I think it's stupid having so many cuts of blade runner, just get the original! X-(
Except the version that appeared in 1992 is far preferable to the original version from 1982. I'm happy enough with that cut, but it's going to be interesting to see what Ridley Scott has done this time around.
I think it's stupid having so many cuts of blade runner, just get the original! X-(
Except the version that appeared in 1992 is far preferable to the original version from 1982. I'm happy enough with that cut, but it's going to be interesting to see what Ridley Scott has done this time around.
One of the fun things about BladeRunner is that there have been so many versions that nobody is sure which one the real version is.
Take the infamous voiceover narration for example; today Ridley Scott derides it and says he was forced to put it in against his will; yet there are interviews from the 1980s where he says it was his idea to make the narrative easier to follow. Then you have the international cut with the few extra seconds of violence and the whole notion of whether Deckard is a replicant or not - to this day different people who worked on the movie have differing opinions; it isn't even clear just who came up with that idea after all these years.
Personally, I think one of the reasons the movie has survived so long and remained in the public consciousness is because of all this ambivalence about what the "real" version is, and whether Deckard is a replicant or not, and so on. Nothing is cut and dried with this movie and that's probably one of its strongest points.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation of the novel Blade Runner: The Edge of Human. It was a sequel to the director's cut version of the movie and even though it was hit or miss with how it handled the characters, it had some interesting twists and plot points in it.
Sounds interesting. I've never read this. How does it follow on from the film?
It's been a while since I read it, but it basically revolves around the inconsistency in the movie about whether there were 5 or 6 replicants on Earth. If you recall, Bryant first says 6 replicants made it from off-world, but the movie only accounted for five. If there is a sixth replicant, and it cannot be located, then Tyrell's empire - which was willed to his neice after his death - will literally be blown up.
Deckard is again at the center of the action, charged with locating the sixth replicant or proving that it doesn't exist. Other factions are also trying to get the sixth replicant for their own agendas.
Over the course of the book we see a lot of Holden (the Blade Runner who was shot by Leon at the start of the movie) the original, human Roy Batty (who was the template for the Batty Nexus 6 model), and Dr. Tyrell's neice (who it turns out was the template for Rachel). J.F. Sebastian and Pris also make unlikely appearances.
Some of the scenarios seemed a little forced and unlikely but it was a well paced book and a good read. The ending was also a bit of a surprise. And yes, it does address the question of whether Deckard was a replicant or not.
There was a second sequel written (Replicant Night, I think) but I never read that one.
Here are some links to Amazon.com pages on the two books:
I've read those, but I think there's even a 4th BR installment (the 3rd sequel). The author, Jeter, is supposed to be an acquaintence of PKD and had discussions about the philosophical underpinings of the original novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The sequels were written kind of like Gardner's continuation of the Bond novels that seemed to redress Bond's literary background into an action movie format.
What I found interesting is how some of the characters such as the real Batty were "aged" a bit in Edge of Human, almost like it was being prepped for a movie adaptation that would account for an older Rutger Hauer, etc., or at least the author would have hoped!
Oh, and by the way, I will try to be the darnedest, most behaved boy in the next few months so I can git the 5-disc BR set instead of coal for Christmas!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
What I found interesting is how some of the characters such as the real Batty were "aged" a bit in Edge of Human, almost like it was being prepped for a movie adaptation that would account for an older Rutger Hauer, etc., or at least the author would have hoped!
I noticed that too; even Deckard and Rachel had been on the run for an indeterminate period of time at the start of the novel. BR2 was definitely more accessible than Dick's original prose; it was clearly aimed at a more mass market and the pace and setpieces did lend themselves to a movie (although the story would probably have had to been trimmed and simplified some).
At this stage, I'm not sure how I'd feel about a sequel. Ford and co. are probably too old to reprise their roles and while I wouldn't object to having the roles recast, I'm fearful about what 21st Century Hollywood would do with the story.
Oh, and by the way, I will try to be the darnedest, most behaved boy in the next few months so I can git the 5-disc BR set instead of coal for Christmas!
Same here; although I'll be angling for the BluRay hi-def version as this movie begs to be seen in the highest resolution possible - maybe I'll finally be able to spot that building that is actually a model of the Millenium Falcon.
Personally, I think one of the reasons the movie has survived so long and remained in the public consciousness is because of all this ambivalence about what the "real" version is, and whether Deckard is a replicant or not, and so on. Nothing is cut and dried with this movie and that's probably one of its strongest points.
