Re: Blade Runner... for real this time?

Jay G. ("Jay G." <"Jay "@tmbg.org>) wrote in alt.video.dvd:
Hadn't he said before that his quick-and-dirty "Director's Cut" would be
to have the European version (with the violence) with no happy ending
and fewer voiceovers (but not completely eliminated), and that was the
primary reason he hated the supposed "Director's Cut"...because it wasn't
his *and* he really wouldn't have had to take much time to do something
that he considered a lot better.

No, he actually worked on the "Director's Cut," but went over deadline. It
took a considerable amount of time to get to the compromised version that
was eventually released.

The studio had a firm deadline on that project, and didn't really allow
enough time for all the work. I don't think Scott really spent that much
time on "the director's cut" part of it...most of the time was restoration
(including finding the cut scenes), which although great, isn't really
part of the cutting, but must be done before you can do any re-editing.

Scott had actually recorded two separate sessions with Ford based on two
different voice-over scripts already before the production company shut
Scott out and wrote another voice-over script that they recorded with Ford
and put on the theatrical version of the film.

Right. My readings lead me to believe (although I have no basis other than
a hunch based on some wordings) that Scott wasn't against a bit more
narration, since he had started with some in the movie, but felt that the
theatrical cut had too much and that even the stuff he would have used
wasn't as good as the original readings because Ford wasn't into the idea
of the extra narration, and thus just "phoned it in".

--
Jeff Rife | "If we give peas a chance, won't the lima
| beans feel left out?"
|
| -- Pinky
.