Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Details about BLADE RUNNER THE SPECIAL EDITION!

First by Darth Voice	Jan 3rd, 2002 03:28:40 PM
I suck.
First? by TheMatt	Jan 3rd, 2002 03:30:20 PM
I'm first, on this topic? As for me, I am a Director's Cut man. The voiceovers annoyed me, not Lynch's "Dune" annoying...but bad.
I've never been a big fan of BLADE RUNNER. by Cash Bailey	Jan 3rd, 2002 03:32:13 PM
Sure, the look is amazing but, for me, there's just nothing else in the movie. You have to understand that I'm speaking as a person who has little knowledge (and no real interest in) science fiction, so those elements of the film did nothing for me. All I was left with were just pretty pictures and not much of a story. I'm not saying it's a bad movie at all because I know so many people love it, I just think that it's one of those rare movies where instead of being just 'style over substance', in BLADE RUNNER's case the style IS the substance. It's just that this style doesn't really interest me. I much prefer Ridley's first film, THE DUELISTS, and I'm fully aware that there are a lot of people who feel about this film the same way I feel about BLADE RUNNER.
RS has lost it by The_Black_Hair	Jan 3rd, 2002 06:24:34 PM
Almost as bad as Lucas... all he is now is a technician.
The iron lung scene by Celedhring	Jan 3rd, 2002 06:34:54 PM
The iron lung scene isn't something new, as you can find it in some documentaries about the movie. It is a really bad scene and doesn't add nothing new to the plot or the themes (it just overstates them), and Scott has thorouglhy said he cut it because it was bad, so I hope it will not be restored for just throwing out a new edition and suck up more dollars from the fans.
Hospital scene? Mary? by Sardonicus	Jan 3rd, 2002 06:56:25 PM
I'm pretty sure none of the scenes with Mary (the original fifth replicant) were shot (have to check my BR bible, 'Future Noir'), but I know a scene or two were shot with Holden (the cop Leon shoots in the opening) in an iron lung in the hospital talking with Deckard. Maybe this is the rediscovered scene? Any opportunity to catch this on the big screen will find me waiting with bated breath.
"not in tune with the reality of today" by X-Girls	Jan 3rd, 2002 07:33:52 PM
well, isn't that part of a film aging? Imagine Fritz Lang's Metropolis about the future made to look more modern and 'up to date' for it's SE DVD release. Sometimes reality shouldn't be the objective. Often it comes off as boring. Distance can be great.
The missing scene is... by NYCrex	Jan 3rd, 2002 08:53:32 PM
A pre-natal N'Sync!!!!!
Great another chapter for Future Noir...And Sard by mad maximus	Jan 3rd, 2002 08:57:54 PM
Folks read the bible on BR by Paul M. Sammon. And you're not the same Sard from that other board are you?...
Alien and The Duellists are R. Scott's best...... by Smugbug	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:00:42 PM
Blade Runner has ALOT of great qualities: Rutger Hauer's best acting, fabulous sets, great premise. But the best thing was that lingering question after you saw the movie: WAS Deckard a replicant? I say, Mr. Scott let the question remain.............
Re:The iron lung scene ...And Ridley=Little George Lucas by Horus	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:09:41 PM
As another post as mentioned , it's very doubtful that the missing bit , is the iron lung scene.That scene has been shown on a fairly recent Channel4 {England} docu about Phil k. Dick and Bladerunner.Believe me .. you're better not seeing that!.And I don't want it anywhere near the actual movie.It's pretty bad ,.. the guy playing the injured B' runner has suspect acting ability and has to deliver a ton of dialogue ..in a really short space of time.The iron lung he's in ,is really Deckards Kitchen sink , turned upside down , covered in some model kit parts, and repainted!!{I'm not making this up!}Anyway , as to the Special Edition treatment, As far as I'm concerned Ridley has totally lost it in recent years .Now he's turning into a little George Lucas , by looking back over his earlier great achievments and tampering with them.This shit ,is getting wayyyy out of hand.I'm quite happy with the movie the way it is.I don't mind a nice cleaned up rerelease on Dvd , with any newly rediscovered footage added in the extras section.But splicing the stuff back into the actual movie and then redoing fx shot {or even sound FX} isn't cool.It makes matters worse, when these special editions , suddenly replace the old version entirely.Blade Runner is fine as it is.Leave it alone Ridley.What's next? Alien?Lets see some cheapo cgi added to the derelict scenes , or have the alien changed to look closer to the piss weak ones in Alien4?If he's going to tamper with anything , Ridley should start with the crap he's knocked out like GI Jane!Or better still concentrate more on the new stuff.
Why doesn't 'RS' just STOP WORKING ON BLADE RUNNER!? by CarmillaVonDoom	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:18:31 PM
Can't something just EXIST when it is finished?? I know BR is a fan favorite, but does it really matter if the f-ing COMBUSTION SOUNDS weren't in the original. I mean, who cares??? Why not do something radical like...make a NEW MOVIE!! Maybe he could, horror of horrors, actually TOP Blade Runner if he spent his time trying to do so, rather than violate the corpse of a movie that he ALREADY MADE 20 YEARS AGO!! JEEZ!
2 points.... sort of.... not that it matters..... by teapot	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:20:48 PM
i don't know about adding combustion to the cars. i loved the lazy sound they made, it added to the otherworldly feel of rising out of the crowded streets and into the atmosphere. which leads me to my second point: i hope they won't fill the air with flying cars. i really love the fact that up above the city it is empty, and in a desolate way, very beautiful. the contrast between the air and the streets is part of what makes the world alluring. the flyovers of the city are my favorite shots in the entire movie. please don't crapify them. please.
I hope by avalontokio	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:22:51 PM
I really hope that this new Edition will have a decent documentary and better info for the fans (not to mention better image quality ) that the crappy current DVD.
i dreamt music... by deep 13	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:24:58 PM
ah, blade runner. one of the top five favorite movies down here in deep 13. i look forward to seeing this new version but i agree with harry. i hope that the earlier releases are also included in the package. deep 13 out. push the button, frank.
quite an experiance to live in fear, isn't it? that's wh by deep 13	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:26:00 PM
of course in keeping with the insane starwars talkback going on two headlines down i'd like to start the rumor that ridley scott plans to add and the cast of friends to the sushi bar scene and the olsen twins to the cast of doll characters in j.f. sebastian's apartment. but don't worry. they'll just be in the background. deep 13 out. push the button, frank.
Director's cut by Aramor	Jan 3rd, 2002 09:33:13 PM
Bladerunner is LEAGUES better without the voiceover which was completely unnecessary and grating. I like the silent picture feel of it and the moments without dialogue make it much more intriguing. The original version had too many flaws and the director's cut I felt fixed them and made it the classic that it is. I refuse to watch the original version. I may give the "new" edit a try, but I liked the ambiguity of the last cut. I feel he may dumb it down with this newer edit. Anyway, get the hell off the "original" version crap. That narrative blows. I don't need to be spoonfed the goddamned story. Ridley should just film K.W. Jeter's sequel instead. That would make a badass movie. Hell, in many areas it is superior to the original film. Tell him to get cracking.
