears in his pimp suit. I'M PRE-ORDERING ON AMAZON NOW!

  • April 27, 2007, 6:21 p.m. CST

    in the sack...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    pris or zhora - im leaning towards zhora - the great thing about replicant hookers, they never get tired - and they dont get pregnanat - and their designed(internally) to absorb and destroy any virus/std- no fuss no muss - thats 3 things

  • April 27, 2007, 6:23 p.m. CST

    i meant to say "pregnant"

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    not "pregnanat"

  • April 27, 2007, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Multiple Futures

    by flossygomez

    Science fiction is about possibilities and the freedom of it taking multiple paths deduced from the standpoint of the present. If that is so, then Ridley can make 500 versions of Bladerunner and still have an authoritative version. Ridley is not erasing any other version like a certain Lucas character. If he makes Deckard an enormous moose in pinstripes we still have the version we like the most. Cinema history isn't being shat on and every fanboy can have his cake and ice cream. However, it seems there are many more wonderful and challenging Philip K. Dick stories that can be adapted for the screen instead of spending such enormous energy on one film. With all of that I do have a Bladerunner fetish and love the thought of having infinite takes on one film. Now if Lucas can be persuaded to take out all the CGI his recent trilogy and reshoot the whole damn thing old school style, I will be happy. In Children of Men, for example, all the CGI work was peripheral, working to enhance the pure cinematic quality, unlike the static wall of information and over busy "Look at me" eye candy that Lucas gave us.

  • April 27, 2007, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Can someone explain something to me?

    by Doc_Strange

    If Deckard is a replicant, then how come his unit didn't retire him when he first came into the office or even before that? From what I've read, Ridley Scott stated that Deckard is a replicant so the question is what happened there? Also why didn't Tyrell recognize him as being one of their models?

  • April 27, 2007, 7:40 p.m. CST

    I want more life....... FUCKER!!!!

    by Doc_Strange

    After seeing this movie, I think Rutger Hauer is one of the best actors of our time. Plus he's an awesome bad guy. Also, I still want to bang Sean Young.

  • April 27, 2007, 7:47 p.m. CST

    What's up...

    by CorpseRide

    ...with the guys coming on and whining about George Lucas? The fact that this is being released as one of many alternate versions negates your point. Lucas' attempts to effectively remove the originals from circulation (a position he has since moved away from) was what annoyed people about the Star Wars Special Editions. But that has been pointed out many times in this Talkback. You must not have read it before you posted. Yeah, I'm talking about you, Doctor_Sin. I can only assume you are a retard of the highest order. Drooling and wailing and smushing your face against the keyboard in a vague effort to understand the situation. I can picture it now: a bewildered expression not unlike that of a dying manatee receiving unexpected divorce papers. Go and pleasure yourself by inserting your wookie into your anus, like you always do. Alternately, learn to read before you drool your inbred cornhole opinion all over this site. Oh, and the Star Wars prequals were uniformly shit. No ifs and buts, they were all shit. Shit. Hope you liked that long slow piss in your face.<p> Right, I'm off down the pub.

  • April 27, 2007, 8 p.m. CST


    by Anakin Whoopass

    Next the revisionists eliminate Indy shooting the swordman and put in a CG/body double whip fight "as originally intended". No Harrison Ford scene is safe.

  • April 27, 2007, 8:23 p.m. CST


    by HypeEndsHere

    this piece is for a gag reel for the DVD only. it addresses the fact that in the original, the stunt woman's wig is terrible. and if you're asking for purists, here is one. as long as the original version(s) are still available, shot whatever extra shit you want and edit in a CGI unicorn for the new version. I. DON'T. CARE. as long as we have the option of watching the version first made available to the public.

  • April 27, 2007, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Anchorite and cookylamoo, it's set in Los Angeles

    by Bronx Cheer

    <p>not San Francisco. The ending of the original version was such utter bullshit, and for reasons that have nothing to do with why people choose to live in NYC versus the 'burbs.</p> <p>The Los Angeles of the film, with its omnipresent and oppressive rain, terrible overcrowding and pollution, and obvious urban decay...that Los Angeles is not like New York City of today. NYC has crowding, crime, some dirty streets, etc, but it also has an incredibly diverse citizenry, wealth of culture, vibrant urban setting, and many other things that bind people to it. We can always go out to the wide open spaces, but speaking just for myself, there is something about the vertical density of a city like New York that is unlike anything else.</p> <p>Blade Runner's LA looked like a shithole, not far from the NYC in Escape from New York (okay, I exaggerate a bit). But my NYC five boroughs, four of which are on islands, and Manhattan has Greenwich Village, the Lower East Side, Central Park, the Hudson River and Chelsea Piers, and on and on. I bet BR's LA has nothing except urban squalor. If there was anything remotely like the lush verdant wonderland they show us at the end of the original version, people would make an immediate exodus. Sure, the city's not for a lot of people, but for us to believe that only people on the run from John Law go to the country in BR, they would have had to show us ONE reason why people would stay in LA. That ending alone ruined the film. While I enjoyed some of the voice over, I think the director's cut is a fantastic film and does not suffer from the lack of the noirish narrative.</p> <p>He's a replicant. Get over it. It adds depth and resonance to the story. If he's human, he's just a loser machine hunter. Why can't there be different Replicants with different abilties. Sean Young is virtually human, and I bet she couldn't hold her own in a fight with Pris. It's an advantage for Deckard to blend in with humans; if he had super-human strength, he would give himself away, and his creators probably didn't want that.</p> <p>For those who argue that people who don't like Blade Runner are not movie lovers, please don't make yourself out to be any more ignorant than you already must be. There are a lot of reasons for people not to like Blade Runner. The score can be off-putting. There's violence that is stylized and remote, that doesn't have much of a visceral impact. It's depressing. It's dark, emotionally and in foot candles. As an actor, Harrison Ford rubs some people the wrong way. And I am sorry, but the horrible sci-fi robot poetry about shit in space on the shoulder of Orion, that is laughable crap. Seriously. For myself, my deep and abiding respect and affection for Blade Runner is remarkable because I am not a Ridley Scott fan. I think he's made some very good films, but I do not care for his aesthetic. Many of his films suffer from advertising visuals. The man is pathologically incapable of shooting a film without at least one scene shrouded in mist or fog, water droplets sliding down a metal of glass surface similar to a Bud or Coke commercial, and the pallete he usually chooses for his films I find drab and blah.</p> <p>I have a great appreciation for his skill, and I acknowledge that the man can put a film together with consummate skill, but he's just not my cup of tea.</p>

  • April 27, 2007, 8:59 p.m. CST

    The original voice-over was essential...

    by Bill Clay getting up to speed on what kind of world the future was. People who prefer the Director's Cut are people who already saw the Theatrical Release and already knew the plot. If you saw the DC first, you had to play "fill in the blanks". Several friends who saw the DC on DVD told me they found the plot confusing. Besides, how could you hate the opening line, "Sushi. That's what my ex-wife used to call me. Cold fish."

  • April 27, 2007, 9:03 p.m. CST

    BTW, Harrison Ford said Deckard was NOT a replicant...

    by Bill Clay there!

  • April 27, 2007, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Bullwinkle the Moose

    by flossygomez

    could only dream of such florid and noisome prose. "Besides, how could you hate the opening line, "Sushi. That's what my ex-wife used to call me. Cold fish.", because it sucks?

  • April 27, 2007, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Deckard a Replicant?

    by MrMojok

    OK, after reading talkbacks for about seven years now, this one has finally prompted me to register. Didn't Ridley say Deckard WAS a replicant just a few years ago in a director's commentary track, or an interview of something? Surely someone must remember this.

  • April 27, 2007, 9:43 p.m. CST

    That "Deckard is a replicant" angle is illogical to me

    by Laserbrain

    The Voight Kampff is an empathy test, right? Replicants are incapable of, or have an insufficient capacity for, empathy. So how can a replicant like Deckard administer the test if he can't feel empathy himself? The VK doesn't seem to me to be a simple Yes/No or multiple choice deal- Deckard's not checking a series of boxes. He is asked to define and evaluate Rachel's level of empathy from a highly personalized and variable set of responses. Why would they make replicants to hunt replicants when plainly it is the human hunter who is best equipped to identify them? ______It's always struck me as cheap irony. And the Unicorn offcut from Legend sloppily grafted on didn't sell the twist very well either. BUT- I love the film, flaws and all. It'll be nice to get a sweet new gussied up version.

  • April 27, 2007, 9:55 p.m. CST

    And the Oscar for Overacting goes to...

    by Det. John Kimble

    Holden. Wow - he was good in the VK test of Leon at Tyrell scene but TERRIBLE in that hospital scene.

  • April 27, 2007, 10 p.m. CST

    What about the Criterion edition extras?

    by Det. John Kimble

    Like Syd Mead's preproduction visual furist drawings, etc, etc, etc. I still have my laserdisc of Blade Runner from Criterion because they did it so damn well.

  • April 27, 2007, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Harrison Ford vs Ridley Scott Re: Replicant

    by Bill Clay

    Okay, Ridley Scott has said that he always intended for Deckard to be a replicant. Harrison Ford, and most of the other actors, said that they disagreed and they believed that Deckard was not a replicant. Who's right? Flip a coin. I'll go with Harrison's comment, "If Deckard was a replicant, the audience would have no one to root for." And Deckard's sacrifice, of becoming a fugitive and running away to spend what little time Rachel had left with her, would be meaningless.

  • April 27, 2007, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Bronx Cheer...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ny(manhattan) is a dinosaur gasping for air - a city where living comfortably (with or without kids) is getting harder and ridiculously more expensive each year - for no other reason than the fact that property owners are free to charge out the ass for rent - its no longer enough to get rich and live comfortably, everyone wants to get filthy rich at the expense of the working poor and middle class - as much as i liked being there, i moved out of their 2 yrs ago and dont regret it - its a city thats easier to visit than to live in (unless you make at least 100k a yr) - deckard is not a replicant - scott theorized that he could be, in jest - he never stated that he definately is - there is no reason in making him one - if he is one, it didnt make him a more effective cop - which could be the only reason to make him one - hunt the superior prey with an equal predator - he is human and very flawed - if he is a rplicant, the movie wouldve served itself well to drop even the slightest hint - ive seen it countless times and there is none - he is human - thats what makes his love for rachel so poetic - she isnt human(technically), yet she is still more "human" than deckard - i stand by my assertion - how can one love movies/cinema and not love blade runner - it fires on all cinematic cylinders - direction, writing, design, acting, fx etc. - let me rephrase the statement that prompted you to call me ignorant - blade runner is a movie made for "good" movie lovers by a "good" movie lover - if someone doesnt like it, its a question of taste (not quality) - its a genre movie and a genre defining movie - and its over a lot of peoples heads - even if they "get it" but still dont like it, its because it requires a patient viewer that likes to linger on scenes the way scotts camera does (scenes where there is very little action, like a lot of kubrick) - different taste - not for everyone(mass consumption) - hey, i get why some dont like it, it just surprises me that some self described cineasts dont - if this opinion makes ME ignorant, so be it - i am in bliss

  • April 27, 2007, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Who cares what Ford says? Deckard is a rep.

    by Bronx Cheer

    Explain those red eyes then. And the fact that Olmos knows his dreams. If I were directing Ford as Deckard, and I wanted a solid humanistic performance, I would never tell him he was a robot. That would screw everything up. You can't argue taste or opinions. There is no list of films that cineastes must love to join the club. Some of the people I have talked to that did not care for the movie found it dull and it did not engage them. It's personal preference. Just because people dislike it does not mean you can't enjoy the living hell out of it.

  • April 27, 2007, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Lovecraftfan, no Deckard wasn't a replicant in the book

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    He also has no particular love or empathy for the replicants he kills, either. For those who haven't read it, in the book Deckard mainly takes the job to collect the bounty on the replicants' heads so that he can buy a real live sheep that he wants to keep as a pet (real pets are a rare and expensive luxury in the future and most people have robot ones). This also explains the rather peculiar title, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" The author is asking: if a human, Deckard, dreams of a live sheep, do androids dream of electric sheep?

  • April 27, 2007, 10:58 p.m. CST

    The book, if I recall correctly, was ambiguous about

    by kabong

    how many of the six rogue replicants Deckard retired. Not that it matters, since the movie changed a lot of stuff. <p> Now I'm going to add my PKD books to the re-read pile.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:01 p.m. CST

    Bill Clay, I don't get your logic.

    by Bronx Cheer

    One of the key points of the film was who gets to decide who is human, or alive, or deserving of living. If Deckard is a Rep and runs away with the fembot, that is a clear statement supporting one of the central themes of the film. Why shouldn't they try to carve out a little happiness? Who cares if they weren't borne of a womb? They seem sentient to me, and that means they deserve a shot at a life. Hell, Roy was broken by Pris' death. Why was that, because he liked her programming? As for rooting for people, if I can root for the robots in Star Wars, I can certainly root for Deckard the Replicant. Why is he more sympathetic just because he's human? Did you watch the movie? His being a Rep is a major thing, and it makes the film interesting! If he's human, then it's just a film about a legal hitman. If he's a Replicant, then it carries a much heavier load. Again, explain the red eyes. That doesn't happen by accident, not in the movies.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:06 p.m. CST

    The movie is not the book. Period.

    by Bronx Cheer

    You can't make Dick's books into movies. The closest I've ever seen was "A Scanner Darkly." It got some of the mania and paranoia dead on. The film took few pains to make Deckard likable. Him wanting a sheep would have been charming, but for what Blad Runner was, the protaganist coveting a sheep would have been a little freaky. Now if he was Gene Wilder...

  • April 27, 2007, 11:09 p.m. CST

    I've always loved the name Blade Runner.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    It conjures up such an amazing array of fascinating images. And it adds something that supposedly the phrase comes from French slang for an executioner who operates the guillotine.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:12 p.m. CST

    I wasn't saying the book was the movie.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    They aren't at all the same, and are about 180 degrees apart in tone and theme. Lovecraftfan specifically asked a question about the book and I answered it.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:17 p.m. CST

    bronx cheer, the red eyes...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    humans (like all mammals) have that red(or yellow) eye thing - like when a flash bulb is used with a camera, or a dear in headlights - replicants have it too, but theirs are white and more reflective(more noticeable, even in decently lit rooms) - i think thats what some saw on deckard, normal "red eye"(i dont remember seeing it, i should watch the movie for the 101st time i guess) - does gaff know deckards dreams? - because he made the paper unicorn? - the only reason deckard took notice was that it was a unicorn - it creeped him out - could gaff have access to deckards psyche records? - is gaff a mind reader? - coincidence, thats all - gaff also made a paper chicken and a toothpick guy with a boner, what does that prove - what dream of deckards were those in - gaff just has a talent for making miniatures out of trash - can someone definitively explain where and how it is played out in the movie that decks a replicant? - convince me - im intrigued

  • April 27, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Okay, here is Ridley's take on it

    by MrMojok Comments?

  • April 27, 2007, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Deckard kills all six replicants in the book, plus he

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    ...kills his police partner, who it turns out is a replicant, and he kills Rachel when she turns up at his home and kills Deckard's newly purchased sheep.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:26 p.m. CST

    If the director says that Deckard is a replicant.......

    by wackybantha

    ...who am I to argue? I like the 1992 so-called "Director's Cut" better than than the original which does not hint that he might be a replicant until the little unicorn scene right before the "lets drive away happily" scene. However, a friend of mine feels that he liked that we were never told straight out whether he was a replicant or not because not every question needs to be answered. He thinks that Ridley Scott answering the question took something away from the film no matter what the answer was. I tend to agree with him. ON ANOTHER MATTER, someone up there said that Deckard being a replicant made his heroics and final years with Rachel meaningless or something. I disagree. I think that one of the points of the film was to ask ourselves if these genetically engineered beings (NOT ROBOTS, in my opinion) were human or not? Why or why not? What is a human? These replicants were flesh and blood too. If I were a slave as they were, would I rebel? Did they deserve the same rights as all "natural" humans? The movie A.I.:Artificial Intelligence posed similar questions although they were robots. It all leads me to wonder at which point does a creation become a living or human being. Are cloned animals "real?" Would a real world human clone be considered a human? So many questions that I don't have the answers to but like to think about. WAKE UP. TIME TO DIE.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:37 p.m. CST


    by MrMojok

    It has been a while since I saw the film, but if I recall the famous scene with Ford has his eyes glittering kind of greenish-blue. Not the same as redeye from a flash. It definitely looked like it was added in post-production.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Wikipedia has a lot of info on Blade Runner.

    by kabong <p> The studio wanted Dick to write a novelization aimed at 12-yr-olds, but he declined the $400,000.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Red-eye effect does not happen with movie cameras

    by Bronx Cheer

    It is caused by still camera flashes illuminating the retina of the eye before the pupil has time to iris down. If a character in a motion picture has red pupils, then it is intentional. I'm too tired to go on about this, maybe I'll come back tomorrow and bore more of you, but a few quick blasts...if Deckard belongs to the cops, so to speak, then I am sure they would have some knowledge as to his programming. That does not require programming. Ask yourself why that origami figure had a penis. What did that little man represent? Perhaps something Deckard was not? Did it signify the attachment he was developing toward Fembot? If he's human, he lives a pretty shitty life. Roy's lived more than Deckard. As the bots Reps show more human qualities, perhaps Deckard's bothered by it, worried maybe he's killing humans...etc. If tne creators of sentient creatures have rights to decide whether they live or die at the exclusion of the wishes of their creations, how is that any different than my parents deciding to kill me when I start misbehaving? Hey, they made me! They brought me into this world, and they can take me out of it. That's what the Rep makers are doing, and it's wrong. Believe whatever you want. I think the film is much richer if Deckard's a rep. If he's human, then he's just a sour pissy alcoholic repo man, and he bores me.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Gaff isn't exactly a mindreader, but...

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    ...he knows Deckard's dreams and memories because he has been told them by the Tyrell Corporation. The scene with the paper unicorn and Deckard's unicorn dream is a parallel of the earlier scene where Rachel wakes up from a dream while dosing in Deckard's apartment and Deckard starts telling her all the details of her dreams and memories which she has been programmed with, dreams and memories that actually belong to Tyrell's niece and that Tyrell told Deckard about during his visit to the company. At the end of the movie when Deckard finds and picks up the paper unicorn, he recognizes it from his own dream and makes the connection that he too is a replicant and that Gaff must have been told Deckard's programmed dreams and memories the same way Deckard was told about Rachel's.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:46 p.m. CST

    "That does not require programming".....

    by Bronx Cheer

    should be "does not require mindreading." Goodnight all.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:46 p.m. CST

    One last thing...

    by Bronx Cheer


  • April 27, 2007, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Batty's death scene means more...

    by Bill Clay

    ...when he's showing a human the value of an artificial life, not preaching to a fellow replicant. Deckard as an alleged replicant just kills so much of the power of so many scenes. Ridley Scott had that plot point dead wrong.

  • April 27, 2007, 11:57 p.m. CST

    book stuff - spoilers

    by cyberskunk

    ExcaliburFfolkes, wait, what? About Deckard killing his police partner, are you talking about the person who coldly killed an android before she had time to compose herself -- Deckard was going to give her more time? I thought Deckard tested that guy and Deckard in turn was tested by him and they were both humans... I am thinking of someone associated with a bunch of androids pretending to be police, but he was real. Or maybe he had another partner you were referring to? I don't recall Deckard killing Rachael... I know he had sex with an android who had sex with him in order to get him not to kill more androids and then he couldn't go through with killing her. <p> (one wikipedia visit later...) Wikipedia says Deckard threatened to kill her but wavered, and the police guy I mentioned turned out not to be an android...

  • April 27, 2007, 11:57 p.m. CST

    The Narration

    by Alfred_Packer

    I think the narration is endearing to many people because for quite a few, it was their first experience of ever seeing of movie with a detective voiceover. Sure, after all these years and widening your experience with other films in that genre, its easy to dismiss it, but for myself and Im sure many others, it IS the Blade Runner we know and love, and we miss it. The DC is great, sure, jump in , the water's fine, but I'm glad to hear we're getting it the orginal theatrical cut in the package, and I expect that version will get spun a lot more in this house.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:02 a.m. CST


    by moviemaniac-7

    I am travelling around the world, but a few times a week I check up on movie news - AICN is one of the sites I check for it. I normally don't comment while travelling, but this... Blade Runner is one of my all time favourites (ranks #5) - leave it the fuck alone! I grew up with the 'original' cut, fell in love with the DC and now they are going to shoot additional material - 25 years after the movie was made?? Listen, I can handle that Lucas re-does his OT every few years to shake some money out of your pockets, but Blade Runner... Besides 2001 THE most influential sci-fi movie ever made, in my humble opinion. But, still, I will pick up the 20-disc DVD release whenever it comes out with EVERY SINGLE CUT on it, with all the documentaries and candid, honest interviews (the one I am looking forward to is the dual interview with Scott and Indy). Ah... wishfull thinking...

  • April 28, 2007, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Bill Clay, Roy thinks Deckard is human, so nothing

    by Bronx Cheer

    changes in the emotional charge of what he's saying. And this is a key point doesn't matter whether Deckard is a Rep or a human, because both are sentient beings. Don't you see that the crux of the film is how we think of the Replicants, and you are falling into the trap the humans in the film fall into. You disregard Deckard's "humanity" if he is a Replicant. Why? If anything, the struggle of the Reps to live is a clear indication of their nascent humanity. Life always finds a way; even if it's artificial life, it's still life.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Ultimately, though, this is the most crucial point

    by Bronx Cheer

    Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant. Deckard is a Replicant.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:08 a.m. CST

    more book stuff

    by cyberskunk

    Or maybe this was Deckard's partner? I have a dim memory of someone showing a laser weapon to Deckard and then asking why it won't fire, and Deckard says he's carrying (whatever) which produces a sine wave(?) that disperses the laser beam into harmless light, and the android says, "In that case, I'll have to wring your scrawny neck" or somesuch. <p> Movie trivia, a friend of mine said the noodle cart person at the beginning was saying something like, "Four is too much! Please understand."

  • April 28, 2007, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Clay, the only people who know Deckard is a Rep

    by Bronx Cheer

    are the cops and the Tyrell Corp. So how does that kill the scenes? He's a human as far as everyone else is concerned. The poor bastard doesn't even know who he truly is. Sort of like many humans.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Spider-Man 3 scenes posted

    by Nerdboy1423

    check em out before they're gone!

  • April 28, 2007, 12:22 a.m. CST

    I wish I had my copy of the novel nearby to check.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    Looking at the Wiki stuff you linked, it appears I may have confused Garland (one of the replicants Deckard is hunting who poses as policeman; and, whom Deckard kills) with Resch (Deckard's partner who fears he is a replicant, but tests human). The Wiki article doesn't mention whether or not Deckard kills Rachel at the very end, but I could have sworn he kills her as revenge for her killing his pet.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Both Hampton Fancher and Ford say Deckard is human

    by Bill Clay

    The screen writer and lead actor agree. Almost everyone in the production, except Ridley Scott, says that Deckard was meant to be human. The clumsy Unicorn edit in the Director's Cut was Scott's way of getting the last word. But that doesn't make him right.

