OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

Has ANYBODY heard ANYTHING about WHEN Blade Runner: SE???

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4150
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, September 1, 2005 10:52 AM

CHRISISALL


I can't find out a thing about Blade Runner: the Special Edition! Last thing I read (a LONG time ago) was that it was supposed to be coming out end of 2005, was that just wishful thinkin' on someone's part?
The movie came out when I was a kid, I'd kinda like to own a GOOD quality dvd of it before I'm 50 - is that too much to ask?

Anybody got the 411 on it?

Chrisisall Bryant

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 1, 2005 11:02 AM

SIMONWHO


www.thedigitalbits.com is probably the foremost DVD news website and they posted literally two days about this to keep readers in the loop. The answer? No news.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa108.html

Bah, you may well indeed say. Bah and double bah.

I suspect that Warner are waiting for Ridley Scott to be fully available for it (can't you just sense a third cut coming on?) but to be honest, I suspect this may be one of the big HD-DVD titles for Christmas 2006.

Sorry.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 1, 2005 11:18 AM

CHRISISALL


With the possible exception of Serenity, it's my favourite movie of all time.
Guess I'll go watch my crappy 1997 dvd again....

Too bad she won't live Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 1, 2005 1:34 PM

YT

the movie is not the Series. Only the facts have been changed, to irritate the innocent; the names of the actors and characters remain the same


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
I suspect this may be one of the big HD-DVD titles for Christmas 2006.


Possible. It may depend on whether Warner wants to use it to push HD-DVD. If they do, I'd expect no special features, but a new sound track (current DVD is only Dolby 2.0). On the other hand, they may prefer to wait for the format war to be settled, which may take more than one year.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 1, 2005 1:54 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by YT:
On the other hand, they may prefer to wait for the format war to be settled, which may take more than one year.

Merde.

Monsier Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:45 PM

ZOOT


BTW CIA, this is gonna come as a shock btu jsut watched Balde Runner for the first time this weekend - and oh my!

Lovely as it is, I note in passing that it too seems to be set in 2019 - what is it with that year???

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2005 9:27 AM

CHRISISALL


2019 is the temporal vortex, where energies align and collapse into that which will determine the fate of mankind.
Or maybe it's just a coincidence.

And that happens to be my all time favourite flick!
Care to give me a review?

I always thought it was funny that DA was billed in TV Guide as 'James Cameron's answer to Blade Runner'.

Chrisisall Deckard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 19, 2005 11:14 PM

ZOOT


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Or maybe it's just a coincidence.

Chrisisall Deckard



There is no such thing as coincidence …

Ok so time to die (aka my review) …

Sadly I only have the director’s cut, which hasn’t got the voice over, which I think I would have liked as it’d be really Raymond Chandler-y … but then – how opportune! My colleague in the office next to me has just this instant come in with a very old and battered VHS copy of the original – so I will be able to hear the voice over after all …

Anyhow:

10 things I loved:

1. The trench coat – above all I loved the trench coat!!
2. Rachel’s 1940s hair;
3. The Japanese/ Chinese (almost dare I say Firefly-esque look) everywhere;
4. That Deckard can’t speak Japanese/Chinese;
5. The little origami unicorn (serving the same purpose I thought as “Rosebud”);
6. Harrison Ford (the man is a genetic marvel and quite the most attractive man I have ever seen);
7. The eye-ball shop;
8. The Baron Munchhausen style androids;
9. The Asian adverts for settlers (FF again!!);
10. oh, and the fantastic neon signs flashing on and off in his apartment.

10 things I didn’t like:

1. The suspense almost killed me (“don’t die, Deck, don’t die”);
2. The pleasure replicant – she was a bit annoying and didn’t seem to provide anyone with much pleasure;
3. The dove (too much);
4. I can’t think of anything else.

On the whole I felt it had a beautiful feel, fantastic design and clarity of intent and meaning little seen in sci-fi. I thought the pathos inherent in each of the characters was portrayed with consummate artistry and it made me think about what it is to be human far more than some more obvious morality tales (e.g. I, Robot).

To sum up I may watch it many, MANY more times and oh, yes, he’s a gorram replicant and no mistake … no one that beautiful can be a real boy!!

Out of interest, what are supposed to think happens to them? Is the origami unicorn supposed to tell us they’ll die or what??


***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:45 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoot:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To sum up I may watch it many, MANY more times and oh, yes, he’s a gorram replicant and no mistake … no one that beautiful can be a real boy!!

Out of interest, what are supposed to think happens to them? Is the origami unicorn supposed to tell us they’ll die or what??