Please, God, NO VOICEOVER! by mascan	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:02:57 PM
I can't belive that Scott would want the HORRIBLE voiceover put back in the film. Warner Bros. insisted it be done because they thought the audience wouldn't "get" the movie. Ford did it under protest and used the most boring, droning tone of voice he could in the hope that it wouldn't be used. Anyone interested should look for the book "The Cutting Room Floor: Movie Scenes Which Never Made it to the Movies" by Laurent Bouzereau. There is an entire chapter devoted to the various versions of Blade Runner.
anyone who likes the voice-over over the director's cut is a by chiknfriedelfsac	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:07:47 PM
I never saw where Blade Runner was all that good..until I saw the director's cut. So much more powerful without the narration. Is it just legend or did Harrison Ford say he purposely did the voiceover cheesily so they wouldn't include it, but they included it anyway. GOD FORBID WE'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO THINK DURING THE MOVIE INSTEAD OF GETTING IT SPOON-FED TO US BY THE CRAPPY NARRATION. I enjoy this site, it amuses me, but Harry's value as a film critic declines nearly every day i read this site. To each his own i guess.
home again home again jiggity jig by AlecBings	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:12:17 PM
every time i watch Blade Runner i really want to love it, but i never do. i readily admit that very few films have even come close to being such an aesthetic achievement, but the story, all told, really is very boring and the pacing is faulty (if existent.) "Alien" is a much better film. having said that, it still dismays me that Scott is putting some of the Harrison-Ford-on-Quaaludes voiceover back in; its removal really did clean up the film a good bit. while i do love the whole Director's Cut phenomenon in general (because lots of talented people arent given the creative control they deserve in hollywood) it is kind of silly to keep coming back and nitpicking like this. there are already three or four cuts of this film floating around, why do they need to do another one? just make sure all the violence is there (not to sound lowbrow, but...), leave the dream sequence in, keep the happy ending and voiceover the hell away from it, and remaster it. AND DON'T CLARIFY THE FACT THAT DECKARD IS A REPLICANT! christ in the sky, you'd think that someone with as much potential talent as ridley scott could realize that that ambiguity is one of the few reasons people still even care about Blade Runner.
Voice-over versus Directors Cut by earlhofert	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:28:54 PM
Although I don't think that the narration in the original version was particularly impressive (not necessarily a bad idea but poorly written and executed), it does explain things for first-time viewers that are otherwise pretty oblique in the Directors Cut. When BR fans complain about the narration and rave about how it spoon-feeds information to the audience, they forget that they have (most likely) seen the original version and already know what is going on. When the Directors Cut had its re-release ten years ago, I observed this first-hand. I went with a group and while everyone else had seen the original, the girl I was with hadn't and could not make heads or tails out of what was going on. Just an observation.
RS and new work...? by claypool	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:29:24 PM
I don't understand what some of you people are complaining about. --CarmillaVonDoom: "Why not do something radical like...make a NEW MOVIE!!"-- I get that you may not want him to MORE changes to Blade Runner ( I say, it's his work let him do whatever he wants...), but saying that he should focus his energy on a new film instead a previous work is just silly. This man released 3 films in the past two years. So he wants to take some time and work on an obvious favorite of his. Let him.
Come on Ridley... by Soldier_	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:31:36 PM
Screw Blade Runner, I wanna see Legend on DVD.
Come on Ridley... by Soldier_	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:33:14 PM
Screw Blade Runner, I wanna see Legend on DVD.
oh dear by Nexus-6	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:39:53 PM
okay, i don't care what they do to "blade runner", frankly, as long as there's an option(or extra disc?) to see the other versions. although i don't care for the origional cut with the voice-over and "happy" ending, it should still be available. same with the director's cut. with all this newfangled DVD technology, isn't it possible to have both versions on the same disc similar to "the abyss" and "T:2" DVD's? then just put the new cut on a seperate disc and spread the extras over both discs. as for the new cut, it's not necessary, but the voice looping with the abdhul ben hassan(sp?) scene and the wire removal would be great. just try not to muck up some of the greatest model/miniature work ever in a motion picture with needless CGI, please? i guess no one learned from lucas, oh well. -Batty out.
I have the version of Blade Runner I am happy with by islander	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:42:05 PM
It is the first version with natiation and unrated and on laser disc. I bought it over a decade ago and have not gotten another version since. Looks like that is not giong to change.
Voice Over - Yes Replicant - No by fuldamobil	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:43:30 PM
The voice over is great. It's what makes this film sci fi noir. He is not a replicant, though. The original film was great, why keep fucking with it? Nobody cares anymore. Alien is definately Ridley Scott's best film.
Six Replicants by Boxcutter	Jan 3rd, 2002 10:45:24 PM
Perhaps this latest scam will clear up the greatest plot hole since Dressed To Kill (how did the killer know Angie D was going to forget somethign and get BACK into the elevator?)...WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER REPLICANT? Six jumped a ship, one got fried, to paraphrase Bryant's set-up...Hmm: Leon, Batty, Pris, Zora and ??? Don't gimme any shite about it actually being Deckard or Rachael; the original cut (which I still prefer) makes it pretty clear it ain't them - though leaves Deckard's own make-up ambiguous. Who is this Mary chick, anyway? Forgive my ignorance and please help. Of course I'll shell out for it: it's a wonderful original vision and a reminder of what Ridley might have been had he not grabbed the Hollywood hack-teat with both adman's claws. Good idea to clean up the lip-synching too: that scene shot through the store window where Deckard asks Abdul Ben Hassan who bought his snake (the charming Taffy) is fucking diabolically dubbed.
voiceover is cool..... by exador	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:03:27 PM
i miss the voice over....yeah, sure.....there are somethings that work better with out it...like i notice the score more..and it seems even more moody....but damn it....that voice over was amazing...i don't care if Harrison Ford was trying to be cheesy or not...who cares?, the end effect was that wonderfully-world weary- grizzled-detective-sam spade film noir sounding thing....it (imho) helped define the movie in many ways, and it's absence is definitley noticeable....oh...and drip the whole 'combustion noise thing'...ridiculous....the very idea makes me laugh so hard it like i have a BOMB IN MY RIBCAGE!!! hahahahaa
Deckard's gun will be replaced with a walkie-talkie. Will i by Critical Bill	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:11:09 PM

Re:Voice over VS directors cut. by Horus	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:17:10 PM
Earlofert's post , is right.I was going to mention some of the same points{now I don't need to}But it's worth remembering , that pretty much everyone who is happy to see the voiceover gone ...have actually heard the damn thing first and more or less absorbed all the information.They then don't need to hear it again.Without it, Ford's character has even less dimension and zero history.Besides even though it was a pretty poor narration.It WAS on the film when I first saw it at the cinema , all those years ago.And as far as Im concerned , that movie was Blade Runner.This f**ing about with classic films business has got to stop.Nothings perfect , everything has flaws ,They make things interesting. But this going back and polishing up* is just getting out of hand.FX are just going to get better...is Scott planing to go back again and have another go at it ten years from now.Besides apart from a few wires BladeRunners Fx still look pretty smart{And way better/more convincing than Simular cityscapes in Judge Dredd or PM}Why doesn't Ridley just try making a sequel?He can right all the wrongs , he sees in the original , in that.Move on .Try something new.
DUH!! Its simple!! by spiderblood1969	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:19:12 PM
To make everybody happy when it comes out on dvd they should do the same thing as the T2:Ultimate Edition and release every version of the movie there is in a Bladerunner:Ultimate Edition dvd.That way every body has a copy of everything.THE END.
Must...have...more Blade Runner... by Souperdv1	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:32:36 PM
Ok, I usually respect Harry's opinions, but the voice over by Harrison Ford plus the happy ending were the worst aspects of the theatrical version, which the studio had RS put in after poor screenings for folks who were expecting some kind of action fantasy film. Blade Runner is "the most expensive art film ever made" as Ridley says, and it should stay as his vision, not some studio's. I personally am frothing at the mouth for more deleted scenes for what I feel is too short a movie. It would be interesting to have a Brazil style DVD collection - with the hacked studio version, the directors cut, and the final cut. One of the greatest films ever needs the royal treatment!!!
Sham Shpade by SpacePervert	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:41:02 PM
I hated that voiceover, but I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinion. But I'm amazed to hear anyone prefers that version with the cutesy crap happy ending. I don't know anyone who didn't ditch their theatre release when the DC came out. Oh, and plenty of people "get" the film without ever having heard the narration. You can read it all in Harrison Ford's acting. Show don't tell, right? Anyway, DECKARD IS A REPLICANT. RS confirmed this in every book and documentary in the last 10 years. The clincher is you see that funny reflective eye effect in Rachel, the owl and Deckard.
I'd just be happy with a DECENT transfer by rubberjonny	Jan 3rd, 2002 11:50:03 PM
I couldn't believe how slap-bang the current DVD is that I bought, shame on you Warner you tightwads. And if Gladiator is where RS is currently at I hope his tinkering is left to a minimum (if any at all). - On another note, with so many re-releases now marketed to suck our savings I do believe it should be the case that when you buy a film, you should get some kind of discount for buying any later definitive release. My campaign starts here dammit!
Why Deckard shouldn't be a replicant by Voltaire Wannabe	Jan 4th, 2002 12:07:14 AM
Although there
Everyone is a replicant by darth-blaireau	Jan 4th, 2002 12:19:54 AM
When you see the dream with the unicorn and then at the end the paper fold unicorn, it is clear that deckard and gaff are replicants. In fact everyone is a replicant except tyrell, but i'm not sure. Sebastian is a replicant also because of his olderness thing. Read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", you'll see it sounds clear
DON'T change the god damn movie! by CHEWBLACCA	Jan 4th, 2002 12:21:15 AM
...just clean it up.Sure,wires. Bad looping.Obvious stunt doubles. Fix 'em all.But for fuck's sake, don't change the tone of the movie.I like the ambiguity.I even miss the stiff voice over.I'm with the BIG GUY on this one.If I had a nice widescreen of the original version,that one would be the one I'd play.
hate VO but then i like movies that are not simple to understand by spoits	Jan 4th, 2002 12:24:58 AM
but that is just me. most people like 1) to be told what they are going to be shown 2) shown what they are going to be shown 3) told what they just saw. I forget the credit for this saying
Phil Dick: Scratch, Bite, Claw and Scrape Your Way To His Writin by Skippy	Jan 4th, 2002 12:44:16 AM
Philip K Dick's writing constantly dabbles with what makes us human which I think is an endlessly intriguing idea. BR, Screamers (based on his short story Second Variety) and the soon to be released (I hope!!!) Impostor are just three of his storys on this subject that have made it to the big screen. And there are countless other short storys and novels of his that further deal with it. Do yourself a favour. If you like sci-fi and ALSO like to think, get your hands on his writings as soon as possible. If only Spielberg had read one of his storys pertaining to what makes a person human before doing A.I., even he couldn't haave screwed up one of Phil's ideas! (but then again Minority Report is coming up)
When is this 'improving' of films gonna end? by moviemaniac-7	Jan 4th, 2002 01:51:51 AM
Now the on-going Blade Runner thing, E.T. is going to be 'improved', the original Star Wars saga was a victim of it. Why can't directors just work on new projects and leave their old masterpieces as they are?
Darth blaireau, Boxcutter answers, and the missing scene is (SPO by MGTHEDJ	Jan 4th, 2002 02:06:53 AM
possibly Batty's line "Now show me where the real Tyrell is." Boxcutter Mary was a replicant who was the perfect housewife (think Donna Reed Show). She was cut because they did not have enough money to shoot her scenes (Set design was eating the budget). But they never went back and corrected the dialogue. Read "Future Noir" for all the lowdown. Darth: J.F. was not a replecant, but his DNA was were they got the 4 year life span. In the original book they are robots with skin, ala The Terminator. In the movie "Bladerunner" replicants are genetically engineered. And Rachel is a clone.-----later-----m
'1984' - The Author's Cut by BionicDave	Jan 4th, 2002 02:08:35 AM
Apparently, novelist George Orwell has decided to change the title of his revolutionary novel '1984' to '2084,' as Mr. Orwell feels that "the original title seems dated now." Also changed in new versions of the book to be printed is the name of the totalitarian government's 'Big Brother' slogan; Mr. Orwell believes that the new 'Big Sibling' slogan is less male-bashing, and more in line with his current beliefs, as opposed to those held when he was younger, more talented, and wise about when good artists know when to walk away from their works instead of spending the rest of their lives revising them until they've been utterly washed of the genuine sentiment felt when the art was germaine to an appropriate time in the artist's life and the life of his nation.
