Page 3 of 4
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 5:24 pm
by Missing
Osiris wrote:Finally! I've been following the new cut's progress for years and years. This is great news, thanks for that.
And yet now that you know there's a new cut in the works for release next year, the next few months will be the most unbearable of all. I had already heard that Warner was putting out a new DVD for the anniversary in 2007, but now that I know even more about the specifics of what will be included, it's getting harder and harder to wait patiently for the release.
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:44 pm
by Artemio
ratperson665 wrote:Yes, but it's still a nice touch. I almost cried when I heard Deckard's final line: "I didn't know how long we’d have together. But then again who does?"
I understand how you feel.
Unfortunately it is not a fitting ending for the type of film and era it represents. Cyberpunk works are not supposed to be uplifting... that ending was placed theer because the test audience din't understand the movie and felt precisely, that the ending was not uplifting. Since E.T was released around that time, and both were catalogued somewhat together, the studio changed it.
I'd recommend reading the screenplays, all of them. To find out how they evolved. Also, read the book first if possible.
After all that information and Snatcher in your mind I bet you'll see them all as one big plot with huge variations.
Missing wrote:And yet now that you know there's a new cut in the works for release next year, the next few months will be the most unbearable of all. I had already heard that Warner was putting out a new DVD for the anniversary in 2007, but now that I know even more about the specifics of what will be included, it's getting harder and harder to wait patiently for the release.
Your mouth is full of truth.... It is best to completely forget about it. I call it "Waiting stasis".
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:53 pm
by Squallidus
ratperson665 wrote:Just for the record, I hated the Director's Cut version of BR. I loved the original though.
You, sir, are a fool! The 'original' was a prostituted version of the true original, director's intended, version. The 'warm' ending was bolted on and made zero sense when you know about who Deckard really was (and we know, the director admitted it).
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 8:08 pm
by ratperson665
Squallidus wrote:ratperson665 wrote:Just for the record, I hated the Director's Cut version of BR. I loved the original though.
You, sir, are a fool! The 'original' was a prostituted version of the true original, director's intended, version. The 'warm' ending was bolted on and made zero sense when you know about who Deckard really was (and we know, the director admitted it).
But he was written as human, Ford played him as human, he was human in the book and Ridley Scott is an idiot. Not to mention the original had no unicorn dream. So in that version he was human.
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 11:14 pm
by James_The_Stampede
ratperson665 wrote:Squallidus wrote:ratperson665 wrote:Just for the record, I hated the Director's Cut version of BR. I loved the original though.
You, sir, are a fool! The 'original' was a prostituted version of the true original, director's intended, version. The 'warm' ending was bolted on and made zero sense when you know about who Deckard really was (and we know, the director admitted it).
But he was written as human, Ford played him as human, he was human in the book and Ridley Scott is an idiot. Not to mention the original had no unicorn dream. So in that version he was human.
The movie isn't exactly the same as the book. The part was written with ambiguity in mind and they both knew that. Ford played him like he was written in the script, but he was "assured" that he was a human. Scott had already decided that he was a replicant, hence why he wrote the story with the ambigious "maybe/maybe not" scenario, to let the audience make up thier own mind (like you have).
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:41 am
by ratperson665
Snatcher wrote:ratperson665 wrote:Yes, but it's still a nice touch. I almost cried when I heard Deckard's final line: "I didn't know how long we’d have together. But then again who does?"
I understand how you feel.
Unfortunately it is not a fitting ending for the type of film and era it represents. Cyberpunk works are not supposed to be uplifting... that ending was placed theer because the test audience din't understand the movie and felt precisely, that the ending was not uplifting. Since E.T was released around that time, and both were catalogued somewhat together, the studio changed it.
I'd recommend reading the screenplays, all of them. To find out how they evolved. Also, read the book first if possible.
After all that information and Snatcher in your mind I bet you'll see them all as one big plot with huge variations.
I thought Snatcher's ending was very uplifting.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 9:45 am
by Artemio
Try playing the original ^^
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 4:17 pm
by ratperson665
Snatcher wrote:Try playing the original ^^
I have. But keep in mind that the original game's ending isn't what Kojima had in mind. The only reason it ends in act 2 is because of time constraints.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 4:37 pm
by Artemio
I know that, but with the short time that was what he came with. And also, nobody knew that at the time, that doesn't change the fact. Besides, the ending of the CD-ROMantic version wasn't what he planned either.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:36 pm
by Missing
What did he plan?
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:54 am
by Artemio
Missing wrote:What did he plan?
Snatcher Zoom Tracks Liner notes wrote:Inoue "We recorded the voices in the quite early time, haven't we?"
Ota "Yes, the characters were not much developed at that time."
Kojima "That troubled us later......"
Inoue "We could not re-record even after locating a contradiction or error in the scenario, we had hard time because of that."
Kojima "......I repent that I fixed them by making giant leaps."
There are some more hints about this... like the sketches with random in the ending, etc.
I am waiting till Ihave a deeper Japanese knowledge to investigate this further...
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:46 pm
by Missing
So do you think Kojima might ever revisit Snatcher (again) and change it to be more the way he intended?
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:38 am
by Marc
Last year after TGS, a magazine asked him if he was possibly going back to Snatcher (after seeing the mk. II in MGS4), and he replied, "Oh, please! I have far too many original projects to work on!"
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:03 pm
by Vicious
Missing wrote:Influential? Influential of what? You make your own movies?
Sorry for the lack of response, yes to make my own movies

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:47 pm
by ratperson665
You know Ridley Scot is a crapy director anyway. BR isn't the only great film he ruined. Don't believe me? Check out the director’s cuts of "kingdom of heaven" and "Alien".
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:17 pm
by Marc
You'll always have the original versions, won't you?
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:54 pm
by ratperson665
Osiris wrote:You'll always have the original versions, won't you?
Yes I will Marc. Yes I will.

Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:41 pm
by James_The_Stampede
ratperson665 wrote:You know Ridley Scot is a crapy director anyway. BR isn't the only great film he ruined. Don't believe me? Check out the director’s cuts of "kingdom of heaven" and "Alien".
A "crapy"(sic) director?! No, Uwe Boll is a shit director. Ridley Scott has made some phenomenal movies.
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 9:52 pm
by ratperson665
James_The_Stampede wrote:ratperson665 wrote:You know Ridley Scot is a crapy director anyway. BR isn't the only great film he ruined. Don't believe me? Check out the director’s cuts of "kingdom of heaven" and "Alien".
A "crapy"(sic) director?! No, Uwe Boll is a shit director. Ridley Scott has made some phenomenal movies.
Then how do you explain his awful DCs? Blade Runner, Kingdom Of Heaven and Alian (mentioned above) were masterpieces in there original forms but there DC editions sucked more than a bunch of gay vampires.
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 1:17 am
by Spike
ratperson665 wrote:You know Ridley Scot is a crapy director anyway. BR isn't the only great film he ruined. Don't believe me? Check out the director’s cuts of "kingdom of heaven" and "Alien".
IMDb wrote:Despite releasing a new version of the film titled "Alien: The Director's Cut", Ridley Scott wrote in a statement in the film's packaging that he still feels the original Alien was his perfect vision of the film. The newer version is titled "The Director's Cut" for marketing purposes, featuring deleted scenes many fans wanted to see incorporated into the film (such as the scene where Lambert and Ripley discuss whether or not they've slept with Ash, suggesting there's something not quite right about Ash).
So Alien doesn't "count".
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:26 am
by Rick Deckard
You can hardly say he *ruined* Alien! It's one or two minutes shorter, and you really, really have to pay attention to work out how it differs from the theatrical cut. Mostly individual shots, from what I remember! And of course he didn't ruin Blade Runner (I could do without 'Replicants don't have scales,' personally) - I'm not sure how anyone could possibly get genuinely angry about these sorts of changes.
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 9:53 am
by Marc
Ratperson isn't just anyone...
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:58 pm
by Rick Deckard
No, I know, he's a rat person. Like Splinter, presumably.
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:37 pm
by ratperson665
Rick Deckard wrote:No, I know, he's a rat person. Like Splinter, presumably.
What do you mean by that?
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:46 pm
by Artemio
He means that you are just trolling again. Stating unjustified chlidish opinions, trying to impose them like truth and also trying to get people to insult you on purpose again. This calls for the first temporal ban. 4 days of ban.