christoph404

I think the point about Blade Runner is that it existed in a different form to the theatrical release to begin with and that form was a cut by the director Ridley Scott which included a dream sequence ( dreamt by Deckard) of a unicorn running through a forest(in slow motion of course as is the convention for dream sequences!!) and hence the significane of the silver foil origami unicorn left for him to find near the end,suggesting his dreams and memories have been implanted like the other replicants. There is no boring voiceover and there is no tacked on happy ending. The DVD titled "the original version" or "Directors Cut" is how the director Scott intended the film to be and so is correctly called "The Directors Cut" So Im not sure what you mean when you say the directors cut has not been released yet, Im guessing there is going to be a further version where Ridley Scott himself has personnaly supervised a fine tune re-edit of the film but the previous release is also the directors cut because even though he may not have personnaly sat with the editor looking into a moviola editing machine, that version at least had an original template that was constructed by Scott and along with production and script notes etc it would be straight forward for the studio to reconstruct Scotts original vision. At any rate whatever new version arrives I cant imagine a big difference and certainly no change at all to the basic premise of the whole story and as we all know there is a huge difference in the premise for the theatrical version. As I said in a previous thread they are two different films in my opinion and I certainly prefer the Ridley Scott version!

christoph404

One more piece of trivia about Blade Runner, (then I will belt up about it!!) that tacked on ending of Deckards car speeding through the mountains is the same peice of film used at the beginning of Kubricks the "Shining" showing Jack Nicholson driving to the Overlook Hotel, and its a Volkswagon Beetle I believe! I mean, that shows just what acheap afterthought that sequence was

Aaryk Noctivagus

That is the case with virtually any movie you care to name. They tend to be called 'Assembly Cuts'. They tend to last around twice as long as the finished movie and are paced roughly. From that is typically fashioned a 'Rough Cut' which is closer to how the movie will be released. Then the 'Fine Cut'. Also the 'Work Print' (if to be shown to preview audiences at a test screening). Then 'Picture Lock' or 'Locked Edit'.

Every movie exists in 'a different form', in fact many different forms before their theatrical release version. And this isn't even taking into account the studio preocupation with test audiences which result in further, sometimes huge changes and cuts before a movie's theatrical release.

No, that is NOT in reality what a Director's cut is, but is a common misconception. Usually a Director's Cut is when the Director is able to return to his movie, free of usual constraints, to re-evaluate how the movie is edited and runs. Often elements of the Assembly Cut find their way into the new cut... also often alternative takes which were not initially chosen for the Assembly Cut by the Editor. Occasionally new material is produced for the Director's Cut.

If the Director is not available (usually because of death), a Director's notes and whatever material he left behind can be used... but that is called 'Restoration' or 'Restored Edition' as in the quite recent release of 'Touch of Evil'.

Moviola - lol. No they would have probably used an AVID these days. In the case of the so-called current 'Director's Cut' of 'Blade Runner'. The 'Director's Cut' DVD currently available is actually the second cut to be advertised as a 'Director's Cut'... it was made because Ridley Scott publically disowned what the studio released for some screenings as the 'Director's Cut' (which was only a work print). You would have been happy to call that a 'Director's Cut' because it was a work Print... but the Director himself was not at all happy about it.

The studio hired a Film Restoration expert to produce what is currently on DVD and called the 'Director's Cut'... Its really a 'Restored Cut'. Ridley Scott was happier with it, but was not completely satisfied... and STRICTLY-speaking it isn't a 'Director's Cut' but in fact a Restoration according to what notes could be gathered by the Restorer.

But that would not be a true 'Director's Cut', because the Director was not given the opportunity to oversee it. Its not just a question of notes... otherwise the Director could wash his hands of a project in Post Production... which does not happen unless there are severe problems where he walks off the set in frustration like in 'Alien 3'. Notes do not replace Directorial input in ANY cut.

We simply do not know at the moment. It has been in existence since 2001 or 2002 (something like that), but few have seen it because of legal problems. Maybe there won't be any big changes, and maybe there will be. I have read that some new footage was shot.

Anyhow... soon we will be able to watch the real 'Director's Cut' rather than a Restorationer's approximation.

christoph404

Well I guess the version I have is fairly close to the original script and to the directors vision even if it is not exactly as Ridley Scott had intended, the main point about the current "Directors Cut" is that it restores the basic premise of the film and I think Scott would approve of that, its a damn sight better than the theatrical version thats for sure. I have heard stories about audiences in the USA being inadvertantly treated to a screening without the voiceover and tacked on ending (years ago) but don't know if thats just folklore, anyway I shall look forward to any future incarnations of the movie. wasn't Christopher Walken offered the part of Deckard? I would have prefered that as I don't actually like Harrison Ford that much as an actor! Perhaps Scott could replace him digitally in the new version, very straightforward to do these days!!