I agree. I think it's a brilliant film (I recently rewatched the director's cut) and what I love about it is that it raises as many questions as it answers; with the question of whether Deckard is in fact a replicant being perhaps the most significant of all.
But there is something that has always interested me:
It's been a while since I read it, but it basically revolves around the inconsistency in the movie about whether there were 5 or 6 replicants on Earth. If you recall, Bryant first says 6 replicants made it from off-world, but the movie only accounted for five.
Is it deliberate? Or is it simply a blooper and in fact there were actually 5 replicants who came to Earth, rather than the 6 which was mentioned in the film? I used to think that perhaps the sixth replicant was Rachel but that doesn't seem logical as there is no indication that she knew Roy and the others. I hate to say it, but I suspect it was a mistake. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know whether or not this has been resolved on an official level? That is, has Riddley Scott ever addressed it?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
It's been a while since I read it, but it basically revolves around the inconsistency in the movie about whether there were 5 or 6 replicants on Earth. If you recall, Bryant first says 6 replicants made it from off-world, but the movie only accounted for five.
Is it deliberate? Or is it simply a blooper and in fact there were actually 5 replicants who came to Earth, rather than the 6 which was mentioned in the film? I used to think that perhaps the sixth replicant was Rachel but that doesn't seem logical as there is no indication that she knew Roy and the others. I hate to say it, but I suspect it was a mistake. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know whether or not this has been resolved on an official level? That is, has Riddley Scott ever addressed it?
According to the book Future Noir, the original script had six replicants coming to Earth; two were fried trying to get into the Tyrell building and Deckard had to hunt down the remaining four. Filming of the movie ran late and over budget however, so Ridley Scott was forced to skip filming sequences involving that fourth replicant (I think her name was supposed to be Mary and she was going to be a motherly type model). He refilmed the scene with Deckard and Bryant but didn't like the final results so he just decided to keep the old scene and hoped nobody would notice (after all, home video was still in its relative infancy in those days).
Filming of the movie ran late and over budget however, so Ridley Scott was forced to skip filming sequences involving that fourth replicant (I think her name was supposed to be Mary and she was going to be a motherly type model).
But Deckard did go after four replicants. ?:) Don't you mean that he was meant to go after five replicants?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Filming of the movie ran late and over budget however, so Ridley Scott was forced to skip filming sequences involving that fourth replicant (I think her name was supposed to be Mary and she was going to be a motherly type model).
But Deckard did go after four replicants. ?:) Don't you mean that he was meant to go after five replicants?
Doh! I'm going from memory here; maybe the line that was changed was how many were fried at the Tyrell building? I'll have to look at the movie again.
Just a reminder to all fans of the movie, the final cut was released today on DVD in a pleothora of formats. Early reviews on the various DVD sites have been very very positive.
I Just ordered the 5 disc BluRay Ultimate Edition in the briefcase packaging from Amazon. With a little luck, I'll get it by the weekend.
DVD Talk has a nice review of one of the high-def versions. Other than the picture quality of the film, all the extras are the same as in the standard DVDs. I'm particularly keen to see some of those deleted scenes mentioned in the review.
I received my super-special collector's edition briefcase version with the five DVDs yesterday and watched the Final Cut version last night. Not really different from the Director's Cut, if you ask me, but a beautiful image transfer and sound. Joanna Cassidy still makes me break into a sweat -- that is one sexy woman. We get a couple longer scenes, notably Ms. Cassidy's death, the squad car flight scenes, etc ... stuff like that. Nothing especially noticeable, but I haven't been over every frame. I don't think Deckard is identified any more overtly as a replicant in the Final Cut than he was in the Director's Cut. I mean, what other explanation is there for the Gap knowing about the unicorn of Deckard's dreams?
What I'm curious about, and it's the reason I went for the briefcase version, is the rough cut. I haven't seen it yet.
Joanna Cassidy still makes me break into a sweat -- that is one sexy woman.
Cassidy turned up in an episode of Heroes recently. She still looks stunning.
Yeah, she does. She apparently did some reshooting for the Final Cut to make up for some poor stunt doubling in the original. If so, I couldn't tell where the 30-something Joanna ended and the 60-something Joanna began. Even with Hollywood trickery, that's a pretty special effect given that her costume didn't exactly cover her up.
