Blade Runner: Final Cut

[ComicKaze]

The idea is that the pistol can fire 2 different types of rounds.

Usually the pistol is fired in the normal mode which feeds rounds from a detachable box magazine below the barrel where the LEDs are located. Supposedly in the original story boards there is a shot where Deckard reloads the box magazine. The LEDs might be some sort of ammo counter.

The bolt action section on top is suppossed to hold a single manually loaded special super round or armor piercing round which can be fired when more power is needed. From what I read from different prop makers, in the film they think Deckard fires 2 different types during the film. Supposedly the first round he fires and miss at Batty when he enters Sebatian's apartment is the special high power round as an extra large discharge is shown with the the large smoke cloud.

Agreed, there is a kind of super high calibur explosive round that is shot in the film.

I never imagined the bolt pushed it out, but rather it slid into it. I always thought the shot Leon fires in the first Voight Kamph scene that knocks Holden's body right through the wall behind him was something like the explosive shot Deckard fires at Batty which creates quite an explosion on the far wall.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Given the massive wounds the normal rounds from the pistol cause I highly doubt there are two different rounds employed in the movie. The main obvious reason behind this logic is that "you never see Deckard load anything". If Ridley Scott wanted us to know a "special bullet" was being used he would have shown it being loaded. Perhaps that whole run was cut out of the movie and perhaps it wasn't. So it is assumed that the bullets the thing is pumping are all the same all the time. It could even be further assumed that Replicants, because they are manufactured life forms, possess a much stronger body than the humans they mimic... which requires a need to hunt them with an "elephant gun" caliber of weapon. Just the simple physical feats of strength Batty and Leon perform (smashing their arms and heads through things, surviving bitter cold, etc.) are reason enough to believe they can shrug off normal small arms fire.

Also we don't know for sure what kind of round the weapon fires, how many rounds it holds or even where it holds them. Everything on this subject is pure speculation by fans as no hard data has been given and nothing is shown in the movie to support anything. The book Future Noir really only talks about the asthetics of the weapon, that Ridley Scott wanted an "old time revolver" look to Deckard's pistol. It can then also be assumed it loads like a revolver through a cylinder that we never see on film inside the meat of the frame. Having a magazine where the "blinky light box" is is not possible as the rounds would feed up and out of the barrel. The nature of the weapon when you see it being fired is that of a revolver. It has no reciprocating action, you see no spent cases flying and it has no ejector port.

As for Leon's pistol performing a similair high powered strike, I would say it can then be assumed that ALL small arms in the future posess a very high velocity and are cabable of tons of damage. When you think about it, both the shots Leon makes are very high power... one goes through a thick table to hit Holden with very impressive force and throws him through a thin wall, and we never really see the full resulting impact of the second shot. Considering these are the only two firearms we see in the whole movie and both aparently hit with massive power it can only be assumed that the small arms in the Los Angeles of 2019 are designed to blow people to pieces rather than simply "kill".

[Mr March]

Considering these are the only two firearms we see in the whole movie and both aparently hit with massive power it can only be assumed that the small arms in the Los Angeles of 2019 are designed to blow people to pieces rather than simply "kill".

403154[/snapback]

Well, the Replicants (at least as they are described in the film) are stronger and faster than humans. It goes without saying that short of automatic weapons or rifles, Blade Runner units would require a very high powered sidearm in order to incapaciate a Replicant with as few shots as possible. Being a fugitive, especially military, it's not surprising that Leon was carrying one of these high powered pistols.

Still, I don't think the absence of in-film evidence for two types of rounds (or audience interpretation of what is actually being fired) precludes the possibilty of two ammunition types. The lack of evidence works both ways, we don't know enough about the pistol itself to make a final statement regarding the possibility of two types of rounds. Ridley Scott's storyboards also count for a great deal and give insight into a weapon which we would ordinarily know nothing beyond what is seen onscreen as the audience. It's clear the intention was made to use a second ammo chamber and design of the weapon was created to serve certain functions, regardless of what actual scenes didn't make it beyond the cutting room floor.

[JsARCLIGHT]

I think everyone is giving this pistol way too much credit. Just because it has the bolt action block from a Steyr Mannlicher rifle on it does not mean it was supposed to be used as such... they most likely just threw it on there because it looked neat. Han Solo's blaster pistol had a scope on it that we never see him use, as did the stormtrooper blasters. Lightsabers had tons of knobs and gizmos on them that are never shown to be used in the films as well. It's just the nature of early '80s sci fi props that they have tons of junk glommed onto them to make them look neat and interesting and most of all "futuristic".

What the gun shoots, what it shoots, how it shoots and why it shoots are not important... all that is important is that it DOES shoot in the story when it needs to shoot. All the over analyzing of movie props boggles my mind from time to time. To be honest all we are presented with is the movie, everything else is open to interpretation. At the same time because this is a story, an act of fiction, it is open to eternal interpretation... which means we can make it do whatever we imagine it can do. But I'm a realist... If I don't see it do it in the movie, I don't believe it does it.

[Mr March]

To be honest, there will always be people interested in certain aspects of any popular entertainment more so than yourself. Hell, fandom itself exists because of people taking their favorite entertainment more seriously than the casual viewer; take Macross for example

Most people don't know or care if Jack Bauer uses a Sig-Sauer P220 .45 or that Lara Croft used a pair of H&K Super P8s; but there are plenty of fans out there who do. I don't think it's a big deal to delve into the details of a film prop, but if it hurts your own personal suspension of disbelief then don't bother.

As for Blade Runner, the prop is simply a visual tool at best. We watch the movie and recognize the prop as a gun, accepting it's function as a firearm that looks futuristic. Obviously Ridley Scott put some more thought into the gun than other less important film props you'd see in something like Judge Dredd or Chronicles of Riddick. Fans can debate what the gun can or can't do, but nothing is for certain.

All I know is I'd love to have a replica like the one seen in those posted links

Edited May 29, 2006 by Mr March

[JsARCLIGHT]

I know, I'm just a realist.

That and having waaaaaay too much practical experience with real firearms makes me nitpick movie guns far too much. I have to force myself to just "accept them as art" rather than try to analyze them... because most movie prop weapons don't hold up at all under scrutiny. And the 2019 Detective's Special is one of the worst offenders for "works on screen, doesn't work in real life".

... oh and I recently (a year ago recent) bought a USP Match in .45 ACP. They are great pistols... too bad they are as rare as a two tailed fox in today's market. Mine is a safe queen, all black, rather than the nickel slide like the Laura Croft models.

[ComicKaze]

I know, I'm just a realist.

That and having waaaaaay too much practical experience with real firearms makes me nitpick movie guns far too much. I have to force myself to just "accept them as art" rather than try to analyze them... because most movie prop weapons don't hold up at all under scrutiny. And the 2019 Detective's Special is one of the worst offenders for "works on screen, doesn't work in real life".

And that's why I don't see your line of reasoning making sense. It's a movie prop. It's art. It's actual way of functioning is as much fiction as the movie so how can it not hold up to scrutiny? You can't hold up the mechanical engineering and design of movie props to to that of real firearms. They could work in a completely different way that's up to the imagination.

It's a movie prop, it was never intended to be a working, activated weapon and so can't be judged by the same standards. I just know what I see on screen and when Deckard fires at Batty, the flash, impact, and smoke from the shot was considerably more than the other times he had fired in the film.

I can perfectly well imagine that the breach and bolt on top had some other completely different action. Maybe it's for loading some kind of explosive tip that drops down into the actual barrel below and sliding the bolt forward seals the chamber. Maybe it's a a fancy way of loading batteries for whatever electronics the LEDs are supposed to represent. Maybe it's a cigarette lighter. Maybe it's a can opener. Whatever!

[Graham]

In the novels after the first book,

403256[/snapback]

Eh, I wasn't aware there was more than one book, at least not by Philip K. Dick.

Graham

[JsARCLIGHT]

It's a movie prop, it was never intended to be a working, activated weapon and so can't be judged by the same standards. I just know what I see on screen and when Deckard fires at Batty, the flash, impact, and smoke from the shot was considerably more than the other times he had fired in the film.

But is that what you really see? That is really the only time in the movie we see the pistol fired and it DOESN'T hit it's target. Every other time that thing discharges we either never see the resulting impact of the shot or we see it hit a replicant. Actually almost every time that pistol is fired in the movie all you see is the impact of the shot, you rarely actually see the pistol discharge.

A small caliber handgun shot in bright daylight in an open field or sparse surroundings sounds like a cap gun and has no noticeable muzzle blast... but that same pistol fired at night in close quarters like inside a house creates a very noticeable fireball out front as well as the closer confines magnifying the report.

Both of the practical prop weapons, the 2019 Detective special and Leon's Compact Off-Duty Police .357 pistol where both rigged to have massive muzzle flashes when fired. They even gerry-rigged Leon's pistol to fire two barrels at once to give off a huge muzzle blast on film. Due to the dark surroundings both of those weapons where fired in, the resulting muzzle blasts appear twice as large as they would when in brighter surroundings, say the brightly lit neon street where Deckard shoots Zhora. But inside a dark room like Sebastian's appartment the same blast from the same muzzle firing the same rounds would appear to be much larger, louder and stronger. It's simple firearm physics.

In the end there is no evidence to support either claim because Riddley Scott chose to remove the one key scene that would answer this question. There IS actually a scene where Deckard reloads his weapon in the movie but it was cut out. I have heard it was included in a few international cuts of the movie but it is not on my bootleg set's "international cut" so I have never seen it. Perhaps that quick clip will be reinserted into the film in this new round of editing for the re-release.

[bsu legato]

IIRC, the "Deckard reloads" scene was only included in one of the early sneak previews, which as any BR historian should know contained many differences from the final cut.

Then again, the weapons in the final film may not have even been intended firearms in the first place. Future Noir has a quote from Scott on this:

"What I particualrly wanted to avoid in Blade Runner's weaponry was an indication of the common laser pistol." Scott said. "We all felt that a bright streak of light coming out of a barrel had become a horrible cliché, and we were sick to death of it. Then David Dryer came up with the idea that our pistols discharged a high intensity, particle-beam-type material that imploded on contact, drawing in so much light on the way that it became a black beam instead of a light streak. And whatever section of the body it hit would collapse in on itself. That would lead to a rather elegant demise, very little blood or gore."

"I thought this was an interesting concept" Scott concludes. "A black beam would have been the dramatic opposite of the expected laser ray. So we intended to later animate this dark effect and dub our weapons Black Hole Guns."

It's believed that the scene where Leon blows Holden through the wall has an early, aborted attempt at animating this effect.

Edited May 29, 2006 by bsu legato

[JsARCLIGHT]

But that same scene is the one in which they purposefully rig that COP .357 pistol to fire both barrels, generating a massive muzzle blast (that info also from Future Noir, actual page number will require me to look it up). Quite strange that they want to have a post effect yet they make the pistol go off like the sun, don't you think?

I'm guessing Bsu is reading Future Noir like I did, in that case you will notice that the book is increadibly disjointed in it's presentation of the "direction of produciton", just like the movie. The BR movie production was a train wreck of delays, problems, changes, reshoots, etc. and a lot of things drastically changed from the beginning of principal photography to the end. Riddley Scott and his crew may have intended the weapons to be one thing but due to time and money constraints and also a good deal of creative hemming and hawing they shot the weapons as practical and abandoned post effects somewhere along the line.

If I recall correctly the original script called for Leon to have a "laser pistol" that burns holes in Holden but Deckard has a common bullet fed weapon, if only for the plot device so he can "click the trigger on an empty cyllinder".

[promethuem5]

Well, if nothing else it'll be nice to finally see the definitive and correct version of the movie to clear up all this 'there's four versions of the movie so none of us agree' crap

[renegadeleader1]

Am I the only one that thinks this movie was a turd and the movie needs to be redone from scratch?

[JsARCLIGHT]

I would like to see it remade by Riddley Scott today with modern effects, an actor who actually wants to do the role (Harrison Ford has come out many times saying he disliked the role) and with a closer following of the original material. Hell, they could forego calling it a remake and just do "Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?" to the T and call it that.

Edit: while I DO like the movie "as is" I have to agree that it's budget and schedule issues which resulted in the nasty happenings that forced the movie to be finished up the way it was casued it to be "stunted" in many respects.

Edited May 31, 2006 by JsARCLIGHT

[R_Deckard]

A lot of people don't like the movie, but the fact is that it is very popular even today for many reasons.

Now Bladerunner with modern CG and without Ford? Now that truely would be a turd or the next Matrix movie.

Edited May 31, 2006 by R_Deckard

[JsARCLIGHT]

I don't really think there'd be much room for effects in a modern BR... outside of the cityscape and perhaps adding some grizzle to a few replicants getting blown to bits, BR is a straight up Film Noir detective movie.

I think that also may be a big reason a lot of people are put off by BR. It's slow pace, light action content, dialogue heavy scenes mated to weighty silent scenes make the movie actually quite "boring" if you are not super into it. I can actually attest to putting in my BR DVD fully expecting to sit down and watch the whole thing only about half an hour into it turning it off out of sheer bordeom. Now it could be that I've seen it so many times that watching it all the way through is impossible now but when I first sat down with my wife and tried to get her to watch it she was bored to tears and kept mouthing off about "when is it going to be over?"

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Some movies are not movies that are designed to be good to rewatch.

You see it once, then maybe a second time to analyse it, and then think about it afterwards and that's it.

Terminator 2 is another story. I can see the cyborgs actually doing stuff like beating things up, shooting, driving a car, piloting a helicopter, riding a bike and using the shotgun to stop another terminator, and many other "cool things" (disguising itself on the floor, opening the elevator by morphing hands, sliding into cracks, impersonating people to trick them) that keep you from getting bored. There are explosions, fights, car chases, stunts (the bike one crashing into the helicopter to hijack it was 'cool') and many other exciting things like long winded shootouts and miniguns.

That's more what I like. Leave the brain at the door, and just relax.

I really hope the Battle Angel Alita movie is done up in a action movie style with good pacing. I don't think I can go back to movies like BR anymore. I love it as much as the rest of you but do not want to see it remade. (just hope they do the final cut and leave it alone)

Edited May 31, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[sketchley]

I don't really think there'd be much room for effects in a modern BR... outside of the cityscape and perhaps adding some grizzle to a few replicants getting blown to bits, BR is a straight up Film Noir detective movie.

I think that also may be a big reason a lot of people are put off by BR. It's slow pace, light action content, dialogue heavy scenes mated to weighty silent scenes make the movie actually quite "boring" if you are not super into it. I can actually attest to putting in my BR DVD fully expecting to sit down and watch the whole thing only about half an hour into it turning it off out of sheer bordeom. Now it could be that I've seen it so many times that watching it all the way through is impossible now but when I first sat down with my wife and tried to get her to watch it she was bored to tears and kept mouthing off about "when is it going to be over?" 

403960[/snapback]

I think that's the point about the really good movies. It's the first one or two views that are truly moving and inspirational. After that, it's hard to get those feelings again.

T2 is a good example of rewatchable eye-candy. But other hard-hitting movies on par with BR are out there. Such as "Grave of the Fireflies." THAT movie is painful to rewatch; nevertheless, it is one of the best WWII movies out there.

[ComicKaze]

I don't think more action would ruin the film. Showing more of the city, Spinners in action, some flying sequences would be interesting.

I always remember what awed me about Judge Dredd was when they first flew over Megalopolis and they looked down at all the people ranging from mile high rise luxury to the street scum.

Edited May 31, 2006 by ComicKaze

[Hoptimus]

Bladerunner 30th Anniversary is this year. New Blu Ray edition coming that looks to be just a bit more than we got with the previous 5 disc and with hopefully a better codec.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/7100/blade_runner_30th_ce.html

[Keith]

Looks like it will just be ths Final Cut BD+DVD and djgital copy, plus a digibook(new), and possibly a different version of the car that came with the briefcase set. That's alot less than the previous release which had every version of fhe film+Dangerous Days. I'll stick with my 5 disc which also had superior art.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Keith

[Warmaker]

I'm fine with the 5-disc blu-ray set also. That was a mammoth release.

[Hoptimus]

Well if this has an updated AVC codec than it should look far better than the earlier release.

[David Hingtgen]

Or, they could always edge-enhance the hell out of it. You never know.

[Keith]

I find it highly doubtful they'll re-encode the feature disc when they can just re-press what they've already got.

[the white drew carey]

I've got the 5-disc set. Looks fine to me.

Please don't Lucas the hell out of Blade Runner, too.

[Hoptimus]

Well if they do redo the codec let's hope it does not turn out like the 2nd version of Predator on Bluray...that was terrible.

[EXO]

I've got the 5-disc set. Looks fine to me.

Please don't Lucas the hell out of Blade Runner, too.

I don't think that would happen. Scott is a lot busier than Lucas. Besides at this point if he did want to, he can do what ever he wants. The Problem with Lucas is he holds back the original version that people want to see in the best possible quality. As long as people have the choice, they wouldn't care as much what Lucas does with any of his movies.