Blade Runner Director's Cut

before I start: make sure you visit www.brmovie.com

Anyway, I walked into Best Buy with the intention of buying Office Space on DVD and there, in a shelf was Blade Runner: Director's Cut.

So I was like, "fuck it, I never saw the Director's Cut and I heard it was good"

I also bought a horrific movie (so bad, it's good) called, "They Call Me Bruce" because it was 4.99 and I used to watch it as a kid.

anyway, to make a long story short, Blade Runner DC blew me away.

I saw the fucked up Hollywood version years ago, never knowing this version existed. I was literally blown away.

How the hell did this masterpiece evade me all these years?

In fact I can't believe the right's holders have been stalling the release of another special edition Director's Cut of the movie. It's all there on the official fan site.

So if you haven't seen this movie, please do so immediately.

fun fact: Stage 3 of R-Type Final seems to draw influence from the look and music of Blade Runner.

Dont diss They Call me Bruce. Ive had that shit on tape for years.
Best movie ever.

Nesagwa said:

Dont diss They Call me Bruce. Ive had that shit on tape for years.
Best movie ever.

Click to expand...

They call me Bruce = so bad it's good

I just don't want people to get the idea it's a good movie based on the story, acting, and plot, because it has none of these

directors cut

Isnt the directors cut the one without narriation?

I have read that most find that one to be inferior.

I honestly prefer the "Original Theatrical Version" of BLADE RUNNER with the 1940ish Film Noir Voice Overs done by Harrison Ford. I got to see Ridley Scott's Director's Cut when it was re-released for the movie theatres apart of the A.F.I. TOP 100 Films Showcase back in September of '99, and that was a blast, as I was too young to understand what was going on in the film, and was one of the few movies my Dad didn't take me to see on the big screen when it came out in 1982. I had already previously owned the Laser Disc version of the "Director's Cut" before going to the theatre, but seeing it on the big screen was a big deal to me.

...while some things make a lot more sense the way the "Director's Cut" progresses, hints at, and ultimately ends, I still prefer the theatrical version that up until recently was the version shown on Cable TV whenever it was on. In the original version it's never an issue as to whether or not Deckard is indeed a Replicant without the 4-Year lifespan "Kill Switch" encoded into this inception hardwire... plus stock footage is used from the opening to THE SHINING. To me the way that version ended, left a much more bleak and ambiguous finale' than the more FINAL version that Ridley has put out, and now the only way to own the original theatrical version is to hunt down the VHS tape of it released Pre-1992, which I thankfully found at a Half Price Books for $5.00

Glad you liked the movie overall though bro.

MERCENARY X99

Re: directors cut

the.bet said:

Isnt the directors cut the one without narriation?

I have read that most find that one to be inferior.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you were reading, because the Hollywood version (the one with narration) is the one that is the most hated. In fact, Harrison Ford said he intentionally did it horribly in hopes they wouldn't use it (but he forgot about Hollywood's standards evidently).

There are other differences besides the narration. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it but:


SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The DC alludes to Deckard being a replicant and the ending has been changed.

Mercenary X99 said:

I honestly prefer the "Original Theatrical Version" of BLADE RUNNER with the 1940ish Film Noir Voice Overs done by Harrison Ford. I got to see Ridley Scott's Director's Cut when it was re-released for the movie theatres apart of the A.F.I. TOP 100 Films Showcase back in September of '99, and that was a blast, as I was too young to understand what was going on in the film, and was one of the few movies my Dad didn't take me to see on the big screen when it came out in 1982. I had already previously owned the Laser Disc version of the "Director's Cut" before going to the theatre, but seeing it on the big screen was a big deal to me.

...while some things make a lot more sense the way the "Director's Cut" progresses, hints at, and ultimately ends, I still prefer the theatrical version that up until recently was the version shown on Cable TV whenever it was on. In the original version it's never an issue as to whether or not Deckard is indeed a Replicant without the 4-Year lifespan "Kill Switch" encoded into this inception hardwire... plus stock footage is used from the opening to THE SHINING. To me the way that version ended, left a much more bleak and ambiguous finale' than the more FINAL version that Ridley has put out, and now the only way to own the original theatrical version is to hunt down the VHS tape of it released Pre-1992, which I thankfully found at a Half Price Books for $5.00

Glad you liked the movie overall though bro.