  • April 28, 2007, 1:08 a.m. CST

    if deckard's a replicant, i can live with that...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    it does add more pathos to the story - considering that the villains (batty and co.) are "human" - factory built humans that is - i still dont remember the scene with deckards eyes looking like replicant eyes - but you guys are convincing me - i guess thats why scott put the unicorn dream back into the directors cut - it changes the relevance of gaffs origami unicorn - in the theatrical release, the unicorn was just an odd visual that signified gaff was in the apartment - i carried that initial observation over to the directors cut - but still, im on a fence - he could be either - if he is a replicant, why is deckard so much weaker than batty, leon and pris - are nexus 6 replicants the only ones designed to be so vastly superior to humans(strength, brains etc.) - what are rachel and deckard? nexus 5 - nexus 7(too human to notice)

  • April 28, 2007, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Pretty much spot on,

    by MrMojok

    Pretty much spot on, Jimmjoe. As for the scene, it's in Deckard's apartment. He walks up behind Rachel as they are talking, and it's at this point that we see his eyes glow blueish or silver. There is a very bad screencap of it here:

  • April 28, 2007, 1:59 a.m. CST


    by lutz


  • April 28, 2007, 3 a.m. CST

    I don't know why he saved my life.

    by Bill Clay

    Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life, anybody's life, my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:02 a.m. CST

    The report read "Routine retirement of a replicant."

    by Bill Clay

    That didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:03 a.m. CST

    They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper.

    by Bill Clay

    That was my profession. Ex-cop. Ex-blade runner. Ex-killer.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:17 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Haven't you heard? She's a bunny boiler.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:29 a.m. CST

    That scene is already so great...why change it

    by Bong

    WHen deckard fires those shots at Zhora and then she stumbles thru those neon lit slow mo...awesome scene The music is amazing as well

  • April 28, 2007, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Love it. One of my favorite films of all time.

    by superninja

    I like the idea that you don't know for sure if Deckard is a rep or not - by the end of the film, it doesn't matter anymore. His life has been turned completely upside down, so he decides to He chooses life, one day at a time, escaping from an existence built upon a rotted out civilization. Rachel gives him back his humanity, Roy gives him back his compassion. Roy's speech is one of the incredible moments of cinema for me.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:43 a.m. CST

    Also, the Blade Runner video game was the

    by superninja

    pants. The main character there, sort of an even bigger loser than Deckard, turns out to be a rep.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner is better than the Dick book.

    by superninja

    The Dick book is extremely unpleasant, while Blade Runner although dark is not hopeless.

  • April 28, 2007, 4:08 a.m. CST


    by Motoko Kusanagi

    I'm so looking forward to this and just.can't.wait!

  • April 28, 2007, 4:16 a.m. CST

    Ridley Scott raped my manhood

    by alucardvsdracula

    This ultimate greatest ever final directors special edition cut of Blade Runner had better be worth the wait. And I'm sure it will be. The original Theatrical version was cool at the time and unlike anything else that had come before - but it was extremely flawed to say the least. By the way Scott and co were fired during post production and never really finished the movie the way he wanted to in 82. For all the detractors of the The Directors cut, listen up, its the same bloody film sans Voice over and tacked on happy ending - so why the bitching? That in itself was a hack job, only prompted by the unofficial screenings of the rediscovered workprint in 91 or thereabouts, and was never really completed properly. So, this Final cut should really be the true cut, properly based on the original workprint. I've seen a really bad VHS copy of it and it is a stronger film than the theatrical or Directors cut - but it still has numerous problems. I just hope that they correct the errors and brush up the FX glitches. I don't really see the need to re-shoot the Zhora scene though as it is perfectly fine. I could think of a couple of additional shots which might help improve the movie overall maybe but certainly not that sequence. Oh and it would be nice if Mr Grumpy Ford could actually participate this time round and get his story across, warts and all. Anyway we'll see soon enough. Have a better one.

  • April 28, 2007, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Obvious answers

    by readingwriter

    ...for some of the questions asked here. Why don't they retire Deckard? Because he works for them. Did you watch the movie? Rachel has memory implants and thinks she's someone's secretary, someone else's niece--everything from before the movie starts could be a fake memory of Deckards, or he could be only seven years old, whatever. As with the Native American trackers used to find other NA's, you don't kill "your" 'bad guy' when he's working for you. The narration is plainly and obviously for the stupid who can't just sit there and absorb the damned movie. Nostalgia kills, man! And stop whining about "Oh, so it's bad when Lucas does it but you hypocrites, blah blah blah," it's intriguing to see what Scott's going to do to his REAL director's cut (the other wasn't really that), which is included right in the same package as the version you know and love, and you don't have the director saying the original version will "never" be released, as Lucas said until he relented. So stop behaving as if there is any comparison at all when there isn't. Back to the Deckard is a replicant thing: The ending makes perfect sense because after he's been saved by Batty and can finally accept, completely, that a replicant IS a valid life form--BOOM! He learns he IS one. If Deckard learned this fact earlier, then his revelation and the rooftop scene would be so empty of meaning and impact. Geez, stop watching so much Star Wars and Trek, people! Blade Runner is a science fiction movie that fails as a detective flick (Deckard is inept) but succeeds on so many other levels that most SF movies don't even attempt, and without the Spielbergian comfort of forced happy endings.

  • April 28, 2007, 7:38 a.m. CST


    by bender7

    I love BR. I hope this reshooting and tweaking are worth it

  • April 28, 2007, 7:40 a.m. CST

    hey, Deckard is Deckard...Rep or Human.

    by Bronx Cheer

    <p>One of the powerful things about this film is how it opens up discussion about a variety of issues. In this way, it's classic Dick material. However, I agree with superninja that it's better than the book, but I have to say, and I hope this is my last word on the subject, that the title "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is one of the best titles ever.</p> <p>Now, my Powerbook, just like the Reps, is nearily four years old, and it's starting to break down and die. I have to try to bring it back to life. Cheers.</p>

  • April 28, 2007, 7:55 a.m. CST

    I love Blade Runner but...

    by HaveCameraWillTravel

    Why? Why reshoot a scene all these years later? The original scene was kick-ass and they want to add to it? WTF? Talk about director masturbation.

  • April 28, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST


    by The_Squid

    I heard a rumor that they were planning on releasing BR in theaters sometime this year. Is there any truth to this?

  • April 28, 2007, 10:53 a.m. CST


    by FreeFingers


  • April 28, 2007, 10:56 a.m. CST


    by MrD

    Seems to me you may have it backwards. If Deckard can identify with a Replicant, and we can identify with him, then I think it says the replicants are human too.

  • April 28, 2007, 11:57 a.m. CST

    I had forgotten about the stuntwoman in the bad wig

    by Rupee88

    Maybe that's what they are fixing.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Greatest combination of score and visuals ever...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...put on film. As for this "debate" over "replicant or human" can go either way. I don't care what Ridley or Harrison says. YOU are the one watching the film. YOUR interpretation is what counts! I think it's interesting to know what Picasso or Miles had in mind when they created a paticular piece, but in the is MY interpretation that counts. Great talback. So geeked to see something worthwhile here instead of the usual crap lately.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST

    I do believe Scott wants to reshoot the scene...

    by DoctorWho? that its not such an obvious stunt double in there. HAS THERE EVER BEEN A MORE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS STUNT DOUBLE SCENE IN MOVIE HISTORY???? Maybe you guys can think of one. I would think they could possibly "cgi-superimpose" her face on there instead... to retain as much of the integrity of the original's probably not as cost effective as just reshooting the whole thing though.

  • April 28, 2007, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Gaff had been there... and let her live.

    by Bill Clay

    Four years, he figured... but he was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special. Not only had he given her memories... but he'd set no termination date. I didn't know how long we'd have together... but who does?

  • April 28, 2007, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Okay, I admit the "happy ending" VO sucked...

    by Bill Clay

    ...but the rest of the VO was fried gold!

  • April 28, 2007, 12:46 p.m. CST

    I think I jumped into this talkback at the wrong time..

    by DoctorWho?

    ....It seems to have degenerated into a string of posts that looks something like this..."I owned you."..."No, I owned YOU!"..."No way dude, I owned YOU!!"... Wrong bitch, I owned YOU bigtime!"..."Well I owned your mother last night"...and so on...

  • April 28, 2007, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Deckard not being a Replicant is more sexy

    by flossygomez

    Two manikens humping...whatever. Flesh and replicant? Trousers down and at attention, sir!

  • April 28, 2007, 1:17 p.m. CST

    bad form

    by misnomer

    Blade Runner, the directors cut was fine. Plus, why does this scene need reshot? It was pretty savage seeing deckard shoot the replicant in the back....leave it be. Maybe the unconvincing wig on stunt double is why theyre changing it ;) much rather see the sequels made - maybe theyre on the cards after all?

  • April 28, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST

    "Leave Bladerunner alone, I like it how it is"

    by CorpseRide

    Uh, when the Japanese built Tokyo tower, they modelled it on the Eifel Tower in France. Last time I checked, the original was still there. See how this metaphor works?

  • April 28, 2007, 1:56 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I think Dick has good ideas without a doubt

    by superninja

    but his writing style leaves something to be desired. For me personally at least. However, that title DOES indeed rock.

  • April 28, 2007, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Sleazy G and the @$$holes don't have mod

    by superninja

    rights. You're being ridiculous.

  • April 28, 2007, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Encounter with Philip K. Dick

    by Bronx Cheer

    I used to shop at Change of Hobbit when I moved to LA to go to college. I was collecting the hardcovers of Dick's work put out by Gregg Press, and one day I was scanning the spines of the books on the shelf and looked up and saw Dick looking at me looking at his books. He said after a beat, "Well pick one up already." It was pretty funny. We chatted a bit, and I went on my way. It wasn't long into the next year that he died. I ran into Harlan Ellison not long after Dick's death at a protest march at CBS and mentioned that something from him about Dick would be valued. At the time, he had a column in the LA Weekly. He wrote briefly but poignantly about Dick's passing; it was a good piece. There are few artists whose deaths have bothered me more than Philip K. Dick's, probably because I felt he had been dealt a bad hand and never got the chance to enjoy what was his due.

  • April 28, 2007, 2:20 p.m. CST


    by Bronx Cheer

    Be warned!

  • April 28, 2007, 2:50 p.m. CST

    "Dull saxophone score"

    by Roguewriter

    Whoever said that above ought to have his nuts ripped off and jammed into his ears, barring him from ever hearing anything again. That's motherfucking VANGELIS you're slamming there, boyo, and there ain't a goth-core/slam-rock/nu-death so-called movie scorist working today who can even hold his DICK. Well, maybe Charlie Clouser... BUT STILL!!!! Fucking goddamn kids today... fucking cancer merchants...

  • April 28, 2007, 3:03 p.m. CST

    OK, If Deckard was a rep.....

    by Doc_Strange

    Wouldn't the movie as a shole just be redundant? When the movie starts it says something about Nexus 6 robots being outlawed under penalty of death. So if Deckard was a Nexus 6, why wouldn't he have been retired long before? It just doesn't make sense to have a replicant who is outlawed, be working for the police department and being contracted to kill other replicants. Also like I said above, wouldn't Tyrell have recognised his own model when he visited the office to test Rachel? If that were true, that would be the biggest plot hole in movie history.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Uh, I used to be an @$$hole?

    by superninja

    I don't know what you are going on about. Mr. Nice Gaius may be Moriarty or something? No one is plotting against you, man.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Oscar, if I had to guess, my guess is going to be....

    by superninja

    That it's Quint.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Bronx, my understanding was that Dick was

    by superninja

    a troubled guy, which of course makes sense given the stuff he wrote. He was ahead of his time, a prophet has no honor in his own country, as Jesus said. Of course I'm not literally saying Dick was a prophet but the stuff he wrote, like Orwell and Huxley, had very prescient views on the nature of man.

  • April 28, 2007, 3:23 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    thanks for the link - very cool stuff - im watching the movie again later - im still undecided though - and i like it that way - i like that its never absolutely made certain in the movie - the fact that it works both ways is genius - the article mentions (and i agree) that the dream/origami unicorn neither confirms or denies that decks a rep (though its obvious scott wants deck to be a rep), simply because any files on deck gaff might have access to could also exist even if decks human - cops do have files on themselves - they talk to shrinks about their dreams - this movie is awesome - it should be required viewing for any film making/theory/appreciation class

  • April 28, 2007, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner seems like a real place to me.

    by superninja

    There are not many films that accomplish that. Most seem like merely a story with sets - and they can still be good on that basis, but there is just something about Blade Runner that is transcendant - it translates so perfectly as a total universe.

  • April 28, 2007, 4:26 p.m. CST

    i bet youre under 30...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    you wouldnt know a good movie if it bit you in the ass

  • April 28, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by CorpseRide

    your mom cares.

  • April 28, 2007, 5:04 p.m. CST


    by Darth Scourge

    Blade Runner has always been a true SF masterpiece.

  • April 28, 2007, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Best rooftop jump ever

    by BannedOnTheRun

    Girl you know it's true.

  • April 28, 2007, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner's Principals Are Complete TOOLS!

    by Blue Band Prexy

    Drug addled Philip K Dick, prima donna Harrison Ford, Euro-snobs Ridley Scott Michael Deely and Rutger Hauer, "Art Garfunkle's even gayer brother" Hampton Fancher, the penny pinching Jew financier: EVERYONE of those guys came off as a complete jackhole. I would HATE to work with any of them, since I myself am such a great guy to be around.

  • April 28, 2007, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Oscar the 12 yr old needs to find...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...a TB about "mod rights". Fascinating stuff. We're all so riveted.

  • April 28, 2007, 7:37 p.m. CST


    by MrMojok

    I agree 100% with everything in your post, Jimmy. The uncertainty of it, which prompts the viewer to make up his own mind, is indeed genius. You and the others in this talkback have made me decide to watch both versions again, since it has been a couple of years. Thanks all.

  • April 28, 2007, 8:58 p.m. CST

    My question is...

    by Cadillac Jones

    ...Did Kurt Russell laugh at this idea? Because, if so, he obviously likes it...

