Blade Runner

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Rich Jackson, Nov 30, 2003.

  1. Rich Jackson

    Rich Jackson Guest

    Please excuse my not Googling this myself, but, I just got a new
    computer/ISP and I have a few "issues" to work
    out!
    What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat
    ending) or the one currently in stores without voice-over and a slightly
    different ending/plot?

    Rich
    Rich Jackson, Nov 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich Jackson

    Mobutu Guest

    Rich Jackson wrote:

    > Please excuse my not Googling this myself, but, I just got a new
    > computer/ISP and I have a few "issues" to work
    > out!
    > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat
    > ending) or the one currently in stores without voice-over and a slightly
    > different ending/plot?
    >
    > Rich


    I have only ever seen the Director's Cut, but I can't imagine wanting to have a
    voice-over. It would be so intrusive.

    Better to appreciate the music and enjoy the mysterious mood of the movie than
    listen to a voice over - which was only added afterwards to make the movie more
    "accessible" to mainstream audiences (who didn't like the movie much anyway).
    Mobutu, Nov 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich Jackson

    profft Guest

    Then you don't know what your missing

    "Mobutu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rich Jackson wrote:
    >
    > > Please excuse my not Googling this myself, but, I just got a new
    > > computer/ISP and I have a few "issues" to work
    > > out!
    > > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > > originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat
    > > ending) or the one currently in stores without voice-over and a

    slightly
    > > different ending/plot?
    > >
    > > Rich

    >
    > I have only ever seen the Director's Cut, but I can't imagine wanting to

    have a
    > voice-over. It would be so intrusive.
    >
    > Better to appreciate the music and enjoy the mysterious mood of the movie

    than
    > listen to a voice over - which was only added afterwards to make the movie

    more
    > "accessible" to mainstream audiences (who didn't like the movie much

    anyway).
    >
    >
    >
    profft, Nov 30, 2003
    #3
  4. Rich Jackson wrote:
    >
    > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > originally shown in theaters


    With voice overs. When I got the "directors cut" w/o them
    I screamed "butcher!" and returned it the next day not even
    watching more than 10 minutes of that abomination.


    Darrel :)
    Darrel Christenson, Nov 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Rich Jackson

    Mark Jones Guest

    "Mobutu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have only ever seen the Director's Cut

    Same here. That is the only one I have seen.
    Mark Jones, Nov 30, 2003
    #5
  6. Rich Jackson wrote:
    > Please excuse my not Googling this myself, but, I just got a new
    > computer/ISP and I have a few "issues" to work
    > out!
    > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat
    > ending) or the one currently in stores without voice-over and a slightly
    > different ending/plot?
    >
    > Rich
    >
    >

    I had a professor who was a huge fan of the movie (in fact it was one of
    the topics of the final for his Humanities class). He greatly preferred
    the original theatrical release and when he played it for the class he
    used that version.

    Adios,
    ~Nick
    Nicholas Andrade, Nov 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Rich Jackson

    Jay G Guest

    "profft" <> wrote ...
    > Then you don't know what your missing


    Something the director didn't want you to hear,
    and wasn't involved in making (the voiceover).

    Don't top-post.

    -Jay
    Jay G, Nov 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Rich Jackson

    Jay G Guest

    "Rich Jackson" <> wrote...
    > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat ending) or the one
    > currently in stores without voice-over and a slightly
    > different ending/plot?


    I prefer the newer cut, although in fairness I only vaguely
    remember the theatrical cut. I only clearly remember the
    altered ending of the theatrical, which is completely
    unnecessary.

    The current cut isn't without it's faults of course. By
    removing the voice-over, some shots are overly long,
    since they were lengthened to accommodate the voice-over.
    Ridley Scott has since worked on a tighter cut that is
    closer to his original intention for the film (The current
    "Director's Cut" was compromised by Scott only managing
    to make a few changes before WB demanded he turn it in).
    The new DC is finished and is supposed to appear on the
    long-delayed SE DVD, along with the original theatrical cut.

    -Jay
    Jay G, Nov 30, 2003
    #8
  9. I like the VO and director's cut editions equally. There's many other scenes
    that aren't in either version (like the girls dancing in hockey masks and the
    hospital scene with Dekkard).
    Vlvetmorning98, Nov 30, 2003
    #9
  10. Rich Jackson

    Louis Guest

    "Darrel Christenson" <> wrote in message
    news:Xecyb.257610$9E1.1371759@attbi_s52...
    > Rich Jackson wrote:
    > >
    > > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > > originally shown in theaters

    >
    > With voice overs. When I got the "directors cut" w/o them
    > I screamed "butcher!" and returned it the next day not even
    > watching more than 10 minutes of that abomination.
    >
    >
    > Darrel :)


    The studio forced Ridley Scott to add the voice over because they didn't
    think the audience would "get" the film otherwise. Reportedly, Harrison Ford
    read it in an especially flat manner to telegraph his displeasure. The
    "happy" ending was also tacked on (using leftover film from "The Shining").
    The so-called "Director's Cut" rectifies this "butchery" but doesn't really
    reflect Scott's final intention. A new version should be out soon (pending
    legal difficulties).

    Sorry you think the director's real intention was so bad.

    L
    >
    Louis, Nov 30, 2003
    #10
  11. Rich Jackson

    profft Guest

    "Jay G" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "profft" <> wrote ...
    > > Then you don't know what your missing

    >
    > Something the director didn't want you to hear,
    > and wasn't involved in making (the voiceover).
    >
    > Don't top-post.
    >
    > -Jay
    >
    >

    Well if your going to bottom post at least have the courtesy to <snip> all
    the intervening stuff out, a lot of people hate having to scroll thru
    endless pages of already read crap just to see a oneline answer or reply at
    the bottom.

    Second without the VO it's just a bunch of disjoined images with very scant
    details to connect them together, there is absolutly nothing there to convey
    how much Deckard hates himself for what he does, no explaination for why Roy
    saves Deckard in the end, and this is just two examples. Without the VO
    Deckard is just a DICK that goes around killing people for no rational
    reason. Most "Directors Cuts" are great, better than the theatrical releases
    but this one just plain sucks.
    profft, Nov 30, 2003
    #11
  12. Rich Jackson

    Jay G Guest

    "profft" <> wrote ...
    > >

    > Well if your going to bottom post at least have the courtesy to <snip> all
    > the intervening stuff out, a lot of people hate having to scroll thru
    > endless pages of already read crap just to see a oneline answer or reply

    at
    > the bottom.


    Um, I *did* snip a lot of the intervening stuff out. You, on the
    other hand, didn't.

    > Second without the VO it's just a bunch of disjoined images with very

    scant
    > details to connect them together, there is absolutly nothing there to

    convey
    > how much Deckard hates himself for what he does,


    Except for Harrison Ford's *acting*, which conveys his hate for his
    job perfectly without any VO.

    > no explaination for why Roy saves Deckard in the end


    If I remember correctly, the VO says that Deckard doesn't know
    either. He offers some conjecture, but again it's nothing that
    someone who was paying attention to the film wouldn't have
    thought of by themselves.

    The VO just spells out, in big capital letters, what the film
    has already shown. It's not necessary at all to understand
    or appreciate the film, which is why Scott cut it out despite
    originally liking the idea of a VO.

    -Jay
    Jay G, Nov 30, 2003
    #12
  13. Rich Jackson

    Wade365 Guest

    After reading "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" again recently, I like the
    DC... I think it conveys the somber world of Dekker very well. I think it's
    better for the audience to make their own conclusions rather than having that
    VO to do it for them, but having seen the original theatrical run I can see
    where Ford's deadpan fits in (despite the stories of his doing it over
    displeasure)... that's certainly the way P.K. Dick WROTE the character...
    brooding yet detatched.

    Read the book and then watch the movie for yourself. Our attitudes are only
    going to color the experience you should have with the material on a one-to-one
    basis... and what the Hell, it's a quick read.
    Wade365, Nov 30, 2003
    #13
  14. Vlvetmorning98 <> wrote:
    : I like the VO and director's cut editions equally. There's many other
    : scenes that aren't in either version (like the girls dancing in hockey
    : masks and the hospital scene with Dekkard).

    There is a scene in current versions that was not in the theatrical
    release. When Pris attacks Deckard an jumps on his shoulders. The part
    where she sticks her fingers in his nostrils and turns his head wasn't
    seen in theatres.

    Richard in Boston, MA, USA
    Richard G Amirault, Dec 1, 2003
    #14
  15. Wade365 <> wrote:
    (snip)
    : Read the book and then watch the movie for yourself. Our attitudes are
    : only going to color the experience you should have with the material on
    : a one-to-one basis... and what the Hell, it's a quick read.

    I thought it was a short story, not a book.

    Richard in Boston, MA, USA
    Richard G Amirault, Dec 1, 2003
    #15
  16. Rich Jackson

    Rutgar Guest

    On 30 Nov 2003 19:26:44 GMT, (Wade365) wrote:

    >After reading "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" again recently, I like the
    >DC... I think it conveys the somber world of Dekker very well. I think it's
    >better for the audience to make their own conclusions rather than having that
    >VO to do it for them, but having seen the original theatrical run I can see
    >where Ford's deadpan fits in (despite the stories of his doing it over
    >displeasure)... that's certainly the way P.K. Dick WROTE the character...
    >brooding yet detatched.
    >
    >Read the book and then watch the movie for yourself. Our attitudes are only
    >going to color the experience you should have with the material on a one-to-one
    >basis... and what the Hell, it's a quick read.


    Well, I've read the book, and I've seen both film versions. And, I
    prefer the original with the voice over. If the original theatrical
    release had been the D.C., I doubt that Blade Runner would have ever
    been one of my favorite movies, as it is now. I'm still holding my
    breath for an restored, anamorphic version on DVD of the original
    theatrical release.

    - Rutgar
    Rutgar, Dec 1, 2003
    #16
  17. Rich Jackson

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "Richard G Amirault" <> wrote in message
    news:bqe109$smo$...
    > : Read the book and then watch the movie for yourself. Our attitudes

    are
    > : only going to color the experience you should have with the material

    on
    > : a one-to-one basis... and what the Hell, it's a quick read.
    >
    > I thought it was a short story, not a book.


    It was more of a novella.

    And comparing the book to the movie is rather fruitless, as the movie is
    very loosely adapted.
    Joshua Zyber, Dec 1, 2003
    #17
  18. Rich Jackson

    Rutgar Guest

    On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:50:30 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
    <> wrote:

    >"Richard G Amirault" <> wrote in message
    >news:bqe109$smo$...
    >> : Read the book and then watch the movie for yourself. Our attitudes

    >are
    >> : only going to color the experience you should have with the material

    >on
    >> : a one-to-one basis... and what the Hell, it's a quick read.
    >>
    >> I thought it was a short story, not a book.

    >
    >It was more of a novella.
    >
    >And comparing the book to the movie is rather fruitless, as the movie is
    >very loosely adapted.
    >


    Yes. EXTREMELY loose!

    - Rutgar
    Rutgar, Dec 1, 2003
    #18
  19. Rich Jackson

    Peter Guest

    I say original.. They usually play the original every year around new
    years, and I enjoy it a lot more, then the directors cut I have on tape.


    Rich Jackson wrote:
    > Please excuse my not Googling this myself, but, I just got a new
    > computer/ISP and I have a few "issues" to work
    > out!
    > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat
    > ending) or the one currently in stores without voice-over and a slightly
    > different ending/plot?
    >
    > Rich
    >
    >


    --
    At the source of every error which is blamed on the
    computer you will find at least two human errors,
    including the error of blaming it on the computer.
    --
    Thats not funny!
    ---
    Signature generated by SillySigz!
    http://www.sturec.com/sillysigz.shtml
    Peter, Dec 1, 2003
    #19
  20. Rich Jackson

    Shawn Guest

    Slightly off topic, but does anyone know if there's been news on a new Blade
    Runner DVD, maybe a double-layer transfer?

    I wonder if I'm the only one who felt the current DVD transfer looks terrible,
    perhaps due to the low bitrate (< 5mbps). I also noticed noticeable, irritating
    picture shaking, especially near the beginning, the Warner Brothers logo. I
    enjoy the film a lot but these things really make it less enjoyable for me.

    Rich Jackson wrote:

    > Please excuse my not Googling this myself, but, I just got a new
    > computer/ISP and I have a few "issues" to work
    > out!
    > What is the favorite edition of Blade Runner in the group? The one
    > originally shown in theaters (voice-over, upbeat
    > ending) or the one currently in stores without voice-over and a slightly
    > different ending/plot?
    >
    > Rich
    Shawn, Dec 1, 2003
    #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. Jordan Lund

    Blade Runner special edition hold up:

    Jordan Lund, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    539
    Jay G
    Dec 29, 2003
  2. Smaug69
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    737
    MarkZimmerman
    Jul 4, 2004
  3. Incremental Jones

    Blade Runner status?

    Incremental Jones, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    440
    Jordan
    Dec 30, 2004
  4. campu2
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
    campu2
    May 31, 2005
  5. Lester Bangs
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    854
    Brian The Demolition Man Little
    Feb 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page