Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Blade Runner’ at 40

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#31

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25
modeless wrote: post #3

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 tha…

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?

Maybe Dune, but, Dune is an unfinished sentence.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#32

Post by willhinsa »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #26
davesque wrote: post #16

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 lov…

> 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.

2001: A Space Odyssey

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#34

Post by zepearl »

modeless wrote: post #3

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 tha…

> 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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#36

Post by browningstreet »

golergka wrote: post #17
georgeecollins wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#37

Post by nabla9 »

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#38

Post by browningstreet »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #6
hedora wrote: post #2

Oh crap; they cancelled Raised by Wolves: https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/raised-by-wolves-ca... Unbelievable! (Ridley Scott was involved with it.)

it wasn’t particularly good, I really really wanted to like it and persevered through the whole thing… and it’s just a mess

It was better than Foundation…

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#39

Post by gravelc »

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#40

Post by bigDinosaur »

x3iv130f wrote: post #7
modeless wrote: post #3

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 tha…

Don't tell the diehard fans but I prefer the theatrical edition as the story works better in a shorter punchier presentation.

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.

Post reply on HN