Blade Runner Directors Cut
profft
sucks. I went looking for the Theatrical version, it is out there for $64
dollars and comes with a bunch of posters and stuff. Too bad you can't get
the plainjane version of it without all the unnecessary crap.
Vincent Pereira
A new BLADE RUNNER dvd set being prepared for release sometime in 2003 will
supposedly contain the original theatrical cut as well as a new director's
cut. The theatrical cut is *NOT* presently available on DVD- that $64 set
contains the same director's cut DVD that Warners released back in the early
days of DVD.
--
VINCENT PEREIRA
http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent/
writer/director/editor: A BETTER PLACE
ABP official website: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/
A BETTER PLACE trailer: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/download.html
A Bag Of Memes
"profft" <f.ta...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:owIl9.14774$CN2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
There is no theatrical cut on DVD, at least in R1.
I don't think the "director's cut" sucks, but I prefer the theatrical cut
(which was already a director's cut.) Fortunately I have the Criterion
laserdisc.
Frank
On the plus side - thanks! Haven't watched it in a while, but I think I
will tonight.
"profft" <f.ta...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:owIl9.14774$CN2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Taliesin2
>Fortunately I have the Criterion
>laserdisc.
Those things were big in size. You could use them as pizza trays. LOL
John Harkness
>I like it. the voice-over is unnecessary and feels bolted onto the film.
>
Except, of course, that the film doesn't make narrative sense without
it.
John Harkness
CW
"final" director's cut)
"profft" <f.ta...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:owIl9.14774$CN2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Joshua Zyber
news:3d9776b0...@nntp.attcanada.ca...
> >I like it. the voice-over is unnecessary and feels bolted onto the
film.
>
> Except, of course, that the film doesn't make narrative sense without
> it.
Yes, it does. The only thing missing without the voiceover are
background details about Gaff's character, which are rather irrelevant
to the overall story.
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
news:84repuok7dvc6jrtk...@4ax.com...
> >Fortunately I have the Criterion
> >laserdisc.
>
> Those things were big in size. You could use them as pizza trays. LOL
Oh, shut the fuck up.
Matthew L. Martin
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:10:02 GMT, "Frank" <c65...@cm.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I like it. the voice-over is unnecessary and feels bolted onto the film.
>>
>
>
> Except, of course, that the film doesn't make narrative sense without
> it.
>
I had no problem following it without the narrative.
Matthew
--
<http://member.newsguy.com/~mlmartin/>
Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't get out of the game.
John Harkness
<mlma...@me.com> wrote:
>John Harkness wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:10:02 GMT, "Frank" <c65...@cm.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I like it. the voice-over is unnecessary and feels bolted onto the film.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Except, of course, that the film doesn't make narrative sense without
>> it.
>>
>
>I had no problem following it without the narrative.
>
>Matthew
>
How many times had you seen the film WITH the narration before seeing
the director's cut?
John Harkness
Jay G
"John Harkness" <j...@attcanada.ca> wrote
> >
> >I had no problem following it without the narrative.
> >
> >Matthew
> >
> How many times had you seen the film WITH the narration before seeing
> the director's cut?
I saw the directors cut about 10 years after I *possibly* saw the theatrical
I say possibly, because I was a kid when I saw the theatrical, and the
only reason I thnk I saw it is because I remember the 'happy' ending.
So, from basically no memory of the original, I was able to easily follow
the plot of the movie. From samples of the narration I've read whenever
this thread pops up, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
-Jay
Jay G
"A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote
> (which was already a director's cut.)
The theatrical is not a director's cut. After Ridley Scott turned in his
original cut, the studio demanded changes, most notably the inclusion
of narration.
Unfortunately, the "Director's Cut" out on DVD isn't even that. WB
didn't give Scott enough time, so the present cut is only a partial
restoration to Scott's original vision. For the new SE, they are
going back to the original negative and recreating, based on a
work-print from that time, the original cut that Ridley turned in.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
"Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote in message
news:upfi05j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote
> > I don't think the "director's cut" sucks, but I prefer the theatrical
cut
> > (which was already a director's cut.)
>
> The theatrical is not a director's cut. After Ridley Scott turned in his
> original cut, the studio demanded changes, most notably the inclusion
> of narration.
Not according to research in Paul M. Sammon's "Future Noir". Scott made the
changes voluntarily after test screenings went badly. The theatrical cut
was Ridley Scott's first director's cut.
Jeff Rife
> > The theatrical is not a director's cut. After Ridley Scott turned in his
> > original cut, the studio demanded changes, most notably the inclusion
> > of narration.
>
> Not according to research in Paul M. Sammon's "Future Noir". Scott made the
> changes voluntarily after test screenings went badly.
In addition, it is well known that the person who objected most to the
narration was *not* Ridley Scott, but rather Harrison Ford.
Straight from Ford's mouth:
"I was compelled by my contract to do the narration. When I first
agreed to do the film, I told Ridley there was too much information
given to the audience in narration. I said, 'Let's take it out and
put it into scenes and let the audience acquire this information in a
narrative fashion, without being told it.' And he said it was a good
idea. We sat around the kitchen table and we did it. When we got
done, the studio said nobody will understand this fucking movie. We
have to create a narrative. They had already thrown Ridley off the
movie--they were over budget. So I was compelled by my contract to
record this narration, which I did five or six different times.
Finally, I show up to do it for the last time and there's this old
Hollywood writer sitting there, pipe sticking out of his mouth,
pounding away at this portable typewriter in one of the studios. I
had never seen this guy before, so I stuck my head in and said, 'Hi,
I'm Harrison Ford.' He kind of waves me off. He came to hand me his
pages. To this day, I still don't remember who he was, and so I said,
'Look, I've done this five times before. I'm not going to argue with
you about anything. I've argued and I've never won, so I'm just going
to read this 10 times, and you guys do with it what you will.' I did
that. Did I deliberately do it badly? No. I delivered it to the
best of my ability given that I had no input. I never thought they'd
use it. But I didn't try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration."
-- <http://www.harrisonfordweb.com/Article/Miscellaneous/playboy_interview.php>
This sounds to me like the sequence of events was:
1. Narration written in script.
2. Ford and Scott pull the narration out into filmed scenes that give
the audience the same information.
3. Studio doesn't agree to this for some reason that *appears* to be
money to shoot the scenes.