I received my super-special collector's edition briefcase version with the five DVDs yesterday and watched the Final Cut version last night. Not really different from the Director's Cut, if you ask me, but a beautiful image transfer and sound. Joanna Cassidy still makes me break into a sweat -- that is one sexy woman. We get a couple longer scenes, notably Ms. Cassidy's death, the squad car flight scenes, etc ... stuff like that. Nothing especially noticeable, but I haven't been over every frame. I don't think Deckard is identified any more overtly as a replicant in the Final Cut than he was in the Director's Cut. I mean, what other explanation is there for the Gap knowing about the unicorn of Deckard's dreams?
What I'm curious about, and it's the reason I went for the briefcase version, is the rough cut. I haven't seen it yet.
From what I'd read, the Final Cut was basically the director's cut with a few tweaks. Nothing wrong with that if that is what Ridley Scott's original vision was. I'll also be curious to see the workprint, as well as all the deleted scenes including the one with ... Deckard's wife????
Joanna Cassidy ... :x :x :x
So HH, what's the quality of the extras like? I'm especially curious about the Spinner.
Just picked the new BR SE DVD at walmart for my sister. It's one of her favorite movies of all time, so basically a no brainer as far as Xmas gifts are concerned.
So HH, what's the quality of the extras like? I'm especially curious about the Spinner.
There's a whole discful -- supposedly 9 hours worth -- so I probably won't get to them before this weekend. Looks interesting, though. Rereading my earlier post, it strikes me that I may not have made it clear: I really like the Final Cut, despite the marginal differences with the Director's version. The new version just seems crisper. And there's one thing I noticed as well that I don't remember from the earlier version: the unicorn sequence actually has sound this time, which I think tends to highlight it and make it more memorable. Which comes in handy when the origami unicorn shows up at Deckard's door.
I was reading the review of the Final Cut posted on this thread, and it's interesting that Harrison Ford opposes the idea that his character is a replicant because he doesn't think the story makes emotional sense that way. I don't understand why, and I hope that's explained in the Special Features. I'm guessing it's because he feels Deckard's emotions don't make sense if he's a replicant (his love for Rachel and empathy for Batty when the latter dies). If so, I don't see why he would feel that way. It's made clear early in the film, and in every version of it that I have seen, that Tyrell's replicants developed emotions as time went by.
Anyway, it is a great package, especially for a collector. I was expecting the briefcase to be a cheap, thin plastic affair, but it actually seems pretty durable.
I got my hi-def BluRay version of the briefcase set yesterday and watched The Final Cut. Overall, it is pretty much the same as The Director's Cut but they really cleaned up the picture. The effects shots - which usually stand out the most with these remasters - look absolutely crisp and beautiful. Ridley Scott also saw fit to clean up a few details which always bugged me: Bryant's speech about how many replicants were on the loose, Zhora's death, and the shot of the dove flying off as Roy dies (the new version is perfect) are all now fixed. Overall, the new edition gets a mammoth thumbs up.
I also saw some of the deleted scenes - really amazing stuff. You could almost make an entirely different version of the movie using those scenes. Also of interest is Ford's narration, which is totally different from the theatrical cut, and the scenes with Holden in the hospital room, which introduce a subplot about the Voit Kampff machine not working on Nexus 6 models.
I haven't even checked out the documentaries or other features yet, but for fans of the movie it just doesn't get any better than this.
I haven't even checked out the documentaries or other features yet, but for fans of the movie it just doesn't get any better than this.
Couldn't agree more, Tony. This set is the real deal. So often these reissues just regurgigate old stuff, or are padded with uninteresting new material. I've watched all the extras now and they're all fascinating, at least to someone who hasn't made the study of the film his life's work for the last 25 years. It was well worth the money, as far as I'm concerned. A wonderful archival document of a great film.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I haven't even checked out the documentaries or other features yet, but for fans of the movie it just doesn't get any better than this.
Couldn't agree more, Tony. This set is the real deal. So often these reissues just regurgigate old stuff, or are padded with uninteresting new material. I've watched all the extras now and they're all fascinating, at least to someone who hasn't made the study of the film his life's work for the last 25 years. It was well worth the money, as far as I'm concerned. A wonderful archival document of a great film.
I'm really jealous, HH, but I might just go and get this one. I had planned to in the months coming up to Christmas, as I connived on my wishlist, then a couple of unexpected Bond related "purchase opportunities" came up, so you know how that goes.
Anyway, I am a fellow student to BR, have read Future Noir, a few other reference books and essay anthologies, and obtaining a few bootleg documentaries as well as the original theatrical release transfered from Laser Disk to DVD. I even got a few pages down on Rutger Hauer's new biography while killing time at the mall. However, I have a question that I've asked elsewhere without getting any plausible answers...per Batty's soliloquy about him being witness to attack ships off the shoulder of the Orion constellation and the fact that he and Leon were combat models, apart from security detail at the offworld colonies, who could they be possibly fighting? Extra-terrestrials? The traditional superpowers vying for domination in space? Highly organized human factions offworld? I discount the ET option, since it seemed really important for this movie to reinforce the plausibility of "science fact" in the distant future, that selling this conceptual reality would be hampered by throwing in any of the other sci-fi staples like time-travel and ET life. What do you think?
Oh, BTW, how's the Spinner miniature that came with the set?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I have a question that I've asked elsewhere without getting any plausible answers...per Batty's soliloquy about him being witness to attack ships off the shoulder of the Orion constellation and the fact that he and Leon were combat models, apart from security detail at the offworld colonies, who could they be possibly fighting? Extra-terrestrials? The traditional superpowers vying for domination in space? Highly organized human factions offworld? I discount the ET option, since it seemed really important for this movie to reinforce the plausibility of "science fact" in the distant future, that selling this conceptual reality would be hampered by throwing in any of the other sci-fi staples like time-travel and ET life. What do you think?
On one of the unused Deckard voiceovers from the deleted footage, Deckard is reviewing the records on the Nexus 6 models and mentions that Batty saw combat at the Tanhauser gate - so Roy's memories are real and not implants (as I always suspected). Unfortunately no mention is made of who the conflict was with, so it's really up to the viewer's own imagination.
Oh, BTW, how's the Spinner miniature that came with the set?
Very nice. It's plastic, at the scale is probably about 1/32, maybe a little smaller. The doors lift up, Lamborghini style, and the interior is nicely detailed. The lenticular motion strip is also very nice.
The deleted scenes are a goldmine BTW and worth the price of admission. The Dangerous Days documentary is also really well done. If you've read Future Noir, then you probably already know just about everything mentioned in the piece, but it's still nice to hear it from the actual people involved.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Thanks Tony! With over an hour of deleted scenes like the one you mentioned plus the model and the brief case for less than $60 at Amazon, I caved and hope to get it in time for the next weekend! {[]
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Thanks Tony! With over an hour of deleted scenes like the one you mentioned plus the model and the brief case for less than $60 at Amazon, I caved and hope to get it in time for the next weekend! {[]
The spinner is just your regular Corgi-type toy car.
As for who Batty was in combat against, I see what you're saying, but who knows? The movie makes no mention of one-world government, or really any particular country, so it's entirely possible whatever nations still exist on Earth are still fighting, except they've moved the terrain to Outer Space (Maybe the Republic of Oregon absorbed what was California and is at war with the PRC's Western colony, Nebraska). Maybe it's homegrown rebels. Unfortunately, that there would still be war in the future is all too plausible, so the Batty in combat reference doesn't really gnaw at me.
But yeah, I don't think you'll regret the purchase. It really is a great package.
It's going to take ages to get through all these disks, but that's a good thing. I watched The Final Cut last night. The biggest change is the sequence in the Tyrell building when Roy Batty confronts his maker.
In the previous version Batty introduces himself by saying "I want life, fu**er," while here he says, "I want life, father." When Batty murders Tyrell it is much more graphic than before. And I was delighted to see that Scott has changed what happens directly after the murder.
In the previous versions, Sebastian backs away from Roy who seems to follow after him with a look of fury on his face. The implication was that Roy was about to kill Sebastian too. This is the only part of Blade Runner that I had a problem with. I thought Roy would never have harmed Sebastian as he too is suffering from a degenaritive condition and will probably die young. So I was made up to see what Scott has done here. Roy Batty actually says "I'm sorry Sebastian," and tries to reassure him, but Sebastian is so horrified by the murder that he leaves Roy there alone.
The other changes were minor alterations. I liked the use of sound on the unicorn sequence though, and was the sequence a little longer this time?
I thought Roy would never have harmed Sebastian as he too is suffering from a degenaritive condition and will probably die young. So I was made up to see what Scott has done here. Roy Batty actually says "I'm sorry Sebastian," and tries to reassure him, but Sebastian is so horrified by the murder that he leaves Roy there alone.
Interesting that you saw it that way. Batty's definitely conflicted but the way I read that scene was that Roy was essentially saying "Sorry Sebastian, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you too now". I'll have to double check that sequence; I can't recall off the top of my head but does Bryant still tell Deckard that Sebastian's body was found at the Tyrell building? Without Sebastian's corpse there would be no way for Deckard to find his way to the Bradbury building based on what we see in the movie.
Personally, my favorite correction was the re-shoot of the dove flying away near the end. Very minor I know, but the old version - in broad daylight with no clouds and a building of totally different architecture - was jarringly out of place.
It's going to take ages to get through all these disks, but that's a good thing. I watched The Final Cut last night. The biggest change is the sequence in the Tyrell building when Roy Batty confronts his maker.
In the previous version Batty introduces himself by saying "I want life, fu**er," while here he says, "I want life, father." When Batty murders Tyrell it is much more graphic than before.
...
The other changes were minor alterations. I liked the use of sound on the unicorn sequence though, and was the sequence a little longer this time?
I thought Batty used the f-word in the Director's Cut, but the audio wasn't terribly clear to my ears. After distinctly hearing him say "father" in the Final Cut's improved soundtrack, I just concluded my ears had deceived me all these years and never went back to check. I think "father" is more appropriate in this context. And yes, the unicorn scene does seem longer.
... I was delighted to see that Scott has changed what happens directly after the murder.
In the previous versions, Sebastian backs away from Roy who seems to follow after him with a look of fury on his face. The implication was that Roy was about to kill Sebastian too. This is the only part of Blade Runner that I had a problem with. I thought Roy would never have harmed Sebastian as he too is suffering from a degenaritive condition and will probably die young. So I was made up to see what Scott has done here. Roy Batty actually says "I'm sorry Sebastian," and tries to reassure him, but Sebastian is so horrified by the murder that he leaves Roy there alone.
Interesting that you saw it that way. Batty's definitely conflicted but the way I read that scene was that Roy was essentially saying "Sorry Sebastian, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you too now". I'll have to double check that sequence; I can't recall off the top of my head but does Bryant still tell Deckard that Sebastian's body was found at the Tyrell building? Without Sebastian's corpse there would be no way for Deckard to find his way to the Bradbury building based on what we see in the movie.
I've also always assumed that Batty kills him -- he is after all, a genetic engineer no different from Tyrell or even the eye guy -- and nothing in the new version really changes that for me. Like you, TonyDP, I think his "I'm sorry" line is really "Nothing personal, but you have to go ..." And of course, Batty descends alone in the elevator.
Personally, my favorite correction was the re-shoot of the dove flying away near the end. Very minor I know, but the old version - in broad daylight with no clouds and a building of totally different architecture - was jarringly out of place.
It's funny: I never really noticed the buildings until I bought this edition and it was pointed out in the docs. So much for my powers of observation. But the brighter, cloudless sky seemed to go with the soaring dove. But I like the new version better, especially since they left a slight break in the clouds that the dove seems to be flying to. Someone in the documentary says it's a symbol of flying to heaven, which is I guess is sort of how I always interpreted the flight in the first place (peace, heaven, brotherhood of Man and Replicants -- all that warm, fuzzy BS ) ).
Someone in the documentary says it's a symbol of flying to heaven, which is I guess is sort of how I always interpreted the flight in the first place (peace, heaven, brotherhood of Man and Replicants -- all that warm, fuzzy BS ) ).
The irony of course is that the replicants, or "Andys" as they were called in Philip K. Dick's novel, were reprehensible creatures, representing the worst traits of humanity. Ridley Scott decided to turn them into morally superior super-beings, much to Dick's chagrin. Both interpretations are valid from an artistic point of view but it's a major thematic departure from the book.
Just for the record Ridley Scott and Rutger Hauer originally recorded the line as "father" during production of the film; it was then changed to the more vulgar, gutteral version for the theatrical and directors cuts before being restored to its original form in the final cut.
Someone in the documentary says it's a symbol of flying to heaven, which is I guess is sort of how I always interpreted the flight in the first place (peace, heaven, brotherhood of Man and Replicants -- all that warm, fuzzy BS ) ).
The irony of course is that the replicants, or "Andys" as they were called in Philip K. Dick's novel, were reprehensible creatures, representing the worst traits of humanity. Ridley Scott decided to turn them into morally superior super-beings, much to Dick's chagrin. Both interpretations are valid from an artistic point of view but it's a major thematic departure from the book.
