Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Blade Runner 2049

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2 
Blade Runner 2049
Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Well, you can play these word games all day long. In the end, regardless of what decisions were made and why, the version that people first seen at the theatres, is the original. Like it or not.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Neil Roy said:

In the end, regardless of what decisions were made and why, the version that people first seen at the theatres, is the original. Like it or not.

Here's a thought exercise for you. Imagine I write you a letter, but don't send it for a while. When I finally do send it to you, say five years later, a make some changes first.

Which was the original version of the letter - the copy that sat around for five years, or the edited version you read? (N.b. I'm not asking which was the original version that you experience, but the original overall).

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

LennyLen said:

Which was the original version of the letter

The one I first read.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Neil Roy said:

The one I first read.

Then I guess the issue is one of definition. To most people, original means the first version, not later ones.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

The first version IS the one you first release to the public, that is the one you feel is complete and ready for people to view. Like it or not.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

You're just repeating yourself now.

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

I have always been quite partial to semantic arguments. Is a beta the original version? How about a release candidate? Maybe if we could give films a versioning scheme, all these problems would be resolved.

I've always considered an orignal to be version 1. Version 1 is the version you consider ready for general public consumption. The director's cut is a release candidate.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

LennyLen said:

You're just repeating yourself now.

As are you. I already tried to end this debate but you won't let it go, so... all I have left is to repeat. :)

I have always been quite partial to semantic arguments. Is a beta the original version? How about a release candidate? Maybe if we could give films a versioning scheme, all these problems would be resolved.

For software, the release version is the first... RELEASE... hence the name. Beta is just that, beta, for testing. It's not an original release until it is completed and... released! This is why the theatrical Blade Runner is the original release... because ummm... it was the first released.

If you prefer the later versions, hey, have at it! Watch it until your eyes bleed, I don't care. What matters is what YOU enjoy, not what I like. I like the original release, and that was the theatrical one. Like it or not. To claim the original release wasn't the original release... is just plain... I dunno.. stupid?

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

Neil Roy said:

To claim the original release wasn't the original release... is just plain... I dunno.. stupid?

It's really more a question of ownership. If you say the director owns the movie (in an artistic sense), then his cut is the "original" version 1. If the studio/producers own the movie, then their cut is the version 1, and the director's cut is a release candidate or beta.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Well, directors do not own the movie, they work for the producers. The released version is... well... the first released version, I can't believe I am even having to explain this! Beta is beta... and this isn't software programming, but even in software, you would never call a beta, test version a "first release".

Ah fuck it, believe what you want. What a messed up generation these days. Wow.

relpatseht
Member #5,034
September 2004
avatar

Hrm? I'm not arguing; I agree with you. I'm just pointing out how views can differ, which I believe is much healthier than assuming the opposition is stupid. Also, I think semantic arguments on the internet are pretty much the bee's knees.

For instance, you've just changed your wording from "original version" to "released version". It's rather difficult to argue the first released version isn't the version shown in theaters and if that's what you view as "original version", then who's to say otherwise. The phrasing, "original version", however, comes with a different connotation and holds the weight of ownership. Of course, directors don't "own" their movies in the physical sense, but in an artistic sense, they could be easily likened to a painter. If I commission a painting then scribble on it before showing it to anyone else, am I showing the "original version", or is the version I saw the original?

In the painter scenario, I'd say it's hard to argue my version is the original, but then it gets even more complex were I to point out most works of art aren't constructed entirely (or even at all) by the person whose name is on it.

That's the great thing about language. There's so much ambiguity coupled with a hidden connotation stream in constant flux even something as simple as what constitutes an "original" has to be looked at on a case by case basis before we can even fail to come to a consensus.

Neil Roy
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I'm really looking forward to this movie. :)

 1   2 


Go to: