From Variety (and HTF):

WB preps 'final cut' of sci-fi classic

Warner homevid has disentangled "Blade Runner's" famously thorny rights issues to pave the way for a September re issue of the remastered "Director's Cut" version, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly Ridley Scott's final cut.

Warner's rights to "Blade Runner" lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license. The pic, now considered a sci-fi classic, has had a troubled history from the start: When Scott ran over budget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voiceover and happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.

The helmer started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.

The restored "Director's Cut" will debut on homevid in September, and remain on sale for four months only, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. "Blade Runner: Final Cut" will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.

The massive "Blade Runner" project comes on the heels of Scott's four-disc treatment for "Kingdom of Heaven," released this week by Fox homevid, less than a year after the pic's initial homevid release.


http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_article&articleID=VR1117944173&cs=1

It's about damn time!

This almost makes up for all the Star Wars BS lately.

Please let the 2007 release land on HD-DVD and BluRay.

Ridley Scott to his films' fans: "Thank you! I appreciate you."

George Lucas to his films' fans: "#*&$ you! Drop dead."

And, since this is a Blade Runner thread, let me be the first to remind everyone: Deckard is a replicant!

We have been cheated so many times on this film that I have to say I'll believe it when the "Final Cut" DVD is in my hands. Then of course we'll be waiting another 25 years for the definitive HD version.....

Gary

Ridley Scott to his films' fans: "Thank you! I appreciate you."

George Lucas to his films' fans: "#*&$ you! Drop dead."

And, since this is a Blade Runner thread, let me be the first to remind everyone: Deckard is a replicant!

If that's the case, I always wondered why he was manhandled by his prey when they were face to face.

On the movie news, I concur. It's about dang time!

Joseph

Yay, so it's coming afterall...

Hey, and Pink Floyd's Pulse Concert is coming out the same day!! :D :D

Actually, this sounds pretty legit... I hope that this isn't the opening of the Seventh Seal or anything...

Hell yeah............ But I will wait till I get in my hot little hands.. put in the dvd player and the blade runner movie plays..and not some... "Hi this is HW... you have been screwed over again..... thank you for the 20 bucks... sucker.....!!!"

R~

I feel so strung along by Ridley and WB on this at this point that until I have the thing in my hands in a store, I just can't believe any such news no matter what the source. I mean seriously, HOW many times have press releases gone out, articles been written up, interviews granted, dates confirmed, and then NOTHING at this point?

It's like Blade Runner is a part of a "screw with the fans" massive joke that extends to Star Wars and Dune. :mad:

And, since this is a Blade Runner thread, let me be the first to remind everyone: Deckard is a replicant!

And, since the original theatrical cut will be included in the 2007 package, let me remind you: Deckard is not a Replicant!

:)

Hey, at least Warner didn't repeatedly screw you with inferior releases. There was only one version of Blade Runner on DVD that I know of. No double dipping or anything. At least when the DVD failed to materialized, you're not conned out of your money.

I'm pretty sure that the DVD will be a simultaneous Blu-Ray/HD-DVD release.


fuad

And, since the original theatrical cut will be included in the 2007 package, let me remind you: Deckard is not a Replicant!

:)

You're all wrong.
Deckard is half replicant. He's a prototype cyborg. :D

1) Much better received?? I know there are lots of folks who like the 1992 version better. But for everyone who likes it better, I think there is someone else who preferres the original.

2) followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. Bravo!

3) For those folks who want to bring up a certain, "I know it's true, even through there is no sensible evidence for it in the movie" issue, I just want to point out that Rachael was hot!

1)
3) For those folks who want to bring up a certain, "I know it's true, even through there is no sensible evidence for it in the movie" issue, I just want to point out that Rachael was hot!OH YEAH :D

Variety is legit...I accept the story. :cool:
Hopefully, nothing will get in the way of this happening.

Tonite, all us Blade Runner Freaks should toast the Powers-That-Be for making this happen (and send up a prayer for a 2007 BD). ;)

If other Ridley Scott SE DVDs are any indication, this is going to be incredible.

Thank you RS and Warners!

So is ANYONE going to buy this remastered DC in September? That seems like just a way to make a quick buck. I'm not complaining though, I'm in for the ultimate set. Even if it's only on DVD I'll take it, but of course I prefer HD.

Yeah, I'll buy it. It will be worth the money to have something to watch for the 6 to 12 months before the big edition comes out. The big thing is A) I know exactly what I'm getting into and making an informed choice, and B) Scott is making all versions of the film available to fans. Lucasfilm needs to learn a big fat lesson, and I hope sales of Blade Runner go through the roof.

So is ANYONE going to buy this remastered DC in September? That seems like just a way to make a quick buck. I'm not complaining though, I'm in for the ultimate set. Even if it's only on DVD I'll take it, but of course I prefer HD.
I will buy it. I am one of the few who actually likes the version with voice over and to my knowledge it has never been on DVD. I remember going to see it with my family when it first came out. Everyone hated it except me, I though it was awesome. My son finally came around but my wife and daughter still hate it.

1) Much better received?? I know there are lots of folks who like the 1992 version better. But for everyone who likes it better, I think there is someone else who preferres the original.

More like for every 1000 people who prefer the 1992 DC, there's one who thinks he remembers liking the voiceover and Stupid Happy Ending version. Until they watch it again, at which point that number drops in half again.

More like for every 1000 people who prefer the 1992 DC, there's one who thinks he remembers liking the voiceover and Stupid Happy Ending version. Until they watch it again, at which point that number drops in half again.

Actually, I've seen that happen, literally. I had a friend who kept saying he like the theatrical version better. So I made him actually watch it with me (VHS) and he admitted it wasn't nearly as cool as he remembered it to be- he's a devout DC cultist now :D

Finally! This has been one of the most glaring omissions for DVD ever. If it get's the attention it deserves, we're in for a treat.

E

I like both versions, but I always thought the voice over kind of gave it more of a mystery feel like a Philip Marlow thing. I have probably watched both versions 20 times (I have the VHS) so I think I can comment without all of the "thats stupid" remarks. Remember Harrison Ford didn't like the movie much at all (either version I am told).

I'm curious here - what did folks think of the HDnet broadcast of Blade Runner? I think that can tide me over until 2007 :)

- Steve O.

If Lauzirika is on this one, we'll get the super set we deserve.
Remember his production work on the Alien Quad set? He's Ridley's `Man' on the Improtant dvds. This one qualifies.

E

Yeah, honestly with the HD version archived I'm not going anywhere near an SD DVD.

The HD broadcast looked good, except for the fact it's in the wrong AR. But fear not, for The Digital Bits is reporting that all of these new releases will be on HD-DVD and BR as well.

I thought the "new" HD version could have been of a better quality.
Although better than DVD, that isn't saying much.

The HD broadcast looked good, except for the fact it's in the wrong AR.

The HDNet broadcast was in the correct OAR, but INHD cropped & zoomed it to 16:9.

Bill posted some nice info at thedigitalbits on this.

E

Then I saw the INHD, obviously. Bastards.

So is ANYONE going to buy this remastered DC in September? That seems like just a way to make a quick buck.

I will buy it. I am one of the few who actually likes the version with voice over and to my knowledge it has never been on DVD.

That is not the version that will be available in September that I was referring to. I'm with you, I prefer the theatrical cut that will not be released until 2007. Though I'm open to both the Final Cut version and the international version becoming my new favorite. I always found the DC version disappointing. And yes, I've seen the theatrical version recently (I have the Criterion LD), it's flawed, but I still prefer it to the 1992 DC.

I can't say that I actually know a single person who prefers the 1992 DC, though as was pointed out many of them probably haven't seen the theatrical cut for awhile.

Umm, I think it's the theatrical cut most people haven't seen in a while. Since the 92 version came out on VHS and especially since it's the only version currently on DVD the older one is relatively rare and many younger people probably have never even seen it at all. I never liked the voice-over; rather than sound tough and world-weary to me it sounded just bored, as if Ford wasn't even trying. And the dialog itself tried way to hard. It beats you over the head- hey, look! It's noir, like the 50's- but it's THE FUTURE! It works better without, IMO. And the ending- jeeze Deckard and his best girl robot escape into- a completely different movie :D :D I'm not trying to put down anyone who likes the original version but I think the TC is really a stronger movie.

Umm, I think it's the theatrical cut most people haven't seen in a while.

Yeah, that's what I meant, I edited the original post to be clearer.

Some of the V.O. should be removed, but some of it really works. As for the ending I usually just shut it off when the elevator closes :) There's no doubt that the perfect version has yet to be released, and perhaps the Final Cut will be that version. But I fear that Scott will cut it in such a way to remove the ambiguity of Deckard's...um...status.

Agreed! The ambiguity is one of the things that really makes the story thought-provoking. It certainly would survive without it, but it would be poorer without.

Yeah, that's what I meant, I edited the original post to be clearer.

Some of the V.O. should be removed, but some of it really works. As for the ending I usually just shut it off when the elevator closes :) There's no doubt that the perfect version has yet to be released, and perhaps the Final Cut will be that version. But I fear that Scott will cut it in such a way to remove the ambiguity of Deckard's...um...status.

Ohhhhh- what a thought!! I hope not. Surely not- if that was his intent he would have done it in the earlier DC, right???

Like Joekun, I have the LD of the original version and although the happy ending (except for the music) is a bit far fetched the VO in other areas is helpful. If you have read the book then the DC version is easier to follow. All too often we forget that Blade Runner was not a book, it's a screen play and uses some of the ideas found in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" R.S. had a vision for how Deckard should be played. Ford intended to play Deckard as vulnerable and not a super hero type. The movie must be judged on its own merits and not compared to the book. No matter what Deckard is/was, it is a fine piece of science fiction that stimulates discussion and thought and that's a good thing. I'll probably end up buying both, why not I have it in Beta, VHS, LD and DVD.
Scott

if that was his intent he would have done it in the earlier DC, right???

I really hate citing things that I read a few years ago without a link, but I tend to do it anyway, so here goes. I could swear that I read where RS said that he had come around to the idea of keeping some of the V.O. after the 1992 DC was released. In that same interview he also said that he was bothered by the fact that some people didn't get that Deckard was a replicant and that he hoped to rectify that with his new cut. This was several years ago, but that's how I remember it.

his Alien recut a few years back was a step back. i'm not getting excited about this at all.

Then I saw the INHD, obviously. Bastards.


Ditto! :mad:

All too often we forget that Blade Runner was not a book, it's a screen play and uses some of the ideas found in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" R.S. had a vision for how Deckard should be played. Ford intended to play Deckard as vulnerable and not a super hero type. The movie must be judged on its own merits and not compared to the book. No matter what Deckard is/was, it is a fine piece of science fiction that stimulates discussion and thought and that's a good thing.


I agree...

And you bring up a good point: we need to stop insisting that film-makers make movies that are mirror images of books.
I can think of 100 reasons why not to clone books onto film...
But, I won't on this thread...lets keep on BR. ;)

Ridley Scott to his films' fans: "Thank you! I appreciate you."

George Lucas to his films' fans: "#*&$ you! Drop dead."

Let's be honest. Ridley Scott's fans aren't anywhere near as pathetic, obssessive, whiny, and abrasive as Lucas' fans are. Any other director that had to put up with what Lucas has had to put up with, would have committed suicide by now.

As for the Blade Runner DVD, great news. I love Blade Runner and I'll will definitely snatch this up.

LOL!

his Alien recut a few years back was a step back. i'm not getting excited about this at all.
First off, why not? Ridley and Warner are giving us EVERY version of the film with the exception of the "workprint" version that has screened in LA every once in awhile. Whatever version you like you can have, and it will be restored and presented in anamorphic widescreen. I would easily spend $50-60 for this set and be happy!

