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

261–270 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#261

Post by LegitShady »

kirevmaco wrote: post #245

"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 entit…

oof. niw i have to reread the book and watch the movie again to figure out the story from this narrative perspective.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#262

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

kirevmaco wrote: post #245

"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 entit…

>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

Are we sure that there aren’t a lot of replicants walking around already?

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#263

Post by 8bitsrule »

If you can find a copy 'out there', [2] the 1980 film version [1] of LeGuin's novel 'The Lathe of Heaven' has something of the BR 'feel' to it. (Made by WNET it was aired on many PBS stations at the time.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lathe_of_Heaven_(film)

Interesting trivia: that Dick and LeGuin both graduated from the same Berkeley High School in 1947.

[2]Edit: of course [480p largest] ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VRbaVNvSA

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#264

Post by kirevmaco »

mhh__ wrote: post #247
tingol wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I saw 2049 when it came out. I didn't like the original film much but of course was still curious about the sequel since I liked the original novel.

One problem I have with both these movies is that the whole "memories" thing doesn't have anything to do with the point the original novel was making. The main point of the original novel is that the replicants are fake human beings which are not only deplorable due to their lack of empathy but are also rather dangerous, and that real human beings will likely become dehumanized ourselves in our eventual efforts to eradicate them. I'm paraphrasing Dick in that last sentence but you can hear the more full version in this interview: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=3d7XMnmPgUk

Anyway, I agree that 2049 has more of a plot than the original, but I lost most of my interest in the movie as soon as I realized that the main character was a replicant (which unfortunately happened pretty early on). Great cinematography though.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#265

Post by [deleted] »

CyanBird wrote: post #105
nico wrote: 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.

Yeah, it is thanks to these two movies that modern scifi and its visual development side of things exists basically

[deleted]

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#266

Post by colordrops »

kirevmaco wrote: post #258
colordrops wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly glad Kubrick didn't go with Clarke's narration. Kubrick was a filmmaker and Clarke was a writer. While abstract and nearly impossible to understand without the book, the movie and book work amazingly well together as a unit. With concrete first order explanation at the end the sense of profundity wouldn't have been there. The aliens and their machines are vastly beyond human comprehension, and the arc of…

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Probably you could tell from the tone of my comment, but I don't like the movie the way it is. I agree with you that the movie and the book work well together but I wish the movie worked as a standalone piece of art. I think Kubrick and Clarke could have perhaps found a compromise. For example, I remember liking the ending part of the movie "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" by Spielberg…

Yeah I'm not hard headed about it and get that it's not for everyone. I'd be open to other possibilities for how the ending was handled. I definitely don't think direct narration would have worked though. The voiceovers in the theatrical cut of Blade Runner are almost universally disliked. Some less subtle hints like you say could have worked.

I thought Spielberg ruined AI btw. But that's a different topic. I thought the final scene was the only good one in the movie. The imagery and implications stuck with me for decades.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#267

Post by aemreunal »

colordrops wrote: post #90
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending. Kubrick was no doubt a genius and mystery is a part of storytelling, the entirety of Eyes Wide Shut leaves so much room for mystique and interpretation that we can debate and discuss it forever but I did not find similar in the ending of 2001, it seemed like confusion for confusions sake with little deeper meaning.

Arthur C Clarke is one of the greatest sci fi authors of all time and wrote the book in conjunction with the movie with Stanley Kubrick. They are meant to be consumed together. Read the book and the movie makes a lot more sense. There is virtually zero ambiguity if you read the book.

Came here to say this. The book is fantastic in itself too and I view the movie more as a "visualization of the parts that Kubrick found the most interesting". I see those two as slightly different art pieces and love them both. The second book was also great but I think it lost a bit of what made 2001 special by the 3rd and 4th books.

The books are actually quite easy to read and as much as I adore the movie of 2001, I think the book's ending is even more visually spectacular. Highly highly recommended.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#268

Post by majormajor »

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_…

Even without leaving Scott, Alien seems to have been at least as visually influential as Blade Runner. Plus of course Star Wars and Star Trek...

Blade Runner is fairly distinctive even today (outside of Cyberpunk, most other post-82 sci fi that I can think of is definitely more influenced by other things) which IMO is a sign that it isn't as universally influential as other 70s/80s sci-fi films.

Off the top of my head, do any of BSG, Babylon 5, Mass Effect, Jurassic Park, Inception, Terminator, The Expanse, Interstellar, Independence Day, or The Matrix have particularly strong ties to Blade Runner's aesthetic compared to their ties to other early film sci-fi?

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#269

Post by aemreunal »

jerrysievert wrote: post #58
AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

brazil delicatessen both very deep and dark in similar genres: dystopian future.

If you like Brazil, I would also recommend The Zero Theorem. It's sort of a spiritual successor to Brazil AFAIK. It's maybe not as memorable and iconic as Brazil, though, but worth at least one watch.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#270

Post by ethbr0 »

deltaonezero wrote: post #225
sonofhans wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, o…

A quality that makes a film commercially successful is not automatically a quality which makes a film great art.

They're two independent concepts.

So to weight popular success in any sense when deciding artist merit is a mistake.

Popular is popular. Art is art. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Post reply on HN