Sijun Forums :: View topic

ceenda · member Member # Joined: 27 Jun 2000 Posts: 2030

No, it's not the "is Deckard a replicant?" question.

I got BladeRunner on DVD (R2) as it was going for a ridiculous price in the January sales at HMV.

Has anyone noticed that, apart from the fact the film quality is astoundingly poor, the actual picture seems to wobble? I've noticed the same thing on my VHS version.

Do any of the film buffs know if the original reels have been damaged or something?

It seems odd that a company like Warner Brothers would release such a poor quality version.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: ceenda ]

christian cox · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:19 pm

Well, I've noticed wobbling on the title credits, however I don't seem to see that throughout the rest of the DVD.

But keep your hopes up, the Special Edition DVD will be out this year - which includes some re-done effects, sound, and a digitally remastered picture. Also some new scenes, and I think Scott has meshed *possibly* a bit of the original voice over's (the ones that didn't suck... wait, isn't that all of them?) into the Special Edition.

But I just ignore the niggles I have with the DVD to experience the film which I love.

faustgfx · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:22 pm

i've not noticed wobbling?

Frost · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2002 6:06 pm

I bought the DVD some time ago (don't ask me which revision of what what, I don't know), but I haven't noticed any wobbling (beyond the expectable range). The image quality is a little sub-par, but, to be expected since it's such an old movie... very grainy.

Lunatique · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2002 8:28 pm

Hmmm, no wobbling I remember of. I have the director's cut version.

When the hell is the special edition of Legend coming out? I heard Ridley has problems with it?

faustgfx · Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2002 8:38 pm

you mean there's something related to blade runner that hadn't caused the creators and makers tons of trouble?

SWANY · Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2002 1:19 am

I believe that Deckard is a replicant!

sacrelicious · Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2002 10:32 pm

Deckard is a replicant.

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 12:29 am

says who?

NullTygre · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:24 am

Deckard is a Pink Octopus.

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:25 am

little do you all know.

harrison ford is the only replicant.

NullTygre · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:27 am

yes. The Pink Octopus.

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:30 am

no, harrison ford!

NullTygre · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 5:37 am

Joachim · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 6:56 am

SporQ · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 7:21 am

Ridley Scott says so, thats who.

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 9:22 am

quote:
Originally posted by SporQ:
Ridley Scott says so, thats who.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo!&!#*&*~

faustgfx · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 9:23 am

quote:
Originally posted by faustgfx:
little do you all know.

harrison ford is the only replicant.

i mean that as in that r.deckard and others don't exist of course 'cos they're just movie characters, and that harrison ford is a true replicant.

i guess my joke sort of.. died.

=\

Bishop_Six · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 8:19 pm

I watched Blade Runner on tv a while ago that was supposedly the director's cut. Then I read somewhere that the director's cut didn't have the voiceover narration and the ending was different, but the one I saw had narration. I'm confused. What did I see and where can I see the other one?

SporQ · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2002 11:51 pm

thats the theatrical release version. personally i like it better than the director's cut, but i cant find it anywhere for sale, makes me so sad.

ceenda · member Member # Joined: 27 Jun 2000 Posts: 2030

I never really understood why everyone cheered the removal of the voice-over. It really gave BladeRunner that "film noir" atmosphere.

tek9z · Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2002 4:36 am

true... but the quality of that voice over,
I mean literature-wise is a bit poor..
40's film noir voice-over are much more
ironical. Deckard's flat and doesn't really
spike up the scenes
why just describing the scenes when the audience already sees them?

Sukhoi · Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2002 4:56 am

If I remember correctly the original filmreels were found in some lot in hollywood, where they had been lying for 10 odd years. It was then that Ridley found he could actually DO a director's cut. The poor state they where in when found might explain the poor quality.

Please correct me if I's wrong, I haven't read Future Noir for some time.

Sukhoi

SWANY · Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:00 am

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla ,bla ,bla , bla, bla, bla, bla, Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla ,bla ,bla , bla, bla, bla, bla, Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla ,bla ,bla , bla, bla, bla, bla, Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla ,bla ,bla , bla, bla, bla, bla, Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,bla ,bla ,bla , bla, bla, bla, bla,

The key is the paper crane, yes, the paper crane BLA!

christian cox · Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2002 7:54 am

It's actually a paper-oragami Unicorn, which ties into the Unicorn dream that Deckard had

"It's too bad she won't live, but then again... who does?"

Sukhoi · Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:21 pm

quote:
Originally posted by ceenda:
No, it's not the "is Deckard a replicant?" question.

Sukhoi