I'll Be The Best Fucking Judge Of That. I'm The Director

>>84629346
>it's real
Fuck's sake. This is why I don't bother with bullshit cuts outside the theatrical for any film. I shouldn't have to invest hours into investigating the minutiae of the differences between cuts and which of the cast and crew do or don't agree with whatever theory.

>>84629919
The Directo's cut IS better, unicorn shit aside. Mostly due to the exclusion of Harrison Ford's expository inner monologue. I'm not really sure what differences the Final cut has aside from digitally fixing a few sfx flubs

>>84630106
Aren't the narration and unicorn the only two differences between the theatrical and the director's?
You get one or the other, there's no cut that's missing both. I'd personally rather some noir-naration than Scott George-Lucassing a unicorn in there.

>>84630211

I'm pretty sure the workprint cut lacks the unicorn dream, the narration, and the happy ending.

If you prefer the theatrical cut and its narration, you might as well watch the slightly extended international cut (which, as far as i'm aware, is included on most of the blu ray releases).

>>84630442
I'm Australian, my theatrical release was and is the international cut, so that's convenient for me.
It's the same but with less censored violence, as far as I'm aware.

>>84630465

yeah, if i'm remembering right it extends tyrell's death scene and some of the final pris / roy confrontation. nothing major really, but i always thought tyrell's death scene was too short in the theatrical cut

>>84630442
Is this workprint cut available in acceptable quality anywhere?

>>84629346
He sounds drunk. I can't make a coherent sentence when I'm drunk, either.

I think Ridley missed his pudding at dinner at the old folks home. He must be off his meds again.

>>84629346
I too base my knowledge and opinions on movies on whatever RLM has recently covered.

>>84631367
you gotta cut the wheat from the chaff in all things Anon

love Alien
love Gladiator
love Blade Runner
like the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven
hate Ridley Scott

simple as

>>84632571
this

So Dekard is human.
Makes sense.

>>84634639
That's not the point. Deckard could be a replicant or a human because the main theme of the film is what does it mean to be "human". Even if his memories and past are fake and he has been designed to do one job only, Deckard has free will and the capacity to love so he is effectively "human" even if he is a replicant. Of course this is now ruined by the new film because deckard must be human to live longer than four years (or they'll add some shitty exposition that he hacked himself so he could live)

>>84634723
you're an idiot, Deckard IS human. Scott's insistence to the contrary has only been to the detriment of the themes from the film and the book upon which it is based.

>>84630211
>>84630106
There is plenty that is different between the two cuts. A simple google search will show you the differences, retards.

>>84629346
What a hack.

Why are nerds so obsessed with B movie genre trash like this?

>I want more life FATHER

>>84636280
>why do sad male virgins find comfort in movies that create a huge believable alternative world?

Seriously?

>>84636326
I thought mmos were invented to handle that, so that crap like this could be rightfully relegated to obscurity and stop staining cinema history.

>>84636362
Mmos got taken over by casuals

Why watch films when RLM can do it for you?

>Right? So I love Beavis and Butt-Head so what should follow that is goth

wut? I feel like I've been LYNCH'ED by Scott.

Anyay, Tony Scott>Ridley Scott

>>84629346
Nope
t. PKD

>>84636259
>The removal of Deckard's 13 explanatory voice-overs.
>The insertion of a dream sequence of a unicorn running through a forest. The original sequence of the dream—showing Deckard intercut with the running unicorn—was not found in a print of sufficient quality. Arick was thus forced to use a different print that shows only the unicorn running, without any intercutting to Deckard. This unicorn scene suggests a completely different interpretation at the end of the film: Gaff's origami unicorn means that Deckard's dreams are known to him, implying that Deckard's memories are artificial and that therefore he is a replicant of the same generation as Rachael.
>The removal of the studio-imposed "happy ending", including some associated visuals which had originally run under the film's end-credits. This made the film end ambiguously when the elevator doors closed.