4. Scott and Ford capitulate to leaving the narration in.
This leads us to several conclusions:
1. The narration was part of Ridley Scott's film, *before* the studio got
to demanding changes.
2. Ridley Scott might not have ditched the narration on his own, without
a push from Harrison Ford, along with Ford's agreement to film more
scenes.
3. The narration told what Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford felt were
important enough points to want to film narrative scenes to replace it.
--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
301-916-8131 | the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
| in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
| famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
| when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride
Jens Thomsen
"A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> skrev i en meddelelse
news:AxQl9.45904$Fw2.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Not according to research in Paul M. Sammon's "Future Noir". Scott made
the
> changes voluntarily after test screenings went badly. The theatrical cut
> was Ridley Scott's first director's cut.
Not according to the very same source you mention. Scott wasn't allowed to
complete the post-production, remember?
Regards
Jens
Matthew L. Martin
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:00:37 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> <mlma...@me.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I had no problem following it without the narrative.
>>
>>Matthew
>>
>
> How many times had you seen the film WITH the narration before seeing
> the director's cut?
Exactly zero times.
A Bag Of Memes
"Jens Thomsen" <nob...@home.dk> wrote in message
news:3d980f12$0$18151$edfa...@dspool01.news.tele.dk...
Tandem turned down funds for some additional shots Scott requested, but they
only had that power because Scott was over budget. The studio didn't demand
changes to Scott's version (as the OP said), they just didn't let him spend
as much as he wanted. Each of the test screening versions and the
theatrical version were Scott's, not the studio's.
Eric Fantone
an itw of ridley scott :
(sorry for the translation...)
(...)
Q : is the remaster is finished ?
A : yes, the movie should be released as a 3 dvd set, there will be 3
versions of the movie :
- the workprint from 1982
- first theatrical with the happy end and the vo comments
- and a new version with new scenes added but without the v.o
one of the disc will content many itw which will explain the complicated
genesis of the movie
the directors of the new documentary found almost everyone who was involved
in the movie
(...)
can't wait !!!!
Eric
"CW" <cwNO...@NOSPAM000.no> a écrit dans le message de news:
an7to9$e8r$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
Jay G
"Jeff Rife" <we...@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1801b8051...@news.nabs.net...
> A Bag Of Memes (a@b.c) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > > The theatrical is not a director's cut. After Ridley Scott turned in
his
> > > original cut, the studio demanded changes, most notably the inclusion
> > > of narration.
> >
> > Not according to research in Paul M. Sammon's "Future Noir". Scott made
the
> > changes voluntarily after test screenings went badly.
>
Sounds like contradictary information. Bag says Scott made the changes,
while Ford says that Scott had already been thrown off the film when
the changes were being made.
> This sounds to me like the sequence of events was:
>
> 1. Narration written in script.
> 2. Ford and Scott pull the narration out into filmed scenes that give
> the audience the same information.
> 3. Studio doesn't agree to this for some reason that *appears* to be
> money to shoot the scenes.
> 4. Scott and Ford capitulate to leaving the narration in.
This sounds to me more like the sequence of events
1) Original script included narration
2) Ford convinced Scott to drop the narration *before* filming starts
(remember Ford said "When I first agreed to do the film," suggesting
that the changes were very early on.) The script is changed to make
key points previosly told through the narration to be revealed through
the narrative.
3) The film is shot and cut based on the new script.
4) WB finds the film too confusing and demands that the narration be
added back in.
5) Scott is removed for being over budget, and Ford goes through
half a dozen readings of different narrations before the film is
finished.
This leads us to several *different* conclusions.
1) The narration was only part of the original script, and dropped
after Ford joined the project.
2) The script had been changed to remove the need for narration.
3) Scott might've not dropped the narration had Ford not insisted,
but the final cut he made was of a narration-free film that told
the story through the narrative.
4) The fact that the original narration could not simply be added
back in, and went through several rewrites shows that at least
the original narration was now redundant.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
>
> "Jeff Rife" <we...@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1801b8051...@news.nabs.net...
> > A Bag Of Memes (a@b.c) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > > > The theatrical is not a director's cut. After Ridley Scott turned
in
> his
> > > > original cut, the studio demanded changes, most notably the
inclusion
> > > > of narration.
> > >
> > > Not according to research in Paul M. Sammon's "Future Noir". Scott
made
> the
> > > changes voluntarily after test screenings went badly.
> >
> > Straight from Ford's mouth:
> > They had already thrown Ridley off the movie--they were over budget.
They were over budget, but Scott supervised the first 2 voice over recording
sessions with Ford.
>
> Sounds like contradictary information. Bag says Scott made the changes,
> while Ford says that Scott had already been thrown off the film when
> the changes were being made.
Bag is going by Sammon's account in "Future Noir". Scott wasn't thrown off
the picture according to him. I suggest everyone interested read "Future
Noir", the sequence of events is chronicled in detail.
>
> This sounds to me more like the sequence of events
>
> 1) Original script included narration
> 2) Ford convinced Scott to drop the narration *before* filming starts
> (remember Ford said "When I first agreed to do the film," suggesting
> that the changes were very early on.) The script is changed to make
> key points previosly told through the narration to be revealed through
> the narrative.
> 3) The film is shot and cut based on the new script.
> 4) WB finds the film too confusing and demands that the narration be
> added back in.
Actually it was sneak preview audiences who found the film too confusing.
Scott read the comment cards (he was present at the major sneaks in Denver,
Dallas and San Diego) and willingly authorized changes for the theatrical
release. He didn't want it to kill his career, and the comment cards hinted
that was a definite possibility.
> 5) Scott is removed for being over budget, and Ford goes through
> half a dozen readings of different narrations before the film is
> finished.
Scott wasn't removed. They just wouldn't give him more money for additional
photography. He had to make do with what he had in the can.
>
> This leads us to several *different* conclusions.
>
> 1) The narration was only part of the original script, and dropped
> after Ford joined the project.
> 2) The script had been changed to remove the need for narration.
> 3) Scott might've not dropped the narration had Ford not insisted,
> but the final cut he made was of a narration-free film that told
> the story through the narrative.
> 4) The fact that the original narration could not simply be added
> back in, and went through several rewrites shows that at least
> the original narration was now redundant.
