What's new

The official BLADE RUNNER SE thread. (Check out page 8 and #790.) (1 Viewer)

Mark_TS

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 23, 2000
Messages
1,704
Yes! I agree with Anthony. We could have a state of the art remaster of BLADE RUNNER bare bones in the shops by September if not sooner. That would hold us until the LIKELY Twenty-FIFTH Anniversary Specail Edition comes out-IF we are lucky...

The current release is looking a bit dodgy IMHO, as it has been out since Spring of 1997-about 7+ years of Digital technology and experience have come to pass since then...
 

Gordon McMurphy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Messages
3,530
I agree Kris and Mark; a new, down-converted high-def transfer would be great. Then once the creases are ironed out, Warner could release a 2 or 3-disc SE at a later date. I badly want to see this masterpiece again, but I want to see it pristine. The last time I saw it was in 35mm and the print was terrible, with frames missing and more sratches than the ice rink after the Olympics.

Yes, a remaster - perhaps even with a Scott commentary would sell very well, I sure of it.

When's the next Warner chat?
 

Jake Johnson

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
367
if enough of us pester them it just might make warner work a little harder on getting this project moving again. Strength in numbers.
 

Jo_C

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
347
I read somewhere on one of the DVD web sites some definite clue on BR's current fate. We know that Warner Bros. holds only theatrical, video, and television rights to the "Director's Cut" to the film, and that's it.

We can only conclude here that the remaining rights are in limbo, and that has what has, in part, kept a BR SE on hold.

I could be wrong about this, but somehow Studio Canal still has some rights to the original versions of BR since they now hold the Embassy library (Embassy was a "silent partner" on the original BR release--I could be wrong here, but Charlie, or anyone correct me if I am).
 
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
1,023
Location
London
Real Name
Anthony
Good news about the Warner Bros. chat.
Might I just remind you that there is a petition for an interim version of BR over on the Studio Feedback forum.
If you haven't already, please add your name to the list.
It'd be great to present them with a few hundred names and we might get a remastered Director's Cut with a commentary.
Unfortunately, right now there are very few names. :frowning:
Come on,guys, we can get this done ! I don't know about you, but my DVD collection will never be near complete without it.
 

Gordon McMurphy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Messages
3,530
I could be wrong about this, but somehow Studio Canal still has some rights to the original versions of BR since they now hold the Embassy library (Embassy was a "silent partner" on the original BR release--I could be wrong here, but Charlie, or anyone correct me if I am).
Studio Canal titles are distributed through Warner Bros in Europe, so they should be no problem on this side of the Atlantic, and I'm sure that they could come to some arrangement for a US release. Although, in the U.S., Studio Canal distribute though MGM, don't they?

From reading about the history of this film's distribution and video rights, I get the feeling that it's a bit of a mess and would take a lot of time and money to get straightened out.

As I have said, I would quite happy with a razor sharp, bare-bones remaster of the DC with 5.1, of course. In fact, that may be Warner's only option - at present, anyway.
 

Will_B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2001
Messages
4,730
In another thread somewhere on this fine message board it was revealed who the holdup was, it was a billionaire who helped fund the film who hates the film. Oddly though, his opinion did not matter when the 1992 Directors Cut was released. For some reason they beleive his opinion matters now. They may be wrong. But in any case search the forum for the complete details including his public mailing address to send letters of encouragement.
 

Will_B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2001
Messages
4,730
Here it is, quoted from the thread that quoted the New York Times article:
Thanks to the NY Times, we now know who to write to, to free Blade Runner.
Jerry Perenchio, C.E.O.
Univision Communications Inc
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3050
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-7676
Fax: (310) 556-3568
Web Site: http://www.univision.com/
Read up on the guy, he is a billionaire, worth approx. $3.1 billion, one of the 400 richest men in America. No reason for him to care whether Scott completes a Directors Cut of Blade Runner at all.
There's also some good news in his company profile:
Post Edited By Administrator - Do Not Repost
The edited bit was simply his age.
Also, the man is infamous for not commenting to the public; he's even fired his own employees for speaking to the press. So I am hoping that even though the Times said that "Mr. Perenchio gave no sign that he would let them be released", that his silence in fact meant absolutely nothing. He's just a guy who does not like to communicate. For all we know there's no holdup at all, just a fear that there could be. Again, it didn't stop the Director's Cut in 1992 so why would it now?
 

Zen Butler

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
5,568
Location
Southern, Ca
Real Name
Zen K. Butler
I really want to see this film again, but I really do not wish to buy the old release since it looks crap! ( saw it on rental...) maybe I should just rent it!!
Although not pristine it hardley qualifies as "crap."

For those in the Los Angeles area, a rental of "On the Edge of Blade Runner", the 52 min. documentary is available. I will say it again, very light stuff compared to the definitive source of information "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon.
 

Haden

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
783
So we're STILL without a Bladerunner special edition because some selfish scrooge wants to be a prick and has been blocking WB from making it all this time? Dammit! That really pisses me off. What makes him so damn powerful all of a sudden? They've been releasing this on video for the last 20 years, and he didn't stop them from doing the 1992 Director's Cut.
 

Will_B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2001
Messages
4,730
He was already a billionaire at the time of the 1992 Director's Cut, so it still doesn't make sense...
 

Zen Butler

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2002
Messages
5,568
Location
Southern, Ca
Real Name
Zen K. Butler
Paul Sammon wrote in his book "Future Noir: The Making of `Blade Runner' " that they hated the film, had bitter disputes with Mr. Scott and tried to take it away from him altogether.

It's no secret that Mr. Perenchio never liked the film or Scott very much, so inject speculation *here*. I don't think anyone can really "chime in" and discuss the man's intentions when he simply has "no comment" on the issue.
 

Will_B

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2001
Messages
4,730
Hm, here's the obvious speculation then.

Perenchio gets a percentage of any release of the film, and that percentage (I am guessing) is negotiable with each home video release (since home video didn't really exist much at the time of the film's creation).

At the time of the 1992 Director's Cut, he agreed and signed to a percentage that was a-ok with everyone, maybe even something low. Maybe he didn't even get personally involved in it at the time, given his age and all. But then something happened with the 1992 release that embarassed him: Maybe the 1992 Director's Cut sold a whole lot better than Perenchio ever expected. Perenchio realized he could have made a lot more on it than he thought. But he didn't. And that failure to forsee how well liked Blade Runner is may well have humiliated him, if he places a high value on money.

So when 2003 rolls around and it comes time for him to make the agreement as to what percentage he'd get from a Special Edition, he sticks it to them, knowing how well a Special Edition of Blade Runner would do. He demands a percentage so high that the studio balks. Maybe he even demands that no re-release of the 1992 Director's Cut can be done without a new contract.

In this theory, the sentence that reads "Mr. Perenchio gave no sign that he would let them be released" would then in fact read "Mr. Perenchio gave no sign that he and the studio would reach an agreement on a reasonable percentage."

I guess that's the obvious theory that anyone would read in to it. Maybe the truth is something else entirely. The only way to know would be for him to issue a press statement explaining his position, and why he beleives his position has merit.

But I wanted to voice this theory because it entertains the possibility that Mr. Perenchio has come to realize that he had a blind spot when it came to recognizing that Blade Runner is a greatly loved film, a film for the ages. He might not personally enjoy the film, but he may now be well aware that it is a huge deal in the film fan community.

If that is so, there's no point in asking him to reconsider on the merits of being a patron of the arts, someone who respects film. He might already realize that it is a modern day Citizen Kane or Metropolis. He may simply want to squeeze what he feels is rightly his out of the deal.
 

BrentJ

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 27, 2002
Messages
329
Ok guys I have been holding off on buying the older edition in hopes of the new SE. So if you want to see this one released all I have to do is buy the old copy and you will see a sudden release date on the new SE. It never fails for me.:)
Oh yea I have never seen this film. Looking forward to it.
 

Ian Such

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 4, 1998
Messages
60
Now I might just take you up on that offer - and if the SE release date is announced within the next 2 months, I'll personally reimburse you the cost of your original purchase, with a £1000 bonus for your troubles.
Can't say fairer than that can I? (Although, I suspect that my money will be pretty safe ;))
I do have the old DC on dvd, it's not too bad, I don't regret buying it, but I really would like to see a remaster.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,712
Messages
5,121,145
Members
144,147
Latest member
cennetkaralowa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top