There's been a LOT of speculation about this movie and it's meanings. The unicorn is supposed to mean ( to ME) that Deckard's new life w/Rachael is a fantasy, that she or possibly both of them will be dead soon.
Others say that it means he knows Deckard's dreams, proving that he too is a replicant, in which case, the same applies. I prefer to think Deck's crafty enough to evade capture; that they have at least a shot at some kind of life together.

For a rather in-depth (and fascinating) discussion on the subject, go here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=9370
It was one of my first few threads here back in April, and we bounced it back and forth, waxing intelligent.
It also goes into the voiceover (which I like).

And, of course you can see why I love this film- and by extrapolation DA and FF!

Aired-out Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:56 AM

TALLGRRL


I would recommend that all of you (especially you kids who never saw Blade Runner before now) read Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?"
Also read "A Scanner Darkly", which is in post-production as we speak...er, I mean type.
Keanu Reeves--my OTHER boyfriend*--stars.
If you go to the Scanner Darkly website (the official PK Dick website) I believe you'll find a link to the movie's website.

* In addition to the aforementioned Harrison Ford.
(And don't get me started about Christian Bale and Clive Owen. I must stop now. My fingers are getting wet. )

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." - Zoe

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:08 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

Also read "A Scanner Darkly", which is in post-production as we speak...er, I mean type.
Keanu Reeves--my OTHER boyfriend*--stars.

Keanu? Uh oh, is this gonna be another really good movie with two confusing and contradictory sequels to it?

Whoah Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:32 PM

TALLGRRL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

Also read "A Scanner Darkly", which is in post-production as we speak...er, I mean type.
Keanu Reeves--my OTHER boyfriend*--stars.

Keanu? Uh oh, is this gonna be another really good movie with two confusing and contradictory sequels to it?

Whoah Chrisisall



Me? I hope so.
(By the way...I wasn't confused.)
If you read the original story first, then you'll have a reference point.
I don't usually expect movies adapted from books to go as deep as I'd like to, but that's the nature of the beast.
I'm gonna re-read Scanner before it comes out and I go see it. Then I'll let it go and see the movie for what it is: an ADAPTATION. Hopefully a pretty good one at that.

By the way, Keanu isn't responsible for what the writer writes. I'm not mad at Keanu.
He got paid...and he did some mighty fine things with the money he got paid.
You pretty much NEVER hear the star of a big-assed film say "I don't need all of this money. How much money can I possibly need?" and give "bonuses" from his paycheck to the fx and stunt crews.
He also gives tons of money (TONS)toward cancer research...but you don't hear a lot about it.
That's my man.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." - Zoe

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:00 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

By the way, Keanu isn't responsible for what the writer writes. I'm not mad at Keanu.
He also gives tons of money (TONS)toward cancer research...but you don't hear a lot about it.

Hey, I love Keanu, it was just a joke to slam Matrix 2 and 3.
Look at my video shelf- Matrix, Johnny Mnemonic, Bill and Ted, Chain Reaction, Point Break- he's the man!

Funny story I read, he and Woody Harrelson were at a party, and Woody said just 'cause he did Matrix didn't mean he knew Kung-Fu! Keanu said something like are you sure, and Woody rushed him to tackle him, and Keanu did a simple parry that sent Woody into some chairs and stuff. Woody then congratulated Keanu on his abilities!

I'm lookin' foward to this movie, but they messed up Minority Report, so I'll be holding my breath....


Gods, please make this one good Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:23 PM

ZOOT


Quote:

I would recommend that all of you (especially you kids who never saw Blade Runner before now) read Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep?"


Yes, my brother keeps waxing lyrical about that book - I think I shall indulge ...

And am aghast to hear that Harrison has been two timing me!!!!

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:28 PM

ZOOT


Quote:

it was just a joke to slam Matrix 2 and 3


It should not be a JOKE to slam Matrix 2 & 3 - they were SERIOUSLY BAD!!!

***************************************

Okay, I'm lost, I'm angry, and I'm
armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:27 AM

XON2000


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Zoot:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To sum up I may watch it many, MANY more times and oh, yes, he’s a gorram replicant and no mistake … no one that beautiful can be a real boy!!

Out of interest, what are supposed to think happens to them? Is the origami unicorn supposed to tell us they’ll die or what??

