AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Edition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Edition - Page 5

post #121 of 151
12/7/12 at 12:28pm
I never got around to buying the 2007 set so I picked this one up at Target the other day (had a gift card). Man, it took me several nights just to watch all the extras! It's also cool to have the work print, although I'm probably mostly going to watch the Final Cut version.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #122 of 151
12/7/12 at 1:34pm
Thread Starter 
Work print blade runner is best blade runner
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 151
12/7/12 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Work print blade runner is best blade runner

Ummm... NO.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 151
12/11/12 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Work print blade runner is best blade runner

Assuming you're being serious, why do you think its the best?

Its actually the only version I have yet to watch.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 151
12/11/12 at 9:23am
Thread Starter 
It was his original, non focus tester meddled, or 20 years later revisionist version.
It's blade runner in is purest distilled form.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 151
12/11/12 at 12:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

It was his original, non focus tester meddled, or 20 years later revisionist version.
It's blade runner in is purest distilled form.

I have whiplash from the bent logic.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 151
12/11/12 at 12:40pm
Yeah, if it's an early cut then it's more of a raw, untried version. Is it purer? Maybe. But distilled? Absolutely not. And moaning about the "revisionist" Final Cut which actually includes a fair few beats from the workprint ("father", girls in hockey masks etc) seems churlish.

Thank Christ we were given the choice of all these cuts on home video. It really was a dream come true.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 151
12/11/12 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Thank Christ we were given the choice of all these cuts on home video. It really was a dream come true.

Yeah too bad some other movie makers, like the one with the name George Lucas, can't take a page out of Ridley Scott's book and do the same.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 151
12/11/12 at 1:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Yeah, if it's an early cut then it's more of a raw, untried version. Is it purer? Maybe. But distilled? Absolutely not. And moaning about the "revisionist" Final Cut which actually includes a fair few beats from the workprint ("father", girls in hockey masks etc) seems churlish.
Thank Christ we were given the choice of all these cuts on home video. It really was a dream come true.

It was revised and called final, and is not revisionist?
Right...
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 151
12/12/12 at 5:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

It was revised and called final, and is not revisionist?
Right...

Whatever gets you through the night.

Meanwhile, as far as the workprint goes, you do realize, I trust, that workprints are called workprints because they are not finished- it's a way of indicating that there will be a finalized version later, but that this one is not it. So, you can draw the line where ever you like about any editing decision being "revisionism" versus being "a revision" original to the post-production process (which is just a giant series of revisions), but the workprint is the only version that specifically tells you, "this is not what is intended".
Edited by spectator - 12/12/12 at 6:01am
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 151
12/12/12 at 8:16am
This is all I really need to know. It's Ridley Scott's film and the only version of his film that I will watch is the version that is truly his own.

Regarding the final cut version:
Quote:
This is the only version over which Ridley Scott had complete artistic control, as he was not directly in charge of the Director's Cut.

Edited by HD-Master - 12/12/12 at 9:53am
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 151
12/12/12 at 1:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Whatever gets you through the night.
Meanwhile, as far as the workprint goes, you do realize, I trust, that workprints are called workprints because they are not finished- it's a way of indicating that there will be a finalized version later, but that this one is not it. So, you can draw the line where ever you like about any editing decision being "revisionism" versus being "a revision" original to the post-production process (which is just a giant series of revisions), but the workprint is the only version that specifically tells you, "this is not what is intended".

The correct definition of revisionist gets me through every night thanks and I sleep soundly.
I have read the making of Blade Runner and I know what the workprint is was and will always be thanks.
And Once again stating a choice gets the bullsh#t teams out trying to tell you that your personal choice is wrong, grow up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pc3TYIIpOZM#t=123s
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 151
12/12/12 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

And Once again stating a choice gets the bullsh#t teams out trying to tell you that your personal choice is wrong, grow up.

No, I'm not calling your choice wrong; I'm calling your description of that choice inaccurate.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 151
12/12/12 at 9:16pm
The FC is far and away the best version. The narration in the others is embarrassing. I bought the re-release, but the FC is all you will ever need.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 151
12/13/12 at 2:20am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

No, I'm not calling your choice wrong; I'm calling your description of that choice inaccurate.