Hampton Fancher's first script had voice-overs in it. David Peoples' kept
them in his scripts, but shortly before production started Scott and Peoples
temporarily removed them to avoid continuity problems. Peoples claims they
always intended to add voice-over after they had a better sense of the
finished film. They wanted to use it as connection to film noir thrillers,
but they wanted the film to make sense without them. The reason for so many
voice-over re-writes was that several plot points were unclear due to last
minute script changes and edits.
"Future Noir" makes it clear that the theatrical version *was* Scott's cut.
He made decisions based on economic considerations, but the film wasn't
taken away from him by a studio.
Jeff Rife
> voice-over re-writes was that several plot points were unclear due to last
> minute script changes and edits.
Like the fact that Harrison Ford spent the entire movie acting as if Deckard
was 100% human, with no chance of being a replicant, because he and Ridley
had agreed to that before (and I assume during) shooting.
It was only after the whole thing was in the can (and possibly after the
wide theatrical release) that Scott mentioned to Ford that Deckard was (or
might be) a replicant.
--
Jeff Rife | "I'm worse than Hitler?!?"
301-916-8131 |
| "Not worse...just less warm and cuddly."
|
| -- Jay Sherman and Duke Phillips, "The Critic"
Mark R. Hill
Yes, I want the original theatrical version. Despite the director
saying he had to make changes he didn't want, the 1982 theatrical
version is the one everyone wants. (Well, the one I want.) It is
superior. If it was not originally a theatrical success, it was not
because of the narration.
Let's hope that the suggestion that the upcoming DVD set *will*
include *BOTH* versions.
Mark
Peter Briggs
> How many people think the directors cut (sans Decker voiceover) just plain
> sucks.
I'm Spartacus.
Without the V.O., it's only half as effective. With, it's a freakin'
classic.
Joshua Zyber
news:1fje8cp.j06gib1b5442eN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk...
> > How many people think the directors cut (sans Decker voiceover) just
plain
> > sucks.
>
> I'm Spartacus.
>
> Without the V.O., it's only half as effective. With, it's a freakin'
> classic.
A freakin' classic example of bad voiceover, and how good movies can get
ruined by stupid tacked-on happy endings.
- Josh
Smaug69
Are you still clinging to the notion that the original ending was
tacked on without Ridley's approval?
Smaug69
Jay G
"Smaug69" <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fe774aa.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> wrote
> >
> > A freakin' classic example of bad voiceover, and how good movies can get
> > ruined by stupid tacked-on happy endings.
>
> Are you still clinging to the notion that the original ending was
> tacked on without Ridley's approval?
The fact is the theatrical ending was not in the original script, was not
filmed during production, and was not part of the original director's
cut. The fact that Scott removed it later suggests that he was not
happy with it.
I'm curious about this whole notion of Ridley's 'approval' of changes to
the film. The fact that he assented to the changes, which he probably
had no choice over, does not mean it was part of his vision for the film.
To take another Ridley Scott film as an example, Scott finished Legend
and handed in his cut to two different studios: Universal for domestic
distribution and Fox for worldwide distribution. Fox released his cut
as-is. Universal, however, wanted changes, re-editing the film and
a new score by Tangerine Dream 'to appeal to teenagers.' Scott
agreed to this changes and made the cut that Universal wanted.
Does this make the cut that Universal distributed a director's cut?
I think no, because the changes were mandated by the studio.
If Ridley had said no, they most likely would've made the changes
without him, and it would've hurt his relationship with Universal.
Of course, like Blade Runner, Legend was a flop even with the
changes, and the studio blamed him anyway. He hasn't made
a film for either studio since.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
>
> "Smaug69" <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:5fe774aa.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> wrote
> > >
> > > A freakin' classic example of bad voiceover, and how good movies can
get
> > > ruined by stupid tacked-on happy endings.
> >
> > Are you still clinging to the notion that the original ending was
> > tacked on without Ridley's approval?
>
> The fact is the theatrical ending was not in the original script, was not
> filmed during production, and was not part of the original director's
> cut.
Producer Michael Deeley says otherwise. He says it was in the shooting
script and was assigned scene numbers 137 through 139. They weren't shot
because they ran out of time and money. It wasn't until Scott started
editing that he decided the film should end with the elevator doors closing.
> The fact that Scott removed it later suggests that he was not
> happy with it.
And the fact that Scott added it earlier suggest that he was happier with it
than without it, at least after the Dallas and Denver sneak previews.
>
> I'm curious about this whole notion of Ridley's 'approval' of changes to
> the film. The fact that he assented to the changes, which he probably
> had no choice over, does not mean it was part of his vision for the film.
He didn't just assent, he made the choices. Scott personally asked Kubrick
for permission to use shots from "The Shining" after he found out that 2nd
unit footage from Moab, Utah was unusable.
>
> To take another Ridley Scott film as an example, Scott finished Legend
> and handed in his cut to two different studios: Universal for domestic
> distribution and Fox for worldwide distribution. Fox released his cut
> as-is. Universal, however, wanted changes, re-editing the film and
> a new score by Tangerine Dream 'to appeal to teenagers.' Scott
> agreed to this changes and made the cut that Universal wanted.
But that didn't happen with Blade Runner, at least according to "Future
Noir".
>
> Does this make the cut that Universal distributed a director's cut?
> I think no, because the changes were mandated by the studio.
> If Ridley had said no, they most likely would've made the changes
> without him, and it would've hurt his relationship with Universal.
> Of course, like Blade Runner, Legend was a flop even with the
> changes, and the studio blamed him anyway. He hasn't made
> a film for either studio since.
Universal received production credits for Gladiator and Hannibal.
Jay G
"A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote
> But that didn't happen with Blade Runner, at least according to "Future
> Noir".
I'm going to read "Future Noir" now, based on your reccomendation.
> > Of course, like Blade Runner, Legend was a flop even with the
> > changes, and the studio blamed him anyway. He hasn't made
> > a film for either studio since.
>
> Universal received production credits for Gladiator and Hannibal.
Yeah, I noticed that. However, those were co-productions, with
other studios getting the domestic distribution rights. Also, those
films were 15 years after Legend, so the bad blood was probably
past then. Either that, or all the previous execs were gone.
-Jay
Joshua Zyber
get
> > ruined by stupid tacked-on happy endings.
>
> Are you still clinging to the notion that the original ending was
> tacked on without Ridley's approval?
