The Ridley Scott-approved Director's Cut (1992, 116 minutes)[13] was prompted by the unauthorized 1990 and 1991 theatrical release of the workprint version of the movie. The Director's Cut contained significant changes from the theatrical workprint version. Scott provided extensive notes and consultation to Warner Bros., although film preservationist/restorer Michael Arick was put in charge of creating the Director's Cut.[14]
When the Cineplex Odeon Fairfax Theater in Los Angeles learned of this discovery, the theater management got permission from Warner Bros. to screen the print for a film festival set for May 1990. Until the screening, no one had been aware that this print was the workprint version. Owing to this surprise, Warner Bros. booked more screenings of the now-advertised "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner in 15 US cities.[15]
Ridley Scott publicly disowned this workprint version of the film as a "director's cut," citing that it was roughly edited and lacked a key scene, and the climax did not feature the score composed for the film by Vangelis. (It featured a temporary track using Jerry Goldsmith's score from Planet of the Apes.) In response to Scott's dissatisfaction, Warner Bros. pulled theatrical screenings of the workprint in some cities, though it played at the NuArt Theater in Los Angeles and the Castro Theatre in San Francisco beginning in late 1991.[15]
The version dubbed the "workprint version" is the oldest-existing cut of Blade Runner. This is an incomplete version of the film, as it had not yet been color-corrected or sound mixed and it lacked several parts of Vangelis' score. Ridley Scott stated that the workprint was "something that was pretty rough, but close enough to what I was after to let a preview audience see." Thus, the cut was shown to industry workers at the GoMillion Sound Studios in late February 1982 and to preview audiences in Denver, Colorado and Dallas, Texas in March 1982.[1]
This version was rediscovered in 1989 by Michael Arick, who initially believed it to be the international cut. It was screened the following year at the Los Angeles Fairfax Theater as part of a 70mm spring festival. During this screening is when it was discovered to actually be a surviving copy of the workprint. Because the workprint was closer to Ridley Scott's vision for the film than the theatrical cuts, Arick became interested in producing a reconstruction of the film, an effort that ultimately resulted in the 1992 Director's Cut.[1]
The Denver and Dallas sneak previews garnered a lukewarm reaction, which prompted several changes that resulted in the theatrical versions. While the workprint contained one piece of narration by Deckard, more were added at the request of studio executives after test audience members indicated difficulty understanding the film. Although several different versions of the script had included a narration of some sort, both Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford disliked the studio voice-over and resisted having it added to the film.[1]
In 1990, Warner Bros. briefly allowed theatrical screenings of a 70-mm copy of the workprint version of the film, advertising it as a Director's Cut. However, Ridley Scott publicly disowned the notion that the workprint was his definitive Director's Cut, citing that it was roughly edited and lacked the full score composed for the film by Vangelis. In response to Scott's dissatisfaction (and in part because of the film's resurgent cult popularity by the early 90s) Warner Bros. agreed with Scott to assemble a definitive Director's Cut of the film to be released in 1992.[1]
They hired Michael Arick, who had rediscovered the workprint of Blade Runner and who was already doing consultation work for them, to head the project with Scott. He started by spending several months in London with Les Healey, who had been the assistant editor on Blade Runner, attempting to compile a list of the changes that Scott wanted made to the film. He also received a number of suggestions/directions directly from the director himself. However, due to time constraints, several of these suggestions were never accomplished. Some of these have never appeared in any version of the film, such as the re-insertion of a scene where Deckard visits Holden in a hospital.[1]
Meanwhile, Peter Gardiner began assembling a cut of the film, referred to as the Enhanced Workprint. Apparently unaware of Arick's efforts, Gardiner's goals were to add the rest of the Vangelis score and the unicorn dream into a restored version of the workprint, as well as redoing the end credits that had been made for the workprint's screenings. This version was approved by Ridley Scott, possibly unaware that this was not Arick's version.[1]
Partly as the result of his reservations about the Director's Cut, Scott was invited back in mid-2000 to help put together a final and definitive version of the film, with the oversight of Charles de Lauzirika, who began working on this version. During the process, Lauzirika rediscovered the film's negatives, which had been in "junk" storage since 1988. In 2002, Lauzirika completed a Ridley Scott-approved rough cut of the new version, which he referred to as the Definitive Cut. The Definitive Cut was slated for a 2002 release to coincide with the film's twentieth anniversary, and was to be released as part of a DVD set including the full international theatrical cut, an early workprint with additional scenes, and the newly enhanced version in addition to deleted scenes, extensive cast and crew interviews, and the documentary On the Edge of Blade Runner. However, Warner Bros. indefinitely delayed the Definitive Cut and DVD release after legal disputes began with the film's financiers (specifically Jerry Perenchio), who were ceded ownership of the film when the shooting ran over budget from $21.5 to $28 million.[1]
Im sure this has been covered before, if not here probably on another forum
Anyway, so I was watching this and and the documentary and whatnot and they state that this was taken from the last surviving workprint of this movie, which is debatable Im sure and Im pretty sure the print was a 70mm print but I cant remember if that was stated or not.....they also state that since it was the last print that the quality was depreciated but still in acceptable limits.
Ok, so I start to watch it and I got the feel that the quality is spot on VERY good but the thing that everyone talks about are these bars on the screen which run horizontal not vertical.
To me....this is CLEARLY not a problem with the print but instead with the way it was transfered. I also think it has something to do with it being a 70mm print source, because the films AR is around 2.18 but when these horizontal bars are taken into account it appears the AR would have been around 2.35, which would have been the AR of the 35mm print.
I don't know where that could have been introduced. It's possible that it was taken from a print that had been projected, and somehow the aperture gate or an extra-hot bulb damaged the film, but I wouldn't think that would do the exact same thing to every frame in such a uniform manner. I'd say it's more likely a flaw in the 70mm blow-up process (the workprint was blown up to 70mm by accident and shown in the early nineties - I believe they meant to do a blow-up of the theatrical cut, but something got mixed up and they ended up with the workprint) than anything else - the workprint on the 5-disc set was transferred from one of the last surviving 70mm copies of the workprint that were shown in the early nineties.
This had crossed my mind but I really dont think this is it since this workprint wouldnt have got too many plays in a theater for one, and two I havent seen anything like this first hand when working with film, if it gets too hot it burns, pretty simple...remember plates on 35mm projectors are not the same as the 70mm ones, cause the 35mm have to deal with both flat and scope
I'd say it's more likely a flaw in the 70mm blow-up process (the workprint was blown up to 70mm by accident and shown in the early nineties - I believe they meant to do a blow-up of the theatrical cut, but something got mixed up and they ended up with the workprint) than anything else
f3a93f9fa9