How so? the workprint was his final cut before the tests changed it, that would be the reason the Final cut has the same beats in places.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 151
12/13/12 at 6:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

How so? the workprint was his final cut before the tests changed it, that would be the reason the Final cut has the same beats in places.

That would be the tests that he was fully on-board with and used as a tool for the very purpose of... changing the cut.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 151
12/13/12 at 6:58am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

That would be the tests that he was fully on-board with and used as a tool for the very purpose of... changing the cut.


Only to change it back because he disliked the changes, seriously someone with a Blade Runner avatar should know a lot more about blade runner.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 151
12/13/12 at 8:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Only to change it back because he disliked the changes, seriously someone with a Blade Runner avatar should know a lot more about blade runner.

I'll pretend that I didn't hear that challenge to my Blade Runner knowledge.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 151
12/13/12 at 8:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post

why the **** would you not release this in the highest bitrate possible is beyond all comprehension

They just wanted to be able to use the same compression pass for Blu-ray and HD DVD. As with other aspects of this release, they went cheap at the last hurdle.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 151
12/13/12 at 8:33am
I see that but it would not have taken much more effort to do something nice for this one. Oh well. I rent a lot of stuff these days.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 151
12/13/12 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos View Post

I see that but it would not have taken much more effort to do something nice for this one.

Indeed. The set is great, but it would be very easy and inexpensive to make it even better.
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 151
12/13/12 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncourt View Post

The FC is far and away the best version. The narration in the others is embarrassing. I bought the re-release, but the FC is all you will ever need.

Some people prefer Deckard's narration in the theatrical edition, apart from the narration after Roy's death which really spoils the moment. I am one of them. I feel it plays well with the noir style of the film.

Also, the Final Cut has certain scenes with horrible black crush in them that the other versions do not.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 151
12/13/12 at 11:50am
Condescending remarks removed.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 151
12/13/12 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor|WAR View Post

Some people prefer Deckard's narration in the theatrical edition, apart from the narration after Roy's death which really spoils the moment. I am one of them. I feel it plays well with the noir style of the film.
Also, the Final Cut has certain scenes with horrible black crush in them that the other versions do not.

The narration could have been a fantastic element. the way it's actually used is one of those epic SMH moments in the history of American film.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 151
12/14/12 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

They just wanted to be able to use the same compression pass for Blu-ray and HD DVD. As with other aspects of this release, they went cheap at the last hurdle.
"They went cheap... " only with the video, audio, & features. rolleyes.gif
JJ
From the posts I've read, it seems this is equal in AQ/VQ for the films too the previous release, correct?
BIG thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 151
12/14/12 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Dude,
How many 50GB discs were released in '07???

It can't be denied that at least some blus were released on SL 25gb because of HD-DVD's DL capacity limits. To max out blu's 50gb and hddvd's 30, you would need separate encodes. If you wanted a single encode for both formats, you'd have to limit yourself to 30gb of space for both (or 25gb to avoid a second blu layer that only got you 5gb more encode space).
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 151
12/15/12 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

It can't be denied that at least some blus were released on SL 25gb because of HD-DVD's DL capacity limits. To max out blu's 50gb and hddvd's 30, you would need separate encodes. If you wanted a single encode for both formats, you'd have to limit yourself to 30gb of space for both (or 25gb to avoid a second blu layer that only got you 5gb more encode space).

IIRC Warners did do separate MPEG2 and VC1 encodes for some titles (Training Day?), only they kept the BD version at a single layer anyway. Still, I'll never buy into the 'BD50s were rare as hen's teeth' party line, as Warners have proved time and again how astonishingly tight fisted they are. They can commission as many extra features as they like and run the sound through a DTS-HD encoder, but sticking with the same aged video encodes is cheapness, pure and simple.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 151
12/15/12 at 3:29pm
Thread Starter 
It was not just Warner with the 50's the yield rates were pants and that made them super expensive
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 151
12/24/12 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

From the posts I've read, it seems this is equal in AQ/VQ for the films too the previous release, correct?
BIG thanks.
Anyone???
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 151
12/24/12 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Anyone???

Yes, with the exception of the workprint, which has lossless audio in this release and previously did not.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Edition