Heartland

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 19:45**

When I was down in LA for this year's (and seemingly last) E3 I made it a quest to find ...

Check it out !!!!

The "entrance" to JF Sebastian's place !

and right across the street is the building they used for the interiors known as the Brabury Building.

and the tunnel, well the outside of it

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 19:52**

I am not a fan but...pictures well taken!

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 20:01**

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 20:15**

Fantastic. Didn't realise that building was in LA.

I visited Deckards pad whilst wandering above Sunset Strip...
http://www.brmovie.com/Locations/Ennis_Brown_House.htm

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 20:23**

I would've done that too (Decker's apt), but I just had the one afternoon to myself. Maybe next year !

PS Brabury building is on 3rd and Broadway.

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 21:18**

PureDeadBrilliantByTheWay

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 22:32**

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.

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 22:36**

Never really liked the film, sorry.

Ma'grit likes it though.............but she doesn't like Halloween

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 22:39**

Must. Resist. Quoting. Monologue.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time - to die.

</geekiness>

Cool photos.

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 22:49**

James 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.

Too bad there isnÂ´t a proper DVD available of the original cinema release
IÂ´ve got one thatÂ´s converted from a laserdisc, not perfect, but I rather watch that one than the "directors crap".

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 22:51**

nick the stripper wrote:Attack ships on fire

Attack ships on fire

Posted: **08 Aug 2006, 23:56**

Grison wrote:
James 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.
Too bad there isnÂ´t a proper DVD available of the original cinema release
IÂ´ve got one thatÂ´s converted from a laserdisc, not perfect, but I rather watch that one than the "directors crap".

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.

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 09:54**

weebleswobble wrote:Might even contain the fantastic Ch4 documentory on the history of the film, which in itself is fascinating.

Ooh I hope so.

Nice pictures too spot

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 12:03**

weebleswobble wrote:directors cut (yeah right)

Not quite getting the (yeah right) - what's the story?

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 12:24**

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

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 12:36**

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 f**king hate that voiceover!! I really do.

To 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.

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 12:53**

Andrew S wrote:
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 f**king hate that voiceover!! I really do. To 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.

I wish this bloody DVD would hurry up so I can reassess my opinions.

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 13:12**

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".

a website I remember reading yonks ago wrote:In the original version, Deckard isn't a replicant. In the director's cut, he is.

Go figure.

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 14:02**

I'm with the Don on this one: original, voiceover, non replicant, happy ending

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 15:37**

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".
a website I remember reading yonks ago wrote:In the original version, Deckard isn't a replicant. In the director's cut, he is.
Go figure.

Right on all counts s far as I know..

I actually saw the directors cut first and have only seen bits of the original..

Much prefer the darker directors version as its such a bleak film ultimately.. almost begs the question, how many people left on earth are actually human?

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 16:04**

This is all we know about the Region 1 DVD release

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.

I really wish that they would throw one of the workprints on it too but hopefully that will be included in the "ultimate" cut.

I don't agree with the directors cut making Deckard a replicant but I agree with everything else in it. Although I don't like the voice over I do like the info it contained as it touches on the book. The book is a great read and its very seldom I have ever seen a book and movie go hand in hand with each other what the book lacks the movie has and vice versa.

It's the only vision of the future that I want to live in

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 16:04**

I've never seen it, but I would like to...

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 16:08**

Doktor Gott wrote:almost begs the question, how many people left on earth are actually human?

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.

J F and Tyrell are probably "real" humans, as is the eye-man*.

But that's a recurring theme of PKD's work isn't it? What the nature of reality is, whether our perceptions are "really" real, what does "human" mean, etc.

Edit to add: * The eye-man reminds me; the whole film on one level is about eyes; "I've seen such things with these eyes of yours", the way the light reflects in the owl's (and so many people's/replicants') eyes, the way Batty - without wishing to put a spoiler in for rz - concludes his conversation with Tyrell, and many more.

You really don't want to get me started on this

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 16:17**

ruffers wrote:
weebleswobble wrote:directors cut (yeah right)
Not quite getting the (yeah right) - what's the story?

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.

Read Future Noir - The Making of Blade Runne by Paul M. Sammon.

A fantastic history of the whole saga.

Posted: **09 Aug 2006, 16:21**

markfiend wrote:
You really don't want to get me started on this

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..

Definitely must reread it again!

Heartland

Blade Runner fans

Blade Runner fans