which version of "Blade Runner" to get?

[Bolero]

hi, anyone know the skinny on which versions of this are out there?

does the latest DVD have both the director's cut as well as the narrative versions of the film?

I thought I heard there was yet another version being released soon too?


thx!

[GregY]

Only the Director's Cut has been released on R1 DVD.

It's a good 7 years old now and has non-anamorphic video. It's not horrible but in desperate need of a new edition.

Only rumors of a new edition have circulated, no release dates, AFAIK. Supposedly the next version on DVD will be a different version than what's already out there.

[Tim Casey]

I have the old Criterion laserdisc. It's probably the only widescreen version of the narrative version in existence. I enjoy it much more than the director's cut.

[Oatsdad]

Only the Director's Cut has been released on R1 DVD.

It's a good 7 years old now and has non-anamorphic video.

Not correct - the current "BR" IS anamorphically-enhanced...

[Ed Bishop]

I have the old Criterion laserdisc. It's probably the only widescreen version of the narrative version in existence. I enjoy it much more than the director's cut.

Agreed, Whatever flaws that cut has, the removal of Ford's narration pretty much killed it for me..I found that very cool and noirish, even if the director's cut ending makes more sense, it doesn't make up for what's missing.

:ed:

[vinyl anachronist]

I've always appreciated the Director's Cut more. I think it elevates the film from very good to great. One of the things the Director's Cut does is allow the viewer to entertain the possibility that Harrison Ford's character is also a replicant. It also becomes a much more visual film. I once heard someone say that it's the closest thing we have in modern times to a silent film, and I can see what they're talking about.

Also, I always found the narration to be a bit off-putting. And I disliked the "happier," more explicit ending.

[Michael St. Clair]

From the digital bits:

Here's some good news and bad news all at once. Sources are telling us that Warner is FINALLY at work once again on a Blade Runner: Special Edition. That's the good news. The bad news is that instead of the 3 or 4-disc ultimate edition we all hoped for (featuring all the different versions of the film), the title is now likely to be one of the studio's 2-disc editions, featuring only the recent "director's cut" version of the film (remastered from a new HD transfer), the Channel 4 On the Edge of Blade Runner documentary and perhaps a few other odds and ends. Look for it sometime in the first half of 2005.

It is hopeful that eventually we get the giant edition with two or three versions of the film, more documentaries, etc., but legal issues are holding it up.

I'll jump at the 2-disc set, as the current disc has a pretty poor transfer by 2004 standards.

[Metralla]

One of the things the Director's Cut does is allow the viewer to entertain the possibility that Harrison Ford's character is also a replicant.
I haven't seen the director's cut, but I that possibility occurred to me the very first time I saw the movie in a theatre. I'll have to try to see the other version.

[SamS]

It's a good 7 years old now and has non-anamorphic video.

False. True anamorphic, but has some "junk" on the outside 4-6% of the picture which makes it no fun to watch with a properly calibrated TV. Definitely one of the earlier DVDs that could use a HiDef transfer.

[vinyl anachronist]

I haven't seen the director's cut, but I that possibility occurred to me the very first time I saw the movie in a theatre. I'll have to try to see the other version.

I think it occurs to a lot of people. But with the Director's Cut, there are more red herrings along the way, especially at the end. It's pretty subtle stuff, too, because people still argue about whether or not it's possible that he's a replicant.

[SamS]

I thought Ridley Scott made it clear in many interviews that Ford's character was indeed a replicant :confused:

[GregY]

False. True anamorphic, but has some "junk" on the outside 4-6% of the picture which makes it no fun to watch with a properly calibrated TV. Definitely one of the earlier DVDs that could use a HiDef transfer.

You're right. My bad. I knew there was something 'wrong' with the video and for some reason my mind just defaulted to non-anamorphic. Sorry.

On a related topic, have any of you heard the Esper Edition of the soundtrack? A 2CD fan project that includes just about every known piece of music recorded for both versions of the film. Pretty good stuff.

[Metralla]

I thought Ridley Scott made it clear in many interviews that Ford's character was indeed a replicant
I don't imagine Ridley Scott would be that forthcoming - he wants all possibilities out there.

Have you got a reference handy?

[Michael St. Clair]

False. True anamorphic, but has some "junk" on the outside 4-6% of the picture which makes it no fun to watch with a properly calibrated TV. Definitely one of the earlier DVDs that could use a HiDef transfer.

Yeah, it's windowboxed, which wastes both screen space and resolution.

It's also a bit overcompressed. Most 2-hour movies are given more than 4.3GB of space these days, and for good reason.

It's not a terrible transfer/master, but it can definitely look better, and the improvement should not be subtle on an HDTV.

[Ron Stone]

I thought this was one instance where the meddling studio was right -- I prefer the narrated studio version a great deal. The narration more strongly placed the film in a traditional noir context, making it a unique combination of genres.

Without the private dick voiceover, the Director's Cut seemed just an exercise in pretty visuals and philosophical conundrums, without a solid foundation in character.

[Bolero]

hmm....maybe I'll rent it first & then decide; whether to wait or hunt down an older copy from the laserdisc


thx for all the info!!

[SamS]

I don't imagine Ridley Scott would be that forthcoming - he wants all possibilities out there.

Have you got a reference handy?

Hi Geoff,

Couldn't come up with the exact quote/interview, but a search on on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/trivia) comes up with this:

In July 2000, director Ridley Scott said that Deckard is, in fact, a replicant.

Actually, I just read a bit more on the link above. Apparently Ford and Scott had disagreements about Deckard being a replicant. Hmmm, further insights into the acting by Ford? If Ford doesn't believe he's playing a replicant, does that make Scott's revelation that much more ironic?

[Metralla]

Thanks mate - interesting twist to the acting thing.

[vinyl anachronist]

Hi Geoff,

Couldn't come up with the exact quote/interview, but a search on on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/trivia) comes up with this:



Actually, I just read a bit more on the link above. Apparently Ford and Scott had disagreements about Deckard being a replicant. Hmmm, further insights into the acting by Ford? If Ford doesn't believe he's playing a replicant, does that make Scott's revelation that much more ironic?

I guess the more valid question is whether Philip K. Dick thinks Deckard is a replicant. I haven't read the original story...maybe it's more explicit there.

[Metralla]

I have read the original story, but it was so long ago I've forgotten a lot of the substance. But from what I can remember of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", there was no real hint from Dick that Deckard was an android. There was one bit that could be interpreted that way - when Deckard is arrested by the "cops" (who aren't genuine). And the parts with the other bounty hunters - who we wonder about. And if they could be androids, maybe Deckard could be too. But it's so slight.

Dick brings into focus a lot of other concepts of mortality and morality in a post-nuclear age, and Deckard is a likeable enough character with human failings who becomes more and more devastated by his killing of these life-like creatures. There's a lot going on in the book that was not translated into the movie - the whole subplot about animal husbandry was left out, and the post-holocaust theme received little mileage.

Nevertheless, Scott produced one of the most inspired SF movies of all time - and one that we remember for little vignettes, rather than for the story itself.

[RexKramer]

I guess the more valid question is whether Philip K. Dick thinks Deckard is a replicant. I haven't read the original story...maybe it's more explicit there.

My wife read the book and the feeling she got was Dekkard believed he might be one of the last humans, and most other people are replicants.

I watched the Criterion laserdisc a month ago after watching the "directors cut" exclusively since its release. Supposedly Ford was so against the VO work that he didn't give it his all. But I think that it might actually help the film noir feel of the movie.

For those who love the movie, check out "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner" by Paul M. Sammon. It also describes all the different video cuts out there as well as the competing directors cuts. The one they've been touting as the director's cut was rushed out. The DVD referenced in thedigitalbits.com quote was originally slated with having three cuts of the film - the original, the studio's "directors cut" and a new one by Scott. But supposedly so much bad blood exists to this day from the making of the movie, one of the producers has put this project on hold (as a friend told me who read an article on it in The New York Times).

Mark

[LtPepper]

hmm....maybe I'll rent it first & then decide; whether to wait or hunt down an older copy from the laserdisc


You can get the current 'director's cut' DVD for around $15 or even used at amazon.com for about $7. The 'voice over' version VHS is out of print, but I saw many used copies on amazon also starting at $2.50.

I keep my VHS version of the movie for the voice over as I always loved this version. I also like the DVD of the 'director's' cut, but it kills me that it may not get released for awhile, or ever, because the person who owns the rights to the film holds a grudge with Scott. What is wrong with people? Sheeesh!

Check out http://www.brmovie.com/
They have a lot of background information and keep current on the situation.

[Skip Reynolds]

You're right. My bad. I knew there was something 'wrong' with the video and for some reason my mind just defaulted to non-anamorphic. Sorry.

On a related topic, have any of you heard the Esper Edition of the soundtrack? A 2CD fan project that includes just about every known piece of music recorded for both versions of the film. Pretty good stuff.


I have the Esper double-disc set. Despite the poor sound quality, it's one of my two or three favorite soundtracks.

[whitenoise]

I thought this was one instance where the meddling studio was right -- I prefer the narrated studio version a great deal. The narration more strongly placed the film in a traditional noir context, making it a unique combination of genres.

Without the private dick voiceover, the Director's Cut seemed just an exercise in pretty visuals and philosophical conundrums, without a solid foundation in character.

Interestingly, Future Noir makes clear that some voiceover narration was in the script from the start, and some remained in the script until the end; it wasn't the studio's idea, it was the original writer's idea. What the studio did was make it blander and more pervasive, which is the problem: it's so poorly written, and it's voiced accordingly, that it just drags the movie down. The two guys responsible for the core screenplay, which is otherwise poetic even at it's worst, did not write the final voiceover.

What might interesting for a true directors cut would be to drag in Harrison Ford to record the minimal narration as written in the final script (not as later added by the studio). Not gonna happen, of course.

[btomarra]

I checked out the Blade Runner website. Lots of information. Thanks!

To anybody that has the director's cut, I inadvertantly played the VHS tape with violent scenes added that were not in the theatrical release . Are these on the DC? The website seems to indicate that they aren't.

To me when I saw this on cable years ago I couldn't figure why the theatrical release was rated "R." Am I missing something?

Brian