Jump to content

Blade Runner (1982)


Guest

Recommended Posts

USA Today says that the 5 disc Ultimate Blade Runner set will be released Dec. 18th. The new "final cut" will be playing in theatres in New York and L.A. this fall. One question.... Enhanced special effects?!?

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Variety on the upcoming DVD set.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharpening the Blade

"It was a bitch." That was the kicker on the clip of the 3 1/2-hour making-of documentary "Dangerous Days" (as spoken by "Blade Runner" star Harrison Ford) that Warner Bros. Home Video brought to Comic-Con. Sounds like making the boxed set comprising "Blade Runner: The Final Cut" could be described that way, too . . .

Karen Nicoletti, Risky Biz Blog, July 27

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Y'know, I think I've seen that Aliens ad ... I remember wondering how they got the "new" footage to match the original film so well ...

- - -

Stars grow young without nip/tuck

When Joanna Cassidy appears in new scenes for Ridley Scott's re-release of "Blade Runner," she'll look just the way she did when she co-starred in the sci-fi classic some 25 years ago.

That's because Hollywood has found its fountain of youth: LolaFX, which specializes in "digital cosmetic enhancement."

With the aid of a super-high-definition 4K workstation and a 22-foot-screen, Lola specializes in everything from cleaning up a star's acne to raising an ingenue's neckline to putting six-pack abs on an out-of-shape action hero.

As a result, much of its work is kept hush-hush.

But the revised "Blade Runner" and other projects have made it all but impossible for the company to hide its bag of tricks.

For his upcoming "Director's Cut" of "Blade Runner," Scott is getting to finally shoot scenes that were dropped in 1981 because the production ran out of money. . . .

Lola's anti-aging efforts are most prominent in a series of DirecTV commercials, in which they matched the current close-ups of Sigourney Weaver and Charlie Sheen with footage from 1986's "Aliens" and 1989's "Major League," respectively.

In the case of James Cameron's "Aliens," they had to match Weaver's appearance now with then, and then composite the shot into backgrounds from the film. . . .

Variety, September 21

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

:spoilers: And some off color language.

Got the chance to see Blade Runner: The Final Cut in L.A. Wednesday morning. I will say right from the beginning that Blade Runner is my all time favorite film. It was not immediately my favorite... I had seen it once on it's initial release, once on VHS when it first came to home theatre. It wasn't until I moved to Dallas in 1986, when I had a chance to see it a couple of times in revival, that I began seeing it in a different light. As others fans of the film have said earlier in this thread, I always come away with something new to chew on - whether it's a small detail in landscape I never noticed before, a piece of dialogue that resonates more importantly than in previous viewings, or an element of performance that catches my eye. I've been fortunate to have seen all four previous versions (work print, original cut, international cut, director's cut) on the big screen. The Final Cut was shown with digital projection (my first experience with that), and wow, what a movie to introduce me to that technology!

So, has Ridley Scott finally delivered the perfect version of this film? No. There are still scenes that seem like they could have been tweaked a bit. But, relatively speaking, the faults that I found are pretty nit-picky. Is this version better than the 1992 Director's Cut? Yes. As it does take elements from both the "work print" and "international print" versions that I found brought greater impact and, in at least one scene, greater substance to the material. This is a much more violent version, for those of you who have only seen the Director's Cut. Is this version worth seeing on a big screen? Most definitely! If it's not going to go into wide release (which looks doubtful), please look for it at revival houses and experience Blade Runner the way it should be experienced.

I was worried when I had read reports that The Final Cut featured digitally enhanced effects, thinking that perhaps Scott was going to go the George Lucas route and alter the original effects, or incorporate new effects haphazardly into the old footage. Fortunately, what Scott has chosen to update is very limited, used to great effect, and does not look like updated material. Visually speaking, there are not a lot of noticable changes, other than the print is as clean as I have ever seen it. Anything "new" in this version has existed in earlier prints, with two exceptions that I noticed. The one scene that has been mentioned in previous posts, is the re-shooting (no pun intended) of Joanna Cassidy's death scene, where an obvious stunt double in a bad wig had been used. The new footage of Cassidy is extremely well done, and seemless in its execution (again, no pun intended). The second (which I will not detail) occurs towards the end, and serves to keep the look of the film consistant. Other changes seem to be more cosmetic than anything else. Early in the film, when Deckard and Gaff lift off in Gaff's police spinner, the cable from the crane lifting the spinner has always stood out. This cable has been wiped digitally. Another digital wipe that I noticed was the appearance of a thumb on Roy Batty's (Rutger Hauer) shoulder when he is first introduced. Apparently, Scott wanted a shot of Batty acknowledging the presence of replicant Leon, and used a reverse image of a close up with Rutger Hauer that appears later in the film. That close up inadvertantly included Dr. Tyrell's thumb on Roy's collar. I have also read elsewhere that Matthew Yuricich's matte paintings had been digitally enhanced to give them a greater depth.