I've never read the book, but I may have to one of these days. I know more about the original story from the documentaries and Dick's own comments that the androids were conceived as very nasty people and that the theme was -- in a very superficial nutshell, of course -- that humans were becoming more like replicants. But if that's the case, the title, great as it is, sounds backwards to my ears, and actually is a better reflection of the the film than the book's story, since it suggests that replicants' might have aspirations that are similar to humans' (owning a living animal being a status symbol for humans in the novel).
Just for the record, it's definitely "I want more life, father." From what I read in Future Noir, that's how Ridley Scott and Rutger Hauer originally recorded the line; it was then changed to the more vulgar, gutteral version for the theatrical and directors cuts. As for the final cut, I guess it was decided that the original version was more appropriate all along.
I'm glad they did. It sounds better to my ears, too, given who Tyrell is.
I'll have to double check that sequence; I can't recall off the top of my head but does Bryant still tell Deckard that Sebastian's body was found at the Tyrell building? Without Sebastian's corpse there would be no way for Deckard to find his way to the Bradbury building based on what we see in the movie.
That's a good point. I'll watch it again in the next couple of days. Still, even if Roy Batty does kill Sebastian this time around as well, at least this time he says "sorry." )
Comments
Except the version that appeared in 1992 is far preferable to the original version from 1982. I'm happy enough with that cut, but it's going to be interesting to see what Ridley Scott has done this time around.
One of the fun things about BladeRunner is that there have been so many versions that nobody is sure which one the real version is.
Take the infamous voiceover narration for example; today Ridley Scott derides it and says he was forced to put it in against his will; yet there are interviews from the 1980s where he says it was his idea to make the narrative easier to follow. Then you have the international cut with the few extra seconds of violence and the whole notion of whether Deckard is a replicant or not - to this day different people who worked on the movie have differing opinions; it isn't even clear just who came up with that idea after all these years.
Personally, I think one of the reasons the movie has survived so long and remained in the public consciousness is because of all this ambivalence about what the "real" version is, and whether Deckard is a replicant or not, and so on. Nothing is cut and dried with this movie and that's probably one of its strongest points.
I've read those, but I think there's even a 4th BR installment (the 3rd sequel). The author, Jeter, is supposed to be an acquaintence of PKD and had discussions about the philosophical underpinings of the original novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? The sequels were written kind of like Gardner's continuation of the Bond novels that seemed to redress Bond's literary background into an action movie format.
What I found interesting is how some of the characters such as the real Batty were "aged" a bit in Edge of Human, almost like it was being prepped for a movie adaptation that would account for an older Rutger Hauer, etc., or at least the author would have hoped!
Oh, and by the way, I will try to be the darnedest, most behaved boy in the next few months so I can git the 5-disc BR set instead of coal for Christmas!
I noticed that too; even Deckard and Rachel had been on the run for an indeterminate period of time at the start of the novel. BR2 was definitely more accessible than Dick's original prose; it was clearly aimed at a more mass market and the pace and setpieces did lend themselves to a movie (although the story would probably have had to been trimmed and simplified some).
At this stage, I'm not sure how I'd feel about a sequel. Ford and co. are probably too old to reprise their roles and while I wouldn't object to having the roles recast, I'm fearful about what 21st Century Hollywood would do with the story.
Same here; although I'll be angling for the BluRay hi-def version as this movie begs to be seen in the highest resolution possible - maybe I'll finally be able to spot that building that is actually a model of the Millenium Falcon.
But there is something that has always interested me: Is it deliberate? Or is it simply a blooper and in fact there were actually 5 replicants who came to Earth, rather than the 6 which was mentioned in the film? I used to think that perhaps the sixth replicant was Rachel but that doesn't seem logical as there is no indication that she knew Roy and the others. I hate to say it, but I suspect it was a mistake. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know whether or not this has been resolved on an official level? That is, has Riddley Scott ever addressed it?
According to the book Future Noir, the original script had six replicants coming to Earth; two were fried trying to get into the Tyrell building and Deckard had to hunt down the remaining four. Filming of the movie ran late and over budget however, so Ridley Scott was forced to skip filming sequences involving that fourth replicant (I think her name was supposed to be Mary and she was going to be a motherly type model). He refilmed the scene with Deckard and Bryant but didn't like the final results so he just decided to keep the old scene and hoped nobody would notice (after all, home video was still in its relative infancy in those days).
Doh! I'm going from memory here; maybe the line that was changed was how many were fried at the Tyrell building? I'll have to look at the movie again.
