Beige Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Shawshank Redemption, Aliens and Blade Runner - best 3 films I have ever seen. To the guy who hasn't seen Blade Runner: Close your blinds, turn off the lights and phone Grab a bottle of something really mellow, and enjoy Sean Young and Harrison Ford in one of the best films ever made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I agree with the previous comment regarding the various incarnations of the first movie. If there is a sequel made, which version of the movie is it a sequel to? We are not talking about a insignificant change like Greedo shooting first in Star Wars or awkwardly blinking Ewoks. That is not really a significant change to the whole movie. However, there have been enough cuts of Blade Runner where one version may be significantly different from the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Really? I figure they're all pretty much the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loadstone Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 When I first saw the movie it was the original theatrical version (I think) on HBO or some cable channel back in the 20th century and I thought BOR-RING!!!. Especially considering Star Wars and Star Trek were so much fun at that age. I later saw it at a more mature and intellectually aware age in college and saw the Director's cut and though it was still a very slow SCI-FI movie I began to appreciate it for it's subtle and noire style. The one thing that always annoyed me was the title. "Blade Runner". I knew the book's title and felt it was more relevant but never understood why they named Decker's profession as a Blade Runner. What is a blade runner in this story? I now know the back story to why they named it and his character a Blade Runner but it still doesn't make sense to me unless you make the HUGE leap that in that future, a "blade runner" is the new term for "wetworker", "operator" "contractor" and really to be running the razor fine line between humanity and inhumanity. This of course still makes little sense to me for reasons I won't go into here so as not to spoil the movie. I think they just really liked the way the name sounded and built the movie around the character-title. Silly but I guess it's better than Dreaming of a Unicorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 Really? I figure they're all pretty much the same. Not really. There are slight changes which lead to a different path concerning Deckard's origin and future. And later on, Philip K. 's friend K. W. Jeter published follow-up stories (Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human; Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night; Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon) based on one of those paths. Deckard being human in the end. At least, you think so. From the wiki page, which seems to do a super job of summarizing all the details. ------------------------- The releases seen by most cinema audiences were: the U.S. theatrical version (1982, 116 minutes), known as the original version or Domestic Cut, released on Betamax and VHS in 1983 and Laserdisc in 1987; the International Cut (1982, 117 minutes), also known as the "Criterion Edition" or "uncut version", which included more violent action scenes than the U.S. version. Although initially unavailable in the U.S., and distributed in Europe and Asia via theatrical and local Warner Home Video Laserdisc releases, it was later released on VHS and Criterion Collection Laserdisc in North America, and re-released in 1992 as a "10th Anniversary Edition". Scott's Director's Cut (1991, 116 minutes) was made available on VHS and Laserdisc in 1993, and on DVD in 1997. Significant changes from the theatrical version include: the removal of Deckard's voice-over; re-insertion of a unicorn sequence; and removal of the studio-imposed happy ending. Scott provided extensive notes and consultation to Warner Bros. through film preservationist Michael Arick, who was put in charge of creating the Director's Cut. Scott's The Final Cut (2007, 117 minutes) was released by Warner Bros. theatrically on October 5, 2007, and subsequently released on DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray Disc in December 2007. This is the only version over which Scott had complete editorial control. ------------------------- There is also a game from Westwood Studios that I feel was excellent (I think I still have it stored away somewhere) which took a different approach. Blade Runner (1997) There is another blade runner also hunting down replicants at the same time as Deckard. Depending on the decisions you make, you go down one of the paths hinted at by the different versions of the movie. ------------------------- There are thirteen endings, influenced by the player's actions throughout the game. These endings are variations on three major themes; the player can believe McCoy is human, and hunt down the replicants; be persuaded that he's a replicant himself, and side with them against the other Blade Runners; or stay neutral, and flee the city, either alone or with some of the other characters. ------------------------- I think with the books there is enough material to help delivery a sequel to answer some of the questions left unanswered by the original movie. Especially about who Deckard really is in the end. 