Blade Runner - What version to get ?

[hagbard]

I have been searching here and @ fileheaven and am a bit unsure, which version I should download.

In the Philip K. Dick Collection, there is the Directors Cut and the International Cut.

There is another version of the Directors Cut (WAF-Release) posted in the Cyberpunk Collection.

And then there is a Hd Rip by TLF.

So I am a bit confused, what version I should get. In terms of quality as well as version/cut. Any opinions / suggestions ?

And no. I don´t want to download that 4.25 GB monster of the Remastered Directors Cut ...

[jakobx]

I would go with the international cut. Without a voice over its just not the same movie especially if you've never seen it before.

[spudthedestroyer]

the voice over is dreadful, dry and ruins the movie, its clearly not meant to be there and just doesn't work. Its almost a "love conquers all" edit in my opinion, and that was a monstrosity.

i'd go with the latest dvd release, which is a decent remastered director's cut.

The dvd is a meagre £4.99, its probably worthwhile just buying it:
http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=ti ... P36=5364DE

There's a collection set due for release at some point:
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/1060499/ ... oduct.html

[jakobx]

Ignore what spud said.

Without voice over you will miss half of the story. The only love conquers all moment comes at the end of the original movie and is not part of the voice over.

The butchered version includes an extra scene a different ending and is without voice overs.

As a rule of thumb the director is always wrong when it comes to cuts. Just look at what lucas or spielberg are doing to the movies.

[hagbard]

I almost expected this.

I have seen the movie, of course. Twice at least. But it was a very long time ago. I don´t recall, if there was a voice over in the version, that I saw. And now you are telling me, that there even are different endings ...

I guess, I will probably end up downloading both versions to form my own opinion ...

[Jynks]

the voise over is crap.. get the other one.. directors or international cut.

[spudthedestroyer]

As a rule of thumb the director is always wrong when it comes to cuts. Just look at what lucas or spielberg are doing to the movies.

That's such a dangerous suggestion, given the amount of shit movies studio interference has put out. Very rarely is studio interference anything but bad news.

Are you suggesting the cuts made to Alien3 over ruling fincher's edit (which only partly emerged on the dvd as an unauthorised edit, but vastly superior to the theatrical version) were an improvement? Or the studio interference on Brazil which produced that "half a movie" without the point or effect edit was warranted or an improvements? There's a long line of movies that have been destroyed by studio interference, and Blade Runner is on that list.

and here we are talking (early) Ridley Scott, rule of thumb should have been leave him the f*ck alone or you'll end up with some terrible voice over and a set of cue cards for the alleged moronic American audience the butchering was made for.

A few fat cat Hollywood director's are wrong looking back in their old age when they tamper with a movie for minor additions decades later (particularly when said director has made 2 movies in his entire career at that point), but when a studio interferes its nearly always an unmitigated disaster and director's cuts are an inevitable restoration of original intent, and usually accounts for a movie being salvaged from a shit tip to a cult hit (The blade runner effect, as it were). The voice over is nothing but celluloid rape, it was never meant to be there and that's why it sounds utter crap, adds nothing but a pathetic drone telling the audience what can be seen by watching the movie, and adding some terrible lines that shouldn't be in a movie like blade runner. No its not bad, its terrible... Harrison ford clearly didn't want to do it. Scott didn't want it. The editor didn't want it. The studio heads wanted it for the delusional viewpoint that Americans were too stupid to understand the movie without it. You almost literally loose brain cells watching blade runner like that.

Its worth seeing once, just to see why it crashed the movie and why its a prime example of studio interference being almost always a disaster. Same goes for "Love Conquers All"; its the power of a bad edit on a potentially brilliant movie.

Without voice over you will miss half of the story

Err no... anyone with an attention span can follow the movie. The addition of the running drone-a-thon was so that the perceived moronic domestic audience could understand simple sequences of pictures and dialogue. I like to think people aren't that stupid.

I haven't met anyone who couldn't follow the story without a cheesy tacked on commentary.

Short: I don't need a Neanderthal-sounding hum droning out crappy dialogue, and butchering the movie into some dumbed down shell of a movie. It destroys the atmosphere, insults the audience's intelligence and is probably one of the worst additions to a movie in cinema history given the calibre of the movie. It was unnecessary to add that crap on the original release, and it was unnecessary to edit the movie from the director's cut to the theatrical version like they did.

[MyK]

It destroys the atmosphere, insults the audience's intelligence and is probably one of the worst additions to a movie in cinema history given the calibre of the movie

I second that and agree to the letter! Without it it has that cyberpunk feel that's supposed to have and with it (voice-over) it's just limiting viewers imagination IMO. As for what release is better... I'll wait for that collector's box set. It should be out any day now

[dinky]

erm...spud's point in regard to blade runner is well taken and, at least for the few pictures he mentions, darn true.

but you're kidding yourself if you think editing belongs to the director alone. editing belongs to whoever can edit best. and for a good portion of the time, that ain't the director. some directors can do it very well. others are complete morons (you just can't replace one incompetent with another though). anyway, writers AND directors often have a difficult time separating themselves from their "babies," as it were. just as scott and fincher were excellent "leave them the fuck alone" examples, "speilberg and lucas are damn fine "keep the the hell outta the editing room" examples (although I think lucas needs to put down the pen too).

my favorite example of someone who needs an editor is steven king. peter jackson is a big name studio director who also needs to be restrained. their stuff is just bloated. and it's easy to see how and why it happens (they can't put themselves at a respectable intellectual distance from their own product to see it clearly). that, to me, is just as true and justifiable a reason NOT to let them edit their own stuff as the (equally) justifiable argument for hands off a few posts up. from a writing standpoint, I find the most difficult part of the process is editing the material. it's just really difficult sometimes to cut sequences that you just love or are really proud of but at the same time turn the overall plot into a meandering mess. other people have more trouble getting their brilliant ideas down and have no problem streamlining them. iunno. this whole post is meandering now. dinker: ouuuuut.

[spudthedestroyer]

@dinky

No its not bad, its terrible... Harrison ford clearly didn't want to do it. Scott didn't want it. The editor didn't want it.

They usually hire stooges to over rule the director in these cases, of course if the editor disagrees that's different but they didn't in all the movies i mentioned. The changes were imposed top down, and replaced the director and editor in the case of Brazil

[spotnic]

@dinky

No its not bad, its terrible... Harrison ford clearly didn't want to do it. Scott didn't want it. The editor didn't want it.

They usually hire stooges to over rule the director in these cases, of course if the editor disagrees that's different but they didn't in all the movies i mentioned. The changes were imposed top down, and replaced the director and editor in the case of Brazil

Hell oo both are good but its not the same movie clear.If someone knows a movie as good as blade runner post me a link
ps:please

[dinky]

signed-up just to say that?

(I don't get the blade runner love affair. I've rewatched it like twice in twenty years. I've rewatched the holy trilogy 20 times a year. how does one define "good"? cuz the same applies to robocop, t2 and aliens well before blade runner.)

[FPiX]

There are loads of different versions out there. I stand to be corrected, but as I recall:

First there's the US and the international theatrical cuts. Both have the voice over and the tacky bolt-on ending, however the US cut has some of the more violent scenes cut. These have never been released on DVD so the best rips will come from laserdisc.

Then there's the director's cut - except it's not the true director's cut because it's based on the less violent US version (it was rushed and should have been based on the international version). The "final cut" is due out this year, and should be the ideal version with no voice over and the additional scenes present.

The first DVD release of the director's cut was a very early poor quality transfer, so avoid any rips from that. Then it was shown on HDTV in much better quality, rips from this broadcast will be better but may have station watermarks. Finally the remastered DVD came out which I think is from the same transfer as the HDTV version.

Just to confuse matters, there's also a workprint version. I've not seen this so I don't know what the differences are. It's only available as a very low quality cam (I think the workprint somehow came to be shown theatrically in Denver, which is why it's known as the Denver workprint).

[crusher310]

Without voice over you will miss half of the story.

I agree with this much...

[Vae Victis]

For those who haven't noticed it yet: http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltgu ... Z4O3B#list
Amazon is taking pre-orders

[spudthedestroyer]

Without voice over you will miss half of the story.

I agree with this much...

I really don't at all. if you can't keep up with a relatively straight forward plot, okay there's subtle moments and the whole film noir/cyber punk angle, perhaps but I had no trouble what so ever following the plot and the clear narrative of any of the cuts I've seen without the narration.

Like I said, the voice over was completely unnessacary which is why there was such hugh resistance and downright annoyance both by the audience and by the creative forces involved in it. Harrison Ford didn't want it doing, the editor didn't want it doing, Ridley Scott sure as hell didn't want it doing. It was done on the basis that the US studios think the US audience are retarded... really. That's its sole contribution and reason for its addition. Its the same reason they renamed "Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone" to "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone".

[spudthedestroyer]

....

Thinking about it, I guess I can't stand it on two levels:

1) its shit and degrades the film
2) because it insults my intelligence because of its artificial insertion into a movie that simply didn't need it by some very intellectually challanged studio executives

[mw2merc]

It's discussions like these that makes me not want to watch a film like this again because of the many versions. I too was hoping for some direction to which is better & get frustrated by all the bitching & whining & people going into how much a movie snob they are.

[spudthedestroyer]

I think you'll find its a discussion which is what you get when you ask a question about which is the best BR cut, your only one whining about the fact your getting discussion on something that's entirely opinion, even when you go into analysis its grounding is in personal taste.

Some direction to which is better has been given by numerous people above if you read through the posts, there's not going to be a consensus when people like the voice over and others can't stand it in any shape or form. I obviously fall into the latter.

So the real advise which became very clear, very fast is to form your own opinion and stop whining when you don't have the tolerance to read a discussion about it

So don't be such a drone, mr... leave that to George Bush voters

If it really hurts to make a decisions over which one to see first; revert back to something mathematical and watch them all chronologically, decide if you trust Ridley Scott as a director and watch the Director's Cut, decide you trust what the studio thinks of you and watch the international cut, or wait until November and buy the box set that has all of them and the new "Ultimate Cut".

Summary:
1) some people think you miss the story if you don't listen to the tacked on commentary. They recommend the original international.
2) Some people think its not needed and don't agree at all, it wasn't wanted and it ruins the movie. They recommend the director's.
3) someone else thinks you do miss the story, but doesn't agree it's the best
4) dinky just plum doesn't think Blade Runner is that good and doesn't understand.

I agree and disagree with all of them, because after all its personal opinion as to which one is best. Obviously i can't stand the voice over I don't like Pearl Harbour, does that make me a snob too? Its not being a snob, its just a shit film. Voice over cut (international) is a shit cut. Therefore i think its bad.

[Jynks]

It's discussions like these that makes me not want to watch a film like this again because of the many versions. I too was hoping for some direction to which is better & get frustrated by all the bitching & whining & people going into how much a movie snob they are.

You HAVE to see the film.. it is a classic for a reason and there is a serious hole in your scifi film history if you do not see it. In fact when you watch it you may not be so impressed as a lot of it you would have seen before.. just try to rember it did a lot of these first, or the first time well.

As for the different versions? Well, the real joy in this film is the "film making" in it.. back when all teh directors grew up as photographers... not the crappy directors that simply point and shoot and have no idea about the "art" of cinema.... this movie is a ture art item imo... something lacking from the majority of movies today. So either way you will get a good flick.

The general consensus is that the movie is harder to understand with out the commentary... so watch the one with out first... then with next time... that way you can experience the pleasure of using your own imagination to fill in the gaps and figure out a story that fits the film and you appreciate. Then watch with the commentary to get the rammed down your throat version.

The idea is that the commentary version is an add to the non commentary version... as in once you watch the commentary version all options for you to have a personal interpretation of the film is gone.. do not deny yourself that.. nto many films allow you that any more.. everything is spelt out is huge letters.

(I obviously favour the one with out the commentary... )