Blade Runner - Anyone Checked Out The New Final Cut or Ultimate Edition Set?

[kungfusamurai]

I ordered the 5 disc ultimate edition, so I'm looking forward to checking out the various cuts of the film. I can't really say if I liked the theatrical cut or the directors edition from years ago. We'll see how this thing turns out with all the various cuts they've included in the package.

I had read months ago that they would be showing the final cut in the theatre. I was disappointed to find out that it already happened, and in only a couple of cities. It wasn't like Exorcist, when they mass released it into theatres. I don't understand why Warner Bros wouldn't put out Blade Runner on the big screens, when there are so many shitty films out there right now. And my guess is that a lot of young people have not seen Blade Runner because it doesn't play on TV, and it probably would have done well even though it's a 25 year old film.

Did anyone here get to check it out on the big screen? How about the DVD set and various versions, any favorites amongst the 4 or 5 cuts of the film on this set?

KFS

[froffeecoffee]

It just started showing here in a small art theater in Tempe, AZ last Friday. It might show up in your area soon, so keep a look out. Isn't getting a wide release like other re-releases. It's a very niche audience type of film, not at all like the shoot-em-up fare mainstream audiences are used to. I think for a lot of young audiences it's probably too talky and philosophical for their tastes. Too bad their really missing out on a great influencial piece.

I saw the director's cut when it was re-released a few years ago. Saw it on the biggest screen in the state. Such a difference in a movie theater than on television. Plan on seeing it again in a theater.

[doug maverick]

i saw the final cut here in nyc at the zeigfield. it was fantastic, only thing that weirded me out was that people were crying, and i just didn't get it i turned to my girlfriend and she didn't get it either. i mean i got the movie i just mean i didn't get why people were blubbering

[daisho2004]

I loved Blade Runner and to me I prefer the Original Movie version with the Voice over Narration better, I haven't seen the whole box set I want to get it after the Holiday's.

[doug maverick]

wait to you see the final cut. i'm telling you i never seen so many grown men cry and not in a bad way

[kungfusamurai]

I've watched two of the cuts, started a third, and watched two of the docs so far. The set is really nice. Shaped like a briefcase with miniature reproductions of the spinner vehicle and the tinfoil unicorn (made out plastic in this case). There are some other nice goodies inside, but it's all about the film.

I started with the work print. Mind you, I haven't watched the movie for over a decade, since I've not owned it on DVD or VHS before and they never play it on TV. I was aware of the controversies surrounding Dekker's character going into this film.

The work print was cool, although the top and bottom edges of the image are faded (maybe 1/10th of the frame, same width at the top and bottom). But that doesn't distract from the appreciation of this film.

I didn't get it after watching. I guess after not seeing it for years, I seemed to have remembered it as an action flick. Now I realize that it wouldn't make for a big blockbuster film today because it's more artsy than action, not to put it down or anything.

After watching a documentary on the history of the workprint and on the final cut, I then watched the film again, this time The Final Cut, and was able to appreciate it more. Next, I watched the 3 hour plus documentary on the making of the film. Talk about an incredibly enlightening film! They really get into the nitty gritty of making the film and interview pretty much everyone who had a hand in the film from the producers right down to the actors. There were maybe a couple of actors who didn't have a say (the guy who played Leon died back in '99; the actor who played Sebastien didn't participate).

The one part that was interesting to hear was Ridley's opinions on the voiceover and the ending. He was kind of in favour of doing some voiceovers, but the final voiceover that was done was without his blessing. He did helm the new 'happy' ending, but it wasn't what he wanted. He just did it to please the producers. It was funny because over the years I'd heard he absolutely hated having any voiceovers and that the version that was released theatrically was destroyed by him or some bizarre story like that (I heard that from people, not from the internet). But the criticisms for the voiceover were valid. I think when I saw that theatrical version on TV for the last time about a decade ago, it didn't bother me because I thought it was part of the charm of the flick being a detective film noir type of film. After watching the documentary, and then starting to watch the theatrical cut, I can see how unnecessary, and almost intrusive that narrative is! The stuff Harrison/Dekker says is so obvious, it's stupid. And whatever enlightening stuff he said, it played out later anyway. And some of it was lame, like the part about the police captain calling replicant 'skin jobs' was like someone from the old days calling a black man a 'n....'. That was a terrible line.

I think Blade Runner is a great movie to watch, but to a certain extent, it does need explanation after one watches it. Stuff about the 'city speak' for instance isn't clear when you watch it, so you don't know why Gaff is talking all that mumbo jumbo (which is actually a mixture of real languages) since its not explained in the non-voiceover version. Once the film is partially explained, then repeated viewings, I think, are more enjoyable. If they were to put it out theatrically, I hate to say it, but to appeal to a mass audience, they would probably need to include some kind of brief introduction or a 'making of' documentary at the beginning before the film starts. It would be unorthodox, but it would help people not familiar with the film appreciate it even more, I think.

As a side note, I noticed there's a kung fu connection with this flick. At the beginning of the Theatrical version I started playing, I noticed that when the Ladd company logo comes up, it also says 'in association with Sir Run Run Shaw'!!

That's all I'm going to write about this flick. It's definitely worth getting the set if you really like Blade Runner. The documentaries alone are worth the price.

By the way, I have yet to cry.

Spoiler for those who haven't seen it:

And for the record, I'm still not sure if Dekker is a replicant. But if Ridley Scott believed he was, and left clues in the film to show he was, then I guess he was...

KFS

[daisho2004]

OK I got to watch the final cut last night and to me it was the same as the Original only a better quality picture, I still don't know how everyone thinks that Dekker is a Replicant, I'm going to try to watch the making of it tonight to see how Ridley gives us clues to him being a Replicant. Either way it still is a great movie and I don't think Rutger Hauer was really given enough credit for doing such a Great job as Roy, he was Awesome!

[kungfusamurai]

OK I got to watch the final cut last night and to me it was the same as the Original only a better quality picture, I still don't know how everyone thinks that Dekker is a Replicant, I'm going to try to watch the making of it tonight to see how Ridley gives us clues to him being a Replicant. Either way it still is a great movie and I don't think Rutger Hauer was really given enough credit for doing such a Great job as Roy, he was Awesome!

Rutger totally steals the film. He totally overshadows Harrison's Deckard (I think that's the proper spelling) character.

SPOILER:

The clues that Ridley Scott gave as to Deckard being a replicate is the infamous unicorn dream sequence and the little unicorn origami that was left outside of his apartment at the end by Gaff. At the same time that Deckard holds the unicorn, he recalls Gaff's words 'too bad she won't live; but then again who does', which might imply that Gaff knew Deckard's memory of the unicorn, and what he says was supposed to not only refer to Rachel's short lifespan, but also Deckard's. There's also supposed to be something with the eyes that make them replicants, but that's harder to tell. Depending on how the camera is aimed at their face, their pupils look like they're glowing an orange or pink colour. You can see it in Hannah's and Hauer's eyes. There's also a scene when Deckard is looking at Rachel from behind in his apartment after the fight with Leon, and even though he's out of focus, the eyes seem to glow a bit.

I've never quite understood the replicants and what they were made of. Were they cyborgs, i.e. part machine part biological? Or were they clones? Or were they made up like Frankenstein's monster of various biological pieces put together? When Hauer and Tyrell are having their conversation about trying to prolongue the lifespan, they talk about viruses and genes, which wouldn't be present in a full android. Unless they were talking about mechanical "viruses" and "genes"?

KFS

[doug maverick]

OK I got to watch the final cut last night and to me it was the same as the Original only a better quality picture, I still don't know how everyone thinks that Dekker is a Replicant, I'm going to try to watch the making of it tonight to see how Ridley gives us clues to him being a Replicant. Either way it still is a great movie and I don't think Rutger Hauer was really given enough credit for doing such a Great job as Roy, he was Awesome!

the origami unicorn is the give away.

[daisho2004]

You know I was thinking it had something to do with that Dream but since it was only for a second I didn't pay much attention to it, and yes I did see the glow in Rachels eyes' but not really in Deckards.

[doug maverick]

yeah i didn't see the glow in deckards eyes either and i saw it on a giant ass screen. but the dream was pretty obvious tome after i saw the origami unicorn.

[froffeecoffee]

Yes I've seen it, Deckard's eyes glow while he is in the background and out of focus, while Rachel is talking. It's a quick moment that, if you aren't looking, can miss. Check out the scene again, Daisho2004, it's definitely there.

[The Amazing Psycho Per]

Am I the only one who thinks the Final cut offers very little more then the director's cut. The set is amazing and I would have got it even without the final cut but, what's the point to this final cut? I don't believe it adds anything that wasn't in any previours versions...

[froffeecoffee]

The Final Cut isn't supposed to add anything new to previous versions. What was done was touch ups on SPX, corrections in continuity errors in dialogue, and fixing the Zhora chase to blend in more smoothly with the rest of the visuals. They removed wires from the police vehicles takeoffs. When Deckard's superior, Bryant, explains the situation to him in the original, the 6 replicants that escaped he said 1 of them died and the rest escaped. The F.C. corrects this mistake, by saying 2 died in the escape.

The Zhora chase was refilmed with Joanna Cassidy reprising her role and Harrison Ford's son standing in for his father. The original chase's Zhora was an obvious stunt double with a really bad wig, so the entire sequence was re-filmed.

If you didn't notice any of these changes, that was the intent.

[kungfusamurai]

I watched the workprint first, and I think the explanation about the 6 replicants and what happened to the first two was done there, if I recall (I watched it a couple of weeks ago, and have since watched two other cuts). M Emmet Walsh even mentions 'Mary', but I don't think that name was used in the final cut version.

As for the touching up, I wasn't too crazy about it. At least Scott didn't go over the top like George Lucas did with the Star Wars flicks and THX 1138, but I do feel there were some moments that didn't need fixes. Okay, the wires needed to be cleaned up, and the out of sync dialogue when Deckard is talking to the snake dealer also was a problem (how come they didn't figure this out back in '81/'82 when they were editing the film?!!). But I think the Joanna Cassidy / Zhora touch-up was unnecessary. Then again, I watched the various cuts of the film on a 14in screen TV, so the fact that it's a body double isn't so glaring that it distracts from the performance.

The one touch-up I really didn't think they should have made was the dove flying away. The reason why I say this is that I feel that image is more of a metaphor rather than literal. The dove represents Roy Batty's 'soul' going to heaven. So having it fly up into a sunny blue sky was kind of inferring it was going to a better place. Maybe Scott hadn't intended for that to be the case originally, but I think that's how it can be seen to work. The building on the left of the screen didn't have to be modified because they weren't on that Bradbury building anymore. They had jumped to another building, and we really don't get a good look at the way the other building looked, so it didn't matter whether it appeared as a solid wall in that scene or if it had windows and looked old. I also never really thought of the sky being blue as being a continuity issue because the death scene occurs in sunlight (with rain), and not in the pitch dark.

I never quite understood Gaff's character making the little figures. Was it all as a set up for the final scene, or did the other two origami figures have meaning. I wonder if the chicken he makes when Deckard initially refuses to help Capt Bryant was to infer that Deckard was scared and a 'chicken'? I'm not sure what the matchstick man in Leon's apartment may have represented, though.

And one last thing. I notice both Leon and Batty utter the same last line 'time to die'. Any thoughts on that?

KFS