Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That they didn't choose to erase it for the Final Cut given all the other 'goofs' that were taken care of speaks volumes for Ridley's opinion of Deck-a-rep.

Of course, that is also just the effect of human eyes under certain lighting conditions.

Unless you believe Harrison Ford, himself, to be a real-life replicant...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Of course, that is also just the effect of human eyes under certain lighting conditions.

Unless you believe Harrison Ford, himself, to be a real-life replicant...

I don't follow. Of course it's something that human eyes do under certain lighting conditions - but these are interior lighting conditions designed to give a specific effect that didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere, they rarely do when making a film.

It required the use of a two-way mirror placed at an angle to the lens upon which a light source was projected, and according to the DP they often shot scenes with or without that effect to give Ridley the editorial option to deploy it or not. Whether it was fully intentional on Harrison as chip says (him being so far out of focus and still delivering dialogue is kinda odd) or simply a happy by-product it's still there on the Final Cut despite all the digital trickery that they could've used to even it out, should it have been a goof in the first place.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Well, either actually applies...whether it's a fade from a wide shot of Deckard or from a close-up, my point still stands.

I think I have to disagree. It's not a fade in the Final Cut; it's a series of straight cuts from Deckard's eyes to the unicorn and back. That's pretty basic film language indicating that a character is seeing (or at least thinking about) the image on the other side of the cut.

As for the lights in the eyes, that is a pretty specific effect, and with everything else in the film so precisely framed and lit, there's no way it was an accident. It's also discussed in the "Deck-A-Rep" featurette, though mostly by fans.

[gnj1958]

Is there going to be a single disc version of this? I don't see the point of buying 3 discs of stuff I already own.

[jamesdevil]

Originally Posted by gnj1958

Is there going to be a single disc version of this? I don't see the point of buying 3 discs of stuff I already own.

Yes, it's releasing exclusively on eBay.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I think I have to disagree. It's not a fade in the Final Cut; it's a series of straight cuts from Deckard's eyes to the unicorn and back. That's pretty basic film language indicating that a character is seeing (or at least thinking about) the image on the other side of the cut.

As for the lights in the eyes, that is a pretty specific effect, and with everything else in the film so precisely framed and lit, there's no way it was an accident. It's also discussed in the "Deck-A-Rep" featurette, though mostly by fans.

I'm not arguing that these things can't be interpreted to mean Deckard is a replicant. I'm only saying that they're not definitive proof of it (as was asserted earlier). The fact that we're still here debating it in 2017 (10 years after even the Final Cut was released), I think, bears that out pretty well.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Right? That's there simply because they were using that lighting for Sean Young's eyes first and foremost, and even though they kept Harrison out of focus as much as possible you can still clearly see the same effect on his peepers as we know. That they didn't choose to erase it for the Final Cut given all the other 'goofs' that were taken care of speaks volumes for Ridley's opinion of Deck-a-rep.

Ridley's view isn't exactly a secret, he's bluntly made it clear. That doesn't mean all viewers need to take his word as gospel though. If anyone's word is gospel on a plot issue like that it would be the writer.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I'm not arguing that these things can't be interpreted to mean Deckard is a replicant. I'm only saying that they're not definitive proof of it (as was asserted earlier). The fact that we're still here debating it in 2017 (10 years after even the Final Cut was released), I think, bears that out pretty well.

Are people having debates about Deckard in the Final Cut? Saying he's portrayed as anything but a replicant there just seems like denial to me. It's pretty damn conclusive.

[Vangeli]

I don't think he was a replicant.

I do think he and Rachael (a replicant)

[Show spoiler]somehow had a child though, and SOMETHING SOMETHING BLADE RUNNER 2049

Oh my goodness if they "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" Harrison Ford in BR2049 I'mma be so pissed.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Are people having debates about Deckard in the Final Cut? Saying he's portrayed as anything but a replicant there just seems like denial to me. It's pretty damn conclusive.

As I indicated above, yes. I think there are various ways to interpret the film, even in Final Cut form. I know what Scott's intent was, but I have my own way of viewing the film. It's no less valid an interpretation as anyone else's.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Ah, that's right after his line "No. No, I wouldn't. I owe you one. But somebody would". He's out of focus and in the shadows behind Rachel, but his eyes glow similarly to how the replicants' eyes do. Still, I'd hardly say that's in any way definitive - if anything, it's probably even less so than the unicorn scene as, as far as I know, there's not even confirmation if that one was intentional or not. I think it was more something that fans picked up after the fact.

Cool - certainly not definitive but certainly intriguing. I always felt that sealed it for me.... but Im probably wrong.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Cool - certainly not definitive but certainly intriguing. I always felt that sealed it for me.... but Im probably wrong.

Nah. You can't be wrong or right, that's the beauty of it. Well, until 2049 definitively answers the question, of course, as it's reported to do. Regardless, I will still (personally) choose to interpret the original film as I will, and as a standalone (especially if 2049 somehow sucks, lol).

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Nah. You can't be wrong or right, that's the beauty of it. Well, until 2049 definitively answers the question, of course, as it's reported to do. Regardless, I will still (personally) choose to interpret the original film as I will, and as a standalone (especially if 2049 somehow sucks, lol).

At least we will find out via the new film.

[Roonan]

Blade Runner: The Final Cut 4K Trailer - YouTube

[Vangeli]

It's a little ...fuzzy. But it's not bad at all. That's probably the best quality they could get.

[Geoff D]

Meh, it's ****in' youtube. Will wait for the actual UHD before passing judgement.

[OutOfBoose]

It doesn't even look like The Final Cut master at all. Much worse.

[dallywhitty]

Yeah, I doubt this is an accurate representation of the UHD release. Just looks like they had a HD version of the 2007 Final Cut trailer lying around, and they decided to temper with the colours and contrast a wee bit to make it look 'new'.

[Vangeli]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

It doesn't even look like The Final Cut master at all. Much worse.

I'm pretty sure it's just the original trailer for the Final Cut from a decade ago, but they tacked the 4K UHD Blu-ray shot on the end because everything else looks upscaled except that one shot.

And I'm pretty sure the 4K disc is listed as having a few of the trailers in "4K" so this might be one of them.

[OutOfBoose]

Yep, most likely.