Liquidsnake
Banned
Was there a cut that had a longer finger breaking scene????
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner: 30 Years Later
- Thread starter PhoncipleBone
- Start date
- Status
Okay, dude, seriously, why would you do that? I mean, I take your name and avatar and assume you like Akira Kurosawa. I wouldn't sell off Seven Samurai or Yojimbo, they're of both historical and artistic importance. WHY WOULD YOU SELL OFF BLADE RUNNER?!?!
I've sold copies of those films as well, or even given away copies for other people to watch. Problem is that the current state of media has gotten more absurd. A film editions seem to last maybe five to six years before a new medium/edition/collectors edition is released.
For Blade Runner, I was never a diehard fan of the film. I always thought it was a alright sci-fi flick. The director's cut soured me much like the Apocalypse Now edition to the point where I need to force myself to sit down and watch the film. Funny enough, Scott's Kingdom of Heaven was one of the worst experiences I've had in a movie theater. Everyone and their mother has been telling me to sit down and watch the director's cut. Still need to get on that.
Kingdom Of Heaven: Director's Cut is the clearest argument in favour of director's cuts ever.
Went from a 2-star film to a 5-star film. The hour of footage it adds changes everything, giving each character much richer motivations and thus adding actual weight to the events of the film. Also has much more of dat Ridley cinematography. Nobody does vistas like that man.
I think, if you also take the theatrical cut and final cut of Blade Runner side by side (because all the cuts in-between weren't done by him), it also shows a clear argument for director cuts.
Then again, another Ridley film, Alien, also shows the reason why superfluous director cuts for marketing purposes are a bad idea.
Guess well have to change the title of 1984 too.
2001 has a similar vibe to this movie. Probably just the non cg effects though. They do look awesome even today
I guess it's comparable to going to the bathroom. If I go in and it smells terrible, I'm the type of person who would just leave and come back later.
Overall the idea of director cuts is a fantastic one. One problem is the term is thrown around loosely by studios trying to market their product once again. The other problem are directors feeling forced, obligated, or just flat out needing a paycheck.
I really do need to give Kingdom of Heaven that shot. During the viewing at the theater, my group were the only ones there. We basically gave it the MST3k treatment as we couldn't stop laughing at the film alone.
There was another DC of a film I believe was recently released, skipped my mind. Need to start making a 2012 viewing list. 2011 was the worst year for film I have ever seen. Can't continue to allow that to happen.
Overall the idea of director cuts is a fantastic one. One problem is the term is thrown around loosely by studios trying to market their product once again. The other problem are directors feeling forced, obligated, or just flat out needing a paycheck.
I really do need to give Kingdom of Heaven that shot. During the viewing at the theater, my group were the only ones there. We basically gave it the MST3k treatment as we couldn't stop laughing at the film alone.
There was another DC of a film I believe was recently released, skipped my mind. Need to start making a 2012 viewing list. 2011 was the worst year for film I have ever seen. Can't continue to allow that to happen.
They're tonally so wrong for the film though and would ruin the pacing no matter where you put them. Very interesting to watch in isolation, but even the most amateur of editors wouldn't keep them in there.
Frank Darabont on the Dangerous Days documentary has the best explanation why Deckard is not and should not be a replicant
Nappuccino
Member
Yes. His reasons are pretty much exactly why I try to keep my interpretation alive. Not because I am stubborn, but because it has more to say, I think.
i'm trying to find the clip on youtube and can't find it. ugh
GhostRidah
Member
Everybody should watch Ridley's Legend afterwards. It does for Fantasy what Bladerunner does for Sci-Fi. Absolutely beautiful movie!
Yes! it has been on cable a lot recently, awesome film, I remember watching it when as a kid and being scared of that awesome devil.
fierrotlepou
Member
You guys have convinced me to watch it yet again. Final cut blu-ray is the way to go people.