>>84636259
>using jewgle
fuck that, I only get my information I can trust right here on /tv/

>>84636849
Is it the lack of CNN blackmail news on google?

>>84636849
Just Bing it.

>>84636722
the ending is stupid regardless, in the book he only fucks Rachel because she's a robot so isn't not cheating on his wife to do so. He may have come to some new realization about how little separates them from us but he still wouldn't run off with one

>>84629346
>old senile pants shitting demented Alzheimer fuckhead says silly things
Wew.

So was Duncan a replicate or not?

>You did a mans job today

What did Gaff mean by this?

>>84636722
>directors cut ends with elevator doors to allow a more ambiguous ending
>BUT FUCK YOU HES AN ANDROID CUZ I SAY SO!!!

>>84637058
It's not ambiguous at all with the unicorn scene though. It's subtle, but it's not ambiguous. He dreams of unicorns. Dude knows it. How? Because he's a replicant.

>>84632571
yep

>>84637086
they established that memories can be implanted, not dreams

>>84637086
>>84637781
that's why the title of the book is a question "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" they don't know what they dream of therefore Scott is a hack.

>>84637781
I understand this. I'm not saying it's good or I like it, what I'm saying is that Scott inserted a dream sequence of a unicorn so that when Deckard finds Gaffe's (Gaff's?) origami unicorn, the intended take-away is that Gaff knows what Deckard has been dreaming about despite Deckard never telling him, thus explaining that Deckard is a replicant.

This isn't debatable, this is what the director's cut it. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't. But it's not about interpretations at this point. That's what the scene means.

>>84637799
Yeah. Scott is exact mirror of a misunderstood genius.

>>84636210
I know deckard is a human in DADOES?
But how does that detract from the themes of the book? If an android is so life like that you cant discern whether it's really an android or not and you can't even tell if you yourself are an android or human than logically you're all human. The ambiguity of the film (so long as you imagine the unicorn dream doesn't exist) means the theme of "being human" is explored better hence why blade Runner is more relevant than DADOES?

Someone explain the Beavis and butthead goth shit
Is he just senile

>>84638429
You've obviously never read the book because they do develop a type of empathy by the end for each other and Deckard decides that they are too human to kill anymore Blade Runner apologists never learn

>>84632571
>only "liking" the directors cut of KoH

>>84638566
Fucking cunt kills his goat, they deserve to die m8.

>>84638641
and then does he go for revenge? if I recall correctly he transfers to a desk job

>>84638675
I don't remember if he goes to a desk job, I haven't read the book in years. I do remember everything in the book pointing towards the fact that replicants being unempathetic were ultimately a danger to humans and other life, and this was shown in the book. I also don't remember him deciding they were too human to kill anymore. My whole point was that acting like the final cut moving away from the book is an outrage is silly when the movie was never much like the book to begin with.

Is there any point to Deckard being a replicant? Other than LOL WHAT A TWEEEST?

>>84639285
No
That's why Dekard is human.

The unicorn scene is fine, the problem is for years Ridley has been shouting from the rooftops "THE UNICORN SCENE IS PROOF DECKARD IS A REPLICANT!" If Ridley hadn't stupidly explained everything fans would've come up with interesting theories about the unicorn scene and it wouldn't get so much shit. This is why sometimes artists should keep their mouths shut and let people come up with their own interpretations.

>>84629346
>So I love Beavis and Butt-Head so what should follow that is goth so now it will be revealed in the sequel one way or the other.

So Denis Villeneuve is obligated to make him a replicant to please the old crazy man?
That's a shame.

>>84639402

>DUDE! It turns out the xenomorph was some crazy gay robot's science experiment!

Nothing good comes from Ridley to explain things.

>>84630921
It's on the blu-ray set. The blu-ray set has:
>the final cut
>the director's cut
>the workprint cut
>the US theatrical cut
>the international theatrical cut

The final cut is the best cut but it has the unicorn scene.

>>84639285
I guess it furthers proves that humans and replicants are pretty much the same but it fucks with Deckard's re-finding his humanity arc since it turns out he never had a sense of humanity in the first place.

>>84629346
Hello pleb letter media

Scott is like Lucas: great directors all considered but without any form of creative control they go full lunatic

It's a great pleb filter because people who say he's a replicant just want an epic tweest while those who say he's human are aware of the movie's central themes which, at the time it came out and PKD's writing we're pretty original and philosophical. I like the ambiguity though since it creates discussion even when it's obvious based on the book and even the movie Scott made that Deckard is a human.

>>84639808
>George Lucas
>great director
The Star Wars prequels are irrefutable proof George doesn't know how to properly direct actors. Ian McDiarmid was the only actor who was able to overcome George's clunky direction. Ridley Scott sometimes makes retarded creative decisions but he's great at directing actors.

>>84638566
remember the chicken heads and ant heads?

>>84636959
Essentially this.
Judge the Final Cut and ignore current Ridley.
Think about Promethus and Covenant...

>>84640026
I do, J.R. Isadore is probably the most important character in the book thematically which confuses me why in the film they change him from a social outcast due his being rendered mildly retarded by the radioactive dust of worl war terminus that connects with the androids because they are also treated as second class citizens to.. a robots genius that makes midget abomination butlers in his spare time?

File: tyrell.jpg (97KB, 1600x761px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1600x761px

>>84629346
Why was Lou Reed in Blade Runner?

File: 7233ae45a34ec0b0c760e4828eafb914--blade-runner-art-fiction-movies.jpg (40KB, 489x630px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 489x630px

>>84640223
Goodnight ladies. Ladies goodnight

>>84640223
Cannot unsee

>>84640223
He's running at us...

>>84629346
what a loon
it makes sense why A:C doesn't make sense

>>84640223
Harry was a rich young man
Who would become a priest.
And Deckard was a replicant
Who would become deceased (in 4 years, but now he's in the sequel)

>>84634723
There are other great reasons that Deckard could still be a replicant and have a normal human lifespan.

>"The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long."

Deckard doesn't burn twice as bright.

>>84641106
jesus christ dude...

stick to Zack Snyder kinographs or something

>>84640223
If I could be anything
In the world that flew
I would be an owl and come
Swooping after you Roy

>>84641284
Logic's not your strong suit, huh?

>>84629346
>what should follow that is goth
You fucked up the quote, OP. He said "what should follow that is "Duh.""

The theme is replicants are more than human, you fucking brainlets

>>84646490
no. the theme is the humans look down on the replicants as less than human due to their lack of empathy but the humans don't really display empathy themselves.

>>84646909
That's not in the movie anywhere.

A comparison with Do Androids Dream is useful. In the novel, Luba Luft, the android opera singer, tells Deckard that she thinks he's an android. In the android controlled police station, the android cop, Garland, tells Deckard that Phil Resch, another cop, is also an android. Because of Garland's accusation, both Resch and Deckard think that Resch might be an android. Resch is a particularly vicious cop who needlessly and ruthlessly kills Luba Luft. Deckard hates him and while giving him the V-K test, hopes that Resch will flunk the test so he can kill him. Alas, Resch turns out to be human.

Dick's point is brilliantly ironic. The V-K test is based on the assumption that the difference between androids and humans is empathy. Humans are empathic and androids are not. I take it that Dick is suggesting that if empathy--the capacity to sympathetically enter into the experiences of others--is what makes us human, then most humans aren't human.

Does Luba Luft believe that Deckard is actually an android? No. She's ironically accusing him of not being human.

Deckard's encounter with Luba Luft is the decisive turning point in his character development. By the end of the story, he has learned to have empathy for all forms of life--including androids--and thereby expands our understanding of what it means to be human.

>>84647070
>A comparison with Do Androids Dream is useful.
not really

it's a brilliant novel, with it's own story and morale, and has almost nothing to do with the movie

the movie just meanders from place to place without anything interesting to say, other than maybe
>OMG TWIST DECKARD WAS REPLICANT
>BUT NOT IN THIS CUT

>>84647070
Why would that be useful?

" I couldn’t believe what I was reading! It was simply sensational — still Hampton Francher’s screenplay, but miraculously transfigured, as it were. The whole thing had simply been rejuvenated in a very fundamental way.

After I finished reading the screenplay, I got the novel out and looked through it. The two reinforce each other, so that someone who started with the novel would enjoy the movie and someone who started with the movie would enjoy the novel. I was amazed that Peoples could get some of those scenes to work. It taught me things about writing that I didn’t know.

The thing I had in mind all of the time, from the beginning of it, was The Man Who Fell to Earth. This was the paradigm. That’s why I was so disappointed when I read the first Blade Runner screenplay, because it was the absolute antithesis of what was done in The Man Who Fell to Earth. In other words, it was a destruction of the novel. But now, it’s magic time. You read the screenplay and then you go to the novel, and it’s like they’re two halves to one meta-artwork, one meta-artifact. It’s just exciting.

As my agent, Russell Galen, put it, “Whenever a Hollywood film adaptation of a book works, it is always a miracle.” Because it just cannot really happen. It did happen with The Man Who Fell to Earth and it has happened with Blade Runner, I’m sure now."

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/literary-criticism/frank-views-archive/philip-k-dicks-final-interview/

>>84647388
I wonder how Dick would've felt about Ridley's "Deckard is a replicant" twist? Both Hampton Fancher and David Peoples thought Deckard was a human.

>>84646490
The theme is that everyone dies. Replicants live a short number of years, but then so do humans, relatively. Decker learns at the end of the movie that all life is short, but meaningful, and then goes into the sunset with his also replicant gf. Decker being a replicant drives the point home by showing us that our human main character is going to die soon too.

>>84647388
>The Man Who Fell to Earth
b-but, that's not the novel Blade Runner was adapting???

>>84647468
It's a theme, but I don't think it's the main theme.

>>84647438

There's a whole scene in the book where replicants try and convince him that he is one. Then all the stuff around the electric toad and so on - I think he would have enjoyed it.

The guy was writing like 12 books a year. He wasn't some careful shepherd of his literary children. He wouldn't give a fuck

>>84647637
I think the main theme of the film, wherein there really is a near certainty of Deckard being a replicant, is that being "built" or born isn't what defines a human being. While that might not have been a theme the novel explored, I nonetheless feel it would have been something that Dick would have appreciated.

>>84648510
who can say? Dick also thought he received ideas from space via "an information rich pink beam" so the change may not be VALIS approved.

>>84629919
>This is why I don't bother with bullshit cuts outside the theatrical for any film.
That's really retarded, anon. There are a bunch of films that are saved by the alternate cuts. For instance:

>Kingdom of Heaven
The director's cut is infinitely better than the theatrical cut.
>Alien 3
The assembly cut is infinitely better than the theatrical cut.
>Once Upon a Time in America
The European release cut and director's cut are both infinitely better than the US release cut.
>Blade Runner
The final cut and director's cut are better than the other cuts.

Although there are some exceptions. For instance, the theatrical cut of Donnie Darko is far better than the director's cut. Don't be so lazy, less than 2 minutes of research will tell you which cut of a film is the best cut.

>>84648788
I'm still bitter about Blade Runner. It's a good movie in itself, and a visual feast, but out of all his crazy and incoherent books, Electric Sheep would've made a great thriller with an actual story. Mini-series maybe.

File: 1436735125036.jpg (146KB, 736x1859px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 736x1859px

This movie was such garbage I really don't get how you guys can praise writing this bad.

>>84630211
The American theatrical cut had a lot of the more violent scenes trimmed down which got added back into the director's and final.

>>84630211
wait so was the narration shit actually in one of the main cuts of the film? I only found about that on the re:view video and found it hilarious. No idea it was actually the major release of the film.

>>84648929
>>Once Upon a Time in America
The american cut is a crime against humanity.

>>84649101
There are 7 cuts of the film, 5 of which can be bought on DVD and blu-ray. The 7 are:

>the workprint cut
>the San Diego sneak preview cut
>the US theatrical release cut
>the international theatrical release cut
>the US television cut
>the director's cut
>the final cut

The US television cut and the San Diego sneak preview cut are the 2 cuts that haven't been released on DVD and blu-ray. The US television cut is just a censored version of the US theatrical cut and the San Diego sneak preview cut is the same as the US theatrical cut except it has a few scenes that aren't in any other cuts.

Every cut has narration except for the director's cut and the final cut. If you haven't watched Blade Runner I would suggest the final cut.

>>84629919
>He supports the cuts of films where the studio alters the intent of the director in order to get more shekels
Hmmmm

>>84649309
It completely destroys the film. I have no idea what the studio were thinking.

>>84632571
What about The Duellists? Why is it never mentioned by you plebs?

>>84649309
i have a dvd copy that i remember watching, and it was like 3 hours long or so...

was that the bad cut? i'll have to dig it out

>>84649313
I think I've only ever seen the Director's Cut as I have no memory of that corny narration. Though as I get older my memory gets worse and worse.

>>84649708
just checked, i watched the original 3hr 49 min leone cut.

apparently the US cut is only about 2 hours long, and in chronological order? what a fucking travesty

>>84649708
European release cut = 229 minutes

US release cut = 139 minutes

The recently released director's cut = 251 minutes

Sergio Leone's original director's cut was 269 minutes long but it was never released and some of the footage from it is lost.

>>84649775
I have more problems with the re-arrangement of the scenes in chronological.

>>84634639

I think ridley is a replicant

>>84629919
You do that and you'll end up watching the theatrical cut of something like Nightbreed where entire plot threads are totally cut out by the studio because they wanna make it more like a slasher movie.

>>84648929
Don't forget Dark City's theatrical cut that has an opening narration which completely reveals the plot twist that you're supposed to find out midway through the movie.

Does the novel ever address where the term "Bladerunner" even comes from, or is that term even in the book? The reason that I ask is that it's actually a pretty good slang term for a replicant that's built to near-human spec.

>>84650220
It's been years since I read the book but I don't think so. Blade Runner really doesn't share much with Do Androids Sleep outside of some names and a guy in the future hunting robots.

File: movie-blackrain(vhs).jpg (113KB, 657x1200px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 657x1200px

>thread about Ridley with 100 replies
>ctrl+f "Black rain"
>0 results

plebs

>>84650318
>Black rain
Well there is no controversy on the cut of this one, unless I am mistaken...

>>84650318
Black Rain is a 6/10. The performances are solid, the soundtrack is good, the action is well done and the visuals are beautiful but it never reaches greatness because the characters are pretty cliche and there are some odd plotholes in the third act.

>>84650629
How many times you watched it? I bet its all about the numbers oftimes you watch the movie. You all probably watched Blade Runner more than 3 times and figured out etails you liked, noticed something you never noticed before that gave you greater appreciation of the film. Try watching Black rain with the same mindset 3 more times.

File: 12.jpg (165KB, 720x565px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 720x565px

>I'm The Director Okay?
>*blocks your path*

>>84650901
but imagine if you are Director and some redditor dipshit comes to you and says "pweell, acshually it would be more loggical if the plot of your movie wwould revolve more arround this point and not that". You would probably beat him to death on the spot.

>>84650965
More like
>I'm The Director Okay?
'I don't care'

>>84651014
imagine if this happens over the decades, they bother you over and over and first you are very polite, you don't tell anything, but they persist and bother you trying to move you and then you snap.

>>84650965
>some redditor dipshit comes to you
and everyone else including the star of the film

Read the fckin book !

>>84651175
actors sometime have crazy stupid ideas. Their JOB is to move muscles on their face and move on stage while YOUR operators capture their movements. What happens in their heads or outside the filming process is irrelevant.

>>84648929
Austin Powers' US theatrical cut is censored and several minutes shorter.