Well - everyone ELSE is bitching and whining... by Caine	Jan 4th, 2002 02:13:02 AM
"DO NOT put the VO back in!!!" "Leave the VO in and preserve the integrity of the film." "We want the true Artistic vision of the Director, not the crap that the studio forced on us as the public." And so it goes... Yes, a classic debate where this movie is concerned. I have seen both - the original version with Harrison Ford's voice over, and the Director's cut with the Unicorn Scene and NO voice over. I did not particularly care for the DC. The only plus it had was the letterbox format (while ALL films are not released in letterbox is beyond me - I like seeing the WHOLE movie, not 80%), and some cleaning to the print and sound. Ridley Scott HAD his opportunity to fix everything he wanted to in the movie, that was his Director's cut, and that is why it is CALLED a Director's cut. The Director can make the movie that HE/SHE wanted, with no constraints from the studios. A third version just shows some wishy-washyness on The Director's part. "Gee, umm, well, I really didn't like my cut of it then, so I'll change it..." If directors are going to do that - they may as well make ALL of the footage available to the General public, and we can cut our OWN vision/version of it. But then, that defeats the purpose, doesn't it? *** RANT ALERT* According to www.imdb.com - "The dialogue in all releases of Blade Runner alludes to another replicant who dies before Deckard's final battles with Pris and Batty. The conflicting dialogue occurs in the first conversation between Deckard and Bryant. Bryant initially tells Deckard there are 4 "skin jobs" on the loose, but minutes later says 6 escaped, and one was killed by the "electronic gate", which should leave 5. The explanation is that the script originally contained an additional replicant named "Mary", but time and budgetary constraints resulted in her being written out. M. Emmet Walsh who plays Bryant, reports that new dialogue was recorded to change the number of replicants in this scene, but Scott inexplicably only used half of the new dialogue, resulting in the inconsistency. The error concerning the number of replicants was dealt with in the never-made sequel to the movie (which was instead made into a novel) in which Deckard is the remaining replicant." I think the re-cut, making Dekkard INTO a replicant, or the suggestion that Gaff is a replicant are the DUMBEST damn ideas in the world, given the footage. Why make a replicant into a replicant-hunting police officer, and make him as weak as a human, or make him require the use of a cane??? Considering that replicants are tougher, stronger, faster, and more durable than the average human, why make a weaker model to chase them? Its like giving the police Yugos as patrol cars, when everyone else is driving Porsches and Ferraris. "Oh but he'll fit in that way, and will not blow his cover..." To what purpose? Replicants are illegal on earth, which means they are used as off-world slave labor, why would someone pay as much if not more for an INFERIOR model, when the top of the line is available??? Part of Why Replicants were banned from Earth - as I took it from the movie - was that they were emotionally immature and unstable, and were physically superior to Humans.A Replicant is bascially a Terminator without the microporcessor-controlled, fully-armored, very tough, huper-alloy combat chasis, and the "kill target(s) at all costs" programming. Since there are standing laws to kill a replicant if it is on Earth - with no exceptions, how is it a happy ending? He is an out-of-work cop, and SHE is a replicant, and is known to law enforcement authorities as one. Where are they going to go, what are they going to do??? If Tyrell was telling the truth, and she has no automatic termination date, she probably will not die, and will outlast him, meaning that she will be broken hearted, not to mention a dead giveaway for anyone that sees her and wonders why she has not aged. If she DOES have a termination date like all the rest, then he will have to face her dying, and HE will be broken-hearted. If he had been able to hold his own against Leon, Pris, Zhora, and Roy, and was not overmatched, then the 'Dekkard is a Replicant' argument would be believable. * END OF RANT *** If Ridley Scott is going to release yet a THIRD version of Blade Runner into theaters with cleaned up effects and new scenes (ala Georege Lucas), good for him. I hope he is happy with it. I did not care for the Director's Cut, and avoided it in the theaters. This third cut, if and when it is released on DVD, should be a boxed set that has all 3 versions, and all of the other goodies on it. Yes, that includes the best digital and sound available. that way - EVERYONE is happy, and can compare all three and find the version they like best...... But as with all things, that is just MY opinion.
Loss of the writer and actor's input by Solrider77	Jan 4th, 2002 02:34:01 AM
This obsession of Ridley Scott to totally make over Bladerunner in the image only he wants is a slap in the faces of Philip Dick, Hampton Fancher, David Peoples, and not to mention Harrison Ford. These men all contributed to the movie and for Scott to continue to remake the film without at least Peoples' and Ford's input is just more proof that he is an egomaniac that doesn't care about anyone else's interpretation of the film except his own.
Piss on a new Blade Runner by Black Ceaser	Jan 4th, 2002 02:43:29 AM
I agree with Harry. I adored the original Blade Runner WITH the narrative because it put me in mind of classic film noir films of the the 40's. Deckard's flat deadpan played perfectly with Vangeles futuristic bluesy score. The director's cut was cool to watch for the first time but after a while I found myself getting tired of the "let's ogle the beautiful production design shots" because without the narrative drive that's basically what they were. I use the director's cut, now, as an anti-insomniac. I throw that baby on and I'm sawing z's in no time. But a NEW ONE? Give me a fucking break! Blade Runner's not getting another fucking penny out of me until they give me the original theatrical cut back with every blessed frame of Priss writhing in agony and the happy ending returned. After Roy's poinient death scene I had ingested about as much pathos from this film that I needed. The ending didn't feel forced I was bitter sweet to me and capped the film off nicely. I keep thinking of that wretched Star Wars redux with all the new fangled sfx added. What a clump of shit that was. I am one who generally believes that people who use the blanket statement that they don't like narrative in movies are cats who've read one to many "How to write a perfect screenplay books." Or film school grads who have bought into that whole "good movies are like this and bad movie are like that mentality." Narrative works if it's written well and fits the story. Let's wait for the director's cut of Goodfellas or Double Indemnity minus the narrative.
RS: Use some of the Dallas Cut ! by citizen	Jan 4th, 2002 02:44:24 AM
I saw the "Dallas pre-screening cut" at the Egyptian in Seattle a few years ago and it had some things that should have made it into the theatrical release. That cut, for those who don't know, was an audience test cut and had no credits, Planet of the Apes music during the final showdown chase, but it cleared up a few things that fans have debated for years. Like what happened to the 6th "missing" replicant and more (no spoilers today...) RS: Leave off the VO and the happy ending. But perhaps put to rest some of the fan-created "mysteries" from the film that detract from the experience.
The Eternal question: Is Deckard a Replicant? by Solrider77	Jan 4th, 2002 02:54:03 AM
This really pisses me off. For me Bladerunner has always been about Deckard's search for his lost humanity. He gave it up to survive better in the cold, sterile, inhuman world of the future. It is only when he meets and hunts down the Replicants that he realizes what he has lost, the very thing they are searching for. To me BR has always been about realizing how precious our humanity is and without it we lose our will to live. Now Ridley Scott wants to destroy this meaning for me by beating us over the head with his belief that Deckard never had humanity to begin with. As much as I hate to tell an artist what he or she should do with their art, I have to say this. Scott, stop this obsessive quest to remake BR in the image you want. You are becoming as bad as an English teacher that only believes his own intrepretation of MOBY DICK and scolds students for venturing their own ideas. Don't take away the meanings in BR that we, the fans, have found in this SF classic.
Kowalski, Leon. New Employee. Five Days. by Scarecrow_	Jan 4th, 2002 05:08:01 AM
Well, I liked the Sam Spade feel of the voice overs. It's one of the things that made me obsessive about the film when I finally saw it in the late eightees (I'd first read it as Marvel comic's movie adaptation in the back of Return of the Jedi comic). Having said this, I'd be happy if they just brought out an untouched Director's cut on DVD and then piled on the extras: Documentaries, stills, interviews, trailers, missing scenes. Hell, why not have the voice-overs as optional audio? =)
you come across a tortuise.. by bluemartini	Jan 4th, 2002 08:25:14 AM
Well, I'll chime in with my 2c worth... Voiceover stays.... unicorn goes.... wires go yet hydrolics stay. Agree with earlier poster that DC puts me to sleep.... it is simply not as good. Too bad for Harison that his childish prank didn't pay off, lucky for us it improved the film. ps Ridley suck... anyone see Hanibal??
