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

231–240 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#231

Post by the_gipsy »

ffhhj wrote: post #162
the_gipsy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't we all meaningless ants?

I mean we could replace Deckard with a pizza delivery guy, or even a camera drone, and the story won't change a lot. Try changing Neo in Matrix, Dave on Space Odyssey. And there's nothing wrong, the main character is the spectator, which makes it a more deeply philosophical movie, the replicant captcha is performed on the viewer. "What's meaningful" the movie asks.

Stalker gave me that exact same feeling of, as spectator, being tricked into being the protagonist.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#232

Post by kortex »

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…

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 better in my opinion. There's a continuous forward drive.

De-emphasizing pacing is just as bad as de-emphasizing any other important facet of cinema. But we have this dichotomy that action is "cheap" and not as "smart", because it has wider appeal.

I think neurotype plays a lot into this. I have ADHD, and the snobby cousin comment about "digital detox" is exactly the elitist garbage that rubs me the wrong way. It attaches value to "not being bored" as if that's something I have control over.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#233

Post by stavros »

jmyeet wrote: post #9

I am one of the 11 people on Earth that hates coffee. "Hate" isn't strong enough. Even "despises" I'm not sure goes far enough. It tastes disgusting to me. I can't even stand the smell. This has led me at times to wonder if I'm crazy or if everyone else is. I do notice a ton of people consume a ton of sugar in their coffee so it seems like many don't really like coffee. They like sugar. But I digresss. I have the sam…

I will join you in your coffee hate. Can't even stand it in pastries.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#235

Post by kortex »

Terretta wrote: post #199
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…

> 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 p…

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

> 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!”

This is all rather patronizing and has some major wowthanksimcured vibes. Yes, I can overcome the nonlinearity of the response of my dopamine receptors by simply laying off "virtual sugar" and doing a "digital detox".

Bottom line: different people have different neurotypes, and folks are allowed to be bored or stimulated to various degrees by whatever media, without attaching value to how easily one is entertained, or not.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#237

Post by deltaonezero »

justin66 wrote: post #120
deltaonefour wrote: post #43

Blade runner isn't even that good, thematically. But I get why it's considered the best. It's because in most sci-fi movies a lot of effort is spent on the setting and thus the story while many times is good, often lacks the depth of their non-fiction counter-parts. Bladerunner is one of the few movies that has blockbuster level visuals while maintaining a very serious story with a lot of depth. Gattaca is another sc…

Nothing against Andrew Niccol, who wrote and directed Gattaca, but the same film with the same actors, directed by Ridley Scott, is really something to contemplate.

Ridley Scott isn't a director that just does contemplative movies all the time. A lot of his stuff flat out just average (Prometheus for example) and he even does raw action blockbusters like gladiator that are very far away from being as thematically engaging as BR.

If ridley scott did Gattaca, there'd definitely be more of a budget on the sci-fi setting. It'd be more grounded and gritty with less of an 80s aesthetic.

As for whether it'd be as good as Andrew Niccols' version well... that's hard to say given Scotts hit or miss track record.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#238

Post by LeoPanthera »

candiddevmike wrote: post #150
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_…

Can anyone recommend some music that has the same vibe as Blade Runner's synth stuff?

If "more Blade Runner" would suffice, there's a bootleg soundtrack available in all your favorite piratey places that includes virtually all the music from the movie, most of which never made it onto any official soundtrack.

Things you might look for are "Esper" or "Retirement" edition.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#239

Post by gravelc »

HorizonXP wrote: post #14
jmyeet wrote: post #9

I am one of the 11 people on Earth that hates coffee. "Hate" isn't strong enough. Even "despises" I'm not sure goes far enough. It tastes disgusting to me. I can't even stand the smell. This has led me at times to wonder if I'm crazy or if everyone else is. I do notice a ton of people consume a ton of sugar in their coffee so it seems like many don't really like coffee. They like sugar. But I digresss. I have the sam…

I have to ask then, what films do you like better than Interstellar?

Arrival, BR2042, Dune Pt 1. I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#240

Post by JKCalhoun »

anigbrowl wrote: post #211
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.

That's because Deckard is lying to her (poorly). Remember, he's not that good of a detective. They use him because he's willing to do dirty work and is expendable.

It feels like he's not that good of an actor, frankly.
Post reply on HN