Live data from Hacker News

‘Blade Runner’ at 40

esquire.com

151–160 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Foundation feels like it's singlehandedly carried by by the performance of Lee Pace as Brother Day.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#152
post #109
post #66

Star Wars was better.

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.

> 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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#153
post #19

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.

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.

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#154
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, Dalí and the script writer who would later write Alien.

Don’t forget moebius

Does this mean that theaters should prepare for the Moebius Sweep?

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#155
post #66

Star Wars was better.

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's fantasy

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#156
post #19

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.

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.

Ah, the Ridley Scott flair. It's pretty much the same with almost all his movies.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#157

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…

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#160
post #23

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_…

Can anyone recommend some music that has the same vibe as Blade Runner's synth stuff?

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.

Post reply on HN