MERCENARY X99

Click to expand...

I was expecting you drop in, but I expect you to like the original version. I saw the original version first and ignored the movie until recently.

The ending of the original seemed just what it was, tacked on to please the mainstream. There is actually no question about it, Deckard was/is a replicant in the DC. Ridley has said so, the movie tells you so, and it makes it more intriquing.

Ridley has said when and if the new version is released, the narration will be nowhere to be found, and personally that's how I prefer it.

Planned for the special version:

-deleted scenes
-commentary
-another edit, including more stock footage and shortening of scenes originally made for narration
-print clean up, and removing the wires from the streamers

All I have to say is I can't wait but it doesn't seem too hopeful right now

I can't wait for the phantom 3-disc boxed set thats been coming since the dawn of time.

And by the way, Gaff is the real Blade Runner.


Just ask Kid Aphex.

Buro Destruct said:

And by the way, Gaff is the real Blade Runner.

Click to expand...

Gaff and the chief might have been manipulating Deckard to be a Blade Runner, but Gaff let Deckard go even after he knew about Rachael and Deckard's Unicorn dreams.

But I still think Deckard is the replicant of a great Blade Runner

the roker said:

I was expecting you drop in, but I expect you to like the original version. I saw the original version first and ignored the movie until recently.

The ending of the original seemed just what it was, tacked on to please the mainstream. There is actually no question about it, Deckard was/is a replicant in the DC. Ridley has said so, the movie tells you so, and it makes it more intriquing.

Ridley has said when and if the new version is released, the narration will be nowhere to be found, and personally that's how I prefer it.

Planned for the special version:

-deleted scenes
-commentary
-another edit, including more stock footage and shortening of scenes originally made for narration
-print clean up, and removing the wires from the streamers

All I have to say is I can't wait but it doesn't seem too hopeful right now

Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you've read the book... Deckard is not a replicant, that was tacked onto the movie... It is true Scott wanted us to believe Deckard was a replicant, but he wasn't in the original story,

-Nick

nruva said:

Yeah, but if you've read the book... Deckard is not a replicant, that was tacked onto the movie... It is true Scott wanted us to believe Deckard was a replicant, but he wasn't in the original story,

-Nick

Click to expand...

hey man, the movie and book are two different entities

nruva said:

Yeah, but if you've read the book... Deckard is not a replicant, that was tacked onto the movie... It is true Scott wanted us to believe Deckard was a replicant, but he wasn't in the original story,

-Nick

Click to expand...

The movie isn't written after the book, its conceptually based. The screenplay and title was drafted from a book written by Alan E. Nourse called "The Bladerunner". Theres no way you can draw comparisons between "Do Androids..." and the movie "Blade Runner".

Gaff and the chief might have been manipulating Deckard to be a Blade Runner, but Gaff let Deckard go even after he knew about Rachael and Deckard's Unicorn dreams.

Click to expand...

Deckard is Gaff's replicant.

Buro Destruct said:

Deckard is Gaff's replicant.

Click to expand...

not that I'm dispelling your theory, but how did you draw that conclusion?

the roker said:

before I start: make sure you visit www.brmovie.com

Anyway, I walked into Best Buy with the intention of buying Office Space on DVD and there, in a shelf was Blade Runner: Director's Cut.

So I was like, "fuck it, I never saw the Director's Cut and I heard it was good"

I also bought a horrific movie (so bad, it's good) called, "They Call Me Bruce" because it was 4.99 and I used to watch it as a kid.

anyway, to make a long story short, Blade Runner DC blew me away.

I saw the fucked up Hollywood version years ago, never knowing this version existed. I was literally blown away.

How the hell did this masterpiece evade me all these years?

In fact I can't believe the right's holders have been stalling the release of another special edition Director's Cut of the movie. It's all there on the official fan site.

So if you haven't seen this movie, please do so immediately.

fun fact: Stage 3 of R-Type Final seems to draw influence from the look and music of Blade Runner.

Click to expand...

Fkn Awesome!! I love ..Blade Runner..

I have to get this..Blade Runner Director's Cut..

How much was it..?

Re: Re: Blade Runner Director's Cut

chris1 said:

Fkn Awesome!! I love ..Blade Runner..

I have to get this..Blade Runner Director's Cut..

How much was it..?

Click to expand...

It was like 14.99, it's bare bones, no commentary, or even an adequate menu (it was an early release DVD)

Still well worth the price of admission, but I can't help but wonder if they'll ever release the "real" Special Edition Director's Cut that Ridley has been trying to get released (damn stubborn right's holders)

the roker said:

not that I'm dispelling your theory, but how did you draw that conclusion?

Click to expand...

I know I can make a more powerful argument, but its been awhile since I've viewed the film.

-Bryant initially tells Deckard there are six "skin-jobs" running loose. One was lost in an electrical field, however Bryant only shows four case files for Roy, Pris, Zhora, and Leon. Deckard is theoretically the fifth missing replicant. This would make Deckard a Nexus 6 model capable of taking down his Martian refugee pals, as obviously Dave Holden (the initial Blade Runner assigned to the job) has been hospitalized from injuries sustained from battling Leon, who is far inferior in speed, size, and strength to Roy Batty.

-Gaff seems to be more than apt than to make paper origami dolls that reflect Deckard's shifting moods and thoughts. Most notably the unicorn at the very end of the film. No evidence is given that Gaff and Deckard know each other, however Gaff knows where to find Deckard and that Deckard has been dreaming of unicorns. This is in turn would suggest that Gaff often dreams of unicorns and this has been passed to the replicant Deckard.

Those are really small pieces of evidence in a gigantic sea of information. However I can't come up with anything more as I said its been awhile since I've seen the film. I'll try and offer more support to the theory, because I know it exists.

Re: Re: Re: Blade Runner Director's Cut

the roker said:

It was like 14.99, it's bare bones, no commentary, or even an adequate menu (it was an early release DVD)

Still well worth the price of admission, but I can't help but wonder if they'll ever release the "real" Special Edition Director's Cut that Ridley has been trying to get released (damn stubborn right's holders)

Click to expand...

I've been waiting for the Special Edition since 2000, and honestly I have no idea how long it was rumoured before that... but I can assume it had been a while before. The funny thing is, things get to a certain point and it looks like we will see a release in that year, than... nothing. At this point it seems like it will never be released, but Ridley Scott seems determined to get it out... let's hope it does,

-Nick

the roker said:

not that I'm dispelling your theory, but how did you draw that conclusion?

Click to expand...

First off, Blade Runner is my favorite movie.

Second off, I'm not putting words into Sean's mouth...but I think it's a theory I suggested to him a while ago.

The evidence?

1. Gaff is noticeably handicapped---in many ways he looks to be hindered from doing a lot of the "blade runner's work". Regardless, he is a blade runner. he just needs a good pair of legs, literallly.

2. Deckard, despite not only being a veteran---but the BEST---is unable to fly the Spinner. This could just be protocol since he's off the force---of the police could want to keep Replicants from getting behind the wheel of one.

3. Gaff is EXTREMELY pissed off at Deckard at ALL times. He resents him----why?

4. There was a scene where Holden and Deckard meet that they cut out of the movie. In it, Holden remarks something to the effect of, "They're just like us! It's a wipeout!" Why was this taken out of the movie? Possibly to further acknowledege Deckard really has no apparent outside connections. He just seems to have been "dropped" into his apartment with a load of pictures on his piano. [replicant loooooove pictures]

5. We know Tyrell Corp. was experimenting with Replicants in Societyand memory implants [Rachel]...Tyrell and the police force were close in the caste system of LA 2019---the police were possibly subserviant to the corp, and in turn, part of the experiment.

