|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 12th, 2005 03:01 PM | ||||
| ziggytrix |
That's kinda the point tho. Are you a human being or a thinking machine, and how would you even know the difference? Read the book, it's worth it. |
|||
| Jul 12th, 2005 06:26 AM | ||||
| pjalne |
Yeah, but he did do some wacky stuff. Like hanging from a roof with lots of broken fingers. But it's debatable to which extent Scott claiming this makes a difference anyway. Deckard wasn't a replicant in the book, and as far as I know, the scriptwriter had no intention to make him one either. Harrison Ford never played it that way, and was in fact a bit pissed off when Scott revealed the whole thing, according to him he was human all along. Then again, it doesn't really matter what Ford thinks, as Deckard was as unaware of the truth as Ford was. I guess you still just have to make up your own mind. |
|||
| Jul 12th, 2005 01:46 AM | ||||
| DeadKennedys |
Quote:
Well, then why isn't he super strong or fast? He was pretty damn smart and I picked up on all the hints that he was a replicent but he didn't seem to be like them in that respect. |
|||
| Jul 11th, 2005 08:41 PM | ||||
| EverythingWillSuck |
The first time I saw BR it was on an old video that was the original theatrical version, with the narrations and ending and all. A couple years later I watched the DVD at a friend's house, and it didn't have the narration and I was like "Wait, wha? Where's his voice?  "Even if it was a bit dull and sloppy it still bugged me that the DC had no narration. Though I have to admit the ending in the original did suck and left me wondering where the hell they went :/ |
|||
| Jul 11th, 2005 11:08 AM | ||||
| pjalne | He confirmed it in an interview about four years ago. | |||
| Jul 11th, 2005 09:49 AM | ||||
| DeadKennedys |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 11th, 2005 08:36 AM | ||||
| Spectre X |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jul 11th, 2005 08:10 AM | ||||
| Krythor | What's the difference, in spoiler tags, between the two endings? I've seen both versions, but both were a long ass time ago and I can't remember for the life of me what happened in either. | |||
| Jul 11th, 2005 01:39 AM | ||||
| Ninjavenom | I'd love to get a copy of the Director's cut. I hated the ending and the narration did suck. | |||
| Jul 11th, 2005 01:13 AM | ||||
| marmielake |
does the weird looking guy get killed in this narrarated version? i like the other one better myself. |
|||
| Jul 11th, 2005 01:08 AM | ||||
| DeadKennedys |
Your husband bought the orignal, theatrical release with the film-noir voiceovers. Before the movie was released, Warner Brothers, the publisher, decided that the movie was too complicated for people to understand and forced Scott to add in voicovers to explain the story. Overestimating WB's taste, Ford did his best to make the lines as dull as possible in hopes that they wouldn't put them in the final cut of the film, but of course, they did anyway. Also, they added a happy ending where everything works out and all's happy. Scott later released his "Director's Cut" which didn't include narration, had some changes, and a different ending. A much better package if you ask me. |
|||
| Jul 11th, 2005 12:55 AM | ||||
| marmielake | my husband downloaded a copy and harrison ford was narrarating the whole thing. is this a different version? if i remember right the copy i bought was without said narration. | |||
| Jul 11th, 2005 12:48 AM | ||||
| Lye |
i have it. Iv never seen the other cut of the movie, so i can't say what is different other then what i'v read. It does have few extras, but if you don't care about it, then you don't care about it. I havnt watched it in a while, but I don't remember the picture or sound being below average, and I'm really picky about that stuff with dvds, so I think the picutre and sound are good. The thing i hate about it is that the dvd case is one of those stupid case that warner uses. the flipcase whatever its called thing, that looks like shit. I think a lot of people were mad that the dvd, and vhs, were the only copies of the movie released, and they werent the same movie that was seen in theathers. the narration is gone, and the ending is different. I'v never seen the other version, so i don't know which is best, but i like the version I'v seen. I bought the dvd on ebay for cheap a year or so ago because I hadn't seen the movie since I was kid, and I only remembered small parts or it. I would saw buy it from ebay for like $5, they have a bootleg of the orginal release too but i dont know if id buy it, or wait. the new edition has been tied up with legal crap for a while, and I dont think there has been any news of it since 02. If it ever comes out I know Im going to buy it and then just get rid of the one i have now. |
|||
| Jul 10th, 2005 02:09 AM | ||||
| DeadKennedys |
Blade Runner on DVD The first time I ever saw Blade Runner was the Director's Cut version, the way Scott wanted the movie to be seen, without the narration by Deckard for morons who couldn't understand the film. So, today I was trying to buy it on amazon and all these fucks are saying it's a terrible transfer of a great movie but won't really say why it's so bad. Does anyone have the Director's Cut DVD and can tell me what's wrong with it? Announced in 2002 is a new edition on the horizon, which includes the theatrical release, director's cut, and Scott's updated version because he feels that even his director's cut was rushed. But, this project has been on hol d and will probably take a long while. If the people reviewing the director's cut dvd bitch and can only say that it has "very few extra features" (which I never watch anyway but they might be cool on a movie of this caliber) then I have no reason to listen to them. But if this version coming out includes the way the film was meant to be seen, perhaps I will wait... Got any ideas? |
|||
