More than 25 years after its original theatrical release, "Blade Runner" returns with an all new version: director Ridley Scott's "Final Cut." Here's a look at the slew of new DVDs packages coming out for the science fiction classic.

http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/08/ [...] final_cut/

The eternal question, which is better Sci Fi, Blade Runner or 2001?

Hmmmmm, touch question. I have to go with Kubrick and 2001. As much as I love Blade Runner and despite the fact that I think Ridley Scott is the best director working today to not to win an Oscar (now that Scorcese has his), 2001 is a masterpiece and probably one of the 10 best films I've ever seen. Haunting stuff that was decades ahead of its time.

I love this film and I am super excited about the HD versions. Oh and let us not forget Blade Runner the game, from Westwood Studios!

I have been a fan of the movie since it was first released, but I have never once wondered whether Deckard was a replicant. Why should anyone do so?
The film makes it clear that replicants are so human in appearance and behaviour that it is very difficult to tell one from the other - this is after all the reason for Deckards employment as the Blade Runner. So one can i suppose speculate about every character in the movie (besides the known Nexus 6 replicants) as to whether they are really human or replicant, not just Deckard. Why not any of the other characters? Perhaps they are ALL replicants. But this is rediculous.
There is no evidence to suggest Deckard is a replicant, and in fact logic would be very mnuch against it. Is it likely humans would employ a replicant to track down other replicants? Also, Deckard seemingly has no special physical capabilities, at least when compared to Nexus 6. He survives his encounters with the replicants mainly due to luck or superior fire power, the Nexus 6 replicants being unarmed.
Maybe i am a replicant too! Must track down my Parents.

Like that film, but those 200 versions of it are damn too many.

Did not like that Director's Cut Edition, since the most important part was missing: Deckards narration.

I really find that all the "Director' S Cut" are idiocies. Destroyers of masterpiece.

It is like taking a paint, a masterpiece, like the Mona Lisa of Léonard De Vinci, and to repaint over. And to have for result not
a masterpiece but a waste.


Well it is that which arrived at masterpiece "Blade Runner" of 1982 amongst other things.
All that Under pretext of give pleasure with its director, Ridley Scott, which was surely on the acid when it with destroyed this masteerpiece.

When I saw the original, with the voice-off of Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) all along film, I had really pleasure. And this film
became one of my preferred.

Unfortunately, never I had not thought that there would have been mental patients to destroy this masterpiece Nor either that the "Director'S Cut"
would become a fashion. As what one likes to destroy masterpiece.

And thus I did not think of buying a copy (or several) VHS (the DVD did not exist at this time).
However today it is IMPOSSIBLE to find the Original of Blade Runner on DVD.
In which we hear Harrisson Ford spoken backwards plan during all the film.
And also the end where one sees Rick Deckard and Rachael on the highway motorway and not to finish brutally in the elevator.

Since this time I regard Ridley Scott as an idiot. Insane. An imbecile.
Because it is necessary to be like that to destroy such a pretty masterpiece and to make a turnip of it.

To understand what I want to say, for those which did not see the original of "Blade Runner", well imagine to see "Sin City" (with Mickey Rourke)
without the voice backwards plan of him.

If a day one makes Director' S cut of this film (Sin City), same manner as with Blade Runner, by removing the voice-off, one will destroy this
masterpiece too.

If one wants to destroy a video masterpiece, at least that one is the intelligence to preserve the original and to also sell it.

Why they don't have law against crazy director's?