Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


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

What's New in Blade Runner - The Final Cut? 380

Posted by Zonk from the he's-a-replicant-please-deal dept.
tripper700 writes "25 years since its original release, a definitive version of Ridley Scott's science fiction masterwork Blade Runner, Blade Runner: The Final Cut, has been released. So what exactly has changed? And is it worth all the fuss? SFFMedia describes each change in detail. Is it just a patch up job attempting to cash in on a cult film? Or like an oil painter retouching a masterpiece, or a novelist polishing prose, is Ridley Scott simply trying to perfect his original vision?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's New in Blade Runner - The Final Cut? More

What's New in Blade Runner - The Final Cut?

Comments Filter:
  • When "Tron - Final Cut" is released, it's gonna smash every box office record for the next 10 years. Just you wait.

    • Re:That's nothing. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:53PM (#21636497)
      Lets establish a timeline for these movies:

      Theatrical Release > Extended Version > Uncut Version > Director's Cut > Aniversary Edition > Remastered Edition > Final Cut > Final Cut: Pro

      I hate films with more versions than the software used to edit them.

    • Re:That's nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:53PM (#21636953)
      I thought Tron totally rocked when I was a kid. It was full of stupid stuff, like the Master Control Program's AI, and the laser that digitizes Flynn and sucks him into the computer. The "kiss" scene was gross. (I've written plenty of "ugly chicks" that I hope aren't making out with anybody in the hidden cyberworld.) Even I knew that an arcade game that took quarters wouldn't be interfaced to the Master Control Program at Dillinger's headquarters (this was the early 80s). And while the "bit" was an interesting character, it wouldn't be able to emphasize no as "no no no no" in a tight situation. Talk about TMI.

      But what a pretty movie it was, even if it was stupid. The old 3D graphics were actually pretty cool- it was a weird world full of square clouds and straight blue lines. You just don't see stuff like that anymore. The quality of today's CGI is so good and so photorealistic that anything produced now is unimpressive and boring. It's evolved into junk for commercials: whales jumping up out of freshwater lakes where financially secure guys are fishing, expensive cars performing risky ballet moves while cruising down empty superhighways, etc. It's sucked the magic out of almost everything you see- if it looks incredible, you know instantly you're looking at CGI crap. Soon, even pornography will be ruined.

      I wanted to see Tron again but my mother didn't care for it, so I dragged my father (mainframe programmer) to see it. He hates movies. But he liked it so much he dragged me there to see it again so I saw it three times. END OF LINE

      • Re:That's nothing. (Score:5, Funny)

        by xSauronx ( 608805 ) <xsauronxdamnit&gmail,com> on Sunday December 09, 2007 @10:00PM (#21637009)
        Soon, even pornography will be ruined.

        You blasphemous motherfucker, take it back!

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by palegray.net ( 1195047 )
        I agree with you on the effect of overdosing the population with CG. I still remember seeing Jurassic Park in the theater as a kid, and having to pick my jaw up off the floor every few minutes (coupled with having to wipe the drool off my shoes from seeing all those shiny SGI boxes). I don't get that feeling from CG film sequences anymore. I actually get more of a kick out of browsing still-image sites like Digital Blasphemy [digitalblasphemy.com].

        Yeah, it's kind of sad, but it was inevitable. Look at the bright side: we're ge

      • RIP Tron (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TaoPhoenix ( 980487 )
        This was also a time when micro computing technology itself had no idea of its direction. (I just checked the release dates - it predated the Commodore 64.) It did exactly what it was designed to do - capture young minds.

        It used techniques never seen before... and never again (after the aggrivation factor turned out to be immense.)

        And ... it had the best closed-process phrase ever. (I have to inquire how much the license rights to that phrase are!)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TychoCelchuuu ( 835690 )
        Darwinia [darwinia.co.uk] definitely has the kind of graphics you're talking about. CGI used for style, not just for kicks.

    • Re:That's nothing. (Score:5, Funny)

      by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @10:07PM (#21637053)
      Personally, I'm waiting for Duke Nukem Forever: The Now Cut.