There's been a LOT of speculation about this movie and it's meanings. The unicorn is supposed to mean ( to ME) that Deckard's new life w/Rachael is a fantasy, that she or possibly both of them will be dead soon.
Others say that it means he knows Deckard's dreams, proving that he too is a replicant, in which case, the same applies. I prefer to think Deck's crafty enough to evade capture; that they have at least a shot at some kind of life together.

For a rather in-depth (and fascinating) discussion on the subject, go here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=8&t=9370
It was one of my first few threads here back in April, and we bounced it back and forth, waxing intelligent.
It also goes into the voiceover (which I like).

And, of course you can see why I love this film- and by extrapolation DA and FF!

Aired-out Chrisisall



SPOILERS BELOW!

The unicorn dream was not in the original theatrical release of the movie. The studio felt that the movie was just too dark and hard to understand, so they tacked on a happy ending and the voice-over. Harrison Ford didn't want to do the voice-over, so he phoned it in.

In the director's cut, Scott removed the voice-over, added the unicorn dream, to tie in with the origami unicorn at the end, and removed the scene of Deckard and Rachel flying away over the beautiful green landscape.

What the unicorn dream implies is that Deckard is a replicant. The origami unicorn demonstrates that Gaff knows about the dream, which means that it is implanted. This isn't my own speculation, this is from Ridley Scott himself (check out a book called "Future Noir" if you want to know absolutely everything about this movie).

Also, without the voice over, there is no indication that Rachel was "special" and therefore immune from the four-year lifespan.

So, in Scott's version, the movie ends with Deckard realizing that he's a replicant and he and Rachel on the lam, and both probably going to die within four years. In the theatrical release, Deckard is human, and he and Rachel fly off into the sunset to live happily ever after. Quite a difference!

Shawn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:31 AM

TALLGRRL


Yeah, Minority Report was...different....but like I said, I read the book/story, then I kind of let it go. (A skill I developed early in life after being disappointed in the big screen version of The Shining. "Never again will I trust a movie to be like the book", the young and naive bookworm cried.)
I'm not a Tom Cruise fan...at all...but I was entertained by Minority Report...and flustered with Magnolia.
But that's a story for another time...


"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:59 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by XON2000:
So, in Scott's version, the movie ends with Deckard realizing that he's a replicant and he and Rachel on the lam, and both probably going to die within four years.

Deckard and his chief seem to have quite a history together, even if Deckard IS a replicant (very possible) he would seem to have been created before the advent of the four-year life span addition. And since Rachael is Tyrell's special, personal unit, it is reasonable to postulate that she had that particular trait left out of her so Tryell could observe the phenomena of self awareness take hold- indeed Rachael seemed more self aware than others like Batty, she may ALREADY BE more than four years old herself.

Chrisisareplicant

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:09 AM

XON2000


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by XON2000:
So, in Scott's version, the movie ends with Deckard realizing that he's a replicant and he and Rachel on the lam, and both probably going to die within four years.

Deckard and his chief seem to have quite a history together, even if Deckard IS a replicant (very possible) he would seem to have been created before the advent of the four-year life span addition. And since Rachael is Tyrell's special, personal unit, it is reasonable to postulate that she had that particular trait left out of her so Tryell could observe the phenomena of self awareness take hold- indeed Rachael seemed more self aware than others like Batty, she may ALREADY BE more than four years old herself.

Chrisisareplicant



Yeah, that's certainly possible, but I think that Scott really liked his bleak ending. Personally, I don't like that according to Scott's version, Deckard is definitely a replicant. I think it's more interesting for him to suspect that he is, and to question his memories and everything that he always assumed was true.

Oh, and back to the original topic, the last I heard about the special edition was probably a year or two ago. Scott was talking about doing a little Lucas-style revision to the original. I don't think he was considering changes as dramatic as the Star Wars Special Edition, but I know that he was talking about tweaking some sound effects and such. But it's been so long since I heard about that, I wonder if it's even a possibility any more. I would certainly like to have something better than the bare-bones version in the cardboard case.

Shawn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:24 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by XON2000:
I think it's more interesting for him to suspect that he is, and to question his memories and everything that he always assumed was true.

You've touched on exactly what makes this a great film for me, that you're not hit on the head with a hammer in it; the bad guys aren't so bad, Deckard JUST MIGHT BE a replicant, and he wonders just how 'real' HE might be, and realizing that his love for Rachael IS DEFINITLY real, so damn the unicorns and full speed away!

Scott has gone on record as stating that Decard definitly is a replicant, I prefer to believe he may be, and that we'll never really know, because that's the point of the film anyway- it doesn't matter- If you can think, love and feel, that's all that really matters.

Chrisiswaxingphilosophical

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:23 AM

CLJOHNSTON108


BRmovie.com - The Home of Blade Runner
http://www.brmovie.com/

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

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for the good man to do nothing."
--Edmund Burke

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:47 AM

KHIMBAR


No one mentioned the red eye flashes that all the replicants have (even the owl) in one shot? Deckard has it too which just adds to the 'he is!' argument.

Anyone ever play the Blade Runner pc game with the mulitiple endings?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:25 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by XON2000:

In the director's cut, Scott removed the voice-over, added the unicorn dream, to tie in with the origami unicorn at the end, and removed the scene of Deckard and Rachel flying away over the beautiful green landscape.

What the unicorn dream implies is that Deckard is a replicant. The origami unicorn demonstrates that Gaff knows about the dream, which means that it is implanted. This isn't my own speculation, this is from Ridley Scott himself (check out a book called "Future Noir" if you want to know absolutely everything about this movie).

Also, without the voice over, there is no indication that Rachel was "special" and therefore immune from the four-year lifespan.

So, in Scott's version, the movie ends with Deckard realizing that he's a replicant and he and Rachel on the lam, and both probably going to die within four years. In the theatrical release, Deckard is human, and he and Rachel fly off into the sunset to live happily ever after. Quite a difference!

Shawn



This is a beauty of a discussion folks, I've been cheering for your exchange with Chris et al clear down.

I loved loved this movie in the original release, and having read Electric Sheep, was able to apply a different understanding to the movie's ending. The 'director's cut' was an extreme disappointment to me because while I liked the idea of the insertion of the unicorn dream, I thought Scott's execution of the scene was extremely heavy handed and jarring (slo-mo, and so very glow-y), and I liked the future noir aspect the voice over lent the original. I haven't seen it in years, cuz all I can ever find is the d.c., guess I'll be giving it another chance soon.

Does anyone know anything about the status of the sound track? Has it ever changed from absolutely unavailable? I looked for it for years, but a person can get tired of that kind of seemingly futile activity.

Thanks for a great discussion, this place continues to warm my heart.
Barb

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:56 AM

XON2000


Quote:

Originally posted by liminalosity:
Does anyone know anything about the status of the sound track? Has it ever changed from absolutely unavailable? I looked for it for years, but a person can get tired of that kind of seemingly futile activity.



Amazon has the soundtrack on CD. (I had included a link, but it was so big it stretched the screen out, and tinyurl wasn't working. It's really easy to find, though.)

I've had it for years. Have you had a hard time finding it?

Shawn

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:12 AM

KHIMBAR


There are two soundtracks, the cacky one and the full two disc one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:09 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by XON2000:
Quote:

Originally posted by liminalosity:
Does anyone know anything about the status of the sound track? Has it ever changed from absolutely unavailable? I looked for it for years, but a person can get tired of that kind of seemingly futile activity.



Amazon has the soundtrack on CD. (I had included a link, but it was so big it stretched the screen out, and tinyurl wasn't working. It's really easy to find, though.)

I've had it for years. Have you had a hard time finding it?

Shawn



It was released at the same time as the film, but only a few zillion copies, and (I heard this from several music store peeps) there was some kind of contract dispute between Vangelis and the record company. It was eventually re-recorded by the Living Strings or some such crappy distortion. I looked for it for years and finally gave the heck up. Huh, wonder how the dispute was resolved. I will go to the land of the downloadable, thank you both ever so much.

geek0tek

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin
Sat, March 23, 2024 18:09 - 7 posts
Video Games to movie and tv series and other Cartoon / video game adaptions
Thu, March 7, 2024 14:26 - 42 posts
Favourite martial arts film of all time-
Wed, March 6, 2024 15:02 - 54 posts
PLANETES
Tue, March 5, 2024 14:22 - 51 posts
Shogun, non scifi series
Tue, March 5, 2024 13:20 - 4 posts
What Good Sci-Fi am I missing?
Mon, March 4, 2024 14:10 - 53 posts
Binge-worthy?
Mon, February 12, 2024 11:35 - 126 posts
Are There New TV Shows This Fall You Must See?
Sat, December 30, 2023 18:29 - 95 posts
The Expanse
Wed, December 20, 2023 18:06 - 27 posts
What Films Do You Want To See In 2023?
Thu, November 30, 2023 20:31 - 36 posts
Finding realistic sci-fi disappointing
Thu, October 5, 2023 12:04 - 42 posts
Worst Sci-Fi Ever.
Wed, October 4, 2023 17:51 - 158 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL