(2017-10-25, 12:42 AM)The_Atomik_Punk! Wrote: Got it; I had no idea that the FC is so unpopular around here, but I understand and agree with the reasoning. Out of curiosity PDB, what edits in the FC make it feel more cynical than the DC to you?

These are just my personal thoughts, Punk. Please don't take them as against anything you said or insulting your opinion. If you love the FC the best, then you do you, man. Nothing wrong with that. The FC is still Blade Runner and to me Blade Runner is a great film in all forms (it would have to be after spending years of my life on these
BR projects). Hell, one of the best 35mm presentation I saw was at the FC at the DC Uptown.

I can't speak for everyone but around here most people prefer to get as close to the original showing and look of a movie as possible. The FC clearly isn't interested in that.

Actually, I didn't know how popular the FC was until people went back and reviewed it with the the emanate release of 2049 (which I loved). I was surprised many people consider it the only way to watch the movie. (Also that many preferred Deckard being a rep but that's another conversation)

I kind of hate modern Director's Cuts like the FC. DCs started out being great way for directors to fix the nearsightedness of studio heads. It took great or at least flawed films and made them better. I'm thinking Spartacus, The Wild Bunch, OUATIW, Touch of Evil, Pat Garrett, LOA, etc. Those restorations put those movies back into the form that the director intended at that moment in history an in the form that they should of always been. It's putting the vintage pieces and footage back into the gaps that they should of always occupied.

But somewhere along the line DCs stop being about restoring the true movie and moved to 1) a marketing gimmick and 2) a way for director's to change their movies given their current (read: modern) whims. Enter the world of digital fixes.

I say cynical because there is no need to fix any of the things the FC fixes, the fixes are purely ego driven. An attempt to make the film look as modern as possible. It's not. It's a movie that 35 years old. There is no shame in that. Just let a 1982 movie be a 1982 movie.

And guess what: it has flaws. No piece of art is perfect and certainly no movie is, given the many moving pieces and limitation of time and money that there are. You love something despite it's flaws. It gives character to the painting to see the brush strokes.

And on a bigger note and referencing Lucas, I guess you have to ask how much is too much. Why not change the CRTs to flat screens, add cell phones to people's hands or make reference to the Internet.

I understand that many do not feel that way. That Deckard's lip sync or wires can take people out of the movie but for me that's just missing the forest from the trees. In the end I guess it doesn't matter because Scott or Warners did the right thing and gave the customer all the versions of the film, so the choice is yours. The FC is just my last choice.

(2017-10-25, 04:01 AM)Farstarbuck Wrote:

(2017-10-25, 12:42 AM)The_Atomik_Punk! Wrote: Got it; I had no idea that the FC is so unpopular around here, but I understand and agree with the reasoning. Out of curiosity PDB, what edits in the FC make it feel more cynical than the DC to you?

For me the DC uses shots that were already filmed and maybe one dodgy unicorn shot from Legend. But the Final Cut goes full George Lucas and reshoots and changes completely elements that were fine as they are.

+1

Although I will say as much as Lucas is hated for his tinkering, the bigger villain to me is Michael Mann, who baffling will not leave his movies alone.

Personally, I prefer the Final Cut because of the way the editing is tightened around scenes in which the narration was removed - in several scenes the editing of the FC matches the work print (like Deckard with the newspaper at the beginning), while the DC lingers too long with a lot of dead air where narration once was.

I'd love a version that conforms the video from the earlier versions with the editing from the Final Cut, because, like many here, I'm not a fan of the Lucas-esque "mistake fixing" that Scott did for the FC.

My ideal version would probably use the International Cut video as a base, but with the editing conformed to the Final Cut, minus the unicorn scene, and I *might* want to keep the Final Cut dove shot, recolored to match the IC surrounding footage.

Oh, also, love the look of the regrades PDB, I'll definitely be picking all of them up when they're released (assuming my internet connection issues are resolved by then).

(2017-10-26, 03:37 AM)ChainsawAsh Wrote: Personally, I prefer the Final Cut because of the way the editing is tightened around scenes in which the narration was removed - in several scenes the editing of the FC matches the work print (like Deckard with the newspaper at the beginning), while the DC lingers too long with a lot of dead air where narration once was.

I'd love a version that conforms the video from the earlier versions with the editing from the Final Cut, because, like many here, I'm not a fan of the Lucas-esque "mistake fixing" that Scott did for the FC.

My ideal version would probably use the International Cut video as a base, but with the editing conformed to the Final Cut, minus the unicorn scene, and I *might* want to keep the Final Cut dove shot, recolored to match the IC surrounding footage.

Oh, also, love the look of the regrades PDB, I'll definitely be picking all of them up when they're released (assuming my internet connection issues are resolved by then).

Sounds like a good fanedit.

Thanks also. Hoping to finish before the end of the year.

Personally loved the FC! Changes and all.
I certainly don't hold it in the same category as the Star Wars SE.
My only gripe is the color grade really if im being picky.

Im also in the Deckard is a Replicant camp

(2017-10-27, 01:22 AM)CSchmidlapp Wrote: Personally loved the FC! Changes and all.
I certainly don't hold it in the same category as the Star Wars SE.
My only gripe is the color grade really if im being picky.

Im also in the Deckard is a Replicant camp

Personally I don't subscribe to the Deckard Replicant theory. The only person who has said he is actually a Replicant is Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, Denis Villenvue and the writers all say he's not and I can see why.

In the first movie making him a Replicant removes all character arc for Ford. What begins as a man without any humanity left it seems gradually begins to appreciate the very thing he hunts and discovers they have potentially more humanity than he does. Saying he's a Replicant all along is lazy and there is nothing in that film to suggest he is. The silly unicorn scene is ambiguous and shoe horned in. The origami at the end isn't supposed to indicate he's a Replicant it was a plot device to indicate that Gaff found Rachel and didn't kill her at his apartment. Instead its been touted as an indication that he knows Ford's memories when all it was for was to show that he knows he has her and he's letting them get away. This is again backed up in the latest movie.

The fun thing is people believe different versions of this and thats okay. From a film making point of view thats where I make my point.

(2017-10-27, 04:57 AM)Farstarbuck Wrote:

(2017-10-27, 01:22 AM)CSchmidlapp Wrote: Personally loved the FC! Changes and all.
I certainly don't hold it in the same category as the Star Wars SE.
My only gripe is the color grade really if im being picky.

Im also in the Deckard is a Replicant camp

Personally I don't subscribe to the Deckard Replicant theory. The only person who has said he is actually a Replicant is Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, Denis Villenvue and the writers all say he's not and I can see why.

In the first movie making him a Replicant removes all character arc for Ford. What begins as a man without any humanity left it seems gradually begins to appreciate the very thing he hunts and discovers they have potentially more humanity than he does. Saying he's a Replicant all along is lazy and there is nothing in that film to suggest he is. The silly unicorn scene is ambiguous and shoe horned in. The origami at the end isn't supposed to indicate he's a Replicant it was a plot device to indicate that Gaff found Rachel and didn't kill her at his apartment. Instead its been touted as an indication that he knows Ford's memories when all it was for was to show that he knows he has her and he's letting them get away. This is again backed up in the latest movie.

The fun thing is people believe different versions of this and thats okay. From a film making point of view thats where I make my point.

I hear you.
And disagree hahahahahahaha.

I can certainly see it both ways. The 'Tears in the rain' scene looses it's punch a little if Deckard is a replicant! But it works in a different way.

My first viewing was the Directors Cut when it premiered on ITV back in the early 90's.

I'm gutted to say Ive not seen the latest installment and was wondering what angle they would take all this.

I agree with exactly the point, Farstarbuck is making but I get it if you grew up with the DC.

And if you are looking for answers from 2049....well that movie is not interested in giving any . (and it's a great film)

(2017-10-27, 05:42 PM)PDB Wrote: I agree with exactly the point, Farstarbuck is making but I get it if you grew up with the DC.

And if you are looking for answers from 2049....well that movie is not interested in giving any . (and it's a great film)

I understand completely, and the Deckard Replicant angle certainly seems to have been created in post production.

I never thought there ever would be a sequel to Bladerunner.
Never mind it being as highly praised as it has been!

I gathered it would follow on from 'The Final Cut' but I don't want an answer on that as I wish to go in fresh and have managed to avoided spoilers successfully up to now.

Yeah, no offense taken at all PDB; in fact, as I laid out in my first post in this thread, I find the color timing alteration of the FC to make it my last choice of version to watch. I'll also echo what you said, that despite that, I've seen some amazing screenings of the FC in 35mm and loved every minute of it.

I must say, I think you broke it down quite rightly when you said : "But somewhere along the line DCs stop being about restoring the true movie and moved to 1) a market gimmick and 2) a way for director's to change their movies given their current (read: modern) whims. Enter the world of digital fixes.

I say cynical because there is no need to fix any of the things the FC fixes, the fixes are purely ego driven. An attempt to make the film look as modern as possible. It's not. It's a movie that 35 years old. There is no shame in that. Just let a 1982 movie be a 1982 movie."

I put it somewhat similarly when I called the FC "a modernist commercial attempt to make an "old" film feel contemporary and familiar to new potential consumers" - very cynical indeed!

With the veteran perspectives of yourself and others in this thread, my perturbance with the FC now extends beyond the regrade, to all of those small "Lucasian" edits/alterations (well maybe not as bad as that, but still)! I'll maintain, as I always have ever since my first viewing of BR , that the original dove shot is jarring in it's out-of-placeness, just my opinion.

Really interesting discussion regarding the original intent as to whether Deckard is/isn't a replicant. Having been exposed to BR in it's DC format initially, it was always a foregone conclusion to me that he is a replicant, but I'm naturally predisposed to see the vision of the writer(s) as cannon, and am only just learning about how tacked on the DC unambiguous replicant affirmation is. Bottom line, I'm even more excited to check out PDB's Theatrical Cut when it drops.

As an aside, to those who haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 yet, or even for those that already have, be sure to check out the 3 shorts that were released online prior to the feature film. I watched them after the fact,but I think they would enhance your initial viewing, and are quite good (well, maybe not 2036 Nexus Dawn, but I enjoyed the other two).

(2017-10-12, 04:34 PM)PDB Wrote: So a buddy of mine has the UHD disc and a 4K player. I downscaled the 4K to 1080p and capped it to see if it was something I need to add to this project

Just curious if UHD, with all it's enhanced video (range, spectrum re-centering, etc.), could actually be much help with it being of a different standard -- like oranges and tangerines. Were you able to tell anything from it?