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.

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!

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.

Maybe we'll get the Directors cut of "A Good Year" where, in a drunken state, Maxi-pad slices Frenchies with stale bread?

"You'd be amazed at what some guys will go through to get a glimpse at a beautiful body."

Which reminds me, pillow, please send Ashley Judd over to do these f*cking dishes.

LEAVE THE FILMS ALONE AND RELEASE THEM.

Assclowns.

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?

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???).

There are strengths and weaknesses to both versions of the film. I'm just excited that we finally get an all encompassing set.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway I can't wait until the end of the year when this set *finally* sees the light of day.

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.

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.

And yes, it's a good bet that J Cassidy's reshoots are to address the continuity of the stuntwoman and the Esper hard copy photo. A world of difference between that and Lucas totally shitting all over Han Solo's character arc etc.

Now on glide path, over the landing threshold.

Right, I'm off down the pub.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now I'm going to add my PKD books to the re-read pile.

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

(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... http://tinyurl.com/y86l4c

Movie trivia, a friend of mine said the noodle cart person at the beginning was saying something like, "Four is too much! Please understand."