I don't care who's responsible for tacking it on, it is a lousy ending
that ruins the movie, and is the primary reason why the "Director's Cut"
is a thousand times better than the original theatrical versions.
- Josh
A Bag Of Memes
But what if it hadn't been added? What if BR had been an even bigger box
office flop than it was and never got a 2nd life on video?
Without the happy ending, we might not have a BR SE DVD on the way.
Jay G
"A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote
> > that ruins the movie, and is the primary reason why the "Director's Cut"
> > is a thousand times better than the original theatrical versions.
>
> But what if it hadn't been added? What if BR had been an even bigger box
> office flop than it was and never got a 2nd life on video?
>
> Without the happy ending, we might not have a BR SE DVD on the way.
Since when did conjecture about a certain cut's potential profitability
become a valid defense? I doesn't matter if the theatrical made more
money than the original cut would've, at least not to anyone beside
the studio. What does matter is which cut makes a better film.
I can sympathize with fans of the theatrical cut. I can't harp about
wanting the original cut of Star Wars without acknowledging that
those wanting the theatrical cut of Blade Runner are essentially
arguing for the same thing: wanting to see the film they originally
fell in love with. I think BR SE, like Legend SE, should have
both the theatrical and the director's prefered cut, if for no
other reason than to let the viewer compare and decide on
their own.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
>
> "A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote
> > > I don't care who's responsible for tacking it on, it is a lousy ending
> > > that ruins the movie, and is the primary reason why the "Director's
Cut"
> > > is a thousand times better than the original theatrical versions.
> >
> > But what if it hadn't been added? What if BR had been an even bigger
box
> > office flop than it was and never got a 2nd life on video?
> >
> > Without the happy ending, we might not have a BR SE DVD on the way.
>
> Since when did conjecture about a certain cut's potential profitability
> become a valid defense?
Don't take it as a defense, just a "what if" postulate.
> I doesn't matter if the theatrical made more
> money than the original cut would've, at least not to anyone beside
> the studio.
Perhaps. But BR had a rough time even with the happy ending. If they'd
released the 1st sneak preview cut it could have been another "Heaven's
Gate". And I haven't seen any plans for a SE DVD of that film.
> What does matter is which cut makes a better film.
Luckily we have 2 cuts and a 3rd on the way.
>
> I can sympathize with fans of the theatrical cut. I can't harp about
> wanting the original cut of Star Wars without acknowledging that
> those wanting the theatrical cut of Blade Runner are essentially
> arguing for the same thing: wanting to see the film they originally
> fell in love with. I think BR SE, like Legend SE, should have
> both the theatrical and the director's prefered cut, if for no
> other reason than to let the viewer compare and decide on
> their own.
And that's what they say will be on the SE, as well as the workprint that
showed up at the Nuart theater and spawned all of this "director's cut"
interest.
Joshua Zyber
news:LlPm9.59807$8o3.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > I doesn't matter if the theatrical made more
> > money than the original cut would've, at least not to anyone beside
> > the studio.
>
> Perhaps. But BR had a rough time even with the happy ending.
Correction: The movie had a rough time BECAUSE OF the happy ending.
Stupid test audiences aside, when real audiences went to see the film
they were yanked out of the movie experience by the stupid happy ending
that invalidated everything that they had just spent two hours watching.
That tends to leave a bitter taste in people's mouths, and makes them
feel that the whole thing was a waste of time.
- Josh
Jeff Rife
Three is the number of the cuts we have, and the number of the cuts is
three. OK, so it's late, and I'm feeling Pythonesque for some reason.
Anyway, haven't there been 3 cuts already released to home video:
1. The happy-ending cut, with voice-over
2. The happy-ending cut, with voice-over, with restored violence (Criterion)
3. The "director's cut", with no voice-over, no happy ending (not sure
about the violence)
--
Jeff Rife | "Hey, Brain, what do you wanna do tonight?"
301-916-8131 |
| "The same thing we do every night, Pinky...
| try to take over the world."
E Hansen
>"profft" <f.ta...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<owIl9.14774$CN2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>> How many people think the directors cut (sans Decker voiceover) just plain
>> sucks. I went looking for the Theatrical version, it is out there for $64
>> dollars and comes with a bunch of posters and stuff. Too bad you can't get
>> the plainjane version of it without all the unnecessary crap.
>
>Yes, I want the original theatrical version. Despite the director
>saying he had to make changes he didn't want, the 1982 theatrical
>version is the one everyone wants. (Well, the one I want.) It is
>superior. If it was not originally a theatrical success, it was not
>because of the narration.
>
Certainly its long lasting success has nothing to do with the
Joshua Zyber
> Anyway, haven't there been 3 cuts already released to home video:
>
> 1. The happy-ending cut, with voice-over
> 2. The happy-ending cut, with voice-over, with restored violence
(Criterion)
> 3. The "director's cut", with no voice-over, no happy ending (not sure
> about the violence)
The "Director's Cut" is missing the violence restored to the previous
European theatrical version of the movie released on home video.
- Josh
Peter Briggs
> A freakin' classic example of bad voiceover, and how good movies can get
> ruined by stupid tacked-on happy endings.
You know what, Josh?
If Warners want to stump up the money for ol' Harrison "Only Get Out Of
Bed For Cold Hard Cash" to do a version of the voiceover with a little
more empathy, I'm in the cheering corner.
Hey. Give RUTGER some money, and change the perspective of the V.O. to
the replicants for the alternate track. Could be interesting.
Otherwise...I just don't care, as long as I get the original V.O. track
to prevent it becoming the vacuum-sucking rough-cut, laughingly known
(by EVERYONE, **including** Ridley) as "The Director's Cut"...
A Bag Of Memes
> "A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:LlPm9.59807$8o3.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> > > I doesn't matter if the theatrical made more
> > > money than the original cut would've, at least not to anyone beside
> > > the studio.
> >
> > Perhaps. But BR had a rough time even with the happy ending.
>
> Correction: The movie had a rough time BECAUSE OF the happy ending.
Nonsense. Most movie goers are sheep who want happy endings. If you want
to sell tickets, make a predictable movie.
Smaug69
You may have had a bitter taste in your mouth, Sparky, but don't
assume everyone else did. I enjoyed the original(As I saw it) just
fine. I didn't consider it a waste of time. On the contrary, I enjoyed
it immensely.
The fact that I haven't been able to get _that_ version on DVD is a
sore point with me. But then what do you care since you only want a
so-called final director's version.
Hey, how about Ridley doing a new version every ten years until he's
dead? The studio can release (and rerelease) all the versions each
time a new comes out and then release a special box set with all the
versions after Ridley kicks the bucket. Wouldn't that be special?
Smaug69
jayembee
> A freakin' classic example of bad voiceover,
I disagree. Ford's monotone exactly fits the (appropriately)
emotionally dead performance he gives throughout the film.
I know that Ford thought he was sabotaging the voiceover by
putting no life into it, but it was exactly the right way to
do it.
> and how good movies can get ruined by stupid tacked-on
> happy endings.
True, but one can stop the film right when the elevator doors
close (as I've usually done when watching my Criterion LD, or
-- depending where the chapter stop for the closing credits is
-- just skip right to the closing credits from that point.
The whole thing should be able to be handled with seamless
branching as well. Since the director's cut just cuts out
the happy-ever-after ending and adds the unicorn dream, it
should be a simple matter to branch the two versions. The
only "problem" would be having to include a whole extra
soundtrack with the voiceover for the theatrical cut.
And, of course, this isn't taking into account what new version
Scott might come up with. But even then, Warner could have
a 3-disc set with (1) the hypothetical new version, (2) extras,
and (3) seamless-branched theatrical and "director's cut" versions.
Then everyone would be happy.
-- jayembee
Jeff Rife
> > Anyway, haven't there been 3 cuts already released to home video:
> >
> > 1. The happy-ending cut, with voice-over
> > 2. The happy-ending cut, with voice-over, with restored violence
> (Criterion)
> > 3. The "director's cut", with no voice-over, no happy ending (not sure
> > about the violence)
>
> The "Director's Cut" is missing the violence restored to the previous
> European theatrical version of the movie released on home video.
Thanks. Then, at the very least, the new cut coming to DVD should have
that added back.
Of course, depending on exactly what tinkering gets done with the cuts
coming up on the new SE, we may get 3 completely new cuts, in the sense
that none of them have ever appeared exactly that way before.
--
Jeff Rife | "What's goin' on down here?"
301-916-8131 | "Oh, we're playing house."
| "But, that boy is all tied up."
| "...Roman Polanski's house."
| -- Lois and Stewie Griffin, "Family Guy"
Jeff Rife
> If Warners want to stump up the money for ol' Harrison "Only Get Out Of
> Bed For Cold Hard Cash" to do a version of the voiceover with a little
> more empathy, I'm in the cheering corner.
I like the "bored and tired of life" aspect of the VO. It fits the
character.
> Otherwise...I just don't care, as long as I get the original V.O. track
> to prevent it becoming the vacuum-sucking rough-cut, laughingly known
> (by EVERYONE, **including** Ridley) as "The Director's Cut"...
Does Ridley call it that for any reason other than it's what's on the box?
He *does* claim to have rushed it to get it out the door, and it (still)
wasn't what he wanted (obviously).
--
Jeff Rife | "There was a guy that was killed just like this
301-916-8131 | over in Jersey."
| "Yeah, but I figure, 'What the hell,
| that's Jersey.'"
| -- "Highlander"
A Bag Of Memes
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:d3aeee5b.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Joshua Zyber" <jzy...@SPAM-SPAM-GO-AWAY.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > A freakin' classic example of bad voiceover,
>
> I disagree. Ford's monotone exactly fits the (appropriately)
> emotionally dead performance he gives throughout the film.
>
> I know that Ford thought he was sabotaging the voiceover by
> putting no life into it, but it was exactly the right way to
> do it.
I disagree. I prefer the voice over version, but Ford played it "wooden"
when it should have been "cynical".
BR is a good but flawed film, and I don't think any amount of revision can
improve on that.
A Bag Of Memes
"Steve Hanson" <SteveHa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:po4ppugtu13rmk0lj...@4ax.com...
>
> It's a mistake to treat Ridley Scott as some kind of auteur whose
> artistic vision should never be altered by mere studio executives.
Only it wasn't altered by studio executives. It was altered by Ridley
Scott. He understood the economics of film making as well as any studio
exec.
> It's not like there is much more to the movie than special effects and
> pretty cinematography.
But there is. There's a rich sub-text dealing with what it means to be
human and what it means to be owned.
Joshua Zyber
> Otherwise...I just don't care, as long as I get the original V.O.
track
> to prevent it becoming the vacuum-sucking rough-cut, laughingly known
> (by EVERYONE, **including** Ridley) as "The Director's Cut"...
You do realize that there is less than 5 minutes of voiceover in the
original release, and that aside from the tacked-on ending the
differences between the two versions are almost entirely insignificant?
And yet one is "vacuum-sucking"? Interesting...
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
> sore point with me. But then what do you care since you only want a
> so-called final director's version.
I didn't say I *only* wanted any particular cut at all. Do you have any
idea how many different editions of this movie I already own?
All I said is that the "Director's Cut", although certainly flawed, does
improve on the original release in a couple of very significant
respects.
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
> close (as I've usually done when watching my Criterion LD, or
> -- depending where the chapter stop for the closing credits is
> -- just skip right to the closing credits from that point.
Wouldn't work. In the original release the end credits played over the
footage from the new ending.
- Josh
David Chien
Making of Blade Runner" books if you're really into BR and want more.
The 2nd book really is a keeper, and I wish they'd make it into a movie
someday. It's really interesting how it develops. The other goes over
the movie production in detail.
Peter Briggs
> Are you still clinging to the notion that the original ending was
> tacked on without Ridley's approval?
Say WHAT?
Peter Briggs
> I don't care who's responsible for tacking it on, it is a lousy ending
> that ruins the movie
I don't care whether it's IN the movie, or OUT of the movie. I like it,
but its excision in the (ha ha) "DC" doesn't ruin the movie for me.
>, and is the primary reason why the "Director's Cut"
> is a thousand times better than the original theatrical versions.
Unfortunately, with the VO gone, the "DC" is a THOUSANDTH that of the
original.
Peter Briggs
> I can sympathize with fans of the theatrical cut. I can't harp about
> wanting the original cut of Star Wars without acknowledging that
> those wanting the theatrical cut of Blade Runner are essentially
> arguing for the same thing: wanting to see the film they originally
> fell in love with.
Sensibly put.
I'd love for SW fans to see the original cuts of the movie alongside the
SEs on DVD, now. I think they'd wince at the quality of the matte
compositing in the Death Star battle, and complaints about the SEs would
significantly diminish.
Peter Briggs
> Stupid test audiences aside, when real audiences went to see the film
> they were yanked out of the movie experience by the stupid happy ending
> that invalidated everything that they had just spent two hours watching.
Speaking as a "real audience member", I had no problem whatsoever with
the "happy ending" back in 1982. "Blade Runner" (and "Trek 2") were my
two favourite movies that year.
Jay G
I can deal with all the matte shots in the world as long as I don't have
to see Greedo shooting first.
-Jay
Jay G
Was the "happy ending" the make-or-break point for you though? I mean,
were you thinking, "suck, suck, suck, oh happy ending, I like it now."?
-Jay
Joshua Zyber
> > > Stupid test audiences aside, when real audiences went to see the
film
> > > they were yanked out of the movie experience by the stupid happy
ending
> > > that invalidated everything that they had just spent two hours
watching.
> >
> > Speaking as a "real audience member", I had no problem whatsoever
with
> > the "happy ending" back in 1982. "Blade Runner" (and "Trek 2") were
my
> > two favourite movies that year.
>
> Was the "happy ending" the make-or-break point for you though? I mean,
> were you thinking, "suck, suck, suck, oh happy ending, I like it
now."?
Apparently he was thinking, "suck, suck, oh voice over, suck, suck, oh
happy ending."
- Josh
Peter Briggs
> You do realize that there is less than 5 minutes of voiceover in the
> original release, and that aside from the tacked-on ending the
> differences between the two versions are almost entirely insignificant?
Gee, Josh. I must have seen the movie well over a hundred times, so I
guess I had realized that fact...
Joshua Zyber
> > You do realize that there is less than 5 minutes of voiceover in the
> > original release, and that aside from the tacked-on ending the
> > differences between the two versions are almost entirely
insignificant?
>
> Gee, Josh. I must have seen the movie well over a hundred times, so I
> guess I had realized that fact...
Then why the incessant hyperbole?
- Josh
Smaug69
If Ridley had been as disappointed and upset about the original ending
as some around here suggest then he wouldn't have signed off on it. BR
would have been directed by Alan Smithee.
Smaug69
Jay G
"Smaug69" <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> If Ridley had been as disappointed and upset about the original ending
> as some around here suggest then he wouldn't have signed off on it. BR
> would have been directed by Alan Smithee.
Hate to break this to you, but lots of movies have changes made against
the director's wishes, and most do not remove their names. The
Hollywood mentality for directors is to just grin and bear it, then move
on to the next project.
Also, removing your name from a film isn't that easy. Even American
History X, which the director Tony Kaye public lambasted before it's
release, has him credited as director. Basically, the director has to
appeal to the DGA, which then has to decide whether or not the director
has a case, and also whether or not removing the name could cause clear
financial damage.
Unfortunately, most directors do not have final cut on studio films.
Directors go into these productions knowing full well that the final product
may be altered against their wishes, so we shouldn't pity them. However,
we should also not for one second assume that just because the credits
say "Directed by...," that the film represents the complete, unaltered
vision of the director.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
>
> "Smaug69" <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > If Ridley had been as disappointed and upset about the original ending
> > as some around here suggest then he wouldn't have signed off on it. BR
> > would have been directed by Alan Smithee.
>
> Hate to break this to you, but lots of movies have changes made against
> the director's wishes, and most do not remove their names.
This has nothing to do with Bladerunner. It wasn't changed against the
director's wishes.
Jay G
"A Bag Of Memes" <a@b.c> wrote in message
I was discounting Smaug's point: that Blade Runner was a director's
cut because it had Scott's name on it, which is false.
I must ask, however, that if the theatrical cut features the director's
wishes,
how come Scott has gone to great lengths to subsequently undo the
changes? It seems that the original cut is Scott's prefered cut of the
film.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
>
>
> I must ask, however, that if the theatrical cut features the director's
> wishes,
> how come Scott has gone to great lengths to subsequently undo the
> changes? It seems that the original cut is Scott's prefered cut of the
> film.
In 1990 Warner Bros accidentally sent out the 70mm print shown at the Denver
and Dallas test screenings. NuArt started showing a 35mm version of it to
packed houses and WB decided to release it as a director's cut. Scott
objected because it wasn't up to his technical standards (bad color
correction, bad sound mix, scratches, jumpy edits, etc.). He convinced them
to let him clean it up a bit before they put the "director's cut" label on
it.
That's what's so ironic about the label. Scott didn't undo the changes.
The studio did.
A Bag Of Memes
>
> I suspect it would have been relatively simple to have his name
> removed since he was fired as director.
He wasn't fired.
WinningerR
wishes,
how come Scott has gone to great lengths to subsequently undo the
changes? It seems that the original cut is Scott's prefered cut of the
film.<<<
Scott keeps changing his mind about various aspects of BladeRunner. The new
"special edition" DVD in production now offers yet another cut of the film.
A Bag Of Memes
> A Bag Of Memes wrote in
> <AtEo9.101239$8o3.2...@twister.austin.rr.com>:
When and by whom?
Peter Briggs
> Was the "happy ending" the make-or-break point for you though? I mean,
> were you thinking, "suck, suck, suck, oh happy ending, I like it now."?
I think I remember thinking..."gee: what a terrific movie".
Peter Briggs
> > Gee, Josh. I must have seen the movie well over a hundred times, so I
> > guess I had realized that fact...
>
> Then why the incessant hyperbole?
Consistency?
Peter Briggs
> I can deal with all the matte shots in the world as long as I don't have
> to see Greedo shooting first.
Well, there's no disagreement there!
Peter Briggs
> Blade Runner is an enigma. It's become a cult movie not because it's
> great sci-fi or a great movie in general.
Wrong. And wrong.
>But because it stirs so many
> mixed views. I don't know many people who out and out hate it. Yet I
> don't know anyone who out and out loves it.
Well, you can add me to the latter repertoire, so you no longer have to
use that sentence....
Joshua Zyber
> > Blade Runner is an enigma. It's become a cult movie not because it's
> > great sci-fi or a great movie in general.
>
> Wrong. And wrong.
