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

201–210 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#201

Post by fullshark »

mhh__ wrote: post #178
rainworld wrote: post #158

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...

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.

They were stuck in the sequel, needed Harrison Ford (who has aged dramatically) to be in the film for financial reasons, and also needed to pay lip service to the supposed answer. So I think there's one scene that outlines how it could be possible that made no sense but was clearly shoehorned in there.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#202

Post by shadowofneptune »

kennywinker wrote: post #73
jmyeet wrote: post #9

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 sam…

> 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 extrap…

> Weyland is a decidedly white name to go along with the Yutani part.

British Leyland was a car company which broke up shortly after Alien came out. The implication in the W-Y name is pretty clear: A Japanese company bought out Leyland.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#203

Post by shaggie76 »

About 20 years ago I ripped the DVD audio to MP3 so I could immerse myself in the amazing soundscapes from this film on the go. The soundtrack is great, don't get me wrong, but I think the sound is magnificent.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#204

Post by jaqalopes »

jmyeet wrote: post #9

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 sam…

So relieved I'm not alone in this. BR was top of my to-watch list after years of recommendations from friends, family, and the culture at large. And I finally sat down to watch it and it was downright bizarre. I read the book it's based on a few months prior and maybe that skewed my expectations. It was nothing at all like Dick's original story. The stakes were never explained and the visual language was incredibly gaudy and overemphasized.

Then again, I do think this is a case of the "if you'd only seen it at the time!" I saw 2001 A Space Odyssey recently for the first time, and while I really appreciated the practical effects, compared to fast paced, exciting movies made in the past 20-30 years it was boring and utterly baffling. Time passes, things change, the fact is not everything is for everyone, and assertions of "Thing X is the greatest of all time" are and always will be nonsense.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#205

Post by auggierose »

Couldn't freaking agree more. My favourite movie, undisputedly. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it the first time, it is all so perfect, the actors, the atmosphere, the soundtrack, the story, the ideas. "Memories. You're talking about memories!". And although I am also a big fan of P.K. Dick, it is good that the movie does its own thing and that there are no electric sheep in it.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#206

Post by hrocha1 »

Sporktacular wrote: post #140

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…

From my experience all atmospheric films are like this. Some people love them, some people find them boring because they are more about visuals/sounds/music/feelings rather than plot lines or action scenes.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#207

Post by mLuby »

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?

Black Mirror. For broad definition of sci-fi and broad definition of film.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#208

Post by deltaonezero »

LegitShady wrote: post #175
deltaonefour wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

>it's a fantasy story told in a sci Fi aesthetic.

The aesthetic is what defines the genre. There's tons of garbage technology in other sci-fi works that are beyond what's even speculative. Star wars is not the only art work that does this.

Midi chloreans (The technical/scientific explanation for the force) are way less speculative then alot of the sci fi that's out there.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#209

Post by deltaonezero »

thombat wrote: post #173
deltaonefour wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 leve…

"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.

Opinions about movies aren't indisputable truths.

There are things that are general truths though. Opinions held by such a high majority of people that such opinions are very close to the truth in the sense that often people talk about such opinions without using "speculative" adjectives.

I would say the things that I talk about in my post belong to those "general truths." I would also say fans of Blade Runner don't belong to the majority crowd. Their opinions are well outside mainstream and they view that sort of opinion as superior. I personally view that sort of opinion as "alternative" and I despise people who view it as "superior."

Not saying you are such a person, nor many of the people on HN. But you have to admit; such a crowd does exist.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#210

Post by nick__m »

melling wrote: post #48
duxup wrote: 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.

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.

  I hope kids today have a much more interesting future 40 years from now.
I am sure that they will live in interesting time but I doubt that it is a blessing.
Post reply on HN