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.
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.
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.
RogueScribner wrote:Has anyone else caught this in the theaters?
Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:Q&A: Ridley Scott Has Finally Created the Blade Runner He Always Imagined
DennisMM wrote:I only wish they'd made the case out of aluminum. Or, in UK, out of aluminium.
Fried Gold wrote:I wanted a "how to make an origami unicorn" factsheet with it.
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...
Fried Gold wrote:Yeah that's the same one I linked to.
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?
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.
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.
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I always thought it was akin to getting the red eye when you have your photos taken
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.
brownkidd wrote:I've actually gotten death threats for not watching this movie. I should totally get around to that some time.
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).
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.
Tyrone_Shoelaces wrote:There was an interview years ago where he flat out stated that Deckard was a replicant.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests