egafd.com

Ironically after just posting a topic where I mentioned they haven't released a Special Edition of Blade Runner yet, well they just have with 3 different version coming out including a 5 Disc Box with a workprint cut of the film and other cuts of the movie which have been released over the years.

One eyed Jack go crazy with your clickable linking ways.

You must teach me.............HOW?????????????

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/ ... l-cut.html

Use the symbols at the end, then preview it first before posting. If its red (or a different colour from the rest of the text then it is hyperlinked.

Glad to be of service.

I love SciFi but really fail to get the hype about Bladerunner. What am I missing?

I'll risk stirring up a poop storm by saying that I love the film and I love the book but the book and the film are very very different.

Both excellent in their own right but the book paints Deckard as a very different person (person? compared to the film. To be fair, certain parts of the book wouldn't translate to the screen.

If you've never read the book it's only 200 or so pages long and well worth a read.

No poop storm. You're quite right----they are separate entities, and some of the ideas in the book could not be realised in the film (what is the name of that detritus that seems to multiply?). I'd like to see someone like Charlie Kaufman try to adapt it, although the screenwriers of BR did a very good job presenting something that was true to the spirit of PKD if not the letter.

The Man In The High Castle is fantastic.

I've got two collections of his short stories from the 1950s, and some of them were light years ahead of their time. The guy had a fantastic mind.

For fans only, perhaps. I'm sure they'll get what they've been waiting for, but to be honest Blade Runner did little for me. I think some fans became too enamoured with the production design frankly. It might be impressive and influential on that level, but as a drama and narrative I thought it rather thin, as well as a bit of a slog to sit through too.

And remember Directors cuts can have their drawbacks. Despite the many horror stories concerning studio interference, the suits do sometimes know what they?re doing. Witness Apocalypse Now and Coppola?s later, bloated Redux version. The original studio cut is the superior one.

While if you don't like BR, then it's irrelevant, but to me the Directors Cut is far superior. No lacklustre Marlowesque narration, no tacked on ending from "The Shining' outtakes. And for geeks like me, fairly substantial indications that Deckard is a replicant.

IMO, it's a rare case in which the film is superior to the book. While not without interest, the Mercerism in the book is a fairly slim totem around which Dick parades his anti-religion/Marxist views. The replicants in the book are plotted pretty thinly and could hardly be called memorable, but I suppose the book isn't really about them anyway. Aside from Deckard, the characters really are paper thin. Is Iran (Deckard's wife) mentioned in the book more than twice? Her view of him as a murderer would surely set them up for a confrontation at a later point, yet she is barely mentioned after the first chapter.

Fancher and Peoples basically took the action (aside from the fake police station bit) and gutted the other parts which slow the book down. Keeping Luba Luft and the replicant posing as a policeman would have been an interesting idea.

Dick's finest novel is "Flow my tears, the policeman said".