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

271–280 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#271

Post by colordrops »

aemreunal wrote: post #267
colordrops wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 believe the ending had more abstract inverted color visuals, as special effects at the time we're not capable of depicting what Clarke described. I agree, I would have loved to see the scenes in the book.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#272

Post by deltaonefour »

kortex wrote: post #232
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…

Excellent comment. Makes me feel "less guilty" for being bored to bits by Blade Runner (and 2001, similarly). I "feel guilty" because I consider myself a big sci fi fan, and while they are visually brilliant movies, they just drag ass. I have see why they are widely acclaimed in concept, but also felt like I was not not "getting" something. The new Dune is long, dense, cerebral, visually brilliant, but is paced way b…

Remember, it's "elitist" because the people who think this way are in the minority. Your and my preferences are actually the norm, just not in this thread. Most people will get bored and that is completely normal.

Although I will say that I can empathize with why people like blade runner. The good parts are good, but the mainstream audience just places a higher bar on pacing.

I also suspect that many people in the "elitist" group also get bored. They just don't admit it.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#273

Post by LegitShady »

deltaonezero wrote: post #260
LegitShady wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

I wrote this piece in response to your comment: https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/is-star-wars-science-f... Just kidding, but it's equivalent to what I would've wrote. >You can shift the entire thing to ancient china and adjust all the set pieces for the time and it would still work. Bro, I'm chinese. Ancient China is neither Fantasy or Sci-Fi. It's a whole different genre called Wuxia. Fantasy and wuxia are not…

>Somewhere, someone is rolling their eyes because they are saying my entire argument for proving that Star Wars is science fiction is based on the fact that populism changed the definition of science fiction because of Star Wars. And to that eye-roller, I'd like to just say: That's exactly what I'm saying.

Ya, but he's wrong. It's like a library putting a fiction book in the non fiction, and because its popular, redefining non fiction because the fiction book is popular. He's got an opinion, and I disagree, and we're equally valid.

>Bro, I'm chinese. Ancient China is neither Fantasy or Sci-Fi. It's a whole different genre called Wuxia. Fantasy and wuxia are not compatible.

That's not an argument, that's a conclusion without any supporting arguments. Dismissed as nonsense as easily as posited without effort.

By your arguments if it got popular it would redefine wuxia and now wuxia would include it.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#274

Post by what-imright »

Bladerunner was great and the sequel was also enjoyable.

but you know, these 80 sequels that have their characters stop and watch clips of the original movie are in the worst possible taste. it’s an admission that the current generation of directors are unable to compete w the former. this generation appears to be very much living in the shadows and riding the coattails of the last. it’s sad. I was expecting some off the wall novelty. for the most part, it’s CGI vomit with a regurgitated plot on the side

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#275

Post by kirevmaco »

colordrops wrote: post #266
kirevmaco wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with everything in your comment, including about AI. The last 30 minutes of that movie amazed me but I didn't like much of what came before that.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#276

Post by deltaonefour »

ethbr0 wrote: post #270
deltaonezero wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Agreed? Why are you telling me something I completely agree with?

>Popular is popular. Art is art.

The problem here is that for people like you, most of the time:

"Popular is NOT art",

it's this elitist attitude that "art" is above what is "popular" that I hate. We divide wealth into classes and now we have to divide tastes. Looks like your part of the 1%.

>Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

May I ask why you decided to write some stuff in French for no fucking reason? Pretty low likelihood that I'm French or readers on HN are French so what's your goal here with putting some French here?

It's like a cartoon. You're not trying to sound elitist but your genius French kinda shows the world how elitist your headspace is. Wow French!, we're dealing with a true art critic here folks.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#277

Post by hodgesrm »

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…

Good quote. For me what distinguishes the film and makes it better than the original story is exactly the elevation of the replicants into fully sentient beings. Batty started out as a grifter in the original and became the center of the story in Ridley Scott's film.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#278

Post by hodgesrm »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #62
muro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "ages" jumping weirdness just ruined it, IMHO. Beautiful middle part, though.

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.

> Beautiful opening, great story in the middle, utterly incomprehensible ending.

I'm really glad to read this. Kubrick really lost me at the end. I thought I was just not getting it. The first 2/3s though are as good as any film I've ever seen.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#279

Post by deltaonefour »

LegitShady wrote: post #273
deltaonezero wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this piece in response to your comment: https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/is-star-wars-science-f... Just kidding, but it's equivalent to what I would've wrote. >You can shift the entire thing to ancient china and adjust all the set pieces for the time and it would still work. Bro, I'm chinese. Ancient China is neither Fantasy or Sci-Fi. It's a whole different genre called Wuxia. Fantasy and wuxia are not…

>Somewhere, someone is rolling their eyes because they are saying my entire argument for proving that Star Wars is science fiction is based on the fact that populism changed the definition of science fiction because of Star Wars. And to that eye-roller, I'd like to just say: That's exactly what I'm saying. Ya, but he's wrong. It's like a library putting a fiction book in the non fiction, and because its popular, rede…

>That's not an argument, that's a conclusion without any supporting arguments. Dismissed as nonsense as easily as posited without effort.

This is HN not nature. It's not a scientific debtate, just a general conversation so the level of proof is not super high.

You just have to trust me that I'm born in China, and Fantasy is not Wuxia. Just like you would have to trust a black person when he says he's not white. Don't go calling a black person white and don't go around saying you can move fucking star wars into Ancient China to a Chinese person who knows the culture and the genre.

Actually don't listen to me. Go ahead and say whatever you want to people. When a black person tells you he's not white, demand a scientific inquiry to prove he's black.

Either way agree to disagree. I think star wars if sci-fi. You don't.

But I will say, if you ask most people, most people will say star wars is sci-fi. At least we can agree on that point.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#280

Post by cmrdporcupine »

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 tried to impress my 11 year old with the opening sequence; flames belching over LA, Vangelis, etc. -- which I've always found aesthetically stunning.

He was not impressed. This made me sad.

Post reply on HN