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

191–200 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#191

Post by thombat »

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".

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#193

Post by tootie »

davesque wrote: post #16

Calling it the "greatest of all time" seems like a total exaggeration. That being said, I've found it interesting that a film that in many ways seems so dated manages to have such a hypnotic effect on me every time I watch it. I think it's just one of Ridley Scott's directorial gifts that he manages to conjure up such an infectious mood in so many of his films. Of course, the other example is Alien . I definitely lov…

I don't think you can ever call anything the greatest ever. It's subjective and you can't make an apples to apples comparison when it comes to art. Blade Runner was brilliant. So was 2001, Star Wars, Star Trek, Contact. All brilliant in different ways.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#194

Post by forgetfulness »

dm8 wrote: post #52

Blade Runner is one of those movies that gets better every time you watch. First time I watched it, I was thoroughly bored. But over the years I seem to appreciate the deeper meaning under it. It tries to present some fundamental questions - "what separates humans from robot/AI?, Is it the act of humans giving birth to other humans or feelings or deeds?, Is robot/AI superior to human or vice a versa?" For those who f…

The strongest point of the movie was really the question of what makes us human. Given that it's stated that Rachael was a replicant, there's the contrast of her character with that of Deckard, who we are led to believe is human.

Rachael, being a human creation, is made to embody what we think makes us unique and precious, the best version of ourselves we could think of. A worthy successor even.

The tension with Deckard is that you have to question if his, say, minimalist expression of those qualities disqualify him as human, even though we know well enough that he's perfectly within the range of human expression in reality, and you would only doubt his humanity in light of the existence of artificial humans who visibly display a greater, more intense range of the human experience than him. Not that they have a choice, either.

Of course then comes the filmmaker to state his intention with it, which takes away the mystique, but eh the artist having a more boring opinion on a work than the people who enjoy it is something that has been quipped about since antiquity.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#196

Post by fullshark »

rainworld wrote: post #158

As for The Question, I believe there is a fairly unambiguous answer... http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2011/10/1/a-matter-of-el...

When I first got really into Blade Runner, having first seen the original director's cut, I enjoyed the question as a puzzle to be solved. Really got into fan theories online and the unicorn dream was the smoking gun, and wasn't that so clever! So cool.

Then I read a compelling essay online (that I can no longer find) that pointed out the entire film's thematic weight only exists if the opposite holds. I also saw the original theatrical cut and read interviews with the screenwriter and Harrison Ford and it became clear that the unicorn dream was basically a retcon by Ridley Scott and it really makes no sense for it to be there. So my version of Blade Runner is basically the final cut without the unicorn dream, that is a perfect film, ambiguous without that "smoking gun."

(don't worry I read your essay...and now THAT is a fan theory)

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#197

Post by GekkePrutser »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #148
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.

Personally I find Spaceballs to be much more memorable.

Me too, I can almost quote the movie.

But I wouldn't call it 'great'. A great movie has some weight to it, it establishes a world, has a deeper story. It's original and exceptionally well executed.

Spaceballs was great fun, good gags but it was still a parody lifting on the success of star wars. Without star wars it would not have been very funny at all.

Fun and entertaining and great are not necessarily the same IMO.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#198

Post by digitallyfree »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #55
ur-whale wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe Dune I don't think Dune, the 2022 version will make it to the heights Blade Runner is at. There are some scenes that give you Blade Runner level shivers (e.g. the Sardaukar assembly on Salusa Secundus), but they're few and far between. And if you meant the original Dune ... nah, it certainly hasn't aged as well as BR.

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.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#199

Post by Terretta »

deltaonefour wrote: post #95
duxup wrote: post #19

I hated that movie the first to I saw it. I was bored with it. Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very real and has depth. I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with no idea how to end.

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…

> comprehend why Blade runner even has the possibility of being boring then I'm likely too stupid to be communicating with you

Step away from the sugar drinks and try a digital detox. :-)

People paid to see Vangelis sound and light shows, when there wasn’t even a movie rolling. Surely with a movie attached, the sound and light isn’t that dull?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31437226

Buried in that thread is a pushback to your premise about MCU, a video that actually excerpts from Inception while taking down those “MCU scores” (pun intended) in particular.

Nobody can hum from Marvel movies because they play it safe (aka boring)!

https://youtu.be/7vfqkvwW2fs

I appreciated a quote from that discussion, tying back to your hypothesis: “People do not remember safe choices. Only bold, original music.”

Blade Runner wasn’t safe, though they almost ruined it with the release voice overs trying to make it safer…

Interestingly if you go down the rabbit hole, a reply video to that one points out the Star Wars theme everyone remembers was “copied to hell” from countless old movies before it. That response goes on to say the problem is, roughly, digital production sameness.

> there is absolute truth to the statement when someone says that movie is in general quite slow and boring

Well, no. Boredom comes from within. When you have too many thoughts, or too few, to focus, boredom happens.

Blade Runner is an experience, the pacing makes room to take it in. If you don’t open your mind to take it in, if your mind wanders off, or loses the plot, you will miss the excitement that builds from an authentic experience.

> Bladerunner is so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi stuff get copied to hell

This line suddenly makes me wonder if you were just messing with us. Hmm.

Instead of engaging, here’s a bite sized listicle: How to Be Less Boring and Less Bored.

TL;DR: Lay off virtual sugar, digitally detox, open the mind…

    - appreciate interestingness
    - hang out with geeks
    - enjoy quietude
    - get out of a rut
    - read long form
    - try three things you’d never, three times each
    - regain a sense of wonder
And remember, “Boring is as boring does!”

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#200

Post by colordrops »

symlinkk wrote: post #189
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.

So what does the ending mean then?

He made it all the way to Jupiter, and figured he might as well check out the monolith despite the disaster of the mission so far. He took the pod to check it out. He was then taken through a portal in the monolith to the home system of the aliens that created the monolith. There, he was put in a simulation as best as could be created based on TV signals from earth. The simulation was of a hotel room in a particular TV show. The alien machinery then downloaded his mind, hence the aging sequence. He was then inserted into the substrate of spacetime, allowing him to move around the galaxy like an omnipotent god. He decided to go back to earth to help out humanity, but he was still very new to this upgrade, so he was like a baby, hence the fetus over earth, which was just metaphorical. His upgrade was the next step for humanity, just as the upgrade for the man-apes was, giving them the ability to use tools.

This was all explained in very plain English in the book.

Post reply on HN