Funny that you mention Legend. I have been trying to watch it this week. There is some really compelling imagery in the movie and Darkness is an iconic villain but the plot is so paper-thin!
Blade Runner created a much more immersive and convincing world. Legend is an exercise in design and not much more.
Blade Runner created a much more immersive and convincing world. Legend is an exercise in design and not much more.
None of this necessitated offering a conclusive answer, though, and in fact would have probably just been stronger and more thought-provoking had it been left completely ambiguous. You can say that those additions are still up to interpretation, but it's pretty clear what Ridley's purpose was in adding them, as he's pretty unambiguous about it.
On a rewatch, it should be just as ambiguous as the first time around. Why not? Why do you need an answer one way or the other? It doesn't add anything, because if you leave open the possibility that Deckard is either replicant or human, then it allows you to read it from both sides and create some richer interpretations.
Now you can't really even look at it from the point of view of "what if Deckard was in fact human?" because Ridley put the kibosh on that. You can pretend he never said anything and never added any scenes, and take your own interpretation (which is what I'm more apt to do), but there's no question that the unicorn dream and such were purposefully added in there by Ridley because he was, for some inexplicable reason, tired of the debate.
Now whenever someone tries to argue for ambiguity or for Deckard being human, they have to basically ignore Ridley's point in putting those scenes, trying to interpret those as still ambiguous despite their clear, intended purpose. You can do that, but it really shouldn't have been necessary.
Incredibly, 100% false. Those scenes were shot before the film made it to theatres, along with the rest of the film. They were always intended to be in there. Studio vetoed it and forced the addition of the driving away in the lush foresty area at the end which ruins everything. You make it sound like some after-thought on his part to end a debate. Final Cut/Director's Cut added nothing, it merely restored and edited.
Also I don't like your addition of "Well I can't really approach it from that angle since I watched it after reading Ridley's thoughts on it." to my quotation. I'm going to assume that was an editing accident on your behalf.
It's less the scenes I have a problem with than Ridley's steadfast assertion of what they represent. And ultimately, since he's the director and it's his movie, that is "in fact" what they represent.
Suairyu said:
Hahahah total editing accident, my bad. I meant that as a response to your first paragraph.
That's what I'm getting at - if you watch those scenes without Ridley's feedback, they may still come across as ambiguous to you. I meant to point out that it's impossible to do that if you've already seen Ridley's word on it, because he doesn't feel it's even remotely ambiguous.
To him there's a direct answer, and I just feel it's unfortunate that he felt that there had to be no mystery to it; that Deckard is in fact a replicant, end of story. The screenwriter wasn't a fan, either. I'm much more inclined to side with him as far Deckard's mysterious nature being more fulfilling and meaningful.
I get the appeal of the mystery, I really do. It's just that it's a little redundant because the film is shot and edited to say Deckard is a replicant. Siding with one of the screenwriters doesn't matter when the film itself speaks volumes.
And the thing is, I personally found the slow realisation over two or three or however many viewings it took me to piece it all together so satisfying. I don't necessarily think a definitive answer diminishes the question. "Is Deckard a replicant?" is still a very important question to the makeup of the film; I don't think "the answer is yes" takes away from that question at all, especially when it isn't crystal clear one your first round through the film. The mind still lights up with wonderful possibilities.
And, I dunno, like I said I think the doors of exploration that are opened up as a result of Deckard definitively being a replicant are so very interesting. "Is Deckard a replicant?" is a very small question compared to the ramifications of it being true.
Nappuccino
Member
I'm pretty sure the footage was originally shot for the Legend trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOxViR7eCuM
Unless that is just a happy coincidence.
But those ramifications are already being explored through Rachel. Deckard has a more interesting question "If I am human, how do I know and what separates me from them?"
Well, if it was so redundant then the screenwriter of the film wouldn't have been adamant that Deckard's nature is ambiguous, don't you think?
As I recall he thought it was pretty silly that it needed any definite answer one way or the other, which is how I approach it. Suairyu said:
I agree with most of what you say about the film and your write-up earlier on Blade Runner was nice, but I guess we just differ on the notion of answering the Deckard question being more or less meaningful than not doing so. You appear to think they're both equally meaningful, which is fine, but I think leaving that question hanging is what makes the theme of the film even more powerful.
Deckard is human. Deckard is replicant. He doesn't know, the viewer doesn't know, even Batty doesn't know. So what is the difference, really? And on repeat viewings that question becomes even richer as you attempt to arrive at an answer for yourself. But when it's pretty conclusively answered then there's less of a purpose in that anymore. I would have felt the same if the answer was that he's human, like in Dick's novel.
Suairyu said:
It can definitely be fun looking at it from either the point of view, but when it's not answered, you can look at the ramifications on both sides. Because your interpretation as the viewer would basically be the correct one, since there's no definite answer.
So if you think he's human, then looking at the entire film as Deckard being human would be quite interesting. Ditto if you think he's replicant. I just think that should have been left up to the viewer, ultimately. It would have been particularly interesting since we all tend to see what we want to see, and the people who view him as replicant may have very different philosophical underpinnings and such than those who see him as human, etc.
Which of the two screenwriters?Well, if it was so redundant then the screenwriter of the film wouldn't have been adamant that Deckard's nature is ambiguous, don't you think?
When did he say that?
Which draft of the script was the most recent when he said that?
Had he seen the film already?
Which version of the film?
I know all the answers to that question, by the way, but I'm asking them to make a point. Ultimately, the only one who has a say in the finality is the director. Not because "it's their film", but because they've made the film exactly how they've made it. A screenwriter is no more than a carpenter, except instead of building sets he's building structure and dialogue.
The final draft of the script is written in the editing suite by the director and editor.
Ultimately, the opinions of the screenwriter when discussing the final product are about as relevant as those of the person whose job it was to make the coffee for the crew members.
But then, the same goes for Ridley Scott. Had he actually been doing the "Deckard might not be a replicant" song and dance instead, it wouldn't have mattered had the director's cut and final cut turned out the way they did. I'm saying the film itself says Deckard is a replicant. The eyes, the daydream, the origami. It's a redundant question not because it isn't important to the film - it most certainly is - but because the film itself provides the answer.
Nappuccino
Member
I believe that, in production, everyone handled Deckard as if he were human- Ridley and Harrison talked about it and decided he was human. It wasn't until later edits that Ridley made it seem more like he was a replicant.
Also, I suppose the biggest question is, "Should Deckard be a replicant." His being a replicant doesn't add any new questions or ideas to the movie that Rachel doesn't. If he is human, that allows a point of comparison for the audience as well as the moral question of his relationship with Rachel- not to mention dealing with the tragic aspect of her, presumably soon, demise when he would go on to grow old without her.
Also, I suppose the biggest question is, "Should Deckard be a replicant." His being a replicant doesn't add any new questions or ideas to the movie that Rachel doesn't. If he is human, that allows a point of comparison for the audience as well as the moral question of his relationship with Rachel- not to mention dealing with the tragic aspect of her, presumably soon, demise when he would go on to grow old without her.
Spot on. Seeing the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was a shocking experience. Vastly superior to what I saw in theatres.
First version of BR that I ever saw was the early 90's director's cut so wasn't quite the same experience as KoH, but I definitely prefer that and the final cut versions over the U.S. theatrical release.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Love the lighting in this movie, and the slow pace that just isn't possible nowadays for a sci-fi. I loved how it was just a small story in a big world.
If Blade Runner was made today, the final scene would be Deckard running through a Replicant factory, trying to find Batty among a bunch of Batty clones which are about to be activated to take over the world and replace all humans. He would kill him then blow up the factory and barely escape.
You know it's true.
If Blade Runner was made today, the final scene would be Deckard running through a Replicant factory, trying to find Batty among a bunch of Batty clones which are about to be activated to take over the world and replace all humans. He would kill him then blow up the factory and barely escape.
You know it's true.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Funnily I had this same feeling regarding that Doom movie abomination. Instead of going out with a bang and showing us some crazy shit it gives us a shitty mutant Rock and actors whose name I forget duel. God what a worthless adaptation.
Sounds like if James Cameron did a sequel, to be honest.
Nappuccino
Member
Yep. It would be awesome, but also much less satisfying.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Sort of like Aliens, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day?
Nappuccino
Member
Let's not go down this road with something as pure as Blade Runner, please?
I'm looking at the jewel case for the Westwood game right now. I ebay'ed it a few years ago, but it's been in my backlog ever since. Is it worth going through?
For what it's worth, I'm still on the fence, even with Scott going out of his way to say Deckard is a replicant. If only he'd bought that damn lamb, things would be much clearer.
Yeah I was just kidding, I have no really qualm with the setting of Blade runner
Anyway my experience with Blade runner.
First time watching: Bored but really enjoyed the imagery. Fell in love with it infact.
2nd watch: Noticed the soundtrack more, very unique and spellbinding, especially effective with the world/theme in the film.
3rd watch: The dialogue started making sense and had great impact. "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" F'ing legend!
4th watch: Started noticing things I didn't originally in the scenery and such, the movie grew on me tremendously.
5th watch: I shed a tear! Favourite film of all time. It's tradition I watch it every year now.
Anyway my experience with Blade runner.
First time watching: Bored but really enjoyed the imagery. Fell in love with it infact.
2nd watch: Noticed the soundtrack more, very unique and spellbinding, especially effective with the world/theme in the film.
3rd watch: The dialogue started making sense and had great impact. "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" F'ing legend!
4th watch: Started noticing things I didn't originally in the scenery and such, the movie grew on me tremendously.
5th watch: I shed a tear! Favourite film of all time. It's tradition I watch it every year now.
If you go into it with the mindset of not expecting a particularly good game or story, but instead to immerse yourself in the Blade Runner world, learning more things about it as you go, then yes, it is worth it.
Yeah I was just kidding, I have no really qualm with the setting of Blade runner
Anyway my experience with Blade runner.
First time watching: Bored but really enjoyed the imagery. Fell in love with it infact.
2nd watch: Noticed the soundtrack more, very unique and spellbinding, especially effective with the world/theme in the film.
3rd watch: The dialogue started making sense and had great impact. "If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes" F'ing legend!
4th watch: Started noticing things I didn't originally in the scenery and such, the movie grew on me tremendously.
5th watch: I shed a tear! Favourite film of all time. It's tradition I watch it every year now.
1st watch: fell asleep, then waking up panicking "OMG, this is a required watch for that film analysis class tomorrow, I'm so going to flunk the class". Went to sleep properly instead of rewatching it anyway. The next morning, I sat uncomfortably, silently pretending to know what everyone else was in class talking about while they were discussing the film.
2nd watch: tried to watch it again on my own accord because I've heard so many rave reviews. Fell asleep again. Me: "Well, that was a waste of $5 rent".
3rd watch: this was after I played the Westwood game so I was more aware of the plot. This time, I'm wide awake and wondered why I wasn't so captivated at first. I saw the original cut this time so I always have a soft spot for it despite seeing the Director's cut later on.
4th watch: finally saw the Director's cut and liked it as well so I simply attributed my disinterest during 1st and 2nd viewing to the fact that I was a tired student.
5th watch: noticed all of the fine details (ie. Rachel's robotic mannerism during her 1st appearance) and realized that it's one of the films that I like to watch over and over again and definitely in one of my top 10 if not top 5 favorite films.
HAHA the weird thing is I don't give many movies second or third chances. Many critical acclaimed films I could care less about if I didnt enjoy the first watch. I wasn't even aware of BR past when I watched it but when I did something just clicked. I knew I had to watch it again and again and again.
Same. I think the fact that I was a film student, the film got many rave reviews, and I got hooked on the Westwood videogames are the contributing factors as to why I was willing to give it 2nd and 3rd try.
I still don't like Citizen Kane even after 2nd and 3rd watch though. And I didn't even fell asleep on those. Nice cinematography but Rosebud my ass.
So.Good.
The music was absolutely incredible, the entire atmosphere the movie had was incredible. I watched it for the first time on Netflix last year and while I felt it was a bit slow, the music/atmosphere alone made it one of my favorite movies ever.
Oh god how did I miss this post? This... this is incredible.
No seriously I need to edit Blade Runner Blues to create a seamlessly looping version of it, then play that with RainyMood and invite someone over to make love to.
edit - seriously that works so well together I had to keep closing RainyMood to see if certain noises were always a part of the song or not. Incredible.
speculawyer
Member
Best cut:
The International Cut (1982, 117 minutes) also known as the "Criterion Edition" or uncut version, included more violent action scenes than the US theatrical version. Although initially unavailable in the US and distributed in Europe and Asia via theatrical and local Warner Home Video laserdisc releases, it was later released on VHS and Criterion Collection laserdisc in North America, and re-released in 1992 as a "10th Anniversary Edition". Home Box Office broadcast this version to U.S. audiences in the 1980s and 1990s.
The film Noire narration is good.
The International Cut (1982, 117 minutes) also known as the "Criterion Edition" or uncut version, included more violent action scenes than the US theatrical version. Although initially unavailable in the US and distributed in Europe and Asia via theatrical and local Warner Home Video laserdisc releases, it was later released on VHS and Criterion Collection laserdisc in North America, and re-released in 1992 as a "10th Anniversary Edition". Home Box Office broadcast this version to U.S. audiences in the 1980s and 1990s.
The film Noire narration is good.
Nappuccino
Member
I haven't seen the whole thing theatrical/international style. But none of the clips I've seen make the narration sound worth it.
No.
The idea of the narration was a good one. In fact, when constructing the Final Cut there were even considerations over whether or not to ask Ford to record a brand new, not-terrible narration. (Ford said no).
However, it was so badly written (not by any of the screenwriters, Ford or Ridley, but some guy the studio hired at the last minute to finish up the film) and as a result so badly acted and -crucially- so inappropriately placed with the tears in the rain scene that it just stunk the film up.
I would love to see a Blade Runner with good narration. We never got given the chance.
speculawyer
Member
Meh. That scene wasn't a good use of it. But it works well earlier in the film.
Douglas Quaid
Member
Jeez, watch this movie on BluRay on a larger screen if you ever have the chance, its so utterly amazingly engrossing, this movie is seriously like dreaming while awake /love love love love
Problem is tears in the rain is the most important moment of the film. It is the bittersweet goodbye to that special place your consciousness has been slowly rising to through-out the entire course of the film. You ruin that one scene and you've ruined the film. It's such a delicate thing.
Really, the entire film is such a delicate balancing act of brilliance. It's why it wasn't until the Final Cut that I actually considered it the greatest film ever made, that it finally hit every note correctly to resonate so profoundly with me.
speculawyer
Member
I found that cut to the dove flying off into the perfectly blue sky much more jarring. Deckard sounds a clunky dumb cop . . . but that is what he is.
Nappuccino
Member
I believe that is fixed in the final cut.
He's a detective. The best the Blade Runner unit had ever seen before he retired. He was anything but a clunky dumb cop.
It is. And it's actually a gripe of mine. I mean, it's better than the blue-skied industrial of the older cuts, but the new image they used doesn't mesh quite as well as it should. The lighting in that scene indicates dawn is breaking (and, during filming, it was!) yet the new image used doesn't get the light right.
I mean, big improvement regardless, but still.quoting to re-size said:
- Status