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

241–250 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#241

Post by jakemauer »

magicalhippo wrote: post #142
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

I will second Annihilation, I think it's incredible.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#242

Post by atwood22 »

CyanBird wrote: post #132
Retric wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 jodorowsk…

Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake seems to derive very little from classic science fiction. Perhaps this is because she’s a woman, and thus less drawn to teenage male fantasies like those found in Dune.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#243

Post by cgriswald »

aresant wrote: 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_…

I especially like how his cityscapes tend to show a skyline that would be familiar to anyone living in the last century, and then absolutely dwarf that skyline with megastructures, which themselves don't look particularly alien, just beyond our abilities. It's not hard to imagine those structures existing with (sci-fi level) advances in materials and construction techniques.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#244

Post by muro »

colordrops wrote: post #200
symlinkk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what does the ending mean then?

He made it all the way to Jupiter, and figured he might as well check out the monolith despite the disaster of the mission so far. He took the pod to check it out. He was then taken through a portal in the monolith to the home system of the aliens that created the monolith. There, he was put in a simulation as best as could be created based on TV signals from earth. The simulation was of a hotel room in a particular…

Wow. That's not at all what the movie did. Replacing the ending with "now go read the book" would have worked better

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#245

Post by kirevmaco »

"The main difference between what Ridley views this all in terms of and what I view it all in terms of is as follows. To me, the replicants (or androids, if you will) are deplorable because [inaudible] they are cold, they are selfish, they are heartless, they are completely self-centered, they have no empathy, they don't care about what happens to other creatures, and to me this is essentially a less-than-human entity for that reason. Now, Ridley said that he regarded them as supermen who couldn't fly. He said they are smarter than humans, they are stronger than humans, and they have faster reflexes than humans. Well, then I said 'well, gee Ridley, I mean, holy smokes, uh, golly,' and that was about all I could think of to say, you know. That's rather a great divergence, you see: we've gone from somebody who is a simulation of the authentic human to somebody who is literally superior to the authentic human. So we've now flipped all the cards on the table, you see, when we do that: in other words, all the cards that were up are now down and all the ones that were down are now up. And I was at a loss at that point, you know, to respond, I mean. I said, 'okay, now the theme of the book is that Rick Deckard is dehumanized in his job of tracking down the replicants and killing them, that in other words he winds up essentially like they are.' And Ridley said that he regarded that as an intellectual idea and he was not interested in making an esoteric film."

-- Philip K. Dick, interview with Paul M. Sammon (https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=3d7XMnmPgUk starting at 19:10)

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#246

Post by mhh__ »

fullshark wrote: post #201
mhh__ wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that was more of a nod to the writer's and I assume director's respect for but disagreement with Ridley Scott's thesis.

They don't actually think Deckard is a replicant, but they're more than happy to channel the idea of him being a replicant, but it's through Gaff where it can either come across as subtle misdirection, a hint to a wayward soul (K), or just playing tricks on someone that presumably took over his job - "something in his eyes".

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#247

Post by mhh__ »

tingol wrote: post #186
mhh__ wrote: post #94

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.

2049 did so many things well (great visuals, great acting, waaaay better love story, better detecting!), but the main story sucked so much. The messianic human/replicant hybrid and the foreshadowed uprising seemed so cheap. The original asked hard questions that's why it's still talked about, the sequel took it away and answered it itself and quite poorly IMO.

I thought the story was fine. Blade Runner's story honestly isn't all that good, the concept of the memories and K's self-discovery is arguably better than the original if you imagine that the original barely has a story as per se (but does have a better defined set of plot-beats).

2049 feels like it asks less questions, but wait until we have better AI in 10 years and watch how prescient including Joi rather than a new replicant character is.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#248

Post by mhh__ »

aresant wrote: 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_…

I will likely never have the talent to do so, unless I retire early, but assuming I do retire (the way the UK is going you never know eh, maybe by 77) or just have some spare time and money I'd love to have some reconstructed miniatures of scenes from blade runner.

I guess someone has probably done this already, but I've never been able to find anything with first-order googling at least.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#249

Post by LegitShady »

deltaonezero wrote: post #208
LegitShady wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

midichloreans didn't exist in star wars cannon until 2007 in a 'making of' book - star wars was conceived without midichloreans and were retconned in later.

Lucas in 1981 said being a jedi was like doing yoga - anyone can do it, but only people who work at it get good. see the citation here:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian#cite_note-The...

The story of star wars is a fantasy story complete with magic. You can shift the entire thing to ancient china and adjust all the set pieces for the time and it would still work.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep started as speculative fiction and is still speculative fiction after its transition to the screen.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#250

Post by _carbyau_ »

JSavageOne wrote: post #183
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.

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 i…

Obviously not a mind blowing suggestion and cinemaphiles will recoil at the idea but have you tried watching it at 1.5 speed?

I watch some stuff like this because while the Directors vision might require 3 breaths to get the point across I am happy to accept the premise being suggested in 3 seconds. Cinema is a communication medium, not a recreation or simulation of events.

Post reply on HN