ANOTHER version of Blade Runner?

[earlybroncoguy]

Geez, how many different ways did they edit it?

http://movies.msn.com/movies/hitlist...-07_2?GT1=7701

Anyway, guess I'll have to see this one, too.

"Let me tell you about my mother."

[RJR99SS]

I dunno...i never thought it was a good enough movie to warrent 3 different versions, much less 4. Hell, Ford even thinks the movie sucked.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by RJR99SS

I dunno...i never thought it was a good enough movie to warrent 3 different versions, much less 4. Hell, Ford even thinks the movie sucked.

Some people were too stupid to understand the version where everything was freaking told to them.

You're far too stupid to understand this one.


So, they're showing it at theaters, huh? Nice.

[RJR99SS]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Some people were too stupid to understand the version where everything was freaking told to them.

You're far too stupid to understand this one.


So, they're showing it at theaters, huh? Nice.

Who says i didnt understand it? It's a good movie, but nothing spectacular. has a lot of potential, but it's always been flawed. I'm guessing thats why scott keeps putting out new versions of it, hoping he'll get it right someday.

[Talking about Blade Runner (1982)]: "It could have been so much more than a cult movie."-Harrison Ford

[Pazuzu]

Flawed?

Yeah, it's terribly flawed when you invent a language, combine sci-fi with noir, create an entire new city on a level never done before, add in very subtle and very important plotlines, and then become one of the most mimiced movies, and the single most sampled movie in history.

Yeah, that's a terrible flaw. The only flaw was putting out the shitty "cater to the stupid American market" version first.

[lttlbddy]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Yeah, that's a terrible flaw. The only flaw was putting out the shitty "cater to the stupid American market" version first.

Is there a "name" for the "good" version? I'm not in the know about the multiple versions.

[Pazuzu]

The Director's Cut (the 3rd one, from the 90s).

and probably this new version.

[mike]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

The Director's Cut (the 3rd one, from the 90s).

and probably this new version.

the one that ends with the unicorn.. that leaves you with the impression that deckers a replicant too.

[RJR99SS]

I dunno man, any time they need 3 tries to get a decent version out, that kind of lowers my opinion of it. It's a good movie, but just give it a rest for christ sake, next thing you know a cgi jabba the hutt will be showing up in there.

[mike]

Originally Posted by RJR99SS

I dunno man, any time they need 3 tries to get a decent version out, that kind of lowers my opinion of it. It's a good movie, but just give it a rest for christ sake, next thing you know a cgi jabba the hutt will be showing up in there.

isn't that how "Anniversary Editions" work?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by RJR99SS

I dunno man, any time they need 3 tries to get a decent version out, that kind of lowers my opinion of it. It's a good movie, but just give it a rest for christ sake, next thing you know a cgi jabba the hutt will be showing up in there.

Except, this one predates all of them. So, maybe they got it right the first time, and bullheaded studio execs fawked it up after that

[RJR99SS]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Except, this one predates all of them. So, maybe they got it right the first time, and bullheaded studio execs fawked it up after that

Yeah, until another 10 years goes by and they find another version that scott had sitting in his the cabinet in his shitter that he totally forgot about and is much better. i always give movies the one try rule. If you cant get it right in one try, thats it, you lost. Otherwise this happens.

[Pazuzu]

There's this magical thing called "variations on a theme". Even your avatar is from a show that was a variation on a theme.

[RJR99SS]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

There's this magical thing called "variations on a theme". Even your avatar is from a show that was a variation on a theme.

I'd call it remaking the exact same damn movie every 10 years. If the muppet show did the exact same show every night, except the characters changed colors, and a different one turned out to actually be a fraggle at the end of every show, then yeah i'd agree.

[tdavis]

I did get to see the director's cut in a theater in San Rafeal a few years ago.. was interesting to actually watch it on the big screen, and not on a small TV..

[rusted]

I thought it was GREAT when it came out. People not in the know think it's a groundbreaking movie. It *did* combine PKD and William Gibson, if you consider that groundbreaking then ok.

The BULK of what is considered 'groundbreaking' in the movie was lifted directly from Gibson. HE is the one who combined noir, near-future, real-character grittiness into the form called cyberpunk. He invented it, he's not credited, and that's a crime.

The film itself is nothing great on it's own. It brought the vision to the masses (including me, I found Gibson years afterward and found out for myself that he was the one to first combine this stuff into CP, as a regular motif), and put a then-sci-fi hero into it. :shrug: It's actually a slow-ass, overstylzed movie, just like noir

I'm not a huge fan of Ford though, I'm sure that has something to do with it.

[mike]

Duh, it's supposed to be just like noir.

[rusted]

Originally Posted by mike

Duh, it's supposed to be just like noir.

Aaaaand that's what I just facking said, duh

[mike]

You want slow? Go watch The Nights of Caberia or Rome, the Open City.

[tacoma73]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Flawed?

Yeah, it's terribly flawed when you invent a language, combine sci-fi with noir, create an entire new city on a level never done before, add in very subtle and very important plotlines, and then become one of the most mimiced movies, and the single most sampled movie in history.

Yeah, that's a terrible flaw. The only flaw was putting out the shitty "cater to the stupid American market" version first.

Word, holmes. I think a lot of people are forgetting just how much that movie influenced the absolute, mother-loving SHIT out of every other sci-fi movie that came after it.

Like Nazi style is what you picture when you think about evil government, Blade Runner is what you see when you see sci-fi.

[rusted]

Originally Posted by mike

You want slow? Go watch The Nights of Caberia or Rome, the Open City.

Are those original noir films? I have to admit, that whole section of my brain, which apparently includes the Jazz center, is totally retarded. Maybe someday I will grow to appreciate those things, who knows always something to learn in old age.

[mike]

Felini. Wonderful director, slow films

[Damage, Inc.]

I prefer the original theatrical version. The ending I never cared about, the voice-overs make the movie interesting and entertaining; otherwise, it's just too goddamn quiet and slow.

And Paz, you do realize the movie was based on a BOOK, right? So claiming this version or that version was the better one is ridiculous. The movie hardly follows anything in the novel.
Also, the original theatrical version is what made it a cult classic--NOT the director's cut version, so keep that in mind.

[mike]

So on the one hand you're saying that since it's based on a book there is no movie version that is better... then you say that it didn't follow Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep anyway, which counters the previous comment

[0ILBURNER]

Syd Mead rules.






That is all.