Harleybloke

I really preferred the directors cut of both..................

.....You couldn't hear it, if they were shooting at me with howitzers!

christoph404

Still on Blade Runner, have just had a look at Mark Kermonde's channel 4 documentary "The making of Blade Runner" containing interviews with producer Maichael Deeley, Supervising film editors on the original film and on the "Directors Cut" other members of cast and crew and some very revealing thoughts from the director himself Ridley Scott. Its a fascinating and informative programe and I will relay a few snippets of info here. First of all, in May of 1990 a 70mm print of Blade Runner referred to as a Ridley Scott original cut was inadvertantly screened at the Fairfax Theatre in Los Angeles.It was a version without voiceover or tacked on ending. David Fincher was present along with original supervixsing editor of original theatrical version, they were unprepared as were the rest of the audience for this version to be screened, but such was the excitement and positive response at seeing the film in something resembling the form the director intended, the event prompted Warners to release "The Original Cut Of The Futuristic Adventure" also known as "The Directors Cut" Commenting on this revised version Ridley Scott says " Im very satisfied, ..Im glad we got the voiveover off.....and the ending" Also Ridley Scott makes very clear the enigma of whether Deckard is a replicant or not and as far as Scott is concerned, of course he is! thats why the unicorn dream sequence is there! Judging by the interview Scott gives it would seem his thoughts have mellowed over the years regarding Blade Runner, at any rate in his own word he is "very satisfied" with "The Directors Cut" version restored by the studio so thats good enough for me!!

Aaryk Noctivagus

The 70mm Cut was a Work Print... And Ridley Scott objected strongly about it being advertised as a 'Director's Cut'. Which is why the 'Restored Version' was made... Ridley was too busy on another movie at that time for a real 'Director's Cut'... In 2001 Ridley directly oversaw a real 'Director's Cut' but legal disputes kept it tucked away until later this year.

You might be satisfied with a Mark Kermonde... don't you mean Kermode... brief documentary which was called "On the Edge of 'Blade Runner'" (2000) but I'm more satisfied with film history rather than something tacked together for casual tastes.

Yes, a good little documentary... but hardly in-depth (and made BEFORE the real DC). When Ridley spoke about being satisfied... it would have been about the 'Restoration' (which he was reasonably satisfied with) and not the 70mm print which, it being billed as a 'Director's Cut' he complained about.

I only said he wasn't 'completely' satisfied. You can be very satisfied without being completely satisfied.

I've never particularly rated Mark Kermode... I'm not saying he doesn't know his stuff (I'm sure he does)... but I feel there is more ego than knowledge to his conclusions. Give me Barry Norman any day... or better still... A Film Historian rather than a Film Critic. Sir Christopher Frayling is a good choice.

christoph404

Yes I did mean Mark Kermode, and I really do think you are splitting hairs, in fact you are giving the impression to me that you are a bit of a self satisfied know it all, quite patronising, and you are irritating me quite a bit so I am going to decease this dialogue after this post. I thought the documentary was about as in depth as you could hope to be for a 55 minute or so programe, and to include interviews with some of the key players including Ridley Scott is pretty good going, though you will probably correct me on that and tell me it was a 59 minute programe!! I have enjoyed Mark Kermode's programes in the past, it doesn't matter to me that he is a film critic,whats wrong with that? Isn't Barry Norman a film critic as well? And whats all this about being completely satisfied versus very satisfied etc etc, I think you are just getting yourself in a tangle of words and seem intent on scoring points or being correct which is not what this forum is about as far as I am concerned.

Aaryk Noctivagus

Oh dear... personal attacks.

If you read my reply rather than getting irritated... then you would know that I never said Barry Norman was anything other than a Film-critic.

Scoring points is of no interest to me. Getting the facts straight is of interest to me.

Christoph... I have read several of your posts and was really impressed by your knowledge. This does not mean that you cannot learn from me... just as I can learn from you. Because I perceived in you, somebody who appeared to know more than a pedestrian amount about film, I thought attention to detail would be more important for you. I admit, I am dissappointed by your present attitude.

That is simply because you were quoting Ridley Scott against a presumption that I had said something that I had not. I was not intending to split hairs. I never said Ridley was not at all satisfied in the 'Restorative Cut'... and you seemed to think I thought so. I try to use language as accurately as possible. What you see as splitting hairs, I see as a canyon of different meaning.

I admit to being a pedantic person. I am Autistic. Autistics tend to be pedantic, it comes with the territory. I like to get details right as far as possible. You might see that as hair splitting or arrogance... but I think you're just blowing at the wind when you wrote those things.

Personal attacks don't solve anything.

Try not to be so over sensitive. Try to understand that the more a person knows... then the more they find they have to learn. Perhaps, in understanding that, you may be slower to peg somebody as being arrogant... and slower to become so irritated.

