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

Darwin Dissects BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT!!

Is Sean Young still hot in this version? by Garbageman33	Oct 9th, 2007 11:10:22 AM
I loved her in the 80s. Hearing that she's crazy just makes me love her more.
I can't wait for the original theatrical release finally on DVD! by anchorite	Oct 9th, 2007 11:15:15 AM
I still enjoyed it more than the Director's Cut, or this new cut. I always hated the ides of Deckard being a Replicant. It was a cop-out in my opinion. I wish I could see a re-mastered theatrical cut on the big screen again. THAT would be fantastic!
I want to see this by Bloo	Oct 9th, 2007 11:18:21 AM
and it sucks that I won't be able to until Dec. when it hits DVD. I would go to Denveror Kansas City, possibably even St. Louis or somewhere to see this movie. I hate LA/NYC screenigns because you hear about this kinda stuff but can't see it till it hits DVD
Deckard is NOT a replicant by rev_skarekroe	Oct 9th, 2007 11:22:22 AM
Because I said so, that's why.
Extra scene? by sinus111	Oct 9th, 2007 11:23:23 AM
Didn't Scott talk about adding a scene where Deckard sees Holden (the guy that interviews Leon) in a hospital? I think from a previous interview, Scott said they had the footage but no sound or something?
I concur, simple fixes with the movie is all that would be neede by Datascream	Oct 9th, 2007 11:26:48 AM
fuck the overly cartoonish, out of place CG shots on an old movie. Fix what needs to be fixed and release it.
That damned dove shot has always bothered me by skimn	Oct 9th, 2007 11:28:30 AM
so much as to ruin the ending just a tad for me. Thank God its gone. How Scott ever let that remain in the finished film is beyond me.
I'm apparently in the minority... by Breotan	Oct 9th, 2007 11:30:39 AM
...but I really liked the narration. It lent a pulp novel feel that really complimented the noir visuals.
Re: Extra scene? by Darth Scourge	Oct 9th, 2007 11:31:07 AM
Yeah, the hospital scene exists, with sound... Saw it on a documentary about the making of BR a few years ago. But I don't know if Scott ever seriously considered putting it back into the movie.
I saw it... by epitone	Oct 9th, 2007 11:33:29 AM
Ridley Scott fixed so many things, he even threw in a shot of Deckard shooting Greedo. No, seriously, it looks amazing and I'm lucky enough to live walking distance from the Landmark (beats flying).
Why can't these ever be released wider than NY/LA? by spaceghost1818	Oct 9th, 2007 11:35:29 AM
They know there is a fan-base, they know we'll go see it. I'd give almost anything to see this on the big screen just once. Some movies were just meant by God to be seen on a 30-foot screen. Christ, I'd even drive a couple of hours to Pittsburgh or Cleveland to see this. But I guess like the rest of the poor huddled masses, I have to wait until December. What an f'ing cock-tease this is.
Great Movie by skydemon	Oct 9th, 2007 11:37:13 AM
And I'm really glad it's finally getting a DVD treatment It deserves.
Snake Guy Scene by PinkyLee	Oct 9th, 2007 11:39:00 AM
"The dialogue during Deckard's interrogation of Adbul Hassan (the snake guy) is now in sync with the picture, whereas before it was horribly mismatched. Looks like they finally found the right take and matched it up." They shot Harrison Ford's son Ben's mouth and pasted it on Harrison's face. It looks great. You are correct this IS the way to do a rerelease of this film. It looks and SOUNDS incredible.
Changes by christian66	Oct 9th, 2007 11:40:30 AM
Film looked great but I would prefer to see it in 70 MM as it was originally seen. I was surprised at how little tinkering had been done. I was expecting CG spinners etc. The Holden hospital scene is all over youtube. It's neat but awkward. As for the "Father" line, that makes more sense story wise but the "Fucker" was cyberpunk. And Sean Young is not crazy. As if James Woods is sane. Check out Ian Grey's incredible must-read, "Sex Stupidity and Greed: Inside the American Movie Industry." He has a brilliant interview with the very normal Young and she goes into depth on how easy it is for a male-dominated town to destroy reputations.
Glad they didn't put the hospital scene back in. It sucked by Stormwatcher	Oct 9th, 2007 11:46:46 AM
You can watch it on YouTube and the acting and whatnot cleary shows why it was cut. Can't wait for the DVD.
The ending by Geronimo Jackson	Oct 9th, 2007 11:57:42 AM
If you look at the doc on YouTube (which I think will be included on the DVD re-issue), Scott admits that Deckard is a Replicant.
As part of my final year at high school... by Monkey Butler	Oct 9th, 2007 12:06:13 PM
English class we had to do an analysis of Blade Runner and what it said about 'the natural order of the world'. I wrote an entire essay on how the father/fucker (because although it was 'fucker', it sounded a bit like 'father) could be a metaphor for the whole 'is he a replicant?' thing. Mostly I just liked being able to write fucker in a high school essay about a dozen times.
Deckerd was not a replicant in the original version by Rupee88	Oct 9th, 2007 12:07:24 PM
Sure if you add a bunch of scenes that changee the movie, then maybe he is, but that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't in the original. This new director's cut is just a money grab. I can't believe they are changing so much of it...almost as bad as what Lucas did, although not quite to that scale of shamelessness/stupidity.
Screw Scott, Deckard was NOT a replicant... by Bill Clay	Oct 9th, 2007 12:09:55 PM
I don't care what Ridley Scott said, it makes zero sense for Deckard to be a replicant. First off, as the beginning says, they are illegal to possess on Earth under penalty of death. Deckard exhibits no super strength or agility like the replicants do. Why would they send a weaker inferior model to catch combat models? Did we ever see the replicants eating? We watched Deckard eat his Oriental noodles, then later get drunk on Jack Daniels. Can replicants get drunk? The whole Deckard=replicant theory is full of holes. And Harrison Ford himself says that Deckard was not a replicant. That's good enough for me.
I'm dumb. Does this cut have the narration or no? by www.valiens.com	Oct 9th, 2007 12:14:01 PM
I liked the narration. So sue me.
the original narration holds your hand like you're a 5 year-old by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:14:26 PM
It over-explains everything.
This just in from the desk of Ridley Scott 'Screw you, Bill Clay by Geronimo Jackson	Oct 9th, 2007 12:15:33 PM
Scott's movie, not yours. How do you know that wasn't Scott's original intention, before studio interference? Did you notice how much the blade runner at the beginning of the film looks like Deckard?
The narration also keeps me from falling asleep. by www.valiens.com	Oct 9th, 2007 12:16:46 PM
I like the hand-holding in this one. I don't know why. I know it's a movie sin but I find the movie boring without it.
can't argue with that. by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:21:21 PM
I've definitely fallen asleep while watching the movie. Multiple times in one viewing. I remember once: I fell asleep, woke up, rewound the movie to the moment I last remembered, and then fell asleep again. It must have been a long day.
I don't know why he saved my life... by Bill Clay	Oct 9th, 2007 12:22:15 PM
Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life; anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us wanted, where do I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die.
Gaff had been there... and let her live... by Bill Clay	Oct 9th, 2007 12:25:36 PM
Four years, he figured... he was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special. No termination date. I didn't know how long we'd have together... who does?
narration:"I thought I'd go to a bar a look for the robot." Deck by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:29:26 PM
Sometimes it's really heavyhanded in its effort to string events together from A to B to C. The problem is that the narration becomes redundant because 99% of people who have seen a movie before Can follow A to B to C without any additional help.
that last post by bill clay by Halfbreedqueen	Oct 9th, 2007 12:33:31 PM
is proof why the narration is silly. that LITERALLY just explains the scene. what you see visually is described in words. good narration (like a lot of Kubrick's flicks) COMPLIMENT the visuals, they don't repeat them.
Dang it: the SubjectLines still have a limit but it dont stop yo by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:33:34 PM
i think my trunkated grammar allowed all that to fit
Ford's Son?! by codymr	Oct 9th, 2007 12:34:01 PM
Re: "* The dialogue during Deckard's interrogation of Adbul Hassan (the snake guy) is now in sync with the picture, whereas before it was horribly mismatched. Looks like they finally found the right take and matched it up." Read somewhere that along with reshooting Joanna Cassidy, Ford's son was used to double for Deckard in the snake guy interrogation scene. Any truth to this?
...still ahve limit but it dont stop you from typing. BALLS by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:34:20 PM

narration:"I thought I'd go to a bar a look for the robot." by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:35:23 PM
Deckard in bar: "Have you seen any robots around?"
Deckard in bar: "Have you seen any robots around?" by George Newman	Oct 9th, 2007 12:35:38 PM

See? See how that's better? Oh...wait.... by www.valiens.com	Oct 9th, 2007 12:38:49 PM
Maybe I'll have to check 'em both out again. I just remember trying not to snooze through the director's cut.
They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper... by Bill Clay	Oct 9th, 2007 12:51:45 PM
That was my profession. Ex-cop. Ex-blade runner. Ex-killer.
It was great to see this on the big screen by Mullah Omar	Oct 9th, 2007 12:52:36 PM
I saw the 7pm show in NYC last Friday, and it was an outstanding experience - this is the type of film you NEED to see on a big screen with a top-notch sound system. It had been a long time since I'd seen Blade Runner, and I don't obsess over the various changes, so what counts to me is that everything about the movie succeeds. Viewers can argue over which version of the film is superior, but to me, The Final Cut is completely satisfying, and I don't feel compelled to seek out any of the others. If any AICNers are out there and have a chance to see this in a cinema, go out of your way to do so - it's worth it.
re: Why can't these ever be released wider than NY/LA? by rev_skarekroe	Oct 9th, 2007 12:57:03 PM
Because only toothless yokels live in the flyover states. Duh.
There was THUNDEROUS applause at the packed Sat. night... by Captain Happy	Oct 9th, 2007 01:04:19 PM
...screening at the Ziegfeld, before & AFTER the movie; I guess we just like our movies better in N.Y.; we aren't as big'a snobs as those in L.A. Beautiful print, vibrant colors that rival or flat out beat most of what's been released since 1982. If you like film you must RUN out & see this print. It's exhilarating. My wife saw it for the first time (I've seen it dozens of times) & LOVED it - she's not even a sci-fi fan. So bring your girlfriends, wives, sheep or whatever. PS, Rutger Hauer's beautifully nuanced performance is still the most luminous thing in the film. Also, check out his autobio, ALL THOSE MOMENTS, it has some great anecdotes about the prep he did for BR, & how he wrote the next to final line in his death scene, my favorite from the film, "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain". Beautiful. What a movie.
