rec.arts.movies.past-films

> From: Dave in Toronto
> Organization:
> Newsgroups:
> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:59:32 -0700
> Subject: Re: New "Blade Runner" cut is how it should have been
>
> On Sep 2, 12:37 pm, Garondo Marondo < ...@ > wrote:
>> /s/nm/20070902/film_nm/venice_bladerunner_dc;_yl...
>>
>> By Silvia Aloisi
>>
>> VENICE (Reuters) - Twenty-five years after "Blade Runner" was panned
>> by critics and pulled from theaters, . director Ridley Scott savors
>> revenge with the final cut of the science-fiction film now considered
>> a cult classic.
>>
>
>
> I think it's just another ruse to try and squeeze some more money out
> of now that it's a cult classic. Of all the versions I have seen so
> far I still the original theatrical version with the voice over is the
> best.
>
Interesting. When the non-voiceover version was released in the early 90s,
just about everyone (including me) hailed the removal of Harrison Ford's
droning, nasal narration as a vast improvement, as was the new final shot,
which ended things on a much more ambiguous and therefore interesting note--
the voiceover, in particular, tied up everything at the end in such a neat
package, all that was missing was the bow.

Now the tide seems to have shifted in the other direction, at least if
comments in this NG are any indication. Me, I'll happily stick with the
. version I prefer (and I've never noticed the wires or the other
alleged problems, either in theatrical screenings or on LD or DVD-- guess
I'm just not observant).

There was an article in Video Watchdog magazine some years ago that listed
and described seven (!) different versions of "Blade Runner" that had
apparently been in release at one time or another. No matter what version
one prefers, however, it strikes me that a 5-disc set is overkill to the
point of mania. No thanks.
GMW