'The Edge of Human' especially could provide the foundation for a Blade Runner 2, though the storyline was not as impactful as 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' or the Blade Runner movie. It did bring some closure to questions of where did Deckard go afterwards, and what was Rachael's reason for being. Also, what happened with the sixth replicant that is mentioned in the movie, yet Deckard never takes down a sixth replicant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 As long as we're doing spoilers, I assumed Deckard was the 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted August 27, 2014 Author Share Posted August 27, 2014 As long as we're doing spoilers, I assumed Deckard was the 6th. It depends on which version of the movie you see. So now you realize the difference the movie versions can make, depending on which one you appreciate more. Also, how dark that path can be if a fellow replicant was taking out his own kind on the orders of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Blade Runner is that rare example of the movie being better than the book, when the book is pretty darn good. Universal Monsters Frankenstein 1931 and Bride of Frankenstein 1935 movies were other examples of a movie being much better then the book. A lot of the mythos that those two movies gave Frankenstein`s monster that special aura are nowhere to be found in Mary Shelley`s Frankenstein book. 1950's war comics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) Last time someone tried to do a sequel/sidequel to blade runner THIS is what we got. Blade Runner is my all time favorite movie after Inception. Let it be.. It needs no sequel! I think there should be a sequel because even if it`s bad the sequel will create new interest and new fans for the original. No doubt the sequel won`t live up to the original, just like Prometheus didn`t live up to the original Alien movie. That`s ok with me. It might be fun to see Harrison Ford having a shot at Blade Runner again. Edited August 27, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur 1950's war comics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 (edited) I think a sequel to Blade Runner is a no-brainer. If it's even a fraction as good as BR, I want it to exist. If it sucks, I just won't watch it again. Risk/reward is pretty good for viewers here. Edited August 27, 2014 by Mackenzie999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Really? I figure they're all pretty much the same. What Bosco said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techvoodoo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I still haven't seen Blade Runner. Every time I mention it to anyone the consensus is I'm not missing much. Really? Because it's leaps and bounds better than every super hero movie combined. Worlds better than the best movie Marvel Studios has ever, and will ever produce. Better than anything featuring a muscleman in briefs could possibly ever be, by it's very nature. It's a true classic. One we'll still be talking about sixty years from now, in a positive manner, like Citizen Kane. Not something most people won't even realize ever happened, like every single super hero movie before Superman. Ok I'm going to watch it tonight or tomorrow after all those endorsements. I'll let ya know what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techvoodoo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Amazon Prime has the Final Cut version. Does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Amazon Prime has the Final Cut version. Does it matter? Yep, that's the one to watch IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy-D Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 All cuts are fantastic, it's just degrees of fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackenzie999 Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The most significant difference is the original theatrical version has voiceover narration that Ford intentionally did poorly, which really alters the tone of the film. The other permutations vary by tiny amounts of additional footage that have significant impact on the overall meaning. But yeah, Final Cut is the way to go. I envy you, I wish I were seeing it for the first time! That being said, don't let your expectations get the better of you; it is absolutely a fine film but if you expect too much you may be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techvoodoo Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 The most significant difference is the original theatrical version has voiceover narration that Ford intentionally did poorly, which really alters the tone of the film. The other permutations vary by tiny amounts of additional footage that have significant impact on the overall meaning. But yeah, Final Cut is the way to go. I envy you, I wish I were seeing it for the first time! That being said, don't let your expectations get the better of you; it is absolutely a fine film but if you expect too much you may be disappointed. Well, everyone I've ever talked to if it has come up in idle conversation has said it's a really slow movie, kinda boring, etc. This thread is the first time I've seen so much positive stuff about it. So my expectations aren't to high, but I've probably got 2 hours to kill and I'm sure I could do worse things with the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer Toast Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Blade Runner Alien Blade Runner 2 Prometheus Prometheus 2 :sick: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Blade Runner Alien Blade Runner 2 Prometheus Prometheus 2 :sick: Alien(s) was amaze-balls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Balls Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Blade Runner Alien Blade Runner 2 Prometheus Prometheus 2 :sick: Alien(s) was amaze-balls Aliens 2 should be the sci-fi sequel template. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
