Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Media Movies

Blade Runner, The Final Cut 258

Posted by CowboyNeal from the no-more-doubts-about-deckard dept.
Bowman9991 writes "A new promotional website is up and trailers for Blade Runner: The Final Cut have been released. I've been waiting ages for this one. SFFMedia has some details about the Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition on HD-DVD and Blu-ray with new footage. It's slated for a December 18th release. Apparently it's also being released in the cinemas again in the US."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blade Runner, The Final Cut More

Blade Runner, The Final Cut

Comments Filter:

  • Best movie news this year (Score:3, Interesting)

    by empaler ( 130732 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:04PM (#20966457) Journal
    Yay for Blade Runner! The plot may be a bit iffy, but the style is awexome.
    • I'm just sayin'.

      ah.clem

    • Damn the critics... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I much prefer the original narrated version. The Director's Cut release a couple of years back just removed the narrative and reversed the order of 2 scenes - and was worse for it. As for Ripley Scott changing his story about Deckard being a replicant - he's full of it. Rutger Howard's character would have figured this out. Him leaving Deckard alive at the end of the movie would be pointless if Deckard were a replicant.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Oktober Sunset ( 838224 )
        Ohes noes, I don't understand the story so I need someone to tell me what is happening in a voice over... Once upon a time there was an android hunter called Deckard...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 )

        I much prefer the original narrated version(1). The Director's Cut release a couple of years back just removed the narrative and reversed the order of 2 scenes(2) - and was worse for it(3). As for Ripley Scott changing his story about Deckard being a replicant - he's full of it(4). Rutger Howard's(5) character would have figured this out(6). Him leaving Deckard alive at the end of the movie would be pointless if Deckard were a replicant(7).

        1) What could possibly be wrong with you that you'd think that?
        2) ...and changed the ending, and added back the footage hinting that Deckard might be a replicant the studio suits removed.
        3) Only for those too dim to follow the story, like you, and those studio suits.
        4) RS didn't change his story, the studio morons did. The DC version restores it to what it was originally.
        5) Rutger Hauer. I begin to see your difficulty, watching films through that fog of illiteracy.
        6) Who says he didn't?
        7) Why kill hi

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by loganrapp ( 975327 )
          This man speaks the truth.


          Harrison Ford himself made it clear that he hated the voice-overs, that he intentionally did it so bad because he was hoping the studio execs would just throw it out on account of its shittiness.

          He was wrong - they used the VOs. And I believe Ford, I doubt it's an excuse for his poor voice acting since he's been known to cop to it whenever he does something less-than-great.

        • You know everyone has an opinion. My opinion is that I like the original version, not the directors cut, the second directors version, the laser disk version, the version without the narration, the version released only in Nambia, the version released to the airlines, the tv version or any of that. Does that make me an idiot because my opinion differs from your self described superior opinion? Calling people illiterate or otherwise belittling their opinions to prove how smart you are or how superior you believe your own opinion to be is just sad. It's a movie, buy the super deluxe version and pull it off your shelf every once in a while and lecture your cat about how your opinion is better than anyone else's opinion. I'm sure the cat will be impressed.
    • I had read the authorized sequels to 'Do Androids dream of electric sheep': Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, and Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night by K. W. Jeter they paint a very interesting tangent to the movie and much closer to the story. It seems the movie may be following [blade-runner.it] that plot line.

  • How many final cuts are there? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:07PM (#20966491)
    My entire adult life, every few years there are expanded cuts, director cuts, ultimate cuts, supercuts, etc. of this particular movie. I'm waiting for the best boy & gaffer cut after this one.

    • Re:How many final cuts are there? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:23PM (#20966615)
      The Paper Cut is going to hurt like hell.

    • Is this the version that syncs up with Pink Floyds "The Final Cut"?

      • Re:How many final cuts are there? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Basehart ( 633304 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @02:30PM (#20967615)
        I'm wondering whether it will even sync up with the original Vangelis soundtrack. They had some new music accompanying the trailer I saw on youtube. I'd bet that without Vangelis the film wouldn't have become the classic it has.

        I finally buckled last year and bought the Gongo Records version of the soundtrack on Ebay and it was glorious to hear the original soundtrack although I do hope that Vangelis can one day release an "official" pristine remastered version from the master.

        In the meantime there are a few versions to choose from here [vangelis-rarities.com].
    • Blade Runner: The Final Cut. This time, it's personal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by no_pets ( 881013 )
      The all can be summed up as the "Attempt to make more money Cut".
    • Will this cut explain why they have to use a psychological test to tell replicants apart from humans and not, say, a blood sample?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mattpalmer1086 ( 707360 )
        Because replicants are biologically identical to us. They're bio-engineering, not AI devices. So one way to tell them apart is the lack of normal emotional responses. Which is why implanting memories in them is such a big deal - "to create a cushion"...

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mattpalmer1086 ( 707360 )
          Sorry to reply to myself, but I just realised you had a much better point than I gave you credit for.

          Since these replicants can plunge their hands into liquid nitrogen without harm, and apparently have an assortment of other enhanced physical capabilities, there must be some much easier tests than emotional response.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        Read the book- Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. It makes far, far more sense there.
    • And we all bitch about the RIAA wishing to chargew for each time we listen to a song ....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mihalis ( 28146 )
      My entire adult life, every few years there are expanded cuts, director cuts, ultimate cuts, supercuts, etc. of this particular movie. I'm waiting for the best boy & gaffer cut after this one.

      Are we talking about the same movie? On DVD at least there was just one lousy version for the entire history of the DVD format, until a slightly better version last year (Director's Cut, better transfer). Now this year we finally get some real new stuff. Ok so on tape there is some variety, and also on laserdisc,

  • The first director's cut removed doubt... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chmcginn ( 201645 ) * on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:12PM (#20966531) Journal
    Gaff knew who the replicants were, and he marked Deckard as such. I don't see the need for having somebody come out and say it...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Linzer ( 753270 )

      Gaff knew who the replicants were, and he marked Deckard as such. I don't see the need for having somebody come out and say it...
      Thank you for reminding people of this. The scenario as described in TFA strictly matches the "Director's cut" released eons ago. This sounds like they removed a scratch here and there and re-released the very same friggin' thing. Which I loved, by the way, but it isn't new.

  • I know I am probably in the minority (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:14PM (#20966545) Homepage Journal
    but I want the voice over.

    If not something I can select then please include that version. For some reason I like the version of the film I saw first, the voice over to me put me in the mood. Very 50s like and that is what I best remember. I actually never liked subsequent releases simply because of that feature being missing. Yes I know the arguments against but we are irrational beings and well...

    • Re:I know I am probably in the minority (Score:5, Informative)

      by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:19PM (#20966579)
      If you want the voiceover then get the 5 disc set. [amazon.com] It will contain all the released cuts of the movie, plus some extras.

    • Re:I know I am probably in the minority (Score:4, Informative)

      by morari ( 1080535 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:24PM (#20966623) Journal
      The DVD release will see three versions this December. A basic two-disc edition with just the Final Cut and special features. A three-disc edition with the Final Cut, special features, and theatrical cut (what you're talking about) and original director's cut. Finally, a limited edition, numbered five disc version that includes all of that, an early workshop cut of the film, a unicorn figurine and a full-sized detective briefcase to hold it all in.

      The workshop edit of the film is really the only thing that makes the super-huge edition appealing for me...

    • If you are in a minority, it probably is quite a large (albeit silent) minority. Actually, on talking about this with people (in the flesh, face to face), I have not yet spoken to anyone who prefers the director's cut - like me, they prefer the original release version (assuming they've seen the original version).

      • If you are in a minority, it probably is quite a large (albeit silent) minority. Actually, on talking about this with people (in the flesh, face to face), I have not yet spoken to anyone who prefers the director's cut - like me, they prefer the original release version (assuming they've seen the original version).

        That only proves that people with poor taste hang out together. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". See, I hang out with people who can handle a complex movie without a voice explaining what's going on, with such prize-winner lines as "Sushi. That's what my ex-wife called me. Cold fish."; we all think the original cut is crap.

    • The Digital Bytes has a page clarifying the details [thedigitalbits.com] about exactly what is contained in each of the various sets that are being releasing.

      The good news is the original version is finally available on DVD.
      The bad news is that it is only available as part of a collectors edition.
      The good news is that the 4-disc set is fairly reasonably priced at $35.

  • Revisionist (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Dobber ( 576407 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:17PM (#20966569)
    Does Rachael shoot first in this one?

  • hey (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:20PM (#20966583)
    torrent plz

  • Thank you jesus (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:24PM (#20966617)
    Now I can stop calling girls Rachel in bed and instead dry hump my HDTV...this will save me tons of money on hookers that look like Sean Young.


    • For some reason I confuse her with Rachel Ward, which means cold showers after Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid also

  • Beating a Dead Horse (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:25PM (#20966633)
    How many cuts are there going to be released? Okay, so we get another 2 minutes of unseen footage? Oh, we *finally* know Deckard is an android? Please, make us buy another overpriced DVD with promised new scenes and remastered video. I'll go ahead and add this one to the other 2 copies that are sitting on my shelf.
    • Meanwhile this comes out at the exact time that I'll actually be able to afford to buy DVDs, meaning that I can buy this and finally have a copy of Blade Runner.
    • Blade Runner was one of the worst mastered DVDs out there. For anybody who saw it in the theatre, especially the limited run 35mm print from around 2000, it's apparent that Blade Runner is one of the most beautiful films ever shot. The DVD was too dark and grainy, non-anamorphic and the sound plain sucked ass. It's probably the film that will get me to buy Blu-ray.

  • Flash video has its uses (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:34PM (#20966719) Journal
    but movie trailers are not one of them. I'd like to see this trailer in quicktime, perhaps even HD. It's unfair to subject the brilliant cinematography to the muted color gamut and harsh artifacts of youtube.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MouseR ( 3264 )
      Amen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by netik ( 141046 )

        There's nothing wrong with Flash Video. The upcoming flash release will have H.264 support for HD Video. It's just not out yet.

        The best quality to bitrate ratio you're going to see right now is either DIVX or Quicktime H.264.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MouseR ( 3264 )
          Absolutely everything is wrong with flash-based video. Skip, fast-forward, replay control is always fucked up. Buf... wait... buf... wait... buffering is a constant issue and I dont care about features to come. Right now, flash based videos is a bit to use, a bitch to watch and a bitch to listen to.

          As far as awfulness is concerned, I put in the same spot as Real player.

  • Deckard is a lesbian (Score:5, Funny)

    by konstant ( 63560 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:37PM (#20966749)
    Admittedly, the paper unicorn is not present in the original cut, nor the unicorn dream. Nonetheless, subsequent releases made it quite clear that Deckard is in fact a lesbian. Why are we still debating this?

  • Final? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aldheorte ( 162967 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:38PM (#20966765)
    So is this the final director's cut or the final ultimate collection or the final on HD-DVD or the final but we'll add some new useless commentary in the next edition final, no truly final cut? I jest, but the continual trotting out of new editions of old movies to get people to buy the same thing over and over again is a tad ridiculous. I can acknowledge that there might be a theater release and a director's cut for timing reasons, but once that's done, it's time to move on and create something new.

    Also, does anyone else share the feeling that the extra commentaries and features on DVDs are pretty much completely worthless? I remember thinking that it was very nifty when I first got a DVD player, but after watching a few, I haven't watched any in years. The only ones of any value I have seen are sometimes animated shorts that go with animated films. If anything, special features generally detract from the enjoyment of a good movie as you struggle to reconcile how a group of such insipid and insincere people could have pulled it off.

    • Re:Final? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @01:05PM (#20966991) Homepage Journal

      Also, does anyone else share the feeling that the extra commentaries and features on DVDs are pretty much completely worthless?
      Some are worthless, some add value.
      I highly recommend the commentary on Robocop, with the director, writer and producer. It's hilarious.
      I also really appreciated Whedon's commentary on the last episode of Firefly (objects in space), but some of the commentary on the other eps were, well, pointless.
      I was glad to see the "making of" of A Scanner Darkly, I was sure they had some kind of automated process doing most of their rotoscopy by algorithm, turns out they did it by hand, the maniacs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumling ( 94709 )
      That would be the goal. Society today finds it much more profitable to recycle than to produce new. That holds true for tires, soda cans, automobiles (both in resources and design), music (rappers just sample for the most part), and movies/television (both with reissues, remakes and the "CBS photocopier method" where a hit show is reworked just enough to avoid copyright infringement). Let's face it, the reason Steve Jobs is god is because he figured out that "creative borrowing" is much easier than creating

    • If anything, special features generally detract from the enjoyment of a good movie as you struggle to reconcile how a group of such insipid and insincere people could have pulled it off.


