Now Screening - What Are You Watching Right Now?

[struth]

This story has made it yet again to film, this time "Cyrano", starring Hayley Bennett and the wonderful Peter Dinklage. I haven't seen it yet, but I will at some point, even though it appears to be a musical.

yes the dvd is available for that. this is only one i have

[Barry]

Ridley Scott's Bladerunner, The Final Cut, 1982. (not sure when final cut came out but maybe 2007..

In what way does 'The Final Cut' differ from the 'Director's Cut'?

[Pigmy Pony]

In what way does 'The Final Cut' differ from the 'Director's Cut'?

This explains it Barry.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...OhwzKv_VUk0vuE

[struth]

In what way does 'The Final Cut' differ from the 'Director's Cut'?

Although Ridley Scott was consulted with the creation of the Director's Cut, 2007 is when he released the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner. This attempt was initially stalled due to legal troubles between Scott and WB, but those issues were solved in 2006 and allowed the director to finish his work with complete artistic freedom. As indicated by the title of this new cut, the Final Cut of Blade Runner is nearly a collection of the various edits of the film, which was also improved by remastering the visuals and sounds.

The changes made to the theatrical cut for the Director's Cut were maintained, but Scott added more elements from the various versions of the film. For starters, he reinserted the more violent scenes that were featured in the international version. The Final Cut also includes the full unicorn dream sequence, which was trimmed down for the Director's Cut. Scott even filmed new scenes and recorded additional dialogue to complete the changes he felt were necessary. The Final Cut of Blade Runner is what Ridley Scott considers to be the definitive version of the film, and it only took him 25 years to release it to the public.

So, the Directors cut was WB's Idea of what they thought was his cut, and the final is his actual idea.

[Barry]

There is no real need for more footage of the unicorn dream sequence, as even some of it in connection with the origami model left as a 'reminder', indicates that Deckard is a (specialised?) replicant. Nor is there need for explicit shots of violence: it's obvious even in the theatre version that Tyrell has his eyes gouged out by Batty.

Although I'm in the minority here, I miss Deckard's voice-over of the theatre version.


Regardless of which version is the best, all of them bare little relation to the book.

[Macca]

.

Although I'm in the minority here, I miss Deckard's voice-over of the theatre version.

That was the only good version. As for the sequel - just terrible. I didn't have high hopes but it really stank the place out.

[struth]

That was the only good version. As for the sequel - just terrible. I didn't have high hopes but it really stank the place out.

quite liked sequel personally. just shows how complex keeping everyone happy is.

[Macca]

quite liked sequel personally. just shows how complex keeping everyone happy is.

Maybe I'm too fussy but seems to me that they've stopped making good films altogether. Even that Sopranos one wasn't great and there's really no good reason why it shouldn't have been epic.

[struth]

Maybe I'm too fussy but seems to me that they've stopped making good films altogether. Even that Sopranos one wasn't great and there's really no good reason why it shouldn't have been epic.

oh, no doubt the quality we had even in this country say pre 1980(far less hollywood) was amazing. a bit like music really. i mean, films that bogart were in were not really any different treated than any others, unlike now where biggest stars get paid in 'parts of countries' rather than money as they dont have the dollaridoos. doesn't mean they dont make good films or music, its just that there are less of them, especially for older folk who got used to quality.

[Macca]

oh, no doubt the quality we had even in this country say pre 1980(far less hollywood) was amazing. a bit like music really. i mean, films that bogart were in were not really any different treated than any others, unlike now where biggest stars get paid in 'parts of countries' rather than money as they dont have the dollaridoos. doesn't mean they dont make good films or music, its just that there are less of them, especially for older folk who got used to quality.

I was wondering if it might be an age thing. They don't seem to make films, music or TV for me anymore, seems to all be aimed at younger generations.

I often watch older, low budget films and they are so good, it's all in the dialogue, the characters and the acting. They had to have that as there was no budget to do anything fancy.

Now 100 million dollars is a normal budget but they have none of those qualities that make a film great.

I mean take Warner Brothers in the 1930s and 1940s - they were churning out films made for next to nothing and they're all watchable and some are genius.

Now it's these superhero films which seem to be aimed at kindergarten age. I would have thought they were rubbish back when I was ten. Yet I know people in their 20s and 30s who go to the cinema to watch them.

I used to work with a youth who was into his films and always going on about the latest piece of crap he'd seen at the flicks that weekend. Needless to say I would take the piss so he asked me to recommend a film that I thought was better. Off the top of my head I told him to watch 'Taxi Driver.'

He comes in on the Monday walks over to me and says 'Taxi Driver! Fucking hell!' It entirely reset his calibration scale.