Posted on 12/16/2003 10:27:11 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
The NY Times has named names on why the Blade Runner Special Edition 3-DVD set is on hold. It is their report, not mine.
They say, "The avidly awaited, definitive version of Ridley Scott's science-fiction classic, "Blade Runner," won't be out on DVD anytime soon for stranger reasons. When "Blade Runner" was being shot in the early 1980's, Bud Yorkin, a veteran television comedy producer, and Jerry Perenchio, now the C.E.O. of Univision, were the film's bond-completion guarantors. When the film went over budget, by contract they assumed ownership of the film. 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.
The studio release, in 1982, contained superfluous narration and a tacked-on rosy ending. Mr. Scott removed both when he was allowed to make a "director's cut" in 1992, but it was, by his own account, a rush job.
Three years ago, Mr. Scott announced that he was working on a three-disc box set, which would offer all the versions of the film, including a new and polished director's cut with previously unseen footage and scads of bonus features. Then, at the end of 2001, Warner Brothers, which was planning to distribute the discs, pulled the plug. It did so, according to a producer who worked on the project, because Mr. Perenchio gave no sign that he would let them be released.
Mr. Perenchio, speaking through an assistant, had no comment on the situation. (Warner Brothers still sells the 1992 "director's cut," though the picture quality is mediocre.)"
Anyway, it seems that Jerry Perenchio is being a jerk and doesn't want anyone to see the Blade Runner that was it was meant to be seen.
I know there are quite a few Blade Runners on FR and I think you might want a heads up on this.
Actually I think that the way it was "meant" to be seen was on a large screen projected from film. I own a laserdisc player but resisted buying any of the LD versions of the film (even used when I found them for under $10) because I prefer to see this on a big screen for it to "work".
I won't watch Lawrence of Arabia on a tv screen either. I bought Blake Edwards/Peter Sellers' The Party and don't think that it works as well on tv either (the house needs to be huge in the final scenes).
Good revival theaters are a hard thing to find. I keep saying that there are plenty of films that should only be seen theatrically and also that there are films that can only be shown theatrically (the home video rights are tied up for some reason or other while the theatrical releases are still clear provided someone doesn't try to modify the film).
Laserdisc did have digital soundtracks added in a few years after the launch of the format.
While there is no difference in resolution between CAV and CLV laserdisc, only CAV gave single frame stepping (I do have a laserdisc player which "simulated" single frame stepping on CLV discs by using a digital cache but this is not my daily machine).
MPEG is a digital compression algorithm and laserdisc, while it had it's flaws, did not compress image content.
Also video will never fully offer the same subconcious experience as a moving picture. Film strobes as static images are quickly projected one at a time. Video is a constant series of refresh lines. People have done psychological studies about this, it is not something that you will readily perceive.
As a similar subconcious event, let me say that flourescent lights flicker although you won't see it. If you shoot it on video you will see the flicker. There is also a greencast to flourescent light, you eyes adjust somewhat but film shows this greencast. Some people voice dissatisfaction with working in an office that only has flourescent light.
At one time movies were meant to be seen projected onto a big screen. Some films are designed to be straight to video/tv syndication. This is apparent when films have a "tv safe" area in the shoot (little peripheral action). Early widescreen films were an outright attack on tv viewers, designed to give them "more" than they were getting at home (back when it was first believed that tv was going to put theaters out of business).
You are not only paranoid, but your wrong also. They were make movies and showing them in theaters before TV. Widescreen was gimick to get people back to theaters, later movie companies realized that they could make money by sell widescreen versions on VHS and DVD.
You sir are what is commonly called a movie purist, in that you are fanatically against anyone actually enjoying a movie out of the theater. You're a killjoy.
My reply to you is. :p
Wrong, laserdiscs are based off of the same technology as CDs and later DVDs. A LD player reads the 1s and 0s off the disc with a laser, while VHS is read off with a magnetic based sensor. So LDs are digital.
IS A VIDEODISC SIGNAL DIGITAL?No. The final output of a laservision videodisc is an analog NTSC standard television signal (at least in North America...other television standards, such as PAL and SECAM exist throughout the world). The SLICE OF LIFE and SLICE OF BRAIN videodiscs use the NTSC standard and thus are viewable through regular television sets. Each frame of a CAV formatted videodisc is like a still-frame from a video. These frames are not stored as individual files, such as a jpeg, gif, bmp, or pict file formats common in the computer world. They can only be recalled for playback by their individual videodisc frame numbers.
Although the content of a videodisc is encoded in pits and landings and read by a laser, in the final analysis, the laservision videodisc is like a glorified, high quality, LP record, except it plays video in addition to sounds.
As to your claim that I am a snobby movie "purist", I own LD and DVD so I do watch movies at home as well as in the theater.
NOTHING I do will be able to make a movie 25 feet high at home. Some (not all) movies have to be seen this big to have a real impact.
Also, the frames of the movie itself are either I (key) frames, B frames or P frames.
You're ignorance on this subject it real glaring.
You denounce my claim that widescreen movies were an attempt to get tv viewers into theaters and then you agree with it. Whatever.
What you refuse to admit is that they were making movies WAY before there was even tv.
You're just pissed because movie makers started thinking outside the 4:3 ratio box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.