      Only on Slashdot, where people are only interested in how the special effects were done.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jack9 ( 11421 )
      I rent and watch DVDs a lot. If I like the movie enough (rare), I will usually listen to the director's/actor's commentary.
      These commentaries often add a lot to the movie itself, and my understanding.

      There's Nothing Out There - Good
      Donnie Darko - Good
      Brick - Not good (only actor commentary)
      Anchorman - HORRIBLE (what a waste)

    • edition final, no truly final cut? I jest, but the continual trotting out of new editions of old movies to get people to buy the same thing over and over again is a tad ridiculous.
      It's fucking genius! You get to sell the same thing to the same idiots again and again.

       
    • "If anything, special features generally detract from the enjoyment of a good movie as you struggle to reconcile how a group of such insipid and insincere people could have pulled it off."

      I've heard stories about people who have been a little too sincere during the extras filming and have been drummed out of the industry. I couldn't tell you if those stories are true, but it's enough to make you choose your words carefully when you're in front of a camera.

      That said, if you want to see something amusing, r

  • Where the fuck is Deckards goat? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Oktober Sunset ( 838224 ) <sdpage103@ y a h o o . c o.uk> on Saturday October 13, 2007 @12:50PM (#20966865)
    If Deckard doesn't have a goat, a penfield mood organ and a close relationship with Mercer, then I don't wanna know.

    • ...and perhaps they could slap on a cheesy voiceover explaining that, if you'd read the book, you'd realise that the VK test questions were founded in the ficticious religion of Mercerism and had precious little to do with psychology...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Mister Transistor ( 259842 )
      Or his Mountibank Codpiece, for that matter!

  • The Best (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Soiden ( 1029534 )
    The best of this movie is Vangelis.
  • Roy said fucker, not father.
    Oh, and Han shot first.

  • Humanity ftw (Score:2, Insightful)

    by childprey ( 1054198 )
    Too bad Deckard as a replicant invalidates one of the greatest moral points of the movie.

    • Except (slight book spoilers) (Score:4, Informative)

      by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @01:49PM (#20967305)

      Deckard as a replicant with implanted memories is a crude, movie-friendly way of getting over one point of the book..

      ... in which Deckard isn't a replicant (probably - but he meets other unwitting replicants) but discovers that pretty much everything he knows and values is artificial (his religion, his favorite DJ, his pet animals...) so what is the difference?

      Besides, the main evidence for the "inhumanity" of the replicants is their inability to participate in the bogus empathic communion of the fatalistic Mercerist "religion" which has been invented to keep the earthbound dregs of humanity content (the VK test is clearly inspired by Mercerism).

    • No, it doesn't. Unless you believe that human life is worth intrinsically more than replicant life in the first place.

  • It's amazing (Score:3, Informative)

    by FatalTourist ( 633757 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @02:15PM (#20967509) Homepage
    Saw it at the Ziegfeld in NYC. It looks and sounds incredible. Changes are quite minor, no Lucasing here. The best part was the remastered picture and audio. If you are a fan, you'll love it. If you are a nitpicking wiener, you'll hate everything, so stay at home and register your complaints on a message board.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by pavon ( 30274 )
      When you say the changes are quite minor, is that in comparison to the theatrical release or the directors cut? Just curious - I like both. I am glad that they are finally releasing it on DVD, and although it is annoying that I have to buy the 4 disc collectors edition to get it, $35 isn't a bad price.

  • theatrical release (Score:4, Informative)

    by JeffSh ( 71237 ) <jeffslashdot@[ ]0.org ['m0m' in gap]> on Saturday October 13, 2007 @03:00PM (#20967831)
    i emailed my local theatre chain asking about blade runner. they responded that they had no clue about a theatre re-release. turns out that it is only being screened in new york and LA.

    so, the theatrical release note is quite a bit misleading.

  • Alan Nourse title (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brassman ( 112558 ) on Saturday October 13, 2007 @11:40PM (#20970901) Homepage
    I read Blade Runner in Analog magazine, back in the 70s. The producers of the "Electric Sheep" movie could have had two great movies, but they only bought Alan Nourse's story because they wanted its title -- which they wasted. The title is integral to Nourse's story, which was about a guy making his way as a smuggler in a devastated society, one where surgical supplies were especially precious and hard to get... supplies such as scalpels.

    No, I'm not joking. The story was called Blade Runner because the lead character actually smuggled blades, the way a gun runner "runs" guns or a rum runner "runs" rum.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close