  • Riddle me this: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by imstanny ( 722685 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:29PM (#21636299)
    If I never saw the movie, which 'cut' should I watch?
    • just the director's cut back from when it was first released

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

      IMHO, watch the one with the voiceover. Certainly watch that one first. Like most Hollywood movies, the transition from book to movie was made clumsily, protestations of "art" notwithstanding. Deckard's voiceover is done tastefully and serves to focus the movie in many places where it becomes meaningless and context-free in the "director's cut."

      One of the best 2-3 SF movies ever made in the voiceover version.

      • Re:Riddle me this: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew@gmSTRAWail.com minus berry> on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:48PM (#21636459) Homepage Journal
        Harrison Ford openly tanked the voice-over because he fought with the director on doing it. He thought it was stupid, and mailed in a poor performance in that regard. Many fans hate the voice-over, and thusly it was thankfully later removed.

        Storytelling 101 - show, don't tell. Especially don't tell poorly.

        The movie stands up quite well without the narration.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shrubbman ( 3807 )
          Ridley Scott was fighting the studio tooth and nail to keep that voice over out as well, hence it's complete removal from the Director's Cut and Final Cut versions.

          • Re:Riddle me this: (Score:5, Informative)

            by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:38PM (#21636871)
            There are some great articles around that detail the whole Blade Runner saga--definitely worth looking up. In short, due to the original production being over-budget, ownership of the movie went to the underwriters, who decided to add in the voiceover and happy ending after the movie tested poorly. This was a rush job, and both Ford and Scott were against the changes. When the first Director's Cut came out, they reverted some of the stuff back, but again, it was a rush job, so Scott didn't get an opportunity to really go back over it the way he wanted to (apparently he wasn't even really involved in this). There was supposed to be a big 20th anniversary release, but there were still legal wranglings over ownership. Finally, for the 25th anniversary, the ownership issues were sorted out, and Scott was given ample time to really sit down and polish the movie the way he wanted to originally. Since technology had advanced so much, they took the opportunity to clean up the effects a bit (using the original assets--no Special Edition crap here). The end result of all of this is the Final Cut.

        • Re:Riddle me this: (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jo42 ( 227475 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:42PM (#21637861) Homepage

          The movie stands up quite well without the narration.
          Horse poop. You've already seen the version with the voice over, so you know what is going on in the director's cut. If you watch the director's cut for the first time ever, you have absolutely no clue WTF is going on. Only after watching the original, do you know what was going on in the director's cut.

          IMO, the voice over gives the movie the right character. Someday soon, when the technology is there, we the fans will do our own version with Harrison's voice in a fan voice over cut.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
            Horse poop. You've already seen the version with the voice over, so you know what is going on in the director's cut. If you watch the director's cut for the first time ever, you have absolutely no clue WTF is going on. Only after watching the original, do you know what was going on in the director's cut.

            Yeah, whatever. I saw the director's cut first, and I had no problems figuring out what was happening. When I watched the theatrical release, I thought the unnecessary explanation of everything was distrac
          • That's the first way I saw it, I liked the movie as it was, narration and possible happy ending intact. I'm not an idiot for liking that ending, you're not superior or an idiot for liking whichever of the other endings or versions you like. It's an interesting story how the movie was changed in the first place and it's journey to today but at least Scott didn't go and lock the version he didn't like away like that other clown did. And what the heck, in a couple of years they'll be selling another version wi
        • I wonder if Harrison was pissed because they switched all the ads to modern day products and in every scene he's cleaning his Nikes and drinking a Coke while waiting in line at McDonalds.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 7Prime ( 871679 )
        I actually sorta agree. Even though I like the Director's Cut better, because of it's huge implications of Deckerd, the voiceover is great, and helps tie it back into the Film Noire genre that it owes so much of it's style to. The final voiceover was a little corny, the writing isn't very good there, but the rest of it is pretty damned good, don't know why he took it out with the DC.

      • It's hard to imagine not hearing the voiceovers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by podperson ( 592944 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:19PM (#21636729) Homepage
        I loved the original movie, but always thought it should end when the elevator doors close (which the first "Director's Cut" did) and should lose the voice overs. With those two changes, I'd be happy.

        That said, when I watch the first "Director's Cut" I hear the voiceovers in my head ... so there's no point. I can't tell whether the movie would hang together well without the voice overs because I can't get them out of my head. And I don't think the voice overs make the movie easy to understand the first time through because I can remember not understanding it the first time I saw it. It seems to me the one thing they could have done with the voiceovers and didn't was patch the continuity error caused by cutting the original opening scene (where Deckard "retires" the mysterious fifth replicant).

        I disagree about that "the transition from book to movie was made clumsily". The only thing I really object to, although I understand it, is the cinematic differentiation of replicants from humans displayed by Leon removing an egg from boiling water. If you can stick a replicant's hand in boiling water without hurting them, then the VK test is kind of pointless. Frankly, I'd cut that scene.

        From TFA: In the scene where Batty confronts Tyrell, the line, "I want more life, fucker" has been replaced with "I want more life, father".

        Bad change, IMO. In a movie with zero profanity, that line really hit hard.

        Also from TFA: Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing? He seems to spend a large part of the film being bashed to a pulp.

        True, if you assume "Nexus 7" vs. incredibly illegal experimental Nexus 5 ... or whatever ... which would make perfect sense.

        • Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* (Score:5, Interesting)

          by east coast ( 590680 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:53PM (#21636955)
          I can't tell whether the movie would hang together well without the voice overs because I can't get them out of my head.
           
          IMHO, "I don't know why he saved my life. 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 want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die." is the best line in just about any film ever.
           
          This one line makes anything else in the film worth enduring (not that the film isn't good without the line) and is the crux of the entire film. I guess other people see it in other lights but it's hard for me not to see the entire film leading up to this one line. I just can not accept that this film is about anything outside of the questions that artificial life will dwell on in the future when we produce it. I think it's great that science fiction discusses these questions. All of the robot/alien junk is just crap in comparison to the hard questions that will arise from our journey from natural human beings into a synthetic society where anything goes. With the stem cell debate being what it is we are kinda starting to ask these questions today in a round about way.
           
          Still, see the film for what it is but it's still fantastic that all of the crap about cops and killing skin jobs and the Tyrell corporation comes down to one beautifully made point about our inevitable future. These questions are neat to address in fiction but warns us of the moral puzzles we will have to solve in the future.
           
          I'm left wondering everytime after the movie; what will we decide and who will we answer to when the question becomes more than hypothetical.
           
          That's science fiction to me. Again, just my humble opinion.

          • Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @10:21PM (#21637119)
            IMHO, "I don't know why he saved my life. 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 want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die." is the best line in just about any film ever.

            Arrrgh where were you when Roy Batty uttered his last words as his biological clock killed him right before that in the same scene? [youtube.com]

            I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those memories will be lost in time like tears in the rain... Time to die.
            Were you in the theater bathroom taking a piss?

            OK granted "C-beams" and the Tannhauser Gate whatever that is sounds like total bullshit but that was way better than the graceless and forgettable voiceover from Harrison Ford that followed.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *

              He's just as entitled to an opinion as you are. Try not to be abusive; there's no point to it. The voice over version had Roy's comments too; but they're about Roy's experience; Deckard's voice-over line was about Deckard's experience. Sometimes changes aren't for the best - even if they are made by the director. A movie, especially one like this, is more than the sum of its parts, more than one person's vision, and more than one character's experience. That's why you can see it one way, and the parent (an

          • Re:It's hard to imagine *SPOILERS* (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Fallen Seraph ( 808728 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:07PM (#21637531)
            All that proves is that Deckard is a god damned idiot. The reason he saved him was so that he'd REMEMBER HIM. So that he'd remember that there was a man named Roy Baty, who was as much a man as he was, regardless of his origins. By saving him, he guaranteed that he will never be forgotten in Deckard's eyes, and that, in and of itself is as close to immortality as anyone can truly get: to be remembered. Also, Roy's line before his death was far better imo.

            And yeah, as was mentioned, Scott and Ford hated the voiceover and intentionally bombed it in the hopes that the studio would leave it out. They didn't.

            That being said, I've seen the Final Cut. I live in NYC and had the wonderful opportunity to see it in theaters, and I'll be honest, it's the best, by far. The storyline flows much better than any of the other versions, it's visually spectacular (though a bit overdone with the flare effect on the Spinners), and overall it's so much more watchable and doesn't feel as if it's dragging on as much as the other versions.

            I took my girlfriend to see it for the first time, and she freaked out and loved it from the word go. To be honest, I was happy she saw that version first, as she didn't have aspects of it ruined by poor production, or bad editing. So if you've never seen Blade Runner, go see the Final Cut and pretend the others never existed.

        • Also from TFA: Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing? He seems to spend a large part of the film being bashed to a pulp.

          Well, the answer to that lies clearly in Tyrells words: "The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long and you have burned so very, very brightly Roy." - In other words, the superior strength and durability comes at the price of a reduced lifespan.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cozziewozzie ( 344246 )
          I disagree about that "the transition from book to movie was made clumsily". The only thing I really object to, although I understand it, is the cinematic differentiation of replicants from humans displayed by Leon removing an egg from boiling water. If you can stick a replicant's hand in boiling water without hurting them, then the VK test is kind of pointless.

          Not really, since the VK test is designed to tell replicants apart from humans. If you don't know whether somebody is a replicant or not, you can't

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Papabryd ( 592535 )
        I have to disagree. I watched the 1992 director's cut first and it's the version I've come to associate with "Blade Runner." The voice over is kludgey, awkward, and unnecessary. There only reason it's there is because the production went over budget and Ridley Scott lost control to the bondsman. Given control of the movie they decided that test audiences were getting too confused by the narrative and demanded a voice-over against Scott and apparently Harrison Ford's protest. The rumor is that Ford thought i
        • I watched the director's cut first and when I saw the original I couldn't stand the voice overs. The movies feel completely different. I can see someone liking it the other way though.
      • The voiceover is excellent. I felt that was the most involved I've even been watching any movie.

        There's been a lot of debate whether this is about perfecting the movie or making a boatload more cash. I don't think that there's that many die-hard fans out there who would just go out and purchase yet another release of the movie. Would they really continue to milk it for all it was worth?

        Someone elsewhere in the thread compares it to the revised Starwars movies. At least Lucas only really only did one maj

    • Re:Riddle me this: (Score:5, Informative)

      by greg1104 ( 461138 ) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:56PM (#21636525) Homepage
      Some people recommend watching the theatrical release first, presumably because they agree with the studio that the film was too hard to follow otherwise. Unfortunately that version also loses much of the atmosphere of the film, as the voice-over added interrupts and masks the music and visual work that you can appreciate better in the director's cut (or this final version). As long as you can follow the plot this final cut should be the best version yet to watch. So as I see it, this turns into a slightly different question: how to lower the risk that you may get annoyed at not knowing what's going on when you watch the movie?

      Watching the voice-over version first is one way to do that, but if you like it you really need to turn right around and watch the final one to get the good version. What I suggest instead to those who like reading Science Fiction books anyway is to read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" first, then see the best available version without the voice-over--that will now be this Final Cut version. That way you will know what's going on but won't have your first viewing distracted by the voice-over. The book and movie have many shared elements but plenty of things that are different between the two; both have unique elements worth experiencing, and it's not the case that the book "ruins" the movie or anything.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 )
      Just read the story- Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip Dick. Its far better- the movie version lost most of its overtones. On top of that it hasn't aged well, despite being mediocre from the beginning.

  • Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:32PM (#21636331)
    The man is releasing different versions of his film. If the changes aren't to your liking, fortunately for you, there's still the original right at your fingertips. What does it matter, then, if he's cashing in or trying to perfect his work?

    Hell, not like these changes are generally of any real significance (although, given how extensively different the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was, Blade Runner may be significantly different). For all the bitching that was done about Star Wars, for example, barely anything was changed in those movies. I just really don't see why this is worth getting worked up over, as people inevitably will.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:35PM (#21636369)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:47PM (#21636445)
        George Lucas never had a solid artistic vision in his life, and I agree that he was going for the action-figure market, particularly in the last three films and the re-releases of the original trilogy.

        That said, however, this is the Age of the Tracker. Everything is available, and if you can't get if from legitimate channels, well ... there are other means. That often plays hob with the studio's desire to control the re-release of films in order to target the next generation of moviegoers, but that's just too bad.
        • I don't know about that. I think that while the original Star Wars trilogy is 6 hours of cliches from start to finish (terrible, terrible plot), Lucas created an excellent universe to set his awful plot in. The Star Wars movies have an artistic vision in that sense, I think. Having an excellent world with a crappy story isn't as good as having an excellent world and an excellent story, but it's still impressive in its own right.

          Ironically, in the prequels, the setting didn't have as much charm, but the pl

          • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

            by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
            Well, I look at the term "artistic vision" as being a sort of holistic concept ... you have to get it all right if you want to be remembered for having such a vision. Saying that you can write a good plot -or- a good setting doesn't really cut the mustard the way I see it. The original Alien would be an example of a sci-fi film that truly had an artistic vision: H.R. Giger's work combined with Scott's production values resulted in a classic motion picture.

            Personally, I'd say the first three of Lucas' eff
      • Actually, that's specifically the plot point I hate hearing about in Star Wars, because in my opinion, it changes nothing about Solo. It matters to the character about as much as what times he takes a piss. Strictly my opinion, of course, but no matter who shoots first, he's still a bad-ass mercenary who's only looking out for himself.

        • Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:19PM (#21636737)
          It moves his motive from self-defense to murder. If you can't see that being a difference I can't help you.

          But at least ask yourself this: if it makes no difference why did they change the order?
          • That's an excellent question. I don't have an answer. However, I will say that it does not change the motive. It's still self-defense, in either version. A pre-emptive strike is not generally considered as ethical, but that doesn't make it murder. If someone was going to shoot me and I knew it (and Han obviously would've), you'd better damn well believe I'd shoot them first... and I'd still consider it self-defense.

            • If someone was going to shoot me and I knew it (and Han obviously would've), you'd better damn well believe I'd shoot them first... and I'd still consider it self-defense.

              And that tells us something about you. You might even call it a *characterization* about you, which distinguishes you from someone who wouldn't fire first. And that's why the change matters. And even if I were to allow that it did not change the characterization of Han, it ruined the pacing of the scene, so the mod isn't even defensibl

              • You are technically correct that it's a change in the characterization. But the foul that is cried is that it's a major change in the characterization, not that it's merely a change. I think that it's a quite minor aspect in the character, slightly more important than something like the color of his eyes or his hair.

                Agreed about Jar-Jar, though. I was sincerely hoping that Lucas would offer up some fanservice in the form of him being a casualty of Anakin's fall to the dark side. :(

                • Agreed about Jar-Jar, though. I was sincerely hoping that Lucas would offer up some fanservice in the form of him being a casualty of Anakin's fall to the dark side. :(

                  Back before Episode 2, Mad Magazine included -- in one of their "best of the year / worst of the year" things -- a poster we all want to see. It was titled "Star Wars Episode II: A Galaxy Rejoices", and looked very much like the Ep 1 poster, except everyone is happy, and Anakin is slicing Jar-Jar's head off.

                  That is perhaps the only thing I'

            • Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by blzabub ( 889163 ) on Monday December 10, 2007 @08:03AM (#21640573) Homepage
              I would offer this argument: Lucas is a student of various American and World film genres, in this case I spotlight the American Western. If you've watched lots of Westerns as I have, you come to see certain concepts of morality in the old west codified and mythologized. One of those concepts is justice by the gun, self-made justice because the law is not available to protect you. Whoever "draws" first in a Western matters a great deal. Most of the heroes in Westerns had to follow a code whereby they waited until the other fellow made a move, and then they drew quicker and shot straighter. People who drew first without warning, without making it clear they were challenging you were considered killers and were subject to posse justice or retribution. Many characters plead "he drew first" as a socially accepted alibi. The fact that Han deceitfully plans the removal of his gun from his holster, misdirects Greedo and fires first in cold blood IMO was a very specific coded message from Lucas: Han was very much an anti-hero, redeemed only when he came flying with a star at his back (classic combat tactic) and saved Luke's bacon. If you remove the meaning of that scene with Greedo, you eliminate the arc of the character, there is no character development which IMO reduces the beauty and significance of the artist's vision.

              • Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Monday December 10, 2007 @09:09AM (#21641193)
                And just to add on to your frigging genius comment (me without mod points... grr!), keep in mind that when Han flies in with the star at his back he's also the classic western character of the stealing, smuggling, black-hatted bandit who has always been the self-directed, rootless loner, yet has now found himself in the center of something far out of his control. The local authority has given him a badge which now legitimizes his previously criminal actions, and at the last second he decides to do the right thing, which erases his previous life and gives him a second shot in life as a reluctant hero with a checkered past.

      • The only version of Star Wars available on DVD is the Special Edition.

        Sorry to double post, but I only noticed this as I hit submit. What you say isn't true. Something like 6 months after the initial DVD release, they released the original cut as well.

        At any rate, I probably unintentionally caused confusion when I mentioned my two points so close to each other. While you're correct that the original isn't always available, I didn't mean to say it was. In this case it is, and that's why I say the changes don't matter. The final cut could be full of Teletubbies, and one coul

        • The only version of Star Wars available on DVD is the Special Edition.

          Sorry to double post, but I only noticed this as I hit submit. What you say isn't true. Something like 6 months after the initial DVD release, they released the original cut as well.

          Sort of. They released a copy of the Laserdisc masters on DVD, including the matted 4:3 presentation and terrible aliasing. But hey, it's better than nothing, I suppose.
      • They are releasing a multiple disk set [amazon.com] that includes the original theatrical release, the original "Director's Cut" and this new changed cut. (Much like Criterion did for Brazil, where they give you both Gilliam's original edit and the shitty happy-ending hack-job, so you can see exactly how bad it is.)

        Gilliam and Scott, both far better directors than Lucas, aren't afraid of putting everything out there and letting the viewer decide which is best.
      • Han Shot First!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Altima(BoB) ( 602987 )
        Well, as far as making the original versions of Blade Runner available, the expensive 5 disc edition of the Final Cut (in all 3 formats, DVD, HDDVD, Blu-Ray) contain every single cut of the film that's ever been released, in their entirety. I don't know how you could ask for better, even though it is expensive and who knows how long it'll be available (In my opinion, while original cuts should be made available, expect to find it more difficult to obtain. In the case of Kingdom of Heaven for instance, I'm a

  • The obvious question... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mrsam ( 12205 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:34PM (#21636361) Homepage

    Does Han shoot first in this one?






    (...sorry)

  • Clean up the video, go CD quality on the sound, and get rid of the dialog artifacts artifacts that were only in there to further the voice over, which I hate with a passion after seeing the first Directos Cut.

  • Changed or not? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Thornae ( 53316 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:44PM (#21636415)
    From TFA: In the scene where Batty confronts Tyrell, the line, "I want more life, fucker" has been replaced with "I want more life, father".

    I'm wondering if this is actually a change. In the original, it's a beautiful bit of ambiguity: Hauer slurs the word, so that it sounds halfway between "father" and "fucker", neatly summing up his feelings towards Tyrell.
    If they've actually re-dubbed that, I'll be a little disappointed.

    Oh well, Scott's still unlikely to mess things up as much as Lucas did ...
    • Regardless, so long as you spend a bit more on the 4-disk version, you'll be getting *all* of the versions of the film. It's about time!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by murderlegendre ( 776042 )

      I'm wondering if this is actually a change. In the original, it's a beautiful bit of ambiguity: Hauer slurs the word, so that it sounds halfway between "father" and "fucker", neatly summing up his feelings towards Tyrell.

      I've watched this film thirty-plus times, and it sounds like 'fucker' to me, every time. Really not sure where people get this idea of a slurred / doubled pronunciation. Don't forget that Hauer is a Nederlander by birth and despuie all his work and training, isn't immune from occasional inflections.

      FWIW, wikiquote "I want more life, fucker" points to an IMDB 'trivia' entry, which could have been added or edited by just about anyone. Personally, I just don't hear this..

      • This actually disappoints me. He says "I want more life, fucker." He's there, pissed off that he's got an expiration date. And he expresses that anger, quite appropriately. Changing this line is quite pointless, and is indeed another Han-shoots-first moment that should never have happened. Why, oh why, do they have to do stupid things like this when restoring/touching-up old movies!?! Blade Runner is a classic, a masterpiece. The Director's Cut is just about perfect as far as I'm concerned. I was ho

  • I want more life "father"?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NotZed ( 19455 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:46PM (#21636437)
    WTF? The guys' gonna die and he goes to the arsehole who made him and calls him father? Why cut out 'fucker', it makes much more sense.

  • Personally I'm holding out for the (Score:4, Funny)

    by sammyo ( 166904 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:47PM (#21636441) Journal
    Revised Ultra Final Re-Revisited Very Very Final Directors Special Absolutely Final Cut
  • i don't remember many changes. dancer chicks in hockey masks, more unicorns running around

    and?

    doesn't f***ing matter what they changed in minutaie

    if i love the film for the same reason so many slashdotters do, it's one of the best f***ing movies ever made, and the minutaie doesn't matter, the whole of its incredible existence does

    and it really is best in the theatres. 17 inch crt monitors don't do it much justice. if you missed it in the theatre 2 months ago, all i have to say to you is

    if only you had seen what i had seen with your eyes

    or something like that ;-)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Oh yeah, the dancer chicks in the hockey masks. I forgot to mention that in my other post. After seeing it last month, some friends and I were like "And what was up with the hockey mask chicks?!?"

  • Five versions (Score:5, Informative)

    by magunning ( 1177371 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @08:58PM (#21636543)
    The box set released in a few weeks will contain five versions of the movie.

    Workprint version - pre-release test screening version
    US original cinematic version
    International original cinematic version
    Directors cut - 1992 version - approved by Scott, but he was not directly involved
    Final cut - Scott had complete control over this version
    • Here's the important question - I am toying with buying the HD-DVD or BluRay version, but I haven't committed to a player yet. As an American living in Japan, region locking is a big issue for me. From what I can Google, BluRay is still region-locked, but in a way that works for me (Japan and the US are lumped together.) I see conflicting information that HD-DVD was supposed to be region free, but now maybe it's not, and there's no news more recent than 2006 to help me decide. Does anybody know how this

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 )
        HD DVD is region free, which is kind of nice since some of the BluRay exclusives in the US are released on HD DVD elsewhere in the world. Xploited Cinema [xploitedcinema.com] specializes in these releases for those of us in the States.
  • What's new? Lessee:

    "I want more life, father."
    and
    "Two of them got fried..."
    were two of the biggest things that stood out to me.

    Apparently some of the cuts where they removed the voiceover were shortened a bit, too. (Since the voiceover was simply removed for the original Director's Cut, the scenes where Deckard was previously talking now hung a bit long with nothing going on).

  • Riddley Scott vs The Script Writer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD ( 801820 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:16PM (#21636697)
    It always seems to me that Scott was going against what the scriptwriter intended. He keeps adding in clues that Deckard is a replicant but the script really doesn't support that idea at all.
    • Let's Get His Ridleyness on an Ask Slashdot and have our way with him!

      First question... What's with you and Unicorns!? (Anyone see Legend?)

  • The Digital Bits' Review (Score:4, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:16PM (#21636703) Homepage Journal
    Yesterday, The Digital Bits [thedigitalbits.com] posted its long review on this set.
  • I saw this latest _Blade Runner_ remaster a couple months ago at the Ziegfield, the biggest screen in NYC. I'd seen it there about 7-8 years ago, the last time it was rereleased in theaters. It was a tremendous spectacle, perfectly balanced in pace and quiet inevitability. Like a light sculpture at the end of a huge room, telling a story about humans and our creations.

    Don't miss it if you can catch it. I hope they do remaster it again sometime, just so there's an excuse to show it at the Ziegfield again.
  • All I want to know, does Harrison Ford still shoot first?
  • 1) All the guns have been replaced with walkie-talkies.
    2) All the replicants have been replaced with Ewoks.

  • Still waiting for E.T. The Final Cut (Score:3, Funny)

    by ivoras ( 455934 ) <ivoras&fer,hr> on Sunday December 09, 2007 @09:55PM (#21636971) Homepage
    Personally, I'm still waiting for "E.T. - The Final Cut", where the walkie-talkies get replaced with plush Teletubby toys!

  • Stupid comment (Score:3, Informative)

    by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @10:06PM (#21637049) Homepage
    "Equally, if Deckard really is a Nexus 7 created to work as an exterminator, why is he lacking the strength of the inferior Nexus 6 models he is chasing?"

    Well, gee, if he is not supposed to know he's a replicant, super-human strength might be a bit of a give-away, no?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gbjbaanb ( 229885 )
      worse, if you're going to make superhumans its ok to keep them locked up in a military campaign away from the civilian population. Roy was created to be capable of starting a revolution and overthrowing the government - this is why its such a big deal when they escape.

      So if you want a Nexus 7 to go hunting them, you can't create it as powerful as Roy - you'd only be running the risk of 2 supermen running riot out there! So you create Dekkard as a bit of a wuss, if he realises what he is and tries to escape

  • Cash in? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Lahiru ( 839803 )
    Blade Runner has only been released once on DVD, over 10 years ago; as you can imagine, that DVD isn't exactly a top of the line release anymore. If they wanted to cash in easily they could've just issued a new edition with a clean transfer and sound and a few obligatory special features. If you look at the specs for these releases, they are quite comprehensive! And from what I've read about this new release it's been in the works for some time and a lot of work has gone into it... While, obviously, the stu

  • A short list (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 )

    There have been some stunningly good science fiction novels over the years. A lot of science fiction films, though, are more about eye-candy.

    Bladerunner did it right. I was a big Philip K. Dick fan, and I went to the original expecting to be disappointed. I wasn't. Bladerunner is still one of my all-time favorite films, in any genre.

    Don't get me wrong, I love special effects. I just wish sometimes they'd pick more challenging stories to use them with. I hope all the software advances will make it

  • I want more cuts... fucker.

    They'll release another 83 billion versions of this for each new media format that comes out between now and doomsday. Just you wait.

  • FUCKING P.C. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Romwell ( 873455 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @10:42PM (#21637269)
    I haven't seen it yet, but what's wrong with the director ? Seemingly, he added more gore, but removed the line

    "I want more life, FUCKER"

    ?! For me, it was a significant line, and it was working well in the movie. This was the point in the movie where the roles of master and slave between Tyrell and Roy were reversed. It was Roy now who was in control. If you replace "fucker" with respectful "father", you lose that, you'll get a respectful 'son'.
    I've seen both the international/theatrical lasedirsk version and the Director's Cut, and I liked the Director's cut more (no voiceovers, unicorn). But this time I might pass on it. If I get a chance to see it in a theater, I will; but for DVD I'll stick to 1992 version.

  • Soundtrack Change (Score:3, Informative)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @10:46PM (#21637307) Journal
    Remastering Vangelis's soundtrack is not the half of it. He withdrew his recordings just prior to first release, and the entire soundtrack was rerecorded by a group of musicians Scott hastily put together. Vangelis didn't approve release of his version until 1994. Anyone familiar with Vangelis' work will be confident his recording will be much superior to the impromptu "New American Orchestra". It has been released on CD, but I don't believe it's been included in a version of Blade Runner prior to this.

  • Completely Awesome (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pi8you ( 710993 )
    I'd been waiting for something like this to pop up(though I'm sure there's geekier places with the full and proper rundown elsewhere). I got to go see it last weekend and was hard put to pick out the changes from the Director's Cut aside from an extended shot here and there. I probably would have caught more, but I was far too giddy about a) finally getting to see it on the big screen and b) the fact that Ridley didn't f- things up like a certain other director revisiting his films...

    /the only movie I a

  • More info that isn't in this article... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Ultimate Fartkno ( 756456 ) on Sunday December 09, 2007 @11:26PM (#21637705)
    According to an industry mag that I just took a peek at, there were two radical re-stagings of shots from the original production. First was the re-shoot of the "retirement" of Joanna Cassidy where the original shot was so horribly obviously a stunt double. The final moment where she gets hit was reproduced from 25-year-old production design and recreated to make the scene work. Even better was the through-the-window shot of Deckard in the noodle shop. The original cut had horribly de-synched picture and audio, so the restoration team had Harrison Ford's *son* stand in to say the intended lines. The image of his mouth doing the lines was digitally patched over the original footage of his father speaking to repair the scene.

  • The main question (Score:3, Funny)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday December 10, 2007 @01:24AM (#21638653)
    All I want to know in this version is if Deckard shoots first? :P

  • Rob Zombie's gonna be pissed (Score:3, Funny)

    by zenmojodaddy ( 754377 ) on Monday December 10, 2007 @04:28AM (#21639611)
    The song 'More Human Than Human' on 'Astro Creep:2000' features the lines "I am the Nexus one/I want more life fucker I ain't done". Kinda ruins the reference, wouldn't you say?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close