I Just ordered the 5 disc BluRay Ultimate Edition in the briefcase packaging from Amazon. With a little luck, I'll get it by the weekend.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31740
What I'm curious about, and it's the reason I went for the briefcase version, is the rough cut. I haven't seen it yet.
Cassidy turned up in an episode of Heroes recently. She still looks stunning.
Yeah, she does. She apparently did some reshooting for the Final Cut to make up for some poor stunt doubling in the original. If so, I couldn't tell where the 30-something Joanna ended and the 60-something Joanna began. Even with Hollywood trickery, that's a pretty special effect given that her costume didn't exactly cover her up.
From what I'd read, the Final Cut was basically the director's cut with a few tweaks. Nothing wrong with that if that is what Ridley Scott's original vision was. I'll also be curious to see the workprint, as well as all the deleted scenes including the one with ... Deckard's wife????
Joanna Cassidy ... :x :x :x
So HH, what's the quality of the extras like? I'm especially curious about the Spinner.
A shame I can't view it first though :v
There's a whole discful -- supposedly 9 hours worth -- so I probably won't get to them before this weekend. Looks interesting, though. Rereading my earlier post, it strikes me that I may not have made it clear: I really like the Final Cut, despite the marginal differences with the Director's version. The new version just seems crisper. And there's one thing I noticed as well that I don't remember from the earlier version: the unicorn sequence actually has sound this time, which I think tends to highlight it and make it more memorable. Which comes in handy when the origami unicorn shows up at Deckard's door.
I was reading the review of the Final Cut posted on this thread, and it's interesting that Harrison Ford opposes the idea that his character is a replicant because he doesn't think the story makes emotional sense that way. I don't understand why, and I hope that's explained in the Special Features. I'm guessing it's because he feels Deckard's emotions don't make sense if he's a replicant (his love for Rachel and empathy for Batty when the latter dies). If so, I don't see why he would feel that way. It's made clear early in the film, and in every version of it that I have seen, that Tyrell's replicants developed emotions as time went by.
Anyway, it is a great package, especially for a collector. I was expecting the briefcase to be a cheap, thin plastic affair, but it actually seems pretty durable.
I also saw some of the deleted scenes - really amazing stuff. You could almost make an entirely different version of the movie using those scenes. Also of interest is Ford's narration, which is totally different from the theatrical cut, and the scenes with Holden in the hospital room, which introduce a subplot about the Voit Kampff machine not working on Nexus 6 models.
I haven't even checked out the documentaries or other features yet, but for fans of the movie it just doesn't get any better than this.
Couldn't agree more, Tony. This set is the real deal. So often these reissues just regurgigate old stuff, or are padded with uninteresting new material. I've watched all the extras now and they're all fascinating, at least to someone who hasn't made the study of the film his life's work for the last 25 years. It was well worth the money, as far as I'm concerned. A wonderful archival document of a great film.
I'm really jealous, HH, but I might just go and get this one. I had planned to in the months coming up to Christmas, as I connived on my wishlist, then a couple of unexpected Bond related "purchase opportunities" came up, so you know how that goes.
Anyway, I am a fellow student to BR, have read Future Noir, a few other reference books and essay anthologies, and obtaining a few bootleg documentaries as well as the original theatrical release transfered from Laser Disk to DVD. I even got a few pages down on Rutger Hauer's new biography while killing time at the mall. However, I have a question that I've asked elsewhere without getting any plausible answers...per Batty's soliloquy about him being witness to attack ships off the shoulder of the Orion constellation and the fact that he and Leon were combat models, apart from security detail at the offworld colonies, who could they be possibly fighting? Extra-terrestrials? The traditional superpowers vying for domination in space? Highly organized human factions offworld? I discount the ET option, since it seemed really important for this movie to reinforce the plausibility of "science fact" in the distant future, that selling this conceptual reality would be hampered by throwing in any of the other sci-fi staples like time-travel and ET life. What do you think?
Oh, BTW, how's the Spinner miniature that came with the set?
On one of the unused Deckard voiceovers from the deleted footage, Deckard is reviewing the records on the Nexus 6 models and mentions that Batty saw combat at the Tanhauser gate - so Roy's memories are real and not implants (as I always suspected). Unfortunately no mention is made of who the conflict was with, so it's really up to the viewer's own imagination.
Very nice. It's plastic, at the scale is probably about 1/32, maybe a little smaller. The doors lift up, Lamborghini style, and the interior is nicely detailed. The lenticular motion strip is also very nice.
The deleted scenes are a goldmine BTW and worth the price of admission. The Dangerous Days documentary is also really well done. If you've read Future Noir, then you probably already know just about everything mentioned in the piece, but it's still nice to hear it from the actual people involved.
The spinner is just your regular Corgi-type toy car.
As for who Batty was in combat against, I see what you're saying, but who knows? The movie makes no mention of one-world government, or really any particular country, so it's entirely possible whatever nations still exist on Earth are still fighting, except they've moved the terrain to Outer Space (Maybe the Republic of Oregon absorbed what was California and is at war with the PRC's Western colony, Nebraska). Maybe it's homegrown rebels. Unfortunately, that there would still be war in the future is all too plausible, so the Batty in combat reference doesn't really gnaw at me.
But yeah, I don't think you'll regret the purchase. It really is a great package.
In the previous version Batty introduces himself by saying "I want life, fu**er," while here he says, "I want life, father." When Batty murders Tyrell it is much more graphic than before. And I was delighted to see that Scott has changed what happens directly after the murder.
In the previous versions, Sebastian backs away from Roy who seems to follow after him with a look of fury on his face. The implication was that Roy was about to kill Sebastian too. This is the only part of Blade Runner that I had a problem with. I thought Roy would never have harmed Sebastian as he too is suffering from a degenaritive condition and will probably die young. So I was made up to see what Scott has done here. Roy Batty actually says "I'm sorry Sebastian," and tries to reassure him, but Sebastian is so horrified by the murder that he leaves Roy there alone.
The other changes were minor alterations. I liked the use of sound on the unicorn sequence though, and was the sequence a little longer this time?
Interesting that you saw it that way. Batty's definitely conflicted but the way I read that scene was that Roy was essentially saying "Sorry Sebastian, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you too now". I'll have to double check that sequence; I can't recall off the top of my head but does Bryant still tell Deckard that Sebastian's body was found at the Tyrell building? Without Sebastian's corpse there would be no way for Deckard to find his way to the Bradbury building based on what we see in the movie.
Personally, my favorite correction was the re-shoot of the dove flying away near the end. Very minor I know, but the old version - in broad daylight with no clouds and a building of totally different architecture - was jarringly out of place.
I thought Batty used the f-word in the Director's Cut, but the audio wasn't terribly clear to my ears. After distinctly hearing him say "father" in the Final Cut's improved soundtrack, I just concluded my ears had deceived me all these years and never went back to check. I think "father" is more appropriate in this context. And yes, the unicorn scene does seem longer.
I've also always assumed that Batty kills him -- he is after all, a genetic engineer no different from Tyrell or even the eye guy -- and nothing in the new version really changes that for me. Like you, TonyDP, I think his "I'm sorry" line is really "Nothing personal, but you have to go ..." And of course, Batty descends alone in the elevator.
It's funny: I never really noticed the buildings until I bought this edition and it was pointed out in the docs. So much for my powers of observation. But the brighter, cloudless sky seemed to go with the soaring dove. But I like the new version better, especially since they left a slight break in the clouds that the dove seems to be flying to. Someone in the documentary says it's a symbol of flying to heaven, which is I guess is sort of how I always interpreted the flight in the first place (peace, heaven, brotherhood of Man and Replicants -- all that warm, fuzzy BS
The irony of course is that the replicants, or "Andys" as they were called in Philip K. Dick's novel, were reprehensible creatures, representing the worst traits of humanity. Ridley Scott decided to turn them into morally superior super-beings, much to Dick's chagrin. Both interpretations are valid from an artistic point of view but it's a major thematic departure from the book.
Just for the record Ridley Scott and Rutger Hauer originally recorded the line as "father" during production of the film; it was then changed to the more vulgar, gutteral version for the theatrical and directors cuts before being restored to its original form in the final cut.
I've never read the book, but I may have to one of these days. I know more about the original story from the documentaries and Dick's own comments that the androids were conceived as very nasty people and that the theme was -- in a very superficial nutshell, of course -- that humans were becoming more like replicants. But if that's the case, the title, great as it is, sounds backwards to my ears, and actually is a better reflection of the the film than the book's story, since it suggests that replicants' might have aspirations that are similar to humans' (owning a living animal being a status symbol for humans in the novel).
I'm glad they did. It sounds better to my ears, too, given who Tyrell is.
That's a good point. I'll watch it again in the next couple of days. Still, even if Roy Batty does kill Sebastian this time around as well, at least this time he says "sorry."