  • April 28, 2007, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Lucas vs. Scott

    by Solrider77

    You know I just love the fact that you hypocrites on this talk back seem to be under the delusion that Ridley Scott has more right to rework BLADE RUNNER than George Lucas did with STAR WARS. Especially the ones who say "well this is a director's cut." Okay let's review a few things here people: 1.Is Ridley Scott the Producer of BLADE RUNNER? ANSWER: NO! 2. Is Ridley Scott the writer of BLADE RUNNER? ANSWER: NO! 3. Did Ridley Scott create the orginal story that BLADE RUNNER is based on? ANSWER: NO! 4.Which one of the Prequels was the most extensively remastered? ANSWER: A NEW HOPE 5.Whose the director of NEW HOPE ANSWER: Lucas! So explain to me how a guy who is only the director of a movie has more right to change it than the guy who was the director, producer, writer, and creator of the orignal story?? Add to that he was tinkered the most with the film he directed. Well gee, that sounds like a director's cut to me. Ahh but what about the fact that Lucas didn't want us to have the original versions on DVD you say? Well who's been keeping the ORIGINAL THEATRICAL release of BLADE RUNNER off the DVD market for the last 12 years?? ANSWER: RIDLEY SCOTT And what's his reason? ANSWER:Well he just doesn't think it represents his original vision. Ahh but then you say "Well the studio made Ridley change his movie." What like the studio didn't screw with Lucas while he was making STAR WARS? They slashed his budget, let him get fined by the WGA and DGA. The way you guys exhault Scott if I didn't know better I'd assume Lucas had the studio kissing his ass every day. Here's the big thing I can't believe, you guys go on and on about Lucas raping your childhood. Well people, those chages you're having heart attacks over look pretty cosmetic to me. I mean where's the change so Luke doesn't blow up the Death Star? Or where C3PO has sex with Leia? Or Ben doesn't die? And yet you applaud Scott who does want to something like that?? He wants Deckard to be replicant. That strikes me as a hell of a bigger change than Greedo shoots first. It changes the main character of the story and the story itself. Now I have no problem with filmmakers getting a second chance to fulfill their original visions. I think it's an exciting concept. What I do not appreciate is a bunch of hypocrites praising one filmmaker and demonizing another for doing it. So to all of you who say Ridely Scott, only the director of BLADE RUNNER, has more right to change it than George Lucas, Producer, Writer, Director, and creator of STAR WARS. I say,watch whatever version of the movies you want. But please be quiet, you case holds no water.

  • April 28, 2007, 9:41 p.m. CST

    put the narration back in...

    by lynxpro

    I may be one of the few, but I've always preferred the studio version over Ridley's alleged director's cut. The flick is just not noir without the voiceover. And the whole idea that Deckard being a replicant is daft to put it politely. Give me the studio version with improved sfx and release it on Blu-Ray and I will be one of the first in line to buy it.

  • April 28, 2007, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Does Ridley Scott's "genius" include "A Good Year"?

    by TallBoy66

    Well, does it? Hahahahhaa, you're wrong. Enjoy being wrong, you wrong person you. Bwhaahahahah. "A Good Year". Or maybe "Kingdom of Heaven." BWAHAHAHAHAAHH!! Genius. Yeah, fuckin right. Scott used up his genius a long time ago. If he ever had it.

  • April 28, 2007, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Deckard might as well have a bomb in his ribcage...

    by lynxpro

    ...if he's a replicant. Way too fatalistic. Now, with this whole re-release, I wonder if Warner will try to hook it more clearly with *Soldier* which supposedly takes place in the Blade Runner universe. Warner probably is still looking to make a profit with that flick. Kurt Russell still rocks though.

  • April 29, 2007, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Solrider77 just made my week

    by Doctor_Sin

    I'm glad someone else here gets it.

  • April 29, 2007, 12:14 a.m. CST


    by lutz

    You are actually wrong. It was a rights dispute that has prevented the original Blade Runner from being released on DVD. Warner simply WERE NOT ALLOWED to release it. If you read some of the more detailed posts above you will see that is also the same rights dispute that saw this DVD shelved for the last five years. This set also features FULL QUALITY restored editions of all incarnations of the film. Do you remember the reason Lucas gave for giving us Laserdisk ports for the original Star Wars DVDs? He had DESTROYED the original movies making the special editions!

  • April 29, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST

    lynxpro, did you see BR in the theater?

    by Bill Clay

    I think those of us who were at the original release will always have a soft spot for the Voice Over narration. I realize film noir is lost on the next generation.

  • April 29, 2007, 12:42 a.m. CST

    I like both versions and so it's no big deal to me

    by superninja

    as long as those remain intact. Its when people change things and then make the original version unavailable because the new version is roundly hated that pisses people off.

  • April 29, 2007, 1:27 a.m. CST

    Bill Clay

    by lynxpro

    No, actually I did not see the film in the theatre originally since it was R rated and I was 8 at the time. However, I used to watch the "original cut" religiously on CBS Late Night a few years later when they seemed to air it in heavy rotation. That is when I fell in love with the flick. I kept on waiting for the director's cut to appear with so much anticipation, and then when I finally saw it, I thought it was rather inferior to the studio version. The vibe wasn't as strong.

  • April 29, 2007, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Hey LUTZ

    by Solrider77

    I'm talking about the original Theatrical version of Blade Runner which has NEVER BEEN released on DVD, not Scott's old director's cut. I know about the right's issue it, and Scott's ENDLESS tinkering, is what has been postponing the release of this special edition release for the last 5 years. I remember when it was first announced back in 2002. But from 1995 to this day the only version of BLADE RUNNER available in the US on DVD is called BLADE RUNNER:The Director's CUT.

  • April 29, 2007, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Too many replicants spoil the soup.

    by pax256

    I like the idea that he isnt a replicant in either the original theatrical or dirs cut. Plus havent we seen Scott express on both sides of the issue as if he really intened to leave it to the viewer to decide? That many of the actors and production crew, long after the movie was made, dont seem to agree on this point seems to me to say it was never fully intended that Deckard was a replicant.

  • April 29, 2007, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Most hilarious post on here...

    by CorpseRide the Lucas fanboy ragging on another director for "using up his genius". :-D<bp> Kudos for Scott for providing alternative versions in this DVD set.<p> Last watchable movie Scott directed: Gladiator. Last watchable movie Lucas directed: "Star Wars: A New Hope".<p> I was trying to work out why his name came up in thie TB at all. The fact that all extunt versiosns of this movie are being released gives 'em nothing to really rag on, but they're trying anyway, for some reason. <p>I guess it's just jealousy from the SW fanboys. BR often tops the lists of "Best Sci Fi movies". That must really piss em off. Bet they hate Kubrick too. :-D

  • April 29, 2007, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Lucas has directed...

    by dcut75

    2 average films. American Graffiti and Star Wars 1. AG could have been directed by a monkey, point the camera and film the witty dialogue. Star Wars is exalted for the nostalgia it invokes. The rest of his films are garbage. Scott has directed some of the best films ever made. When an overrated hack tinkers with a movie, people shudder. When a visionary artist tinkers with a film, people get excited.

  • April 29, 2007, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Ridley Scott is shockingly overrated!

    by Powers Boothe

    Let's see...Someone To Watch Over Me, White Squall, Black Rain, A Good Year, Matchstick Men, GI Jane, Hannibal, 1492: Conquest of Paradise. Need I say more?

  • April 29, 2007, 11:10 a.m. CST

    lynxpro, Ridley Scott will never allow the narration...

    by Bill Clay any version of BR that he puts out. I think he associates the VO with him being fired and losing control of the movie. Then again, Harrison Ford hated the VO also. At least they agreed on something!

  • April 29, 2007, 11:33 a.m. CST

    To CorpseRider et al

    by Solrider77

    I'd hate to burst your bubble but I consider BLADE RUNNER to be the best SCI-FI of the last 25 years. Almost nothing has come close to matching it. Not MATRIX, TOTAL RECALL,I,ROBOT, MINORITY REPORT, or even SCANNER DARKLY. The closest one is DARK CITY. I don't consider STAR WARS in this list because STAR WARS isn't SCI-FI, it's in a category all by itself. If I'd call it anything it'd be Science Fantasy. And about the only thing I'd ever compare STAR WARS too is LORD OF THE RINGS.

  • April 29, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST

    A few other things I'd like to say....

    by Solrider77

    Frist off to CorpseRide..Sorry i got you name wrong. Also I'm no Ridley Scott hater. The man has directed some of my favorite films. My all time favorite Scott movie is THE DUELISTS. And here's what I've always thought BLADE RUNNER was about. BR to me is a story about a human rediscovering his humanity. Deckard, to me, is a human who found it neccessary to give up his humanity to survive in the violent unfeeling world he lives in. To him it was a liability, an appendix, something that meant nothing to him. Thus he became in essence replicant, no longer a real person, a unicorn if you will. Better than the real thing, but still not the real thing. That's why he can fight the other replicants in the movie. But this is where things change for him, when he meets Rachel, Roy, and the others. He sees that they want to be human, they want what he so easily gave up. That's when he realizes just what a precious gift it is, to be real. That's what BR is about to me. And of course that mostly pertains to the VO version and not the directors cut, so yeah that is my favorite version. Which is why I've been waiting for this multi-disc release for the last 5 years. Hopefully we'll all be satisfied.

  • April 29, 2007, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Gladiator is watchable

    by CorpseRide

    Not great, but watchable. I could sit through it if it came on this afternoon. A decent 6 or 7/10 kinda movie. As compared to the last few movies directed by Lucas: of which the best is the 4/10 SW:RotS, which gets by on its own sense of bombast. I will never again watch those prequals - they simply aren't worth it. The man has NO talent for direction any more. As for the one before that: truly, truly awful. Compared to that, you better believe Gladiator is "watchable". A-frikken-men.<p> I understand your angry, after all Lucas has pissed in your faces for over a decade now, for big $$$ rewards, but don't project your issues onto Scott. The current version of Blade Runner available on DVD is a closer match to his original script (unlike the infamous shooting-first incident in SW:SE, where Lucas simply changed his mind after he had kids and lost his talent).<p>Now Scott's making an improved-effects-and-continuity version. But he's leaving the originals available! That's how you do it. I know Lucas with his remove-the-originals- from-existance attitude looks like a bastard in comparison, but what can you do?<p> Sure, Scott didn't seem worried about putting the Theatrical Cut out on DVD, but why should he? The DC is closer to his ORIGINAL directorial vision. The changes made to the Theatrical Cut were at the behest of the producers. Don't blame Scott for not having any urges to put that out on DVD. Ask the producers where it is, they are the ones who wanted the movie to be that way, which is why they fired Scott the first time around. Of course, there's a reason those producers haven't put it out yet - a significant majority of the audience consider it inferior, so it wouldn't sell well. Those producers forced the changes to make it more profitable, and once it turned out that most people like the new Director's Cut more, why should they care about their original, altered version? So it goes.<p> That's very different to the SW experience, where existing plot points like Han shooting first that the director liked and meant to include (and were in the script) when he was young are changed, now that he's older and has lost his taste. And it's different in that most people prefer the originals, and there was an enormous thirst for them on DVD, which he resisted.<p> In conclusion, Blade Runner, 2001, and Solaris (whichever version you prefer) are the three greatest sci-fi movies ever. But don't feel bad, as Star Wars isn't even Sci-Fi. It's a fun, well-polished fantasy , 8.5/10. I just don't understand why you're bringing it up, just cos the director tried to erase the public's prefered version, which is not the case here.

  • April 29, 2007, 2:07 p.m. CST

    My last post

    by CorpseRide

    was directed principally at that OscarWilde guy, the one with the amusing paranoia issues. Not so much Solrider77, who seems pretty cool.

  • April 29, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Ummm, CorpseRide

    by Solrider77

    Thanks for the kudos but you seem to be off on a few things. Number one Ridley Scott didn't have an orignal script to BR. Like I said before he's not the writer. Hampton Francher and David Peoples (sic) are the writers. Not to mention that the real writer of BR is Philip K. Dick but I digress. Francher wrote the original script to what became the film and in fact the theatrical release is closer to his vision of the film. BR was a collaborative effort and I think a lot of people who had a hand in it's creation have been forgotten so that some geeks think Scott did it all. Also saying that the non VO over verison of BR is the "preferred" version of the movie is saying alot. It's not mine, and in fact I've never seen any kind of official poll showing which version fans like more. Also speak for yourself, I LOVE the prequels, yea i said it I LOVE THE PREQUELS. So for me Lucas has directed 5 10/10 movies, and produced 5 10/10 movies.

  • April 29, 2007, 3:06 p.m. CST

    One final thought..........

    by Solrider77

    To everyone here: You know we can go back and forth with our arguements over Lucas and Scott the right an artist has to change their work if they want to. But really all this is just us ranting about something we like or dislike. That's all it is, a movie comes out we see it we enjoy it or not. Then the director says he/she's not satisfied with the film, so they get the chance to change it. We then see this new version and maybe we like the change, and maybe we don't. It really is a 50/50 chance that we'll love the Theatrical release or the DC. No one is right all the time, even Lucas. I'm just here sticking up for him cause I watch you guys day in and day out talk about him raping your childhood and destroying your dreams. Like there's something fundementally wrong with what he's done. Well last time I looked the world didn't end because Greedo shot first. And it probably won't end if Deckard's a replicant. It's all just preference, we can love a movie one way or another, or hell we may love both versions equally. There's nothing stopping us from doing that either. I love the theatrical relase of BR, I love the Prequels, I love the SE's and the originals. Sure I have preferences, who doesn't, but if you ask me why I prefer one version of a movie to another I'll tell the simple truth. I won't hide behind a silly argument about how one artist has the right to change his/her work and another doesn't. Because that's all it is, a silly reason to cover the fact you don't like change. We are not all the same, we all have our own opinions, likes and dislikes. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't, that's what being human is all about. I'd just prefer we act a little more honest and humane about it. And that's my final thought........

  • April 29, 2007, 3:51 p.m. CST


    by wackybantha


  • April 29, 2007, 3:58 p.m. CST

    I made a phone call to Dr. Eldon Tyrell and he said

    by Bronx Cheer

    Deckard is a lousy tipper.

  • April 29, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    6. is ridley scott(and co.) making all versions of "blade runner" available at the same time on his new directors cut? yes - unlike lucas, who plays tag with the fans and the different versions of sw - he declared the most recent versions "official" - dont get me wrong, im a big sw fan - i even like the prequels - but scott is doing it right

  • April 29, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST

    powers boothe...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    the fact that scott directed "alien", "blade runner", "gladiator" and "kingdom of heaven" warrant all his praise - not every movie is a home run - lucas established his "genius" with "star wars" - but he also gave us "howard the duck"

  • April 29, 2007, 4:38 p.m. CST


    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    on lucas - i think "thx1138" is "genius" film making - even the recent updated version - i suspect thats what scotts doing with blade runner - small technical tweaks that will make it look less dated (not that they are needed, the movie is fine as is)

  • April 29, 2007, 5:32 p.m. CST



    Just get this dvd on the shelves, how much longer have i got to wait?

  • April 29, 2007, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Just Do It

    by drdoom_v

    I don't care whatever @5 years later lame ass re-cut with 60 year old actors you want to try to put back into the film just give me the directors cut with some of the deleted scenes and a commentary track by Ridley. Put as many fucking stupid versions you want on the film, Hey make one the Harrison Ford Narration- thats always good for a laugh. Just give me the original at least!

  • April 29, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST


    by CorpseRide

    True enough. But that was the script he signed on to make, and wanted to make, before control of the project was taken from him.<p> Bottom line is, we have the most-loved version, the closest-to-original-script, on DVD now, and we're about to get it again, repackaged alongside the version the producers altered, and a new version with better continuity and a few more polished effects. Seems like a win-win, expect for a coupla big Lucas fanboys who are projecting all their repressed anger at the crappy 'Special Edition' treatment at the innocent Scott. Why, cos he didn't fight to put out the version of BR that his producers f*cked with alongside his own version? Why would he do that?<p>Those producers could have put it out if they liked. I bet they would have, if it'd have made money.<p> It boggles the mind that some Lucas fanboys are whining about double standards. Those guys need to work their problems out with Lucas, and not cry over anyone else's good news.

  • April 29, 2007, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Touch-ups are cool, but...

    by a rolling stone

    But this time does Guido shoot first? Just keepin' it real.

  • April 29, 2007, 6:49 p.m. CST

    it doesnt matter...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    that scott didnt write the screenplay - his directing made it his(artistic vision) - spielberg didnt write raiders - his directing made it what it is - scorsese didnt write all the movies hes best known for - his directing make them great movies

  • April 29, 2007, 9:08 p.m. CST

    what happened to the fifth replicant?

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    Dropped out of the plot? What did I miss?

  • April 29, 2007, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Sixth, I meant sixth replicant.

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    Said there was six. One got fried breaking into the Tyrell Corp. We know the four that Deckard encounters. What about the storied sixth. Don't tell me it's Rachel or Deckard....

  • April 29, 2007, 9:35 p.m. CST

    The sixth replicant was dropped from the plot

    by CorpseRide

    The vey mention is a continuity error. I guess they'll redub in the new edition.

  • April 29, 2007, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Thanks CorpseRide

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    My laziness knows no bounds. I probably could have found that on the net, but decided to try this way instead. Be well.

  • April 29, 2007, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Oscar Perez please cease with the

    by DoctorWho?

    ...most consecutively useless,innane,irrelevant posts ever strung together on this site. Your dissertation on "mod rights" was oh so fascinating but please...spare us the indignity of having to wade thru your nonsense in search of a coherrent thought. They really do need a "kids section" here on AICN

  • April 29, 2007, 11:38 p.m. CST

    "the most-loved version" ? LOL

    by Bill Clay

    I must have missed the week we voted for our favorite version on BladeRunner Idol. ;)

  • April 29, 2007, 11:39 p.m. CST

    It's for a DirecTV commercial!

    by NickDWolfy

    Zhora: "I should have told Deckard about DirecTV HD!"

  • April 30, 2007, 4:30 a.m. CST

    Scott has done, and only will ever do, 3 awesome movies

    by TallBoy66

    These movies are: Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Alien. The rest of his output is ABSOLUTE SHIT! Go back and watch G.I. Jane or any of the other crap he's done. Fuck him.

  • April 30, 2007, 6:58 a.m. CST

    I'd like to do reshoots for my childhood

    by Spandau Belly

    Making the beatings more brutal for a modern desensitized audience and really develop the alcoholism plotline earlier on. I'd also liked to have studied harder in school.

  • April 30, 2007, 8:10 a.m. CST


    by CorpseRide

    Anyone who doesn't think the Director's cut is the 'most loved' version of Bladerunner clearly never leaves their parent's basement. It is widely considered the superior artistic achievement. No contest required, just pay attention.

  • April 30, 2007, 10:40 a.m. CST

    he isn't TFD

    by Lost Prophet

    stylistically very different. And he's not Zfisk/ homewrecker either. BSB and OW4P could well be the same though.

  • April 30, 2007, noon CST

    I just want a higher quality print.

    by mthrndr

    The DVD print is ASS. Also, the Director's Cut is vastly superior. I saw that one first, and I was blown away. Then I saw the original version, and much of the classic, Ridley Scott style pacing and atmosphere was rendered inert by the horrible, horrible voice over. I cannot watch the original because of this. also, the ending with Stanley Kubrick footage? are you kidding me?

  • April 30, 2007, 12:03 p.m. CST

    JimmyJoe RedSky...

    by mthrndr

    Lucas gave us Howard the Duck, but Ridley Scott gave us White Squall. Everyone has their turkeys.

  • April 30, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Oscar Wilde 4 Prez - Wow, you sure do know how to stink up a good TB with a lot of hot air and bluster. Yet another fine example of you talking out of your ass and "pwning" nothing.<P>I'm not sure what kind of conspiracy you've gotten yourself into this time. But kindly leave me the fuck out. I want no part your nonsense whatsoever.<P>Seriously - you're a fucking loon. Get yourself a life. Quit trolling me. And quit berating everyone else on AICN. Not only is it ricockulous, it's getting to be damn creepy.

  • April 30, 2007, 12:39 p.m. CST

    anchorite & Lost Prophet

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Oscar Wilde 4 Prez is definitely not BringingSexyBack. Oscar (Jar Jar 4 Prez) was around long before BSB. But you're right, he is a "juvenile git".<P>As for TFD and Dorothy's Taint Again: those two catch-phrase idiots are about as funny as a dropkick to the balls.<P>Lost Prophet - that's twice now you've mentioned or insinuated ol' zfisk. Perhaps if we chant his name long enough, like a rain-god, he will appear!

  • April 30, 2007, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by CorpseRide

    Yeah, the original Theatrical cut ends with leftover footage from the opening of 'The Shining', when they are driving to the hotel. Only here it symbolises driving away from the city to a 'new life' or something. No explanation of why no-one else lives in the countryside as opposed to the horrible city environment, or why Deckard is suddenly a fan of vintage early-80s automobiles. Just that car winding through the mountains, with Ford's half-assed spell-it-out voiceover. "We didn't know how long we'd have. Then again, who does? Wait, didn't another character say this about 5 minutes ago?"<p> Thank the producers for that one. The pulled Scott from the project and tacked it on. Scott, of course, has made no effort before this box set to get that version out on DVD. <p>Apparently we should berate him for that, or we are hypocrites for slagging off Lucas' sales tactics on the Special Editions. According the logic kings upthread, anyway :-D

  • April 30, 2007, 12:47 p.m. CST

    christ. Hope not

    by Lost Prophet

    I was only responding to Anchorite. Anyway, I am nowhere near a mirror and the light is on, so he will not be summoned.

  • April 30, 2007, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Good article, Merrick!

    by Uncapie

    Looking forward to this when it finally comes out.

  • April 30, 2007, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott vs George Lucas

    by nathan0774

    First of all Ridley doesn't seem pretentious about it. He is giving us all of the versions in their best form. And even if the older versions aren't in 5.1, well... they never were so we're not missing anything. Whe George decided to release the original cut of all of his Star Wars movies, he REALLY went back in time and didn't even make the DVD Anamorphic and only made the soundrack in stereo! STEREO!!!!! There was a release of the trilogy in 1992 when all he did was remester and clean up the special effects. No added creatures and things buzzing around. No re-edit of of scenes to make Han shoot first or whatever. It was the original version in THX 5.1 and cleaned up to look pretty. That is what the folks want and we didn't get it. Ridley is putting the whole history of Blade Runner in a nice box for us to watch them all and compare and argue and have fun with it. Cause he knows everyone has a preference and he doesn't care which one we like best. he just wants us to have his version the way he wanted it IN CASE we MIGHT want to watch it one day.

  • April 30, 2007, 8:55 p.m. CST

    The 2nd Unicorn is in the original theatrical release.

    by lutz

    They added a third unicorn for the directers cut. If you look in the upper right hand corner of the screen when JF Sebastian is asleep at his desk (for emphasis THE ANDROID DESIGNER ASLEEP AT HIS DESK DREAMING LIKE DECKARD AT HIS PIANO) there is a model of a unicorn. Most people missed the second Unicorn from the theatrical cut because they mostly saw the movie on full screen home video.

  • May 1, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST

    It's okay if you can't handle Noir, CorpseRide

    by Bill Clay

    It's a little too complex for your ADD MTV generation. BTW, the "basement" lame was already used. Try to be original when you have no argument and have to resort to name calling. HTH!

  • July 28, 2007, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Vern- For the record, I like Night of the Living Dead

    by ZeroCorpse

    The 1990 version. I like the original, too, but I think the 1990 version is a good movie, where Barbara isn't such a 1960s stereotype screamer, and Ben is a lot more tragic when you consider him. On top of that, it's a movie that stars Patty Tallman, which is ALWAYS OK with me.