Thank you, if you have done me the privilage of reading this carefully and calmly

christoph404

Okay no worries, we are all friends here, lets keep it all civilsed, apologies for the irritable reply to your last post, you are not the first to say I am oversensitive so there must be some truth in that!! I was watching the Mark Kermode programme on the internet, was it really from 2000? Seems like a long time ago, it did seem that Scott had mellowed a bit regarding Blade Runner, I guess time heals wounds, it was interesting to hear that of a supposed budget of 28 million dollars that it bareley made back just over half of that on its intiail release, I guess one can understand why Harrison Ford doesn't talk about it that much!! Its probably one of the few films he has been in that has not made stacks of money at the box office. It would be great if we get a chance to see a definitive version supervised by Ridley Scott himself, I would imagine the legal wrangles are over ....money?....what else!! Anyway lets wait and see! Are you a sci-fi fan by the way? I notice your interest in Close Encounters in a previous thread.

Aaryk Noctivagus

Oversensitive... you see it takes one to know one... Don't let on to anybody else (lol - he says knowing this is public - lol)... but I'm a rather sensitive person also

I'm really glad we can be friends... I did not intend to irritate you... I'm painfully aware I often come across in a way I did not intend... both on the net and in real life.

Thanks for the appology about your previous post. I appologise for causing you such irritation.

So said IMDb. I often check IMDb for dates, because I don't always retain them - I have a spot of Dyscalculia... whilst I retain facts quite easilly, anything with numerals is difficult for me). Do you have a link... I think I watched it back when it was new if memory serves me rightly... I'd be interested to see it again - regardless of the fact Mark Kermode gets up my nose somewhat.

It will indeed be great to see what the cut will be like and compare it to the 'Restored' (I can't help myself - lol) version. Maybe there will be little difference, maybe quite a bit. I wonder how much or how little they re-shot... I'd guess it wouldn't be much. I understand they polished up the effects shots somewhat (which may not mean that they did what George Lucas did with 'Star Wars' but something less altering more cleaning).

Off the top of my head, I forget what the legal wrangles were about... I think it was to do with Copyright/Ownership matters... but my memory might be in error on that.

I adore Science Fiction. It was my first movie-love... but it blossomed into a more general obsession with the movies. I do tend to prefer other worlds... whether Science Fictional... or period... or Horror... I adore what I term 'Cinema Fantastic' - anything away from today's reality.

Yes, I am a Science Fiction fan

Thank you for your gracious reply

christoph404

If you visit Bunch of Nerds - A Collection of Things Old, New and Different (sureley they dont mean us!!) and type in Blade Runner in the search bar the first link that comes up is titled "The making of Blade Runner" and you are able to view the whole Kermode Channel 4 documntary there. Worth a look for the interviews etc Also of interest is SCIFI.COM and in the news section from May 29th 2006 is an ariticle about the most recent Directors cut and planned theatrical release, that was from a year ago so things may have changed since then, interesting reading nonetheless

orpheum

wouldnt it be interesting to see the Directors Cut of historical films.For example the full version of Greed or The Magnificent Ambersons.The first reel of Lost Horizzons junked by Capra.What about the alternative ending for Casablanca where Rick goes off with Ils leaving PAUL henreid to comfort Conrad Veidt and Claude Rains

Lord Brett

The one I should really like to get round to seeing is Highlander II - the Renegade Version, which is a completely re-cut version of the awful Highlander II - The Quickening, containing nearly 20 minutes of different material. It's been available for some years, but I didn't realise until recently just hjow radically different it was, or the bizarre story behind the film's production.

The producers decided to shoot the film in Argentina, presumably to save a few bob compared to filming in the UK, where the first film was made. Ironically, raging Argentinian inflation sent costs skyrocketing to the extent that the film's insurance company(!) began interfering with the film's creative process, adding elements which they thought might make the movie more profitable.

The poor old director, Russell Mucahy, was contractually obliged not to make damaging comments about the production, which prevented him from using the Allan Smithee pseudonym on the credits, so was stuck with the blame for the film.

It's hardly surprising that he took the first opportunity he could to get his own vision of the film out, which is apparently a considerable improvement.

christoph404

I thought the original film ,Highlander 1 with Sean Connery, was pretty awful as well,what was Mulcahy's excuse for that one!! Lambert's attempt at a scottish accent is hysterical and he had Connery on set to help him!! Some nice scenery though, Connor McLeod's castle has been used in dozens of movies including M''s headquarters in some of the Brosnan Bond films, its Eilean Donan Castle and its about 80 miles west of inverness near Kyle of Lochalsh on the west coast of Scotland but you will have to fight through the coachloads of Japanese tourists to get near it. Ah well, I believe it had reasonable success at the box office,