Blade Runner... for real this time?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Goro, May 27, 2006.

  1. Goro

    Goro Guest

    sounds too good to be true. I'll wate until i see it to reall go
    bonker, but... wow.

    http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

    So... you remember how we said that for every piece of good DVD news
    this week, there was a piece of bad news? Well... how 'bout we end the
    week on a REALLY great note, sans the dark could? You may have heard
    the word from Daily Variety this morning. Yes... Ridley Scott's Blade
    Runner is FINALLY, officially, coming to DVD. It's going to be coming
    to HD-DVD. And it's going to be coming to Blu-ray Disc as well. This is
    real... it's happening... and it's going to be very, very cool.

    First a bit of background on the reason for the title's delay. Warner
    had been planning a 2-disc special edition of the film early last
    year... but suddenly realized that their rights to the title were about
    to lapse. However, the studio ponied up the big bucks to get back what
    is arguably one of their primo Cadillac catalog titles (dare you to say
    that three times fast). The ownership situation now resolved, Warner
    has set in motion plans to really do something special with the film.
    You might recall back in January when I asked them about the film at
    their 2006 catalog press event, they hinted that things were looking
    good for a 2007 release. Privately, we were told that there were BIG
    things in the works, but were also told that if we leaked too much
    about the project, we might end up like Fredo Corleone (or WORSE, that
    the project itself could be complicated). Needless to say, though we've
    been dying to talk about this for months now (and we get about two
    e-mails a day asking about the title), we've kept largely silent on the
    subject. Now that the project is finally out in the open, however, we
    can finally say a few things. Keep in mind that the major portion of
    the release is still over a year away. But here's the basic plan...

    This coming September, there will be a new limited DVD release (HD-DVD
    & Blu-ray Disc are also planned) of the restored 1992 Director's Cut
    (you know... the one that isn't really a director's cut). This will be
    available for just four months. We believe this is basically the 2-disc
    release that Warner had originally planned to bow LAST year.

    Then next year, just in time for the film's 25th anniversary, Ridley
    Scott's ultimate Blade Runner: The Final Cut will hit theaters for a
    limited run. This will be a REAL director's cut, with restored scenes
    and more - all the stuff that Ridley's always wanted to do with the
    film but hasn't really been given the chance to do before. That will be
    followed later in the year by an Ultimate Blade Runner DVD release. You
    can expect a multi-disc box set (again, likely with a simultaneous
    HD-DVD and Blu-ray Disc release) that will contain at least four
    different versions of the film... ALL in full anamorphic widescreen, we
    might add. You'll get the film's original U.S. theatrical cut, you'll
    get the expanded international theatrical cut, you'll get the 1992
    Director's Cut and you'll get the new Final Cut as well. Now... we
    realize at this point, you may have questions. Keep in mind, there's a
    TON of additional material that's going to be included in this set that
    hasn't been announced and can't be talked about yet - all-new material
    that you've never seen before. The set is pretty early in the planning
    and production stage, so it's way too early to talk details, but trust
    us... some very cool stuff is in the works. These extras will likely be
    different from the September '06 release, so if you buy both you'll at
    least be getting your money's worth.

    Imagine that... anamorphic widescreen AND real value in a DVD release!
    Hey... are we being punked?

    You veteran Bits readers will also be thrilled to learn that longtime
    Ridley Scott DVD producer Charles de Lauzirika and his team are
    involved in project, and have already been working on the set for a
    while now. Lauzirika, as you may know, was the producer responsible for
    Fox's 9-disc, massively comprehensive Alien Quadrilogy box set, as well
    as the multi-disc special editions of Scott's Gladiator (from
    DreamWorks), Black Hawk Down (from Sony) and Kingdom of Heaven
    (recently available from Fox), among others. You should also know that
    Lauzirika and his team are big fans of Blade Runner themselves. Rest
    assured that they know what you guys all want to see on this release,
    and they're working very hard to make it as good as it can be. Trust us
    when we say that this project is in EXACTLY the right hands.

    Alright, Replicants... here's a little eye candy from artist Drew
    Struzan to salve yer synthetic souls in the meantime...
    Goro, May 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Goro

    Bratboy Guest

    While I'm glad their coming out, loaned my old copy out yrs ago and never
    got it back hehe, but I don't exactly "get it". Sounds like he's doing the
    same thing that was done to SWars that so many got upset about. Adding
    sceens and such is fine by me but so many were angry & I'm curious why is
    this movie is any different
    Bratboy, May 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Goro

    Bob Guest

    On Sat, 27 May 2006 06:14:16 -0600, "Bratboy"
    <> wrote:

    >While I'm glad their coming out, loaned my old copy out yrs ago and never
    >got it back hehe, but I don't exactly "get it". Sounds like he's doing the
    >same thing that was done to SWars that so many got upset about. Adding
    >sceens and such is fine by me but so many were angry & I'm curious why is
    >this movie is any different


    This may have to do with the controversy Scott started when he claimed
    in an interview that Deckard was a replicant. Supposedly there are
    scenes in the latest version which support that claim which were cut
    from the original film.

    Then there was the matter of the missing replicant. Five escaped but
    only four were accounted for - Roy, Rachael, Pris and Leon. The fifth
    was rumored to have committed suicide but that could have been a
    coverup for Deckard.


    --

    "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the
    earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort
    of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the
    fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized
    for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never
    organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing
    justice, not the slightest in the world."
    --Clarence Darrow
    Bob, May 27, 2006
    #3
  4. Goro

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Bratboy" <> wrote in message
    news:44784176$0$8616$...
    > While I'm glad their coming out, loaned my old copy out yrs ago and
    > never got it back hehe, but I don't exactly "get it". Sounds like he's
    > doing the same thing that was done to SWars that so many got upset
    > about. Adding sceens and such is fine by me but so many were angry &
    > I'm curious why is this movie is any different


    The difference is that Ridley Scott doesn't disown the original
    theatrical cuts of his movie.
    Joshua Zyber, May 27, 2006
    #4
  5. Goro

    Guest

    Exactly, he's giving you every version of Blade Runner that was ever
    made, so you can pick your favourite, all in anamorphic widescreen.
    Which SWars STILL isn't doing even with the recent news.
    , May 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Goro

    jayembee Guest

    "Bratboy" <> wrote:

    > While I'm glad their coming out, loaned my old copy out yrs ago and
    > never got it back hehe, but I don't exactly "get it". Sounds like he's
    > doing the same thing that was done to SWars that so many got upset
    > about. Adding sceens and such is fine by me but so many were angry &
    > I'm curious why is this movie is any different


    The difference is that when Lucas added the imrovements, he removed
    the original versions completely from circulation in every and all
    forms. That isn't happening with BLADE RUNNER. If you read the article,
    they quite specifically state that the mega-set will contain all four
    versions of the film, allowing the consumer to choose which one(s)
    to watch, instead of completely removing that choice from the viewer.

    Now granted, this *had* been done, in a sense, with BLADE RUNNER
    back in 1993, when Warner released the Not Really Director's Cut,
    and yanked the original version out of circulation. But they are
    "fixing" that now.

    -- jayembee
    jayembee, May 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Goro

    Goro Guest

    jayembee wrote:
    > "Bratboy" <> wrote:
    >
    > > While I'm glad their coming out, loaned my old copy out yrs ago and
    > > never got it back hehe, but I don't exactly "get it". Sounds like he's
    > > doing the same thing that was done to SWars that so many got upset
    > > about. Adding sceens and such is fine by me but so many were angry &
    > > I'm curious why is this movie is any different

    >
    > The difference is that when Lucas added the imrovements, he removed
    > the original versions completely from circulation in every and all
    > forms. That isn't happening with BLADE RUNNER. If you read the article,
    > they quite specifically state that the mega-set will contain all four
    > versions of the film, allowing the consumer to choose which one(s)
    > to watch, instead of completely removing that choice from the viewer.
    >
    > Now granted, this *had* been done, in a sense, with BLADE RUNNER
    > back in 1993, when Warner released the Not Really Director's Cut,
    > and yanked the original version out of circulation. But they are
    > "fixing" that now.
    >
    > -- jayembee


    i think THIS is the key point right here. Unlike the STAR WARS SEs,
    the split b/w the BLADE RUNNER Theatrical v BR DirCut is split with a
    substantial percentage on both sides. Up til now, the Theatrical has
    been Lucas'd (unavailable on dvd) but now that's about to change.
    THAT'S the big deal, that both the previouis versions in pristine forms
    with booKoo extras is going to be released. The new uber-Dir Edit may
    end up a debacle, but has been something that fans have been interested
    in since news of it leaked a while back.

    This set GIVES THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT.

    -goro-
    Goro, May 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Goro

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Goro" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > i think THIS is the key point right here. Unlike the STAR WARS SEs,
    > the split b/w the BLADE RUNNER Theatrical v BR DirCut is split with a
    > substantial percentage on both sides. Up til now, the Theatrical has
    > been Lucas'd (unavailable on dvd) but now that's about to change.
    > THAT'S the big deal, that both the previouis versions in pristine
    > forms
    > with booKoo extras is going to be released. The new uber-Dir Edit may
    > end up a debacle, but has been something that fans have been
    > interested
    > in since news of it leaked a while back.
    >
    > This set GIVES THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT.


    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.

    Star Wars, on the other hand, was essentially perfect right out of the
    gate. Then in 1997 George Lucas decided to **** it over with idiotic
    changes that made it a lesser film, and to disown the original version
    in the process. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
    Joshua Zyber, May 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Goro

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Joshua Zyber
    <> wrote:

    > "Goro" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > i think THIS is the key point right here. Unlike the STAR WARS SEs,
    > > the split b/w the BLADE RUNNER Theatrical v BR DirCut is split with a
    > > substantial percentage on both sides. Up til now, the Theatrical has
    > > been Lucas'd (unavailable on dvd) but now that's about to change.
    > > THAT'S the big deal, that both the previouis versions in pristine
    > > forms
    > > with booKoo extras is going to be released. The new uber-Dir Edit may
    > > end up a debacle, but has been something that fans have been
    > > interested
    > > in since news of it leaked a while back.
    > >
    > > This set GIVES THE FANS WHAT THEY WANT.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, May 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Goro

    unclejr Guest

    Invid Fan wrote:
    > His version won't have that "violent footage", most likely.


    Why not? He shot it. HTH.

    -Junior
    unclejr, May 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Goro

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Invid Fan" <> wrote in message
    news:280520062019245458%...
    >> 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.
    Joshua Zyber, May 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Goro

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Joshua Zyber
    <> wrote:

    > "Invid Fan" <> wrote in message
    > news:280520062019245458%...
    > >> 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 shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, May 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Goro

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Invid Fan" <> wrote in message
    news:290520061126497407%...
    >> 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.
    Joshua Zyber, May 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Goro

    Jeff Rife Guest

    Joshua Zyber () 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
    Jeff Rife, May 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Goro

    Jay G. Guest

    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.video.dvd/msg/7e764b76b4e48a82

    -Jay
    Jay G., May 30, 2006
    #15
  16. 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
    Ian Galbraith, May 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Goro

    Invid Fan Guest

    In article <>, Ian Galbraith
    <> 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 shit. That's how I've always seen us.
    'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
    -'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
    Invid Fan, May 30, 2006
    #17
  18. "Goro" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Jack Torrence, May 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Goro

    Jeff Rife Guest

    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
    Jeff Rife, May 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Goro

    jayembee Guest

    Ian Galbraith <> 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
    jayembee, May 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rich Jackson

    Blade Runner

    Rich Jackson, Nov 30, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,392
    Juan Moreno
    Dec 1, 2003
  2. Jordan Lund

    Blade Runner special edition hold up:

    Jordan Lund, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    534
    Jay G
    Dec 29, 2003
  3. Smaug69
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    725
    MarkZimmerman
    Jul 4, 2004
  4. Incremental Jones

    Blade Runner status?

    Incremental Jones, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    436
    Jordan
    Dec 30, 2004
  5. campu2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
    campu2
    May 31, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page