Sorry, to revive this old thread, I just wanted to move the Blade Runner discussion from here to somewhere, where it was on topic:
n00b said:
Harmy said:
Oh, no! "Minor" corrections like those in Blade Runner FC would be absolutely unacceptable for an OOT release - it would destroy the historical integrity of the movies and while it would be the same cut, it wouldn't be the same original version - I've said it a million times before but I guess I'll have to say it again - if you say some fixes could be made, then it is up for debate, what's still acceptable and what is not and you'll get a million different people with million different opinions - some would draw the line at matte-lines, some at blue R2 and others at expanded Cloud City windows, whereas, if you say the original version warts and all, there's nothing to debate - the goal is to restore the movie as close as possible to the way it looked on opening day.
I understand your point and have to agree but as I said, minor corrections are unacceptable for the Despecialized Edition as they would make it a mixture of official versions. Shaw's eyebrows are a different thing though but there's still hope that the manual stabilization pays off. If not, I also think that they should be omitted unless there's a 35mm source.
Of course, I also favor the historical integrity of an unaltered theatrical version but a slighty polished release by Disney would still be ten times better than any official release right now.
Oh, and talking about Blade Runner, some of the new composites in the Final Cut actually look worse than the old ones and you don't have to go far into the movie - the 1st shot will do:
http://s25.postimg.org/nsyjfoaa5/Blade_Runner.jpgThe top is the original, bottom is the FC - now it is not quite as obvious in a still frame as it is in movement, so if you have the set, I recommend popping the discs in and checking it out for yourselves but those circled dark areas, which are nice smooth gradients in the original, become weird shimmering black blobs in the re-composited version and they bear unmistakable signs of bad digital keying - it caught my eye immediately the first time I put the disc in and I was like what the eff!?
Question: Which version do you prefer overall? In my opinion, the Domestic Cut is the awful version while I don't have real preferences between the Director's Cut and the Final Cut. For me, the developement of this movie is the complete opposite of Star Wars.
I do actually prefer the original international cut - I saw the DC first, because that was the only version, which came out on DVD before the big box set but didn't really fall in love with the movie until I found a LD rip of the original cut and I was super happy, when that version was part of the official release. I rented the Final Cut on DVD, when it first came out and then re-watched it, when I bought the BD but I just love the noir-like narration, which while perhaps unnecessary to the story just adds to the atmosphere for me, and I even prefer the happy ending (sue me). Plus, in the FC, the movie lost some of it's magic by re-compositing the effects and altering the colors, so even if I wanted to watch the version more in line with Ridley Scott's original vision, I'd go for the DC.
OK, now while I'm at it and I posted in this three years old thread, why not answer the other questions as well:
Apocalypse Now: I've only seen the Reudx version once, when I first bought the BD and it dragged on horribly, the theatrical cut is definitely better in my opinion.
Alien: I'm not even sure I've seen the DC. The extra scenes can be played on the BD as deleted scenes, so I've definitely seen them but I'm not sure if I ever watched the moive with the scenes integrated.
Aliens: Definitely prefer the SE - much more emotional and character driven cut of the movie.
Terminator 2: I don't really have a preference here. It just depends on how long a film I'm in the mood for.