The Stuff Of Wet Dreams

[Scotness]

From:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... /twitch-20

Product Description
In celebration of Blade Runner's 25th anniversary, director Ridley Scott has gone back into post production to create the long-awaited definitive new version. Blade Runner: The Final Cut, spectacularly restored and remastered from original elements and scanned at 4K resolution, will contain never-before-seen added/extended scenes, added lines, new and improved special effects, director and filmmaker commentary, an all-new 5.1 Dolby® Digital audio track and more. Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Edward James Olmos, Joanna Cassidy, Sean Young, and Daryl Hannah are among some 80 stars, filmmakers and others who participate in the extensive bonus features. Among the bonus material highlights is Dangerous Days, a brand new, three-and-a-half-hour documentary by award-winning DVD producer Charles de Lauzirika, with an extensive look into every aspect of the film: its literary genesis, its challenging production and its controversial legacy. The definitive documentary to accompany the definitive film version.

The Ultimate Collector's Edition will be presented in a unique 5-disc digi-package with handle which is a stylish version of Rick Deckard's own briefcase. In addition, each briefcase will be individually numbered and in limited supply. Included is a lenticular motion film clip from the original feature, miniature origami unicorn figurine, miniature replica spinner car, and collector's photographs, as well as a signed personal letter from Sir Ridley Scott.

Disc One
RIDLEY SCOTT'S ALL-NEW "FINAL CUT" VERSION OF THE FILM
Restored and remastered with added & extended scenes, added lines, new and cleaner special effects and all new 5.1 Dolby Digital Audio. Also includes:

* Commentary by Ridley Scott
* Commentary by executive producer/co-screenwriter Hampton Fancher and co-screenwriter David Peoples; producer Michael Deely and production executive Katherine Haber
* Commentary by visual futurist Syd Mead; production designer Lawrence G. Paull, art director David L. Snyder and special photographic effects supervisors Douglas Trumbull, Richard Yuricich and David Dryer

Disc Two
DOCUMENTARY DANGEROUS DAYS: MAKING BLADE RUNNER
A feature-length authoritative documentary revealing all the elements that shaped this hugely influential cinema landmark. Cast, crew, critics and colleagues give a behind-the-scenes, in-depth look at the film -- from its literary roots and inception through casting, production, visuals and special effects to its controversial legacy and place in Hollywood history.

Disc Three
1982 THEATRICAL VERSION
This is the version that introduced U.S. movie-going audiences to a revolutionary film with a new and excitingly provocative vision of the near-future. It contains Deckard/Harrison Ford's character narration and has Deckard and Rachel's (Sean Young) "happy ending" escape scene.

1982 INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Also used on U.S. home video, laserdisc and cable releases up to 1992. This version is not rated, and contains some extended action scenes in contrast to the Theatrical Version.

1992 DIRECTOR'S CUT
The Director's Cut omits Deckard's voiceover narration and removes the "happy ending" finale. It adds the famously-controversial "unicorn" sequence, a vision that Deckard has which suggests that he, too, may be a replicant.

Disc Four
BONUS DISC - "Enhancement Archive": 90 minutes of deleted footage and rare or never-before-seen items in featurettes and galleries that cover the film's amazing history, production teams, special effects, impact on society, promotional trailers, TV spots, and much more.

* Featurette "The Electric Dreamer: Remembering Philip K. Dick"
* Featurette "Sacrificial Sheep: The Novel vs. The Film"
* Philip K. Dick: The Blade Runner Interviews (audio)
* Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Cover Gallery (images)
* The Art of Blade Runner (image galleries)
* Featurette "Signs of the Times: Graphic Design"
* Featurette "Fashion Forward: Wardrobe & Styling"
* Screen Tests: Rachel & Pris
* Featurette "The Light That Burns: Remembering Jordan Cronenweth"
* Unit photography gallery
* Deleted and alternate scenes
* 1982 promotional featurettes
* Trailers and TV spots
* Featurette "Promoting Dystopia: Rendering the Poster Art"
* Marketing and merchandise gallery (images)
* Featurette "Deck-A-Rep: The True Nature of Rick Deckard"
* Featurette "--Nexus Generation: Fans & Filmmakers"

Disc Five
WORKPRINT VERSION
This rare version of the film is considered by some to be the most radically different of all the Blade Runner cuts. It includes an altered opening scene, no Deckard narration until the final scenes, no "unicorn" sequence, no Deckard/Rachel "happy ending," altered lines between Batty (Rutger Hauer) and his creator Tyrell (Joe Turkell), alternate music and much more. Also includes:

* Commentary by Paul M. Sammon, author of Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner
* Featurette "All Our Variant Futures: From Workprint to Final Cut"

This'll be my Christmas present

Scot

[super8man]

Am I alone in saying one version of a movie is enough? The theatrical release is the only version I am interested in. Otherwise, they may as well bring out the vote-while-you-watch-machine (remember those???) and the audience can pick the ending of the movie prior to its ending...

Seriously, this is nothing but Rdiley wanting to pay for some grandchildren's tuition...

I'll stick the videodisc version I have thanks. I refuse to hand over $$$ to Mr. Ridley.

[Scotness]

No one version is definitely not enough of this -- it's interesting that they've gone back and shot some extra material, and you can be sure Ridley isn't doing it for the money. I'm looking forward to it with baited breath.

* Very keen to see the deleted scenes
* Keen to see the new edit and the new material -- hope they haven't retro-actively messed with it too much - ie a whole lot of intrusive CGI -- but I'm confident they won't have

I think the looking through the various edits and the path this film took over the years reveals alot about the forces at play in Hollywood etc. The interviews and docos should be great too.

- But anyone who doesn't want it - no problem to me!


Scot

[yolia]

Am I alone in saying one version of a movie is enough? The theatrical release is the only version I am interested in. Otherwise, they may as well bring out the vote-while-you-watch-machine (remember those???) and the audience can pick the ending of the movie prior to its ending...

Seriously, this is nothing but Rdiley wanting to pay for some grandchildren's tuition...

I'll stick the videodisc version I have thanks. I refuse to hand over $$$ to Mr. Ridley.

I agree. Just another gimmick to pump more money out of us. However I did enjoy Blade Runner: The Director's Cut over the theatrical release version. Wasn't THAT supposed to be the final version?!?

Thanks. But not thanks.
Victor

[David M. Leugers]

One of my all time favorite Sci-Fi flicks. Nothing wrong with the original version. To me, few "Director's Cut" versions are better than the theatrical released versions. Two that come to mind are "Once Upon a Time In America" and the restored Welles classic "Touch of Evil". I hope Mr. Scott doesn't dilute the film, it was superb as it was...


David M. Leugers

[wado1942]

I hate when people go back and add crap that wasn't there originally. I just saw the director's cut of "Star Trek, The Motion Picture" and they took out stuff that I thought was important while adding in stuff that only made the presentation weaker. Though some of the story flowed better in the director's cut. They unfortunately replaced some special effects with new CGI versions that did exactly the same thing as the original except more fake looking. Oh yeah, they say they tried to do everything they could to create effects that matched 1978 technology EXCEPT THEY DIDN'T USE CGI in 1978! I mean, what good is adding fake grain and dirt to a replaced shot when the new shot is the only thing in the movie that looks like a video game? The killer is that they had THE REAL MODEL there at the computer lab. I mean, why not just shoot the freakin' model in front of a green screen instead of spending hundreds of man-hours making a crappy CG model for like 2 quick shots?

Anyway, sometimes the "director's cut" can be better than the theatrical version but then, there's usually a good reason they had to recut the film in the first place. If the director's cut is always best then it would always be what's in the theater.

Also, I don't get all the hype about Blade Runner. I almost bought it on laserdisc but decided to rent it first and I'm glad I did. The relationship between the main charactors is abusive at best and poor Young-robot either has to chose between death or following that jerk everywhere and falling victim to his whims. It's rather sick really. Or maybe that's what's supposed to be good about it?

But I must say, in this day and age where everything is about making an extra dollar, it's really profitable to do this crap. You take an existing movie, change a few things for a couple hundred grand and it sells almost as well as a new movie. I wouldn't be surprised if they did a "Wizard of Oz" director's cut where all the matte paintings are replaced with CGI as well as all the special effects shots and adding in a couple of trims that will make the movie move too slowly. It would sell like hot cakes but the fans who knew the original would be PISSED!

[Patrick]

I prefer the original theatrical version of Blade Runner to the director's cut. Harrison Ford's narration adds so much to the film. The director's cut seemed empty without it - like something was missing.

Scotness: "it's interesting that they've gone back and shot some extra material..."

Are you sure about this? I thought the text only mentioned that they went back into post production rather than production. Quote: "Blade Runner: The Final Cut, spectacularly restored and remastered from original elements..."

[aj]

Should be fun and educational if you really are into SciFi and/or filmmaking. The price for this a set is already low.

The original film was very impressive. And at rewatching it still shows good strength.

But as mentioned these re-cuts are not always an improvement and spoil the memories the original viewing.

[Angus]

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I still do not like the new versions of the original Star Wars films...but oddly Lucas reckons that there's no films from which to make a remastered DVD of the original versions...so he's just a liar.

As for Ridley Scott, I would trust him to be producing the version of Blade Runner that he is totally satisfied with.

Now whether I will like it, being very familiar with and fond of the original, is another matter...but the man has the right and I may well buy it.

[super8man]

Don't get me wrong. They totally have the right to do what they want...I just feel we as consumers/people/artists very rarely say the emperor has no clothes.

I mean, did we really need Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazzard, and Shaft remade? Nope. Someone on here wrote how western society has used up all of its available plot lines. I beginning to agree with that outlook.

And a Blade Runner WITHOUT the narration by Harrison Ford? No thank you.

But yes, live and let live.

[wado1942]

but oddly Lucas reckons that there's no films from which to make a remastered DVD of the original versions...so he's just a liar.

That's a load of crap because he has all the camera elements and he has a 3-strip Technicolour print in his own house. In fact, that separation print was often the source to which they looked when restoring SW for theatrical release in the mid 90s. The camera elements had faded so badly that they were unusable a lot of times, enter the separation print to save the day and fill in the missing pieces. I should also add that the laserdisc collector's edition looks fantastic and it was made after the theatrical re-release but was true to the original. At any rate, didn't he just release a box set with the original theatrical versions on DVD?

[MovieStuff]

That's a load of crap because he has all the camera elements and he has a 3-strip Technicolour print in his own house.

Only on the special effects footage, where color seps were standard fair for optical work. The rest of the original Star Wars footage went through the traditional interpositive/printing negative route and the original negative was not stored with tender loving care. It had degraded considerably by the time Lucas went to do the restoration. Few big films resorted to 3 strip Technicolor for archiving back then. For instance, Lawrence of Arabia suffered the same problem, and that was considered an important, big budget feature. It's hard for people to remember but the original Star Wars was a low budget film.

roger

[Angus]

I mean, did we really need Charlie's Angels, Dukes of Hazzard, and Shaft remade? Nope.

And guess what...I didn't watch any of the above.

I think there are likely many great plots still unfilmed...but they're not easy or cheap to bring to the silver screen. Sadly, as with the music industry, the film companies are interested in arses on seats more than artistic integrity or actually doing something new and different.

I'm prepared to give BR without Ford's narration a go, given that I trust Ridley Scott...but I do agree, for me too it is a great part of the original.

[timdrage]

Harrison Ford's narration adds so much to the film.

So much terrible patronising, unnecessary, badly read and written VO taking you right out of the perfectly realised world of the film? Yeah, certainly does!

Seems to be a bit of a nostalgia thing going on with people preferring the VO?

I'm sure Scott will in some way wreck BR with the new version, but at least he's having the decency to offer the option of the original(s), and not pretend it never existed like Lucas does. (THX 1138 GRRRR
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: )

I mean, did we really need Charlie's Angels,

Well, it was worth it just for Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle. (he says, destroying any credibility re: previous criticism of BR theatrical cut

[Dr_Strangelove]

I still do not like the new versions of the original Star Wars films...but oddly Lucas reckons that there's no films from which to make a remastered DVD of the original versions...so he's just a liar.

It was shot in the late 70s correct? Well I saw this interview with scorsese about a Taxi Driver scene, the bloodbath scene.Well anyways he forced to desaturate the picture due to the blood, and he wanted to (recently) find those old negatives and release that scene with the look he intended it to have.Unfortunetly the negatives were in such bad shape that he couldnt use em. He then commented that many movies made in the 70s suffer from their age and bad quality negatives.