The rights situations has finally been sorted out. From this morning's Variety...
Warner homevid has disentangled "Blade Runner's" famously thorny rights issues to pave the way for a September reissuereissue of the remastered "Director's Cut" version, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly Ridley ScottRidley Scott's final cut.
Warner's rights to "Blade Runner" lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license. The pic, now considered a sci-fi classic, has had a troubled history from the start: When Scott ran overbudget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voiceovervoiceover and happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.
The helmer started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.
The restored "Director's Cut" will debut on homevid in September, and remain on sale for four months only, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. "Blade Runner: Final Cut" will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.
The massive "Blade Runner" project comes on the heels of Scott's four-disc treatment for "Kingdom of Heaven," released this week by Fox homevid, less than a year after the pic's initial homevid release.
Having long been a fan of "Blade Runner" and its various incarnations, I appreciate this news. I was able to see the workprint of the movie when it was shown at the Castro in San Francisco in 1991. That version hasn't been seen since, although somebody over at DavisDVD.com has been trying to compile a bunch of screenshots of it.
>>>When Scott ran overbudget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voiceovervoiceover and happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.<<<
We should correct this stuff out of the Variety article to avoid confusion. "Blade Runner" was NOT recut by completion bond people. Ridley Scott supervised the editing, even during the time that he was technically fired from the movie by the producers (Bud Yorkin & Jeremy Perenchio). Voiceover was included in multiple drafts of the script, and Harrison Ford recorded multiple versions of it. Unfortunately, the one that wound up in the released film was really terrible, and Ford's reading made it even worse. (The workprint version has a brief voiceover at Baty's death that is far more effective) When the test screenings went badly, Scott added a little footage to show Deckard and Rachel driving, and then obtained footage from Stanley Kubrick to fill it out.
The workprint surfaced by accident around 1991 when Michael Arick almost literally stumbled over it. When Warner Bros. caught wind of the accidental screening, they stamped it a "Director's Cut" and allowed it to be screened at the Castro and then at the Nuart in Los Angeles. When Scott heard that this was being called his Director's Cut, he was a bit miffed, particularly after he saw what they were running. At his insistence, the workprint was pulled from the Nuart before it finished its run, and Scott was told he could do a real Director's Cut. And this was unfortunately plagued by the same problems as the original shoot and wound up being rushed to the point that the only changes he could make were to pull off the voiceover and the happy ending and add a few frames of a unicorn. He wasn't even able to adjust the editing to accomodate the absence of voiceover. Nevertheless, this got put out in 1992 as his official Director's Cut. He has repeatedly said that he wanted to finish his work, if anyone would let him.
>>>The helmer started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.<<<
This is correct. We were told that there would be a 20th Anniversary Special Edition on DVD in 2002, and that it would be the Bee's Knees of
"Blade Runner". We were even told that it wouldn't be called "Director's Cut" or "Final Cut" or anything - just "Blade Runner", as this was the version intended all along. The problem was that Perenchio didn't consent to the release, and as the original producer, he needed to be included in the situation. This mired everything and for a while we were told the best we could hope would be a re-release of the 1992 cut in anamorphic with a Channel Four documentary from Britain if we were lucky.
>>>The restored "Director's Cut" will debut on homevid in September, and remain on sale for four months only, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. <<<
This sounds like the re-release discussed earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 2 Disc Special Edition, but WB may hold off on that and wait for the bigger release.
>>>"Blade Runner: Final Cut" will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials. <<<
I hope that the Variety writer got some of this a little wrong. The "expanded international" version is just the original release plus a few more seconds of gratuitous violence. When the original mega-release was discussed for 2002, we had been told 3 versions would be on the disc: The Final Version (just called "Blade Runner"), the Original Theatrical Release and as a special bonus, the Workprint from 1991, since all 3 versions would be completely different from each other. Including the extra gory version as a complete alternate is a bit silly, and including the 1992 cut as well is even sillier if WB will have released it a few months earlier. I continue to hope that the Workprint will find its way onto this DVD set, but only heaven and WB's lawyers know for sure. I have a strong feeling that the few deleted scenes will be included along with Scott's customarily thorough documentaries and commentaries. I would fully expect to hear from Douglas Trumbull about his effects work, as well as both Hampton Fancher and David Peoples (hopefully in a joint commentary), but I'm not holding my breath on seeing Harrison Ford talk about this film. He really was not happy shooting it and it's not a happy memory for him.
I look forward to seeing the official specs announcements from the usual suspects soon...
I was working at WHV at the time of a couple of previous false starts, including the bizarre wrangles over where to ship all the negs and footage for the recut (at the time both the footage and Scott were in the UK, but the Warners execs wanted it to be done entirely at Burbank where they could "keep an eye on it," something Scott was very resistent to. (Several Warners execs at the time had serious issues with Arick's involvement that reflect more badly on them than on Arick).
The original rumours of the three versions you mention came about as a result of a compromise offer that was put forward to Perenchio, who was blocking (as was his contractual right) any release of an altered version or the inclusion of any deleted footage in any form. Scott's preference at that time was purely for the 'ultimate' version to be released, although he may well have changed his mind since then, but it was felt that the inclusion of the other versions would placate Perenchio - which wasn't the case, largely because of his strong personal dislike of Scott.
Considering the personal nature of some of the problems, it is surprising that it's finally been resolved, especially since Perenchio was too rich to buy, so to speak. They either offered him an incredible deal or he just finally agreed to stop the more demented fanboys bombarding his secretary with abusive phone calls and death threats.
>>>I was working at WHV at the time of a couple of previous false starts, including the bizarre wrangles over where to ship all the negs and footage for the recut (at the time both the footage and Scott were in the UK, but the Warners execs wanted it to be done entirely at Burbank where they could "keep an eye on it," something Scott was very resistent to. (Several Warners execs at the time had serious issues with Arick's involvement that reflect more badly on them than on Arick). <<<
My understanding is that there wound up being TWO recut projects, due to WB working on their own idea and Arick working on some kind of cleanup of the workprint. But that's only according to Paul Sammon - from his articles in Video Watchdog and his book about "Blade Runner". I wonder if he got any of this wrong - as he admitted he did when he pronounced Joe Turkel deceased and then discovered that Turkel was not only very much alive but also really ticked at him.
>>>The original rumours of the three versions you mention came about as a result of a compromise offer that was put forward to Perenchio, who was blocking (as was his contractual right) any release of an altered version or the inclusion of any deleted footage in any form. Scott's preference at that time was purely for the 'ultimate' version to be released, although he may well have changed his mind since then, but it was felt that the inclusion of the other versions would placate Perenchio - which wasn't the case, largely because of his strong personal dislike of Scott. <<<
Several years ago, I worked with someone close to Bud Yorkin. When I asked about "Blade Runner", I clearly brought up some bad memories. Yorkin and Perenchio both have serious issues with Scott. I don't think this has been helped over the years by all the praise Scott has been given for the movie. For these guys, it's like twisting the knife - from their perspective, the movie was not handled responsibly, and they were the ones who had to deal with it at the time. And both Yorkin and Perenchio absolutely have the right as the original producers to have a say in any release or alteration of their movie. It's a no-brainer that either of them would be pulling their hair out about yet ANOTHER opportunity to watch Scott being praised for the movie...
Next year's set sounds phenomenal...if only because of the extras and the fact that all versions will finally get 16:9 transfers, including the theatrical version which I still prefer to Scott's director's cut. The whole notion that Deckard is a replicant ruins the story for me (and I'm sure most people would disagree but I've always felt that way).
I'll also be curious to see if Ford participates in any degree after his admitted distate for the movie and especially Sean Young...which leads me to recommend Paul Sammon's excellent book on the making of the movie if you haven't read it already!
I can't say where I heard this...but I know for a fact Vangelis has composed several HOURS of NEW MUSIC for use in Scott's directors cut!:D
Obviously not all of if will be used; I got the sense that rather than scoring to picture, Vangelis composed music of varying styles from which Scott can pick and chose.
Sorry, no word on whether an expannded soundtrack tied-in with the release is planned. But knowing Vangelis, I'm not getting my hopes up.
The new "Director's Cut" DVD apparently, for the most part, looks very, very good.
However, Warner's isn't even sending out review copies (or they had very few of 'em since there's actually nothing new on the DVD except for the 16:9 transfer), so I'm not going to rush out and buy one -- especially in lieu of next year's legit Special Edition AND the fact I don't like "the director's cut" in the first place.
I don't plan on buying it as long as it is included in that superb sounding box set next year, which it looks like it will be included if I'm reading the press release correctly. Right???
I am only familiar with the director's cut version of the film, having seen that several times and the narrated version only once. The absolute, most beautiful scene in the movie is when Rutger Hauer and Harrison Ford are on the rooftop and Hauer is holding the dove in his hand (or whatever stupid bird it is) and delivers his monologue. This is one of my all-time favorite science fiction films. I can't WAIT for that box set to come out. That will be a happy day!
mkaroly wrote:I don't plan on buying it as long as it is included in that superb sounding box set next year, which it looks like it will be included if I'm reading the press release correctly. Right???
I am only familiar with the director's cut version of the film, having seen that several times and the narrated version only once. The absolute, most beautiful scene in the movie is when Rutger Hauer and Harrison Ford are on the rooftop and Hauer is holding the dove in his hand (or whatever stupid bird it is) and delivers his monologue. This is one of my all-time favorite science fiction films. I can't WAIT for that box set to come out. That will be a happy day!
Oh yeah, that'll be in the box set. No need to splurge, I'd hold off until next year (and we've waited this long so far, so what's another year, right?).
I definitely prefer the Theatrical Cut, with the narration, because I hate the fact that Deckard is supposed to be a replicant in the DC. To me that ruins the very point of the film (and something that Harrison Ford also detests -- isn't the point that a human LEARNS to be more humane from an android?). Without that I feel the story loses a lot of its resonance. (Of course this is IMPLIED in the theatrical cut, but it's not spelled out explicitly as it seemingly is in the DC).
Plus the narration adds a noirish atmosphere. Yes we all know Ford hated recording it and he's not exactly emotive in the delivery, but that narration was present in most drafts of the script and I feel the film loses a good amount without it.
Of course there are those who feel differently, but for me the Theatrical Version IS Blade Runner, and I can't wait until next year to see it on DVD! The Criterion LD is still one of my prized possesions
I've often wondered if people who love this film (and I'm one) would have responded to Blade Runner had it had NOT included narration the first time out.
Blade Runner is a somewhat vague narrative, which is, in my opinion (ok start throwing the eggs) HELPED somewhat by the narration. The narration goes a long way in helping the viewer understand Deckard's motivation and inner turmoil.
Narration is not a bad thing in and of itself (Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon have extensive narration, which works very well). The problem with Blade Runner's narration is A) it isn't well-written for the most part, B) is superfluous about half the time, and C) is poorly, dispassionately performed by the disgruntled Harrison Ford. But it DOES help clarify the storyline. The directors cut is "better" without narration only because we already know what's going on (having heard the narration in the earlier version).
The narration came out flat and awful because it was the umpteenth time that Harrison Ford had recorded it. And on the final pass it was rewritten by yet another writer who had a lot of clunkers in there.
In the workprint version released in 1991 (and which I still hold out hope for in the new box set), there is a single brief bit of narration near the end when Deckard is sitting on the roof which is almost worth the price of admission by itself.