As for Alien:

Selected quotes From "A Director's Cut Redefined" by Ridley Scott

For all intents and purposes I felt that the original cut of ALIEN was perfect.

I still feel that way.

Upon viewing the proposed expanded version of the film, I felt that the cut was simply too long and the pacing completely thrown off. After all, I cut those extra scenes out for a reason back in 1979. However, in the interest of giving the fans a new experience with ALIEN, I figured there had to be an appropriate middle ground. I chose to go in and recut that proposed long version into a more streamlined and polished alternate version of the film. For marketing purposes, this version is being called "The Director's Cut."
So, it's not really a director's cut. Scott allowed them to call it that in order to generate more interest. The theatrical cut is his preferred version but he chose to do a whole new cut to show the fans some of the scenes that had been left on the cutting room floor. I think that's great! The "Director's Cut" label is a bit misleading, but so what if he decided to make another version for the enjoyment of the fans. The final paragraph says:

To film purists everywhere, rest easy. The original 1979 theatrical version isn't going anywhere. It remains my version of choice and is presented fully restored and remastered under my personal supervision alongside the new Director's Cut in this DVD set.

See which version you like best.
I find it striking just how few people ever flipped through the Alien Quadrilogy book to see Ridley's comments about the DC of "Alien."

"Blade Runner," the theatrical cut wasn't what he wanted it to be. The Director's Cut version was rushed and so that wasn't really what he wanted it to be either. This Final Cut will hopefully be his original vision of the film, but we won't know for awhile.

I have BLADE RUNNER in HD and that's thaqt. If a High Def Optical solution of the theatrical and new new DIrector's cut become available, I will buy.

From DigitalBits:

This coming September, there will be a new limited DVD release (HD-DVD & Blu-ray Disc are also planned) of the restored 1992 Director's Cut (you know... the one that isn't really a director's cut). This will be available for just four months. We believe this is basically the 2-disc release that Warner had originally planned to bow LAST year.

First off, why not? Ridley and Warner are giving us EVERY version of the film with the exception of the "workprint" version that has screened in LA every once in awhile. Whatever version you like you can have, and it will be restored and presented in anamorphic widescreen. I would easily spend $50-60 for this set and be happy.
I have BR in HD already and the "narrative" theatrical version on laserdisc... the theatrical version is unwatchable imho. I don't want every version, especially on DVD at this point @ 50-60.

You can tell DVD is slipping when they're breaking out the laserdisc pricing on new sets (even the new star wars dvds are absurdly overpriced).

You can tell DVD is slipping when they're breaking out the laserdisc pricing on new sets (even the new star wars dvds are absurdly overpriced).

The price that I listed is not the price of the set (no price was announced), I was saying what I would be willing to pay for it given all that's included. And we already know that it will be available in BOTH HD formats, or at least that's the plan.

$50-60 for 4 versions of a movie is certainly not LD pricing. Something like that on LD would've been several hundred dollars as it would've required a minimum of 4 double sided discs if it were CLV.

The price that I listed is not the price of the set (no price was announced), I was saying what I would be willing to pay for it given all that's included. And we already know that it will be available in BOTH HD formats, or at least that's the plan.

$50-60 for 4 versions of a movie is certainly not LD pricing. Something like that on LD would've been several hundred dollars as it would've required a minimum of 4 double sided discs if it were CLV.
4 version of the same movie... gimime a break... you're paying $60 for a movie and some extras (that happen to be different versions). shades of laserdisc for sure (i know... i bought them too) especially relative to pressing costs, netflix and $8.99 walls-to-wall dvds at Target and national retailers.

Not so sure why it matters to you what I think the set is worth, it's unlikely to cost that much on DVD anyway. But I could care less about the DVD pricing, as I will be picking up the Blu-Ray version.

I think it's coming out on HD-DVD ;)

I'm curious here - what did folks think of the HDnet broadcast of Blade Runner? I think that can tide me over until 2007 :)

- Steve O.

HDNet version looks very good. The Japanese version with Japanese subtitles is slightly better HD. The HDNet version has blocking artifacts here and there but not bad. Obviously, they both blow away the DVD.

Art

It's about damn time!
Amen. This has been a long time coming, I was beginning to wonder if I'd still be alive by the time this came out.

Amen. This has been a long time coming, I was beginning to wonder if I'd still be alive by the time this came out.


For me, it's gonna be close... :D

Let's be honest. Ridley Scott's fans aren't anywhere near as pathetic, obssessive, whiny, and abrasive as Lucas' fans are. Any other director that had to put up with what Lucas has had to put up with, would have committed suicide by now.

To film purists everywhere, rest easy. The original 1979 theatrical version isn't going anywhere. It remains my version of choice and is presented fully restored and remastered under my personal supervision alongside the new Director's Cut in this DVD set.

See which version you like best.

If Lucas had adopted the same position and tone as Scott, maybe things would be different.

The difference in each director's attitude toward his films and his fans is quite apparent to me.

I think it's coming out on HD-DVD ;)

Actually, it's supposed to be coming out on both formats according to thedigitalbits

You can expect a multi-disc box set (again, likely with a simultaneous HD-DVD and Blu-ray Disc release) that will contain at least four different versions of the film...

Reading some of the complaints on this thread, I'd just like to say: it is a real blessing to have such a liberty as to complain about not enough/too much on DVD releases. We've got it pretty good!

Hey!
This is America: we bitch. :D

Hey!
This is America: we bitch. :D
Dang straight. What good is a right to bitch if you don't use it?? :D :D

It's great to finally see this happen. I've been a long time BR fan (I had my own web site devoted to it at one time found archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20020207122117/www.westwoodsurf.com/la_2019/), and to get this release on DVD and HD-DVD is going to a real treat. The absence of the Workprint is no surprise, since it's almost like watching a completely different film because of the "temporary" music score that plays throughout. The music is out of place making it a little rough to sit through. Die hard fans would love it, though.

I wrote a short review of the WP for the Web site after receiving two copies of it on VHS from a source that cannot be named. Keep in mind that it was written back in early 1999:

The Blade Runner Workprint was originally shown the night of March 5, 1982 at the Continental Theater in Denver & also shown the following evening, March 6, at the Northpark Cinema in Dallas. Audience reaction at the time was mixed, according to Paul M.Sammon's Future Noir. Many had trouble understanding the story, while others were blown away by the special effects. Because of this, several changes were made to the film, with the biggest being the added "voiceover" from Harrison Ford throughout all versions, minus the DC. The BR Workprint does have Ford narrating after Batty dies, with an entirely different dialogue. The other big change was to add the "happy ending" sequence, because the BR Workprint ended at the elevator, which company executives thought was too depressing. What did they know?

After watching the BR Workprint once, I noticed most of the newer footage, which is minimal at best. The biggest thing I noticed was the different music, starting with the scene in Deckard's apartment, while Rachael plays the piano. From here on, the music is completely different. It seemed a little more orchestrated and out of place at times, especially during the rooftop scene at the end. According to Future Noir, it was considered "temp" music. Vangelis hadn't finished his work just yet. All I can say is that they made the right choice in removing it from the final print!

There are all kinds of added scenes throughout the BR Workprint. Some of the added scenes include a longer shot of Holden, after getting shot by Leon; a shot of Deckard's meal at the noodle bar, which shows 2 large shrimp, with noodles and a mound of rice; and a long crane shot of Deckard weaving his way through Animoid Row, after speaking to the Cambodian lady about the snake scale he found in Leon's apartment. The rooftop scene after Batty dies is also different, with a wide master shot of the roof, as Gaff rises up in his spinner. There are also scenes that are missing from the Workprint, all of which are minor.

In conclusion, I think the BR Workprint has enough going for it that it ought to be released to the public. The different music near the end makes this a completely different movie to watch. For the casual BR fan, you're not missing much, but if Warner Bros. decides to release it someday on DVD and/or video, die hard fans will want to get it, as it has a lot of minor differences, of which some are noted in this review. In any event, the BR Workprint will still leave you with the age old question: Is Deckard a replicant?

Thanks Dark, that's interesting. I've never seen the workprint and probably wouldn't seek it out but if it were released officially I would take a look at it. Screenings of it do pop up in LA from time to time though.

From what you've said I can certainly see why Ridley wouldn't want that version included in the set. It sounds very rough.

I'm curious here - what did folks think of the HDnet broadcast of Blade Runner? I think that can tide me over until 2007 :)

- Steve O.

The biggest problem with HDNet's showing is that they only ran it for one period during the month of September, '05. That's it. Why they haven't run it more often is hugely exasperating to me. They show My Fair Lady every month, fercryinoutloud!

My cable company screwed up the 5C copy protection flags for the two HDNets for one month, and it just had to be that month, so I never got it recorded to D-VHS. I've been waiting for HDNM to re-run it, but they don't seem to have any inclination to do so, or perhaps they're prevented by contractural obligations. It sure would be nice though.... just one more time.... :(

The HDNet showing was by far the best looking I've ever seen the film and now that it's finally coming out again I don't feel so bad about losing it when I swap my 942 for a 622.

Dark

Thanks - I've yet to see the work print, but agree that any version without a full Vangelis score would not play well. The music is a very big part of the film's `Feel' for me.

Even though the analog synths used back then will easily hold for a 2 track redo, I hope there's an available multi track audio on something other than 2inch tape for the producers to work with. Any thing that age that didn't get a digital transfer 10 to 12 years ago, would literally be falling off the magnetic bond when it passes the 24 track machine. I've witnessed this myself, and it's a horror for something important.

The foley and score on Alien was right about the same time period, and very difficult to improve on the Quad set.

E

The foley and score on Alien was right about the same time period, and very difficult to improve on the Quad set.


Agreed...The Quad set is a fantastic example of how to present a great franchise on dvd.
Even the wife was amazed at the amount of effort and affection that went into bringing this out.
And the same team will be doing the upcoming BR set! :cool:
A little bit of manna from...

Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven:The Directors Cut" is another well put together DVD set although I wish some of the special features from the first release had been added, the historical timeline being one of them.

BLDE RUNNER was only shown for a short period of time because Warner charges an armload for it. Same thing with THE FIRM (via Paramount). How many times was that shown? 3, maybe? The A titles are pretty much shown a handful of times and that is it.

From DigitalBits:

This coming September, there will be a new limited DVD release (HD-DVD & Blu-ray Disc are also planned) of the restored 1992 Director's Cut (you know... the one that isn't really a director's cut). This will be available for just four months. We believe this is basically the 2-disc release that Warner had originally planned to bow LAST year.

So let me get this straight- they're only going to sell the HD-DVD and BR versionsfor four months...likely before a standard is determined by the market, or a single player comes out (if ever) that supports both. They're forcing purists to buy both copies.

Lame.

So let me get this straight- they're only going to sell the HD-DVD and BR versionsfor four months

No, They're only going to sell the 1992 Director's Cut version alone for 4 months, then next year they will release a deluxe set with 4 versions of the film. Though plans aren't solid yet both versions should be available on DVD, HD-DVD, and BR.

No, They're only going to sell the 1992 Director's Cut version alone for 4 months, then next year they will release a deluxe set with 4 versions of the film. Though plans aren't solid yet both versions should be available on DVD, HD-DVD, and BR.
3 or 4 new versions of this. Ahhh ? Hmm ?

Guess an avid collector could have these along with the VHS,LD,IntVersion,USDC,WorkPrint.....what else?

E

3 or 4 new versions of this. Ahhh ? Hmm ?

Guess an avid collector could have these along with the VHS,LD,IntVersion,USDC,WorkPrint.....what else?

E
An avid collector probably wouldn't bother with VHS for any movie. That format was always worthless.

Not when it was the only version available. :)

Not when it was the only version available.

LD was around before Blade Runner was made. Not sure when the first LD version of it came out, but it was probably around the same time as the VHS copy.

Could be, I didn't think about LD.

IMDB shows the Criterion edition at 1989. It lists another Warner edition but gives no date. Amazon shows a release date of 1982 for the VHS.

OH YEAH :D


The forties coif, tailored dress, ruby red lipstick, smoky noir lighting; the way her heels click on that gleaming floor....... Sizzling, yes. Pity she turned out to be such a loon in real life.

An avid collector probably wouldn't bother with VHS for any movie. That format was always worthless.

Several classics of film and TV are *only* available on VHS or beta. A real film lover will take and enjoy what he can get. Incidentally, a commercially made VHS in good condition can be captured and postprocessed to appear roughly as good as an average satellite digital SD broadcast.

IMDB shows the Criterion edition at 1989. It lists another Warner edition but gives no date. Amazon shows a release date of 1982 for the VHS.

LDDB shows Criterion at 1987 with a Japanese release using the same transfer streeting on 12/15/1987. They show a 1983 LD release as well, probably around the same time as the VHS as I doubt the VHS was released before '83 (despite what amazon might say). Release windows were much longer back then.

Of course, before the Criterion came out a REAL film lover probably would've imported the 1985 Japanese LD to replace their 1983 LD copy :D

Blade Runner LDs (http://japanld.free.fr/search.php?search=blade+runner&sort=title)

Man I have a lot of time on my hands debating 23 year old video releases :D

Weren't there two Criterion versions? I seem to recall reading about a Criterion version with extras included that showed the models of the city used in filming and other information. I have the Criterion cat# CC1169L and there are no extras. I also have the CAV LD# 12682 and it is one minute shorter than the Criterion version.
Scott

Criterion had a CAV version with supplement, and a CLV version.

Of course, before the Criterion came out a REAL film lover probably would've imported the 1985 Japanese LD to replace their 1983 LD copy :D Nah, a real film lover would spend as much time as possible watching movies, in whatever format is available. You are thinking of AV-obsessed collectors :)

Now that I think about it a real film lover probably has a 35mm film print of it ;)

Nah, a REAL film lover would have one of the original origami, purchased at auction, in a glass enclosed nook in his HT. :eek:

Yes, oink, and that origami would be the unicorn, proving that Deckard is a replicant!
I just can't help myself...

Now that I think about it a real film lover probably has a 35mm film print of it ;) No, no, no. That's a reel film lover.

Yes, oink, and that origami would be the unicorn, proving that Deckard is a replicant!
I just can't help myself...


LOL! :D :D

Of course, before the Criterion came out a REAL film lover probably would've imported the 1985 Japanese LD to replace their 1983 LD copy :D

Blade Runner LDs (http://japanld.free.fr/search.php?search=blade+runner&sort=title)

I have all of the NTSC laserdiscs listed on that page.

:D Why am I not surprised Josh? That's an awful lot of Blade Runner LDs :)

Yes, oink, and that origami would be the unicorn, proving that Deckard is a replicant!
I just can't help myself...

UK, you're killin' us here. :p

You know what? I'm almost willing to compromise. Say, the pro-replicant faction can have the Director's Cut with it's added unicorn dream, and us anti-replicant folks can have the theatrical version with my beloved voiceover and the sappy happy ending. ;)

But in the end, I just can't. 'Cause I'm right. :)

At any rate, we all win with this new release that's got 'em both. 'Bout time! Now, the only question will be: Do I buy it in DVD, or wait for the HD version? Aw, who am I kidding? It'll probably be both. :(

Now, the only question will be: Do I buy it in DVD, or wait for the HD version? Aw, who am I kidding? It'll probably be both. :(
There's no question I'll be getting both, or all 3 if it's HD-DVD and BD. Maybe I can auction off my vintage 1996 Warner Home Video Director's Cut DVD to pay for the new ones. :p

Oh ye of too much faith. I predict the date for both new versions will move away as fast as the clock turns, and then any discussion will dwindle away. This scenario has already happened about 14 times, after all. All they ever do is talk about a new DVD, they never release one.

Gary

You know what? I'm almost willing to compromise. Say, the pro-replicant faction can have the Director's Cut with it's added unicorn dream, and us anti-replicant folks can have the theatrical version with my beloved voiceover and the sappy happy ending.

I would say both versions are ambiguous regarding the replicant issue. But I always thought that

Deck was a replicant
even in the theatrical cut.

I would say both versions are ambiguous regarding the replicant issue. But I always thought that

Deck was a replicant
even in the theatrical cut.

Not if you read the book, or if you think about the fact that he had a wife, and had been a member of the police force for 20 years, and feels pain, etc, etc. There's a whole mountain of evidence pointing against it. On the pro side, you've got, uh, the unicorn dream, Scott's supposed endorsement of that theory, and a whole heapin' helpin' of speculation. Me, I always go with the facts. :)

Not if you read the book, or if you think about the fact that he had a wife, and had been a member of the police force for 20 years, and feels pain, etc, etc. There's a whole mountain of evidence pointing against it. On the pro side, you've got, uh, the unicorn dream, Scott's supposed endorsement of that theory, and a whole heapin' helpin' of speculation. Me, I always go with the facts. :)


Yeah, but speculation is fun!

Shouldn't we give RS the artistic license to deviate from the book a bit?
Maybe it's me...I really don't want movies to attempt to be slavish copies of books. ;)

Movies don't have enough time to tell a story as well or with the depth that a book can. :)

Yeah, but speculation is fun!

Shouldn't we give RS the artistic license to deviate from the book a bit?
Maybe it's me...I really don't want movies to attempt to be slavish copies of books. ;)


But that's not the point, oink. Forget the book; the entire movie is full of clues that he's not a replicant. Once again, he was a member of the police force for 20 years, long before the "Nexus 6" class of super-humanistic androids were even created. He had a wife, and gee, you'd think she'd know if her husband were a robot, ya' know? He clearly feels pain and felt plenty of it in the movie (and replicants don't). The list goes on and on.... and that's not even touching the more critical fact that the whole premise of the movie - about one man's personal and moral struggle with killing something that at times seems more human than human (to use Tyrol's words) - completely falls apart if Deckard himself is one of those things. Those who advocate the "pro-replicant" theory completely miss all of this and rely on one thing - the added unicorn dream (in the so-called Director's cut) with all its ambiguity - to justify their position. It's astounding to me that there's even a disagreement with regard to this issue; it shows a profound misunderstanding of the main thrust of the movie.

archiguy, I didn't get that replicants can't feel pain from the movie's storyline. Roy Batty drove a spike through his hand late in the movie for a sort of "adrenaline rush," saying something like, "not yet." He looked like he was really grimacing, and he yelled pretty loudly.

The movie is not the book. It's got its own ambience, its own characterizations, and its own messages. I can accept that PKD's vision is as you have described it before, even as I express confidence in my views about the movie's storyline that differ greatly. It's a fun story, and a superlative sci-fi movie.

archiguy, I didn't get that replicants can't feel pain from the movie's storyline. Roy Batty drove a spike through his hand late in the movie for a sort of "adrenaline rush," saying something like, "not yet." He looked like he was really grimacing, and he yelled pretty loudly.

Yes, that did seem to make Roy flinch a little. But, how about where Pris sticks her hand down in boiling water to grab the egg with no ill effects or pain? Or when whatzhizname sticks his hand down in liquid nitrogen to fish out the cybernetic eyeball, again with no ill effects or pain reaction (and no issue with the room temperature either)? Or when Roy bashes his head through the wall? There may be other such incidences that escape me at the moment. Oh, and Deckard mentions his wife in the theatrical version voiceover (she called him "sushi", cold fish, remember?).

You know UK, when you're this sensible and rational, it makes me re-think my obsession with this movie. The phrase "get a life" comes to mind. :D

But, how about where Pris sticks her hand down in boiling water to grab the egg with no ill effects or pain? Or when whatzhizname sticks his hand down in liquid nitrogen to fish out the cybernetic eyeball, again with no ill effects or pain reaction (and no issue with the room temperature either)? Or when Roy bashes his head through the wall?

That seems simple enough to explain. What if replicants only feel pain when they take damage? If your body was able to bash through things and survive extreme heat and cold, it wouldn't hurt you either. However impaling yourself probably would. I dunno, seems reasonable enough. Generally the reason for an artificial life form to feel "pain" would be self-preservation. Why feel pain when you're in no danger, just because a human would?

More human than human, that's our motto.

archiguy brings up alot of good points...

the "pro-replicant" theory really seems like a tacked on "lets play with the audience" or "the movie tanked so lets generate some new buzz" as it made no sense in the context of the story whatsoever.

archiguy, I didn't get that replicants can't feel pain from the movie's storyline. Roy Batty drove a spike through his hand late in the movie for a sort of "adrenaline rush," saying something like, "not yet." He looked like he was really grimacing, and he yelled pretty loudly.
he was expiring and knew it.

archiguy,


I can't and won't dispute your analysis...well thought out and logical.
However, there is enough ambiguity in this movie to justify competing viewpoints.
Which is right?
Which is wrong?

Dunno...like I said it is fun to kick around. ;)

archiguy brings up alot of good points...

the "pro-replicant" theory really seems like a tacked on "lets play with the audience" or "the movie tanked so lets generate some new buzz" as it made no sense in the context of the story whatsoever.

Bingo. My sentiments exactly.

Not if you read the book,
We're not talking about the book, we're talking about the movie. BTW, the title of the movie is NOT "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".

or if you think about the fact that he had a wife, and had been a member of the police force for 20 years, and feels pain, etc, etc.
Did you ever SEE Deck's wife? Did you see Deck work on the force for 20 years? Those could easily have been implanted memories. You seem to be dismissing Rachael entirely. She had implanted memories and thought she wasn't a replicant, but she was. As for pain, that could easily be a matter of programming. You wouldn't want a worker replicant to feel pain, it would hamper their work. But Tyrell was interested in other things (as evidenced by Rachael). Deck could easily have been another of his experiments.

There's a whole mountain of evidence pointing against it. On the pro side, you've got, uh, the unicorn dream, Scott's supposed endorsement of that theory, and a whole heapin' helpin' of speculation. Me, I always go with the facts.
Don't forget the glowing eyes. I haven't seen one "fact" that you presented that couldn't be explained to support the opposing theory. That's actually one of the things I like about the movie is that there is enough ambiguity to support either conclusion. And as far as "facts" go, I would say the word of the director is pretty strong, though I was not happy that he decided to come out and say what he did about the matter.

We're not talking about the book, we're talking about the movie. BTW, the title of the movie is NOT "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".

Gee, thanks for clearing that up. I believe I said, "forget the book", there's plenty of evidence in the movie itself. :rolleyes:

Did you ever SEE Deck's wife? Did you see Deck work on the force for 20 years? Those could easily have been implanted memories.

No, but his colleagues (Gaff, Brian, and all the other cops in the precinct) surely did. Or, maybe they're all replicants too! See how silly this gets?

The fact of the matter is that he may not have been a replicant and then RS said he was and so he is. Whatever floats your boat. By the way, I don't know if this is true, but I was told he wasn't a real person so he could be whatever RS says he is (or isn't) who would know for sure. Certainly not the author of the short story-he is dead---or is he:)

Oh yea, one other thing replicant/human sex sounds cool, but replicant/replicant sex sounds boring :D

Yes, Philip K Dick passed away in 1982, the same year Blade Runner came out. He didn't get much recognition for his work until after he died.

And no, Dick was not a replicant. :p

And no, Dick was not a replicant. :p


Oh yeah?
Where is your evidence?


