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

411–420 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#411

Post by xsmasher »

exodust wrote: post #324
cowmix wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason I give people like you a pass on hating on Blade Runner is I, personally, can't stand The Matrix -- which has made me a pariah with my peer group for over 20 years now.

I liked Blade Runner, but one thing that bothered me was the lack of flat screen technology. All the screens are CRT, even the ones in the vehicles. You'd think the artists in the 80's would have easily imagined flat screens would exist in the near future. Chroma keying a flat square should have been a trivial effect.

Chroma keying was nontrivial at the time. Once you are processing the shot it is now an "effects shot" and you've got a budget to stick to.

Interestingly enough, the screens in the film 2001 were all flat - because they were rear projection screens, with film or slides projected onto them.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#412

Post by deltaonefour »

ethbr0 wrote: post #382
mos_basik wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's referring to a painting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images I'm not art critic enough to know even half of what's been written about the meaning of this painting, but I know that it's considered significant, and I immediately recognized the reference. Can't speak for him, but I guess the reason for including it may have been as an example of a work that was decidedly not Popular but (after m…

The Treachery of Images , as I understand it, is a visual/linguistic joke on the multiple definitions of being. By distilling language down to a most basic, simplified statement, the artist (Magritte) is seducing the viewer into a first impression ("This is a pipe") and then contradicting it, on the basis that a picture of a pipe cannot be used for anything which a pipe can (e.g. smoking). So yes, similar lines to th…

See this here with more French when I obviously called you on it is called trolling.

Nobody look up that French or ask about it... it's a trap so he can lord it over you with an authoritative expose and explanation of his expansive knowledge of French wisdom while eating a croissant.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#413

Post by deltaonefour »

EricE wrote: post #407
deltaonefour wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro. I'm older then you. Lol. Your very narrow minded to assume that just because someone has a different opinion then you it's from a person younger then you. In fact talking to someone in such a patronizing tone isnt itself exactly the overly polite tone dang seems to ask for from users on HN. I offer hard controversial opinions with no cushion, you treat me like a child lol. We are both bending the rules here. If…

"I'm older then you." But apparently not more mature.

If you were mature, you wouldn't insult people and call them immature lol.

Maturity isn't even a legit concept. People are all very different. The word immaturity more or less is used here as venom. Direct insults.

So why do you want to insult me? Why flagrantly violate the rules of HN if your so mature?

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#414

Post by deltaonefour »

Terretta wrote: post #408
deltaonezero wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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…

Great. Then you're not the elitist group I'm referring too. I'm basically talking about the difference between MCU style blockbusters and br. The pacing is a huge delta.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#415

Post by jdmoreira »

sandworm101 wrote: post #360
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.

Dune is unmakable. Always will be. It is the definitive book that is too big for the screen. The story and themes are too vast. Adaptations can be good, be entertaining, but every one is a shallow attempt at the impossible.

You should read BotNS That's an unmakable book.

Also one of the best experiences of my life for sure. But I did it by following an podcast chapter by chapter analysis (Alzabo Soup)

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#416

Post by walrus01 »

mdp2021 wrote: post #351
walrus01 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

He deplored with disgust that he sometimes had to work with "junkies" - so, they were frequent.

I think it's not uncommon for recreational psychedelic users to have a disdain and aversion to actual junkies, if using the 1970s sense of the word, would literally mean heroin addicts. Big dividing line between the two sorts of drug users.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#417

Post by xsmasher »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #4

Mind-blowing art-direction/set-decorating/costumes when it came out. I have to make an excuse to get up though when Harrison Ford tries to play a nerdy fan in the Zhora character's dressing room. So bad.

I love it when an actor has to play at being a bad actor. It really highlights their craft.

Harrison Ford is a great actor, Deckard is not. It's Deckard that is failing to be convincing in that scene, not Ford.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#418

Post by mdp2021 »

walrus01 wrote: post #416
mdp2021 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He deplored with disgust that he sometimes had to work with "junkies" - so, they were frequent.

I think it's not uncommon for recreational psychedelic users to have a disdain and aversion to actual junkies , if using the 1970s sense of the word, would literally mean heroin addicts. Big dividing line between the two sorts of drug users.

I cannot remember if he used 'junkie' or 'drogado' or other terms when referring to those actors that had been a dangerous nuisance in the filming process. Surely he was fuming and rightly, commonsensically contemptuous remembering the episodes (one almost killed him and left scars).

Whatever the drug, it is the exact opposite of what that work stands for. The "sleeping intoxicated bum" is the very beginning.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#419

Post by mdp2021 »

xtian wrote: post #300
walrus01 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Jodorowsky has said he’s only taken psychedelics once. There’s also overt criticism of drug use and dependence throughout his body of work, including in Holy Mountain itself, so that seems like a self-limiting conclusion to come to.

> only taken psychedelics once

And said that it was the experience of limitation and impotence - "what if I now had to react in front of an emergency".

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#420

Post by mdp2021 »

walrus01 wrote: post #165
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.

> 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)

By the way: the very author of "Golden Brown" stated that creativity is an effect of lucidity - intoxication limits it.

"Golden Brown" is a riddle: how many individuals may have thought (as the original poster supposes) that it takes «lot of drugs» to compose it?

(Of course, "riddles", "artistic work" and "non-literal descriptions" remain distinct. Though for all of them, in general, if you have to suppose a reduction to "fantasies" you probably have not understood them.)

Post reply on HN