421–430 of 435 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She says "put your hands on me" at the end of the scene. Her words. He didn't tell her to say that. They proceed to kiss each other, and consensual sex is then implied.
You’re telling me about yourself right now, not about the movie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone recommend some music that has the same vibe as Blade Runner's synth stuff?
Yeah, Isao Tomita and Tangerine Dream come to mind. Contemporaries of Vangelis (the composer of the soundtrack of Blade Runner) from the 70's. Very similar vibe. Jean Michel Jarre as well, though he had more of a beat. I like Morton Subotnick and the seminal album "Silver Apples of the Moon" it's more out there and experimental but it definitely it had a similar texture.
Nothing against Vangelis of course...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean the 2022 one. The 1984 one has not aged well. I'm quite the fan of the 2000 tv mini-series one though. Maybe it will rise to the levels of great sci-fi, maybe it will not, I won't judge it till I can see the complete picture. It has the correct aesthetic and the truly shiver-worthy moments are yet to come.
IMO the 2000 mini-series had great acting and actually followed the books (a rarity in today's book to TV conversions) but the low budget really killed it. Many of the desert shots were painful to watch and the sets had a very cheap vibe to them.
You're right that they couldn't afford to shoot on-location for the desert scenes so instead they painted desert landscapes and scaled them up then printed them on 40-foot-high by 200-foot-wide transparencies and put bright lights behind them to illuminate the scenes.
They don't look anything like real life but they weren't really trying for realism as much as they were trying for artistry.
I think that when you view things through that lens, what they did craft was beautiful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re telling me about yourself right now, not about the movie.
Do you also have moral dilemmas about the violent shootings, murder and other nasty things the fictional characters get up to? Or is it just the kiss that rattled you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you also have moral dilemmas about the violent shootings, murder and other nasty things the fictional characters get up to? Or is it just the kiss that rattled you?
When a movie is presenting coercive behavior as good, yes it does bother me. Yes within the story his behavior is validated - it was what she needed blah blah blah. That’s fine. But how many people were assaulted by men thinking they were deckard? It’s not zero
It's zero.
Why aren't you getting your moral radar in a spin about the numerous violent and aggressive scenes in this or any movie? The real world has a huge problem with violence and guns after all.
I presume you eat popcorn as people or replicants are shot and killed on screen, or when poetic, philosophical replicants crush the skulls of their maker humans.... but draw the line at a coercive kiss? That's when you put the popcorn down?
Fiction movies are not real-life benchmarks or instruction manuals for life. Characters are flawed, scenes shocking, stories twisted. Deckard is not Dr Richard Kimble. Deckard is a "killing machine" in a dark sci-fi movie. His pre-kiss tantrum was him as Mr Nice Guy relative to his other actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Even if not keyed, the rear projection would have worked too. Doesn't matter I guess. I didn't realise 2001 had flat screens! Good pickup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been following this thread, and you seem sincere and not trolling, so I will share with you that I think most people reading this thread can tell you are missing something big. It's OK not to understand everything, but to say you despise people who claim to understand something you don't us... actually despicable. This site is for people to discuss and learn, and curiosity is basically a core value of it. It's O…
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…
Hard and controversial opinions with no cushion are fun in person with a friend. That's not what this place is. We need more nuance in our discussions, not less. It's not as fun, but it is more constructive, and it helps us see other people's points of view instead of making it into a contest.
I will say, I have no idea how old you are, and you have no idea how old I am. But whether I am 15 or 50, my words speak for themselves, as do yours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think Jodorowsky's Dune was weird, you should see his Holy Mountain [1] Also, millions of people did a lot of drugs in that time, but there is only one Jodorowsky. Drugs alone can not explain his vision. [1] - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qmR0vi0ifzE
Yes. That's the movie the comment you responded to was talking about. Did you even read the comment before responding?
Parent obviously read the comment (which doesn't mention any particular movie in its text), but didn't follow the link, assuming it was about Dune (which was the context that started the subthread).
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm another way around: I read the book then watch the movie not long after. I slept. And everytime I try to watch it I get bored quick. I think I would have much more apreciate it, the atmosphere et all, if I hadn't read the book before. And I realy regret it because I know it's a good movie.
The book has a level emotional depth of that is not matched in the film. The first dialogue between Deckhart and his wife (yes he is married in the book) is really clever and meta. I was extremely disappointed by the film (I first saw it 2 years ago) and it feels very dated and has that 80s men-women cringe-portrayal. I agree, read the book it is awesome!
I still enjoyed both films but that aspect of them (both) really sucked.