Is the Original Blade Runner available on DVD or only the Director's Cut?

I think the difference is mainly in the narration... I want the original release... any help?

Only the Director's Cut has been released on DVD. In addition to the narration, the director's cut removes the phony happy ending and adds a dream sequence. I think there were some other changes. I'll have to dig out my copy of THE MAKING OF BLADE RUNNER. I think it lists the changes among the various versions.

I've seen Blade Runner everywhere marked down to a pretty low price which often means that a newer issue is coming out. Anybody got a scoop on this?

Sadly, that Blade Runner Special Edition DVD has been "coming soon" since I bought my first $539.99 DVD player with that revolutionary AC-3 sound. I last heard Ridley Scott say it was coming "very soon" in interview when he was stumping for the "Gladiator" theatrical release.

I bought a DVD copy of the old Criterion laserdisc of the narrated version on the E-place, it also had a pretty good BBC documentary about the making of Blade Runner. It looked good on a computer monitor, but the picture was awful on even our 34" TV, much less the 52".

So .... believe it or not, I've never seen The Director's Cut. I know about the ending but does it actually play better without the narration?

So .... believe it or not, I've never seen The Director's Cut. I know about the ending but does it actually play better without the narration?

The DC is vastly superior IMHO. While I kind of liked the original noirish narration, the unicorn dream sequence entirely changes the ending of the movie. Eliminating the "happy ending" of the original where Deckard states he found out Rachel doesn't have the five year life-span makes Deckards decision to stay with Rachel that much more powerful. And the earlier unicorn dream brings whole new meaning to Gaffes line, "You've done a man's job, sir!".

There is a 3-disc set that has been due for about two years now but has been tied up in legal wrangling between the studio, Warners, and one of the producers Bud Yorkin.
If any film deserves to be given special treatment its this one.
You can keep up to date on all things Blade Runner related at

http://brmovie.com/

So .... believe it or not, I've never seen The Director's Cut. I know about the ending but does it actually play better without the narration?

Oh, yes. God yes. Believe it. It's the difference between looking at a dimwith for two hours and actually watching the character and letting those silences do their job.

BTW, the "original" version isn't quite: there's a few moments of absolutely needless graphic violence addes by the studio. Nor is the "Director's Cut really the director's own edit, it was closer to his own wishes but completred without his help. The holdup on the new release is Jerry Perenchio, who holds the rights to the film but hates it, hates Scott, and is determined not to let him release the real "Director's Edit".

Highly recommended is the making-of book Future Noir, detailing the background of the film from the inception of the script through the various battles over editing the release versions to clashes over video releases.

Dreamer - why does the guy hate it so much? It's got to be the best P.K. Dick film adaptation out there (and I'll admit I'm not an expert but I have read some of Dick's work). Never cared all that much for Total Recall and while I think Minority Report is a good solid sci-fi movie - it ain't no Blade Runner.

Been a few years since reading FN. Alot of it is a personal grudge against Ridley Scott himself from the battle over who would control the movie. Beyond that, Perenchio just seems to hate the movie itself, don't remember if there was a reason given.

Hmmmmmm .... if this Perenchio guy truly owns yet hates the film, it seems he can more than afford to hold a grudge for the rest of his life.
He was rich and powerful circa 1981-82 but much, much more so now.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=DR9J&datatype=Person
http://www.powerko.com/articles/boxing-article-1879-1.htm
Here's a possibly telling excerpt (though not specifically about Blade Runner) from the above link:
Here's a tremendously successful man. The addition to his net worth is insignificant. He just has a powerful need to win.

Hmmmmmm .... if this Perenchio guy truly owns yet hates the film, it seems he can more than afford to hold a grudge for the rest of his life.
He was rich and powerful circa 1981-82 but much, much more so now.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=DR9J&datatype=Person
http://www.powerko.com/articles/boxing-article-1879-1.htm
Here's a possibly telling excerpt (though not specifically about Blade Runner) from the above link:

Hey Chang, Did you get my PM or email about the Blade Runner Spinner Decals?

The holdup on the new release is Jerry Perenchio, who holds the rights to the film but hates it, hates Scott, and is determined not to let him release the real "Director's Edit".

Just curious... where did you glean this info?

I guess you'd be right to diss it as hearsay, but there's enough in the book Future Noir to give it firm basis. I've read articles here and there about the efforts to cut a deal for Ridley's definitive edit, but never felt the need to save them...otherwise I'd be quicker to post a rumor caveat, as the rest has been other people repeating the same info.

It's been out there, people have been trying to reach Perenchio about it, and if it's not so then Perenchio has been happy not to deny it.

Another good book on BR I bought a while ago:
Blade Runner: The Inside story (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1840232102/qid=1117608480/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/103-7573733-9018218)
From the original Cinefex issue covering all the effects in the movie. Very thorough technical talk and very interesting. The Tyrell building model is shown...one of the most amazing filming models ever.

...I guess you'd be right to diss it as hearsay...

On the contrary, I was just curious to know what your source was.

I did a little digging and stumbled across a site which goes into a bit more detail re: the complicated relationship between Jerry Perenchio and "Blade Runner." Of particular interest is a quote from the New York Times, which can be found at...

http://www.brmovie.com/BR_Special_Edition.htm

I got my copy of Blade Runner for 5.50 in one of those wretched Wal Mart Dump bins. I don't think it is a directors cut as I have not watched it yet!


Cheers,
Max Bryant

Sounds as if Jerry Perenchio is just being an ass. Not that it bothers me much; I've always preferred the original theatrical release over the director's cut and more than likely still would if Sir Ridley ever got the chance to recut the film. Call me a moron, but the "tacked-on" ending makes perfect story-sense and is an appropriate contrast to the rest of the film. And the narration has always solidified the link to film noir. Ford's delivery is intentionally deadpan - some might say bad - but so was Bogart's. Deckard sounds just as a hard-boiled detective type in a polluted and overcrowded future should sound.

The problem I have with the now endless stream of "directors' cuts" is that it is contrary to what film really is. Yes, it's an art form, but that attribute is by necessity superceded by commercial concerns. Film is a product, a commodity. In the best cases, the director is an "auteur," which is to say the main individual involved whose artistic view is expressed through the work, but he is also a hired gun, so to speak, and it is the studio that usually has the last word on what gets released. In some extraordinary cases, the director has creative control and actually turns out a memorable work of art. (Kubrick and Gilliam come to mind.) But in other cases, directors with creative control churn out over-budget, over-long garbage. ("Heaven's Gate," for instance.) Please don't misunderstand me; Sir Ridley is my favourite living director, but when it comes to what he thinks "Blade Runner" should have been, I disagree.

There are apples and oranges here. There's a big difference between a final edit that is accomplished in full collusion between the director and the studio - and a version that is cut after the film has been completely taken away from the director. I would strongly disagree that Heaven's Gate is garbage (at least the 220 minute version that has been labeled "The Director's Cut" is certainly not) - although it is deservedlythe most famous case of directorial meglomania in Hollywood's history (I highly recommend Steven Bach's book Final Cut : Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film That Sank United Artists). Secondly, I would argue that the general trend towards mainstream "Director's Cut" DVDs is driven much more by the "commodity" side of the business than it is by the "artistic" side (Daredevil: The Director's Cut anyone?). Having said that - I prefer the theatrical cut of Ridley Scott's Alien to the re-edited version released on DVD a couple of years back. On the other hand, I'm praying for a restored version of Sam Peckinpah's Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid - a film that was butchered by the studio in much the same way Heaven's Gate was. And the restoration of Orson Well's A Touch of Evil is something of a miracle.

And the restoration of Orson Well's A Touch of Evil is something of a miracle.

I just watched Touch of Evil, a brilliant movie! Only Orson Welles could get away with Chuck Heston as a Mexican and Zsa Zsa Gabor as a Tiajuana stripper!

Director's Cuts are a mixed bag, some are marked improvements, I think Aliens and Blade Runner are improved by the new edits. Most aren't changed much, just a few minutes of extra footage here and there. But some DC's are worse than the theatrical cuts, imho, Thief and Apocalypse Now Redux come immediately to mind. Another is Das Boot, the two longer cuts are very nice, but it's always bugged me the lean and mean subtitled version I saw in the theaters in '82 has never been available on DVD.

Agree on Das Boot (which was actually a German TV mini-series) and Apocalypse Now - although I find some of the restored scenes fascinating. The French Plantation stuff is great, the R&R with the Playboy Bunnies is gratuitous and a good example of really bad actorly "improvisation".

My biggest beef about Apocalypse Now Redux (besides just seeming bloated overall) is the scene where they show them loading the water skis on the PBR, it totally telegraphs and ruins that big reveal of Lance water skiing behind the boat. That scene is one of the 4-5 surreal important scenes in Apocalypse that make it one of my favorite movies of all time.

The problem I have with the now endless stream of "directors' cuts" is that it is contrary to what film really is. Yes, it's an art form, but that attribute is by necessity superceded by commercial concerns. Film is a product, a commodity.

I'm not sure I understand your problem. If you accept that film is a "commodity" it should come as no surprise that the studios will do everything in their power to milk every last dime out of their investment. The suggestion that the "endless stream" of Directors Cuts is the result of directorial vanity misses the point; Directors Cuts exist because they represent an additional source of revenue for the distributors.

Carson, you're quite right. The majority of directors' cuts one sees nowadays are simply the studio's and the director's attempt to get some more cash by adding a few minutes of footage over the theatrical release. There is no "artistic" motivation behind them. I still believe my argument holds for "Blade Runner," however, since in that case the director's cut came about, as I am led to believe, by Sir Ridley's desire to recut the movie as he had seen fit. Since it's the only version commercially available on DVD, it has of course made money for the studio, but the theatrical release was available before on LD (I still watch my Criterion Collection "Blade Runner") and VHS. I imagine the reason it's never been pressed on DVD is because of Sir Ridley's dislike for it plus his clout as a major director. He seems to have an aversion to "happy" endings:

1. In the shooting script to "Alien," the alien was to have killed Ripley in the Narcissus and then recorded the final log in her voice. The studio, quite rightly, said it was too dark (and a little silly).
2. In the director's cut of "Blade Runner," Deckard is unequivocably a replicant. Man, that stinks.
3. "Thelma and Louise": Watch out! That's a cliff up ahead!
4. "Gladiator": So long, Maximus. Oh yeah, your whole family's dead, too.

I would strongly disagree that Heaven's Gate is garbage (at least the 220 minute version that has been labeled "The Director's Cut" is certainly not) - although it is deservedlythe most famous case of directorial meglomania in Hollywood's history
Perhaps "garbage" was too strong a word. Let's just say that I did not enjoy Heaven's Gate.
(I highly recommend Steven Bach's book Final Cut : Art, Money, and Ego in the Making of Heaven's Gate, the Film That Sank United Artists).
I will check that out. The story behind Heaven's Gate is a fascinating one.
Secondly, I would argue that the general trend towards mainstream "Director's Cut" DVDs is driven much more by the "commodity" side of the business than it is by the "artistic" side.
A point I admit (see my reply to Carson Dyle's post). My original argument was flawed.
Having said that - I prefer the theatrical cut of Ridley Scott's Alien to the re-edited version released on DVD a couple of years back.
As do I. Alien is one of the great visual triumphs of modern cinema.
And the restoration of Orson Well's A Touch of Evil is something of a miracle.
Speaking of Orson, how about a restored version of The Magnificent Ambersons? Oh wait, I forgot: the studio burned the footage. What idiocy.

The Abyss is a perfect example of how to do a director's cut. Both versions are included, and the movie is finally presented the way the director wanted it in the first place (but was prevented from doing by FX technology). :thumbsup:

In the shooting script to "Alien," the alien was to have killed Ripley in the Narcissus and then recorded the final log in her voice.

I know "Alien" went through a number of drafts before the filmmakers arrived at a shootable screenplay, but this business about the alien recording Ripley's final log seems, well, too absurd to be true. What's your source for this info?

2. In the director's cut of "Blade Runner," Deckard is unequivocably a replicant. Man, that stinks.

I agree. And while I understand Scott's desire to finish what he started editorially speaking, I'm in no big rush to see him undermine the theme of his own movie for the sake of a cheap narrative gimmic.

My old boss at Cinefex has interviewed Scott several times, including the piece on the ALIEN box set laserdisc, and he never heard anything like this, 'kills ripley and records in her voice' thing. Are you sure David Giler or some other disgruntled writer wasn't pulling your leg when you read that?

as for another movie that DOES deserve fixing/alteration, I just heard that Peckinpah's MAJOR DUNDEE has been restored to something approaching what the directo had in mind before the studio trashed it. I think it is a decent or better flick as is, and can't wait to see this new version, which is screening in Portland later in the month. DUNDEE may well be Sam's equivalent to AMBERSONS, but in this case there is at least film to find and restore.

Carson, trevanian: I rummaged through the three books I have on Alien and couldn't find anything, which led me to believe that I had imagined reading this alternate ending. Not expecting to find anything, I entered the following in Google: "alien records final log in ripley's voice." The first search result was: www.moviemistakes.com/film37/trivia where it states:

Originally, director Ridley Scott wanted "Alien" to have a much darker ending. His intention was to have the alien get back on board the shuttle, rip Ripley's head off and then calmly sit down in her chair and record the final transmission, speaking in her voice. The producers understandably found this a little too extreme, so Scott tried changing it to having Ripley go to sleep as normal only for the camera to pull back out of the airlock's window and reveal an alien egg, in the process of hatching, attached to the outside of the shuttle (after the "Brett/Dallas egg mutation" scene was deleted, this also had to go).

That is not where I first encountered the reference to an alternate, much darker ending. I shall continue looking and perhaps find the source for this bit of suspect trivia. On another note, one of the pieces to be performed at a local music festival is Howard Hanson's Symphony No. 2 Romantic, a stirring theme played over the end credits of Alien. And the guest conductor is none other than Gerard Schwarz, whose recording of the piece with the Seattle Symphony has been one of my favourites for years. I know this is now completely off topic, but Howard Hanson is an excellent composer well worth checking out. He and Samuel Barber are probably the two greatest American composers.

amuel Barber are probably the two greatest American composers.

Lauren Oliver

Better than Jerry Goldsmith during the 1965-1995 era? Wow, gonna HAVE to check these folks out.

If you accept that film is a "commodity" it should come as no surprise that the studios will do everything in their power to milk every last dime out of their investment. The suggestion that the "endless stream" of Directors Cuts is the result of directorial vanity misses the point; Directors Cuts exist because they represent an additional source of revenue for the distributors.

Could it not also be argued the other way round?
Studios mess about with films after they are cut because they believe they are making them 'more commercial' than the directors version.
Usualy it's the studios money invested in the film, not the directors.
The studio execs (or whoever) are trying to make the film more profitable by their tampering.
Occasionaly the director will get a recut after the initial release if he has enough clout, or has bigger more successful films later i.e. George Lucas, Ridley Scott. James Cameron etc.

The only thing that ticks me off is the unavailability of the release cut once a directors version comes out.

I would still like to see the original cut of Star Wars, and CE3K as they were in the cinema along side the revised versions. I like diversity and choice, not dictatorships! :)

Jim