[HN Gopher] Blade Runner' at 40: Ridley Scott Masterpiece Is Sti... ___________________________________________________________________ Blade Runner' at 40: Ridley Scott Masterpiece Is Still the Greatest of All-Time Author : gumby Score : 157 points Date : 2022-06-26 20:42 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.esquire.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.esquire.com) | Sporktacular wrote: | Ridley Scott is a middling, hit and miss director who has said | that if something does well he'll follow up with sequels. It's a | kind of throw it at the wall and see what sticks approach as | opposed to committing to a vision and knowing when to let it end. | | Blade Runner was an ambitious, pretty, ambient but also boring | film. To refer to it as the GOAT is hyperbolic. To call Scott a | genius etc. because of Blade Runner is also unjustified because | all its strengths trace directly to PKD, Syd Mead, Jordan | Cronenweth etc. | | It's one seriously overhyped film. All subjective of course, but | then so are such articles and they arguably add to the hype. | cm2187 wrote: | I agree, and Blade Runner is very dated (80s fashion and | music). Alien on the other hand hasn't aged a bit, and along | 2001 and Star Wars really defined scifi movies. The same guy | reinvented peplums with Gladiator, and war movies with Black | Hawk Down. I think it's enough to justify all the misses. | | You can download IMDB's database as flat files. It is | interesting to see the evolution of imdb ratings over a | director's career. Some are remarkably stable like Woody Allen | or Martin Scorsese. Some others falter like Brian de Palma. | Ridley Scott has some ups and down but is fairly stable over a | long career. | dm8 wrote: | Blade Runner is one of those movies that gets better every time | you watch. First time I watched it, I was thoroughly bored. But | over the years I seem to appreciate the deeper meaning under it. | It tries to present some fundamental questions - "what separates | humans from robot/AI?, Is it the act of humans giving birth to | other humans or feelings or deeds?, Is robot/AI superior to human | or vice a versa?" | | For those who find this movie boring, I'd recommend reading the | book - "Do Androids dream of electric sheep" and maybe then watch | the movie. | | I was born after it was released yet I find it's imagery unique | even now. Every frame feels like an elaborate painting/artwork. I | can imagine how innovative might've been when it was first | released in early eighties. | [deleted] | tim333 wrote: | Meh - it's quite good. | | On IMDB rankings the best three are Inception, The Empire Strikes | Back and The Matrix. | [deleted] | jmyeet wrote: | I am one of the 11 people on Earth that hates coffee. "Hate" | isn't strong enough. Even "despises" I'm not sure goes far | enough. It tastes disgusting to me. I can't even stand the smell. | This has led me at times to wonder if I'm crazy or if everyone | else is. I do notice a ton of people consume a ton of sugar in | their coffee so it seems like many don't really like coffee. They | like sugar. But I digresss. | | I have the same "am I crazy?" thoughts with Blade Runner. Unlike | coffee it's not _bad_ (subjectively). I just don 't get the hype. | | It's a product of its time too. I'd put it in the 80s Cyberpunk | bucket where the noir surroundings and mega corporations are a | product of xenophobia, basically. There were genuine fears the | Japanese were "taking over". And Blade Runner reflects this | zeitgeist. In Blade Runner it's the Tyrell Corporation. In Aliens | it was the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. | | Rutger Hauer did give a good performance and there were some good | lines [1] but I'd never put it in my list of top films. Not even | my list of top sci-fi films. It is better than Interstellar | though, which is trash, so there's that. | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRxHYHPzs7s | ardit33 wrote: | you sound like those type of guys that try to be 'cool' by | disliking what other people like. | | Blade Runner is a great movie for its time and it has inspired | a lot of artists. It is a Noir (Sci-fi), and the type of movie | that only adults would appreciate, due to its storyline. If you | are under 25, probably it is not a good movie for you. | | Same with 2001: A Space Odyssey, which came much earlier. any | other movies of the time. | | Also Interstellar is very unique in one major aspect: They had | to model true science (and maybe made a discovery) when they | modeled the look of light around the super massive Black Hole. | 5 years later, the real black hole halo pictures came out, and | the movie got it spot on. | | You might not like the story, but good movies like that try to | predict the future. They often miss, but sometimes get it | right. Blade Runner deals with AI, Androids, and the question | of 'What is human'. We might face this issue if General AI | becomes a thing 50 years down the road. | baal80spam wrote: | I can only recommend "The science of Interstellar" book as a | great companion to the movie, explaining the physics side of | it. As for Interstellar itself, I watched it the year it came | out and I thought it was a pretty cool science-fiction movie. | I rewatched it last year sometime after my father died of | covid and I appreciated it from a whole different angle. | Suffice to say, I don't remember the last time I cried | watching a movie. | cowmix wrote: | The _only_ reason I give people like you a pass on hating on | Blade Runner is I, personally, can 't stand The Matrix -- which | has made me a pariah with my peer group for over 20 years now. | divs1210 wrote: | I disagree. | | Blade Runner seems to age like wine, and becomes more poignant | with each re-watch. | | It has a good pace, amazing visuals, asks tough questions, has | some really good action sequences, etc. | | Of course, everyone is looking for different things in movies | and the experience is highly subjective. | | Blade Runner will always be one of my favorites - right there | with Contact, They Live, Jurassic Park, and other top-notch | SciFi films. | kennywinker wrote: | Starship Troopers, don't forget Starship Troopers. | deltaonefour wrote: | Starship troopers was a masterpiece. Don't mock it. | aglavine wrote: | Blade Runner was truly original.And it was truly copied all | over the place. | HorizonXP wrote: | I have to ask then, what films do you like better than | Interstellar? | fb03 wrote: | I was also baffled by the "interstellar is trash" line. Maybe | I watched it wrong. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | I didn't love Interstellar the first time I saw it. | | When I watched Inception for the first time I walked out of | the theatre in love with that movie (and I still am), but, | leaving Interstellar I felt confused and underwhelmed. | | Perversely I think I was actually very overwhelmed by | Interstellar because after seeing it many times in the | almost a decade since it came out (oh my god how has it | been 10 years) it's become one of my favorite films, but, | there is just so much going on that it was difficult to | connect with it on the first viewing. | Joeri wrote: | I had a similar experience. It is one of my favorite | scifi movies, and it gets better with every viewing. I | think it also resonates especially because I have a young | daughter myself. The soundtrack though, that clicked | right away. I never get tired of that soundtrack. In | fact, I would say it is my favorite soundtrack of any | movie ever made. | turdit wrote: | ghaff wrote: | Countless SF films. I found Interstellar very middle-drawer. | I didn't hate it but certainly wasn't wowed by it. | corrral wrote: | It was a fine excuse to have a few big-budget sci-fi themed | FX spectacles. | | Could have stood to be a full hour shorter, though. | jmyeet wrote: | My view is a little more negative because of all the hype it | gets but only a little. It's just a bad movie. | | SPOILER WARNING | | To understand the plot structure (such that it is) in | Interstellar, you have to start with the writer's desire for | the emotional ending of the main character with his daughter, | who is now old. Everything that happens in the movie is a | really forced way to reach that outcome. | | The whole watch time-travel thing was more of that illogical | nonsense in service of that conclusion. | | The time dilation to make all this happens just doesn't work | that way. You have to get to a significant percentage of c | before time dilation becomes really noticeable. For example, | at 0.9c you're still only at ~2x time dilation [1]. | | The gravity effects of the black hole don't make sense | either. | | The "science" of Interstellar is no more realistic than Star | Trek or Starship Troopers. | | [1]: https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html | bryanrasmussen wrote: | I mean I agree, on the other hand if it's no more realistic | perhaps this means that the fiction part of science fiction | actually takes precedence despite coming second and thus is | actually not any sort of evidence of its being a bad movie. | airstrike wrote: | Risky Business | kennywinker wrote: | > It's a product of its time too. I'd put it in the 80s | Cyberpunk bucket where the noir surroundings and mega | corporations are a product of xenophobia, basically. | | This is a super interesting critique of basically everything | cyberpunk, that I've only recently come across. I still don't | totally buy the xenophobia angle, because to me it just came | across as a projection of hyper-corporate/capitalist. Like it's | an extrapolation out from where we were, but the problem isn't | that it's foreigners, it's that it's hyper-capitalist. In blade | runner the world has been globalized to the point where we | don't recognize downtown LA, but that's not actually what's | wrong with the world - big faceless corporations and | environmental destruction are what's wrong with the world. | While the environment itself is heavily influenced by asian | imagery, Tyrell and Weyland-Yutani aren't very _strongly_ coded | asian. i.e. Tyrell is run by an Elon Musk type engineer-ceo, | and Weyland is a decidedly white name to go along with the | Yutani part. | | I'm still digesting this idea tho, I definitely need to re- | watch with this in mind. There is definitely some playing with | xenophobia there, just... how much? and is it re-enforcing it, | or is it challenging it? | jmyeet wrote: | To be clear, you shouldn't discount the movie because it's | intertwined anti-Japense sentiment of the time. It's simply | more context. | | You cannot separate art from the time when it was created. | It's why you see a lot of countercultural themes in 1960s | movies, for example. | kennywinker wrote: | Listen, if I've managed to get this far without discounting | the movie despite the blatant and jarring non-consensual | sex scene presented as a love scene, I'm not about to let | some mild xenophobia stop me. | | Some of my favorite pieces of art are deeply flawed. What's | important is understanding what ideas they contain, so you | don't just uncritically and subconsciously believe those | ideas. The xenophobia in cyberpunk idea is jarring to me | because I wasn't really aware of it, and if it is there, it | means I have some unexamined biases that hid it from me. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | Tyrell is of Scandinavian origin, Eldon Tyrell was played by | Joe Turkel, the name in Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep was | the Rosen corporation. I figure it was more fear of Germanic | people than Japanese. | jmyeet wrote: | The Philip K. Dick book dates from the 60s so it doesn't | really fit into the 80s Japanese xenophobia zeitgeist. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | yes, nor does the movie. Eldon Tyrell is not Japanese, | Tyrell is not a Japanese or even an Asiatic sounding name, | Rachel is not Japanese. | | Yutani is a Japanese name, Weyland-Yutani sounds like the | merger of an Occidental and Oriental firm. | | I was not supporting the Japanese xenophobia zeitgeist idea | vis-a-vis the names, I was indicating that the name itself | (in Blade Runner) did not support it and indicating that | from the source material of the book it was not supported. | freeflight wrote: | _> I figure it was more fear of Germanic people than | Japanese._ | | Probably a combination of both to represent the Axis, in the | book even the Soviets are also still around and the Cold War | actually went hot, which is what lead to thermonuclear WWIII | that left Earth increasingly inhabitable. | ur-whale wrote: | > I just don't get the hype. | | IMO, much depends on when you were born. | | When it came out, Blade Runner was truly something else _and_ | rode in on multiple deep cultural vibes of that era (e.g. | Japan, Vangelis 's synth music, etc...). | | Second, the book it was based on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki | /Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_...) was _also_ quite unique in | the SF genre of that era, as was the author (Phil K Dick). | | The thing is : on top of that, amazingly enough, the visuals / | art direction has aged rather well, going from what was a | futuristic vibe at the time to something that now looks | steampunk-ish. | | I must confess to being boringly average when it comes the | Blade Runner: I do love the movie, and it is certainly in my | top ten sci-fi movies list. | ghaff wrote: | FWIW, Blade Runner (like some other films e.g. Apocalypse Now) | weren't considered as anything special at the time but were | more appreciated as the years went on with or without | director's cuts. | | That said, I really liked both at the time. | sorokod wrote: | I watched apocalypse now soon after it's release and was | completely blown away by it. There is a soundtrack album to | which I listen occasionally. | ghaff wrote: | There were definitely other Vietnam War and related films | like Platoon and Coming Home which were probably more | highly regarded at the time but haven't had the staying | power of Apocalypse Now. | ffhhj wrote: | I love Blade Runner, but I find the detective to be a useless | entity, like an ant walking in a deeper world that makes him | meaningless. And the idea of them not being able to discover | which are the cyborgs makes no sense. | the_gipsy wrote: | Aren't we all meaningless ants? | ffhhj wrote: | I mean we could replace Deckard with a pizza delivery guy, | or even a camera drone, and the story won't change a lot. | Try changing Neo in Matrix, Dave on Space Odyssey. And | there's nothing wrong, the main character is the spectator, | which makes it a more deeply philosophical movie, the | replicant captcha is performed on the viewer. "What's | meaningful" the movie asks. | corrral wrote: | A fairly ineffective detective protagonist teasing at the | edges of something much bigger, and mostly getting | steamrolled by it, is a common noir thing. Not universal, but | a frequently-used trope. | mrandish wrote: | I first saw BR in a theater the month it originally came out. | It's hard to appreciate from today's perspective just how | revolutionary it was. The film itself, especially the original | cut, is flawed due to the studio making last minute edits which | the director, cast and writers were against. Yet, it is still | the one science fiction film that has been more visually | influential than any other. It changed everything that came | after it. | | > I'd put it in the 80s Cyberpunk bucket | | BR largely created that bucket. | blacksqr wrote: | I also saw Blade Runner in its original theatrical release, | and it's still the version I prefer. In this case I think the | studio heads did Scott a backhand favor by ending the film as | they did. | | Spoilers: | | If, as depicted in the original release, Deckard is human and | Rachael is a replicant, then the movie is a true love story. | The message of a true love story is that the Other is as | deserving of love and dignity as I am. It's the message of | Romeo and Juliet, Frankenstein and To Kill a Mockingbird, to | name three offhand. | | Whether your allotted lifespan is four years or threescore | and ten, if you understand that you don't know how much time | you really have, then you are entitled to the full measure of | decent regard and respect the melancholy of that | understanding earns. Batty bought that respect for Deckard | and Rachael's sake. Thus the original ending is moving, and | completes the film's overall themes. | | If Deckard is also a replicant, as subsequent versions try to | establish more and more explicitly, then of course he's going | to want to be with Rachael. It's a no-brainer, it's no | sacrifice, and there's no moral revolution of the characters. | In which case I don't really know what the movie is supposed | to be about. Boy robot meets girl robot, boy robot loses girl | robot, boy robot gets girl robot? Boring. Definitionally | cliche. | | I suppose the realization of it is supposed to be some kind | of shocking twist, but to me it simply empties the film of | meaning. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | I also don't like late-hour attempts to suggest that | Deckard is a replicant. It cheapens Batty's finest act of | forgiving him and sparing the life of his enemy who was | trying to kill him. | juliangamble wrote: | > BR largely created that bucket. | | Combined with William Gibson's Neuromancer. It was a combined | effort. | munch117 wrote: | The BR that I watched was more that an atmospheric sci-fi | flic. It was an epic parable of the human condition. In the | beginning it juxtaposes humans and replicants, but what | you're supposed to realise along the way is that the life of | a replicant is just an accelerated version of a human life: | However long or short a lease on life you have been given, | the common factor is that it is limited, and what matters is | not what species you are, but how you approach life. Deckard, | who is a coward unable to live the life that he has, has a | life lesson to learn from the replicant who "does not go | gently into that good night". | | Of course, if Deckard is a replicant, then that | interpretation goes out the window, and BR is just another | forgettable sci-fi plot twist movie. And since Ridley Scott | seems to think so, the movie is now ruined for me -- I have | never watched the sequel, because it is just too painful to | watch the original movie that I loved be destroyed. | | I saw a movie that wasn't just a new visual style for 80's | cyberpunk, it was so much more. | samstave wrote: | And Neuromancer! although the movie is 1982 and the book is | 1984 - I put these two together as the founding fathers of | cyberpunk entertainment, albeit the FATHER of Cyberpunk is PK | Dick... | | BR created the visual dystopian cyberpunk world of the future | _without_ focusing on internet /online things... | | Neuromancer changed and set the tone for the internet to | come. | | The thing is, that at 47, MANY MANY MANY of my contemporaries | and peer grew up in the 80s with these concepts for which | they said "wouldn't it be cool if...." <--- and then we went | about building all this shit. | | Its the nerds of the 80s that have all worked to make the | cyberpunk-esque current systems we have, and the evil corps | as described in both have come to pass. | jmyeet wrote: | The article mentions the earlier influence of Alien to this | genre, at least in the sense of this future dystopia. But | even if we accept the premise that BR was groundbreaking, | groundbreaking != good. | | Larry Niven, for example, was a pioneering sci-fi author over | many books but most of these books aren't _great_. Ringworld, | for example, was one of the earlier works to talk about | megastructures and the efficiency of living area per unit | mass. The structure itself doesn 't make sense (ie it would | be torn apart by centrifugal force) but it's an important | idea. | | Neuromancer gets mentioned a lot in this particular genre. It | too was groundbreaking but it's actually not that great of a | book. Still, the groundbreaking aspect feeds into nostalgia, | particularly if you read it when it came out. I feel like a | lot of the BR hype falls into this same bucket. That's really | all I'm saying. | ajmurmann wrote: | The xenophobia angle is really interesting to me. Despite being | born after the movies release I always loved it. But I am also | a huge japanophile and am unusual in the regard that I badly | want cities as they are in Blade Runner and other Cyberpunk | fantasies and was thus blind to the xenophobia, since I see the | intended negative as desirable. | rr808 wrote: | Bladerunner 2049 is better. | moltude wrote: | The soundtrack/score by Vangelis is entirely underrated. | dekhn wrote: | I bought the soundtrack :) Good background for programming. | globular-toast wrote: | It's very well rated in the electronic music community. In the | 90s it was common to hear it mixed into trance sets by Paul | Oakenfold. | mhh__ wrote: | I'd say it's underrated by people today who've only ever | experienced Hans Zimmer but those who've heard it love it, | surely. | SoftTalker wrote: | This is one movie that has put me to sleep every time I tried to | watch it. I have never seen it beginning to end. | ur-whale wrote: | > This is one movie that has put me to sleep every time I tried | to watch it. | | Try a matinee ? | macintux wrote: | Not the OP, but that's no guarantee. I've seen _Wizard of Oz_ | twice as an adult, both times in a movie theater, and both | times I've fallen asleep. | sanj wrote: | So, is Deckard a replicant? | jq-r wrote: | Of course he is. | gallerdude wrote: | Why don't you ask him? | Barrin92 wrote: | I like Blade Runner but I don't think it has aged particularly | well, it was very much a product of its time even though | ironically enough at the time it was very much unique. | | What made this really clear to me was the sequel which I think | was way too literal about the aesthetics. Flying cars and CEOs | living in ziggurats and CCCP banners made the new movie almost | seem like a caricature. It's retrofuturism, like Back to the | Future almost rather than science fiction. And that has somehow | impacted my experience of the original now too which seems more | dated to me now. | | What does stand the test of time though is Rutger Hauer's | performance and the humanism that he has given his character, | something that was absent in the sequel. | fartcannon wrote: | As a slight aside, isn't it amazing that art exists? | | I like to just stand back and appreciate that humans both make | and love art. And it's not one thing, it's so. many. things. I | especially like that some people like some art and not other art. | It means there's complexity to it. And we can harness it to make | beauty. | davesque wrote: | Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total | exaggeration. That being said, I've found it interesting that a | film that in many ways seems so dated manages to have such a | hypnotic effect on me every time I watch it. I think it's just | one of Ridley Scott's directorial gifts that he manages to | conjure up such an infectious mood in so many of his films. Of | course, the other example is _Alien_. I definitely love a good | viewing of _Blade Runner_ when I 'm content to chew on some slow | paced sci-fi. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | > Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total | exaggeration | | I was thinking this at first but I've struggled with a | suggestion of a better, and critically more | impactful/influential, movie in the genere. | devoutsalsa wrote: | Personally I find Spaceballs to be much more memorable. | jerrysievert wrote: | brazil | | delicatessen | | both very deep and dark in similar genres: dystopian future. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | But not as hypnotic. | | Brazil is an amazing movie, but Gilliam is always | distractingly manic. | | Blade Runner is _graceful_. The pacing, the | characterisation, the imagery, and especially the music | make it almost as much of a ballet /opera as a movie. | | It's not just science fiction, it's Wagnerian. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | Brazil was a good movie, but, was far too unapproachable | and would not make my top 10. | | I've never seen (or even heard of) delicatessen. Looks | interesting, I'll check it out. | fartcannon wrote: | Brazil is everything. | | I've never seen Delicatessen but if it's like these other | films, I'll check it out. Anything I need to know | (culturally, or whatever) to fully appreciate it? | boudin wrote: | It's a different style of movie, not really science | fiction. I really like it though, really strong | atmosphere. The city of lost children as well has a | unique atmosphere | davesque wrote: | I can't say which films were _the most_ influential, but here | 's a list of ones which were at least as influential IMHO and | also sort of stand on their own: _Star Wars Trilogy_ (epic | sci-fi), _2001: A Space Odyssey_ (hard sci-fi), _The Thing_ | (body horror sci-fi), _Alien_ (body horror /dystopian sci- | fi), _Mad Max_ (post apocalyptic sci-fi), _E.T._ (family sci- | fi? lol), _The Terminator_ (post apocalyptic), _Howard the | Duck_ (still reading?), _Predator_ (dunno?) | | I could list a lot of others but I'll stop there. | willhinsa wrote: | 2001: A Space Odyssey | muro wrote: | The "ages" jumping weirdness just ruined it, IMHO. | Beautiful middle part, though. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly | incomprehensible ending. | | Kubrick was no doubt a genius and mystery is a part of | storytelling, the entirety of Eyes Wide Shut leaves so | much room for mystique and interpretation that we can | debate and discuss it forever but I did not find similar | in the ending of 2001, it seemed like confusion for | confusions sake with little deeper meaning. | colordrops wrote: | Arthur C Clarke is one of the greatest sci fi authors of | all time and wrote the book in conjunction with the movie | with Stanley Kubrick. They are meant to be consumed | together. Read the book and the movie makes a lot more | sense. There is virtually zero ambiguity if you read the | book. | tus666 wrote: | Star Wars was better. | mhh__ wrote: | What is star wars actually _about_ though. | | There's probably no blade runner without star wars but it's | just childish/shallow if you don't buy into George Lucas. | | The originals are good movies but only empire is truly great | and even then it's just a good flick. It asks almost no | questions of the audience. | corrral wrote: | > The originals are good movies but only empire is truly | great and even then it's just a good flick. It asks almost no | questions of the audience. | | Star Wars (as in, "Episode IV: A New Hope") gets a lot of | points on the greatness scale for basically inventing the | multi-genre pastiche film, and for being a pretty good | example of the practice. Empire's a better movie in a lot of | ways, but less ground-breaking as far as the storytelling | goes. | | But yeah, no Star Wars films are high art. The first two, | especially, though, get a lot of basic stuff right and have | fairly straightforward plots, so they make for excellent | examples for illustrating many of aspects of film story- | telling: mood, plotting, characterization, foreshadowing, | setup/payoff in general, et c. | mhh__ wrote: | That's a fair assessment. I like them, I don't like the | mythology of star wars movies. And not even the originals, | people actually think the prequels are some misunderstood | masterpieces... | kennywinker wrote: | Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's fantasy | deltaonefour wrote: | No it's not. You're just getting too technical. Star wars is | science fiction. | | Because in the same vein you could call LOTR science fiction | too because the fantasy elements are just natural properties | of the created world. The "magic" can technically be | technology as well. | LegitShady wrote: | Star wars has literal space magic. Hard disagree. It's not | in any way speculative fiction - it's a fantasy story told | in a sci Fi aesthetic. | | LOTR is explicitly a fantasy story in a fantasy aesthetic. | Magic can be technology but it doesn't try to be in either | of the stories you mention. | bowsamic wrote: | No one has captured cyberpunk so perfectly since. It is the | ultimate visual and auditory expression of it. The sequel is also | excellent | mhh__ wrote: | 2049 choosing to include Joi elevates it a little beyond the | original in that regard for me. | | Replicants are more of a question about dehumanization whereas | a true AI (with the projection to help the audience along) is | much trickier. There's no flesh to hold and yet it seems to | feel | Krasnol wrote: | The sequel gave me more of a post-cyberpunk vibe and I feel | like it was intended. | | They killed Capitalist-Tokyo-Dystopia and replaced it with | Soviet Russia. | rainworld wrote: | As for _The Question,_ I believe there is a fairly unambiguous | answer... | | http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2011/10/1/a-matter-of-el... | mhh__ wrote: | Hampton Fancher I think once said the question is more | interesting than the answer, I'm inclined to agree, although | once you notice the nudging in the sequel it's more funny than | anything else. | hujun wrote: | blade runner is good, however my personal best sci-fi film is | matrix, specially the 1st one | duxup wrote: | I hated that movie the first to I saw it. I was bored with it. | | Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend | establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very | real and has depth. | | I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and | then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much | sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with | no idea how to end. | melling wrote: | Yeah, I don't recalling loving it either. Perhaps as a kid, it | wasn't upbeat enough for me. | | In 1982, 2019 sure looked exciting though. Androids, flying | cars, ... | | I hope kids today have a much more interesting future 40 years | from now. | JSavageOne wrote: | I've tried to watch the movie multiple times, always get bored | in the beginning and abort early. Once tried to watching with a | friend and we were both bored fairly quickly. | | To be fair I don't watch movies / TV shows often because I have | a low attention span for this stuff, but this is a movie I | really wanted to like because I love the genre, but it's too | slow paced for me. I do know that pacing was generally slower | in older movies (eg. I recently watched "Roman Holiday" because | so many older people love that one, and found it incredibly | slow). | globular-toast wrote: | It is possible, of course, that you saw an inferior cut of the | film. It's notorious for having been recut several times over | the years. The Final Cut is the one to watch. | procinct wrote: | I accidentally started rewatching a different cut after | having only ever watched the final cut. When that noir style | voice over started going, I was so confused. It was so bad I | was sure it couldn't have been part of the film I had | previously enjoyed. Researching it after lead me to the same | conclusion as you. | hybridtupel wrote: | I just saw the movie for the first time and had quite some | expectations. It was the directors cut. And while the overall | setting was interesting and there were quite good scenes in | it, for me it was just too long and I found it quite boring. | Mainly the awfully stretched fight at the end put me off. Not | sure if I should or want to revisit it after some time. As I | also did not really find the sequel that convincing. But it | got me thinking in what people see in these movies which I | can't. | duxup wrote: | Yeah I have no clue what I saw first. But the directors cut | is the one I enjoy. | jacobolus wrote: | This is also a film that most people probably have to watch 2-3 | times to really understand the whole plot (much less notice all | of the symbolism, etc.). | | The first time, a bunch is quite confusing. | Keyframe wrote: | Ah, the Ridley Scott flair. It's pretty much the same with | almost all his movies. | quotemstr wrote: | > I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere | and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. | | Post-Blade-Runner movies can spend less time developing their | aesthetic and setting specifically because they can "import" | the Blade Runner vibe "by reference", as it were, while Blade | Runner had to build up the whole thing from scratch. | | To fair, importing a setting this way isn't necessarily lazy: | doing so allows the derivative film maker to spend more time on | the things that make his film unique. There's only so long an | audience will tolerate. | Agentlien wrote: | I'm the other way around. I loved the atmosphere and the slow | pace when I first saw it. But ever since I read the book I | can't enjoy it the same way. I feel it just doesn't do it | justice. | JeanMarcS wrote: | I'm another way around: I read the book then watch the movie | not long after. I slept. | | And everytime I try to watch it I get bored quick. | | I think I would have much more apreciate it, the atmosphere | et all, if I hadn't read the book before. And I realy regret | it because I know it's a good movie. | robertbarbe wrote: | The book has a level emotional depth of that is not matched | in the film. The first dialogue between Deckhart and his | wife (yes he is married in the book) is really clever and | meta. I was extremely disappointed by the film (I first saw | it 2 years ago) and it feels very dated and has that 80s | men-women cringe-portrayal. I agree, read the book it is | awesome! | j-james wrote: | I'm a fourth way around: I read the book before watching | the movie, and greatly enjoyed both in different ways. | dekhn wrote: | Same for me- I also found it boring the first time. Or rather, | I found it amazing, but the final battle comes a bit too late. | After rewatching I kind of learned where the lulls are, and | tend to break it up around those. | deltaonefour wrote: | There are three things that are important to the movie. | - Pacing so you don't get bored. - Thematic depth | - Atmosphere | | A lot of pretentious people like to ignore pacing as if their | brains are made up of pure IQ and anything related excitement | is beneath them. Make no mistake, we are all human and we all | get bored. Pacing is important and it takes a lot of effort | (and intelligence) for a director to maintain that level of | momentum for a movie. | | Let's face it, Blade runner really screwed up with pacing. | Ultra slow pacing is understandably sort of required for the | atmosphere but while it scores very very very highly in the | other areas; there is absolute truth to the statement when | someone says that movie is in general quite slow and boring. If | your brain is too big to comprehend why Blade runner even has | the possibility of being boring then I'm likely too stupid to | be communicating with you, you should go read other comments of | higher intelligence. | | The MCU scores highly in pacing and probably is the greatest | paced franchise of all time, with 10 years of momentum and a | payoff unlike anything ever seen before in cinema. But because | of pretension, in general a certain crowd looks at the entire | franchise with disdain; even though it's actually much harder | and challenging to create good pacing then many of the more | serious thematically deep movies I've seen out there. | | Inception would be movie that on average has the best high | balance on all three pillars. Good pacing, thematically deep, | well established professional/corporate atmosphere. Though I | would say in terms of theme and atmosphere, while quite high, | it's not quite high enough to get past certain pretentious | attitudes. I would even argue that sometimes if the pacing is | too good, the movie becomes too popular and thus "not good" to | the elite crowd. | | At the same time, sometimes if the pacing is too good, the | themes and atmosphere get copied by dozens of other movies. The | audience sees too much of it and becomes more sophisticated. | Now the stuff that use to be high concept to the general | audience becomes quite boring. Directors and movies producers | are always playing catch up to increase sophistication and | bring you stuff you've never seen before. | | @duxup, I think this is what's happening to you. Bladerunner is | so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi | stuff get copied to hell and now the cookie cutter sameness | doesn't do it for you anymore. So you turn to the thing that's | most different. | cm2187 wrote: | Hum. The reality is that almost every big budget movie today | is targeted at a _international teenage_ audience. And goes | for the lowest common denominator across the US, Europe and | Asia. That doesn't leave much for originality and atmosphere. | Superheros with cartoonish SFX and violence, violence and | violence. And some occasional fart jokes. That's pretty much | it. | Keyframe wrote: | I get what you're saying (I worked in fiom and tv for eons | before switching out), but you can't really do it like that. | Comparison needs to include both what the movie was built on, | leading to it, and then also to consider directors own body | of work leading to it. That takes into account period of work | and release as well. What came after (not immediately) is not | relevant to the work itself since it's out of period (in | future). To even start talking in this direction you'd have | to invoke, serially, works like Clockwork Orange, American | Graffiti, Taxi Driver, and then Midnight Express to even | start outlining the silhouette of what is to come.with Blade | Runner.. and that's just a start since Ridley Scott's path is | a bit unusual, and that movie's genesis especially so (see | Legend he did sonce it's close to the period). That only | covers the basics of the basics of discussing of what