Blade Runner; Venice Film Festival - Britmovie

christoph404 · 30-08-2007, 01:15 PM

To celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original release Sir Ridley Scott has produced a new cut of the film which has its world premier at The Venice Film Festival. The film has been restored and remastered with the inclusion of new and extended scenes and improved special effects. It is also due for release by Warners on a special multi disc DVD set this Autumn, something to look forward to. There is an interview with Ridley Scott from The Venice Film Festival in todays "The Times" under the title " Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott" In the article Scott goes on to describe Kubricks 2001 "as the best of the best" adding that every sci fi film since has immitated it or reffered to it. "There is an overreliance on special effects as well as weak storylines" he said of modern sci fi films.

ChristineCB · 30-08-2007, 01:50 PM

I remember enjoying the theatrical ending to BLADE RUNNER far more than the so-called Director's Cut Version, which is all that's available now. This latest version along with the original Theatrical Version is slated for local theatres, I see, and there's a lot of blog-excitement about those.

Some of the theatre chains claim the audiences won't want to see two versions of the same film, but I think that's typically short-sighted and totally wrong on their part.

Who cares if one film outgrosses the other? Do the theatre owners really claim people will only see one film in their whole lives, or what's the chances that audiences might actually see TWO films? And since that's the likelier case, why not both of the BLADE RUNNER versions then?

The marketing efforts shouldn't cost one penny more. Only the doubling of film-print and shipment costs are increased. But since a monsterplex might get 24 prints for their 24 screens, what's the price and shipping difference when two of those prints share the same name?

And since the theatres are showing SOMETHING anyway during those day-after-day showtimes, why not two films? For the fans that walk into the wrong film's showtime, well, that's THEIR problem - if they really hate BLADE RUNNER, what are they doing buying that ticket anyway?

christoph404 · 30-08-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristineCB

I remember enjoying the theatrical ending to BLADE RUNNER far more than the so-called Director's Cut Version, which is all that's available now. This latest version along with the original Theatrical Version is slated for local theatres, I see, and there's a lot of blog-excitement about those.

Some of the theatre chains claim the audiences won't want to see two versions of the same film, but I think that's typically short-sighted and totally wrong on their part.

Who cares if one film outgrosses the other? Do the theatre owners really claim people will only see one film in their whole lives, or what's the chances that audiences might actually see TWO films? And since that's the likelier case, why not both of the BLADE RUNNER versions then?

The marketing efforts shouldn't cost one penny more. Only the doubling of film-print and shipment costs are increased. But since a monsterplex might get 24 prints for their 24 screens, what's the price and shipping difference when two of those prints share the same name?

And since the theatres are showing SOMETHING anyway during those day-after-day showtimes, why not two films? For the fans that walk into the wrong film's showtime, well, that's THEIR problem - if they really hate BLADE RUNNER, what are they doing buying that ticket anyway?

My understanding is that the original theatrical version along with the international version and the 1992 "directors cut" along with the 2007 definitive final version are all to be released on a 4 or 5 disc special edition DVD set in December. The latest version that has been put together by Ridley Scott with the participation of original stars Harrison Ford and Rutgar Hauer premiers at The Venice Film Festival on the 1st September and then has a limited theatrical release. Which local cinemas are planning to show the vintage theatrical version as well? that seems crazy to me and confusing for an audience, are you sure that is the case? Seems very odd, Im assuming the new version will be a digital projection anyway but to offer up the original version at cinemas as well which I believe Ridley Scott or Harrison ford were not that happy with would seem to undermine all the work done to produce what is being called "the final definitive version by Ridley Scott" Are you sure you are not getting confused with the simultaneous release of the different versions on DVD? Just a thought and humble apologies if you are correct, just seems a bit daft to me.

ChristineCB · 30-08-2007, 11:54 PM

In the ads, one is being touted as "The 1982 Original not seen in theatres since 1984" and the other is billed as "The 2007 Venice Festival Version". It looks like the monsterplexes are allocating separate theatres for each version, but that's not very clear - the new version is being shown in DLP screens, and the original one doesn't have that distinctive logo.

christoph404 · 02-09-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristineCB

In the ads, one is being touted as "The 1982 Original not seen in theatres since 1984" and the other is billed as "The 2007 Venice Festival Version". It looks like the monsterplexes are allocating separate theatres for each version, but that's not very clear - the new version is being shown in DLP screens, and the original one doesn't have that distinctive logo.

Well it would seem it is so, I suppose with a number of vintage prints around of the original theatrical version it would be easy enough to dust off the cans of celluliod and project them again at cinemas without DLP and do a DLP with the new version. It sounds like a rather cynical way to get lots of bums on seats , especially as the new version is being touted as "the final definitive version by Ridley Scott" to me they are very different films and I personnaly have always hated that stupid tacked on happy ending of the volkswagon beatle driving through the Canadian mountains (out takes from "The Shining " BTW)

ChristineCB · 03-09-2007, 12:23 PM

I'll wait to be impressed because I never have been with the original Final Edition Director's Cut By Ridley Scott. I wonder when the Really Final Edition will be released? Another 10 years? And then there's the inevitable Absolutely Final Edition, and Absolutely Final Edition 2.0. Of course, everyone knows those things come in Threes...

christoph404 · 03-09-2007, 01:48 PM

I guess the versions convey two very different messages about Deckard's character. In the original theatrical version any suggestion that Deckard himself is a Replicant is excised including the dream sequence with the unicorn running through the woods and a risible happy ending tacked on whereas Ridley Scott simple wanted to reinstate his original idea and restore that implication and get rid of the corny ending which just doesn't fit in with the visual style of the film anyway, I would go with Scott on that one if for no other reason that I hate cheesy hollywood happy endings!!.....:in this case a dark ending for a dark film would seem appropriate.......IMHO......

ChristineCB · 03-09-2007, 02:15 PM

I'd argue that Deckard's character isn't altered one bit by snipping in one ending or another. He is still hanging off the parapet. He still questions suspects. He still retires replicants. He still comes back to the apartment, wondering if she's alive or dead. I don't see how the snippet of the ending alters his character.

If we want to have suppositions about what he does after the credits roll and the lights are turned up, well, maybe his being a replicant or not will change his next activities, but Ridley never filmed any of that.

I also don't give Ridley any credit for this being "his idea" because it's not. I give him credit for what I see on the screen, but when I've heard him talk about delivering "his original idea", I cough and sputter - like he should - because he SHOULD be saying, "This is MY film of someone else's idea." I'd buy that, but I hate to see him argue that HIS film was dismissed AS EASILY as he's dismissed someone else's original story.

His hypocrisy bothers me enough to lower his standings considerably.

Moor Larkin · 03-09-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christoph404

in this case a dark ending for a dark film would seem appropriate.......

I thought the death of Nexus-6 was both dark and sad and tragic. I recall being utterly baffled at the cinema about what happened at the very very end. My only clear recollection was the Chandleresque policeman finding the paper horse (as I saw it) and that the girl was a replicant, but Han Solo didn't care. He just loved her.

After that I wasn't sure what was supposed to be happening. The trouble is now, I've seen it on TV at least once, so if you're saying they would have had a different ending..... I'm not sure what I remember any more.

I reckon they need a Remake.......

christoph404 · 03-09-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristineCB

I'd argue that Deckard's character isn't altered one bit by snipping in one ending or another. He is still hanging off the parapet. He still questions suspects. He still retires replicants. He still comes back to the apartment, wondering if she's alive or dead. I don't see how the snippet of the ending alters his character.

If we want to have suppositions about what he does after the credits roll and the lights are turned up, well, maybe his being a replicant or not will change his next activities, but Ridley never filmed any of that.

I also don't give Ridley any credit for this being "his idea" because it's not. I give him credit for what I see on the screen, but when I've heard him talk about delivering "his original idea", I cough and sputter - like he should - because he SHOULD be saying, "This is MY film of someone else's idea." I'd buy that, but I hate to see him argue that HIS film was dismissed AS EASILY as he's dismissed someone else's original story.

His hypocrisy bothers me enough to lower his standings considerably.

I would agree that Deckards character in terms of his actions and reactions and so on is not altered by the different endings but what I said in my response is quite simply that there is a different message or impliction as to whether Deckard is a replicant or not in each of the different versions. I think you're being a bit harsh on poor Ridley, I think Directors are entitled to talk about their vision and ideas and many directors take their stories or scripts from established literary sources and to be fair to Ridley Scott he often names the source and scrpt writers for Blade Runner in interviews and has never claimed that the whole concept was devised and written by himself. If every director was obliged to say "this is my film of someone else's ideas" then Ridley would simply be joining a queue with a thousand others, but one thing is clear, Blade Runner is famous for its stunning visuals and a dark futuristic world and that is down to Scotts ideas and vision.

ChristineCB · 04-09-2007, 01:22 PM

ha ha - naw, not too harsh on him. I remember two interviews he gave when his First Final Director's Cut DVD arrived, and him being so aghast at the studio's claim that paying him gave them rights to choosing the ending.

Sort of like them paying the author for his tale, and then having Ridley choose all of HIS changes.

Yet Ridley's vast depth of hypocrisy never saw fit to admit he used exactly the same righteousness to excuse his changes.

He's only indignant with someone changes his 'art'.

Nor did I ever hear him complain that that First Final Director's Cut Version wasn't to his liking, at least, not until he now has something else to sell.

Too harsh? No, I think it's a dead-on perfect complaint against him. He's been in a less-than-stellar money-making position, it seems to me, and suddenly, he's decided to re-polish his only popular work to see if he can sell it again and again and again. I'll see this one and, if it's a substantial-enough work, I'll buy it.

But would I have more respect for him if he re-did more of his films? Probably. At least I'd give him credit for being studious enough to consider other footage in his other works.

penfold · 04-09-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristineCB

Too harsh? No, I think it's a dead-on perfect complaint against him. He's been in a less-than-stellar money-making position, it seems to me, and suddenly, he's decided to re-polish his only popular work to see if he can sell it again and again and again. I'll see this one and, if it's a substantial-enough work, I'll buy it.

His only popular work?? Now that's harsh....Alien, Thelma And Louise and Gladiator remain pretty popular for a lot of people.....now if you were talking Lucas and Star Wars you'd be spot on....

Lord Brett · 04-09-2007, 01:56 PM

His only popular work! That's a touch harsh on Alien and Gladiator. I must say I was a bit disappointed in the old Directors Cut of Blade Runner, but then, I mainly like the visuals in all the versions - frankly, Philip K Dick's original novel is miles better. (oops, you beat me to it Penfold - we got busy at work!)

Moor Larkin · 04-09-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristineCB

He's been in a less-than-stellar money-making position, it seems to me, and suddenly, he's decided to re-polish his only popular work to see if he can sell it again and again and again.

....

.....

.....

Height: 5 feet 7.5 inches
Net Worth: $ 91 million U.S. dollars
Hollywood Power Ranking: Top 50

Ridley Scott

ChristineCB · 04-09-2007, 04:05 PM

Oh, you're arguing popularity is the same as good? ha ha... just kidding - ALIEN is a great film, too. That's two.

Ridley's popping off in Venice now, calling 97% of modern films stupid and lacking creativity. I won't argue that. But this is from a director who did the third film version of the Christopher Columbus story back in 1991 for the next year's release. Yeah, SOME creativity there!

And when Gulf War era films became popular, he finds the BLACK HAWK DOWN story.

His latest "creative" masterpiece is retelling the James James story. Oh boy, another highlight of creativity. 3:10 TO YUMA is hitting theatres, so now he's jumped on the western bandwagon.

"Hypocrite" is the label he's earned. When he criticizes 97% of modern films but holds himself as the exceptional light of creativity - oh puh-leeze. His ability to jump on the bandwagon is not what I'd call "creative".

30-08-2007, 01:15 PM	#1
christoph404 Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,358 Country: iTrader: (0)	Blade Runner; Venice Film Festival To celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original release Sir Ridley Scott has produced a new cut of the film which has its world premier at The Venice Film Festival. The film has been restored and remastered with the inclusion of new and extended scenes and improved special effects. It is also due for release by Warners on a special multi disc DVD set this Autumn, something to look forward to. There is an interview with Ridley Scott from The Venice Film Festival in todays "The Times" under the title " Sci-fi films are as dead as Westerns, says Ridley Scott" In the article Scott goes on to describe Kubricks 2001 "as the best of the best" adding that every sci fi film since has immitated it or reffered to it. "There is an overreliance on special effects as well as weak storylines" he said of modern sci fi films. Last edited by christoph404; 30-08-2007 at 01:18 PM.

30-08-2007, 01:50 PM	#2
ChristineCB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,740 Country: iTrader: (13)	I remember enjoying the theatrical ending to BLADE RUNNER far more than the so-called Director's Cut Version, which is all that's available now. This latest version along with the original Theatrical Version is slated for local theatres, I see, and there's a lot of blog-excitement about those. Some of the theatre chains claim the audiences won't want to see two versions of the same film, but I think that's typically short-sighted and totally wrong on their part. Who cares if one film outgrosses the other? Do the theatre owners really claim people will only see one film in their whole lives, or what's the chances that audiences might actually see TWO films? And since that's the likelier case, why not both of the BLADE RUNNER versions then? The marketing efforts shouldn't cost one penny more. Only the doubling of film-print and shipment costs are increased. But since a monsterplex might get 24 prints for their 24 screens, what's the price and shipping difference when two of those prints share the same name? And since the theatres are showing SOMETHING anyway during those day-after-day showtimes, why not two films? For the fans that walk into the wrong film's showtime, well, that's THEIR problem - if they really hate BLADE RUNNER, what are they doing buying that ticket anyway? Last edited by ChristineCB; 30-08-2007 at 02:01 PM.

30-08-2007, 11:54 PM	#4
ChristineCB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,740 Country: iTrader: (13)	In the ads, one is being touted as "The 1982 Original not seen in theatres since 1984" and the other is billed as "The 2007 Venice Festival Version". It looks like the monsterplexes are allocating separate theatres for each version, but that's not very clear - the new version is being shown in DLP screens, and the original one doesn't have that distinctive logo. Last edited by ChristineCB; 30-08-2007 at 11:56 PM.

03-09-2007, 02:15 PM	#8
ChristineCB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,740 Country: iTrader: (13)	I'd argue that Deckard's character isn't altered one bit by snipping in one ending or another. He is still hanging off the parapet. He still questions suspects. He still retires replicants. He still comes back to the apartment, wondering if she's alive or dead. I don't see how the snippet of the ending alters his character. If we want to have suppositions about what he does after the credits roll and the lights are turned up, well, maybe his being a replicant or not will change his next activities, but Ridley never filmed any of that. I also don't give Ridley any credit for this being "his idea" because it's not. I give him credit for what I see on the screen, but when I've heard him talk about delivering "his original idea", I cough and sputter - like he should - because he SHOULD be saying, "This is MY film of someone else's idea." I'd buy that, but I hate to see him argue that HIS film was dismissed AS EASILY as he's dismissed someone else's original story. His hypocrisy bothers me enough to lower his standings considerably. Last edited by ChristineCB; 03-09-2007 at 02:19 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-09-2007, 12:23 PM	#6
ChristineCB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,740 Country: iTrader: (13)	I'll wait to be impressed because I never have been with the original Final Edition Director's Cut By Ridley Scott. I wonder when the Really Final Edition will be released? Another 10 years? And then there's the inevitable Absolutely Final Edition, and Absolutely Final Edition 2.0. Of course, everyone knows those things come in Threes...

03-09-2007, 01:48 PM	#7
christoph404 Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,358 Country: iTrader: (0)	I guess the versions convey two very different messages about Deckard's character. In the original theatrical version any suggestion that Deckard himself is a Replicant is excised including the dream sequence with the unicorn running through the woods and a risible happy ending tacked on whereas Ridley Scott simple wanted to reinstate his original idea and restore that implication and get rid of the corny ending which just doesn't fit in with the visual style of the film anyway, I would go with Scott on that one if for no other reason that I hate cheesy hollywood happy endings!!.....:in this case a dark ending for a dark film would seem appropriate.......IMHO......

04-09-2007, 01:22 PM	#11
ChristineCB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,740 Country: iTrader: (13)	ha ha - naw, not too harsh on him. I remember two interviews he gave when his First Final Director's Cut DVD arrived, and him being so aghast at the studio's claim that paying him gave them rights to choosing the ending. Sort of like them paying the author for his tale, and then having Ridley choose all of HIS changes. Yet Ridley's vast depth of hypocrisy never saw fit to admit he used exactly the same righteousness to excuse his changes. He's only indignant with someone changes his 'art'. Nor did I ever hear him complain that that First Final Director's Cut Version wasn't to his liking, at least, not until he now has something else to sell. Too harsh? No, I think it's a dead-on perfect complaint against him. He's been in a less-than-stellar money-making position, it seems to me, and suddenly, he's decided to re-polish his only popular work to see if he can sell it again and again and again. I'll see this one and, if it's a substantial-enough work, I'll buy it. But would I have more respect for him if he re-did more of his films? Probably. At least I'd give him credit for being studious enough to consider other footage in his other works.

04-09-2007, 01:56 PM	#13
Lord Brett Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire Posts: 800 My Mood: Country: iTrader: (2)	His only popular work! That's a touch harsh on Alien and Gladiator. I must say I was a bit disappointed in the old Directors Cut of Blade Runner, but then, I mainly like the visuals in all the versions - frankly, Philip K Dick's original novel is miles better. (oops, you beat me to it Penfold - we got busy at work!)

04-09-2007, 04:05 PM	#15
ChristineCB Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 1,740 Country: iTrader: (13)	Oh, you're arguing popularity is the same as good? ha ha... just kidding - ALIEN is a great film, too. That's two. Ridley's popping off in Venice now, calling 97% of modern films stupid and lacking creativity. I won't argue that. But this is from a director who did the third film version of the Christopher Columbus story back in 1991 for the next year's release. Yeah, SOME creativity there! And when Gulf War era films became popular, he finds the BLACK HAWK DOWN story. His latest "creative" masterpiece is retelling the James James story. Oh boy, another highlight of creativity. 3:10 TO YUMA is hitting theatres, so now he's jumped on the western bandwagon. "Hypocrite" is the label he's earned. When he criticizes 97% of modern films but holds himself as the exceptional light of creativity - oh puh-leeze. His ability to jump on the bandwagon is not what I'd call "creative".