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

Footage From BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT Slices Onto The Internets!! See Adama Take A Crap On Metaphysics!!

First by Yeti	Jul 28th, 2007 06:02:47 PM
yay me!
cool by jimmy rabbitte	Jul 28th, 2007 06:02:55 PM
.
keep it ambiguous! by scratcher	Jul 28th, 2007 06:02:55 PM
Why spell it all out that he's definitely a replicant? How does that improve the film? Smells of Star Wars revisionism.
I'd certainly pay to see it on the big screen by Antz	Jul 28th, 2007 06:03:11 PM
Sounds great
HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!! by wackybantha	Jul 28th, 2007 06:03:33 PM
I WANT MORE LIFE!!!!!! BLEEPER!!!
Cries of Ridley Scott raped my childhood....? by UltraMeerkat	Jul 28th, 2007 06:04:21 PM
People who enjoying betting are offering favourables odds for this very talkback!
bunga by MinionX83	Jul 28th, 2007 06:05:02 PM
Sweet mother of crap this looks awesome! :)
@scratcher by UltraMeerkat	Jul 28th, 2007 06:06:08 PM
Why can't a director do what the fuck he wants with his own film? And even it he changes stuff in a way you don't like, why worry about it when you can just ignore it?
Reveries of unicorns don't imply replicants? by wintocha67	Jul 28th, 2007 06:07:03 PM
The interviewer doesn't understand, neither do I. Why? How? Huh?
The artwork looks like Sweeney Todd? by dtpena	Jul 28th, 2007 06:13:55 PM
That's odd
Meerkat by scratcher	Jul 28th, 2007 06:17:10 PM
Why worry about what people write in talkbacks when you can just ignore it? It's my opinion, which is what these forums are for. In the original I viewed the origami metal unicorn to be a metaphor for Rachael, meaning that Gaff appreciated that she was a unique living creature and he let her live out of respect for Dekker. My own opinion is that the film's message is stronger if Dekker represents humans. Besides, if he's a replicant, why does he pass the Voight-Kampff? Forgive my attachment to the original, but I saw it on opening night and probably more times since than any other film.
I can't BELIEVE they they got Harrison Ford. by MaxTheSilent	Jul 28th, 2007 06:19:48 PM
From what I've heard he's NEVER spoken of BLADE RUNNER.
correction by scratcher	Jul 28th, 2007 06:25:09 PM
Okay, so maybe I haven't actually watched the whole thing in a few years. On second thought he doesn't actually take the test, does he? Only Rachael and Leon do.
Amen, scratcher by monster2Bpitied	Jul 28th, 2007 06:26:23 PM
I'm with ya. It's one thing to re-edit a film to get a "Director's Cut", as when a picture has been put together with marketing concerns in mind, but can later be "fixed" to become the artistic work it should have been when first made. (For instance, I liked the elimination of the narration for this film.) But I hate the idea of shooting new footage years (or decades) later and inserting such material into a film. Even worse is the practice of lucasism - the addition of special effects not available back in the day the movie was made. Of course, "cleaning up" an old print is another matter. Restoring an aged movie is a far cry from remaking said movie. That being said, I would like to see a new cut of NIGHT OF THE LEPUS in which we see rabbits swarming over and devouring a few hapless Dewbacks.
I thought one of the points of the film was ... by wackybantha	Jul 28th, 2007 06:26:39 PM
....that humans and replicants are all living beings that deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Deckard being a human or a replicant is cool either way, however, if he is a replicant, as Ridley Scott says, then that justs underlines that replicants are the equals of humans. They are not sub-human.
Well, scratcher... by monster2Bpitied	Jul 28th, 2007 06:30:47 PM
My post was in reference to your first post -- I see now you like the original better than the Director's Cut. I find both views understandable, while maintaining that newly shot footage is beyond the pale!
Flawed film by lost.rules	Jul 28th, 2007 06:31:03 PM
But I still love it. Just cause of Ridley I reckon.
...electric sheep by Swiss Trev	Jul 28th, 2007 06:32:03 PM
I liked the original voice over - reminded me of the old private eye films from the forties/fifties.
masterpiece by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 28th, 2007 06:33:20 PM
can't wait
HEY MERRICK!!!!!! by wackybantha	Jul 28th, 2007 06:34:24 PM
That post to Digitalbits.com says that the DVD debuts on DECEMBER 18, 2007 and that the EXCLUSIVE NEW YORK, L.A. THEATRICAL LAUNCH is set for October 5, 2007. WHO IS RIGHT???? Hey, I live in Chicagoland. It better come here or I guess I'm off to THE BIG APPLE!!!
Now it's fixed by dtpena	Jul 28th, 2007 06:34:52 PM
fyi
I meant to say that LINK to digitalbits. by wackybantha	Jul 28th, 2007 06:35:08 PM
Oopsie!!!
besides, how does it make sense? by scratcher	Jul 28th, 2007 06:36:15 PM
Why would Dekker be a replicant anyway? Did they replace a human officer with a replicant? At what point? Why would they do it? Why would he be so inferior to Roy or Pris? Why wouldn't Tyrell recognize him? If Gaff knew that he was a replicant, why didn't anyone else, like Bryant? It doesn't seem to fit. Why can't the unicorn in Dekker's dream also represent Rachael, and the recurrence simply be a great metaphor?
wackybantha by Merrick	Jul 28th, 2007 06:41:27 PM
The DVD is in December; the NYC/LA theatrical release is Oct 5. My mix-up...thanks for asking.
monster by scratcher	Jul 28th, 2007 06:43:37 PM
I like both the original and his version that removed the VO. I don't really get why he had to shoot the window-crashing scene again, but I'm willing to give that a chance. It's just the removal of ambiguity about Dekker that bothers me, because it significantly alters the film's interpretation.
Most from BBC Doc "On the Edge of Blade Runner" by avmerlyn	Jul 28th, 2007 06:44:59 PM
You can probably see it on You-tube or download a torrent. I guess they'll try to add some more junk to beef it up for this new DVD.
region 2 by DyceyDarko	Jul 28th, 2007 06:45:11 PM
is the suitcase coming out in england? i wants it so bad i would risk syphallis to own it... and yes, that does mean i am willing to suck and awful lot of meat logs to get it
Can't wait to see it on the big screen by SpencerTrilby	Jul 28th, 2007 06:46:52 PM
and that comes from someone who HATES Blade Runner. Yeah, I said it...
scratcher by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 28th, 2007 06:47:07 PM
it's still ambiguous though. They're not coming out and definitively saying he is a replicant. Ridley Scott believes he is. Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer both believe he's human. Take your side and argue away. It's 1992 all over again!!
avmerlyn by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 28th, 2007 06:49:23 PM
No this is all completely new footage, Charles de Lauzirika conducted all the new interviews. It is not a rehash of the Channel 4 doc. This doc is 210 minutes long. The Channel 4 doc was 50 mins long.
Sequel talk? by d1138	Jul 28th, 2007 06:51:47 PM
Bad, bad idea, I think... though wasn't there once talk of a movie set in the same 'universe'? Anyway : http://tinyurl.com/yqbw7p
Doc clips by tig.Valen	Jul 28th, 2007 07:03:03 PM
The clips shown were from the Channel 4 doc 'Edge of Blade Runner'. It must be included in the whole documentry package.
So if Deckard is a replicant, by Dr Gonzo	Jul 28th, 2007 07:03:18 PM
Than his boss would obviously know this. Was Deckard implanted with memories of being a blade runner in order to round up any escapees? Was he one of the escapees? There was one not accounted for. Well anyway, awesome movie.
blade runner by Dollar Bird	Jul 28th, 2007 07:10:50 PM
I just watched this movie last night for the umpteenth time, by coincidence. I never liked that Scott was sure that Dekkar was a replicant. I like the ambiguity, like several of you have voiced. I first watched it when my dad bought the extra long more-blood-more-breasts-more-P ris-freaking-out-after-being-s hot VHS version in the mid 80s. That was a father-son moment if there ever was one. I just wish the groovy, blue, neon everywhere Struzan cover was on the 4 disk set. I like that more than the old movie poster.
You can't blame Scott for having an opinion. by Dr Gonzo	Jul 28th, 2007 07:20:25 PM
Even if a director wants to make something ambiguous, he still has his own vision. If you think Deckard is a human, than he is. The director can't tell you otherwise. Art is to be interpreted by the person viewing it.
if Deckard is a replicant... by newc0253	Jul 28th, 2007 07:28:20 PM
it shits on the whole contrast between Rutger Hauer's ubermensch and Deckard's weakling antics at the end. Then again, it makes sense that Ridley Scott would make a movie smarter than he was.
The Definitive Version ... by Thunderbolt Ross	Jul 28th, 2007 07:29:23 PM
... was the first theatrical release. If it ain't broke ... Ridley Scott talking about this "clever" idea that Deckard is a replicant, reminds me of "we can turn BEANS into PEAS". Wow nice job making a semi-sophisticated comment on the nature of humanity into a cheap gotcha gimmick. Boo! Boo! Most of the time it's best if the artist gets to do what they want but let's face it, in the case of Blade Runner, a little studio tampering went a long way.
I don't care by flossygomez	Jul 28th, 2007 07:32:39 PM
whether he's a replicant or not, to me it's an incredibly dull subject. The thing that grabs me is the world Ridley created...because as sad and melancholy and damaged as it is, it is beautiful and I want to live there.
I'll take the briefcase for 79.98, Alex. by m.dung	Jul 28th, 2007 07:34:06 PM
Fuck yeah! In my top 5 all time. Been waitin' for this since??? Wake up, time to die!!!
I just pre ordered mine.. by disfigurehead	Jul 28th, 2007 07:36:20 PM
I'm getting the briefcase, Hells yeah
Hmmm by Thunderbolt Ross	Jul 28th, 2007 07:37:17 PM
The production design is fantastic of course (credit to Scott? I don't know about that), but the good thing about Blade Runner is that it manages to be more than just eye candy. I can't see how him being a replicant or not is dull. It's not the mystery of his true identity that intrigues, but rather how his identity impacts the themes of the film. And it impacts them fundamentally, in my opinion. There couldn't be more at stake.
Would love to see a remake.... by Gorrister	Jul 28th, 2007 07:38:14 PM
...but only if it stayed true to the original novel. I liked a lot of the ideas that were dropped in favor of the movie script. Mind you, I love the movie too. But I'd love to see a faithful adaptation.
Will this be the 'perfect' version I've always wanted? by performingmonkey	Jul 28th, 2007 07:39:56 PM
There are a few things that slightly fuck up Blade Runner that if removed or changed really would make it the all-time classic we all know it deserves to be.
The first time I saw Blade Runner, I hated it, and... by The Dum Guy	Jul 28th, 2007 07:41:59 PM
Thought it was boring, because I was expecting some sort of action movie, but with sci-fi elements. Of course I was eleven years-old and over time it is one of my favorite movies, I even found an old VHS copy of the original theatrical presentation at a pawn shop, for like two bucks. Now, if I buy the deluxe edition of this one, I think I'll have duplicates of my old VHS and DVDs of it, oh well.
Remember the Blade Runner PC game? by ScamsAndFlams	Jul 28th, 2007 07:42:35 PM
It was fucking fantastic. Must have come out like 98-99, somewhere around there. Just thought of it.
I'm fine with the Director's Cut, no need for more by Demosthenes2	Jul 28th, 2007 07:45:34 PM
I just have this bad feeling that this is going to be like the Star Wars Special Editions. The new Joanna Cassidy stuff will probably look really out of place, what with her being 25 years older and all. If they're doing that de-aging CGI they did with X-Men 3, well, it looked really awkward in that movie... What's the point of updating the effects work and adding new footage to sci-fi movies? Let them speak for their time and also show their place in FX history.
There was one not accounted for. by jbs0209	Jul 28th, 2007 07:46:11 PM
Dr Gonzo: The one not accounted for was a "Mary" (IIRC) that was a house wife model. She got dropped (never shot) due to budget issues. The scene where Deckard's Boss mentions here was shot prior to her removal and never corrected.
There is a reason I have held off buying Blade Runner by Grando	Jul 28th, 2007 07:46:14 PM
and this is it. I fucking love that film, mutha-fucka! Bring on the ultra version beotch!
Joanna - New scenes? by m.dung	Jul 28th, 2007 07:54:41 PM
I was about to say that there isn't enough bondo on this planet to make her look good after seeing her stint on SFU. Her Youtube clip didn't look bad. Then again, I've had more than a few tonight.
Saw the Director's Cut at the Paramount... by TheRealSeveren	Jul 28th, 2007 08:06:12 PM
here in Austin at a dbl feature with 2001 a few years back. Makes it pretty obvious that Deckard is a replicant. If he is though then why does he get his asked kicked by Rutger Hauer? That's what makes that fight so good...a human wouldnt have a chance and Deckard would have been a dead man if Rutger hadnt expired.
Here we go... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 28th, 2007 08:07:25 PM
If you grew up watching the Theatrical Version (or whatever other versions that don't include the unicorn dream) Deckard is NOT a Replicant. It's that simple. Gaff's little token is nothing more than a message that says he knows about Rachel and that she and Deckard are together. (One might even go so far as to say that as a fellow cop, he's giving Deckard a chance.) If Scott wants to continue dropping the ambiguous concept of the unicorn, that's fine. However, for Deckard to be a Replicant goes against the central theme/conflict of the movie and leaves a LOT of unanswered questions and inconsistencies in the film. Regardless, it's still one Hell of a movie.
The Joanna / Zhora Scenes by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 28th, 2007 08:14:42 PM
From what I've read and understand, these reshoots were done simply to digitally replace the more than obvious stunt-double that appears in the street shooting scene (which always kind of stuck out like a sore thumb). Apparently, the end result is quite remarkable in its seemlessness. I don't believe I've heard of any other major revisions. Anyone heard othewise?
The original book? by Underdogthe3rd	Jul 28th, 2007 08:15:32 PM
Anyone who read the Do the Androids dreams... (I forgot the rest), answer please. In that, Deckard it is or not a robot?
Ohhhhh, do I want that little suitcase... by Alonzo Mosely	Jul 28th, 2007 08:15:43 PM
It has a signed 'letter' from Sir Ridley Scott, I hope it is a letter to his plumber requesting he explain the outrageous bill, or something equally great... However it will probably be a letter saying how great Blade Runner is and thanks for the $75...
He can be a replicant and the message can still work by Dr Gonzo	Jul 28th, 2007 08:20:24 PM
It's just meaningfull on an additional level, especially if Decakard doesn't know he's a replicamt.
? by Wee Willie	Jul 28th, 2007 08:38:27 PM
Why would the LAPD hire a replicant to kill replicants? They'd be violating the very laws they're trying to uphold. Makes no sense and adds nothing significant to the themes of the film. Although I might explain Ford's sumnombulistic performance.
Tarantino by Wee Willie	Jul 28th, 2007 08:40:20 PM
One this I love about Tarantino is how he said he'd never do a director's cut of his movies because the film you saw in theatres was the film he wanted to make. Going back and re-editing old movies is like a man eating his own asshole. Let's move on. They should remake Blade Runner using CG effects, starring Ashton Kutcher as Rick Deckard.
Underdogthe3rd....Of Electric Sheep by Wyrdy the Gerbil	Jul 28th, 2007 08:43:01 PM
In the book Deckhard is definately NOT a replicant
Blade Runner was the first R-rated film I watched by QuinnTheEskimo	Jul 28th, 2007 08:54:05 PM
So it holds a special place in my heart. I just want to say that the restored video over on yahoo looks spectacular. I didn't think this film would ever look that good.
Fucken wow by LittleDudes	Jul 28th, 2007 09:10:14 PM
VK Suitcase for the win http://little-dudes.co.nz/word s/blade_runner__final_cut
Briefcase on Amazon 30% off by Maceox	Jul 28th, 2007 09:30:27 PM
54 dollars baby, preorder away.
THIRD UNICORN. by Lutz	Jul 28th, 2007 09:30:46 PM
There is a third unicorn that is in all versions of the movie on JF Sebastians desk when he is asleep (dreaming?), since we know JF does design on the replicants this is another hint Deckard is a replicant (It is there on the top right hand corner of the screen when he is asleep at his desk just after Pris paints her panda-eyes).
wyrdy the Gerbil is right... by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 09:37:19 PM
Deckard is not a replicant or android (the word replicant is not even in the book). The adaptation was very loose. The very notion that Deckard is a replicant is Scott's personal hobby horse, and was never in the script. As director, Scott has the final say, but neither Dick's nor any of the screenwriters' version of the story had Deckard as anything other than human.
Wee Willie... by slapshot	Jul 28th, 2007 09:40:30 PM
...why wouldn't they send a replicant to kill the escapees? They must know Roy is in the batch that got loose, they know he's just gonna kill any human cop they send after him; why not send Dek-the-Rep after him? If he kills a cop, we've lost a man; if he kills an unwitting replicant, eh, we can always order another one...
Still want a move of "Do Androids..." by ZeroCorpse	Jul 28th, 2007 09:43:32 PM
Blade Runner is great, but it's NOT "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and I think a loyal version would be nice to see. Oh, wait... This is Hollywood we're talking about. The same Hollywood that cast Will "Aw Hell Naww" Smith as Neville in the vampire-less "I Am Legend." AND the meaningless "I, Robot".. Nevermind. The book is obviously over Hollywood's head.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe." by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 28th, 2007 09:44:54 PM
It would be a shame for the significance of that statement to be lost on a non-human now wouldn't it?
