It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
nijuu: Couple of things...
what's the difference between the directors cut v final cut?
I didn't mind the voice over in theatrical version, although admittedly I did enjoy the directors cut better.
I think Harrison ford might be able to pull it off although he is getting on
.......
Personally I prefer a remake/re-imagining because the Sci-Fi look of the original movie looks outdated which is hilarious calling something in the future outdated but its to 80s look of Sci-Fi, update the look of the movie with a more modern aesthetic of Sci-Fi today.
avatar
Elmofongo: Personally I prefer a remake/re-imagining because the Sci-Fi look of the original movie looks outdated which is hilarious calling something in the future outdated but its to 80s look of Sci-Fi, update the look of the movie with a more modern aesthetic of Sci-Fi today.
Damn whippersnappers can't appreciate products of their time. =P
avatar
Titanium: The worst thing is, half way through the movie, I forgot my safe word.
Don't you now wish you had tattooed it?

EDIT: typo.
Post edited October 08, 2013 by HypersomniacLive
avatar
Foxhack: Funny, I actually just finished watching the original theatrical release today before I watch the director's cut later this month.

I don't get how they could make a sequel with him. He's too old now.
Maybe Deckard is only gonna be a support in this movie.
avatar
Potzato: I won't burn you ...... but I would gladly watch you roast in the desert, meatbag !
avatar
Wesker: Holden: You look down and you see tinyE, Potzato, he's crawling toward you-

Potzato: tinyE, what's that?

Holden: Know what a gogger is?

Potzato: Of course.

Holden: Same thing.

Potzato: I've never seen a gogger. But I understand what you mean.

Holden: You reach down, you flip tinyE over on his back, Potzato.

Potzato: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden, or do they write them down for you?

Holden: tinyE lays on his back, his belly baking in the hot sun, beating his legs, trying to turn himself over, but he can't, not without your help, but you're not helping.

Potzato: What do you mean, I'm not helping?

Holden: I mean, you're not helping. Why is that Potzato?
Aww nawwwwwws ! Did I fail the Voight-Kampff test again ?????
avatar
Elmofongo: Personally I prefer a remake/re-imagining because the Sci-Fi look of the original movie looks outdated which is hilarious calling something in the future outdated but its to 80s look of Sci-Fi, update the look of the movie with a more modern aesthetic of Sci-Fi today.
avatar
mistermumbles: Damn whippersnappers can't appreciate products of their time. =P
I appreciated Star Wars original trilogy's sci-fi stuff despite their age, but that won't stop me of asking this: Why are things like armor and ships in the prequal trilogy:

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1377/90/1377904625390.jpg

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130619201430/starwars/images/6/64/N-1_Starfighter.png

Look more sleek and modern than stuff from the Original:

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130311053327/starwars/images/4/48/Ywing-SWE.jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120428090841/deadliestfiction/images/7/71/StormtrooperCorps_anh1080p.jpg
avatar
nijuu: Couple of things...
what's the difference between the directors cut v final cut?
As I remember there were a lot of seconds cut off important scenes in FC and nothing new added (contrary to the dvd case).
Post edited October 08, 2013 by Sachys
Blade Runner 2? Well, here is a trailer of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLZwWPCLO-w
avatar
nijuu: Couple of things...
what's the difference between the directors cut v final cut?
It's virtually the same as far as content goes. A couple of slightly longer or alternate shots (more of the unicorn in Deckard's dream, some additional intercuts), some trimming in other scenes, all only a few seconds long.

But they did clean up the picture (boy, did they ever clean it up), completely new 4k master and absolutely pristine. It's gorgeous. And they got rid of a lot of mistakes they had to leave in, when they did the Director's Cut, because of budget constraints or limits of the CGI technology back in 1992. Now the serial number on the snake scale matches the one read out loud, the wires on the spinner cars are gone, Zhora stumbling through the glass has Joanna Cassidy's face instead of her stunt woman's, the pidgeon at the end flys up into a cloudy and gloomy dystopian sky instead of blue sky and sunshine in the Director's Cut...stuff like that.

avatar
Sachys: As I remember there were a lot of seconds cut off important scenes in FC and nothing new added (contrary to the dvd case).
*edited for incorrect statement*

Nope, they did not cut anything important. The Final Cut got rid of

- ~4.5 seconds of Deckard dangling from the edge of a building and 6 seconds of him stumbling about on it's roof
- 25 seconds of Deckard waiting for his food
- 11 seconds of Deckard looking at some more photos after the unicorn dream

All other changes have either increased the running time (see below) or kept it intact, only adding alternative shots.

- 8 seconds of Deckard at the piano before the unicorn dream
- 16 seconds of Deckard wandering the streets after visiting the snake merchant
- again 16 seconds of Deckard wandering the streets before going into the bar
- 9 seconds of additional and alternative takes of Roy and Tyrell
- 10 seconds of Pris fighting Deckard
- 5 seconds of Roy driving himself on with a nail through the hand

avatar
Elmofongo: Personally I prefer a remake/re-imagining because the Sci-Fi look of the original movie looks outdated which is hilarious calling something in the future outdated but its to 80s look of Sci-Fi, update the look of the movie with a more modern aesthetic of Sci-Fi today.
So what? It's an alternative history where the world went to crap long before we developed TFTs and sleek iPod-ish design and what have you. Having a Blade Runner dystopia look like JJ Abrams' Star Trek would be so wrong in so many (actually all) ways.
Post edited October 08, 2013 by Randalator
avatar
nijuu: Couple of things...
what's the difference between the directors cut v final cut?
avatar
Randalator: It's virtually the same as far as content goes. A couple of slightly longer or alternate shots (more of the unicorn in Deckard's dream, some additional intercuts), all only a few seconds long.

But they did clean up the picture (boy, did they ever clean it up), completely new 4k master and absolutely pristine. It's gorgeous. And they got rid of a lot of mistakes they had to leave in, when the did the Director's Cut, because of budget constraints or limits to the CGI technology back in 1992. Now the serial number on the snake scale matches the one read out loud, the wires on the spinner cars are gone, Zhora stumbling through the glass has Joanna Cassidy's face instead of her stunt woman's, the pidgeon at the end flys up into a cloudy and gloomy dystopian sky instead of blue sky and sunshine in the Director's Cut...stuff like that.

avatar
Sachys: As I remember there were a lot of seconds cut off important scenes in FC and nothing new added (contrary to the dvd case).
avatar
Randalator: Nope, they were added, not cut. Except for ~4.5 seconds of Deckard dangling from the edge of a building that are missing in the Final Cut, all changes have either increased the running time or kept it intact, only adding alternative shots.

I can give you a list if you want .

avatar
Elmofongo: Personally I prefer a remake/re-imagining because the Sci-Fi look of the original movie looks outdated which is hilarious calling something in the future outdated but its to 80s look of Sci-Fi, update the look of the movie with a more modern aesthetic of Sci-Fi today.
avatar
Randalator: So what? It's an alternative history where the world went to crap long before we developed TFTs and sleek iPod-ish design and what have you. Having a Blade Runner dystopia look like JJ Abrams' Star Trek would be so wrong in so many (actually all) ways.
Not exactly like JJ Abrams Star Trek, more like Mass Effect, System Shock 2, Dead Space, and Deus Ex (Human Revolution minus the emphasis on yellow)
avatar
Foxhack: Funny, I actually just finished watching the original theatrical release today before I watch the director's cut later this month.

I don't get how they could make a sequel with him. He's too old now.
avatar
Profanity: Maybe Deckard is only gonna be a support in this movie.
Really depends. Harrison (doing the Deckard role)has aged pretty well considering his age compared to a lot of actors around same age range. Having said that cant see him doing any more movies which has a lot of action (BD had a decent amount but story was a bit more important). If BR2 is similar to first action wise, i could see him having a main (if not *the* main role).
Post edited October 08, 2013 by nijuu
Blade Runner is a better looking movie than 90% of the movies that come out of Hollywood these days, because it has style and no computer graphics. Not to mention the soundtrack puts 90% of Hollywood movies these days to shame.
avatar
HypersomniacLive: Harrison Ford is going to be in it? Oh Blade Runner fans weep, weep hard like your brothers, the Indiana Jones fans still do.
Not sure I understand, because I think the return of original Indy/ Harrison Ford was arguably one of the best parts of Indiana Jones 4, but certainly not the worst. If anything, they just threw in some unnecessary CGI effects, but overall it wasn't -that- bad. It was a pretty entertaining adventure/action movie, just didn't quite live up to its prequels and the expectations of the fandom. ( Similar to Prometheus. ) I suspect a Blade Runner 2 would likely be destined to a similar fate, regardless of what they do with it. There are those who feel it's a sacrilege to even consider a remake or sequel, so there's no way to please all of the original fanbase. Myself, I'd definitely be interested in watching it, but I'm not sure I trust them to really pull this off successfully.
Post edited October 09, 2013 by CharlesGrey
avatar
Randalator:
I'll have to give it another look then - see if i can borrow my mates tinned edition with all three versions in it
I don't know, guys. Maybe Scott has learned from Prometheus, maybe he realises what made the first movie special and... nah, who am I kidding.

I won't even bother watching the trailer and would rather never hear of this again. At least there's a decent chance that this shameless cash-grab will bomb at the box office.