Page 4 of 5

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:50 am
by Cha-Ka Khan
I hear ya, Vameon. I don't think it's going to be showing anywhere in Rochester either, so I sent an email to the film curator at the Dryden Theater here in Rochester, and he replied saying that if it's not going to show commercially here, it will be on their program in April/May.

He said they wanted to get it sooner, but WB wouldn't rent it out for runs of less than a week for the current re-release. The Dryden usually does a a single showing... maybe two on the weekend.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:45 am
by Spifftacular SquirrelGirl
So I have a confession to make. I've never seen "Blade Runner" until just recently with the "Final Cut". So I really can't make any comparisons to the originally theatrically version or any other cut but I see why this movie has the following it does.

Rutger Hauer was absolutely amazing in this film and I'm shocked he didn't get a best supporting actor nom for his role.

I'm already looking forward to watching the documentary and other extra features.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:23 pm
by WinslowLeach
Awesome DVD set. Ive watched the Final Cut and Dangerous Days so far.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:35 pm
by sonnyboo
I love the unique way they've put together the DELETED SCENES, almost as another alternate version of the film. The music crosses from one deleted scene to the other in a very fluid fashion. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that before.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:55 pm
by wonkabar
sonnyboo wrote:I love the unique way they've put together the DELETED SCENES, almost as another alternate version of the film. The music crosses from one deleted scene to the other in a very fluid fashion. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that before.


Yeah, very interesting. I'd like to see more HD/DVD/BD's do that from now on

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:47 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
so I feel kinda good about being a cheap fuckstick now, as the Workprint version, which I thought was some 4hr. opus, full of those enticing snippets that are showing during DANGEROUS DAYS, is instead only...

Wiki wrote:Workprint version (1982)

The full workprint version of the movie was released to the public on DVD as part of the five-disc boxed set containing the Final Cut, in 2007. It has the following differences:

* There is no voice-over, no "unicorn vision", and no "happy ending". However, Deckard does have a brief narration directly after Batty's death.
* There is no opening crawl: a static screen of text, showing a dictionary definition of the word "Replicant", replaces it.
* From Deckard's arrival at the Bradbury building to the end of the film, the Vangelis music score is missing, presumably not yet composed at this time this version was made. It is replaced by placeholder music.
* Deckard is seen taking a few moments struggling to remove the tie that Zhora choked him with, before beginning to chase her.
* Batty addresses Tyrell as "father" (not "fucker") when asking for more life, as in the Final Cut.
* When Batty kills Tyrell, the scene is a combination of the "violent" footage from the International Edition and the "non-violent" footage from the theatrical original. Batty still pokes out Tyrell's eyes with his thumbs, but Tyrell is seen falling to the floor as in the original.
* When Pris attacks Deckard, the scene is again a combination of the International Edition and the original. Pris hits Deckard three times, and also holds him up by his nostrils. However, Deckard still shoots her only twice.
* The scene in which Batty pushes a nail through his hand is identical to the "non-violent" version in the Theatrical Release.
* There are no ending credits.


and man oh man, do a lot of peeps come off rather snippy during DANGEROUS DAYS or what?

fascinating look behind the scenes though - and, yes, PKD did indeed love what he had seen of it.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:54 pm
by RogueScribner
It's playing at the Universal Cineplex 20 here in O-town and I think I'll swing by and catch it this week. I haven't seen the movie in probably a decade and I don't remember which version I saw. But the trailer I saw recently piqued my interest, fo sho.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:33 am
by DennisMM
Spifftacular SquirrelGirl wrote:So I have a confession to make. I've never seen "Blade Runner" until just recently with the "Final Cut". So I really can't make any comparisons to the originally theatrically version or any other cut but I see why this movie has the following it does.

Rutger Hauer was absolutely amazing in this film and I'm shocked he didn't get a best supporting actor nom for his role.

I'm already looking forward to watching the documentary and other extra features.


Science fiction and fantasy movies didn't seem to rate consideration for the biggest categories back then. Technical categories and music were most common, with an occasional acting nod. Until about ten years ago the Academy and its members didn't seem to think a movie with lots of special effects or a harder sf premise could be taken seriously. ANH was nominated for best picture and Guiness supporting actor, but that was because the film made so much money. Jeff Bridges was nominated for Starman. That seemed almost like a fluke.

Don Ameche won supporting actor for Cocoon. Ruth Gordon won supporting actress for Rosemary's Baby. Whoopi Goldberg won for Ghost. Only RB wasn't a feel good movie. Light fantasies and low-key sf and horror seemed the only genre material popular with the voters. The other acting nominations (there were no other best picture noms I can remember) ran along the same lines. They were for safe, lightweight pictures. Perhaps the studios and producers didn't put forth genre material "for your consideration." That seems likely.

I think that before ROTK took best picture, the most important sf/fantasy/horror winner was Fredric March as Jekyll and Hyde in the early '30s. So we've got two major awards and three lesser awards in 70 years. Oh, well.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am
by RogueScribner
Has anyone else caught this in the theaters? It's playing locally here in Orlando. I still haven't caught it yet but I hope to tomorrow. I don't know if it'll still be here on Friday.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:07 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
RogueScribner wrote:Has anyone else caught this in the theaters?


some of us have.

I should 'prolly lock one of these, but seeing how Orcus' thread is about the differences in the Final Cut...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:09 am
by RogueScribner
Sorry, I guess I was looking in the wrong place!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:12 am
by Keepcoolbutcare
understandable, what with the plethora of Blade Runner threads we've got going around here.

what's funny is you posted in the other one...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:16 am
by RogueScribner
Yeah, I had a vague memory of posting about it, but I could remember if it was here in the Zone or elsewhere offsite. I guess I know now.

And in the future, maybe I'll pull my posting history to be sure. ;)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:17 am
by burlivesleftnut
NO! Post recklessly and often.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:19 am
by RogueScribner
SIR, YES, SIR!

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:53 am
by Fried Gold
Not only is the Ultimate Edition one of the best DVDs from the past year...it might be the best DVD package ever released.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:48 pm
by DennisMM
I only wish they'd made the case out of aluminum. Or, in UK, out of aluminium.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:17 pm
by Ribbons


Great interview, lots of meaty questions and answers in there. Scott seems a little prickly, but I admire his candor.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:51 pm
by Fried Gold
DennisMM wrote:I only wish they'd made the case out of aluminum. Or, in UK, out of aluminium.

True. Although it might be a bit costly.

I wanted a "how to make an origami unicorn" factsheet with it.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:28 pm
by DennisMM
Ooh, cool!

I want a "how to grow a mustache as good as Edward Olmos's" pamphlet.

The Superman box made me think a metal case would be great, but that probably would have hiked the price by 20 bucks or more.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:33 pm
by Fried Gold
I tried this but got stuck on page 8.

Strangely the UK 5-disc set comes in a brown metal tin. So it might not have put the price up that much to have a metal briefcase.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:12 pm
by RogueScribner
Okay, now that I'm in the proper thread, here's my quickie review:


I caught The Final Cut at the Universal Cineplex yesterday. It was an early afternoon showing and I was the only human being in that theater. Which suited me because I got to stretch out and not be bothered by anyone while I sat in the perfect seat and just let the movie wash over me.

Man, this movie was beautiful. I've never seen BR pop as much as it did on the big screen. If anyone is anywhere close to a theater playing this movie, do yourself a favor and see it. TV can't compare. It just can't do this movie justice.

I also for the first time was able to really soak in the visual landscape of this film. So much is lost on the small screen. The movie had a texture that simply isn't there in cgi. The model work in this movie was glorious. Sure, some of the optical compositing is iffy, but that's always been the case for every movie that ever used it. But barring that, I'd put this movie against any of the Star Wars prequels for a realistically created universe. I loved it.

The weakest link in the film then and now continues to be Sean Young. She just isn't a good actress and most of her performance consisted of a blank stare. She didn't seem human (which I know she wasn't, but you know what I mean). Maybe someone told her she was a robot and she took it to heart. The other replicants were entertaining enough; they seemed like real people. I just disliked her.

I really dug seeing a young Ford on the big screen. If they ever cleaned up and rereleased Raiders I'd be there in a second.

I really enjoyed this cut of BR and while I don't really like the idea of Deckard being a replicant, if you don't pay attention too closely in a couple of scenes you could ignore that point completely. It's not like Scott comes right out and says it (thank god).

Anyhoo, I'm not sure which version of BR I had scene before--probably the "director's cut" because I don't remember narration--but my opinion of this movie shot up a couple of notches after seeing this cut in the theater. I may even have to track down that DVD.

8/10

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:09 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Fried Gold wrote:I wanted a "how to make an origami unicorn" factsheet with it.


Supposedly, this one, she is a based onna the Mick Guy's design from a the film, eh (or perhaps she is a the original design... it's a not clear, eh?).

Hehehehe...

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:11 am
by Ribbons
Sweeeeeet. I look forward to wasting many sheets of paper trying to make this thing. :wink:

PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 5:30 pm
by Fried Gold
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I wanted a "how to make an origami unicorn" factsheet with it.


Supposedly, this one, she is a based onna the Mick Guy's design from a the film, eh (or perhaps she is a the original design... it's a not clear, eh?).

Hehehehe...

Yeah that's the same one I linked to.

It's gets to a point where the diagrams vanish and the photos aren't clear enough to see what you're supposed to do.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:20 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Fried Gold wrote:Yeah that's the same one I linked to.


Holy crappa paisan... I dinna even a see your original link, eh? Goddamn... the Old Man's eyes, they are a not a what a they used a to be, no?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:14 pm
by brownkidd
I've actually gotten death threats for not watching this movie. I should totally get around to that some time.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:21 pm
by Lady Sheridan
I have a silly plot question...

When the Replicants eyes glow red, that is visible to the naked eye, correct? It's visible to ours, so I always assumed the characters in the film could see it. When Rachel is being interviewed by Deckard, you can see her eyes--and yet he continues to interview her for several more hours(?) before figuring out she is a Replicant.

Why is that?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:30 am
by Chairman Kaga
Maybe replicants can't see it.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:51 am
by pheadx
Lady Sheridan wrote:I have a silly plot question...

When the Replicants eyes glow red, that is visible to the naked eye, correct? It's visible to ours, so I always assumed the characters in the film could see it. When Rachel is being interviewed by Deckard, you can see her eyes--and yet he continues to interview her for several more hours(?) before figuring out she is a Replicant.

Why is that?


I don't think that I've seen the eyes glow red or that this is the factor to figure out that rachel is a replicant. If you mean the visual trick with the iris (also done with the owl), then it's just the reflection which only should make the audience suspicious. If I'm correct we never see how the test really works.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:44 am
by unikrunk
Let me preface my heresy by stating that Blade Runner is my favorite movie. It was my favorite movie in its initial release cut; it was my favorite after the directors cut.

With that out of the way, I must tell you, I did not see the value in spending any energy on this final cut, or whatever it is being called.

I have watched this movie hundreds of times, and I could not see what they added or fixed, other than a few scenes and some new sound mixing. I am glad I rented it, because I would have severe buyer's remorse if I purchased it.

Maybe I was not paying attention, but this smacks of 'milking it' to me. The film was fine the way it was, and the changes are not worth the energy put into them.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:18 pm
by Lady Sheridan
pheadx wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:I have a silly plot question...

When the Replicants eyes glow red, that is visible to the naked eye, correct? It's visible to ours, so I always assumed the characters in the film could see it. When Rachel is being interviewed by Deckard, you can see her eyes--and yet he continues to interview her for several more hours(?) before figuring out she is a Replicant.

Why is that?


I don't think that I've seen the eyes glow red or that this is the factor to figure out that rachel is a replicant. If you mean the visual trick with the iris (also done with the owl), then it's just the reflection which only should make the audience suspicious. If I'm correct we never see how the test really works.


I'm talking about the iris trick--and it's one of the claims that Deckard is a Replicant as his eyes are supposedly seen doing it at one point.

The Voight-Kampff test for determining a Replicant is based on the emotional response to the questions asked. Rachel takes longer to determine because she doesn't know she is one due to her new programming.

They all display the iris effect at one point or another (though I'm not convinced that Deckard does) and my question was whether or not it actually was meant to be visible. If Deckard can see it when he's interviewing Rachel, as we can, he has no reason to question her for as long as he does.

I'm guessing he can't and only the audience can which is kind of weird, a cool effect rendered into...well, just a cool effect. Which is probably all it ever was. :D

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:48 pm
by tapehead
Chairman Kaga wrote:Maybe replicants can't see it.


Exactly, or they don't see it's significance.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:51 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
I always thought it was akin to getting the red eye when you have your photos taken, and it was just a stylistic choice by Scott to apply to the replicants as a nod to the audience.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:46 am
by RogueScribner
Lady Sheridan wrote:
pheadx wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:I have a silly plot question...

When the Replicants eyes glow red, that is visible to the naked eye, correct? It's visible to ours, so I always assumed the characters in the film could see it. When Rachel is being interviewed by Deckard, you can see her eyes--and yet he continues to interview her for several more hours(?) before figuring out she is a Replicant.

Why is that?


I don't think that I've seen the eyes glow red or that this is the factor to figure out that rachel is a replicant. If you mean the visual trick with the iris (also done with the owl), then it's just the reflection which only should make the audience suspicious. If I'm correct we never see how the test really works.


I'm talking about the iris trick--and it's one of the claims that Deckard is a Replicant as his eyes are supposedly seen doing it at one point.

The Voight-Kampff test for determining a Replicant is based on the emotional response to the questions asked. Rachel takes longer to determine because she doesn't know she is one due to her new programming.

They all display the iris effect at one point or another (though I'm not convinced that Deckard does) and my question was whether or not it actually was meant to be visible. If Deckard can see it when he's interviewing Rachel, as we can, he has no reason to question her for as long as he does.

I'm guessing he can't and only the audience can which is kind of weird, a cool effect rendered into...well, just a cool effect. Which is probably all it ever was. :D



I remember Deckard's eyes doing that when I saw this in the theater a few weeks ago. I believe it was when Rachel first visits his apartment. He walks behind her and faces towards the camera and I clearly remember noticing that effect.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:23 am
by Fried Gold
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I always thought it was akin to getting the red eye when you have your photos taken

It is essentially the same thing - you get red eye on compact cameras from having the flash too close to the lens.

They obviously did this on purpose, and on the new DVD documentary they describe the way Jordan Cronenweth acheived the effect by building some kind of off-axis beam splitter device thing - so that the red eye was picked up by the camera without having to flash fill the actor's faces.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:58 am
by Ribbons
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I always thought it was akin to getting the red eye when you have your photos taken, and it was just a stylistic choice by Scott to apply to the replicants as a nod to the audience.


Yeah, that's basically the same impression I always got, that we're seeing something that the characters don't, or can't.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:52 pm
by The Vicar
brownkidd wrote:I've actually gotten death threats for not watching this movie. I should totally get around to that some time.


You got two days.
Then we're coming for your lazy ass......

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:56 am
by bclbjames23
I bought this on Blu-Ray having never seen the film before. I heard excellent things about it and was not disappointed. This is easily one of my favorite films of all-time. I'm not going to go into a review or anything but yea amazing. The dvd set is amazing, I couldn't believe how much went into Dangerous Days. 3 1/2 hours is unbelieveable, you learn everything you need to know about Blade Runner from watching it.

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:44 pm
by Nordling
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36909

There's a benefit screening of BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT on Saturday June 14th for Paul Prischman. He's actually posted here a couple of times as Hellboy (his handle). He's a great guy, and he's been disgnosed with brain cancer. If anyone's in the area in June, you should get a ticket, or just help out Paul if you can. He's responsible for a lot of the work on the Ridley Scott box sets, especially wrangling some hard-to-get interviews. He's a mensch.

Re:

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:08 am
by Maui
RogueScribner wrote:
I really enjoyed this cut of BR and while I don't really like the idea of Deckard being a replicant, if you don't pay attention too closely in a couple of scenes you could ignore that point completely. It's not like Scott comes right out and says it (thank god).


Isn't true too in interviews with Ridley Scott re. BR that he won't admit to this when asked if Deckard is a replicant?

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:10 am
by RogueScribner
I don't know, but I know I picked up on some telltale signs when watching the movie on the big screen. Still, they were hints to the possible nature of Deckard, but nothing absolute.

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:23 am
by Tyrone_Shoelaces
There was an interview years ago where he flat out stated that Deckard was a replicant. Fuck if I know where or when he said it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't too long before they announced the Final Cut was happening. In the interview he says that is one of the things he wants to fix, something about editing some dialog. For some reason I want to say the interview took place in Cannes when he was there with Kingdom of Heaven, but I could be very wrong. Somebody check The Guardian.

EDIT: Just went to Amazon and bought the Blu-ray for $15. I don't even have a Blu-ray anything but I couldn't pass that up.

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:35 am
by RogueScribner
Well, he seems to confirm it right here.


No seriously, try here.

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:38 am
by Fried Gold
Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:There was an interview years ago where he flat out stated that Deckard was a replicant. Fuck if I know where or when he said it. I'm pretty sure it wasn't too long before they announced the Final Cut was happening.

It was part of Mark Kermode's 2000 documentary "On The Edge of Blade Runner". (which unfortunately wasn't included on the recent DVD).

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:09 pm
by Maui
Alright, thanks guys. We were having a BR discussion in the lunch room at work yesterday and there were varying opinions on this, whether Scott confirmed this or not in an interview.

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:46 pm
by sonnyboo
Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:There was an interview years ago where he flat out stated that Deckard was a replicant.


On the BBC special on the making of BLADE RUNNER called ON THE EDGE OF BLADE RUNNER

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:05 am
by Nachokoolaid
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I always thought it was akin to getting the red eye when you have your photos taken, and it was just a stylistic choice by Scott to apply to the replicants as a nod to the audience.


Sort of my thoughts, except I think Scott left it purposely more ambiguous than that. Maybe it means they're a replicant, maybe it means nothing. I think that's part of the genius of the whole thing. I have red eye all the time in photos. Doesn't mean I dream of electric sheep.

Re: Re:

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:45 am
by Fried Gold
Nachokoolaid wrote:
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I always thought it was akin to getting the red eye when you have your photos taken, and it was just a stylistic choice by Scott to apply to the replicants as a nod to the audience.


Sort of my thoughts, except I think Scott left it purposely more ambiguous than that. Maybe it means they're a replicant, maybe it means nothing. I think that's part of the genius of the whole thing. I have red eye all the time in photos. Doesn't mean I dream of electric sheep.

There was theory I read about that maybe every person on the Earth we see in Blade Runner is a replicant, but that the "off-worlders" (real humans) have left them here to live out their lives under the illusion of being human.

Re: Blade Runner: The Final Cut

PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:12 pm
by Nachokoolaid
Fun. I don't think I buy that theory, but it's entertaining. After watching the Dangerous Days doc, I would have really liked that scene that was story boarded there where Batty kills his "father" and he turns out to be a replicant. And they go upstairs, and there's the tomb, and he's actually been dead several years. I think that would have added more depth to a complex situation.