Page 1 of 2
Alternate Opening for Blade Runner
Posted:
Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:06 pmby eccentricbeing
I discovered this alternate opening sequence at imdb. The poster says it's the final cut opening, but i really doubt it. It looks fan made, but nonetheless, I enjoyed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT590N74r5o
Posted:
Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:52 pmby deleted
It is fan made. They have two versions of it posted. Still kind of neat, though.
Posted:
Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:00 pmby ridleynoir
Wow, Interesting. Especially the music cues in it. They sound new, but obviously 'Blade Runner'. Damn good if it was only fan made I say.
Posted:
Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:48 pmby Gene Ettix
Here's an
article about it that was written today.
Posted:
Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:53 pmby deleted
Word from Charlie de Lauzirika, the producer of the upcoming Final Cut of Blade Runner, is "It's not real."
As I said, fan-made. The fact that there were two versions should have been a large tip off.
And before you say anything, once again Gene, I'm not targeting you.
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:06 pmby msgeek
Gotta admit, that's a man's job there on those "re-envisioned" titles. Any fan of Gustav Dore is a friend of mine. "Firey the angels fell..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Dore
I think the "dictionary definitions," however, are not instructive enough about what you are about to see. In that way, I think the original title sequence works better.
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:19 pmby nexuszix
msgeek wrote: I think the original title sequence works better.
Amen to that
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:22 pmby ridleynoir
msgeek wrote:Gotta admit, that's a man's job there on those "re-envisioned" titles. Any fan of Gustav Dore is a friend of mine. "Firey the angels fell..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_DoreI think the "dictionary definitions," however, are not instructive enough about what you are about to see. In that way, I think the original title sequence works better.
The Dictionary title is from the true 'original' title sequence. The theatrical/directors cut version came later and also creates a lot of plot holes and confusion. In all the screenplays the nexus 6 were only hunted because they were Rogue (i.e. runaway slaves). They became 'totally illegal' after Tyrell was killed by them. It also explains why someone who is a 'veteran hunter' of illegal replicants doesn't know anything about the same replicants that according to the title brought on the law against replicants in the first place. The current opening text makes no sense.
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:48 pmby deleted
Erm, the current title sequence makes perfect sense. They became totally illegal after a bloody mutiny.
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:57 pmby ridleynoir
A mutiny by Nexus 6's that the supposed hunter of Illegal replicants is unaware of? Before the mutiny they were legal. Something brand new (no more than 4 years old) that started this mutiny a little while before the movie started, but a veteran Blade Runner is unfamiliar with? Um...yeah...perfect sense
Sorry. I tried to buy their story, but it never sat well with me. If ealier Nexus started the mutiny, then it would make sense. But the opening title says it was because of the 6's. He wouldn't have a job before them and then he at least should be familiar with them.
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:37 pmby deleted
What?
I was under the impression the mutiny had occurred significantly prior.
Also, how do we know the Nexus 6 series is only 4 years old?
Posted:
Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:44 pmby Merc
I can see what you mean ridleynoir. When reading the crawl, I get the impression that the Blade Runner Units were created to enforce the ban which only came about after the mutiny by a group of Nexus 6 robots. If that's true, why isn't Deckard familiar with them?
Posted:
Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:09 amby ridleynoir
deleted wrote:What?
I was under the impression the mutiny had occurred significantly prior.
Also, how do we know the Nexus 6 series is only 4 years old?
They do have to be at least 4 years old, because Batty is coming to the end of his 4 year life cycle. But if Blade Runner units were created to 'retire' Nexus 6's, then how come Deckard 'does not' know about them? That is the point. According to future Noir that version of the title sequence was created by Bud Yorkin (99% shure) after Ridley left production. Fancher and Peoples had nothing to do with it. It is amung the things that I have tried to ignore like the spinner wires, the Zhora stunt double, and the Egyptian lip flap. Doesn't kill the movie for me, but it is tiring hearing new people only ask questions about stuff like this.
Posted:
Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:26 amby I. J. Thompson
Yeah, they shoulda said Nexus 3 or something like that. We know from some versions of the script that Deckard had experience with those.
(Come to think of it he quit because of them, as I recall. So maybe the 1s or 2s should be our mutineers...)
Posted:
Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:19 amby deleted
ridleynoir wrote:deleted wrote:What?
I was under the impression the mutiny had occurred significantly prior.
Also, how do we know the Nexus 6 series is only 4 years old?
They do have to be at least 4 years old, because Batty is coming to the end of his 4 year life cycle. But if Blade Runner units were created to 'retire' Nexus 6's, then how come Deckard 'does not' know about them? That is the point. According to future Noir that version of the title sequence was created by Bud Yorkin (99% shure) after Ridley left production. Fancher and Peoples had nothing to do with it. It is amung the things that I have tried to ignore like the spinner wires, the Zhora stunt double, and the Egyptian lip flap. Doesn't kill the movie for me, but it is tiring hearing new people only ask questions about stuff like this.
No, I meant, how do we know it's not older?