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

311–320 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#311

Post by rajman187 »

nico wrote: post #91
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_…

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.

It must be crazy for Jodorowsky to see how his concept art defined so much of space sci fi , at least this was the angle presented in the documentary. But imagine the treasure trove George Lucas must have come across

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#312

Post by munch117 »

scott_s wrote: post #253
munch117 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BR that I watched was more that an atmospheric sci-fi flic. It was an epic parable of the human condition. In the beginning it juxtaposes humans and replicants, but what you're supposed to realise along the way is that the life of a replicant is just an accelerated version of a human life: However long or short a lease on life you have been given, the common factor is that it is limited, and what matters is not w…

In the sequel, Deckard is human. I feel it reinforces your take on the first.

I'm glad to hear it. I may watch the sequel now. Maybe the rumors I heard was an intentional mislead.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#313

Post by Jaruzel »

what-imright wrote: post #274

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…

Don't forget the 3 'prequel' shorts, plus the Black Lotus anime series.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#314

Post by jahnu »

majormajor wrote: post #268
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 hea…

And of course Alien got a few things from Dark Star

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_(film)

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/looking-back-at-john-carpen...

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#315

Post by lbrito »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #262
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?

Some political currents would wear those adjectives as a badge of honor.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#316

Post by [deleted] »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #254
samstave wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Neuromancer! although the movie is 1982 and the book is 1984 - I put these two together as the founding fathers of cyberpunk entertainment, albeit the FATHER of Cyberpunk is PK Dick... BR created the visual dystopian cyberpunk world of the future without focusing on internet/online things... Neuromancer changed and set the tone for the internet to come. The thing is, that at 47, MANY MANY MANY of my contemporarie…

It is a curious thing that science fiction and science-that-comes-to-pass influence each other. This is why I like the idea of solarpunk. And yet, cyberpunk brings conflict/struggle which makes it interesting. Solarpunk so far seems like a boring utopian dream. While I'd rather that in my future, it won't sell or interest people.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#317

Post by gambiting »

thombat wrote: post #191
gambiting wrote: post #169

I was bored with it when I first saw it, I'm still bored with it having seen it again recently. It's just so....full of itself. Like oh my god, you think you're trying to say something deep and meaningful, but you really aren't. The cinematography is still incredible and the film deserves all the praise in that department. But the whole philosophical argument being made there has the depth of a teaspoon. I just laugh…

I guess the movie did fail, if by the end you're thinking of Roy as "the villain".

Sorry maybe the better word for him is the antagonist.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#318

Post by kirevmaco »

willis936 wrote: post #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

Thanks for posting that, it was hilarious. I'll definitely re-watch the part where they're quoting him directly again when I need a good laugh.

I wouldn't say he misunderstood his creation, I would rather say that he didn't care about the source material and made something different, with themes that weren't really thought through too well. I agree that the sum of the visions amalgamated is better than the vision of the director in this case.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#319

Post by high_5 »

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…

Wow, this pretty much sums the modern post(trans?)-human worldview. Old world meets the new world.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#320

Post by deltaonezero »

Apocryphon wrote: post #302
deltaonezero wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. The problem is the majority of the population has the exact same taste I'm talking about. Everyone loves summer blockbusters while Bladerunner is a niche. So am I rationalizing something or am I trying to explain something to a stubborn elitist minority? I think we're both intelligent enough to know that the later reason is the actual reality and that I'm not the one actually rationalizing things. Top Gun just…

Top Gun Maverick’s pacing, while nowhere as meandering as its ‘80s predecessor, was actually not frenetic until perhaps the terminal velocity climax. It’s a very character-based film, not only a special effects extravaganza. It harkens to a slightly older type of action flick.

I'm just reusing the other guys' terminology. In general I'm just talking about the pacing of blockbusters, and the guy said I'm rationalizing really bad movies with "frenetic" pacing.

I think your definition of frenetic is different from his. When he's talking about frenetic, he's talking about the new Top Gun and MCU blockbusters and such and such. He thinks that level of momentum is bad and too way too quick, which is a deviant opinion from most of the general audience who loves these blockbusters.

Post reply on HN