Sushi. That's what my wife called me. Because I had A BO by durhay	Jan 4th, 2002 09:00:22 AM
I want that Gary Sinese computer graphic head shot as a screen saver. Just to frighten small children.
sigh by rev_skarekroe	Jan 4th, 2002 09:38:00 AM
I guess it's up to an artist to decide whether or not he wants to change his creation. Even Tolkien dicked around with "The Hobbit" 20 years after he wrote it. What bothers me is when they make the originals unavailable. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned Greedo shot first. Period. For Spielberg, those guys carried walkie-talkies, not guns. Period. (Apparently Spielberg didn't realize guns were dangerous back then.) Hopefully Scott will allow us to see all the extant versions of "Blade Runner" rather than simply supplanting them with this new one. sk
Repicant = Clone or Android? by RobRed1	Jan 4th, 2002 10:18:54 AM
This is the issue I had when I first saw the film. After all, I was only ten. I really liked the idea that the replicants are genetically engineered clones that are treated like disposable androids. THAT'S the best issue in the whole film to me.
Let's hope Deckard doesn't shoot first. by Batutta	Jan 4th, 2002 10:37:35 AM
The last director's cut only improved my already high esteem of BR, so let's hope this next cut vaults it into the stratosphere.
bladerunner missing scene by andolini	Jan 4th, 2002 10:53:03 AM
hi harry uv probly already fault it but the missin scene that they are planning to put in BR:SE in the hospital scene where Rick Deckard visits holden after his been attacked by leon, and holden in sum futeristic life suport machine. Iv seen the scene and it aint all that. it adds nothin to the film. ash
Decker gets drunk and cheats on his unicorn! by Rafiennes	Jan 4th, 2002 11:26:54 AM
When are filmmakers going to stop 're-fixing' what ain't broke. Christ, we'll still be getting revisions of A New Hope and E.T. by the time we're all in diapers and eating peas through a straw. I mean, when we're old and doing all that diaper/peas stuff.
What REALLY needs to be shown... by Hawq	Jan 4th, 2002 12:48:03 PM

Ridley Scott has a vision, makes a movie and cheats on Philip K. by WarDog	Jan 4th, 2002 12:49:33 PM
I don't recall in the novel that Dick implied in it that Deckard was a replicant. That idea would not make sense anyway, in light of the whole conflict within Deckard and between himself and the renegade replicants. And it virtually nullifies anything Deckard realizes after the climax in the movie, which is frigging awesome when compared to the original novel. ***** If RS is so fixated on Deckard's actually being a replicant, and can't understand why people who see BR don't get that, then he is full of shit and should reread the book. ** As for the VO, maybe RS & HF made them very reluctantly, that's too bad, because it adds tons to the noirish feel for the movie, which is probably the ultimate film noir SF film. And without the final VO, how the fuck are we to figure out Rachel's secret, that she was not like other replicants and would live a normal lifespan, huh, smartass who don't like the VOs? Nothing in dialogue clued in the audience to that twist, which was in direct answer to "Too bad she won't live!" ***** I'm with you, Harry, the original theatrical release is the best.
What REALLY needs to be shown... by Hawq	Jan 4th, 2002 01:14:47 PM
A glittering, naked Zhora undulating on stage with "the serpent that once corrrrrrrrupted man" sliding between her legs. But seriously, I'm all for the clean up of the wires, bad dubbing, and bad stunt double wigs, as long as it is SEAMLESS within the look of the original film- unlike the Star Wars additions, which look so obviously CGI. And what's with changing the sound of the cars?? It would be completely stupid to change ONE element that might not match the technology of a certain year in the future(2020?), when there are about a thousand other elements in the film that don't even come close to what the technology will be- like, uh... ANDROIDS!?! Hydrogen powered engines are about 100 times more believable than fucking perfectly human-like ANDROIDS, not to mention all of the people living on Off-World colonies and traveling to other solar systems. I think they'd have hydrogen powered cars by then. Don't be fucking stupid, Ridley. As far as the narration is concerned, I think it should be on a secondary audio track, utilizing the awesome powers of the DVD. People can have a choice. Is there such a thing as seamless audio branching? Ridley should hire me to make all the decisions for this release, since I seem to know everything. Oh well, I'll be purchasing whatever DVD they put out, because that original one is a piece of crap as far as picture quality goes.
It's not gonna be a "Greedo shooting first/no more guns" kin by L.B. Jefferies	Jan 4th, 2002 01:45:22 PM
I've pushed this point before but I was a little concerned that Apocalypse Now Redux was going to be hurt by 49 minutes of additional footage. I was SO WRONG; it made a near perfect film flawless. The version of BR I am most familiar with is the Voice over/happy ending version. I love the flick. I really can't give the director's cut proper consideration because I still hear the voiceover in my head but the movie definitely should've ended with the elevator. If they're going to re-edit it again, fine. It's a great flick but it could stand a little tweaking. At least Ridley Scott's KIDS have nothing to do with the new version, and if he's going to keep re-issuing BR (a la Spielberg and the 7 versions of Close Encounters) let him do it... it couldn't be any worse than some of the crap he's made in the past 10 years.
The sounds of the cars will be replaced by sounds of screaming H by durhay	Jan 4th, 2002 02:07:08 PM
Also, Raimeriz inexplicably returns.
This months EMPIRE magazine by Bruce T Shark	Jan 4th, 2002 02:20:14 PM
has an interview with Ridley and one of the questions asked is about plans for the 20th Anniversary Release Of Bladerunner on DVD. Ridley's reply regarding any possible changes starts as follows "Well, the voiceovers off, so I'll condense some sections that were sustained for the voiceover". Straight from the horses mouth - NO VOICEOVER. Personally I feel Ridley can do a new version every year if he wants to as long as we, Joe public get a choice in which version we watch. Myself I prefer the Directors cut in terms of scene selection and the ending but actually liked the voiceover as well. I felt it added to whole film noir feel of the film. Unfortunately my perfect version of Bladerunner exists only in my head. Ah well. Finally can I just add a few words on the subject of Is Deckard a replicant or not. OF COURSE HE IS! Besides the Unicorn dream the biggest clue has to be what Edward James Olmos says to Deckard on the rooftop at the end. "You've done a mans work" The insinuation being that Deckard is NOT A MAN.
The role of the artist by Tergenev	Jan 4th, 2002 02:25:51 PM
I loved the original when it came out in the theaters. It felt like Philip Marlowe had come back to life. The voice-over was critical to this tone. And I loved the whole thing. I've had a problem, a real problem, with Ridley Scott's assertion that Deckard was a replicant ever since he made it. It turns a fascinating study of humans confronting their own creations into a one-trick magic act; a creature of much less richness and import. But how to resolve this with the artist's vision? It's honestly bugged me for years. Astonishing that a movie with such a mediocre initial reception, and which still gets only grudging respect from critics, remains in my, and many other, minds so long after it was (first) created. I've recently come to a resolution, at least in my own mind. The artist, in this case, is wrong about his own creation. Its true that the artist (most typically the director in this particular medium) has the final say about what his creation IS, but ultimately it is the viewer that has the final say about what the art MEANS. Its clear that Scott wants to make his protagonist a replicant. Its clear to me that he's wrong. For if he is right, then this film is just what the critics contend and not what I've thought all these years, a weak, pointless study of uninteresting characters in a blase neo-futuristic setting, rather than a thoughtful, well-presented rumination on basic humanity surrounded by technology and the results of his (or her) own creations. Artists are often wrong about their own works. How often have we heard an artist or filmmaker, when asked to pick his favorite or least favorite work, clearly get it wrong, or at least wildly divergent from popular perception? It isn't surprising. They sit so closely to the work that they have a tough time seeing it with an unjaded eye. Like the rock carvers who worked on Mt. Rushmore. Unlike many filmmakers and other artists, however, Gutzon Borglum was well aware of this problem when he set workers to the face of the rock. I think Ridley Scott lost sight of the true scope of this particular artistic work early on and has continued on a faulty path ever since.
