Check it out !!!!
The "entrance" to JF Sebastian's place !
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/JFsplace.jpg)
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/JFsplace2.jpg)
and right across the street is the building they used for the interiors known as the Brabury Building.
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/BradburyExt1.jpg)
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/BradburyInt1.jpg)
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/BradburyInt2.jpg)
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/BradburyElv.jpg)
and the tunnel, well the outside of it
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Image](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/spot778/LA/BRtunnel1.jpg)
Too bad there isn´t a proper DVD available of the original cinema releaseJames Blast wrote:Doesn't The Bradbury look like a rather nice place, sans the blue/white search lights and all that rain?
Still, the original (and not 'The Director's Cut') is a legend of cinema.
Yes, very nice pics.
There should be a definitive collection out soon(ish) with the original, directors cut (yeah right) and a new Ridley version. Might even contain the fantastic Ch4 documentory on the history of the film, which in itself is fascinating.Grison wrote:Too bad there isn´t a proper DVD available of the original cinema releaseJames Blast wrote:Doesn't The Bradbury look like a rather nice place, sans the blue/white search lights and all that rain?
Still, the original (and not 'The Director's Cut') is a legend of cinema.
Yes, very nice pics.
I´ve got one that´s converted from a laserdisc, not perfect, but I rather watch that one than the "directors crap".
Ooh I hope so.weebleswobble wrote:Might even contain the fantastic Ch4 documentory on the history of the film, which in itself is fascinating.
I f**king hate that voiceover!! I really do.Hom_Corleone wrote:So is the general consensus the voice over version is superior? Or the non-voiceover version?
Apparently Ford hated the voiceover - I personally think it makes the film.
But the Directors cut has the non-happy ending
I wish this bloody DVD would hurry up so I can reassess my opinions.Andrew S wrote:I f**king hate that voiceover!! I really do.Hom_Corleone wrote:So is the general consensus the voice over version is superior? Or the non-voiceover version?
Apparently Ford hated the voiceover - I personally think it makes the film.
But the Directors cut has the non-happy endingTo me it just sounds silly and intrusive and puts a damper on a stunningly atmospheric film. The director's cut is probably my favourite film ever. And I love the non-happy ending. Er, nice photos by the way.
Go figure.a website I remember reading yonks ago wrote:In the original version, Deckard isn't a replicant. In the director's cut, he is.
Right on all counts s far as I know..markfiend wrote:The "happy ending" was just tagged on using unused footage from The Shining IIRC. The voiceover I can take or leave. On the whole I prefer the "director's cut".Go figure.a website I remember reading yonks ago wrote:In the original version, Deckard isn't a replicant. In the director's cut, he is.
I really wish that they would throw one of the workprints on it too but hopefully that will be included in the "ultimate" cut.Warner homevid has disentangled "Blade Runner's" famously thorny rights issues to pave the way for a September reissuereissue of the remastered "Director's Cut" version, followed by a theatrical release of a version promised to be truly Ridley ScottRidley Scott's final cut.
Warner's rights to "Blade Runner" lapsed a year ago, but the studio has since negotiated a long-term license. The pic, now considered a sci-fi classic, has had a troubled history from the start: When Scott ran overbudget, completion bond guarantors took control of it and made substantial changes before its 1982 theatrical release, adding a voiceovervoiceover and happy ending. That version was replaced by the much better-received director's cut in 1992, but Scott has long been unhappy with it, complaining that he was rushed and unable to give it proper attention.
The helmer started working on the final cut version in 2000, but that project was shelved by Warner soon after, apparently because the studio couldn't come to terms with Jerry Perenchio over rights issues.
The restored "Director's Cut" will debut on homevid in September, and remain on sale for four months only, after which time it will be placed on moratorium. "Blade Runner: Final Cut" will arrive in 2007 for a limited 25th anniversary theatrical run, followed by a special edition DVD with the three previous versions offered as alternate viewing: Besides the original theatrical version and director's cut, the expanded international theatrical cut will be included. The set will also contain additional bonus materials.
The massive "Blade Runner" project comes on the heels of Scott's four-disc treatment for "Kingdom of Heaven," released this week by Fox homevid, less than a year after the pic's initial homevid release.
The Blade Runner squad are almost certainly all "skin jobs" I reckon, for a start; at least Gaff must be because of the unicorn thing.Doktor Gott wrote:almost begs the question, how many people left on earth are actually human?
There are a number of different versions of the film floating about. This cut while entiled 'Directors Cut' was simply another version. it is not the definitive vision of Ridley and he himself has questioned the validity of the title.ruffers wrote:Not quite getting the (yeah right) - what's the story?weebleswobble wrote:directors cut (yeah right)
Definitely not.. but the lack of the empathy boxes does make it miss a little point - i.e who is human - I think that's the point of the book really (I read it over a decade ago so I'm fuzzy on it) that people are no longer people.. hence the desire to own real animals and the need for empathy from other sources..markfiend wrote:
You really don't want to get me started on this