Well it was in somebody's script... by slapshot	Jul 28th, 2007 09:47:44 PM
From the August issue of Empire, with 20 pages devoted to Blade Runner, and an exclusive interview with Harrison Ford: "I thought we'd settled that replicant issue early on, before we began filming... I thought that I had secured Ridley's agreement about Deckard not being a replicant before we started. But he must have still had some reservations about that. Or maybe Ridley wanted to have it both ways." 20 pages of great stuff, well worth the ten bucks...
slapshot, get the Paul Gammon book Future Noir... by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 09:53:01 PM
...for the full story. This all started because Hampton Fancher's script had a scene in which Deckard contemplates his own mortality and muses that he's not all that different from Batty, that "in a way, we were brothers." Scott took that literally, but it was never the intention of Fancher or David Peoples. Dick's book (which is full of dry humour that is totally not in the movie) has a very funny scene in which a fellow cop suspects Deckard of being an android, but it's 100% clear that he's not.
Replicants ARE human. by wackybantha	Jul 28th, 2007 09:53:30 PM
But they were made in a lab.
bacci40 -that's closer to the truth... by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 09:55:26 PM
...However Dick never intended it to be taken literally.
The Most Subtle Thing in the Movie is... by Queefer Bukkake	Jul 28th, 2007 09:55:26 PM
when Deckard is looking at Rachel's "family photo" and for a moment it comes alive. It's very brief, and you can also hear children laughing. It's a little genius touch that some people seem not to notice.
Oh, and I didn't like the narration because by Queefer Bukkake	Jul 28th, 2007 09:57:40 PM
it was so lifeless. Ford sounded like he was on Benadryl or something. And I really didn't like it when his narration interrupted Roy's death scene. I mean, right in the middle of this great and touching moment. I almost broke my jaw gritting my teeth when I first saw that...
Ford allegedly gave a bad narration on purpose... by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 09:59:01 PM
...because he didn't want it to be used.
i read somewhere that by lucid dreamstate	Jul 28th, 2007 10:01:23 PM
blade runner would be released this year in theaters. i hope they decide to open it in others cities besides new york and l.a. has anyone heard that it might be released nationwide? if this has been covered already, then i guess i will be crucified on here.
Mr. Nice Gaius by mr. brownstone	Jul 28th, 2007 10:02:37 PM
The difference is Batty doesn't know Deckard is a replicant and neither does Deckard.
yes the blade runner game as awesome by ulcer	Jul 28th, 2007 10:02:57 PM
yes the blade runner game, from WestWood Studio, as awesome I remember the scenes of the movie much better because of the hours spend inside them in the game. It was a point-and-click game
About bloody time! by Bulvai	Jul 28th, 2007 10:05:03 PM
Incredible! Been waiting for this for too many years. At least they're doing it up right.
unicorn proof by bootle2	Jul 28th, 2007 10:05:05 PM
The proof is not that he's daydreaming about unicorns. The proof is that adama KNOWS he does this, as shown by the origami.
PS, merrick blows goat nads by bootle2	Jul 28th, 2007 10:05:40 PM
quit your job merrick, and quit BREATHING!!!
fuck the director's cut by sammylou	Jul 28th, 2007 10:07:58 PM
I liked the theatrical cut better cause Ford's narration was awesome
bootle2 by lucid dreamstate	Jul 28th, 2007 10:14:24 PM
good point about the origami. i am going to rewatch my d.v.d. tomorrow. this post has me interested in watching the movie again. i hope they release it nationwide. one of the greatest sci-fi films.
about Ford's narration by Carn82	Jul 28th, 2007 10:14:30 PM
(according to the ever so reliable wiki) After Steven Spielberg praised Ford and showed some Raiders rushes to Deeley and Scott they hired Ford. Due to the initially poor reception of Blade Runner and friction with Scott, Ford has usually avoided discussing the film, but on July 5, 2007, he revealed, "When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests." Personally, the first version of BR Ive seen was the Directors Cut, the "original theatrical version" is definitely a lesser movie from my perspective.
mr. brownstone by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 28th, 2007 10:15:56 PM
I can only say that if you're watching a cut of the film without the unicorn dream, he's not a Replicant. It would only be significant to you, the viewer, if you have this information (subsequently knowing that the characters do not).
is deckard a replicant in by lucid dreamstate	Jul 28th, 2007 10:18:04 PM
the original source material? i haven't read it yet. how did philip k. dick address the situation in the book? is it mentioned?
How I love this film by Lornsorrow	Jul 28th, 2007 10:18:49 PM
and allllllll the controversy and debate it has birthed. Truly a great film, great atmosphere, great pacing, great acting, great everything. I don't know how many times I've seen it, both clear headed and in altered states marijuana consciousness. I also drove down and saw the "Director's Cut" in the theater in LA back in the early 90's. So, I just ordered the Briefcase with the 5 discs. Done deal! I also highly recommend the book mentioned above written by Paul Sammon (It's Sammon, not Gammon), "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner".
lornsorrow... by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 10:20:46 PM
Thanks for the correction - I don't know why I wrote Gammon. It's a very interesting book.
Damn by Birdys Piano Teacher	Jul 28th, 2007 10:21:45 PM
I like the cover art for the 2 Disc Set because it's Drew Struzan, but I want the whole lot.
i'd suck two dick for a flying car, straight up by gride9000	Jul 28th, 2007 10:22:37 PM
seriously, do you feel me on this one? Even if they said I just had to suck one dick, I'd say "No sir, that flying car is worth two dicks sucked."
what is ridley scott's definitive vision? by lucid dreamstate	Jul 28th, 2007 10:24:00 PM
narration or no narration?
hey wtf by Dkev00	Jul 28th, 2007 10:24:04 PM
Ridley swiped that unicorn scene from Legend, one of his other movies.
lucid dreamstate... by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 10:24:20 PM
In the novel, Deckard is definitely not a replicant. For one thing, the word "replicant" is never used in the novel. For another, it's obvious that Deckard is very much human in all that that entails. He's almost a bit of a nebbish in the book, and there is no question of him running off with Rachael. In fact, he ends up going back to his wife.
thanks wookie by lucid dreamstate	Jul 28th, 2007 10:28:07 PM
i have watched the film maybe twice. i am going to read the novel soon. philip k. dick is not easy for me to get into. i like the films based on his literature, but the books don't grab me initially like isaac asimov or stephen king's books do. i need to read this one though.
in the book replicants were by Noddy93	Jul 28th, 2007 10:38:47 PM
in the book replicants were androids. less human than replicants but more so than robots. "more human than human is our motto" there were mulitples of each model and Deckard was not mentioned as being anything other than human. the movie and book are quite different... equally great, but different. I would dearly love to have a movie based more on the novel. the entire religiosity in the book is spell-binding.
Scott said Dekard definately is a replicant in the by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies	Jul 28th, 2007 10:41:51 PM
C4 Documentary. Just another reason why Scott sucks these days. Ambiguity about Dekard is one of the things that makes BR such a great film.
In the book. by Lutz	Jul 28th, 2007 10:48:47 PM
They have a bone marrow test that proves conclusively if someone is an android or not, Deckard is tested and tests as a human.
replicant or not by scratcher	Jul 28th, 2007 10:50:03 PM
Either way it's an amazing film. Crazy that it didn't do well on release. I remember thinking it was the greatest film ever when I saw it, and then talking to someone who hated it because it was raining all the time. Sheesh. Fantastic designs by Syd Mead as well. Just imagine: Tron and Blade Runner in the same summer, and both were buried by E.-fucking-T.. Ugh.
lucid - he's definitely an aquired taste. by wookie1972	Jul 28th, 2007 10:50:40 PM
You have to understand that the novel takes a very different path than the movie. Many of the characters are completely different- much more than in, say Lord Of The Rings. Book-Deckard and movie-Deckard are not the same in the least.
Can't! Wait! by LaserPants	Jul 28th, 2007 10:53:10 PM
I need this DVD like yesterday. Its a work of sheer brilliance and aching beauty. Love it!!! Easily one of greatest films ever made.
4 versions in HD by Mace Tofu	Jul 28th, 2007 11:05:09 PM
+ Toys! = I'm sold. : )
scratcher by jfp2007	Jul 28th, 2007 11:30:35 PM
There's no arguing...Decker is a replicant. Ridley Scott right out and said it...he is a Replicant.
wookie1972 by jfp2007	Jul 28th, 2007 11:31:57 PM
Ford didn't give a bad narration "on purpose." The man is being paid and whether he wants to do it or not has jack and shit to do with it. If he didn't do it the way Scott or whoever wanted it then he'd be fired.
Queefer Bukkake by jfp2007	Jul 28th, 2007 11:33:46 PM
The narration is supposed to sound "lifeless." It's a Noir and narration in Films Noir is supposed to sound like that. They almost always do and always will.
Monster. Lucasism & Deckard as replicant by half vader	Jul 28th, 2007 11:47:36 PM
isn't the practice of using new techniques, it's the practice of withdawing the prints of the original version of the film so no-one can see them again (as different to the laserdisc transfer on sub-par non-anamorphic DVD) ever. WHile also sitting on boards supporting the restoration and upkeep of classic films as timecapsules, making sure they're AVAILABLE to the public, whatever the subsequent opinion of the filmmaker. To me, THAT'S Lucasism. At least we're getting the different cuts here, nothing's being pulled forever. However one thing I don't understand with DVD and especially now with high-def, is why almost everyone barr Cameron keeps putting them on different discs rather tham seamless branching??? Is it that the jumps and load times are still too damn slow? And just in general, why can't replicants be different to each other? Everyone keeps going on about Deckard not having the same abilities, but replicants can be and are specialised in the movie. I love the irony of the police force using a replicant as it's logical to assume they'd be "the best" and have that old "magic" in tracking them down - but why would a detective be stronger rather than smarter? Especially as it makes SENSE you don't want him to know he's a replicant. We know Bryant is a 'small' man and the brass wouldn't let him in on something like that, and Gaff's unicorn is still consistent with his other origami 'comments' in the film. If that's the way you choose to see it. The lack of emotion is a nice metaphor, whether he's human or replicant. So is the film having them be flesh and blood, not androids. These are all things that in my small opinion give the film life and room for rumination after it finishes (not 'ends'). The best flicks have a life outside themselves in terms of their themes (as opposed to the literal idea of what actually went on). The lines are more blurry and the central question of what is it to be human that much stronger as a result. Deckard may be detached, but in the end his 'link' to Rachel is more human than human. ;) I hate that Scott says outright "he's a replicant" - for someone who's such a showman it seems weirdly out of character. I love the idea however that Deckard MAY be one. That bit of ambiguity makes all the difference in the world to me. That he PROBABLY is, not just "he is". After all, the very next shot after the unicorn is Deckard 'fixing' the sideways (!) photo - the 'manufactured memory' of one of the replicants. HOWEVER if you choose to view it with Rachel in mind, it makes sense that he is thinking about her in both these instances too. As for that unicorn shot, how many fucking takes to get the horse to shake its head like that right as it exits frame/on the cut? Beautiful, whether you like it there, in Legend (man, haven't seen that for ages), or not at all. Sorry for the enormous rant. I could talk the leg off a chair.
Climbing walls with broken fingers?? by Billyeveryteen	Jul 29th, 2007 12:01:23 AM
Replicant. It's why Roy knew Deckard's name.
JFP by half vader	Jul 29th, 2007 12:04:10 AM
As quoted Ford did vehemently disagree with the naration. And while yes his character may be tired and lifeless that's lucky for Ford who absolutely didn't want to be there, so both things are sort of true. Especially as narration is done in POST ("he'd be fired!") like ADR. Read that book for Ford's state of mind at the end of the shoot. Then he was asked to do something that both he AND Scott didn't want. Sure he fulfilled his contractural obligation, but wasn't happy about it, hence all that followed. Why is it all or nothing with you guys? Same with you Scratcher, I like much of what you said here, but why do you have to show you love BR and Tron - by trashing E.T.? For crying out loud man! Oh I meant to say before that Scott saying he is and ambiguity in the film can ALSO co-exist. Those comments exist outside the film (thank God).
New SFX means that Zhora shot first by Smash Drama	Jul 29th, 2007 12:12:17 AM
Which is what George Lucas, I mean Ridley Scott, intended to happen all along. Now the saga is complete.
Ford said: by Jack Colby	Jul 29th, 2007 12:27:03 AM
That the narration was in the original script he had to work with, and if Deckard had been intended to be a replicant he would have played the role differently. I trust him, and think it's revisionist history by Ridley at work when he claims he never intended the narration and wanted Deckard to be a replicant. If there is proof to the contrary I'll accept it, though.
You idiots defending the narration are pathetic. by Queefer Bukkake	Jul 29th, 2007 12:43:11 AM
Even Ford didn't like it. Anybody with a brain can see how unnecessary it was. The studio put it in expressley for ignorant moviegoers. It would appear some of them are in this talkback...
I hate the new unicorn scene!!! by My Ass Smells	Jul 29th, 2007 12:48:02 AM
Why did Ridley feel the need to change it? It went from Deckard having a drunken dream to Deckard looking like he was remembering it?
jfp2007 by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 12:50:17 AM
The director is only one part of a film. None of the writers said that he was a replicant (read the interview in Empire), Ford said he wasn't a replicant, and Philip K. Dick meant for him to be human. Unless Ridley's filmed a new shot where someone rips Deckard's face off ala Yul Brenner and reveals circuitry, it's still up to interpretation. Read Barthes: once the piece is created, even the author loses control of the ultimate meaning.
Totally Hot Sean Young with another..... by smajors	Jul 29th, 2007 12:57:23 AM
I am here at comic con and went to a few parties and i swear to god i saw sean young --still HOT btw VERY COZY with this other hot chick. i asked the guy i was with who she was and he told me it was pkd's daughter!!!! I wasnt even smokin anything..i swear its true--more PLZZZZ
HAHAHAHA by mr_sinister7381	Jul 29th, 2007 12:58:12 AM
That DVD set is so over the top it made me laugh out loud when I scrolled down to it. Holy fucking overkill. BLADE RUNNER is a classic and all, but jesus...
scratcher by half vader	Jul 29th, 2007 01:29:05 AM
Although if he pulled his face off there'd be blood and brains and stuff under there, remember? Eww.
Just recently by Doctor Phibes	Jul 29th, 2007 01:30:12 AM
I actually just saw this film for the first time. I guess it was just one of those situation where I'd "meant to" see it for so long but never "gotten around to it." I watched the version without the narration and it was good but I think I'll like this version better. And I so hope you're right about the theater release!
New Resident Evil trailer in HD by PezQ	Jul 29th, 2007 02:34:09 AM
...over at Yahoo.com tsekiii
Blade Runner is a masterpiece but Ridley is wrong by whytee	Jul 29th, 2007 02:34:48 AM
Deckard is not a replicant. Sure, maybe that's Ridley's interpretation, but Philip K. Dick's work is visionary for a reason. There are things rippling beneath the surface of everything he wrote. I love Ridley; he's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, but he needs to cede this point. The least he can do, out of respect for Dick, is to leave it ambiguous.
In this set everyone wins! by Sledge Hammer	Jul 29th, 2007 02:41:07 AM
I'm amazed to see any level of negativity about this release to be honest. Prefer the original theatrical realease? You got it. The slightly longer European release, yep that's here too. Think the 90's Directors Cut was the shit? It's here for your viewing pleasure. Curious about the fabled workprint? Go for the five disc edition and you can have that too. And on top of all this there's a new cut of the film included, which good or bad, will no doubt make fascinating viewing to see Scott's take on Blade Runner reflected at this point in his life and career. And the best of the lot? No single version of the film has been thrown away or deemed as being irrelevant. On top of all that you have a brand new 3 hour plus doco, 45 minutes worth of deleted scenes, and other features out the wazoo. How could any Blade Runner fan of any version of Blade Runner not be happy with such a complete and awesome dvd set? Plus it's being released in stages so that you can just buy the new cut, or just buy an edition with all four major version, for those that don't want to go the full hardcore specially packaged set route. They couldn't have done better by Blade Runner fans, and still there's bitching. Sheesh. Add to which, if your greatest complaint is that Ridley Scott dares to have an opinion these days on whether or not Deckard is a replicant, then grow the fuck up already. Art is subjective, therefore the only opinion that should really matter to you is your own, unless you're some kind of (electric) sheep, following popular opinion. If you believe Deckard is a replicant, then he is. If you believe him to be human, then he is. That's the beauty of ambiguity and interpretation. And if this new version is less ambiguous in a certain direction, then that still doesn't negate the ambiguity of previous versions or the impression you personally took from them. My opinion anyway. Personally I'm a hardcore Blade Runner fan, so I already have the briefcase set pre-ordered, the first time I've ever pre-ordered anything this far in advance. December can't come soon enough.
The unicorn scene has been completely changed! by My Ass Smells	Jul 29th, 2007 02:44:46 AM
The unicorn scene is completely different. The piano keys Deckard plays has been changed. Ridley's new edit with new close-ups of Harrison's face now makes it seem like a daydream instead of a drunken dream. They removed the short pan of the top of the piano showing all the old photographs. The obvious change was the new added unicorn scene. The color of dream has been changed from yellow to blue/white. Plus the entire dream is now with sound effects. From the stomping of the feet, the horse yell, and that lighthouse noise. Youtube the original on youtube and compare!
You Idiots! He's a Fucking Replicant! by Queefer Bukkake	Jul 29th, 2007 03:16:51 AM
I don't fucking care if Dick had it differently in the book. In the movie, Deckard is a fucking replicant. Jesus Christ what a bunch of crybabies. It's Ridley's movie, not yours, and he says Deckard is a replicant, and now there are obvious signs that he is. Live with it already.
The only thing missing from that briefcase by BenBraddock	Jul 29th, 2007 03:33:39 AM
is a pair of Rachael's panties, it would seem. Looks great in other words, though I'm gonna have to go with the 4-disc, though, which will actually fit in my bookcase. As for the new version, I hope they fixed the see-through flying cars etc, and replaced the truck-driver-in-a-wig stunt double for Zhora. And yeah, Joanna Cassidy is now MILF hot, didn't anyone here watch "Six Feet Under"?!
it makes no sense that he is a replicant by Colonel_Blimp	Jul 29th, 2007 03:42:01 AM
Can anyone come up with a single reason why deckard should be a replicant. And no, i dont mean "cause Ridley says so, and it's Ridley's movie". Bullshit. Someone else quoted Barthes here, and he's absolutely right. The birth of the reader is paid for by the death of the author. And i dont mean "proof" like adama knows about the unicorn dream. I mean HOW DOES IT SERVE THE STORY AND THE THEMES OF THE MOVIE THAT DECKARD IS A REPLICANT? Except for it being a tacked on twist, what purpose does it serve? It makes much more sense that deckard is human. for one, the love story between rachel and deckard is much less poignant if they're both the same "species", and the contrast between batty and deckard is nullified. Batty, being synthetic, displays much more human traits and emotion than the monotone (and non synthetic) deckard does. ie. batty is "more human than human" - which is a pretty darn important point in the movie's theme of what makes us human. don't get me wrong, I'm all for ambiugity, but don't spell it out! who want's to see a movie of a robot hunting down other robots and then falling in love with another robot? pointless. unless they are gigantic robots from outer space and transform, of course. that would be awesome.
Unicorn = Replicant? by MattmanReturns	Jul 29th, 2007 03:49:30 AM
No one would have ever known that the unicorn symbolized Harrison being a replicant without Ridley specifically stating he is, over and over. This is lazy storytelling, and everyone knows it. When the directory constantly has to explain what it means, it's lazy. Dreaming of a unicorn is just not good enough.
Oops by MattmanReturns	Jul 29th, 2007 03:50:21 AM
Dirctory = Director. I'm a little buzzed.
This talkback is homosexual by Doc_Strange	Jul 29th, 2007 03:52:48 AM
Replicant, not a replicant. Narration, no narration. Both versions of the movie are in there and people are going to be happy with either one. Everyone wins.
It Doesn't Matter if it Makes Sense! by Queefer Bukkake	Jul 29th, 2007 03:58:02 AM
The whole thing is science fiction and doesn't make any sense. Look, morons, Ridley Scott made the movie. Ridley is now stating it is his intention that Deckard is a replicant. Sorry if you don't want to accept that. But the creator of the film has told us what it all means. Too fucking bad if it doesn't "serve the story" in your opinion. Jesus Christ, grow up. It ain't your movie, it's Ridley's. Lord, what a pathetic bunch of people. I refuse to come back here and expose myself to all this whiney fucking idiocy. Have fun fucking your moms, fanboys!
Workprint by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 29th, 2007 03:59:18 AM
Wow. I never even noticed the workprint is on the 5 disc set. That's def the one to buy then.
Im glad Ridley didn't make ZHORA SHOOT FIRST. by DoctorWho?	Jul 29th, 2007 04:02:06 AM
Didn't really need the 2 skanks in the Go-Go booth though.
Holy friggin cow! WOW! by Motoko Kusanagi	Jul 29th, 2007 04:13:36 AM
Must. Have.
kiddae by kiddae	Jul 29th, 2007 04:35:43 AM
So wait, whats IN the four disc set? Does it include the remastered Director's Cut that was released as a single disc a little while ago?
THE SUBJECT IS MY USER NAME by kiddae	Jul 29th, 2007 04:37:13 AM
I am an idiot.
My favourite film of all time looks better than ever! by HarryBlackPotter	Jul 29th, 2007 04:38:50 AM
Christmas can't come quick enough.
I am an idiot part 2. by kiddae	Jul 29th, 2007 04:39:40 AM
Oh, it's all at the link. Sorry. Okay, so now my question is: how the heck did they fit three cuts of the film onto one disc?
IRON MAN FOOTAGE by elohel	Jul 29th, 2007 04:47:54 AM
http://tinyurl.com/2vpjaf
Same Universe by Rolnikov	Jul 29th, 2007 04:53:10 AM
d1138 mentioned above talk of another movie in the same universe - that was Soldier. There were references to the same stuff Roy mentioned in his speech about outer space, and some of the cars from Blade Runner were supposed to be visible among all the junk on the planet Kurt Russell gets dumped on. There were a couple of sequel novels by KW Jeter. And the tv series, Total Recall 2070, was much more like a Blade Runner series than a Total Recall one.
Col Blimp by half vader	Jul 29th, 2007 05:01:32 AM
I thought I did! I put forth a reason I thought was fair anyway. Obviously posts over 6 lines never get read. At least that simpleton Queefer is gone (off to fuck his mum I guess as it was he that mentioned it after all). Why can TBers not grasp the concept that we can exist in a world where both the film is ambiguous about Deckard's being one or the other AND, OUTSIDE the reality of the film, Scott believes unequivocally that he is?! One does NOT discount the other in this case (unless he has extra footage I haven't seen where Ford looks at the camera and says, "Hey folks! I'm a replicant!")! That's like Scratcher and his comment about E.T. The world can handle them BOTH being good, or one being successful & the other not. What's with TBers and everything having to be "good cop, bad cop"? Aaaarrgghh!
I hate this movie by Andy Warhol Jr	Jul 29th, 2007 05:14:35 AM
Never liked it, never will.
half vader by Colonel_Blimp	Jul 29th, 2007 05:14:52 AM
i read your post, but while your points rationalize that Deck could be a replicant from a logical POV, you don't (IMO) justify him being a replicant from a narrative/thematic POV. I agree on your other point though (the one not discounting the other bit).
E.T. vs. Blade Runner by Colonel_Blimp	Jul 29th, 2007 05:17:54 AM
I'm fairly certain had E.T. not existed the box office for Blade Runner would still remain pretty much the same. It's not excactly like the two competed in the same demographic.
The Blade Runner PC game by Motoko Kusanagi	Jul 29th, 2007 05:31:59 AM
was truly a great adventure game. Came out in November 1997. Always hoped for a sequel.
E.T. vs. Blade Runner by Motoko Kusanagi	Jul 29th, 2007 05:33:44 AM
They didn't exactly compete, but the moviegoing audience were much more in the mood for cute, dumb, light sci-fi entertainment than for dark, gritty sci-fi.
Blade Runner is good, but too cold by CuervoJones	Jul 29th, 2007 06:24:42 AM
and i prefer the studio´s cut.
Blade Runner alright but kinda dull-ish. by TomBodet	Jul 29th, 2007 06:27:15 AM
Again-NOT slagging it-I like the movie-but it is, what it is, ya know? Def. the Anti-Mikey_Bay flick, which in it's own way is a very good thing, eh? Ford as a Klone is a goofy notion, by the way. Sword and the Sorceror> BladeRunner. You know it to be so.
Sword and the Sorceror > Blade Runner. by TomBodet	Jul 29th, 2007 06:29:32 AM
Just hadda put that out there. Robert Tessier would be proud. Or-not, up to you.
Interesting footage. by TomBodet	Jul 29th, 2007 06:45:22 AM
Was that saying "I see ya" 100 times-? at the crosswalk? hmmm. Anyways. Forgot Olmos was in this...
This will probably by Trik_Ster	Jul 29th, 2007 07:26:16 AM
trigger another round of Star Wars and LoTR's re-cuts and releases
jfp by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 07:38:22 AM
"Ford didn't give a bad narration "on purpose." The man is being paid and whether he wants to do it or not has jack and shit to do with it. If he didn't do it the way Scott or whoever wanted it then he'd be fired." Um, how could they fire him at the end of the shoot?
tombodet by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 07:39:17 AM
The voice you hear is the crosswalk saying "cross now."
The strippers in the hockey masks... by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 07:52:25 AM
Were not part of the 2007 reshoot. There's a still of them in Future Noir. Everything I've read supports the idea that Ford hated the narration and tried to sabotage it. It wasn't in "from the beginning" - for one thing, the original novel is not written in first-person. It had been taken out and put back in at several times, and rewritten to the point that neither screenwriter knew who wrote what. Scott has last say as the director according to auteur theory, but everybody else has said that Deckard is not a replicant. The idea that he misinterpreted Fancher's screenplay makes sense to me.
TV Version? by Areyouarepli-CANorarepli-CANT	Jul 29th, 2007 07:56:17 AM
Normally, i hate it when movies are edited and re-dubbed for tv but in Blade Runner's case, it produced a line that was better than the original. When Batty confronts Tyrell he originally says at one point "I want more life...fucker!" In the tv version, this was changed to "I want more life...father!" Makes a change to hear a line that changes profanity which actually makes sense. Melon farmer anyone?
Uh... no. by Drunken Rage	Jul 29th, 2007 08:09:33 AM
Am I the only person who thinks "Blade Runner" just isn't very good? Great visuals, yeah, but Ford is wooden in everything he does, the "friends" Sebastian makes are ridiculous, etc. Doesn't matter which version, although the narration is horrible.
IT WAS A BITCH. by AllieJamison	Jul 29th, 2007 08:12:28 AM
Thaaaat's the spirit!
ZHORA REDUX by sonnyboo2	Jul 29th, 2007 08:31:09 AM
I am a Blade Runner fanatic. Seeing the new Zhora footage on Yahoo made me smile a lot. I am pleased to see either a digital head replacement or even entirely new shots of Joanna Cassidy replacing the stuntwoman (or man) who played Zhora in Slow motion in the original versions. This was a laughing point for a movie with very few laughs and one not intended. I can't wait to get the 5 disc set. I even want the work print. A little disappoint that the BBC doucmentary did NOT make the cut since it was never released in the U.S. proper.
Hang on, Deckard is not a replicant by half vader	Jul 29th, 2007 08:37:55 AM
... he's a repliCAN!
How did this movie get so overrated? by matthooper8	Jul 29th, 2007 08:44:35 AM
It's ok. No one besides geeks like us care one bit about Blade Runner. It's simply not that good.
On the Edge of Blade Runner by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 29th, 2007 08:58:18 AM
is not a BBC documentary. It was made for Channel 4.
Matthooper8 by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 08:59:52 AM
No one else cares? It's been one of the most influential films of all time. I was just watching the Making of "Renaissance" last night, and it was the main influence on that film. The way we looked at the future was changed by Blade Runner. I don't think that anyone involved in the Replican/Replican't discussion is whining about the new boxed set. We're just involved in a good discussion of the material, which is what any author would be proud of.
matthooper8 by kwisatzhaderach	Jul 29th, 2007 08:59:53 AM
It's not overrated. It's a magnificent piece of filmmaking. Sombre, visually stunning and thought provoking. "Nothing the god of bio-mechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for."
ThMotoko Kusanagie - Blade Runner PC game by Swiss Trev	Jul 29th, 2007 09:13:53 AM
Yup - worked on it. Not the greatest experience of my life but probably better than the cast that worked on the film by all accounts. To be honest I felt a bit flat when I watched the film for the first time on VHS – sadly have never had the chance to see it at a cinema. But it’s a film that has grown more and more on me as I’ve got older (ahemm…now mid to late 30’s I’m afraid) to the point where it’s easily in my top ten all time films I’d take to a desert island that has electricity, a TV & dvd/vhs player. I actually read ‘Do Androids dream of electric sheep’ about 10 years ago and as far as I can remember there is no reference to Deckard being a replicant – or indeed android (pretty sure the word replicant is never used in the novel) Sometimes a directors cut is good, sometimes it isn’t…..thought ‘The Abyss’ suffered for it even though the tidal wave sequence was cool to see (obviously not from the point of view of someone on the beach!) whereas the Aliens directors cut definitely was a better film (except for the sequence where Newt’s father discovers the Alien ship and gets ‘huggered’) …the addition of the sentry guns sequence goes a long way to explaining the quote from the theatrical version “…all we need now is a pack of cards”
Wow, he doesn't even know his own movie. by Photoman	Jul 29th, 2007 09:24:07 AM
It's interesting how Scott analyzes his movie...too bad he's wrong. Decker wasn't a replicant. He was a human. Doesn't really matter what Scott or Ford or anyone says after the movie is made...because if it's not on the screen, it doesn't exist. I don't care what they say about back-story or anything else. If it wasn't told or shown or even implied in the movie, it doesn't exist. Sorry, showing a unicorn means nothing. Scott can go on and on about how Decker was a replicant. If he was so adamant about it, then he should have actually filmed something that explained that. Or even have filmed something that showed a little hint at it. As it is, NOTHING implies that. The dream sequence, no matter how much Scott may say it does, doesn't imply that Decker is a replicant.
Decker as Replicant by LORDRANDO	Jul 29th, 2007 09:31:11 AM
I agree nothing directly points to it...but the book is called "do androids dream of electric sheep" so the dream with a magical non-existent creature is a metaphor for something. Maybe hes a unicorn. Maybe Sean Young is a man. A sexy man.
Anybody else pissed off.... by LORDRANDO	Jul 29th, 2007 09:32:52 AM
...that we dont have "pleasure" model robots that look like Daryl Hannah? What kind of PG future are we living in? Ha!
elohel by HeWhoCannotBeNamed	Jul 29th, 2007 09:43:45 AM
Thanks so much for the Iron Man footage. I wasn't looking for it, but lept at your post anyway. Awesome. Can't wait. Even moreso now. Replicant or not, I continue to believe he is human. That's how I wish to view it, but it is fun to ponder it. Love that we get the workprint. Hope the extra gore and international tidbits are in his Final Cut. If not, well we get five versions. Too sweet. Already pre-ordered mine. 55 bucks is a very paltry price for what uber fans get in that briefcase. Nice. Oh, and the game kicked ass. I always wanted a sequel and/or remake too. Perhaps something is in the works....
Blade Runner PC game by d1138	Jul 29th, 2007 09:45:37 AM
..got the atmosphere down perfect, some original voice actors as well. Though I remember the "adventure" being a little lacking--I "solved" it without doing very much. Shoulda been more like a LucasArts adventure from back in their heyday. Still have my copy of it--somebody convince me I should go back and play it again.
One of the greatest film scores ever by HeWhoCannotBeNamed	Jul 29th, 2007 09:47:03 AM
That's right, ever. Stellar stuff.
Photoman by Swiss Trev	Jul 29th, 2007 09:47:22 AM
.....hmm, tricky one. I see your point totally (I still like to think of Deckard as a human) but at the end of the day who are we to argue with the man that made the film (ok...as well as a few hundred other skilled artisans)...it's a tricky one...but because there was nothing in the original theatrical release that hinted at Deckard being a replicant doesn't mean that’s what R.Scott originally intended or imagined…..hmm, halcyon memories can be a bitch!....as an aside I still listen to the Vangelis BR score at least once a day, every day – not sad, it’s just on my ‘working’ i-Tunes list….you know, some people have music they always listen to whilst ‘driving’, I have a list (11 hours plus) that I listen to day after day whilst working as freelance CG artist…..never get bored (others include the Jurassic Park score, Indy Jones score, Star Wars opening score, some chemical bros, a couple of Rod Zombie and a lot of ‘Wired’s Atom Bomb….man!...you end up clicking the mouse in time to the beat!… definitely makes you work faster I’m sure. ;)
Irritated by 88keyz	Jul 29th, 2007 09:56:16 AM
Does it irritate anyone else that we have to spend $80 (probably closer to $100 here in Canada) to get the version with the workprint release? They know that this is the one that everyone will want to see and that is why they only put it on the most expensive release! Bastards, I'm beginning to loath DVD marketing types.
20 years from now.... by lost.rules	Jul 29th, 2007 10:23:50 AM
The Final, No, Really, the Final Super Delux Ultra Platinum Gold Silver Bronze Edition Director's, Producer's, Writer's, Actor's, Grip Boy's Cut of Blade Runner comes out. Sweet!
Scott Pulled A Kubrick w/ BLADE RUNNER by LaserPants	Jul 29th, 2007 10:29:46 AM
Making a film so much better than its source material as to make the source material almost irrelevent. And I say this as a man who has read (and LOVED) almost all of PDKs novels.
Replicant or not replicant? by Mr Spork	Jul 29th, 2007 10:32:17 AM
I want answers
Decker a replicant? is a later change by livingwater	Jul 29th, 2007 10:36:01 AM
The unicorn does not mean he's a replicant! Ridley is creating sensationalism after the fact. It is a symbol of freedom, and an ideal "mythological being" it also means Gaff had already been there and left Rachael alone. It is an intriguing concept, and you could say that is why Pris couldn't kill him but, essentially it is Ridley stirring the pot, IMO. FROM IMDB TRIVIA SECTION:: The dialogue in all releases of the movie 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 four "skin jobs" on the loose, but minutes later says six escaped, and one was killed by the "electronic gate", which should leave five. 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. Harrison Ford takes issue with Ridley Scott's revelation that Deckard is a replicant. "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant," Ford said. ALSO :: The first draft, dated July 24, 1980, was written by Hampton Fancher alone. It refers to replicants as "androids" and makes it clear that Deckard is human
That BRIEFCASE Edition is OUT OF THIS WORLD! by frg10	Jul 29th, 2007 10:38:58 AM

"Decker is a replicant" is probably a later change. by livingwater	Jul 29th, 2007 10:39:27 AM
The unicorn does not mean he's a replicant. Ridley is creating sensationalism after the fact. It is a symbol of freedom, and an ideal "mythological being" it also means Gaff had already been there and left Rachael alone. The point here is Gaff could read Deckard's mind, but that doesn't mean he is a replicant. It is an intriguing concept, and you could say that is why Pris couldn't kill him but, essentially it is Ridley stirring the pot, IMO. FROM IMDB TRIVIA SECTION:: "The dialogue in all releases of the movie 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 four "skin jobs" on the loose, but minutes later says six escaped, and one was killed by the "electronic gate", which should leave five. 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." "Harrison Ford takes issue with Ridley Scott's revelation that Deckard is a replicant. "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant," Ford said." ALSO :: "The first draft, dated July 24, 1980, was written by Hampton Fancher alone. It refers to replicants as "androids" and makes it clear that Deckard is human." So does that make it clear. Ridley probably made the change after the movie. BTW it's EASILY one of my favourite films. Superb. A Masterpiece.
I will buy the briefcase by krushjudgement	Jul 29th, 2007 10:49:54 AM
I have to wait until December. DAMMIT!
QT: "There's a human soul in the briefcase." by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 10:54:52 AM
How would that improve Pulp Fiction? I'm not saying that Deckard definitely isn't a replicant, or that anyone's wrong in saying that: it's a movie. It's open to interpretation. Apparently the film works for different people both ways. As Photoman and Memories-Of-Murder and Colonel_Blimp have written, for some of us it makes a much better film with Deckard as a human. His character is empty because he stands in for the human viewer, and we identify with his realizations about the replicants and the questions about what makes someone human. We also identify with his having the hots for Sean Young.
scratcher is RIGHT!!! by Slingshot	Jul 29th, 2007 10:55:05 AM
Who loved ET running about like a M&M advert?? or greedo shooting first?? Leave it alone and make some new cool films Ridley if you can
Holy Shit by krushjudgement	Jul 29th, 2007 10:57:52 AM
I juat watched that Iron Man footage. That movie is going to kick some serious ass!
E.T. by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 11:01:59 AM
I apologize to those of you who love it, but it appealed less to me, possibly because I was already too old for it. You may hate the way that talkbackers always have to pit one film against another, but it's hard to forget that year when two landmark visual films, Blade Runner and Tron (both with Syd Mead designs btw), got scant public attention while E.T. became a national obsession. If it had been the other way around we'd have seen much cooler films get greenlit.
Harrison Ford Hasn't Smiled On Screen Since 1988 by Mr Squirrel	Jul 29th, 2007 11:17:45 AM
Seriously, he was cool as Han & Indy but he turned that goodwill into a mediocre career of dull films featuring charmless, grumpy performances that are all the same. And what's with always thinking he knows better than the director? I like the narration in Blade Runner, and it's not his decision whether Deckard is a replicant or not. What's Ford ever directed? Also he always plays up that bullshit 'I was just a carpenter who got lucky' schtick when he was as desperate for fame as every other actor/waiter/rentboy in LA.
Deckard's Humanity in the PKD Novel by uglyMood	Jul 29th, 2007 11:27:49 AM
I believe much of the ambiguity on the part of the moviemakers over whether or not Deckard is a human stems from a bizarre sequence in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" where Deckard stumbles across an entire alternate SAPD he's never seen before. (The novel takes place in San Francisco.) The cop that arrested him accuses him of being an android, and he questions his own humanity as a result. Deckard quickly figures out that what he's seen is a parallel police department staffed entirely by androids and kills the android cop. I know that sounds confusing, but frankly this is one part of the book that suffers from Philip K. Dick's amphetamine-fueled writing technique, so it's more than a little difficult to figure out exactly what's going on. The book, like the movie, is a flawed masterpiece. For what it's worth, in the novel it is explicitly stated that Deckard is a human being, which is why he gets the crap beat out of him so frequently. Scott's "ambiguity" is not in the novel at all, except for the brief incident I described.
IRON MAN FOOTAGE ONLINE! by erichaislar	Jul 29th, 2007 11:55:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =fVRQjCG8tn4
and another thing: by newc0253	Jul 29th, 2007 12:05:43 PM
If Deckard is a replicant, it not only shits on the whole Deckard=Everyman vs Batty=Superhuman thing, it also shits on the 'Sean Young is a prototype replicant with memories' deal. After all, what's Tyrell so proud of, if even the shitty old Police Department already have their own replicant on staff who think's he's human. Seriously, Ridley Scott may be a great filmmaker, but he's not very bright. In fact, he might not even be a great filmmaker, because if you've got to put out a directors cut and then go round telling people how to interpret it, then you haven't done a good job.
Total Recall by 9banned0.5furious	Jul 29th, 2007 12:19:10 PM
doesn`t need any other version than the one theatrical version... AND is ambiguos to infinity, great, upps the book and whatnot. Awesome film/fairytale/nightmare/visio n. Verhoeven also doesn`t feel the need to change it after the fact. No to revisionism! Go Paul! Ridley is making Robin Hood bad guy now. I don`t care what he says, replicant yes/no. Or does in general... for a long time now. I antilove the unicorn shot(awesome in itself) since i don`t need thinking of Tom Cruise and whatever during Blade Runner. Its also an exsample of a cheat supreme and anything but art, to go and use a shot from a movie you made later in some quasy Directors cut(91) of "your" masterpiece. I love the original, with naration, "mistakes" and all. Its beyond fascinating and great. Even if PKD died very unhappy with it soon after seeing the released film. And I love the book, which is different/"better" in some aspects. I really want to see the Workprint that they "hid" in the expansive package. Shame. In the end, its the matter of having shot material of such quality, that whatever edit you do, its gonna stand above 95% of anything else made. So, yes I will say it, given the material, a lot of people could make other "great" edits/versions of that film. A lot. But, its great to have more/better DVD of BR, whatever version we feel close to. On a side note, maybe there should be a Blade Runner TB somewhere where only TBers under influence of legal/illegal substances could contribute.
Deckard as replicant by Dr. Chim Richalds	Jul 29th, 2007 12:25:46 PM
I don't see how people can argue that the unicorn scene does not imply that Deckard is a replicant. At some point in the movie, the inventor mentions that he programmed the replicants with the memories and experiences of his granddaughters. Well, what sorts of mythological beasts do small girls often dream of -- you guessed it, UNICORNS! Now, whether this makes thematic sense is another kettle of fish entirely. I own an old copy of the movie without the voiceover and with the unicorn scene included, so I always assumed Deckard was a replicant. You mileage may vary.
I could imagine talkbacks for this film back then... by Johnno	Jul 29th, 2007 12:26:37 PM
I bet 90% of you would be bashing it for how terrible it was! All visual style and no substance, and how the metaphysical babbling in this film was simply pretentious nonsense and that it will be forgotten in a couple years time.
Lest We Forget... by Powers Boothe	Jul 29th, 2007 12:26:55 PM
that Harrison Ford was in a cut scene from E.T. He played a classroom teacher.
Blade Runner DC was the first director's cut ever by Motoko Kusanagi	Jul 29th, 2007 12:31:28 PM
wasn't it? Can't think of any DCs before 1992. Since then every longer version of every crappy movie is called DC. Laughable. The BR DC truly is a DC and a great one. Don't think that the "final" version will be so much better. And don't understand why they need to "improve" some fx shots. That's like Luca$ pissing on his original SW trilogy with the silly SE versions. I said it on the other BR thread a few weeks back, I'll say it again: Deckard IS a replicant (for me). He dreams of the unicorn and Gaff later makes an origami unicorn which shows that Gaff knows which dreams are implanted into Deckard. In no way does this harm the atmosphere or logic or likability or whatnot of BR. Vangelis' score is out of this world (or to say it in BR words: off-world). Calling it a masterpiece almost is an insult.
There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of clues by zinc_chameleon	Jul 29th, 2007 12:39:40 PM
That Deckard is a replicant. In the second scene, his boss asks him to "come out of retirement" and take on a job "one last time". Retirement for a replicant is death; therefore, they keep a Deckard ready at all times, in some sort of suspended animation, to deal with runaway replicants. Then, notice his body language, the short intense way he move and speaks, exactly like the replicants his is hunting. Compare his kissing scene to that between Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah. Exactly the same kind of moves. If you're still not convinced, then notice that he's connects to his life through a series of photos, just like Rachel does. The unicorn is for both Rachel and Deckard.
Sean Young by The Only Woj	Jul 29th, 2007 12:43:24 PM
she is so goddamn hot.
I never got the Unicorn dream by DannyOcean01	Jul 29th, 2007 12:49:42 PM
Why would that make him a replicant? Am I missing something blindingly obvious? Surely we as humans, have the imaginative powers to dream of anything....If at our present stage, we can dream of fighting dragons or riding on unicorns because of our immersion in stories of fantasy, does that make us replicants?
zinc_chameleon by Mr. Nice Gaius	Jul 29th, 2007 12:50:02 PM
That may be one of the furthest stretches I've ever seen someone push on the Deckard-is-a-Replicant theory. "A" for effort though!
zinc_chameleon by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 12:53:50 PM
1) He retired from being a blade runner due to the nature of the job. My dad's retired, does that mean my dad's a replicant in suspended animation? If so, cool. 2) Maybe he moves and talks like everyone else in the film because of the director's influence, like in a Mamet film. We don't get a chance to see Bryant kiss anyone, but he probably kisses the same too. 3) Most humans connect to their lives through a series of photos, does that make them replicants? Is this a plot by Kodak? 4) The unicorn image could be one of Rachael's implanted memories. Both Deckard and Gaff had access to the files on her memories. Maybe she watched Legend as a kid? To me the silver unicorn is a metaphor for the unique mechanical creature she is. The fact that the director uses the same metaphor several times doesn't need to be explained by Deckard's being an android. It's just filmmaking.
Hah, Deckard's body language by DannyOcean01	Jul 29th, 2007 12:55:44 PM
Is just Ford's way of telling Scott he's not happy....
"retirement" by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 01:17:53 PM
Deckard's eating noodles when Bryant and Gaff come to talk him out of retirement. They don't go thaw him out from a freezer.
my tix are booked for LA by aboriginal	Jul 29th, 2007 01:19:04 PM
Hoping that they run it in Westwood's Fox Theater. I saw the "Director's Cut" there back in '92 and still have the ticket stubs and the re-release poster I bought around the corner to prove it. After Raider's this is my alltime favorite definititve SciFi picture. Man, I cannot wait.
i just now finished watching the by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 01:37:17 PM
dvd. the version that i have is the one without narration. i have never watched the narrated version, so i don't really know how they compare. i think the score used in the film is good, but it is a bit distracting to me. i think the music is too prominent. it just doesn't fit. i like the idea that blade runner is filmed in a noir style, and i would prefer not to hear euro-trash techno every five minutes. i feel the same way about some of john carpenter's films.
I'd pay to see it on the big screen by ATARI	Jul 29th, 2007 01:38:44 PM
seeing as how I missed out the first time
it would be nice if scott would not by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 01:40:46 PM
have explained the replicant situation. i think the audience should be the ones interpreting that. oh well, i love the film with it's flaws and all. one of the greatest sci-fi movies in my opinion.
Actually, there were "director's cuts" long before BR.. by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 01:46:33 PM
The most notable were Abel Gance's Napoelon and George Cukor's A Star Is Born. Both were substantially reworked. BTW, BR's look was taken whole hog from Heavy Metal (the magazine, not the movie). Not that it wasn't an amazing-looking movie, but let's give credit where credit is due.
GAFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! by BigDude	Jul 29th, 2007 01:51:35 PM
One of my favorite characters in a movie ever, I had no idea there was more footage of Gaff lying around, and with dialoge at that. How cool. He's like Boba Fett, only before Boba Fett.
wookie by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 01:55:06 PM
i agree on the heavy metal look. i think heavy metal influence is one of the cool things about br. i agree totally.
BEFORE Boba Fett???? by wackybantha	Jul 29th, 2007 02:13:15 PM
HUH????
before boba fett by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 02:16:01 PM
ha. that is a funny one.
lucid by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 02:16:05 PM
Actually, it's specifically Jean Girard, aka Moebius, who was also one of the designers on Tron. Don't get me wrong - to translate Heavy Metal into cinematic terms is astounding, but even Scott himself said that he took the movie's entire visual sense from the magazine.
Prefer the Struzan artwork, shame it's not for... by KillaKane	Jul 29th, 2007 02:18:28 PM
the 4 disc set. December can't come soon enough.
Heavy Metal = Metal Hurlant by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 02:25:03 PM
Moebius is an amazing genius and his work in Metal Hurlant was hugely influential on BR, but you can't just say that it was taken whole hog. It's an unfair oversimplification. Ridley did a great job of updating film noir design and combining it with the French vision of a dirty messed up future. He and Mead came up with some amazing designs that you can't find in MH or HM. BTW, I've always loved how he re-used the vehicle control screen in Alien.
wookie by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 02:27:11 PM
the look of the film is definitely pulled straight out of a heavy metal mag. i personally like the idea that deckard could possibly be a replicant (in the film version). i think it adds something cool to the story. two replicants in love at the end. i like how it is left up to the audience to decide.
i will have to check out metal hurlant. by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 02:30:09 PM
i have never heard of it. as far as the heavy metal influence, i see it, but others may not. it's not an exact replica( now there's a word for you) of heavy metal , but the way the cruisers look and the huge jumbotron images look hm to me.
Scratcher... by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 02:38:19 PM
i don't have any exact quote, but in Future Noir Sammon writes that Scott specifically said that he based the look on Metal Hurlant/Heavy Metal. No, it wasn't the only influence, and I love the movie, but it doesn't take from the movie to say that Scott borrowed very heavily (no pun intended) from the French.
Metal Hurlant by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 02:39:39 PM
was the original, Heavy Metal was mostly material taken from MH, with some Roger Corben and Vaughn Bode thrown in (maybe they were also in the French?), and imported to America. Blade Runner probably looks just as much like Enki Bilal's work as Moebius. Bilal's is more grungy.
metal hurlant by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 02:49:25 PM
Metal Hurlant was the French precursor of Heavy Metal. The original issues are probably very difficult to find, but some of it has been reprinted in graphic novel format. As for Deckard being a replicant, I thought it was too much of a "twist ending." The screenwriter who came up with the line ("Roy Batty and I were brothers") that inspired Scott to decide that Deckard was a replicant only meant the line to be metaphorical - the replicants are mortal, just as Deckard is mortal.
Wookie by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 02:49:36 PM
I agree that it was influenced, but everyone is influenced, including Moebius. There's a difference being influenced and taking "whole hog" -- to me that implies ripping off. Mead's technology design on both BR and Tron can't be found in HM. Much of the look for the film is also influenced by 40's design (hair styles, clothing). The fact that Ridley hired Giger for the design of Alien and then tried to hire Moebius for BR means that he could spot great visualists. Too bad he gave up on the genre.
Bilal's stuff is pretty good by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 02:53:10 PM
...what I've seen of it, anyway. I agree that Syd Mead was a visionary as well. It was really a mishmash of all sorts of influences - Moebius, punk, the Asian influence in LA. I've always wondered how much William Gibson took from the movie.
Ridley Scott had nothing to do with the voiceover by Colonel_Blimp	Jul 29th, 2007 02:57:20 PM
I would recommend everyone who can get a hand on it the excellent 20 page article on BR in Empire #218 (don't know if you get it in the US?). Here, Ford says: "...the script was prepared without a voiceover narration. And that's the film we shot.(...) (nixing the VO) was the key condition to my involvement."..."I was obliged to do these voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests."(ie Tandem Productions, which took the film away from Ridley after it went over budget)..."Then it finally came to the final day of the final version of the voiceover. I showed up, and there was a man (Roland Kibbeé) in a zip-up Hobby Suit (...) puffing on a pipe and beating on an old portable typewriter. (...) that was the man with whom I recorded the final narration. (laughs) By this point I had already done the narration six times." On another note, Batty and Deckard sharing a lot of similar behaviour (zinc_chameleon's comment)is obviously meant to underline that humans and replicants are similiar and equal, not that deckard is synthetic. sure, you can perfectly well rationalize deckard being a replicant by what you see in the film, but it all comes down to what you want to take out with you from the film. do you want a cheap (instantly satisfying but ultimately shallow) gimmick twist (deckard being a replicant), or something more poignant and thought provoking (deckard being human, or at least the question being unanswered). I suppose my choice is obvious. Scratcher: Kudos to your dad being a replicant. BTW: how do you guys make paragraphs?
is william gibson good? by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 02:58:28 PM
i need to catch up on my sci-fi reading. i usually just watch the films . didn't he write neuromancer?
maybe "whole hog" is a little strong by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 03:01:32 PM
I just find that, for better or for worse, people only credit Scott with his "great vision" when BR is, more than some other movies, a collaborative work.
neuromancer by wookie1972	Jul 29th, 2007 03:10:12 PM
Neuromancer was one of the first real Cyberpunk novels, and a major influence on The Matrix. (Or, if you will, The Matrix blatantly ripped it off). it's quite good, although I haven't read his later stuff.
Bilal and paragraphs by scratcher	Jul 29th, 2007 03:14:10 PM
Bilal's series with the Egyptian gods visiting future Paris is simply amazing. It matches the quality of Moebius' work, which I wouldn't say lightly. The series is collected in several volumes (haven't read the third myself). He also directed a film based on the series, Immortal. Haven't seen it, but now I think I will. Blimp, you make paragraphs the same way you would in HTML (the P tag).
wookie by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 03:15:35 PM
the fact that br is a collaborative work is probably the reason some of it's flaws are so prevalent. i am starting to understand why scott wants to release a definitive cut of the film. if the studio took the film over at some point, then some things about the theatrical release are not going to jibe with ridleys vision. i love the film. narration or not. i think people are going to always look back and consider br one of the great sci-fi films.
Paul WS Anderson's Blade Runner Versus Johnny Neumonic! by Spandau Belly	Jul 29th, 2007 03:21:04 PM
coming soon!
johnny moronic. by lucid dreamstate	Jul 29th, 2007 03:22:29 PM

Talkbacks

Footage From BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT Slices Onto The Internets!! See Adama Take A Crap On Metaphysics!!