Read my lips by wasp	Jan 4th, 2002 02:28:15 PM
NO NEW BR EDITIONS. Seriously, though, Ridley Scott can do whatever he bloody wants with his movies, I'm just glad that I have my precious Blade Runner: Director's Cut DVD safe and sound and far away from his grip. What more could I need? I rented the original version of Blade Runner first, and I think I almost fell asleep a couple times, something that almost never happens to me, no matter what movie I'm watching. Some of have said that the voice-over is what makes it futuristic film noir, and that's precisely why I don't like it. It turns Blade Runner into just another noir flick except one with a futuristic setting. The intrusive voice-over destroys the ambiguity, the uniqueness, and the poignant silence of the Blade Runner experience. I bought the Blade Runner: Director's Cut DVD for my friend, a Harrison Ford fanatic, and after watching it this time I had to get it for myself. Through the simple removal of voice-over, the addition of the unicorn, the slightly altered editing, and the shortened ending, a movie that I once thought horribly overrated became a masterpiece in my eyes. The Director's Cut has a depth of symbolism and brooding, dystopian atmosphere that few other movies can claim to have achieved. I regard it as Ridley Scott's finest work.
Listen... by NeoTwinkie	Jan 4th, 2002 02:55:32 PM
FACTS: (I have read these on IMDB and similar sources) 1. Early drafts of the script, as well as what Scott himself has said, show that he always believed Decker was a replicant. 2. The narration and the happy ending were forced upon Scott by the studio. 3. Ford, who was opposed to the idea, has admitted he did the narration as badly as possible in the hopes that the studio would drop it. 4. The so-called director
When should an artist step away from their creation...A short ta by mad maximus	Jan 4th, 2002 03:50:02 PM
Someone once told me a story of an artist who had a painting hanging in the museum. One day he decides to drop by and then promptly starts making all sorts of corrections and addition to the piece he created until a security guard approached him. "Sir what are you doing? You can't alter a piece hanging on display!" Said the guard. "But sir, I am the artist who created it, I had to fix a few thing that has always annoyed me" Stammered the artist. "Sir," replied the guard "if it's hanging here then it's finished"....Now I'm all for reworking movies for restoration purposes or cleaning it up for a re-release, but at some time you will have to let it go and have it stand on it's own merits. How can one judge the growth of an artist if he is consistanty altering the milestones of their career?
Bull Hockey by RepDetect	Jan 4th, 2002 03:58:38 PM
As the head of BladeZone.com, the Online Blade Runner fan club, I am blessed with being friends with the director of Ridley Scott's DVD productions, Charlie de Lauzirika, whom would be the one heading up the special edition of Blade Runner. I can say, without hesitation, that I seriously doubt this guy was really a "friend" of one of the BR:SE's "senior production staff" if he's blabbing about the stuff in public. That is an absolute No-No. Ridley's people are very tight lipped on that info, and want none of it leaked out, and only allow the most truted people to know things. I for one know more than most, and tell absolutely no one. So, according to my contacts, this guy's report is incorrect on most of what has reported to you. Sincerely, Gerry Kissell BladeZone.com
An artist is finished when he's satisfied, or dead. by Hawq	Jan 4th, 2002 04:34:14 PM
Everyone knows that security guards are MUCH more intelligent than artists.
reply to Tergenev by Dragonfire	Jan 4th, 2002 06:41:37 PM
I don't think Deckard being a Replicant takes away from the message of the story at all. It still deals with Humanity confronting it's creations, as you said, and the fact that they get a Replicant to get rid of the other Replicants adds to the philosophy of the story by showing us that Humans can't even clean up their own mess.
What?! by Smeg For Brains	Jan 4th, 2002 10:16:33 PM
Harry actually prefers the butchered, nearly unwatchable version, to the directors actual version, which is a masterpeice? At least prefering the original version of the star wars movies or E.T. is prefering the directors original version, and not his softened "twenty years later, with kids" version, but Ridley Scott nearly gave the original Blade Runner theatrical version an Alan Smithie for Christ's sake! How can somebody like the fact that Harrison Ford sounds like he absolutely hates doing the voice over, and that they are treating you like an idiot who can't figure out what the hell is going on, and you need someone to shove it down your throat?
re: When is an artist finished? by mad maximus	Jan 4th, 2002 11:34:34 PM
Funny, point taken :)Maybe I would not mind this potential retooling if ALL the various incarnations were available for comparison. Now if only Lucas would do that.
Speaking of PKD.....where's the IMPOSTOR talkback??? by Darth TJ Mackey	Jan 5th, 2002 06:40:12 AM
Hell, I didn't even know it was based on a PKD short story until the beginning of the movie. It also has Lt. Dan in it.
Screw this. Get Peter Jackson to direct it. by LlGHTST0RMER	Jan 5th, 2002 08:53:45 PM
(Someone had to say it.)
X-Rated Blade Runner by Eudy	Jan 6th, 2002 12:04:26 AM
This is in response to "ZeroCorpse". Several years after Blade Runner was released there was a re-release that I saw in a theater in Dallas. I'm not sure what year it was but it was advertised as the original uncut version that was unrated. It was advertised that it had originally garnered an X rating because of excess violence and so it was recut for the original realese. I can't remember if it had the Voice Over or not but I think I remember it having the extended interrogation of Abdul Ben Hassan you talk about. What I do remember was that there were 3 violent scenes that were not the same as the original. The first was when Roy Batty is with J.F. in Tyrell's bedroom. In the original Batty is shown squeezing Tyrell's head and the camera focuses on Batty as you hear Tyrell's head crush and Tyrell screaming. In the X version you actually see Batty pushing his thumbs into Tyrell's eyes with blood squirting out. The second 2 are in J.F.'s apartment when Deckard goes there and has a confrontation with Pris. In the original there is a part where she has his head between hear legs and she twists his head around and slaps her hands together on his ears. In the X version, after she slaps his ears there is a close up of her putting 2 of her fingers into his nostrils and then it cuts to a side shot of her pulling him across the room by the nostrils while he lays on his back (Ouch!). The last shot was right after this one when she runs across the room and summersaults at Deckard and he shoots her. In the original he shoots her once (or twice), but in the X version he shoots her several times and there are several shots of her flailing in the corner before she dies. It's a much longer death scene. I can't remember if the "Legend" unicorn shot was in it or not. There may have been more changes but that's the ones I remember.
Ridley has Lost it. by garethvk	Jan 6th, 2002 12:08:38 AM
If Deckard is a replicant, it will be a serious flaw. I know that Scott is in love with this idea, but lets face facts. One, Deckard was not as strong as the others he hunted so this would eliminate him from being a Rep as they all had a Physical level of "A" it was their mental levels that varied. He also has a much lower tolerance for pain and slower reflexes so that is another point against him. Also, the key to the movie was that in his last few moments of life, Roy Batty discoved love for all life, and saved the Human who was hunting him and caused him so much pain. Thus creating the question where does Humanity begin and end?
Is or Is He not by Eudy	Jan 6th, 2002 12:15:43 AM
I remember that when the movie was being shot there were a lot of reported problems getting the film completed. Philip K. Dick had final veto power on the script and there were struggles between him and Ridley Scott because Ridley wanted to change certain plot elements that changed the meaning of the film. It was never stated exactly what the struggle was specifically about but it sounds like it might have been the issue about Deckard being a replicant.
Yeah by 26354	Jan 6th, 2002 04:16:33 AM
Wow Harry I thought I was the only person who liked the narration. Great! Now there are two of us.
The last line: by MCVamp	Jan 7th, 2002 02:43:02 AM

The last line: by MCVamp	Jan 7th, 2002 02:44:24 AM
Fucking keyboard. Anyway, as I was saying... the last line... "It's too bad she won't live... but then again, who does?" I interpret that as "you don't live... I don't live... WE don't live."
The origin of "Deckard is a Replicant" by Solrider77	Jan 7th, 2002 03:18:40 AM
I thought it would be a good idea to shed some light on the origin of this whole debate. Dick's original novel does make the suggestion that Deckard might be a "andy", what they are called in the book. But he is vague on the idea and it is really only in the part of the book where Deckard finds out that there are in fact "andys" in the police force on Earth. When Hampton Fancher wrote the first script for what became the film back in 1978, he didn't include an reference to Deckard being a replicant. After Scott was hired he expressed doubts over Fancher's script and that is when David Peoples came in to do the rewrite. It was when Peoples delivered his first script to Scott that the whole Deckard replicant debate began. Peoples had included in his script's final scene a moment where Deckard contemplates God and the whole question of existence. Here is where the dialogue about him musing about who makes his model comes from. According to Peoples he intended this scene to show that Deckard was a human who none the less reconigized a kinship to Roy Batty, a replicant. They were both killers, one designed by humans, the other designed by God, who were looking for some other meaning in life. This was Peoples intentions with the scene, however when Scott read the script he MISINTERPRETED the final scene as an acknowledgement by Deckard of his true nature as a replicant. From there Scott was totally sold on the idea that Deckard was a replicant and no one could convince him otherwise. This is all in the book FUTURE NOIR: THE MAKING OF BLADE RUNNER. So there you have it, a misinterpretation that lead to one of the most hotly debated questions in Sci-Fi cinema. It's the kind of irony Dick himself would have loved.
Blade Runner in general terms by junglegeorge45	Jan 7th, 2002 04:33:31 PM
When the film was originally released I was already an ardent PKD reader and fan. Consequently, RS's interpretation of the screenplay was and is of great interest to me. My opinions follow: The original North American theatrical release of the film became an instant classic for me....but some things never sat right. HF's voice over was trite and was only added because the studio thought the American film going public "wouldn't get it" without being handed the whole thing on a plate. (Obviously I'm not American). The voiceover in the police station similarly smacks of poor audio quality and is obviously made from at least two takes. (Hence the verbal inconsistencies regarding the number of replicants that escaped...listen for yourself and be the judge). The ending was re-shot for because the North American market "didn't get" the "director's ending"...hence the dream sequence (...and they lived happily ever after). Gaff's oft misconstrued comment, "You've done a man's job" doesn't refer to Deckard being a replicant at all. Rather it refers to him completing the assigned "job" in a manner befitting a man rather than a machine since Deckard had initially declined the job offer. There are many other elements of the film that seemed out of time upon the many re-viewings over the years, which lead me to wonder just how much of the "director's cut" had been gutted for time and "clarity" for the North American market. When the Director's Cut was released to film circuits I drove up to the New Art in LA for a show. I was shocked at how much the plot flow improved and how the correct ending changed the overall theme of the film, and much more accurately reflected PKD's original writing style ("mot noir" perhaps?). There were still bugs and flaws in editing and sound quality but overall it represented a major leap forward. Which brings us to the current day....... Even though I am somewhat of PKD purist, and we all know that Blade Runner is not a pure derivative from PKD's writing, I hope that when RS re-re-edits Blade Runner, he is allowed the artist freedom to release the film in the manner he originally envisioned. On a final note, I might suggest to Jersey Shore productions and particularly Emma-Kate Croghan (slated for the Directorial slot), that when production FINALLY starts on "A Scanner Darkly" they would be well served to leave all of PKD's paranoia and mistrust intact. DO NOT try to make it a happy ending...and try using Santa Ana for a location since this is where PKD resided while he wrote the book. Ok I'll climb down from my orange crate and wait for the inevitable barrage of e-mail......(junglegeorge45@ho tmail.com).
Perhaps more energy should be focused on reconciling Ford, Scott by ARCTURUS	Jan 7th, 2002 07:40:03 PM
Like many of you, I have read author Paul Sammon's excellent works on the Blade Runner mythos in both magazine and book formats. He highlighted, (among other things like the fact there are MORE than just three versions of the film), that there was a lot of friction between the three aforementioned persons in my subject heading. I know that many people hate sequels, but if done right, sequels can be worthwhile. It doesn't even have to be a direct sequel, just implied. I'm just hungry for more Blade Runner from some familiar faces, or something. I know it sounds impossible that Scott, Young, and Ford will ever work together again, but it's worth pulling for, instead of arguing over endless issues/debates which will never be resolved concerning the existing Blade Runner film(s).
2019 is real soon by nectar3	Jan 8th, 2002 08:40:42 AM
If RS is changing some of his "assumptions" about the setting of the film, how about revising the date, say to 2119. Never mind hydro-electricity, is all of the other stuff really going to happen in the next 17 years?
Blade Runner is cool. by SouthSide_2010	Jan 9th, 2002 04:04:28 AM
PLUS I GOT A BOMB IN MY DICK! AND IT'LL EXPLODE IF YOU DON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT ABOUT A bomb in a ribcage!
Lots of nonsense by Netrunner	Jan 16th, 2002 11:55:52 AM
As webmaster of BRmovie.com I can confirm what Gerry at BladeZone has said, that this report is not factual and contains much that is pure speculation. Read the FAQ on Blade Runner. Read Future Noir. Check out the best Blade Runner sites. Then you won't make silly mistakes, such as not being able to spell the lead character's name! Deckard may or may not be a Replicant - you can't prove it either way, but then that isn't the point - the question is "What is human?" Stop ranting insanely about what Ridley Scott should or should not do - he can do what he likes. Having put out a few successful movies in the past couple of years, he has every right to want to finally produce the definitive version of Blade Runner. The 1982 and 1992 released versions and the various workprints, etc. were never his complete vision. Thats right, it is well known he had only just enough time on the "Director's Cut" to fix a few things. So, now we will get a good quality print made from a digital remix created from the restored negatives, which will have excellent picture quality and sound. Don't forget that the current DVD version of Blade Runner was one of the very first films released when DVD players were first released, so it was before they'd perfected the rechnology. There will be multiple discs, some obvious errors will be fixed and don't expect a voiceover. But don't make any assumptions about what deleted scenes will get put back in either. Many of these will simply be made available as extras on the DVD. If you want to know more about it, read the Blade Runner websites.
The facts on Deckard being a replicant by SkeeK	Feb 10th, 2002 12:41:54 AM
Fact: Deckard is a replicant. Fact: It is my opinion (and that of many others, I think) that the story is better if Deckard is NOT a replicant. I like that Deckard is a human and falls for an android, and that he has to deal with his humanity. In both versions (whether you like the voiceover or not) you can decide that Deckard is human by ignoring the subtle hints. I like it. I like ambiguity in general. I don't think it is the director/writer's job to answer all the questions he brings up. Although obviously sometimes it can get stupid if everythin is open ended, but I digress. So, in conclusion: Deckard IS a replicant, but I think he shouldn't be.
Fact: depending on what version you watch, your perception of De by matrix_sux	Feb 19th, 2002 12:34:10 PM
The Directors cut makes it explicit
Fact: depending on what version you watch, your perception of De by matrix_sux	Feb 19th, 2002 12:35:10 PM
The Directors cut makes it explicit
Fact: depending on what version you watch, your perception of De by matrix_sux	Feb 19th, 2002 12:35:18 PM
The Directors cut makes it explicit
voiceover by kico22	Apr 29th, 2002 08:23:54 AM
Well I just love this movie and I was very happy when i heard, that a new 3 disc edition was on its way. I kind of hoped, that one of those disc would contain the original version of Bladerunner, with the voiceover but perhaps without the happy ending. I never liked the "editors cut" because it made it to obvious that Decard was a replicant! I don't want to know! I like loose ends. I belive that there were indications enough in the original one. E.g. the Piano, indicating that Deckard by owning it also knew how to play like Rachael thus sharing the same memories as her. "I dreamt music" And also the large numbers of photoes on the piano! Just to mention a few of the hints. But maybe he was not, I don't really care, I think that it made it a better movie to leave this question open. Also I like the voiceover, the combination of the old Detective story/film and science fiction was brilliant and what made the film really special to me. So if the new 3 disc box does not contain a voiceover version, they can't sell it to me. I will just have to live with my old VHS copy.
Dekord wus not un repleekunt by GenoM	Jan 16th, 2003 09:46:16 PM
You guys don't get it! Deckard is obviously a closet homosexual. The dreamsequence is paramount here. The thorn of the unicorn is a phallus symbol. It represents Deckard's struggle to come out of the closet. Rachel is just a drag queen. Gaff was Deck's former lover. Remember the origami unicorn he leaves at Deck's apartment? How much proof do you want??? Replicant? Don't be ridiculous! The scene with Mary was cut because she knew Deckard liked to putt from the rough and was about to blow the lid on him. (No, I said the LID).
it is the question that's intriguing, not the answer by vellocet	Mar 16th, 2003 12:56:49 PM
I think that it's great that people don't necessarily get that Deckard is a replicant. It's thought provoking that such an ambiguous fact could change so much about the meaning of the movie. I mean watch BR (any version) thinking that Deckard isn't a replicant. And then watch it thinking he is... it's like two different movies. I think that it's a question that shouldn't be answered. I mean, regardless of whether you like the VO or not, we can all agree that we'd rather been left wondering if Rachel was going to live or not. That was definitely a question that should have remained unanswered. About the VO. I hadn't seen the original theatrical in a LONG time (I think I was 10 when I first saw it). And watch the directors cut a hundred times when it came out. I always thought that VO would add a lot. Renting the original... I think the VO sucked ass. But not because voiceover is bad, just THAT voiceover was bad. Maybe they could rewrite it? And rerecord it? The original VO was badly written, badly acted, and irrelevant.
Details about BLADE RUNNER THE SPECIAL EDITION! by zyrentarok	Jun 15th, 2003 04:30:47 PM
both versions of the film should definately be included. i really get annoyed with people who say "leave the narration out end of story!" it isn't up to anyone to dictate others' tastes! it's the movie that i saw in the theater that made it my favorite hollywood movie ever. the narration sets the tone. it isn't spoonfeeding info as many seem to ape that it is. the very opening provides BACKSTORY that can't be inferred from the film. i like the original version better. to me the director's cut seems empty. by the way, that wasn't a TRUE director's cut. it was handed off to scott at the very last minute. he didn't have the time he needed to REALLY make his own cut. cutting the ending, removing the narration and adding the unicorn weren't really huge changes. it was called director's cut, because that was "the buzzword" back in the early 90's when it was released. it was like slapping "turbo digital" onto the package and getting scott to autograph it really. there are two camps regarding narration. neither one is right, and neither one is wrong. i like original films best, warts and all. i'd love to see princess leah's "sombody's gotta save our @$$es!" and darth vader's "i shall return" reinstated into star wars. very few people probably even remember those lines anymore. as to the "is deckard a replicant?" debate, there are several clues to that conclusion if one looks at it from that point of view. back to the narration: "my wife used to call me sushi, cold fish" is an implanted memory that is used to detect replicants. it directly parallels: "you're at a banquet... the main course is RAW OYSTERS..." pretty close in my opinion. "if you're not cops, you're little people" means if you don't do your job, you're disposable. regarding the point someone brought up about deckard not liking his job. perhaps he's an older model "nexus 4". besides, replicants are highly likely to be disgruntled "employees" otherwise roy, pris, leon and zhora wouldn't have returned to earth. gaff isn't a replicant. he has a cane and severe acne scarring. he can't get offworld for unknown medical reasons. he does make the case clearer that deckard is a replicant though at the end of the movie when he leaves the oregami unicorn. he knows what deckard's implanted memories (and dreams) are just as deckard knew about the spider. at the end of the movie, that's why deckard nods, he realizes the truth about himself which is subtly reenforced with his "who does?" line about lifespan. one other point that makes the case is the artificial "animal" sounds we hear when he's in pain which are similar to pris' predatory sounds when "stalking" jf. i hope they release both versions to make EVERYONE happy, not just one side or the other. messing with the sound effects would be criminal though in my opinion. it would TOTALLY change the film. it ruins the awesome ambience the film already posseses. if it aint' broke... don't fix it. it would ruin the entire sci-fi vibe. besides, the film makes no mention of hydro power anywhere. maybe the sounds are electrical in nature. if the spinners can employ anti-gravity, then anything's possible. the film doesn't need that kind of updating. it was made in '82, NOT '02. it should stand as is. it's a classic. it doesn't need to be "colorized". despite it's age, it still holds up pretty well. it shouldn't be forced to conform to the future. that just dilutes it's original intent. i love the film that i saw in the theater in '82. i've always liked sci-fi best, and bladerunner blew EVERY sci-fi film ever made in the dust. to this day it's still THE movie to which new sci-fi needs to measure up to. i don't care for the revisionist director's cut anymore than it's proponents care for the narration. to each his own. 3 discs should make everyone happy.

Talkbacks

Details about BLADE RUNNER THE SPECIAL EDITION!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks