I have looked around quite a few places for answers to both of these and can't seem to get a definite answer.

#1-Is the R1 MGM DVD version of The Alamo the 3hour22min version that aired on TCM this morning? All sites I seen say 162mins (2hours42mins)

#2-Which cut of Blade Runner is on the R1 WB DVD? Is it the same as the Criterion LD (which is suppose to be the "Violent Cut") or is it another version?

the version on dvd right now is the directors cut. this is the one without fords voice over and without the happy ending. the one on the CC LD was with his voice over.

No.

The Criterion LD has a few more seconds of gore.

The DVD is missing the additional footage. However an extended cut of the film was released on laserdisc.

I have the extended Alamo on LD and the Criterion LD of Blade Runner. Neither will probably ever appear on DVD. Ridley didn't like the original cut of Blade Runner so it probably will never make it onto a DVD (despite the fact its better than the so called Director's cut) and the elements for the extended scenes in the Alamo were mishandled after the LD transfer and now said to be unusable. (I have heard this story several times, but can't confirm it)

I believe what I heard was this: a single 70mm print of the roadshow presentation of The Alamo was found in Toronto in the early 80s, it was in very good shape. It was shipped to Los Angeles for whatever video releases were done then. Subsequently, the roadshow print was stored in a facility in Southern California that was not climate controlled, and got too hot during the summers (this wasn't a problem in cooler Toronto) and has deteriorated significantly since then. I don't know whether it could be restored at this point or not. I believe this is another of the troubled productions from John Wayne's Batjac company, and although I don't think the Wayne estate owns this outright, I believe that they took control of the roadshow print when it was found and were responsible for storing it incorrectly.

This is all from memory so please correct any mistakes.

If you want to dig up some older threads, there's been discussion that the BR superset would include the theatrical cut. The whole thing is in limbo now, so we're stuck with the current DVD.

darkside,

Your view that the original theatrical cut of "Blade Runner" is superior to the director's cut is one that appears to be in minority from the many discussions I've read on the topic. I have to disagree with you as well. I think the director's cut, without the happy ending and without the Harrison Ford voiceover, as well as the speculation that Deckard is, himself, a replicant, is much better and darker (assuming that's even possible) to the theatrical cut and makes for a deeper, more thoughtful film. That's just my opinion, of course.

False! He likes the extra violence!

Also, how much is missing from The Alamo?? And is it extra violence??

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

While I don't want to get into this too deep, to imply that the theatrical cut is worthless is just silly. Remember, it's how the film existed, and gained a following, for 10 years. Personally, I think the narration adds some character and the happy ending isn't that happy when you think about how Rachel still has an expiration date.

Wasn't part of what made the happy ending so happy (and disappointed me) a line in the voiceover saying Rachel had been made without an expiry date?

This discussion has been had many times on this and other sites and I'm not in any minority on it. There are people that like both versions and both should be available. Many diehards like myself that watched this movie in theaters when it was originaly released and turned it into a cult classic, fell in love with the original voice over version. As with Star Wars its tough to see a version you loved for over a decade changed.

One thing I've noticed about many new viewers seeing Blade Runner for the first time is they find the director's cut boring and they have trouble following the story. The voice over makes the film a lot easier to follow the first time through. You can say the happy ending is terrible if you want, but the voice over should be on there.

If Ridley Scott had such a problem with the version in theaters he never should have put his name on it. Of course he wouldn't have been associated with the cult classic and no way thats happening. Terry Gilliam speaks about this during Brazil and makes the strongest statement about films and director's cuts. If a film is released in theaters then its the director's cut. If its not any director with any credibility will take his name off the film. All these guys like Lucas and Scott that come along years later and complain and whine that they couldn't release the film they wanted are full of shit in my opinion.

Release a different version if you want, but the original should always be preserved. Even Peter Jackson clearly states that the Theatrical versions of LOTR are the director's cut and the extended versions are just for fun to see more of the story even though they slow down the flow of the story.

Agreed 100%