>
> >But because it stirs so many
> > mixed views. I don't know many people who out and out hate it. Yet I
> > don't know anyone who out and out loves it.
>
> Well, you can add me to the latter repertoire, so you no longer have
to
> use that sentence....
Yes, a foolish claim there from the original poster. There are plenty of
people, myself included, who out and out love the movie (though some of
us love it more without the narration or stupid happy ending).
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
> > > Gee, Josh. I must have seen the movie well over a hundred times,
so I
> > > guess I had realized that fact...
> >
> > Then why the incessant hyperbole?
>
> Consistency?
Is that supposed to be a virtue or something?
- Josh
Smaug69
> "Smaug69" <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > If Ridley had been as disappointed and upset about the original ending
> > as some around here suggest then he wouldn't have signed off on it. BR
> > would have been directed by Alan Smithee.
>
> Hate to break this to you, but lots of movies have changes made against
> the director's wishes, and most do not remove their names.
But they can do it.
> The
> Hollywood mentality for directors is to just grin and bear it, then move
> on to the next project.
>
> Also, removing your name from a film isn't that easy. Even American
> History X, which the director Tony Kaye public lambasted before it's
> release, has him credited as director. Basically, the director has to
> appeal to the DGA, which then has to decide whether or not the director
> has a case, and also whether or not removing the name could cause clear
> financial damage.
But it's possible and it has happened in the past.
> Unfortunately, most directors do not have final cut on studio films.
> Directors go into these productions knowing full well that the final product
> may be altered against their wishes, so we shouldn't pity them. However,
> we should also not for one second assume that just because the credits
> say "Directed by...," that the film represents the complete, unaltered
> vision of the director.
Unfortunately, RS was given a rare opportunity to redo his film and he
blew it. And don't give me the excuse about RS being pressed for time.
These guys never stop working so they always have the time.
Smaug69
Joshua Zyber
news:5fe774aa.02100...@posting.google.com...
> Unfortunately, RS was given a rare opportunity to redo his film and he
> blew it. And don't give me the excuse about RS being pressed for time.
> These guys never stop working so they always have the time.
That's perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say in my
life.
- Josh
Douglas Bailey
> "Smaug69" <sma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Unfortunately, RS was given a rare opportunity to redo his film and he
> > blew it. And don't give me the excuse about RS being pressed for time.
> > These guys never stop working so they always have the time.
>
> That's perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say in my
> life.
Just wait; I'm sure dvdguy2 or Rich Anderson will be along shortly to
reclaim the championship.
doug
--
---------------douglas bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Larry Lynch
pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk says...
You can also add me to the list of people who "Love" the movie.
I must admit to likeing BOTH the version with the V.O. and the version
without it, but the one with the V. O. is my favorite.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
dinosaurbob
I love the movie, too, but I love it best *with* the narration and the
"stupid happy ending" :)
+Dinosaurbob+
Peter Briggs
> > Consistency?
>
> Is that supposed to be a virtue or something?
Depends "whether-or-not you imagine that blowing in the wind to curry
favors and follow this-week's-trend-of-the-instant", isn't...?
Peter Briggs
> This has nothing to do with Bladerunner. It wasn't changed against the
> director's wishes.
Oh. PLEASE....
Not only isn't it that simple, it's not as simple as you imagine it
is...
Peter Briggs
Although, really, bizarrely, there actually is a general ring of
accuracy to what Smaug's saying?
If Ridley HAD invested a little more time back-when, the director's cut
COULD have been exactly that.
Peter Briggs
> Yes, a foolish claim there from the original poster. There are plenty of
> people, myself included, who out and out love the movie (though some of
> us love it more without the narration or stupid happy ending).
And/Or/Even, flipped the proper way around...
Joshua Zyber
> > > Consistency?
> >
> > Is that supposed to be a virtue or something?
>
> Depends "whether-or-not you imagine that blowing in the wind to curry
> favors and follow this-week's-trend-of-the-instant", isn't...?
And who would be doing that, exactly?
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
It was the "These guys never stop working so they always have the time"
bit that has me perplexed.
- Josh
Jay G
"Peter Briggs" <pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1fjsszh.1shg0ae136savsN%pe...@camshaft.demon.co.uk...
Ridley *ran out* of time when cutting the Director's Cut, and Warner
released the cut he had at that point. It wasn't like Ridley just stopped.
-Jay
A Bag Of Memes
Are you saying Scott was drugged? Or his mind was taken over? He
supervised the changes. Was he at gun point?
Peter Briggs
> Are you saying Scott was drugged? Or his mind was taken over? He
> supervised the changes. Was he at gun point?
The changes weren't made at his behest. Have you actually READ "Future
Noir"...?
Peter Briggs
> Ridley *ran out* of time when cutting the Director's Cut, and Warner
> released the cut he had at that point. It wasn't like Ridley just stopped.
Well...yes, AND no --
No-one ever said that this particular subject matter was cut-and-dry!
Peter Briggs
> > Depends "whether-or-not you imagine that blowing in the wind to curry
> > favors and follow this-week's-trend-of-the-instant", isn't...?
>
> And who would be doing that, exactly?
Sure not me, and I'm not in any "pointing fingers" mode, either...
A Bag Of Memes
Yes, I read it, but I could have missed something. Where does "Future Noir"
indicate that Bladerunner was changed against Scott's wishes?
Peter Briggs
> Yes, I read it, but I could have missed something. Where does "Future Noir"
> indicate that Bladerunner was changed against Scott's wishes?
The last several chapters, during his "being fired" phase?
A Bag Of Memes
The "firing" is discussed in chapter 9, but there is no mention of changes
made against Scott's wishes (at least none that I can find.) Chapter 13
details the changes made in response to the sneak previews, and all of them
were done with Scott's approval.
Smaug69
Just how much(or how little) time did they actually give him?
Smaug69
Keith Holder
Seneca
> > sore point with me. But then what do you care since you only want a
> > so-called final director's version.
>
> I didn't say I *only* wanted any particular cut at all. Do you have any
> idea how many different editions of this movie I already own?
How many different editions are there?
(Sorry for replying to a post nearly two weeks old, but I just started
reading this thread and find it all very interesting.)
Another post indicated that there are two different cuts, with a third
coming. Are there other differences within each of these cuts, in different
editions?
WinningerR
coming.<<<
I'm fairly sure that I heard last week that the third cut has just been
cancelled.
Joshua Zyber
"Seneca" <noj...@thishere.net> wrote in message
news:2fhr9.8297$1P1.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I didn't say I *only* wanted any particular cut at all. Do you have
any
> > idea how many different editions of this movie I already own?
>
> How many different editions are there?
>
> (Sorry for replying to a post nearly two weeks old, but I just started
> reading this thread and find it all very interesting.)
>
> Another post indicated that there are two different cuts, with a third
> coming. Are there other differences within each of these cuts, in
different
> editions?
From my laserdisc collection:
Blade Runner - US Theatrical Cut (Embassy, pan & scan, original non-CX
release)
Blade Runner - US Theatrical Cut (Embassy, pan & scan, CX-encoded
re-release)
Blade Runner - US Theatrical Cut (Japanese pan & scan release)
Blade Runner - European Theatrical Cut (Criterion CAV, ltbx, w/
supplements)
Blade Runner - European Theatrical Cut (Japanese CLV, ltbx)
Blade Runner - European Theatrical Cut (Japanese CAV, ltbx, w/ Criterion
supplements)
Blade Runner - Director's Cut (Warner CAV ltbx)
Blade Runner - Director's Cut (Japanese CLV ltbx)
The only LD edition I don't own is the Criterion CLV release, which has
identical cover art to their CAV and seemed redundant to me (all of the
other discs have unique cover art).
This is, of course, not counting the DVD which I own as well.
- Josh
Seneca
Wow. I guess it's fair to say you're a Blade Runner enthusiast. :-)
Seneca
>
> - Josh
>
>
Will
| How many different editions are there?
| Another post indicated that there are two different cuts, with a
third
| coming. Are there other differences within each of these cuts, in
different
| editions?
Get the "Blade Runner Bible" - a book called FUTURE NOIR: THE MAKING OF
BLADE RUNNER by Paul Sammon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0061053147
for complete descriptions of every edition (except for the upcoming
one, that is).
Seneca
"Will" <fake...@here.com> wrote in message
news:aoq61n$2pl$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Thanks! I will.
>
Jay G
book 'Future Noir' to get a better understanding of the
making of "Blade Runner" and it's various cuts. I am
now going to summarize they key points of the book
regarding the theatrical and 'Director's Cut,' and which
version, if any, could be considered a director's cut.
For reference, I will be using the 1996 HarperPrism PB
FIRED:
When the production was looking for funding, the
company Tandem was brought on to contribute the
final $2 million to the budget, as well as serving as
the completion bond guarantor for the film, meaning
that they had to cover and costs of BR went over
budget.
In chapter 9 of the book, pages 207-208, it's
reported that Tandem fired both Scott and the
Producer Micheal Deeley. The film, "would
now be completed by Tandem Productions"(207).
While this had no appearent effect on the surface
(Scott and Deeley continued to work on the picture),
Tandem started to exert more artist control on the
film. Ultimately, Tandem now had final say on any
decision about the film.
THE VOICE OVER:
The most surprising thing the book reveals is that
the idea of a voice over narration was initiated by
Scott (292). Several screenwriters wrote different
scripts with narration before filming began.
However, Scott kept waffling on the
use of the narration, ultimately only using a brief
section near the end of the film after 2 sessions (296).
At this point Bud Yorkin of Tandem ordered a
third recording session for the film, banned Scott
from the session, and supervised it himself (297).
One of Yorkin's friends wrote the third script.
Considering that this third session was what
was used in the theatrical cut, and that Scott
had no input in it, the Theatrical Cut cannot
be called a "director's cut" on this point alone.
THE HAPPY ENDING
This is another item that was originally in the
script, but Scott decided to cut out during
production (300). While Deeley claims
that Scott willingly added the happy ending
back in after the Dallas sneak (300), Scott
himself says the ending was "tacked on" by
the studio and some of the film's producers (377).
It is known that Tandem was concerned with the
ending of the film (280), and they have already
been shown to be a big influence on the film's
post-production. (They were also responsible
for many scenes not being filmed, as after the
film went over budget any additional scenes
would've come out of their pocket). the book
also points out that the director's cut ending is
Ridley's preferred ending (341).
It is interesting to note that the two main changes
to the sneak workprint (V/O and ending) were
the two main things the negative reviews of the
film panned (315). Also, while the San Diego
sneak of the new cut was much more positive,
some think that may have been largely due to
Harrison Ford's personal appearance at that
screening (308).
THE UNICORN
While this scene never made it into any publicly
shown cut of the film before the "Director's Cut"
10 years later, Scott calls the scene "very important
to me (376), and it is a scene that Scott very much
wanted back in the film. However, Tandem
didn't like it because it was an unscripted scene
and said cut it (359). Scott explains that he didn't
object at the time because the early sneaks caused
insecurity in him about the film, so he didn't fight
to keep it in (378).
THE WORKPRINT & "DIRECTOR'S CUT"
The workprint was a 70mm print that Micheal
Arick, a reconstructionist and preservationist,
found while on a hunt for something else. After
getting the print back to Warner's vaults, this
print was loaned out for a screening. It was after
the first screening that Arick discovered this print
was not the theatrical cut, but a workprint of the film,
the same cut that had been shown to the Dallas
audience.
Arick then contacted Scott to show the film to him.
Scott then claimed the workprint was much closer
to the film he intended and was the first to suggest
restoring it to create a director's cut. (335-336).
After Warner caught wind of the workprint, and
demand from theatres for it, they created some 35mm
prints and called it a "Director's Cut." Ridley told
Warner that it was not a director's cut and it shouldn't
be called that, although he had no problems with the
workprint being shown as a "rough cut."
Warner then agreed to pay for a restoration of the
film to a director's cut, which had a due date. Ultimately
the restoration process went past due, largely because
of the difficulty in finding the unicorn sequence Scott
insisted on being included. Finally, the restoration was
pared back so as to provide Warner with a cut that
had the major changes Scott wanted, but not all of
them. In Scotts own words:
"The so-called Director's Cut isn't, really. But it's close.
And at least I got my unicorn." (368)
So so far we have not gotten a true director's cut of the
film. However, the changes made to the "Director's Cut,"
namely removing the "happy" ending and the voice-over,
plus the inclusion of the unicorn sequence, seem to reflect
the original preferences of Scott during the film's production.
-Jay