The more obvious changes actually occur in the dialogue. Again, with the exception of one line, all this dialogue existed in other prints. The one exception is a line of dialogue by Captain Bryant, relating to the number of replicants Deckard is to go after. In all previous versions, this has been a source of confusion. Bryant initially tells Deckard that he's got "four skin jobs walking the streets." In the very next scene, Bryant tells Deckard that six replicants tried infiltrating the Tyrell Corporation, but one got fried trying to escape, leaving five replicants on the loose. The Final Cut changes the number of fried replicants to two, clearing up the mystery of the missing replicant.

The most significant change of dialogue occurs during Roy Batty's confrontation of Dr. Tyrell. The line, "I want more life,

fucker

.", has been restored to its original phrase. This is not an alternate take - the expletive laced line was dubbed over the original line in post for the "original cut", and all other theatrical cuts of the film. The "work print" contains the same line that now appears in The Final Cut. Another line of dialogue in this scene, that Roy delivers to J.F. Sebastian, has been restored from the "work print", offering a bittersweet moment.

So, what are my nit-picks? I'll just pick one that comes to mind. The one scene I've always had a problem with is the establishing shot of the exterior of the Tyrell building and the shot of an elevator, when J.F. Sebastian and Batty meet Tyrell. The establishing shot appears to take place at dusk. The back and forth shots from the interior of the elevator to Tyrell's bedroom would have you believe it's much later in the evening. When Tyrell invites Sebastian up to his room, we again see the exterior shot of the elevator going up... still at dusk. With today's technology, it seems to me that the exterior shots could have been altered to appear as though they were taking place in the evening. I know... nit picky. But the continuity has always felt off to me.

Now, what stood out for me this time? One scene in particular, when Roy is saying his farewell to Pris. I think this scene may have been slightly re-edited, but until I can watch The Final Cut next to the other versions, I won't say for sure that it was re-edited. I think that they linger a bit longer on Rutger Hauer's face or, maybe because it was such a clean print, I noticed the tears that Roy sheds. It's not a digital manipulation, because I went back and watched the scene on DVD, and the tears are there. But they stood out to me more while viewing The Final Cut. And while I was watching the tears, a piece from Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book popped into my head...

Then something began to hurt Mowgli inside him, as he had never been hurt in his life before,

and he caught his breath and sobbed, and the tears ran down his face.

"What is it? What is it?" he said. "I do not wish to leave the jungle, and I do not know what this is. Am I dying, Bagheera?"

"No, Little Brother. That is only tears such as men use," said Bagheera. "Now I know thou art a man, and a man"s cub no longer. The jungle is shut indeed to thee henceforward. Let them fall, Mowgli. They are only tears."

So Mowgli sat and cried as though his heart would break; and he had never cried in all his life before."

And I realised that in two other scenes Roy tries to have an emotional reaction, a reaction that would result in tears. When Roy informs Pris that the other two replicants, Zhora and Leon are dead, Roy tries but fails to have the emotions come out of him. Similarly (and the restoration of Batty's line to J.F. Sebastian makes me more convinced of this), I think Roy tries and again fails to have a tearful emotional reaction in his descending elevator ride, after his confrontation with Dr. Tyrell. But, Roy does have a real emotional reaction with Pris - his heart has broke - his tears are real. He may not be a man, but there is humanity in him. He's been told this several times in the film - Chew (the eye specialist): "I designed your eyes." J.F. Sebastian: "There's some of me in you." He knows what it is to lose everything dear to him - and he knows what it is to be totally alone. Except he still has Deckard. I think the reason Roy saves Deckard not only has to do with pity, or a sense of "I can take life or give it" - I think it has more to do with the fact that he knows he is dying, and he simply doesn't want to die alone, something I think all of us desire. It also offers him the chance to impart some of his memories to Deckard, so that they won't be completely lost "like tears in the rain".

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
:spoilers:

And I realised that in two other scenes Roy tries to have an emotional reaction, a reaction that would result in tears. When Roy informs Pris that the other two replicants, Zhora and Leon are dead, Roy tries but fails to have the emotions come out of him. Similarly (and the restoration of Batty's line to J.F. Sebastian makes me more convinced of this), I think Roy tries and again fails to have a tearful emotional reaction in his descending elevator ride, after his confrontation with Dr. Tyrell. But, Roy does have a real emotional reaction with Pris - his heart has broke - his tears are real. He may not be a man, but there is humanity in him. He's been told this several times in the film - Chew (the eye specialist): "I designed your eyes." J.F. Sebastian: "There's some of me in you." He knows what it is to lose everything dear to him - and he knows what it is to be totally alone. Except he still has Deckard. I think the reason Roy saves Deckard not only has to do with pity, or a sense of "I can take life or give it" - I think it has more to do with the fact that he knows he is dying, and he simply doesn't want to die alone, something I think all of us desire. It also offers him the chance to impart some of his memories to Deckard, so that they won't be completely lost "like tears in the rain".

Baal, thank you so much for this. I don't think I ever considered this angle in the film, and it's something fantastic. I'm looking forward to this--Blade Runner has always been in my top 10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Blade Runner: The Complete Ultimate Visionary Final Cut Collector's Edition Is Here!

How will its fans defend it now? . . .

Blade Runner's rehabilitation has been helped along by a second unusual twist. A folklore quickly grew up around the various versions of the film, few or none of which was said to be true to Ridley Scott's original vision. . . .

Over the years, the idea of a Blade Runner wholly unfucked up by the suits has become a kind of holy mythopoeia that accompanies the film everywhere, as cherished as the idea of a childhood wholly unfucked up by parents. The current four-disc set comes with a "Workprint," a "U.S. Theatrical Cut," an "International Theatrical Cut," a 1992 rerelease "Director's Cut" -- and this is to only scratch the surface! As the Internet will tell you, there is the "U.S. Denver-Dallas Sneak Preview Workprint"; the "U.S. San Diego Sneak Preview Workprint"; several competing cuts on Laserdisc; and, never forget, an additional line of dialogue given to Deckard's boss makes its original airing on cable TV yet another variant. Perversely, the comical proliferation of Blade Runners has helped along its canonization. At any point in its history, the shortcomings of an actual print of Blade Runner could be excused by citing a supposedly Platonic print of Blade Runner. . . .

Now the Platonic Blade Runner has finally arrived, as the maestro himself testifies. "This is my preferred version of the film," says Ridley Scott in a brief intro to "The Final Cut," looking straight into the camera. "Out of all the versions of Blade Runner, this is my favorite. I hope you agree." But for all of its supposed transmutations along the way to this, "The Final Cut," it is still vulnerable to the same criticisms originally applied to it. The movie is a transfixing multisensory turn-on from beginning to end. But because its story is underplotted and its characters almost totally opaque, the weight of the film falls to its sumptuous visual palette -- its abiding strength -- and to its quasi-Nietzschean theology -- its abiding weakness. . . .

Stephen Metcalf, Slate.com, December 20

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

So I've been waaaaaaaaaaaiting for somebody to show up either enthusing, or ranting, or offering at least some feedback on the new "final cut" now that it's out on DVD.

And I'm surprised at the silence.

Did anybody pick up the deluxe "briefcase" set? Is it a waste of money? Should I just pick up the 2-disc set?

I notice that the 5-disc collector's set is only about 25 bucks on Amazon right now... which is so much cheaper than the regular 5-disc DVD set. Why is that? Are Blu-ray discs going to be cheaper than regular DVDs? I didn't think so.

Anyway, I'm planning to pick this up soon, but I'm hoping for some indication as to which set I should get.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon.com currently lists the 2-disc "final cut" DVD for $15.99, the 4-disc "collector's edition" DVD for $29.99, the 5-disc "complete collector's edition" Blu-Ray or HD-DVD for $27.95, the 5-disc "ultimate collector's edition" DVD with briefcase for $54.99, the 5-disc "ultimate collector's edition" Blu-Ray with briefcase for $66.95, and the 5-disc "ultimate collector's edition" HD-DVD with briefcase for $68.95.

If all you want is the movies, and you don't care about the toys, it seems to me the obvious choice would be one of the 5-disc "complete collector's edition" high-def sets -- not only are they 2 dollars cheaper than the 4-disc DVD, but they have an extra disc (with the "work print" version of the film) and presumably superior picture quality (being high-def and all). And did I mention that they're 2 dollars cheaper than the lower-quality, less-complete 4-disc DVD?

The only question, then, is whether to pick Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. And, if, like me, you don't own a high-def player yet, the other question is how long you can wait to WATCH the discs after you have bought them.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't be buying a Blu-ray player for a few years, I suspect, as we just paid big bucks to have our all-in-one Sony Dream Station repaired, and it's working beautifully.

Huh, I guess I wasn't seeing all of the options available to me. I didn't know about the 4-disc version.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One cent for the widescreen director's cut on videotape.

One cent.

That is unbelievable.

How much does my widescreen director's cut on laserdisc go for? Half a cent? I paid $50 for it when it was new.

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the Collector's Edition briefcase for Christmas (on DVD), and still haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it yet.

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to watch Blade Runner. But I don't know which Blade Runner to watch.

If I were to sit down and watch Blade Runner, which of the versions is the version I should give priority to? I doubt that I will have the time to watch all the different cuts available any time soon.

-"I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!"

Daniel Plainview, There Will Be Blood

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Just finished watching the "final cut" of this film, and ALL of the bonus features (excepting audio commentaries). My wife and I got the 5-disc Blu-Ray set (but we're still watching it on the same old TV, so the improvement in picture quality has been wasted on us -- wasted!), so this means I got to watch the half-hour documentary on Disc 5 (AKA the "work print" disc), too.

I love how Harrison Ford insists his character is NOT a replicant, because a movie about overcoming the prejudice against replicants needs to have an indisputably human being as its protagonist, whereas Ridley Scott insists the character IS a replicant, and he's certainly tossed in a few visual cues to that effect here and there. (I had never noticed the highlights in the eyes before.)

But as much as I might want to defer to the director, I have to say the internal logic of the STORY tells me that Deckard probably ISN'T a replicant -- unless someone here can tell me what I'm missing.

Two points:

  1. Deckard is that wonderful old archetypal (some might say stereotypical) expert in his field who is summoned out of retirement because he is "the best" at what he does. This suggests he has been around a while. This means he does NOT have a short lifespan.

  2. Alternatively, you might say that he is one of those newfangled creations, like Rachael, who has been given artificial memories and enhanced human-like empathy. But if he is a brand-new model, then why on earth would the boss down at the station -- the guy who is bigoted against "skin-jobs" -- play along so easily with the ruse that Deckard is actually a retired expert in his field etc.? And why would Tyrell get Deckard to give Rachael the test? Why would Tyrell want to impress one of his replicants with the test results of another replicant? (And does Tyrell actually DO anything in this scene to indicate that he is "aware" that Deckard is a replicant?)
The logic of the storyline itself therefore tells us that Deckard is NOT a replicant. Yes, it is true that Ridley Scott has "framed" certain scenes in a certain way, as part of his interpretation of the storyline. But we are still free to interpret the storyline according to our own reason. And while it is certainly interesting that whatshisface -- the guy who leaves origami animals everywhere -- leaves behind a bit of origami that happens to be shaped like one of Deckard's favorite imaginary animals, this could certainly be chalked up to coincidence, and I find it a less compelling bit of evidence in FAVOUR of Deckard's replicancy than the evidence I mentioned above AGAINST Deckard's replicancy.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And while it is certainly interesting that whatshisface -- the guy who leaves origami animals everywhere -- leaves behind a bit of origami that happens to be shaped like one of Deckard's favorite imaginary animals, this could certainly be chalked up to coincidence, and I find it a less compelling bit of evidence in FAVOUR of Deckard's replicancy than the evidence I mentioned above AGAINST Deckard's replicancy.

As I've said before, this is my favorite film. Seen it too many times and in too many versions to count. But, going back to the original version that I saw in '82, and in subsequent revival house viewings - the version that does not contain the Deckard dream sequence, but contains the "happy" ending - I have always assumed (and some of the narration seems to confirm this) that the last bit of origami that Gaff leaves at Deckard's apartment is an indication that Rachel is a unique being, much like the figure depicted in the oragami. And that Gaff, who has been shadowing Deckard throughout, has seen the files on Rachel and perhaps knows something more about her uniqueness than anyone other than Tyrell.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
If it has voiceover, it's the original theatrical version, I suppose. But boring? Give it time.

Its actually my third or fourth time with it--its been a long time since I've seen the expanded theatrical cut--which I think this one is, more violence with V.O. intact. I've seen the "director's cut" last five years or so ago.

But with Ford's blah VO and a glacial pacing, I think giving it time is the last thing Blade Runner needs. I guess I'd want to see the Final Cut at some point. But, man, I couldn't make it more than an hour. I reread this thread (I tell you what--Blade Runner is not the only boring thing in my life right now) and found myself agreeing with Peter and Ron that this film is slow and filled with ho-hum hokem about life and all its meaning.

I don't have a problem with slow films--I loved "The Remains of the Day" and "Les Cuatre Cent Coups" for example--but there's a difference between "contemplative" and "plodding", Leary and Doug C's impassioned apologies notwithstanding.

The cut I'm watching is filled with hallmarks of a unsteady director--even with the masterful (and often slow) Alien behind him, Scott's hand seems less sure here. The ideas of the work and the noir style never really gel--maybe what's missing is the femme fatale in classic noir, or the economy of the noir genre. Scott seems too impressed with the production design that he wants us to linger over its dark and damp vision. Maybe that way we can have more time to digest its content and its questions--how do we truly see? What does it mean to be human? How should we consider the outcast (shoot big holes in them)? Is one's death, one's expiration, foreodained by a creator?

Its this final partial viewing that has me considering that the questions are more interesting than the packaging they're in. There's no tension in the story--its a straight line: Deckard hunts and kills the Replicants who are hunting to kill their Creator. In the end, the lead Replicant decides not to kill him but dies instead. So its a ABC storyline. If it had really strong characterizations and compelling performances, I wouldn't mind, but I'm afraid that Blade Runner doesn't have much in the way of that. At least not with that darn VO telling you everything that's happening.

My fifth impression: there's so many other films I haven't seen that I don't need to spend time watching this one again.

I suppose that means I'll have to turn in my cineaste card. C'est la vie. I did really like "The Dark Knight" though--man, what a film!

Edited by Buckeye Jones
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

IO9 is running this letter that Philip K. Dick wrote, just 5 months before his death, about the early footage he had seen from Blade Runner.

500x_3949619355_bd5c7cbb2e_o.jpg

Well, he was right on the longevity aspect, but not the financial on Blade Runner (at least not the immediate returns). I wonder how PKD would have viewed present day sci-fi and, more importantly, some of the later adaptations of his works. I think he would have enjoyed A Scanner Darkly, but I would not have wanted to be in the theatre with him when the lights came up after Paycheck.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Baal, great find! Thanks for posting.

Do you know if Dick, who refers only to TV footage of Ford discussing the film, was aware of a different studio cut than Scott's original? Had he seen one or the other, or just clips from the TV special? I'm not sure of the timeline as to when the studio altered Scott's cut of the film.

Edited by Christian

"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Baal, great find! Thanks for posting.

Do you know if Dick, who refers only to TV footage of Ford discussing the film, was aware of a different studio cut than Scott's original? Had he seen one or the other, or just clips from the TV special? I'm not sure of the timeline as to when the studio altered Scott's cut of the film.

Great question. I'm going to have to dig through a mountain of boxes of books and find Paul Sammon's Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, and verify what I've read over at Wikipedia. If anything is going to have information about what Dick was shown, that would be the book. Wikipedia has the following...

Philip K. Dick became concerned that no one had informed him about the film's production, which added to his distrust of Hollywood.[28] After Dick criticized an early version of Hampton Fancher's script in an article written for the Los Angeles Select TV Guide, the studio sent Dick the David Peoples rewrite.[29] Although Dick died shortly before the film's release, he was pleased with the rewritten script, and with a twenty-minute special effects test reel that was screened for him when he was invited to the studio. Dick enthused after the screening to Ridley Scott that the world created for the film looked exactly as he had imagined it.[17] The motion picture was dedicated to Dick.

The latter half of that paragraph seems in keeping with the letter that PKD wrote.

edit: Looking at the bibliography for the Wikipedia article, all of the information referenced comes from Sammon's book. Whew... don't have to go digging in the garage.... yet.

Edited by Baal_T'shuvah

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The movie is a transfixing multisensory turn-on from beginning to end. But because its story is underplotted and its characters almost totally opaque, the weight of the film falls to its sumptuous visual palette -- its abiding strength -- and to its quasi-Nietzschean theology -- its abiding weakness. . . .

Stephen Metcalf, Slate.com, December 20

I actually agree. BLADE RUNNER is undoubtedly an aesthetic triumph, a revelation of sight and sound. And it has a few compelling dramatic aspects, for sure. But BLADE RUNNER's script has always struck me as a little too thin, touching up some great ideas and concepts, but never exploring them to the point of fullness (though given the messy production, it's not unexpected).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...