and | specifically why this particular work is the way it is and | why emulating the moves later (2049) didn't yield the same. | | Edit: typing on mobile. Screw it, I hope it's at least | somewhat readable. | thombat wrote: | "Let's face it" - anyone who brings their preferences to the | table as indisputable truths held by all reasonable, i.e. non | "pretentious", folk, could probably do with some long | expository chats with other film fans in a good cafe around | the corner from a good cinema. | kebman wrote: | Thinking about what was possible to make in 1982, it's pretty | amazing. It's an absolute classic, up there with the best of the | noirs (the actual film noirs), such as The Maltese Falcon, Double | Indemnity and The Third Man; the logical answer to the Neo Noir | Body Heat the year before. It's like a legacy moving onto such | things as Ghost in the Shell and even The Matrix. | bsder wrote: | And I think that's why it flopped initially but has such | staying power. | | Balde Runner is fundamentally _film noir_ and the sci-fi is | just the setting. | | The essential conflicts are _human_ conflicts--not | technological ones. You can replace the setting and you still | have mostly the same story. | deltaonefour wrote: | But if you replaced the setting with a mundane one the movie | would be a generic film noir. | | It only works because of the combination of the setting and | the story. | aglavine wrote: | Not even a word there in the note devoted to goddess Daryl | Hannah. | aresant wrote: | The visual language Bladerunner invented has virtually defined | SciFi for the past 40 years. | | If you enjoy it's worth digging into the work Syd Mead - the | film's concept artist - created: | | https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642443624/in/... | | https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642443252/in/... | | https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5641873923/in/... | | https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642441904/in/... | | Syd's work in general is worth a deeper investigation if | interested -> | | https://sydmead.com/ | | https://www.flickr.com/photos/40143737@N02/albums/7215762290... | | https://www.iamag.co/the-art-of-syd-mead/ | candiddevmike wrote: | Can anyone recommend some music that has the same vibe as Blade | Runner's synth stuff? | crispyambulance wrote: | Yeah, Isao Tomita and Tangerine Dream come to mind. | Contemporaries of Vangelis (the composer of the soundtrack of | Blade Runner) from the 70's. Very similar vibe. | | Jean Michel Jarre as well, though he had more of a beat. I | like Morton Subotnick and the seminal album "Silver Apples of | the Moon" it's more out there and experimental but it | definitely it had a similar texture. | minikomi wrote: | Kuedo's severant album has a very similar DNA. intense, sleek | synth driven but still melancholic and familiar | | https://open.spotify.com/track/6tjTQ95h4TOHvB1VzhYvKJ?si=anq. | .. | quakeguy wrote: | Selected Ambient Works II by Aphex Twin | mattmanser wrote: | From the wiki page: | | _The visual style of the movie is influenced by the work of | futurist Italian architect Antonio Sant 'Elia.[51] Scott hired | Syd Mead as his concept artist; like Scott, he was influenced | by Metal Hurlant_ | | So, err, no. Metal Hurlant was 1974, cyberpunk itself started | in the 1960s. | | It's based on a book from 1968 after all. Judge Dredd first | came out in 1977. | | It didn't come up with the aesthetic, it popularized it. | dev_tty01 wrote: | Great stuff. Thanks. Gotta love the data tape reels on the | "home" computer. | asiachick wrote: | also inspiration from Metropolis | | https://www.google.com/search?q=metropolis&tbm=isch | | and also Things to Come | | https://www.google.com/search?q=Things+to+Come&tbm=isch | nico wrote: | There is also the failed attempt of Jodorowsky to make a Dune | movie: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodorowsky's_Dune | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel)#Early_stalled_a... | | The documentary is pretty fascinating. Jodorowsky managed to | put together a stellar team, among them H.R. Giger, Dali and | the script writer who would later write Alien. | CyanBird wrote: | Yeah, it is thanks to these two movies that modern scifi and | its visual development side of things exists basically | Retric wrote: | They popularized these styles but they existed in other | mediums. | | What's fascinating is looking at all the different styles | Dune the dune book covers had over time to see how various | mediums influenced things. https://www.biblio.com/dune-by- | herbert-frank/work/3104 | CyanBird wrote: | That's a good angle | | But that's the thing, jodos dune came as an aggregate of | "non-movie" mediums, because jodorowsky was not a | cinematographer by trade he was an avant garde theater | person, giger, Dali, moebius, Foss, neither of them "were | part" of the "movies" medium, they all and the rest of | the crew were painters or writers or musicians, comic | book artists, not cinematographers per se, in that sense | what jodorowsky set to do was not even a movie as we | might think of one today, but an agglomeration of | different types and styles of art with all their own | individual Influences mixed in | | I think today, it would be nearly impossible for "works" | to exist and not have been inspired themselves in some | degree by the downstream effects and inspiration that | jodorowskys movie had, just think that starwars itself is | inspired by it | | But anyhow, it is a quite interesting food for thought | | If anyone knows of some niche modern scifi books or works | which might not be influenced by this failed dune movie | let me know, I love this stuff | walrus01 wrote: | > Jodorowsky | | I recently got a copy of this and could only come to the | conclusion that they were doing _a lot of drugs_ in the | 1970s: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Mountain_(1973_film) | rastignack wrote: | Don't forget moebius | smoldesu wrote: | Does this mean that theaters should prepare for the Moebius | Sweep? | shaftoe444 wrote: | These links are excellent and I hadn't heard of Syd Mead | despite being a long time fan of this film. Thank you for | posting. | colordrops wrote: | I would disagree and posit that 2001 is the GOAT. Most scifi is | heavily influenced by it. The artistry is unsurpassed. The scope | and depth of the story is mind blowing. | | I was at lunch talking with coworkers about scifi movies. None of | them even heard about 2001. It was quite shocking to me. I was | the oldest at the table, but I'm not _that_ old. | mhh__ wrote: | 2001 is a very different type of film though. Blade runner is a | film I could get my marvel-loving friends to watch, they would | not watch 25 of chimp on chimp action | easeout wrote: | Just an incredible film. Even the slow parts, and there are a lot | of them, have so much rich setting to marvel at. | | The love scene comes across as nonconsensual and it makes me | uncomfortable every time. Whether that's intended discomfort or | an artistic regret, I don't know. | | Other than that, it's one of my all time favorites for the | reasons others are mentioning. I recommend the 2007 Final Cut. | gambiting wrote: | I was bored with it when I first saw it, I'm still bored with it | having seen it again recently. It's just so....full of itself. | Like oh my god, you think you're trying to say something deep and | meaningful, but you really aren't. The cinematography is still | incredible and the film deserves all the praise in that | department. But the whole philosophical argument being made there | has the depth of a teaspoon. I just laugh when the villain makes | his monologue at the end, you can almost feel the writer behind | those lines straining with all their might to write something, | anything that would be interesting in any way, and just failing | completely. | norin wrote: | I've pretty much owned every copy of the first movie. I still | hear Roy's haunting message as a razor blade going through my | skull. | jansan wrote: | "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." | | For me probably the best monologue in movie history. | the_gipsy wrote: | > Time to die | | Timed just perfectly, the spectator's soul has been prepared | for death at this exact moment. Time to die. | mhh__ wrote: | I'd get rid of the C-beams bit. Feels too much like | scifibabble | nabla9 wrote: | Blade Runner suffers from the same problem as every other | important classic. | | Younger generations who see it today have already seen 100s's of | movies and TV-series, anime etc. that are based on aesthetics and | narrative of Blade Runner. The original has little originality | left for new viewers because it has been endlessly copied and | they have already been immersed in it. | | Another great example is Friz Lang's M (1931). It has influenced | everyone from Hitchcock to everything in Film Noir. If you watch | it now it's almost comical. It has every trope of serial killer | movie. Except everyone else is copying M. Even if you have not | watched the movie, you have already seen the movie thousands of | times. | gravelc wrote: | It's long been my favourite film, so I guess that makes it the | GOAT. That soundtrack never fails to resonate. The moral | ambiguity of everyone is so well balanced. The set design and | props. Everything, really. | mhh__ wrote: | 2049 is probably a better film in almost every way and yet the | original is better just by virtue of the clarity of vision it | had. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | I have a personal opinion about voice-overs that were removed in | later editions. Typically, people hate them, and truly, they are | somewhat out of place when you hear them. | | However, they get much better on subsequent viewings of more | modern cuts, when you don't _hear_ them, but you _remember_ them. | mhh__ wrote: | The idea of a gruff but charismatic Harrison Ford ticking the | story along isn't a bad one I suppose. | | It just ended like https://youtu.be/m__PBksZ0zA | hedora wrote: | Oh crap; they cancelled Raised by Wolves: | | https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/raised-by-wolves-ca... | | Unbelievable! | | (Ridley Scott was involved with it.) | micromacrofoot wrote: | it wasn't particularly good, I really really wanted to like it | and persevered through the whole thing... and it's just a mess | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | I really enjoyed the aesthetic of it, I enjoyed the tone and | even many of the major story elements but I found it so hard | to track the story. | | It's unfortunate because the show had the great thematic | elements (Mithraic vs atheist war -- mother as a godlike | angel etc) and had amazing small details but lost itself | somewhere in-between. Why was there a giant worm and why did | everyone forget about the giant worm in Season 2 ? | | This might be a Ridley Scott problem, because, everything I | said can also apply to Prometheus. | jghn wrote: | It's a Ridley Scott problem. | | Everything I've seen in the last several years that he's | had a hand in (another example is Taboo) is visually | amazing but confusing. | browningstreet wrote: | It was better than Foundation... | freeflight wrote: | Foundation feels like it's singlehandedly carried by by the | performance of Lee Pace as Brother Day. | alexalx666 wrote: | It was better than all other recent sci-fi shows, I mean it | was a serious conversation about religion, I felt like Im | treated like an adult for a change. Foundation failed to be | both serious and entertaining / engaging | aceazzameen wrote: | I have a love/hate relationship with that show. I love the | unique weird concepts throughout. And the actors portraying the | androids were phenomenal. But many of the script/screenplays | were just bad? Despite being bad, I really wanted to see where | the concept was going! | javajosh wrote: | Sometimes I wish shows like this would be open to doing other | stories with the same settings and actors. Like, you already | have all the resources, so why not remix them? This kind of | thing could work really well for Fantasy stories - you already | have the locations, costumes, practical FX, actors - it seems | like the script (and the setups) are just about the easiest | thing to change. Meanwhile all the rest, music, editing, | lighting, catering...it's already setup! Has anyone done this | before? Is it a terrible idea? | ur-whale wrote: | Yeah, well ... very interesting series, with lots of | unusual/interesting ideas and really creative visuals, but | sorry to say, the storyline was a complete mess _and_ | unexciting _and_ depressing. | | Not surprised it was canned: however much makeup you put on a | pig ... it's still a pig. | freeflight wrote: | Oof, that's sad.. | | I really liked RbW but didn't want to get too invested because | it felt like it wouldn't even get a second season. Then the | second season was released, got me really invested, and now | this, booh! | | At least the second season of Foundation is still being filmed, | looking forward to that and hopefully that will last past two | seasons. | | The Three-Body Problem is getting a TV show on Netflix, heard | good things about the books, maybe the show can live up to | them. | modeless wrote: | I had a professor in college who was obsessed with Blade Runner | and had us watch it in class. I just didn't get it. I mean I love | sci-fi, but Blade Runner was just OK. Maybe in the context of its | time it was great, pioneering, all that stuff. But in the context | of now, or even back when I was in college (closer to the release | of Blade Runner than present day, yikes), it didn't seem that | special to me. | | I guess now that I have kids I'll soon be on the other side | trying to convince them that the old stuff I like is cool and | special, and they'll prefer the new stuff. | phkahler wrote: | >> now that I have kids I'll soon be on the other side trying | to convince them that the old stuff I like is cool and special | | Nope. Kids today have access to everything under the sun. The | classics still resonate with them. My kid loves Queen and | Zepplin. Enjoyed the hell out of "They Live", the Matrix and | many other classic movies. Not so much John Carpenters "the | Thing" which even I found a bit slow these days. | | A lot of this was discovered without my introduction too. Music | in particular. | | Share the movies without explanation. Classics are universal. | adam_arthur wrote: | Agreed. | | Great movie, but many movies from the past fail to hold up | simply due to lower production values... which also feeds into | the storytelling element | x3iv130f wrote: | Don't tell the diehard fans but I prefer the theatrical edition | as the story works better in a shorter punchier presentation. | antishatter wrote: | With the hilariously bad harrison ford voice over? my god | man. | tingol wrote: | Yeah, I'm not opening any movie topics on HN based on | replies to this one :D | georgeecollins wrote: | There are pros and cons to the theatrical version, so I think | your opinion has merit. The original script had vo, and that | fits with the noir movie style they were trying to achieve. | Unfortunately Harrison Ford was not into doing vo. But it is | a more concise version. | bigDinosaur wrote: | The version with the VO? If so, that literally treats the | audience like they're incapable of understanding blatant | metaphor. | | Contrast the theatrical cut: https://youtu.be/AJzIT6fQ3OU (VO | at 4:13) with the director's cut: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAzpa1x7jU | | The theatrical version is punchier because it's beating you | over the head. For a film that's so heavily into metaphor (I | mean, Rutger Hauer's character releases a dove at the end, | maybe he just likes birds, we will never know since the VO | doesn't explain it) it's quite boring to just be outright | told what you're supposed to think. And even if you like your | scenes explained in the most anodyne manner possible, it's | well known that Harrison Ford was phoning it in for the | overall performance but _particularly_ the VO, so it 's not | even a well-done VO in terms of literal recording. | | Hardly a 'diehard fan', I like the aesthetic but it's an | incredibly slow film, but I hate that VO with a passion. | georgeecollins wrote: | I think if you saw it in the context of movies of its time you | would understand the appeal, if not appreciate it. So many | things imitate it that the most original parts seem like | cliches. | | The other thing is that it holds up for most people, so that it | is better when you go back to it because you see thing you | missed the first time. | golergka wrote: | This is literally what "Seinfeld is unfunny" trope is about. | The original, groundbreaking work gets quoted and used so | much that a modern viewer doesn't see anything original in it | anymore. | JeanMarcS wrote: | My ex wife is 16 years younger than me (from 1987). So I | made her watch many movies from the 80's and 90's that I | think are classics. | | Well,most of the time she didn't apreciate them because she | watched a lot of TV movies in her teens, and knew most of | the plots and twists. | modeless wrote: | Some things survive this process, though, and some don't. | For example, I didn't see Alien until after I saw Blade | Runner. I see Alien as more influential and copied than | Blade Runner, yet I still think it's great. | browningstreet wrote: | To wit: I just watched Close Encounters on a plane. | Surprised at how much Spielberg himself quoted from it. It | feels like a mashup of ET, Indiana Jones and even | Schindlers List. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I think it still holds up. Very few films are as bold and | original today. Everything is CGI focus group contrived garbage | now. | | What good recent scifi comes close? Dune? Bladerunner 2049? | magicalhippo wrote: | Not gonna say they're in the same league, but I quite enjoyed | Possessor, Annihilation and Arrival. | | But I agree it's hard to beat "the originals". I've come to | the conclusion that it's probably just as much me that has | changed. | thevardanian wrote: | I would argue that we have much more original content today | than ever before and so it's far more difficult to actually | make anything truly groundbreaking. The narrative landscape | today is far more complex, diverse, and refined than from | even the early 2000s, let alone anything prior. | lmm wrote: | Ex Machina is absolutely up there IMO. | gsmo wrote: | Bladerunner 2049. :-) | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Yes that one. Thanks! | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | Maybe Dune, but, Dune is an unfinished sentence. | ur-whale wrote: | > Maybe Dune | | I don't think Dune, the 2022 version will make it to the | heights Blade Runner is at. | | There are _some_ scenes that give you Blade Runner level | shivers (e.g. the Sardaukar assembly on Salusa Secundus), | but they 're few and far between. | | And if you meant the original Dune ... nah, it certainly | hasn't aged as well as BR. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | I mean the 2022 one. The 1984 one has not aged well. I'm | quite the fan of the 2000 tv mini-series one though. | | Maybe it will rise to the levels of great sci-fi, maybe | it will not, I won't judge it till I can see the complete | picture. It has the correct aesthetic and the truly | shiver-worthy moments are yet to come. | einpoklum wrote: | I'd say the exact opposite. The 2022 version - it's nice; | I could fault it here or there, but it has a lot of going | for it. But... it only goes so far. It doesn't reach the | dramatic heights of Lynch's creation, and the mystique of | the design. | | (Of course one should try and watch one of the longer | cuts with more of the dialog and establishing scenes.) | modeless wrote: | Does it have to look dystopian to count? I enjoyed "Her" and | thought it was bold and original, in a different way. | zepearl wrote: | > _I guess now that I have kids I 'll soon be on the other side | trying to convince them that the old stuff I like is cool and | special, and they'll prefer the new stuff._ | | Absolutely, hehe. (I love the old Blade Runner, not at all the | new one) | | > _I had a professor in college who was obsessed with Blade | Runner and had us watch it in class._ | | To balance that out, our religion teacher showed us The | Exorcist ( https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/9552-the-exorcist ) | - sounds hard but to be fair anybody who did not want to watch | it was allowed to leave the room & come back later. | Simplicitas wrote: | Arguably one of the best reproduction of an artist's | | https://bleedingcool.com/movies/philip-k-dick-blade-runner/ | imwillofficial wrote: | "Less gym-bro than The Terminator" That's a stupid way to sum up | a classic like The Terminator | deltaonefour wrote: | Blade runner isn't even that good, thematically. But I get why | it's considered the best. | | It's because in most sci-fi movies a lot of effort is spent on | the setting and thus the story while many times is good, often | lacks the depth of their non-fiction counter-parts. | | Bladerunner is one of the few movies that has blockbuster level | visuals while maintaining a very serious story with a lot of | depth. Gattaca is another sci-fi movie that achieves this as | well, though the visuals in Gattaca aren't blockbuster level. | jogjayr wrote: | Most of _Gattaca_ is shot indoors and the sets have a very | minimalist aesthetic. It looks futuristic, but since their | budget was quite low* it was also a way to keep costs down. The | visuals bear no comparison at all to _Blade Runner_. It 's an | incredible movie nevertheless. | | * I quite enjoyed how astronauts wear a suit and tie even on | spaceship launches. Out-of-universe that was probably because | they didn't have the budget for spacesuit costumes. But in- | universe it is still legitimately a "space suit" and might be a | nod to how formal the Gattacca workplace setting is (I've read | too much r/moviedetails). | justin66 wrote: | Nothing against Andrew Niccol, who wrote and directed Gattaca, | but the same film with the same actors, directed by Ridley | Scott, is really something to contemplate. | mhh__ wrote: | "He gets a gun put to his head and then he fucks a dishwasher." - | Rutger Hauer in mark kermodes excellent documentary _On the edge | of blade runner_ | | https://youtu.be/g3mq-1jcFzk | JKCalhoun wrote: | Mind-blowing art-direction/set-decorating/costumes when it came | out. | | I have to make an excuse to get up though when Harrison Ford | tries to play a nerdy fan in the Zhora character's dressing room. | So bad. | mhh__ wrote: | Isn't that the express purpose of the scene? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-26 23:00 UTC)