My wife sometimes accuses me of being a replicant...after sex. :p

No, but his colleagues (Gaff, Brian, and all the other cops in the precinct) surely did. Or, maybe they're all replicants too! See how silly this gets?
Yes, I do think your assertion is silly. But there are other explanations. Look at how Brian and Gaff treat Deck. They always seem to keep their distance from him. That could be explained by his retirement (no pun intended) or by the possibility of them knowing that he's a replicant. Brian may have sent him to hunt down those replicants because he was expendable (again, either because he was retired or because he was a replicant).

I believe I said, "forget the book", there's plenty of evidence in the movie itself. :rolleyes:
Yeah, you said that to someone else, but you still believe that is "evidence" that Deckard is not a replicant. My comment wasn't meant to be snide (unlike yours I gather from your emoticon), it was meant to point out that the movie was not meant to be exactly like the book.

Yes, I do think your assertion is silly. But there are other explanations. Look at how Brian and Gaff treat Deck. They always seem to keep their distance from him. That could be explained by his retirement (no pun intended) or by the possibility of them knowing that he's a replicant. Brian may have sent him to hunt down those replicants because he was expendable (again, either because he was retired or because he was a replicant).

Oh, come on; you're reaching for anything now. There's not a shred of evidence to support that; you're just wildly speculating. You can rationalize all you want, but there's just no definitive evidence to support your position and plenty (which I have patiently documented) to support mine. As I said above, I can't believe there's even a debate about this. :rolleyes:

Oh yeah?
Where is your evidence?


My wife sometimes accuses me of being a replicant after sex. :p
Can replicants have children? Dick had three. :)

Oh, come on; you're reaching for anything now. There's not a shred of evidence to support that; you're just wildly speculating. You can rationalize all you want, but there's just no definitive evidence to support your position and plenty (which I have patiently documented) to support mine. As I said above, I can't believe there's even a debate about this.

If your best argument is "oh, come on" I think it's best to leave it at that. I don't see anything "definitive" on either side of the argument, which is why I've always said that I love the ambiguity of the film. Arguments can be made on both sides but neither is "definitive". But to deny the possibility after the director of the film has come out and stated that as his intention is just silly.

But to deny the possibility after the director of the film has come out and stated that as his intention is just silly.

The problem is that he only claimed that his intention was for Deckard to be a replicant nearly a decade after the film's release, long after the replicant theory had become a popular subject of debate among the film's cult following. And he has no evidence to support his claim that the replicant reading was his original intention--you'd think he'd have told someone, anyone, during production or the years immediately following release. Nope. The screenwriter was never informed that Deckard is a replicant. The actor playing Deckard was never informed, not even after wrapping the film--even if the director hadn't mentioned it during principal filming so as not to affect the acting choices, you'd think he'd mention it at some point to someone in cast or crew. Or to the public, at some point before his years-belated pronouncement.

This is circumstantial evidence that the director's endorsement of the replicant theory is a product of hindsight, not original intent.

oohh. I can't wait. I will have to add to my library. hope my kids like it more than Pokemon the movie.

Just took a look at today's NEW DVD RELEASE!

Yeah, Baby.... :cool:

First of all, I must say the video quality has risen from the infamous category to the acceptable category IMO. :)
For one thing, it is framed correctly at 2.48:1.
The contrast and gamma has improved markedly...much greater depth...Hooray!
I did see some EE, although it wasn't extremely distracting.
The film source still deserves a full restoration IMO...there is still flecks, divots, etc.
Although, again, it is improved.
Some video noise or grain is still there; with the new found clarity I was able to overlook it to a large extent.
One thing is certain with the video: it can be improved.

The serious bummer on this release is the audio.
This is NOT 5.1...it is 2 channel DD.
And it is unbelievable FLAT, considering the technology available.
It is just plain crummy IMO...no sense of soundstage, no sense of any "air" around the sound.
The audio engineer needs to be stripped and flayed. :mad:

IIRC, someone told me a super-duper 3 disker will be out in the 1st quarter.
And, if I'm not mistaken, a Hi-Rez Video Disk is also on the way...
This release will do until then, but just barely. ;)

Thanks so much onik.
My fav film!
I see the R4 version is out soon at a low price.
But any news about a DVD/HD DVD release in Japan?
Be interesting to see what they do.

Thanks

Just took a look at today's NEW DVD RELEASE!

Yeah, Baby.... :cool:

First of all, I must say the video quality has risen from the infamous category to the acceptable category IMO. :)

I agree. It's still not perfect, but a lot better than the original release. The FX shots are still pretty grainy, but better than before. The interior shots are very clean, especially in the vehicles. This film is always going to be dark, drab, and grainy; it's a Ridley Scott film!

AFAIK, the sound isn't 2.0, but 4.1. At least that's what my receiver shows. It's better than before, but still not reference quality.

Overall, it looks pretty good for an early '80s movie. For $15 it'll tide me over until the HD DVD comes along. Actually, I saved a few bucks; I sold my original copy to EB Games.

The HD showing on HDNet Movies and INHD last year was spectacular (although INHD cropped it; shame on them). So, the HD-DVD version will likewise look top notch. I'll wait for that one; I don't need another SD version of this film.

Are you sure it's 4.1? Others have been saying it's the same 2.0 as before...

I noticed sound from L/R and Center speakers only.
My receiver indicated that it wasn't 5.1.

Regardless, the sound sucks big donkey dongs...

The new release was always billed as being DD 2.0 folks....NOT 5.1!! At least it is in anamorphic widescreen unlike Lucasses Hoariligy!!

Just took a look at today's NEW DVD RELEASE!

Yeah, Baby.... :cool:

First of all, I must say the video quality has risen from the infamous category to the acceptable category IMO. :)
For one thing, it is framed correctly at 2.48:1.
The contrast and gamma has improved markedly...much greater depth...Hooray!
I did see some EE, although it wasn't extremely distracting.
The film source still deserves a full restoration IMO...there is still flecks, divots, etc.
Although, again, it is improved.
Some video noise or grain is still there; with the new found clarity I was able to overlook it to a large extent.
One thing is certain with the video: it can be improved.

The serious bummer on this release is the audio.
This is NOT 5.1...it is 2 channel DD.
And it is unbelievable FLAT, considering the technology available.
It is just plain crummy IMO...no sense of soundstage, no sense of any "air" around the sound.
The audio engineer needs to be stripped and flayed. :mad:

IIRC, someone told me a super-duper 3 disker will be out in the 1st quarter.
And, if I'm not mistaken, a Hi-Rez Video Disk is also on the way...
This release will do until then, but just barely. ;)


Agree - the Video is perhaps a tease of what will come, and the audio is perhaps less that before, if not a little different from an obvious Q pass of some sort. The score suffers from this, I think.

If nothing else, the film looks to be in the type of condition that will allow Charles D to really do a master work with frame by frame treatment (and we all know he can) so good.

I hope there's a multi track of the score with some fidelity laying around some where. We need it!

E

This is good to hear!

I always wonder why there hasn't been any spinoff movie themes from the original Blade Runner movie. Like where's the movie about the "attack ships off the coast of Orion"? I think that would make a very cool movie with replicant soldiers and everything. Then there could have been the movie about the early versions of replicants who were displaying emergent properties. ...or is it these ideas actually already exist in books that never made it to movie stage?

Just read this whole thread. I love this movie, but will wait for the ultimate release. I get so amused by the endless and ridiculous speculation about Deckard's status. archiguy, your logic is impecable, I've decided you've won the argument. It's final...no more opinions are allowed.

DECKARD IS HUMAN...WAS BORN HUMAN...HAD REPLICANT SEX (ONCE OR TWICE), but that's it.

I know all of you in the other camp are disappointed, but that's that...final decision...end of discussion.

Mr H. try Screamers (1995) from Philip K. Dick's short story Second Variety
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114367/

Picked up the remastered DVD of Blade Runner last night. Quick view looks decent, but not stunning. I'm glad to have at least a watchable copy now.

Ron Temple, thanks for sharing your conclusion on the Deckard issue; unfortunately, the facts contradict your opinion.

Ron Temple, thanks for sharing your conclusion on the Deckard issue; unfortunately, the facts contradict your opinion.

Nope, the facts support his (and my) position. Go back and re-read the posts I made laying out that position and please tell me how Deckard's wife would not have realized he's a replicant, as well as his fellow cops going back many years, to name just two instances. You might also want to read Sergei's post #112 which lays out the truth as to the Director's belated comment that forms the backbone of the "pro-replicant" argument. And finally, you just might want to read the book upon which the movie was based. As Ron says, correctly, end of story. It's ridiculous to have to keep discussing this. Denial, as they say, is a river in Egypt. :rolleyes:

For gawds sake don't start this all up again.

Anyway, you're all wrong. Deckard is an alien.

Nope, the facts support his (and my) position. Go back and re-read the posts I made laying out that position and please tell me how Deckard's wife would not have realized he's a replicant, as well as his fellow cops going back many years, to name just two instances.

I'm firmly in the camp that believes Deckard is human, but you're really begging for someone to point out that those memories could have been implanted like Rachael's memory of the spider.

I'm firmly in the camp that believes Deckard is human, but you're really begging for someone to point out that those memories could have been implanted like Rachael's memory of the spider.

No, that doesn't wash either. Brian (the squad captain) tells us that Deckard has been a cop for many years, and a good one. And his fellow cops presumably would also have met his wife at some point over the years, perhaps at a squad barbeque. Cops tend to hang with other cops. ;)

No, that doesn't wash either. Brian (the squad captain) tells us that Deckard has been a cop for many years, and a good one. And his fellow cops presumably would also have met his wife at some point over the years, perhaps

Unless they're all replicants too, a notion that's hinted at in the original novella (which ultimately portrays Deckard as strictly human).

"The fire that burns twice as bright burns half as long" Are some replicants born w/o an expiration date? Essentially how is Dekert able to live as long as he has?

"The fire that burns twice as bright burns half as long" Are some replicants born w/o an expiration date? Essentially how is Dekert able to live as long as he has?

According to Tyrel, only Rachel had that feature. Another good argument for the "anti-replicant" faction. :)

Mr H. try Screamers (1995) from Philip K. Dick's short story Second Variety
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114367/

I vaguely recall that movie. Thanks for the link.


As for the replicant controversy, if Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't it be clear by now to everybody who knew him that he had superhuman strength? It just seemed that throughout the whole movie he seemed to be skilled at getting his butt kicked by most everybody. :p That would not sound like someone who has "replicant strength" at their disposal.

I vaguely recall that movie. Thanks for the link.


As for the replicant controversy, if Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't it be clear by now to everybody who knew him that he had superhuman strength?
Different model.

C'mon, even the pleasure model was amazingly strong (was that Hannah's character, or maybe she was the assassin model?). ...and how about Deckards human like sensitivity to pain? He didn't seem to be able to turn-on/shut-off pain, at will, like a replicant would.

You're all wrong, WE ARE ALL REPLICANTS.

Actually, this is a no win argument and it will never be resolved. The red eye trait has got to be a red (no pun intended) herring. If a red eye was that obvious you wouldn't need the Void Comp machine, just kill off every one with a red pupil. Although RS has stated Deckard was a replicant I fall into the group that feels he was human. Either way, I love the movie, have seen it hundreds of times and can't wait for the HD version.

Scott

I vaguely recall that movie. Thanks for the link.


As for the replicant controversy, if Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't it be clear by now to everybody who knew him that he had superhuman strength? It just seemed that throughout the whole movie he seemed to be skilled at getting his butt kicked by most everybody. :p That would not sound like someone who has "replicant strength" at their disposal.
Well, if he is programmed to believe he is human he would believe he only has narmal human strength. Even if he could lift a car over his head he would be programmed to fail in an attempt.

But he's really human. That oragami unicorn reffered to Rachel, not him.

