Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Blade Runner... for real this time?

Reply
Thread Tools

Blade Runner... for real this time?

 
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
"Invid Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:280520062019245458%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Also worth noting is that Blade Runner has always been slightly
>> flawed
>> and in need of just a little bit of tweaking. The 1982 theatrical
>> cuts
>> had the bad voiceover and Stupid Happy Ending. The 1992 "Director's
>> Cut"
>> fixed those things but lost little pieces of violent footage that had
>> been in the old European theatrical cut. There's never really been a
>> "perfect" version of Blade Runner, and so fans have been willing to
>> give
>> Ridley Scott another chance to get it right.
>>

> His version won't have that "violent footage", most likely.


What would make you think that? Scott's biggest complaint about the 1992
"Director's Cut" was that it was missing that footage. If he's preparing
a brand new "Final Cut", it stands to reason that he'll put back in
anything he wants.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Invid Fan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Joshua Zyber
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Invid Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:280520062019245458%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Also worth noting is that Blade Runner has always been slightly
> >> flawed
> >> and in need of just a little bit of tweaking. The 1982 theatrical
> >> cuts
> >> had the bad voiceover and Stupid Happy Ending. The 1992 "Director's
> >> Cut"
> >> fixed those things but lost little pieces of violent footage that had
> >> been in the old European theatrical cut. There's never really been a
> >> "perfect" version of Blade Runner, and so fans have been willing to
> >> give
> >> Ridley Scott another chance to get it right.
> >>

> > His version won't have that "violent footage", most likely.

>
> What would make you think that? Scott's biggest complaint about the 1992
> "Director's Cut" was that it was missing that footage. If he's preparing
> a brand new "Final Cut", it stands to reason that he'll put back in
> anything he wants.
>

Ah. I assumed he had cut it from the original version himself. Probably
confused it with Robocop, where the director said he prefered the toned
down version (and I could be mistaken there too ^_^)

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
"Invid Fan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:290520061126497407%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> What would make you think that? Scott's biggest complaint about the
>> 1992
>> "Director's Cut" was that it was missing that footage. If he's
>> preparing
>> a brand new "Final Cut", it stands to reason that he'll put back in
>> anything he wants.
>>

> Ah. I assumed he had cut it from the original version himself.
> Probably
> confused it with Robocop, where the director said he prefered the
> toned
> down version (and I could be mistaken there too ^_^)


You're mistaken in both cases.

For Blade Runner, the 1992 "Director's Cut" was more of a Director's
Compromise. In order to get the project completed on time and on budget,
he had to make some sacrifices. Scott said that so long as the voiceover
and happy ending were removed, and his unicorn scene was reinstated,
that was enough of an improvement over the old version that he could
live with it. But he was never fully happy with it.

For Robocop, director Paul Verhoeven has been very adamant that the
longer version of the movie is his preference, and that it actually
lessens the impact of the violence because it goes so cartoonishly over
the top that you can't take it seriously. The shorter version, though
technically having less gore, is more brutal and disturbing. He was
going for satire, not revulsion.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Rife
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-29-2006
Joshua Zyber ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > His version won't have that "violent footage", most likely.

>
> What would make you think that? Scott's biggest complaint about the 1992
> "Director's Cut" was that it was missing that footage. If he's preparing
> a brand new "Final Cut", it stands to reason that he'll put back in
> anything he wants.


Hadn't he said before that his quick-and-dirty "Director's Cut" would be
to have the European version (with the violence) with no happy ending
and fewer voiceovers (but not completely eliminated), and that was the
primary reason he hated the supposed "Director's Cut"...because it wasn't
his *and* he really wouldn't have had to take much time to do something
that he considered a lot better.

ISTR that he also said that if he really had his way he'd get Harrison
Ford to re-record the voiceovers with some actual voice acting skills,
instead of just reading a script.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/InstallVirus.gif
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
On Mon, 29 May 2006 20:01:19 GMT, Jeff Rife wrote:
>
> Hadn't he said before that his quick-and-dirty "Director's Cut" would be
> to have the European version (with the violence) with no happy ending
> and fewer voiceovers (but not completely eliminated), and that was the
> primary reason he hated the supposed "Director's Cut"...because it wasn't
> his *and* he really wouldn't have had to take much time to do something
> that he considered a lot better.


No, he actually worked on the "Director's Cut," but went over deadline. It
took a considerable amount of time to get to the compromised version that
was eventually released.

> ISTR that he also said that if he really had his way he'd get Harrison
> Ford to re-record the voiceovers with some actual voice acting skills,
> instead of just reading a script.


Scott had actually recorded two separate sessions with Ford based on two
different voice-over scripts already before the production company shut
Scott out and wrote another voice-over script that they recorded with Ford
and put on the theatrical version of the film.

A few years ago I wrote a fairly lengthy post about the initial production
and subsequent re-edits of Blade Runner, based off of my reading of the
excellent book 'Future Noir.' The book answers every question you ever had
about Blade Runner, but my summary may suffice for some:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.v...764b76b4e48a82

-Jay
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Galbraith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:29:07 -0400, Joshua Zyber wrote:

[snip]

> Also worth noting is that Blade Runner has always been slightly flawed
> and in need of just a little bit of tweaking. The 1982 theatrical cuts
> had the bad voiceover and Stupid Happy Ending. The 1992 "Director's Cut"
> fixed those things but lost little pieces of violent footage that had
> been in the old European theatrical cut. There's never really been a
> "perfect" version of Blade Runner, and so fans have been willing to give
> Ridley Scott another chance to get it right.


So there's the theatrical cut, the 1992 Directors Cut and the new
Directors Cut. Whats the 4th cut?

[snip]

--
You can't stop the signal
 
Reply With Quote
 
Invid Fan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Ian Galbraith
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:29:07 -0400, Joshua Zyber wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Also worth noting is that Blade Runner has always been slightly flawed
> > and in need of just a little bit of tweaking. The 1982 theatrical cuts
> > had the bad voiceover and Stupid Happy Ending. The 1992 "Director's Cut"
> > fixed those things but lost little pieces of violent footage that had
> > been in the old European theatrical cut. There's never really been a
> > "perfect" version of Blade Runner, and so fans have been willing to give
> > Ridley Scott another chance to get it right.

>
> So there's the theatrical cut, the 1992 Directors Cut and the new
> Directors Cut. Whats the 4th cut?
>

The European theatrical cut mentioned above, with the extra violence
that probably would have given the film an X rating in the US.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jack Torrence
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006

"Goro" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> sounds too good to be true. I'll wate until i see it to reall go
> bonker, but... wow.


I'll believe it when I see an obituary for Jerry Perenchio.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeff Rife
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
Jay G. ("Jay G." <"Jay "@tmbg.org>) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > Hadn't he said before that his quick-and-dirty "Director's Cut" would be
> > to have the European version (with the violence) with no happy ending
> > and fewer voiceovers (but not completely eliminated), and that was the
> > primary reason he hated the supposed "Director's Cut"...because it wasn't
> > his *and* he really wouldn't have had to take much time to do something
> > that he considered a lot better.

>
> No, he actually worked on the "Director's Cut," but went over deadline. It
> took a considerable amount of time to get to the compromised version that
> was eventually released.


The studio had a firm deadline on that project, and didn't really allow
enough time for all the work. I don't think Scott really spent that much
time on "the director's cut" part of it...most of the time was restoration
(including finding the cut scenes), which although great, isn't really
part of the cutting, but must be done before you can do any re-editing.

> Scott had actually recorded two separate sessions with Ford based on two
> different voice-over scripts already before the production company shut
> Scott out and wrote another voice-over script that they recorded with Ford
> and put on the theatrical version of the film.


Right. My readings lead me to believe (although I have no basis other than
a hunch based on some wordings) that Scott wasn't against a bit more
narration, since he had started with some in the movie, but felt that the
theatrical cut had too much and that even the stuff he would have used
wasn't as good as the original readings because Ford wasn't into the idea
of the extra narration, and thus just "phoned it in".

--
Jeff Rife | "If we give peas a chance, won't the lima
| beans feel left out?"
|
| -- Pinky
 
Reply With Quote
 
jayembee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2006
Ian Galbraith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> So there's the theatrical cut, the 1992 Directors Cut and the new
> Directors Cut. Whats the 4th cut?


There are two theatrical cuts: the American theatrical cut, and
the international theatrical cut. The latter is what was originally
released on home video

-- jayembee
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3200 Catalyst with a WS-x3011 2503 Blade Howard Huntley Cisco 0 05-21-2004 12:06 AM
3200 Catalyst with a WS-x3011 2503 Blade Howard Huntley Cisco 0 05-20-2004 11:49 PM
Looking for WS-x3011 blade for Catalyst 3200 Howard Huntley Cisco 0 12-15-2003 06:06 AM
FW-blade for 6509 Fred Cisco 1 12-11-2003 12:20 AM
Need Help With VLAN config on 6500 w/Sup2 Blade BitBucket Cisco 0 11-16-2003 06:12 PM



Advertisments