6. Deckards memory implants were that of Gaff's. This explains how Gaff knows Deckard dreams of unicorns...[the unicorn origami he leaves outside deckards apartment] maybe Gaff also finds Rachel attractive, and the reason he resents Deckard is because he knows they're a better match, and have a chance.

7. The origami is directly related to Deckards interal conflicts:

Chicken - Chicken shit
Guy with an erection - as Deckard gets excited about the case
Unicorn - Deckard's dreams

The first two may seem obvious and noticeable through Deckards display of emotions...still, why is Gaff so interested?

8. Notice how CLOSELY Deckard is kept Tabs on by Bryant and Gaff? They're there ALMOST before he is. It only takes a few moments for them to show up, regardless of the situation. Wheres the trust between chief and the "best blade runner ever"? Replicants aren't very trusted by humans...

9. Look how well Rachel and Deckard bond

10. Again, think about the "experiment theory" Say this entire situation was nothing more than an experiment to see a Replicant's emotions when in such a bizarre conflict. Would a replicant [deckard] get along with another [rachel]? Would they fall in love? Would a replicant fight his own kind [roy, leon, etc]? Would a replicant remain submissive? Would a replicant try to escape in the end?

It just seems to me like Gaff was in on the experiment---and feeling sorry for Deckard [after all----if Gaff's memories are inside Deckard...he's got to pity himself] he let him and Rachel go. It was OBVIOUS he knew Rachel was in hiding at Deckard's Apartment---he was just there and left the unicorn to signify

A) he couldve killed her, but instead he let them go
B) he knows what Deckards dreaming---in other words, the unicorn basically said, "You're a replicant, Deckard" Note deckards nod to the camera.



Anyways, there are others and if I think of them I'll post them. But I watch the movie almost once a day...so maybe I'm just looking into it a bit too deeply.



To me, the movie seems really about Gaff's acceptance of Deckard on the police force [if Deckard is a replicant] and Gaff's acceptance of not only Deckard as a replicant, but Deckard and Rachels love as something worth saving.

Sorry for that post being so disjointed and jumbled...maybe when I write an essay on the film I'll present it to you all in nice, clean fashion.

Right now, I just let off a bunch of loose info from the top of my head.

Before I start this, I have to say I love a good arguement

Buro Destruct said:

I know I can make a more powerful argument, but its been awhile since I've viewed the film.

-Bryant initially tells Deckard there are six "skin-jobs" running loose. One was lost in an electrical field, however Bryant only shows four case files for Roy, Pris, Zhora, and Leon. Deckard is theoretically the fifth missing replicant. This would make Deckard a Nexus 6 model capable of taking down his Martian refugee pals, as obviously Dave Holden (the initial Blade Runner assigned to the job) has been hospitalized from injuries sustained from battling Leon, who is far inferior in speed, size, and strength to Roy Batty.

Click to expand...

I've heard this before. And one thing that keeps me from writing this off is the fact that Roy knew Deckard's name from the begining. I just think it doesn't make sense that he's a Nexus 6. I remember reading somwhere that there was a 6th replicant originally planned but taken out due to time constraints.

-Gaff seems to be more than apt than to make paper origami dolls that reflect Deckard's shifting moods and thoughts. Most notably the unicorn at the very end of the film. No evidence is given that Gaff and Deckard know each other, however Gaff knows where to find Deckard and that Deckard has been dreaming of unicorns. This is in turn would suggest that Gaff often dreams of unicorns and this has been passed to the replicant Deckard.

Click to expand...

This is something I never thought about. You could also say that the replicants that are of Deckard's kind, are known to have the Unicorn memory implanted. But overall I like this theory and I'm interested to hear more tidbits that may clue us into this.

Kid Aphex said:

Sorry for that post being so disjointed and jumbled...maybe when I write an essay on the film I'll present it to you all in nice, clean fashion.

Right now, I just let off a bunch of loose info from the top of my head.

Click to expand...

no, no, I like what you said, it's an interesting theory nonetheless.

One could also argue that Gaff had kept tabs on the whole Deckard experiment and knew much about him because of being close to the project.

I like the theory nonetheless and look forward to your essay.

NY Times (12/13/2003): The avidly awaited, definitive version of Ridley Scott's science-fiction classic, "Blade Runner," won't be out on DVD anytime soon for stranger reasons. When "Blade Runner" was being shot in the early 1980's, Bud Yorkin, a veteran television comedy producer, and Jerry Perenchio, now the C.E.O. of Univision, were the film's bond-completion guarantors. When the film went over budget, by contract they assumed ownership of the film. Paul Sammon wrote in his book "Future Noir: The Making of `Blade Runner' " that they hated the film, had bitter disputes with Mr. Scott and tried to take it away from him altogether. The studio release, in 1982, contained superfluous narration and a tacked-on rosy ending. Mr. Scott removed both when he was allowed to make a "director's cut" in 1992, but it was, by his own account, a rush job. Three years ago, Mr. Scott announced that he was working on a three-disc box set, which would offer all the versions of the film, including a new and polished director's cut with previously unseen footage and scads of bonus features. Then, at the end of 2001, Warner Brothers, which was planning to distribute the discs, pulled the plug. It did so, according to a producer who worked on the project, because Mr. Perenchio gave no sign that he would let them be released. Mr. Perenchio, speaking through an assistant, had no comment on the situation."

Crappy news, for certain. Personally I like some aspects of both the original and of the DC, the best part of the DC being that I fianlly got to see Blade Runner in the theater. I miss the narration and weren't there some scenes cut? But I like the DC ending better.

naitram said:

I like front 242.

Click to expand...

On a side note, this thread reads like a list of every poster I love on this board---even those that snake away[cough, naitram]. All that's needed is a post from zeek.

"You've done a man's work..."
--Gaff



Personally, I don't really know/care if he's a replicant or anything. I do remember some time ago on the imdb message boards, there was a real good discussion with strong evidence on both sides.

As for the Special Edition, I wanna pick that up (seeing as I saw the original like once). But, I also want that sweet Collector's box set, and I already own the Director's Cut...

Jesus Christ, it's almost like the 80,000 different DVDs of the Evil Dead movies.

Critter-rion

all Blade Runner got from the book entitled Blade Runner was a title and maybe the futuristic setting it's in. (I never got to read Blade Runner, i'm just calling from shit i read in synopsis/explinations of the related BR novels)

"Do Androids Dream..." runs pretty close though (THAT i read). it's a great book and the movie would've been better if it had encorporated a few more elements from it (the electronic sheep he buys to placate his wife, Mood organs, etc...).

i liked Blade Runner but i think it could've been way way way better. i'm kinda holding final say about whether it's slightly overrated until i get a quality DVD release (anamorphic/16:9, remastered, all versions). i've seen the Director's Cut in its whole... but i only glanced (to make sure it was the Hollywood edit [different ending, narration]) at the Criterion Collection LaserDisc that i bought recently. i'm hyped for the re-release.

definitely ahead of its time, definitely a great movie, beautifully shot, Sean Young at her most beautiful, Harrison Ford at his most mono-tone, etc...

i won't mention my negatives... everyone's sure to disagree.

Saying 'noir' for it's own sake,
xFPx

All that's needed is a post from zeek.

Click to expand...

Your wish is my command!

I was going to post before, but I figured you and Buro had everything covered. I love the movie, but haven't watched it enough (or really thought about it enough) to get into any serious discussions on it. I think I liked Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep more, anyways. They took out my favorite part (the bizarre religion)!

Your theory on Gaff is, in fact, true. Ridley Scott said so himself in 2000 (at least according to IMDB). Theories are fun to come up with in movies like this. It's one of those things where, if you believe it, it's true to you because there's nothing really to dispel the theory save for the filmmakers flat out telling you it's not true. It's like the theory that Enid killed herself at the end of Ghost World or that Total Recall was entirely in Quaid's head.

For the record, I feel Blade Runner is one of the greatest science fiction films ever made ("beaten", really, only by 2001).