Live data from Hacker News

‘Blade Runner’ at 40

esquire.com

221–230 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#221
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.

> 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)

If you think Jodorowsky's Dune was weird, you should see his Holy Mountain[1]

Also, millions of people did a lot of drugs in that time, but there is only one Jodorowsky. Drugs alone can not explain his vision.

[1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qmR0vi0ifzE

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#222
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.)

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!

The first couple episodes were phenomenal, and the world building / acting was top notch all the way through.

I was willing to tolerate some of the meandering story lines / characters, since they were clearly leading to something in season 3. I felt like it was one of those shows where subplots / characters seem like filler, but then, in hindsight, you realize there was nothing they could cut. Unfortunately, that means that much of season 2 is setting up for ??? in cancelled season 3.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#223
post #163

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…

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.

No the reality is many big budget films are targeted towards AS MANY PEOPLE AS possible. It doesn't make business sense to target one demographic. Business people target qualities that hit as many demographics as possible.

In short you could say that the mainstream general audience is what the big budget move is target-ted towards.

Something like the MCU which is over a decade old doesn't fit your thinking. If the first movie IRON MAN, which "targetted teens" is a decade old then most of those teens who watched END GAME that another movie that targeted the people who watched the first iron man are no longer teens. They aged out. If iron man targetted teens then end game didn't. So most likely all these super hero blockbusters are just targeting all demographics. Don't be so shallow in thinking that only teens are "dumb" enough to like super hero movies. Plenty of other demographics and "smart" people appreciate blockbuster entertainment.

End game had clear nostalgia references to people who watched the first iron man and his death only had emotional meaning to those who followed him for over a decade. Younger people in fact tend to think of the MCU as stupid, because iron man came out when they were too young to be interested. I've found people in their early 20s have this attitude and I'm guessing that's you. To me someone in their 20s is practically a teen.

Older people appreciate the MCU because their memory stretches back further. They don't see the MCU as a decade of cookie cutter copies because that decade only takes up a tiny fraction of their own cinematic life time. They see that everything that came before the MCU was different and the MCU is unique. Meanwhile young people who've seen the MCU all their lives see it as stupid because that's all they've seen their entire short lives.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#224
I share a lot of thoughts with the RLM re:View of Blade Runner. It seems that Ridley Scott misunderstood his creation, much like George Lucas with Star Wars. It's one of those strange times where the vision of one is much weaker than the sum of many visions amalgamated.

https://youtu.be/adjfTktpIzg

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So to summarize: you despise fans of the original Blade Runner because they so often view their own opinions as superior. And you see no irony in this. Got it.

That's very closed minded of you to say that. Because I never said this.

Probably a better way to put it is this. If you like Blade Runner AND the MCU, or at least understand why from a mainstream perspective the MCU is a work of art that stands on the same level as blade runner, then I don't despise you.

If you like Blade runner and you hate all forms of movies that are mainstream blockbusters like star wars, MCU, or all the other stuff and think those things are beneath you... then yes... in that case I despise you. I actually think you don't have the sophistication to see why mainstream cinema is just as great if not often greater then the obscure stuff.

It's easy to hate the mainstream. It's enlightenment to like the mainstream after hating it. Those elitest people are just at level 2. They don't realize there's a third level that brings you back full circle.

I would know I watched hundreds and hundreds of movies. More then your average person and I started at a very young age.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#226
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we all meaningless ants?

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.

You are right, and that's what's so brilliant about it. Deckard barely shows emotions nor connections to the world. At times it feels like his detective persona is just an act, just like his humanity could just be an act - no matter whether he is human or a knowing or not-knowing replicant.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#227
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_…

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 Métal Hurlant So, err, no. Métal 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 popul…

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like you're saying "Blade Runner wasn't an enormous influence on 40 years of sci-fi, because it also had influences and we should credit those instead." I don't think that's how it works. At worst, Blade Runner took an aesthetic that had been the domain of some relatively obscure (if excellent) comics and brought it crashing into the forefront of global pop culture.

Also, "cyberpunk itself started in the 1960s" is...pretty questionable. It was certainly heavily influenced and rooted in New Wave sci-fi of the '60s and '70s, but cyberpunk as a literary movement is very much a thing of the '80s.

In any case, New Wave sci-fi and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? were very much textual media. They were a huge influence on the themes and stories of what would become cyberpunk, not so much on the visual aesthetic.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Bu…

If you read Snow Crash before Neuromancer, you'll be bored by Neuromancer.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#229
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.

Now that I think about it, the first time I watched it, I was a little bored with it, too. It was hyped up so much that I think I was expecting something very plot-heavy that moved quickly and was mind-blowing that way.

Since that first viewing, some 20 years ago, I've watched it a few more times without those initial expectations and really love it. I love slow-paced films where you can really soak up the atmosphere. That kind of thing isn't for everyone, though, so I can see why others wouldn't enjoy it.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was going to suggest jean J.M Jarre, but hard to get the ambience of Bladerunner as its quite curated.

But as an aside, there was these synthesizer compilations in the late 80s / early 90s that introduced to my to a bunch of Synth artists. Most of them have quite a range of styles they do on synth, some quite bladerunnerish (including Vangelis). Anyways, the albums are "Synthesizer Greatest 1,2 and 3". Spotify has them as a playlists, as do most other music providers.

EDIT: also The prime thanatos streaming on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P23oE6ekwQ

Post reply on HN