"The fire that burns twice as bright burns half as long" Are some replicants born w/o an expiration date? Essentially how is Dekert able to live as long as he has?
Deckard is an experiment; nothing more. "More human than human" is our motto at Tyrell Corporation. Having given him the safety-net of implanted memories, we felt the need for a four-year lifespan was superfluous. His favorite implant is the unicorn in the forest; we shared that one with Bryant and Gaff--they thought it was priceless!

That oragami unicorn reffered to Rachel, not him.
I've never seen that theory before. It's interesting, but I reject it. Rachel's implants were from Tyrell's neice, and Deckard was the one who had the unicorn dream.

Our musing is fun, but for the sake of the movie, there is actually no debate: the director declared Deckard is a replicant, and made his movie to reflect that story. If it contradicts PKD, so be it. Deckard could be human in the book.

Well, it all revolves on how much literal meaning you place in the dream. Who's to say that even for Deckard the unicorn in the dream wasn't a symbol/foreshadowing of his relationship with Rachel, a replicant, not a reference to his own nature??

"The fire that burns twice as bright burns half as long" Are some replicants born w/o an expiration date? Essentially how is Dekert able to live as long as he has?

How do we know how long he's been alive?

Our musing is fun, but for the sake of the movie, there is actually no debate: the director declared Deckard is a replicant, and made his movie to reflect that story.

As has been pointed out before, Scott decided that Deckard was a Replicant after the movie was completed.

If Deckard is a long-life replicant with implanted memories, then that would imply he (like Rachael) is a recent model from Tyrell, no? They would have to have come after the standard replicants that "needed" a finite retirement, or what was the point of Tyrell Corp making all these "flakey" replicants when they already knew the solution of the embedded memories preventing replicants from going flakey?

So that implies a necessarily short timeline for people to have known Deckard. Yet, it is already known in the movie that Deckard has long established relations with other characters in the movie (fellow detectives). These aren't just implied memories. They are ongoing relationships that began long ago. Surely, all of Deckard's colleagues cannot be in on a facade just for his own sake. That would be implausibly elaborate for just somebody who's role in life is some joe-schmoe bounty hunter. So that leads me to believe the relationships are genuine and really did occur over a large timespan going further back than the inception of any potential new model/long-life replicants from Tyrell.

I think Wikipedia says it best:

The question of whether Deckard is intended to be a human or a replicant has been an ongoing controversy since the film's release. Ridley Scott, after remaining coy for twenty years, stated in 2002 that Deckard is a replicant. Hampton Fancher and Harrison Ford, however, have both stated that Deckard is human. The rough consensus of the debate is that in the original version of the film Deckard is probably human, whereas the Director's Cut deliberately hints that he may be another replicant. Specifically, the Director's Cut includes a short sequence in which Deckard dreams about a unicorn. This sequence alters the significance of the origami unicorn that Gaff leaves in Deckard's apartment, suggesting to the viewer (and to Deckard) that Gaff knows about Deckard's dream in the same manner that Deckard knows about Rachael's implanted memories. An answer to Deckard's nature is not given – as such it provides additional layers of ambiguity to the film's questions about humanity and reality.

I think that in the movie(s) Deckard is whatever you want him to be; it's always been vague and always will be. But FWIW, in Dick's original novel Deckard is definitely human.

The whole plot of Blade Runner is much more interesting if it is ambiguous whether Deckard is a replicant or not.

I think discussing the merits of whether he is or isn't are entertaining, but I don't really see the need to firmly establish it one way or another.

Next up...were the "Rebel Scum" in Star Wars really "rebels" or "scum" or just a bunch of meddling hippies??? :p Would they be Democrats or Republicans in our world? :D Is there really a "good guy" amongst the Republic, the Separatists, the New Empire, and the Rebels? :eek: I'm still confused to this day?

Strangely, I'd managed to never really see this movie until earlier in this year (I'd seen little bits of it in some cases.) I'd heard so much about it and everyone considers it such a classic. But I just didn't find it that great for whatever reason. It was an interesting story and whatnot, but it just never clicked for me. Dunno why. Maybe it was trying too hard to be futuristic or something. I didn't think it sucked or anything, it just didn't seem to measure up to what I'd heard all those years before seeing it. Sean Young was certainly looking seriously good back in the day, so that was nice.

Strangely, I'd managed to never really see this movie until earlier in this year (I'd seen little bits of it in some cases.) I'd heard so much about it and everyone considers it such a classic. But I just didn't find it that great for whatever reason. It was an interesting story and whatnot, but it just never clicked for me. Dunno why. Maybe it was trying too hard to be futuristic or something. I didn't think it sucked or anything, it just didn't seem to measure up to what I'd heard all those years before seeing it. Sean Young was certainly looking seriously good back in the day, so that was nice.
At the time it was released it was quite different from the standard scifi flick. It portrayed a future that was much less "ideal" as those shown in most other films up to that point. It was a gritty "realistic" look at a near-future Los Angeles that wasn't very pretty, or appealing. It was more "real" than say a Star Trek or Star Wars take on the future, it was Philip K Dick and his interpretation of the future instead of Lucas and Roddenberry.

Scott decided that Deckard was a Replicant after the movie was completed.
Josh, is there some interview that substantiates this info? I know when Ridley said it, but it seems to me that if he had come to this conclusion later then we wouldn't have the shots of Deckard's glowing eyes that we only see with replicants in the film. Even if it's true that Scott decided this later I would have to think that he believes what is presented in the movie substantiates that point of view.

I personally prefer the ambiguity of the film, and find it laughable that some other people still refuse to believe in the possibilities and instead choose to try and discredit the words of the film's director :D . I guess some only see what they want to see :p

I personally prefer the ambiguity of the film, and find it laughable that some other people still refuse to believe in the possibilities and instead choose to try and discredit the words of the film's director

I also greatly prefer the ambiguity of the film. I'm less trying to discredit the words of the director than to point out that his words are merely his interpretation of the material. He has his, and I have mine. Scott being the director makes his opinion more vocal, but as with many great works of art that take on a life of their own, the artist is not necessarily the final authority on its interpretation.

I'm less trying to discredit the words of the director than to point out that his words are merely his interpretation of the material.
I wasn't referring to you, you clearly have an opinion on the issue, but at least are willing to say that there are valid points on both sides. I was just wondering if Scott had actually said that he decided that after the film was finished. I also agree that Scott's view is not the end all be all of the issue and that the film has a life of its own, I would've preferred if he had kept silent about the whole thing and let the ambiguity stand.

I have to agree with you guys...this may be an argument for the ages.
And it sure is fun. :)

Alright, Alright! I'm not about to read back through all the posts, somebody tell me
is Blade Runner going to re-released back into theatres or is it just going straight to DVD? If yes (the movie gets released into theatres), when? If not, when will the DVD's release occur. Or, is the studio just jerking our chains again. :mad:

BTW, dvdbeaver.com has a comparo of the new disk.

Huh huh huh uh uh uhuhu huh uhhhh huh huh huh
"beaver"

Huh huh huh uh uh uhuhu huh uhhhh huh huh huh
"beaver"



WAAAAAAAAAAYY TOO MUCH DRUGS. ;)

Ridley Scott directed the MOVIE!

He said Deckard is a REPLICANT!!

You have every right to disagree but you are incorrect because the creator of the movie revealed the TRUTH!

The book is moot in the discussion because we are talking about the MOVIE!

Just because you WANT Deckard to be Human doesn't mean it is so!

Maybe he should rename the movie Deckard: The Replicant Bladerunner

even then some would say it wasn't so...he was human and Ridley is LYING!!!

END OF DISCUSSION

I once heard Ridley Scott say that, in actuality, everyone in the movie is a replicant! He just never told anyone this on the set because he wanted them to "act human" and not be influenced by his novel interpretation of the novel. But years later, he finally revealed the TRUTH. That sly rascal.

We're the Replicants, the people in the movie are real.

We're the Replicants, the people in the movie are real.

So THAT is what's wrong with me!! :eek:
And all this time I thought it was JUST me!!! :D

Ridley Scott directed the MOVIE!

He said Deckard is a REPLICANT!!

You have every right to disagree but you are incorrect because the creator of the movie revealed the TRUTH!

Yeah, and according to George Lucas, director of Star Wars, Greedo was always meant to shoot first.

Directors can be a**holes sometimes too. They are no more infallible than you or I.

Ridley Scott directed the MOVIE!

He said Deckard is a REPLICANT!!

You have every right to disagree but you are incorrect because the creator of the movie revealed the TRUTH!

Well, Harrison Ford played Deckard and IIRC he said Deckard was human. One could argue that he is much more the author of the actual performance than the director, so his word would be cannon. The point is there is no Gospel truth about this even among people who helped make the film. Ridley himself did not always say that Deckard was a replicant.

Anyway, you're all still wrong and Deckard is still an alien. :p

Infallible? Meaning he got his entire movie wrong? His revelation that Deckard is a replicant proves Ridley is fallible!?!?

nice try, next!

again nice try but the director TRUMPS his player's performances in explaining what he created (if he so chooses)...some perhaps most directors deliberately keep their true meanings of their films to themselves to allow free interpretation of the art.

It would not be canon coming from Harrison Ford...a term which literally means"from the hand of God" in this case the director Ridley Scott is God.

It's his baby, his vision, you don't like it too bad!

"Well, Harrison Ford played Deckard and IIRC he said Deckard was human. One could argue that he is much more the author of the actual performance than the director, so his word would be cannon. The point is there is no Gospel truth about this even among people who helped make the film. Ridley himself did not always say that Deckard was a replicant."

So THAT is what's wrong with me!! :eek:
And all this time I thought it was JUST me!!! :D
Yes, it took years of therapy, but I finally came to understand that I'm the one in the movies and the people on the screens and in the boxes are the real ones. Quite traumatic.

"Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
'Scuse me while I kiss the sky"

Jimi Hendrix 1967

This controversy is one of the few in cinema where I find myself being persuaded back and forth endlessly.

For me at least, the MOVIE works best with an ambiguous ending or a twisty ending with Decker being a replicant. :cool:
But that is just me....YMMV. ;)

Harrison Ford...a term which literally means"from the hand of God" in this case the director Ridley Scott is God.

It's his baby, his vision, you don't like it too bad!
"

Did it ever occur to you that Ridley was lying just as a test to weed out the stupid people?? AFAIK God does that all the time. :D :D

Did it ever occur to you that Ridley was lying just as a test to weed out the stupid people??

^ :D Now, that makes a great deal of sense.

Yes, it took years of therapy, but I finally came to understand that I'm the one in the movies and the people on the screens and in the boxes are the real ones. Quite traumatic.

"Purple haze all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
'Scuse me while I kiss the sky"

Jimi Hendrix 1967



LOL!!!

Did I ever tell you about the time way back in 71(?) when I went to see Ten Years After and Procul Harum in Phoenix with 2 hits of Orange Sunshine and I... :D

Did it ever occur to you that Ridley was lying just as a test to weed out the stupid people?? AFAIK God does that all the time.


EVERYONE out there: take a look at Fred's Homepage!

Check out his tunes...Seriously Cool! :)

EVERYONE out there: take a look at Fred's Homepage!

Check out his tunes...Seriously Cool! :)
Well, gawsh.. :o :o :p :D Thanks! if anyone's interested, you can go here as well:

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pageartist.cfm?bandID=415270

OK, enough of that!! Back on topic...

I don't really care what Ridley Scott says, the film is a work of art and as such, it can, and should be interpreted as many different ways as there are people who have seen it.

Is the Mona Lisa smiling, or not....?

And of course no one mentions the original question: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? i just saw a unicorn, in one version.

Yes but when the ARTIST tells you what it means then all bets are off i'm afraid so your statement is incorrect.

To eliminate what he says because you don't wish to interpret his vision as being correct is certainly your perogative but again must be judged as faulty on your part.

To ignore what the creator of the movie says because you don't like the outcome is both short sighted and unfair to the artist.

at least you are not saying Ridley is Lying....but you just don't like the answer so you you will pretend he never said anything

I don't really care what Ridley Scott says, the film is a work of art and as such, it can, and should be interpreted as many different ways as there are people who have seen it.

Is the Mona Lisa smiling, or not....?

Yes but when the ARTIST tells you what it means then all bets are off i'm afraid so your statement is incorrect.

To eliminate what he says because you don't wish to interpret his vision as being correct is certainly your perogative but again must be judged as faulty on your part.

To ignore what the creator of the movie says because you don't like the outcome is both short sighted and unfair to the artist.

at least you are not saying Ridley is Lying....but you just don't like the answer so you you will pretend he never said anything

So according to this logic we can end the whole Star Wars debate about which are the better representation of the movies. All those in the other thread will be happy to hear that "mkultra" says there is no debate. Lucas's latest and greatest is the final say and there is no argument because he is the artist.

Yes but when the ARTIST tells you what it means then all bets are off i'm afraid so your statement is incorrect.

To eliminate what he says because you don't wish to interpret his vision as being correct is certainly your perogative but again must be judged as faulty on your part.

To ignore what the creator of the movie says because you don't like the outcome is both short sighted and unfair to the artist.

at least you are not saying Ridley is Lying....but you just don't like the answer so you you will pretend he never said anything
You need to re-read what I wrote. I never said I agreed or disagreed with Scott, only that once he put his art out for the public to consume, view, experience...whatever the artwork itself does for a particular individual is up to that individual's interpretation and their level of enjoyment that goes along with that interpretation. Also consider that the interpretation can change over time, the very fact that there is more than one version of this film in existence shows that the director himself has had different realizations of his own artwork.

So again, it doesn't matter to me what Scott says beyond my personal interest in the views of others. Of course, his views carry a lot of weight as he created the art, but ultimately, my enjoyment of the art is driven by my own particular interpretation of it, and if you asked Scott himself, he probably wouldn't want it any other way.

Yes but when the ARTIST tells you what it means then all bets are off i'm afraid so your statement is incorrect.

If you believe that, you don't have much understanding of art.

The book is moot in the discussion because we are talking about the MOVIE!

It would not be canon coming from Harrison Ford...a term which literally means"from the hand of God" in this case the director Ridley Scott is God. It's his baby, his vision, you don't like it too bad!

Well, you can't have it both ways.

The movie is Scott's interpretation of the book -- the original art. Dick is the uber-god here and his word is the ultimate "canon". And in the word according to Dick, Deckard is definitely human. Scott decided to interpret this differently. And If Scott can interpret Dick, surely Ford (or I or anyone else) can interpret Scott?

Yes but when the ARTIST tells you what it means then all bets are off i'm afraid so your statement is incorrect.

To eliminate what he says because you don't wish to interpret his vision as being correct is certainly your perogative but again must be judged as faulty on your part.

To ignore what the creator of the movie says because you don't like the outcome is both short sighted and unfair to the artist.

at least you are not saying Ridley is Lying....but you just don't like the answer so you you will pretend he never said anything
http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/mystyk/pancake%20bunny.jpg

Fred,


Thank you for starting my day with off by forcing me back to reality.

That is a classic...exactly what I would expect from my evil twin. :D

http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/mystyk/pancake%20bunny.jpg
Now, in this example here, instead of seeing a bunny with a pancake on it's head which is how the artwork is titled, I see a pancake that happens to have a bunny underneath it. :)

There is no debate to the meaning of star wars only Lucasses bastardization of the original exhibition....some people like the Original Voiceover version of Bladerunner better with the happy ending than the director's cut....but that doesn't mean he wasn't a replicant in the original either

art is interpreted yes but when the artist tells you the main character is a REPLICANT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATEMENT!!!

There is no debate to the meaning of star wars only Lucasses bastardization of the original exhibition....some people like the Original Voiceover version of Bladerunner better with the happy ending than the director's cut....but that doesn't mean he wasn't a replicant in the original either

art is interpreted yes but when the artist tells you the main character is a REPLICANT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION OF THAT STATEMENT!!!

That Scott later stated Deckard was a replicant is factual, he said it. No one is trying to change the interpretation of the statement itself. What people are freely interpreting is the artistic source. That you believe that the statement defines the source is only your opinion (not a fact). Obviously, others here do not share your opinion in this regard.

Now, in this example here, instead of seeing a bunny with a pancake on it's head which is how the artwork is titled, I see a pancake that happens to have a bunny underneath it. :)


I disagree...I see a hare with a hat.

The rabbit is clearly a replicant. A real rabbit would have eaten the pancake. But, of course, we don't know whether the rabbit is real or not until the picture-taker comes out and tells us. According to mk's fractured & tortured reasoning, that's the only way to be sure.

It was ambigious in the movies....that's why it was open to interpretation UNTIL THE ARTIST TOLD YOU HE WAS A REPLICANT!

Blame Ridley Scott not me....I for one thought it was more fun when it was up in the air....which is perhaps why so many are clinging to those days and that Bladerunner

all this yelling i'm getting hoarse....christos

On 2nd thought....I think we may not be dealing with a bunnie wabbit at all.

The hat suspiciously reminds of the hat of my old buddy: Cap'n Kangaroo! :eek:

If that is the case, we are dealing with not a rodent, but a marsupial!
Damn the Aussies! :D

The rabbit is clearly a replicant. A real rabbit would have eaten the pancake. But, of course, we don't know whether the rabbit is real or not until the picture-taker comes out and tells us. According to mk's fractured & tortured reasoning, that's the only way to be sure.
That "rabbit" in fact, looks like a guinea pig to me...

That "rabbit" in fact, looks like a guinea pig to me...

That's the beauty of that picture: its ambiguity. Some see a bunny-wabbit, some see a guinea pig, some see a real animal, some see a replicant, some see a pancake with a little extra protein attached. Dagnabit, I just wish we had the picture-taker to tell us what his artistic vision was so we'd know for sure!

It was ambigious in the movies....that's why it was open to interpretation UNTIL THE ARTIST TOLD YOU HE WAS A REPLICANT!

Blame Ridley Scott not me....I for one thought it was more fun when it was up in the air....which is perhaps why so many are clinging to those days and that Bladerunner

all this yelling i'm getting hoarse....christos
You're missing the bigger picture here, you're talking about an apple and I'm talking about the whole tree. As noted in another post, the very film itself is Scott's interpretation of a book, yet you're saying that the viewers of that film are not allowed to do the same, have their own interpretation of the film, that the creative and "living" process of art stops cold with whatever Scott says. That's just wrong. It must be very bland living in such a black and white, on and off, 0's and 1's type of world.

It took Scott what, 10-15 years to make that remark? What are you going to do if he later changes his mind in another few years, which would be completely within his right, and is the essence of art enjoyment?

It is what it is, however many ways people interpret it, they are all right for that individual, there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation.

That's the beauty of that picture: its ambiguity. Some see a bunny-wabbit, some see a guinea pig, some see a real animal, some see a replicant, some see a pancake with a little extra protein attached. Dagnabit, I just wish we had the picture-taker to tell us what his artistic vision was so we'd know for sure!
Indeed, then we wouldn't have to imagine, dream, consider, ponder, reflect on, or all the other things people do when enjoying art. Who needs to waste all that time and energy, just tell me so I don't have to think about it. :rolleyes:

People are absolutely allowed to believe that Deckard is human...they are just in error

People are absolutely allowed to believe that Deckard is human...they are just in error
In your opinion, in your interpretation, others have different views and they are no more right or wrong than you are.

except that the DIRECTOR OF THE FREEKING FILM SAID SO.....THAT MAKES IT SO.

If deckard was listed as REPLICANT DETECTIVE --- HARRISON FORD in the end credits would you still argue?

If his arm was torn off and it were machine?

He is most assuredly a Replicant....the director said so......If Scott said he was human then he was human!!

bleeeehhhhhh

If Scott came out and said he was just having a little fun with fans with too much time on their hands, would you believe it? Because that's very likely what he was doing.

One more time: all the evidence in the movie supports a human Deckard. I and others have painstakingly pointed all of this out. There is a bit of ambiguity with the unicorn dream and a red-eye shot (that's not repeated again, not to mention the fact that none of the other replicants have red eyes - that's a non-starter) that might support a contradictory opinion if one ignored the mountain of evidence on the other side. Personally, I don't care what Scott said 10 years after the fact; his movie says something entirely different and that's the only thing that counts. When you get over your obsession, you'll understand.

That is probably the most untrue statement yet....wrong sir! wrong!

Just because you wish something to be true doesn't mean all the evidence supports it...quite the contrary my dear replicant.

"One more time: all the evidence in the movie supports a human Deckard"


I'm glad you found your laughing place!

"When you get over your obsession, you'll understand."

except that the DIRECTOR OF THE FREEKING FILM SAID SO.....THAT MAKES IT SO.

If deckard was listed as REPLICANT DETECTIVE --- HARRISON FORD in the end credits would you still argue?

If his arm was torn off and it were machine?

He is most assuredly a Replicant....the director said so......If Scott said he was human then he was human!!

bleeeehhhhhh

If the movie itself made a decisive statement as to whether Deckard was a replicant or human then there would be no argument. The fact that there are two movies helps support the two different interpretations. You keep mixing fact with artistic interpretation.

A fact relies on reality and truth. It is a fact that Scott made the statement that Deckard is a replicant. However, the story itself is not factual, it is fiction and relies on individual interpretation. We can all interpret it however we want and it has nothing to do with what Scott said.

If the movie was based on reality then there would be one and only one truth. But again it is fiction and each interpretation stands on its own and is above reproach. Yours, mine, and Ridley Scott's.

Since you guys seem to revere P K Dick above all else: let's forget the movie entirely

If Philip K Dick himself got dug up and resurected by a vodoo priestess and he said "Gee thanks I have to clear up one thing, Deckard was a Replicant"

Is that his interpretation???????

According to you YES!!! He's whatever you want him to be! Make a Wish!!!

Dick's book is very clear; Deckard is a human. That's why it's so silly to argue otherwise for the movie. The whole premise of the story completely falls apart if Deckard is a replicant. It's a human story, with a human protagonist who has/had a wife, breaks bones, feels pain, and doesn't have a 4 year life span.

You did not answer the hypothetical question (I wonder why? ed):

if PKD said he was a Replicant would that only be his interpretation of his own work and you are free as the reader to interpret however you like?

you don't have to diss him just because he wasn't Nexus 6!

"doesn't have a 4 year life span"

Is there anyone here that feels film is not art?
If you feel it isn't, go to the next post.

Art is assessed thru interpretation, not absolutes.

This reminds me of the many instances 200 years ago of people asking Beethoven what his music actually meant.
The historical accounts almost always recorded that he would get extremely pissed at such questions.
His response: it is what it is.
But this was the beginning of the Romantic Era in literature and people were always wanting words to describe aesthetics.
Of course, music uses sounds not words to convey meaning, rendering the question circular.

Art is what interpretation communicates, thru emotions, to the soul.
And each of us is unique.

of course it's art!

but sigh, RIDLEY SCOTT (THE CREATOR OF THE MOVIE) CHOSE TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HIS WORK (unlike your deaf Beethoven).

this makes your argument irrelevent to the proceedings counselor.

HE IS A REPLICANT AD INFINITUM!

You are not reading these posts closely...we are talking about the concept of art and you are not.

We need to go get a beer... I'll buy.;)

of course it's art!

but sigh, RIDLEY SCOTT (THE CREATOR OF THE MOVIE) CHOSE TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF HIS WORK (unlike your deaf Beethoven).

this makes your argument irrelevent to the proceedings counselor.

HE IS A REPLICANT AD INFINITUM!

You don't get it. The movie is what it is to each individual. If some agree with my interpretation, fine, if others choose not to fine. That is where the fun of debate comes in to play. Neither is right or wrong.

I don't care what Scott or PDK say. If they want a certain interpretation to be understood by all then they need the story to be unambiguous, but if they leave it ambiguous then they have to expect different interpretations.

There is NO TRUTH of the work. It is fiction and has no basis in truth. I will bet that 99% of the movies people watch do not include a narrative by the artist saying "this is what I meant, here is the point." Instead we interepret it for ourselves and come up with our own conclusions and that is what it means to us. Just because Scott spoke out on what his intentions were does not mean he succeeded in getting his point across or that others have to abide by it. For me, if I have to adopt the Deckard is a replicant belief then the story does not work. However, the human concept allows me to enjoy it and watch it over again. Therefore, I choose that belief and I'm not wrong in doing so.

You are not reading these posts closely...we are talking about the concept of art and you are not.

We need to go get a beer... I'll buy.;)
I agree.

mkultra, slow down and read carefully, you are still missing the point, you need to make the leap above the incidentals of the film itself and whatever Scott said. If you believe he was a Replicant because Scott said so, that's fine, it's your interpretation, and nobody here is going to disrespect that.

What you are trying to do though is "replace" what others think with your "ultimate truth", something that doesn't even exist, and I'm not even going to go into all that that entails.

You did not answer the hypothetical question (I wonder why? ed):

if PKD said he was a Replicant would that only be his interpretation of his own work and you are free as the reader to interpret however you like?
Yes, absolutely.

For me, if I have to adopt the Deckard is a replicant belief then the story does not work. However, the human concept allows me to enjoy it and watch it over again. Therefore, I choose that belief and I'm not wrong in doing so.

I concur 100%. The story just falls apart if Deckard isn't human, and that's the most persuasive point of all.

The rabbit is clearly a replicant. A real rabbit would have eaten the pancake. But, of course, we don't know whether the rabbit is real or not until the picture-taker comes out and tells us. According to mk's fractured & tortured reasoning, that's the only way to be sure.Freddie took too much creative license. In the original Bunny Wars, there was no pancake. Oh, sorry--I meant Bunny Runner. And it's not a replicant, it's a clone.

Freddie took too much creative license. In the original Bunny Wars, there was no pancake. Oh, sorry--I meant Bunny Runner. And it's not a replicant, it's a clone.

Well, you know, that's your opinion.


;)

:rolleyes:

How do you ID this is the "latest" DVD. I was just in Virgin records, it was $12 it did say directors cut... i purcahse the last latest ~3yr. ago so i didn't purchase this one. How much better/ differenct is it?

How do you ID this is the "latest" DVD. I was just in Virgin records, it was $12 it did say directors cut... i purcahse the last latest ~3yr. ago so i didn't purchase this one. How much better/ differenct is it?
UPC code--012569 837799

The back of the case will say Digitally Remastered at the top.

I haven't watched it yet to see how it compares with my 1996 release but it's supposed to look better. At the DVDBeaver site listed above though, it appears the earlier release has more detail, I noticed it when comparing the shots of Tyrell they have posted, his shirt seems to have more detail, although comparing image quality on a website is questionable at best..

Fred,


Thank you for starting my day with off by forcing me back to reality.

That is a classic...exactly what I would expect from my evil twin. :D
I will NEVER get tired of Pancake Bunny :D :D

Is the definative SE version in 2007 gonna be in 5.1? I hope!!

[...some blather...]

Have you considered that Ridley Scott might be insane?? :D

Don't know about Scott's sanity but, when the film first was released reviews were rather grim. One reviewer went so far as to write that Scott couldn't direct a film even if he had written directions.

As for the pancake bunny, it has to be a replicant, PKD wrote in DADOES that the nuclear wars had irradicated all animal life except humans. That fact is missing in Scott's movie but he kept bringing animals into the plot without explaining the relevance. Like Rachael's owl and the snakes and the ostriches on the street screen.

Now that I've started a whole new area for debate I think I'll go to my room.

Scott

I will NEVER get tired of Pancake Bunny :D :D
How about Space Cat?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/spacecat.jpg

or Sniper Kitty,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v637/keenanj/funny_cats_8.jpg

Don't know about Scott's sanity but, when the film first was released reviews were rather grim. One reviewer went so far as to write that Scott couldn't direct a film even if he had written directions.

As for the pancake bunny, it has to be a replicant, PKD wrote in DADOES that the nuclear wars had irradicated all animal life except humans. That fact is missing in Scott's movie but he kept bringing animals into the plot without explaining the relevance. Like Rachael's owl and the snakes and the ostriches on the street screen.

Now that I've started a whole new area for debate I think I'll go to my room.

Scott
Good points about the animals. There was more than just a passing reference in the book...hmmm...maybe it was just Scott's interpretation.??? :p

Is the definative SE version in 2007 gonna be in 5.1? I hope!!


THEN the discussion about Decker will be settled...or maybe not... ;)

IIRC, there will be 2 editions coming out.
Edition 1 (first qtr.) = Theatrical, director's, and international cuts
Edition 2 (later in the year) = "Final Cut"

I concur 100%. The story just falls apart if Deckard isn't human, and that's the most persuasive point of all.

I agree strongly, as well. If this was a story of a replicant developing an empathetic understanding of a replicant, then the story isn't nearly as strong as a human developing an emphathetic understanding of a replicant. In a sense, it is an allegory of man overcoming a type of racism.

Don't forget a replicant developing an empathic understanding of a human!!

I agree strongly, as well. If this was a story of a replicant developing an empathetic understanding of a replicant, then the story isn't nearly as strong as a human developing an emphathetic understanding of a replicant. In a sense, it is an allegory of man overcoming a type of racism.
But isn't racism a focusing on differentiating characteristics which obscures the essential commonality? So that a replicant, identifying as human and discriminating against replicants, has been blinded to the unimaginable commonality?

One might argue that the allegory becomes even more powerful if there is in fact NO replicant/human dichotomy which may allow the continuing sense of distinction, i.e., if Deckard is a replicant, then whatever uncrossable gulf he has fabricated is ONLY a construct of his corrupted consciousness -- the ultimate revelation of the repentant racist -- all ACTUAL barriers of characteristic or type erased, ill-will is exposed as the tortured internal machination (possibly 'machine-ation'?) of a broken psyche which ultimately harbors only SELF-loathing.

Yet another take, but in general I favor maintaining the ambiguity.

As for the pancake bunny, it has to be a replicant, PKD wrote in DADOES that the nuclear wars had irradicated all animal life except humans. That fact is missing in Scott's movie but he kept bringing animals into the plot without explaining the relevance. Like Rachael's owl and the snakes and the ostriches on the street screen.


Actually, there are a couple of references to the lack of real animals in 'Blade Runner'. When the owl flies across the room when Deckard first meets Rachel, he asks her if it's artificial and she replies "Of course". That line probably went over the heads of those who hadn't read the book. And the snake later on was obviously artificial as well. But that whole series of references from DADOES was otherwise pretty much ignored as they never specifically mention the big animal die-off that was such a key plot driver in the novel.

Archguy,

True, Rachel replies to Deckard when asked if the owl is artificial, "of course it is". But there is no reason to see this as anything but another exercise into replicants by the Tyrell corporation. As for the snake scene when asked if the snake is real Zora replies "of course it's not real, ya think I'd be working in a place like this if I could afford a real snake?" We understand that the animals are artificial but no reason is given for them, and the viewer is left to figure out for themselves why they were even in the movie. However, the owl did have the red eye effect and it was very much played upon when Tyrell was killed by Roy.

Scott

Have you considered that Ridley Scott might be insane?? :D

Or -gasp- a replicant? :D

so by the logic of you heathens....the character in any movie is whatever THE VIEWER believes he is regardless of what the director says...

IT IS FACT HE WAS A REPLICANT

THIS IS IRRELEVENT TO WHATEVER IS PRESENTED IN THE MOVIE

THE DIRECTOR SAID SO

Imagine all the movies you can change just by wishing or believing something!!!

The possibilities are endless!!!!!!!

It is quite hilarious watching you guys sidestep this issue by saying "I don't care what the Grand Architect of the Movie we are arguing about says!"

We understand that the animals are artificial but no reason is given for them, and the viewer is left to figure out for themselves why they were even in the movie. However, the owl did have the red eye effect and it was very much played upon when Tyrell was killed by Roy.


True, and I thought that was a glaring omission. I know that all the big themes in a book often can't be transferred to a movie adaptation because of time constraints, but considering the lack of other living creatures with which to share the world was such a powerful motivating factor for Deckard as well as for all the remaining humans on the planet, it seemed odd to completely ignore it in the movie except for the couple of throw-away lines we've just discussed. Certainly, the original theatrical voice-over version could have mentioned it, but it was just ignored. It was a major theme in the book and seemed to be sacrificed in the pursuit of the more dramatic plot lines of the movie.

Good points Archiguy. Perhaps the fact that Deckard's wife had become uncertain of his sanity when he insisted that the little turtle was real when she could see the manufacturer's name on its bottom played a part in the movie not fleshing out the plot line along those lines. Real or replicant I just hope a really great print can be found to master the hi def version before I kick the bucket.

Oh, and real or replicant Rachael can stay with me anytime.

Scott

Scott, the HD version of the Director's Cut shown briefly (and I do mean briefly) on HDNet Movies and INHD this time last year was stellar in it's quality. I envy those with D-VHS rigs and functioning firewire ports in their STB's that got this archived (5C problems prevented me from getting it taped). This bodes well for the inevitable HD-DVD release.

if PKD said he was a Replicant would that only be his interpretation of his own work and you are free as the reader to interpret however you like?

Give it a rest. You're hopelessly lost in this argument.

In the PKD novella, it is explicitly spelled out that Deckard is human. There is no ambiguity on this point. Therefore, there's little interpretation that needs to be done (on this point, at least).

In the movie Blade Runner, it was left deliberately ambiguous as to whether Deckard is human or Replicant. It is not explained in the work itself conclusively. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to come to their own conclusion. What Ridley Scott says about the matter outside of the movie itself is his opinion, but not necessarily a definitive answer. If Ridley Scott had wanted every viewer to come to the same conclusion he did, he would have spelled it out in the movie without ambiguity. The fact that he left it ambiguous means that it's up to the viewer to decide.

That's the way art works. Do you really not get that?

Give it a rest. You're hopelessly lost in this argument.

In the PKD novella, it is explicitly spelled out that Deckard is human. There is no ambiguity on this point. Therefore, there's little interpretation that needs to be done (on this point, at least).

In the movie Blade Runner, it was left deliberately ambiguous as to whether Deckard is human or Replicant. It is not explained in the work itself conclusively. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to come to their own conclusion. What Ridley Scott says about the matter outside of the movie itself is his opinion, but not necessarily a definitive answer. If Ridley Scott had wanted every viewer to come to the same conclusion he did, he would have spelled it out in the movie without ambiguity. The fact that he left it ambiguous means that it's up to the viewer to decide.

That's the way art works. Do you really not get that?

While completely logical to most of us, he obviously does not get it.

I'm going to try this one more time, then I give up.

Here is an analogy:

If I paint a canvas WHITE but tell you it is BLACK, are you going to believe me or what you interpret the color to be with your own mind and eyes? This is an unambiguous scenario and hopefully you will go with your own instincts. The same is true for an ambiguous situation such as: I paint a canvas a shade of gray and tell you it is a dark shade. Depending on the color of the wall behind it (dark or light) and your own interpretation of gray shading you might agree or disagree with me. That is your right and you are not wrong in that belief. It is the same with any art form that can be interpreted. Acording to the logic you have been expressing so far you would have to accept my statement as fact and ignore your own viewpoint.

Scott had two hours of a movie to convince us of his intent. One statement made afterwards can not undo the interpretations we made. Especially, with two cuts of the movie. Obviously, as Josh stated, he meant it to be ambiguous and left it up to the viewers to decide their own interpretation.

The issue of Deckard being a replicant or not is obviously not a black or white issue. You cannot look at Deckard and determine if he is a replicant or not, smithb.
The movie is ambiguous in that regard.

However the director chose to reveal the truth ie THE KEY to the movie for better or worse. You are incorrect and will be so forever more amen ra.

Just because you guys choose to ignore Ridley Scott because you don't like what he said is both appalling and utterly hilarious.

You guys really think you know more than Ridley about HIS OWN F"N MOVIE!?!?!!?? I choose to believe him rather than you.

His opinion TRUMPS yours.

Get Over IT.

You LOST

His opinion TRUMPS yours.

Get Over IT.

You LOST

How old are you?

I too believe the movie provides plenty of clues that Deckard was a replicant. To me it's obvious. I accept that to others the opposite is obvious. I'm glad for this ambiguity because it makes BR all the more interesting.

What's with all haughty dismissals of differing opinions? :rolleyes:
(This last statement isn't directed at anyone in particular.)

I'm however old YOU believe I am because even if I tell you you will formulate what you believe is the correct answer.

Because to you the Viewer's opinion matters most not the creator's

To quote a professor in a literary theory class, "The true meaning of a work of art is unknown, even to its creator."

Since the 19th century, art has tried to inspire controversy-- from Manet's Olympia to Duchamp's Fountain to Lictenstein's Whaam! to Antonioni's Blowup to Blade Runner.

The great thread in Dick's work(s) that Scott expanded and turned into the central question of the work is 'what is human?'. Can it be the Replicant who only wants to live? Is it the obstensibly human Blade Runner who needs to kill?

In other words, it's a question sans answer-- the question is the answer.

In the movie Blade Runner, it was left deliberately ambiguous as to whether Deckard is human or Replicant. It is not explained in the work itself conclusively. Therefore, it is up to the viewer to come to their own conclusion. What Ridley Scott says about the matter outside of the movie itself is his opinion, but not necessarily a definitive answer. If Ridley Scott had wanted every viewer to come to the same conclusion he did, he would have spelled it out in the movie without ambiguity. The fact that he left it ambiguous means that it's up to the viewer to decide.

That's the way art works.
Nicely stated, Josh Z. It had occurred to me that the Director's Cut (sans voice over) was an attempt to render the issue less ambiguous, i.e., insofar as the voice-over represents internal monologue, this might be said to signify his self-aware consciousness and, as such, a prima facia case for his (Deckard's) humanity. But it just as easily I suppose could be that Scott just found the noir tone disagreeable, or any other from among a hundred probable causations for excision.

In any event, virtually anything/everything in a film is open to interpretation -- even if explicit evidence is provided, one can always question the authenticity of a given direction. One can generally interpret words to mean anything -- a geo-politics professor of mine had us study Mao's LITTLE RED BOOK. He seemed impressed. I pointed out that with any compendium of general aphorisms, that out of context they could be used to "prove" anything. He challenged me via treatise to prove that Mao was advocating a Capitalist doctrine, which given the ambiguity and amorphous character of the quotations out of context, was not hard to do.

Also, the artist himself is RARELY to be trusted to identify what his art "means." The British "existential expressionist" painter Francis Bacon was once asked what statement he was making about intravenous drug use with his inclusion of hypodermic needles in the arms of his portrait subjects. He chose to offer up some silliness of having nothing whatsoever to do with drug use, but he was looking for a pictorial element to anchor the image at a given position in space (which just coincidentally turned out to be a needle in an arm).....alright, whatever.

For myself, a work of art is always what it is, and signifies what I decide -- artist be damned. Not to say I have NO interest in the artist's "illuminations," just that they carry little more weight than anyone elses POV.

Because to you the Viewer's opinion matters most not the creator's

Except of course that Phillip K Dick is the creator, Ridley Scott is just a viewer sharing his interpretation of the creator's work. :)

The issue of Deckard being a replicant or not is obviously not a black or white issue. You cannot look at Deckard and determine if he is a replicant or not, smithb.
The movie is ambiguous in that regard.

However the director chose to reveal the truth ie THE KEY to the movie for better or worse. You are incorrect and will be so forever more amen ra.

Just because you guys choose to ignore Ridley Scott because you don't like what he said is both appalling and utterly hilarious.

You guys really think you know more than Ridley about HIS OWN F"N MOVIE!?!?!!?? I choose to believe him rather than you.

His opinion TRUMPS yours.

Get Over IT.

You LOST

Let's forget the fact that you only responded to the unambiguous aspect of my analogy and completed disregarded the gray area ambiguous scenario.

I'm anxious to see your response to Emaych and GreySkies discussion points on art interpretation.

Also, lets see if we can get over the "Get Over IT, You LOST" responses. Nobody hear is buying into your argument.

I don't see any point in debating it with him anymore. He simply is not getting it. Hopefully, sometime in his future, a light will "turn on" and he'll say, "Oh, that's what they were trying to tell me, now I understand".

He needs to step outside that black and white box he's in and then maybe he'll see the colors, and finally get it.

For those with more than a superficial interest, I discovered the following point/counterpoint approach to this most central of all questions. But as to the even larger issue of art evoking passionate responses, I will venture that the very ambiguity of this work is what helps keep it living and vital -- something which continues to speak to us. One reason I generally favor greater vs. less ambiguity in art -- even to the extent of a Mulholland Drive -- I mean, even identifying the issues there can be challenging, and it certainly is not for everyone, but perhaps all great art casts to us a challenge.

Here is one man's compilation of pro/con (not exhaustive, I'm certain):



Is Deckard a Replicant?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Deckard a Replicant?

This question causes the most debate among 'Blade Runner' fans. The different versions of 'Blade Runner' support this notion to differing degrees. One might argue that in the 1982 theatrical release, Deckard is not a replicant but in 'Blade Runner Dirctors Cut', he is. This is mainly due to the addition of the 'Unicorn dream'.

In the book 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' Decker is human. He takes the Voight-Kampff test and passes it, because he is not totally sure himself.

In the film it is less clear. Ridley Scott wanted to make it deliberately ambiguous. Ridley Scott himself has stated that although he made it appear either way, he also intentionally introduced enough evidence to support the notion, and (as far as he is concerned), Deckard is a replicant.

Ford and Ridley argued on set over whether the audience should be told that Deckard was a replicant. It could be that this very ambiguity, and the questions that it raises that is at the heart of the film's enduring popularity.

There is no definitive answer, but I've collected together all the various clues from different sources:

The case FOR

- Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I new it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, and places a unicorn origami outside his room, therefore Gaff knew what dreams that Deckard had been implanted with. (Blade Runner Directors Cut only)

- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of them are recent or in colour. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his flat.

- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here."

- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.

- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.

- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he is washing the blood out of his mouth in his bathroom, and when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't go after her, "but someone would". Deckard is standing behind Rachael, and he's out of focus.

- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it. Some speculate that Deckard might have been part of Roy's off-world rebellion, but was captured by the police and used to hunt down the others. In that case, Bryant is including Deckard among the five escaped replicants.

- When Batty saves him from falling off the building he lifts him up by the arm saying "kinship!" implying that Deckard is a replicant just like Roy Batty and Batty knows this.

- Inspector Bryant calls Deckard out of retirement, saying that the Nexus-6 replicants are too dangerous, and that Deckard is the only one who can handle them.
Bryant: I need ya, Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic. I need the best.

- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants, particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work. Of course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing to hunt down other replicants.

- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real BR, and that Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.

- Rachael tearfully asks Deckard if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself. Deckard does not respond.

The case AGAINST

- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.

- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in Blade Runner Directors Cut was a result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.

- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police trust Deckard?

- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell.

- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife.

- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work?

- Deckard was not a replicant in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, although he has another Blade Runner test him at one point just to be sure. All the bounty hunters in the book question whether they are Replicants themselves.

- Ridley Scott said that the Replicants eyes did not really glow, it was simply a 'cinematic technique', so if it is not an important characteristic of a Replicant, it isn't important that Deckards eyes glow either.

So it seems Ridley had decided during SHOOTING that Deckard was a replicant!

thanks for the tremendous quote Emaych....everyone else will try to ignore it

Harrison Ford "Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

and...The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I new it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

I don't see any point in debating it with him anymore. He simply is not getting it.

Even Ridley Scott would be embarrassed to watch this kid is "defend" him.

kid? Do you mean the bumbling Mr. Kid hitman from Diamonds are Forever ?

I'm not the one who is cranky! I'm a senior!

So it seems Ridley had decided during SHOOTING that Deckard was a replicant!

thanks for the tremendous quote Emaych....everyone else will try to ignore it

Harrison Ford "Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

and...The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I new it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

mkultra, you just don't get it. It has nothing to do with trying to prove whether Deckard is human but all about freedom of artistic interpretation and that there is no one right or any wrong viewpoint. While I don't concede to your logic, I'm giving up trying to explain it anymore.

One or two interesting things to note about the for/against presentation above, is that the author DOES cite uppermost that the Director himself intended Deckard to be a replicant. While finding it a curious footnote to the production, I might place the significance of Director objective at or toward the bottom (if ranking were the goal, and I'm not sure it was here).

Perhaps it does not belong on the list at all (probably does not, as persuasion, but in the author's defense, he was attempting a brief debate overview so compiled all the arguments he could find, historical and otherwise). For me, far more persuasive is what indications we have in the work itself -- Director intention may never reach fuition if he has failed to deliver, or included (perhaps inadvertantly) sufficient contra-indications, or perhaps he is not even telling us the truth about his intentions. We must rely upon the work itself to speak to us.

Another item I found noteworthy above: the glowing eyes were just a "cinematic technique," to Scott, not indicative of anything one way or another -- also just a tidbit of fascinating trivia, but in my view should not substantially color what you, as viewer, decide it means. I'm not even sure I quite understand that one myself -- if Scott was indiscriminant about distributing eye-glow, what was the point of it as "cinematic technique"? This seems to go to my earlier point about not being able to trust the artist themselves to know what they have created, much less be inclined to be honest about it, in their public proclamations.


mkultra:
I do perfectly understand that you are trying to get at what the artist intends through his work. MANY favor that perspective -- and for you that is what a given work signifies and stands for. I would stand altogether in support of that orientation, in fact it is one of the things I look at in evaluating the success of a particular piece. Yours is one interpretive POV and as such is every bit as valid as the next guy's.

That is where there seems to be a breakdown -- I would argue any other person has the same right to assess the film according to the dictates of their unique appreciation. I would even go so far as to champion the Director thinking whatever suits him about its "meaning" (though I might fault him, as Ford seems to have faulted Scott, for being too explicit, literal or publically declaring his POV).

The Director IS in a unique role inasmuch as what he says might have the effect of squelching interpretations which would add depth of understanding, maybe even to the human experience, so in general I think should avoid very literal pronouncements, but, there again, that may be just me.

Anyway, just know your insight is welcome here, and the equal of anyone elses opinion.

I heard that quote of Harrison Ford before and interestingly it was interpreted as Ford wanting Deckard to be human not a replicant. If you re-read it you should be able to see how it can be interpreted that way too. That is the way I originally interpreted his comments.

Well, not only is Deckard a replicant, but Batty is Human.

I saw a few brief moments of a chopped-up version of BR this summer (on SciFi?), after not having seen it for nearly 18 years. I so badly want to jump into this debate, but I cannot remember much of the movie (I'm really not that old). I have decided I will only watch it start-to-finish again when it's re-released in HD.