I can't believe they are changing so much of it... by PurityOfEssence	Oct 9th, 2007 01:05:44 PM
They are hardly changing any of it most of it is in the 1992 cut. If you take issue with the changes between the 1992 release and the theatrical version I can understand that. But don't act as if this is some radical departure or major overhaul of the film. Did you think Scott was going to keep the voice overs and studio ending?
The report would be "Routine retirement of a replicant"... by Bill Clay	Oct 9th, 2007 01:23:44 PM
That didn't make me feel any better about shooting a woman in the back.
"i spit on metaphysics , sir" by hurushott	Oct 9th, 2007 01:29:31 PM
so I'm guessing that line from Gaff isn't it the movie?
Father / F*cker by Dark Knight Lite	Oct 9th, 2007 01:31:09 PM
They shot it both ways, with the intent of using "Father" on TV prints. From a narrative point of view, "Father" works better, but "F*cker has more impact dramatically. Dark Knight out.
Sounds like they dint fuck with wots not broke too much but... by FILMFUNK	Oct 9th, 2007 01:31:30 PM
Why not just remake it! What you doing Hollywood! why you never remade this one!? people know the name so you'll get your younger audience saying ''that was much better than the really boring original and Shia Le Beuf was Awesome as Deckard'' You'll get all the punters who didn't think the first one was all that great going to see if this one's any better and you'll get a big percentage of actual Bladerunner fans drawn to it like a car crash out of morbid curiosity, So get it Fucking made already and put me out my misery and while you're at it greenlight remakes of Alien, Robocop and Predator!
Dear Warner Bros. this movie Grossed by ZoeFan	Oct 9th, 2007 02:13:31 PM
Over $89,000 at 2 theaters for 3 days!!!!! Imagine what you'd make if you just released it in 10 more cities (Source: BoxOfficeMojo).
great by Hairy Potter	Oct 9th, 2007 02:19:20 PM
can't wait
The evidence against Deckard being a replicant far outweighs the by anchorite	Oct 9th, 2007 02:23:09 PM
for him being a replicant. Anyone trying to say Deckard was definitely meant to be a replicant is rewriting history. Hell, was he in the book? Don't you think that would have been a clue?
Weird. The subject line allowed me to write more than it display by anchorite	Oct 9th, 2007 02:24:18 PM
It was supposed to say the evidence against him being a replicant outweighs the evidence for him being one.
Deckard is a replicant by surfsup22	Oct 9th, 2007 02:27:08 PM
even Ridley Scott said so and since he's the director I'll take his word for it.
This deserves a broader Theatrical release... by KillaKane	Oct 9th, 2007 02:34:22 PM
There's nothing like seeing BR in all it's glory on the big screen, this definitive edition must surely have an audience (the previous theatrical re-release of Alien and Blade Runner did respectible business in Europe)
Deckard is not a replicant... by Fitzcarraldo2	Oct 9th, 2007 02:40:33 PM
If he is, then how come he gets outsmarted/beaten up by every other replicant he's hunting? He is just a weary, cold human being who has become so dehumanised that he now has less emotion than the replicants he kills.
Harrison Ford was a replicant in 'Six Days Seven Nights'. by Garbageman33	Oct 9th, 2007 02:45:56 PM
It's true.
surfsup22 by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 9th, 2007 02:49:08 PM
Yeah, but it's funny how NOBODY else who worked on the film (from Ford to the screenwriters) believed Deckard was or should be a Replicant. The idea is nothing more than a clumsy effort by Scott to work in something he thinks is clever. As a tremendous fan of the film (both the theatrical and director's cut), I prefer the notion that Deckard is human. That's how it was in the book. That's how it was in the original release. And that's what makes the story more profound. While I can handle Scott's opinion, I don't think his "Deckard is a Replicant" revisionism is handled very well.
glowing eyes = replicant by mansep	Oct 9th, 2007 02:54:48 PM
glowing eyes was always what made me think that deckard was a replicant. just like Rachel, and just like the artificial owl. the unicorn just confirms it., but i wish they'd left all the unicorn stuff out and just kept it subtle.
RE: glowing eyes by Mr. Nice Gaius	Oct 9th, 2007 02:58:26 PM
If it were that easy to spot a Replicant, they would just shine the laser from the V.K. machine on everyone's eyeballs. (That effect with the owl occurs in nature - no artificial owl needed.)
Deckard=Replicant by Geronimo Jackson	Oct 9th, 2007 03:00:26 PM
Just because he doesn't have super-human strength does not mean he is not a replicant. Did Rachel display any of these abilities? I'm sure there would be several varieties of models. Perhaps I don't know enough about the history of the production to see how Scott is second-guessing himself. The crew might not have known for the same reasons the crew on Empire weren't in on the Vader=Father secret.
The Unicorn is Rachael, NOT Deckard... by Zardoz	Oct 9th, 2007 03:16:56 PM
That's what I always thought it meant. Why? Deckard dreams of the unicorn after talking with Rachael about her memories, and Gaff's line at the end when Deckard finds the origami Unicorn, "It's too bad she won't live; but then again who does?" She's unique and one-of-a-kind, like a unicorn. For me, the movie just doesn't work at all if Deckard's a replicant. Why would he be allowed to be on Earth and hunt other "Skin-Jobs"? He has an ex-wife, people know who he is. His banter and relationship with Bryant is real, not forced; they have a history of working together. His past is REAL, not imagined or manipulated. They KNOW each other. Anyway, I saw the film in L.A. on Sunday, and it is brilliant. The corrections are good, and the film looks and sounds awesome. I liked that Roy's line to Tyrell was changed to "Father" instead of "Fucker". Zhora's death scene looks really good, but you could tell that it was digitally manipulated in a couple of shots, as her head just didn't look quite right. (a vast improvement over the original scene, though) The audience really enjoyed the film and applauded loudly at the end. This was the third time I've seen the film on the big screen: once for the original release, once for the DC, and now this time. Well, the third time's definitely the charm! (although I still like the VO from the original release; it just helps explain so much....)
Glad Scott didn't try to oversell by Gilkuliehe	Oct 9th, 2007 03:27:38 PM
The Deckard is a replicant bullshit. I was really afraid he would add some nonsense crap about it, thus making this cut, THE BULLSHIT CUT. He can say whatever the fuck he wants, but don't mess with the Runner. Deckard being human = Masterpiece. Deckard being a replicant = Senile dude don't understanding his own movie.
The fucker to father change by ricarleite	Oct 9th, 2007 03:28:51 PM
Was that issued to get a PG-13?
It was "father" in the work print version by Dr Lizardo	Oct 9th, 2007 03:35:57 PM
I saw a screening many years ago and laughed about this with a friend afterward. "Fucker" always sounded as if it wanted to be "father", but actually hearing it delivered as "father" in the workprint version just seemed way too pointed and made me glad the line had been changed. Oh well.
Why not change "Tyrell" to "Focker". by Gilkuliehe	Oct 9th, 2007 03:46:13 PM
And change the guy for a CGI Dustin Hoffman taking a shit.
Ridley Scott, "Because, well, Dekard IS a Replicant." by CENOBITE	Oct 9th, 2007 03:47:16 PM
He said it as plain as day at the ComiCon07 Blade Runner panel. Let the bitching finally be put to rest. Him being a Replicant is par for the course for the P.K. Dick meets "Metal Hurlant" world Ridley was creating. In fact even tho it doesn't match Dick's Sheep novel, it does fit right in with his other works. I personaly think it's poetic and beautiful.
Of COURSE Deckard's not a replicant. by slone13	Oct 9th, 2007 03:50:43 PM
It really doesn't matter what Ridley SAYS. It is quite obvious it's not what he intended back in the day. It's kind of like Spielberg changing guns to walkie talkies. Or Greedo shooting first. We know what is was supposed to be. Changing it NOW doesn't really do anything. Deckard's a human, guns are guns, and Greedo shot first. End of story.
The Sixth Replicant... by Phantm_Cruisr	Oct 9th, 2007 03:55:19 PM
There was a sixth Replicant, and whether Deckard is one or not, he wasn't the sixth. Actress Stacey Nelkin (Halloween III: Season of the Witch, Bullets Over Broadway), according to imdb.com, "was originally cast as "Mary", the infamous "Sixth Replicant" in Blade Runner (1982), but due to the film's escalating budget, her part was cut just before shooting began."
Who cares what Ridley Scott says. by rbatty024	Oct 9th, 2007 04:04:53 PM
I actually think that Deckard is a replicant, but I like the fact that it's somewhat ambiguous and people can have multiple interpretations. Even if Scott says that Deckard is a replicant this doesn't mean it's true. Even if Deckard intended to make a film where Deckard is a replicant it doesn't make it so. The director's intent is not the sole interpretation of a film and once he puts it out there into the public then other interpretations can be put onto the movie. If there's a reasonable argument that Deckard isn't a replicant (and there is) then that interpretations is perfectly valid, just as valid as the director's own interpretation. Most people don't know why they do things on a day to day basis (thanks to a little something called the subconscious) so why should we trust a director when he gives his view of he film when he subconsciously could be making an entirely different film than he planned.
"Deckard is a replicant" comes from a misunderstanding by Scott by wookie1972	Oct 9th, 2007 04:15:11 PM
In one of David Peoples' draft of the screenplay, he had a narration (both Peoples' and Hampton Fancher's versions had narratio, btw) in which Deckard observes that he, too, is mortal, like Batty, and he says "Roy Batty and I were brothers." It was clearly meant to be a metaphor, and Scott didn't understand it. The irony is that not only was there never any intention in PKD's original book to make Deckard an android (the word "replicant" is a creation of the screenwriters), there is a (very funny) scene in the book in which a rival detective ("Blade Runner" is also only in the movie) tests Deckard (it may have been called Voight-Kampf, it's been awhile since I've read it). The thing is, I personally find it silly to suggest that Deckard is a replicant. IMHO, it ruins the point of the movie, which is that Deckard is, in fact, less human than his prey.
Holy Crap! Who cares anymore...this Blade Runner topic and revie by future help	Oct 9th, 2007 04:16:18 PM
have been beaten to death. move on! AND please! NO MORE shots of buildings and cars from Hulk sets either.
Saw this Saturday night at the Landmark by Mattyboy122	Oct 9th, 2007 04:16:35 PM
And maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention but I didn't notice Deckard's eyes glow in any of the scenes. The flick looked absolutely amazing, the touch-ups/changes were great, I'd say. I personally prefer Deckard not being a replicant, and while I think Zardoz's idea that Rachel is the unicorn might be pushing it, I think it's also a great idea. Can anyone who saw it confirm that Deckard's eyes did, in fact, glow in the Final Cut?
Sounds cool, but really by Wrecks	Oct 9th, 2007 04:22:00 PM
i wish they woulda left it the fuck alone. Narration, bad wigs, continuity errors and all. I want less re-cutting fucker!
How many editions of Blade Runner have there been? by SoylentMean	Oct 9th, 2007 04:22:57 PM
And when does Jar-Jar show up?
How many editions of Blade Runner have there been? by Tal111	Oct 9th, 2007 04:35:25 PM
I've heard that Gary Coleman is working on a cut- so we still have Blade Runner- The Different Strokes Edition and then that should be it. So, thirteen including my own version in which I digitally inserted Phoebe Cates in her Fast Times bikini walking through Deckards apartment.
All My Life With the BLADERUNNER by Hikaru Ichijo	Oct 9th, 2007 05:04:42 PM
From what I'm reading, BLADE RUNNER is possibly the one example of perpetually tinkering with a film and actually getting it right. The movie blew my mind as a kid in the eighties, then again in the nineties with the Replicant twist, I don't think I could take it one more time as an adult. That said, the wide release in '92 met with a reasonable box office response, but critical indifference, including audiences who didn't like the Replicant thing they added. Home entertainment wasn't all it is today, either. I myself would like to hear a report regarding all the companies featured in this movie that went out of business. Wasn't that supposed to be a curse? I'll watch this just to see if there are any left. Was anyone paying attention to this? PAN AM anyone?
Does Hauer fart first? by JackPumpkinhead	Oct 9th, 2007 05:06:20 PM
Or does the greedy one pass gas before him now?
Screening anywhere in L.A. right now? by Tired Eagle	Oct 9th, 2007 05:15:12 PM
Is this cut screening anywhere in Los Angeles now, or in the near future?
This site needs more news about the new Trek movie... by Bono Luthor	Oct 9th, 2007 05:28:03 PM
so it does.
BR is playing at the Landmark Theater in West L.A. by Forestal	Oct 9th, 2007 05:33:54 PM
FYI.
Third unicorn = Deckard is a Replicant. by Lutz	Oct 9th, 2007 05:45:18 PM
JF Sebastian has a model unicorn on his desk which has been there since the original theatrical release of the film. JF does design work on replicants. So the added THIRD unicorn from the directors cut says that. a) Gaff knew about Deckard's unicorn dream b) JF Sebastian designed Deckard's unicorn dream. You can see this unicorn on the right hand side of the screen when JF is sleeping at his desk just after Pris paints her eyes.
BEST CINEMA EXPERIENCE IN MY LIFE... except for... by gridbug	Oct 9th, 2007 05:47:21 PM
Okay, first the good. Caught the 1:50 showing Saturday afternoon with a buddy at the Landmark. Amazing theatre, primo presentation. Noticeable lack of children. ACE! So we go into the theatre and find our seats (you get to select your seat when you order your tickets, EXCELLENT) which were amazingly comfy, great legroom, stadium seating which meant no blocked views. Show starts. For once, believe the hype. BR has never ever ever looked or sounded so good. And the best part; despite being filled pretty much to capacity, the entire theatre was dead quiet for the ENTIRE run time of the movie! No kids, no cell phones, no idiot buttfuck chatter, NOTHING. There was even an older lady sitting to my right who giggle to herself at all the right parts (Leon: "How old am I?" Deckard: PUNCH!!! Older lady: "giggle") which was geektastic in its own right. It was, all told, a viewing the likes of which hasn't been seen since... well, pretty much ever. UNTIL... some simpleminded jackass decided to fade up the house lights (!!!) during the final few moments of the film, right around the time Deckard goes back to his pad to retrieve Rachael. It wasn't a total deal breaker, but it did make me die a little inside, especially after having each and every one of my expectations about the moviegoing experience, not to mention seeing this definitive version of a sci-fi classic projected all giant sized and digitally pristine. And yes, there was applause at the end credits. Major props to the Landmark (but a big FUCK YOU CHARLEY to the assjack who hit the light switch) and to the filmmakers for a superb restoration. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
more deckard/replicant clues in original release by Anakin722	Oct 9th, 2007 05:51:03 PM
Yeah, I know that the unicorn dream sequence in the Director's Cut spells is out pretty specifically (Gaff knows Deckard's thoughts and dreams, which he only could if Deckard was a replicant, same way Deckard proved to Rachael that SHE was a replicant), but there are still some things in the original theatrical version that hint at Deckard being a replicant: 1. The scene with the glowing eyes as lots have mentioned 2. The pointed question from Rachael about whether Deckard has ever taken the test himself 3. During the scene where Batty grabs Deckard and saves his life, Batty says something but it is obscured by the loud music beat. Turn on your DVD subtitles and you'll see that what Batty says is "kinship."
It was my old teacher by dalbatron	Oct 9th, 2007 05:59:24 PM
Heres a cool but of pointless info. Back at art college we had a guy come in for a few weeks and teach us the art of origami. He was really cool. On the last day he inforemd us all that its his hands you see doing all the origami work in Blade Runner.. How cool is that??? replicant not replicant. Ridley is on film saying he IS a replicant.. shouldnt that be the end of it??
No real interest in this to be honest. by TomBodet	Oct 9th, 2007 06:00:54 PM
I've usually tried to like this movie, but it just doesn't really do it for me-maybe it's the pacing, maybe it's the real cold feeling/atmosphere, maybe it's because Harrison is bored, I donno. Great sets, backdrop, F/X, doesn't even need Giant Robots--just...not my thing, I guess.
No digital magic? by kuguy3000	Oct 9th, 2007 06:02:43 PM
So...inserting freshly shot live-action scenes into a 25+ year old movie doesn't constitute digital magic? Then going on to stab a pointy finger at Lucas? Wow... Myopia is indeed a strange thing! At least he's no biased (wink)
more ridley scott enhancements to come.... by dalbatron	Oct 9th, 2007 06:08:41 PM
He's doing 'a good year' hes digitally removing all the russel crowe bits and inserting a piece of 4 x 2 timber. He says it gives a better preformance...
Can we lay off George Lucas for shit's sake? by Racer Z	Oct 9th, 2007 06:15:00 PM
Good god, let it go for crying out loud! The SW: Special Editions are done and passed. You've been pissing and moaning about it for 10 years. Whine for 10 more and he's still not going to change them back. MOVE ON!!
Is Gaff really the replicant? by CrushKillDestroy	Oct 9th, 2007 06:20:25 PM
I've been away from this movie for a while. I saw it first run and saw the 1st Director's Cut in West LA over a decade ago and never really bought the idea that Deckard was a replicant although the unicorn thing was oddly done. Always thought it was Gaff's way of saying I knew how to find you but you both earned a right to be happy for at least a while. All the talk of Gaff knowing Deckard's unicorn dream could imply that Gaff is a replicant that couldn't do the job so they had to bring in Deckard to finish it up. Gaff is cripled but the best they got outside of Deckard. Gaff was given some of Deckard's memories to flesh out his life. That is why he knows about the unicorn sequence. Gaff was to kill Rachel but he saw that Deckard was changed in how he looked at replicants so he let her live as his parting gift to him for his humanity.
The "I Want more life" line... by Judge Doom	Oct 9th, 2007 06:33:17 PM
In brazil, all versions of blade runner always translated that line as "I Want more life, father". Guess it will finally be rigth. Pretty stupid, if you sak me :P
This film needs more knives... by SoylentMean	Oct 9th, 2007 06:53:15 PM
Seriously, that title doesn't make any damn sense. Like liquid paper.
If Deckard Is Supposed to be a Replicant.... by nexxus7	Oct 9th, 2007 06:54:27 PM
Then he'd have just been a little inside joke for the department --A custom-made replicant to hunt replicants-- because everyone would have known about it. Think about it... 4-year lifespan. Let's say he worked for the dept for 2 years even, how did he get the credentials to become a detective. And any detective or officer would have been hooked up to a Voight-Kampff machine and tested nine ways from Sunday. Not to mention he's slower, weaker and can't do flips like the other replicants. One of the themes of the movie is that Deckard begins to realize that replicants have an inner humanity. The fact that he dreams of a unicorn doesn't mean diddly. Who hasn't had a weird dream with crazy images (on time I had a dream about long-haired candy colored talking cats, but that doesn't make me a replicant. Or does it? Now if he dreamed of electric sheep, that might be something different. Anyway, while some folks might think it's a cool ambiguity, there are enough holes in that theory to drive a truck through. Make Deckard a replicant, and he comes down the hero ladder about 5 rungs, because then he's just a droid working for the man.
Mr. Nice Gaius by Mockingbuddha	Oct 9th, 2007 07:36:55 PM
Read the book again. It is not at all conclusive that Deckard is a human or a android. PKD could surely have made it clear one way or the other, but he chose not to. There were several instances where they edged up to telling for sure whether he was a android, but then didn't say either way (like with the Voight-Kampf test Wookie1972) . I think the Deckard/Replicant question is a rorschach test of peoples attitudes toward alien or different forms of life. I personally like the book so much better with Deckard as an android because it seems to take on a much darker despairing tone. The last scene in the book works so much better for me with Deckard as an android. But as much as I dug through the book, I could find nothing conclusive either way. I have noticed also that people who think Deckard should be human seem very passionate about denying the android/replicant possibility. What's that about?
Fucker vs father by otto maddox	Oct 9th, 2007 07:45:49 PM
who the father cares? also is Deckard a replicant? - that was resolved 15 years ago
Gilkuliehe!!! by FILMFUNK	Oct 9th, 2007 07:49:10 PM
You almost made me piss with the Focker line! And I think your ''Deckard being a replicant = Senile dude don't understanding his own movie.'' puts that one nicely to bed.
is the panther in 2001 a replicant as well then? by FILMFUNK	Oct 9th, 2007 07:50:19 PM

Now will somebody please address all the continuity errors in Gr by Pound Sand	Oct 9th, 2007 07:51:12 PM
I mean, that whole scene with Adrian Zmed at the talent was nothing short of an abomination.
GREASE 2, DAMNIT, CONTINUITY ERRORS IN GREASE 2 by Pound Sand	Oct 9th, 2007 07:51:50 PM

Where's Dumbo 2? Disney is slacking by SoylentMean	Oct 9th, 2007 08:03:27 PM
Oh, I hear The Jungle Book is coming, for the first time ever, in a 3 disc lenticular holographic 3-D edition (with inflatable dinghies). Lets do the octuple dip!!!!
I don't know... by wampa 1	Oct 9th, 2007 08:03:30 PM
...but it sure smells good!
The extra violence was on the pre-DC VHS release by Drath	Oct 9th, 2007 08:11:15 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing the original version of the movie again frankly as I don't like that it has been unavailable, flaws and all. Give me the flat narration! It's not like it's been replaced by a flawless version either. I can't say that I ever thought the line was actually "I want more life, fucker." Frankly "father" was a lot more dramatic considering that you knew damn well he was going to kill the guy, and that he was a machine who was more human than this detached man who made him. The only people who I recall were all hyped up that he might have said "fucker" were the 12-year-olds who had followed Ford from Star Wars and had just discovered the word. Oh hell, I think I just described like 75% of the people here.
BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT by one9deuce	Oct 9th, 2007 08:24:43 PM
I flew down to L.A. to see this and I couldn't be happier with the experience. I managed to miss the original release AND the director's cut in theaters, so I was determined to see it on the big screen finally. It looks and sounds unbelievable, and I am glad that there are only subtle changes to the film. The Landmark is an awesome theater, and the crowd applauded after the saturday 7:50 showing. As far as Deckard being a replicant, why? The story is about a man who has become less than human hunting replicants that are becoming more and more human. Roy gaines the empathy to let the man who has been trying to kill him live. That says it all. Deckard being a replicant says nothing.
Idiots: Scott had nothing to do with the BR script by Cyberfury	Oct 9th, 2007 08:35:22 PM
He says so early on in Channel 4's 'On The Edge Of Blade Runner' documentary (sadly it seems to be gone from Google Video now). Scott brought in a second screenwriter to work on the script but also admits he had his hand full with 'being creative' film-wise to be bothered with the story. One should look to the 2 screenwriters for answers. It's not even interesting in the grand scheme of things whether Deckard's is a human or a toaster IMO. The Channel 4 doc is a truly fascinating piece btw, if only for the segment where Rutger Hauer disses on Ford big time. I didn't even know Hauer wrote Roy's 'Tears in the rain' speech himself on set! I Hope they put this one on the new DVD (where, incidentally, you will also have the choice to turn the narration on or off).
Mockingbuddha by Lutz	Oct 9th, 2007 08:41:01 PM
Deckard is definately not a android in the book. The only way to tell for sure if someone is not a android is if they under go a bone-marrow test which is how they identify the androids after they have been killed. Deckard has one of these tests in the middle of the book and it shows that he is human.
..oh and by Cyberfury	Oct 9th, 2007 08:41:54 PM
In that same doc Scott also states that Deckard IS a replicant (and the dream sequence is the proof). Bare in mind that Scott is a true chauvinist and this was a long time ago, I bet he believes his own 'bullshit' by now. He should give credit where credit is due and give the writers/staff some respect.
Deckard has an "eyeshine" scene in "The Final Cut" by Mullah Omar	Oct 9th, 2007 09:00:59 PM
I don't mind the ambiguity of whether or not Deckard was/wasn't a replicant. (If he WAS a replicant, he clearly didn't have super strength, but damned if he didn't take a lot of severe beatings without much effect.) One of many clues in "The Final Cut" comes during a scene in Deckard's apartment where Rachael is in focus in the foreground while Deckard is out of focus in the background. Rachael clearly has the trademark replicant eyeshine, and in the background, you can also - very clearly, if you're looking at him and not her - see the same eyeshine in Deckard's eyes. I don't have DVDs of any versions to prove whether the same eyeshine is there, but for "The Final Cut," I was sitting in the 4th row in front of a huge screen, and it seemed VERY clear. Now of course you could argue that this was done in the background to make it even more ambiguous that it already was - because I didn't see the effect on Deckard at any other time during the movie (and he may have been in focus during every other scene; I don't know). And maybe the real-life special effect that targeted Sean Young inadvertently, unintentionally affected Harrison Ford in the background of the same scene. But I definitely saw the eyeshine on Deckard, and I thought that, if intentional, it made for a nice bit of ambiguity and a very strong hint that Deckard was a replicant. To everyone else who saw "The Final Cut" - did you notice this scene? And if so, did you see what I saw?
the unicorn is GREEDO FOR FUCK'S SAKE SO SHADDAP ALREADY by TomBodet	Oct 9th, 2007 09:13:36 PM
sorry-was channeling Gabe Gay there. Move on, nothing to see.
Brand new RIDLEY SCOTT interview from Wired Magazine by yassoo	Oct 9th, 2007 09:34:10 PM
here you go people. deckard is a replicant. enough. Scott: It was, actually [in the original script, that Deckard was a replicant]. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard, and we don't really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let's say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it's a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard's daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn't normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it's Gaff's message to say, "I've read your file, mate." That relates to Deckard's first speech to Rachael when he says, "That's not your imagination, that's Tyrell's niece's daydream." And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.
Was the transparent Spinner fixed???????????? by Orionsangels	Oct 9th, 2007 09:55:58 PM
When the Spinner flies in front of the giant digital billboard with the asian lady. You can see through the Spinner.
The line from TESB was also changed . . . by Add to Friends	Oct 9th, 2007 10:04:15 PM
It was originally, "Luke, I am your fucker."
The actual line is "Fucker, I'm your father." by Bronx Cheer	Oct 9th, 2007 10:26:57 PM
Because Vader hated the whiny brat that Luke turned out to be.
Stop arguing over whether he is a Replicant. He is, and has been by Bronx Cheer	Oct 9th, 2007 10:29:21 PM
Can't you argue about things that are still debatable, such as whether Roy is a terribly name for a robot?
Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is NOT a replicant... by Bill Clay	Oct 9th, 2007 11:56:43 PM
Harrison Ford disavowed the movie upon release, as he deemed it "style over substance". Ford was reportedly very unhappy with Ridley Scott during the shoot. He said once in an interview, that Scott was more interested in his fanciful images than directing the actors. In 2000, Harrison Ford gave his view on the Director’s Cut of the film saying, although he thought it “spectacular” it didn’t “move him at all”. He gave a brief reason: "They haven't put anything in, so it's still an exercise in design."
All this Hub-Bub for 30 Seconds Difference by redfist	Oct 10th, 2007 12:57:21 AM
Paint me surprised.
Merrick, and the hospital sequence not in? by half vader	Oct 10th, 2007 01:30:06 AM
Jeez Merrick, you really don't know why he says "father"?! To SOFTEN it???! All these years I've been interested about the cool looking hospital sequemce where Deck visits Ford and I'd read they'd found good elements, but it's not back in? It was one of those famous lost scenes.
Final cut until by Trik_Ster	Oct 10th, 2007 01:43:30 AM
the next one
BSG Season 4 Trailer by secretcylon	Oct 10th, 2007 03:34:18 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vys Vxz2_rQg AMAZING
Decker: Weak, Puny, Killer by gothfae	Oct 10th, 2007 05:29:48 AM
So, everyone says; He can't be a repilicant, he's not superhuman. But he sure managed to kill all of them, didn't he.
"for those not in either city" by the ageless stranger	Oct 10th, 2007 05:57:06 AM
"(which would be like, ummm, most of the United States)." That would actually be the rest of the world there, Mr. America. Some of us outside your fine country are waiting to see this as well......
WE NEED MORE SEX AND THE CITY NEWS!!! by BringingSexyBack	Oct 10th, 2007 06:58:08 AM
They should remake Blade Runner. Then we can have some Talkback fun.
Deckard was not a Replicant, but the movie by BringingSexyBack	Oct 10th, 2007 06:59:43 AM
was a dream. Spoiler!!!
Sean Young is Deckard's sister and this was her wet dream by BringingSexyBack	Oct 10th, 2007 07:01:13 AM
Taboo. Feels so good. Taboo. Misunderstood.
Spoiler!!! Roy is Deckard's second cousin's roommate by BringingSexyBack	Oct 10th, 2007 07:04:31 AM
Hence the conflict.
Why are the called "blade" runners? by BringingSexyBack	Oct 10th, 2007 07:05:34 AM
Sounds wicked but makes no sense.
Deckard is a cyborg. by Dingbatty	Oct 10th, 2007 08:02:49 AM
There, now everyone's happy.
Deckard being Replicant ruins Roy's best scene by MurderMostFowl	Oct 10th, 2007 08:24:37 AM
If Deckard is a replicant, then Roy saves him in the end not because of his respect for life, morality, higher thinking, or any higher purpose. He saves him because he realizes a replicant too. That absolutely ruins the most powerful moment of the film. Did you think about that Mr. Scott when you keep trying to prove he is one?
deckard is a unicorn by ironic_name	Oct 10th, 2007 09:29:24 AM
deleted post.
Slone 13 by Abominable Snowcone	Oct 10th, 2007 10:05:24 AM
Greedo did NOT shoot first! Solo did. Lucas changed it to make Greedo shoot first.
Murdermost fowl...I agree with your interpretation by Abominable Snowcone	Oct 10th, 2007 10:10:51 AM
Of the ending with the rooftop-hand grab and its implications.
Deckard is Luke's father -- and a Cylon! And a woman! by MrMysteryGuest	Oct 10th, 2007 10:14:22 AM
HAHAHAAAAAAAA! I've spoiled the Final Cut ending! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!!!!!!!!!
Wrecks post: The final cut by zer0cool2k2	Oct 10th, 2007 11:14:13 AM
i wish they woulda left it the fuck alone. Narration, bad wigs, continuity errors and all. I want less re-cutting FATHER!
You hit the nail on the head, MurderMostFowl... by Bill Clay	Oct 10th, 2007 11:26:32 AM
How many movies have ended with the villain saving the hero's life, for noble reasons? Deckard, a human with no emotions (the 'cold fish') learned to live again thanks to robots who showed him how precious life is. And we're going to throw away this powerful ending for some pretentious director's Unicorn dream? I think not.
fuck SCOTT by Prossor	Oct 10th, 2007 03:41:49 PM
in this case.... fuck him up his ass, with a plastic unicorn.
how about, origami unicorn by half vader	Oct 10th, 2007 03:54:25 PM
Ooh those anal papercuts!
They're called Blade Runners because by TheNorthlander	Oct 10th, 2007 04:00:48 PM
the title of the movie was stolen from a completely different screenplay (based on a novella by someone completely different from PKD).

Talkbacks

Darwin Dissects BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks