Blade Runner opinions...

Dublin_Andy

Harrison Ford is one of my favorite actors, mainly because ive always been a massive fan of the Indiana Jones trilogy (not the 4th one. it was a terrible movie, couldnt believe how bad it was), since i was a kid.

Blade Runner is an interesting concept and probably well ahead of its time in 1982. but was anybody else disappointed with the ending?? i thought it was one big anti-climax...

Nevyn

No, it's sodding awesome. Seriously you must have missed some of the story.

mike65

KILL THE OP!

Okay I've calmed down now.

leeroybrown

Which particular cut/ending?

For me it's a classic. I first saw it in the form of the original director's cut in the early 90's and haven't watched it in years. I must watch the final cut at some stage. It's probably aged a little but to me it'll always be a great film.

(Funnily, I even have the soundtrack on my MP3 player at the moment...)

eagle eye

OMG how could you be disappointed with anything in this movie?

Das Kitty

As leeroy said, which ending did you see? I thought the original theatrical release ending was a bit pantaloons too to be honest (but it now has a place in my heart!).

My hubby and I saw the Final Cut when it was on Limited Release in New York a year and a half ago, it was in a cinema not unlike one of the buildings in the film itself. The only thing I had against it is that it takes away some of the wondering if you think what is going on actually is by adding a CGI effect to some of the character's eyes.

I've also read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which is fab.
Anyone have the PC game back in the day?

What I love about all the different media based on the book is that you can experience them in any order because the stories are different, just set in the same world, so it adds so many layers of wonderfulness.

Definitely one of my most favourite films.

deathstarkiller

Fantastic movie. I even purposely leave a few years in between watching it so it's like an event for me. I always have to decide then what version to watch. I grew up loving the 80's version with the narration. I know the narration wasn't great and both the director and Ford didn't want it but most detective movies have the detective doing one and that always made it feel more like a detective movie. Did I say detective too many times in that sentence? Detective! On the other hand the ending is much better in the 90's cut. Always a dilemma for me.
I always found Rutger Hauers' final words to be both beautiful and heart breaking. Am I weird?

JCos

Das Kitty wrote: »

As leeroy said, which ending did you see? I thought the original theatrical release ending was a bit pantaloons too to be honest (but it now has a place in my heart!).

My hubby and I saw the Final Cut when it was on Limited Release in New York a year and a half ago, it was in a cinema not unlike one of the buildings in the film itself. The only thing I had against it is that it takes away some of the wondering if you think what is going on actually is by adding a CGI effect to some of the character's eyes.

I've also read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which is fab.
Anyone have the PC game back in the day?

What I love about all the different media based on the book is that you can experience them in any order because the stories are different, just set in the same world, so it adds so many layers of wonderfulness.

Definitely one of my most favourite films.

I came into this thread specifically to mention the PC game. My favourite game of all time. I'd love to still have my copy of it. so far ahead of it's time.

Das Kitty

JCos wrote: »

I came into this thread specifically to mention the PC game. My favourite game of all time. I'd love to still have my copy of it. so far ahead of it's time.

"I know who I know and I know who I don't know. I don't know her."
*knocks over cauldron of soup*

JCos

haha nostalgiafest

Running Bing

I loved the style and look of the film but I admit it left me slightly disappointed too. I felt it was badly paced and dull in places.

Of course its always difficult to watch a film thats been built up so much and have it live up to hype.....Taxi Driver, Godfather, Raging Bull, Apocalypse now and amongst my favourite films now but I wasnt blown away on first viewing by any of them.

I really want to see Blade Runner again and even though Im saying I was disappointed by it and I certainly didnt love it I have a feeling that its a film that will get better with each viewing.

ps. I was given the impression that Decard was a replicant. Is that implied or is it just plain silly to even suggest?

Dublin_Andy

i bought the directors cut of the film, that excludes the narration. so ive only seen that ending.

is there a big difference at the end of the original release?

Owen

I think it's an interesting movie, and the plot was one that got us all thinking ... but as a movie, I found it a little dull. Great ... but dull.

MooseJam

Dublin_Andy wrote: »

i bought the directors cut of the film, that excludes the narration. so ive only seen that ending.

is there a big difference at the end of the original release?

In the other it has a shot of a car driving off into the mountains, himself and herself off to live happily ever after

FruitLover

deathstarkiller wrote: »

I even purposely leave a few years in between watching it so it's like an event for me. I always have to decide then what version to watch.

Haha, me too, been doing this for over 20 years now! I think each edition has something to like about it.

FruitLover

Babybing wrote: »

ps. I was given the impression that Decard was a replicant. Is that implied or is it just plain silly to even suggest?

Ridley Scott has said that Deckard was always meant to be a replicant (this is made more obvious in the director's cut (e.g.

the unicorn

)).

TheDoc

I have to admit, that upon finishing this film i was left thinking " what an over rated film"

Then I learned about different cuts but I'm not sure what I saw or what i need to see.

There robots, they are pissed, harrison ford specialises in killing/hunting these cyborgs, he gets a stiffy for one ( weird) kills loads of others...and it seems just very very confusing.

Perhaps its a film for those who love to analyse every single corner of a film screen?

I'd genuinely like to know what im missing, I'd an avid film lover, especially sci fi, but I cannot make myself like this at all....

Holsten

I did not like the movie at all, it was actually one of the very few that I fell asleep watching.

Totally over rated.

FruitLover

I find it amazing how many people miss the philosophical potential in this movie. It's not just a story about a bunch of 'bots who go crazy, a bit of flying around and shooting stuff, and the hero getting the girl. There is an enormous wealth of thought-provoking material here. The movie deals with troubling topics brought up in the book from whence it was spawned (Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and then some. In my opinion, the most important issue raised is as follows:

It's inevitable that at some point humans are going to make extremely lifelike androids, with incredibly complex processing abilities. It's easy to dismiss an artificially created humanoid robot as nothing but a load of circuits capable of doing certain mathematical processing, but if you think about it, are humans (and other forms of life) all that different from a conceptual point of view? Really, it's just a question of complexity. With the inevitable progress of technology, it's simply a matter of time before the artificial intelligence circuitry and programming used in androids reaches a complexity close to that of a human brain and mind. What does that mean in terms of consciousness, sentience, self-awareness? At what point do they become the same as us?

This brings further questions: what does it mean to be alive? To be human? Do artificial people feel love, sadness, fear? If they do, are they not as good as alive? Is a replicant's fear of death the same as a human's? Is a replicant's life the same as a human's? Is viewing a replicant's memories an invision of privacy? Is planting them there in the first place mercy or cruelty? There are also religious connotations. If an artificial creature is to be considered 'alive', then do they have a 'soul'? If not, why not? (i.e. what is a 'soul'?)

There are other interesting themes in the movie too - the bleak dystopian future, humans' attitudes towards (and fear of, and oppression of) creatures that are in many ways superior to them, etc etc. Oodles of brain food.




... plus I'm just a sucker for the film noir style!

mike65

Some material is just wasted on certain people, whenever I see or listen to Blade Runner (the Esper Soundtracks are worth getting hold of) it really immerses me in its vision. Whats not to love?

OSiriS

It's understandable that many who've only seen it recently would be underwhelmed. So many aspects of it have been borrowed in the 27 years since it's release, that it might be difficult the appreciate it fully.

BlitzKrieg

how can anyone get to this part

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOphFl88U-g

and then feel underwhelmed?

D-Generate

Just because I didn't enjoy it does not mean I didn't "get" it. It was a fairly dull movie all things being considered. There is a high elitism present on this thread. It is possible for people to understand this movie and still think it is a slow moving, uneventful snore-fest.

rednik

I went to this on release in the cinema. The anticipation was high after having seen Alien a couple of years before. It lived up to everything I had hoped for. Rutger Hauer never did anything in my opinion after Blade Runner. Visually stunning accompanied by a superb soundtack in its day it was far and away ahead of most SF movies of the day.

CrazyTalk

I saw it and 'got' everything about it. I appreciate it, it's style, the visuals and most aspects of it, but I dislike the hype.
It's very, very long and slow paced and I doubt I will watch it again in the near future, which on my tastes keeps it far from being 'amazing' as many people here see it.

OSiriS

Most people who consider it to be "amazing" are those who saw it in the 80s, shortly after it was released. It may be the nostalgic bias talking, but I do love the film.

Nevyn

"To bad she won't live"

Das Kitty

OSiriS wrote: »

Most people who consider it to be "amazing" are those who saw it in the 80s, shortly after it was released. It may be the nostalgic bias talking, but I do love the film.

Most. But I saw it for the first time in 2002 and still love it. I had played the PC game at that stage though!

Read the book afterwards.

D-Generate

D-Generate wrote: »

There is a high elitism present on this thread.

Frankly this is the least elitist (read: "pretentious") discussion of Blade Runner I've ever come across.

When people dumb a revered film down to:

TheDoc wrote: »

There robots, they are pissed, harrison ford specialises in killing/hunting these cyborgs, he gets a stiffy for one ( weird) kills loads of others...and it seems just very very confusing.

And then wonder if it's:

TheDoc wrote: »

a film for those who love to analyse every single corner of a film screen?

and ASK to be told what they're missing, people WILL respond.

Personally I love Blade Runner for the surface visuals and sci-fi elements, just as much as the under-lying themes and ideas.

Sanjuro

One of the greatest sci-fi films... nay, films, of all time.

Ping Chow Chi

loved the film, though I never understood how one of them was able to stick his hands into that freezing liquid to pick up the frozen eyes, if they have super resistant skin, why go through all the psych tests to spot them, and not just a simple skin sample?

Ping Chow Chi

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

loved the film, though I never understood how one of them was able to stick his hands into that freezing liquid to pick up the frozen eyes, if they have super resistant skin, why go through all the psych tests to spot them, and not just a simple skin sample?

:eek: Good question!

My understanding of that scene was simply that the androids don't feel pain but yes, that should have had an effect on his skin which, normally, is the same as human skin.

TheDoc

Well from my first watch of the film I gathered

He's one of the Nexus, or so I believe

But from then reading around about what the hell actually went on, it seemed alot of this film is dropping little clues and hints, not ACTUALLY saying anything, and people go off with 50 million different theories and then say how its incredible.

I was baffled reading about the Unicorn, with people cracking out theories left right and centre where my first watching was

The unicorn there symbolises the other BR is watching and knows he is with her, not some deep meaning

I watched this again tonight on sky movies, the same version as i originally saw. Its slow paced, boring in parts, confusing in others...

Perhaps when it first came out it was "amazing" but I'd largely disagree, granted I saw it for the first time about a year ago, I still would not have thought it in anyway groundbreaking in any shape or form. And the consistent coca cola advertisements kinda annoyed me.

This falls lowly in my pecking order of sci fi films i love, it would be struggling to break into the top ten..

Then again films are all about opinions, no one is right or wrong...just opinions, and in mine, this is seriously over hyped, over rated...and when you strip away the "theories" that seems to surround the whole shagging thing, its a mediocre piece of film for me.

Its nearly as ridic as " whats in the briefcase" from pulp fiction.

And just to point out, you have all follow on from my post saying how "awesome cakes" this film is, but have yet to actually explain to me what makes this film so amazing...I'm sorry but I'm as aware and awake to slight inuendos and underlying themes as the next guy...but are they actually purposeful and intentional, or did this all get made up and since then tirades of people have jumped on the bandwagon....any sources to where maybe the director or writer discusses these underlying themes?

mike65

I suspect an attempt to enlighten would be wasted!

Thats not having a go at you, as you say yourself no right or wrong, maybe you don't find the depiction of 2019 LA as a "third world Tokyo" compelling, the music and atmosphere/ambience seductive, the ambivalence about Deckards nature absorbing.

mewso

Well I saw it first when I was quite young and loved it. That is loved it without being aware of any hidden meanings, knowledge of what the unicorn represents and absolutely no inkling that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant. It was a futuristic film-noir-esque cop chasing androids whats not to like (sorry pretentious film analysts). Just thought it was cool. Loved the atmosphere and feel to it. Even liked the voice-over that it's so trendy to hate now.

I can see how others don't like it. Fair enough but each to their own why should I give a toss what others think of it. I'd be as equally disinterested in a long discussion of the hidden themes as I would a long discussion of whether it's good or bad. Whoops just piped up in just such a discussion. Oh well.

TheDoc

mike65 wrote: »

I suspect an attempt to enlighten would be wasted!

Thats not having a go at you, as you say yourself no right or wrong, maybe you don't find the depiction of 2019 LA as a "third world Tokyo" compelling, the music and atmosphere/ambience seductive, the ambivalence about Deckards nature absorbing.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

See this debate sprang up in work and I got a tirade of " man...i cant even explain, if you dont get it,,well i dont know"

It seems alot of people with alot of movies just do a quick google or read an interview and jump on a bandwagon of " o but its noir and has so many hidden messages" without fully realising.

I sat down and watched this again today...and still dont find it compellling, or much understand/notice the meanings. Hence why I want to know.

I'm convinced this film spawned all these " underlying themes" from mere viewers and was no intention of the writers at all, and plus alot of the what you would consider absolutely major plot themes seem a miss.

This film has me genuinely baffled now

Nichololas

TheDoc wrote: »

I was baffled reading about the Unicorn, with people cracking out theories left right and centre where my first watching was

The unicorn there symbolises the other BR is watching and knows he is with her, not some deep meaning

Deckard has a dream about a unicorn in a forest. The other blade runner (Gaff) knows this because Deckard is a replicant and his memories (and dreams) are implants.

ríomhaire

This film was made before I was born (so I'm not one of those who view it with nostalgia-goggles) and I rather like it. It is a little slow-paced but I love the world that is created for this film. It all just seems so...I don't know. I suppose "authentic" or "real" will do. The story is solid and I like the ideas raised in it, although it doesn't put as much ephasis on empathy as DADoES? does and completely ignores the subject of enthropy and the whole fixation on animals. But of course, this is it's own film. A direct copy of Do Androids onto the screen wouldn't have worked at all. For the record, I prefer the book, but still like the film, and plan on tracking down a copy of the Westwood (RIP) game some day.

TheDoc

It was told to me that seemingly the version I have been watching wouldnt make much sense and isnt ambigous at all

Watched the version with the dream sequence etc and makes slightly more sense

Das Kitty

Started on the Dangerous Days Documentary last night.

I say started because it's 3.5 hours long!

Reg'stoy

Might I be so bold as to suggest that Paul M. Sammon's book Future Noir The making of Blade Runner is a must for anyone who wants to better understand all that Blade Runner is.

While I have read Philip K. Dick's book and also recommend it (as a stand alone) we should view the film as a seperate entity. I think that while based drawing inspiration from the novel it has by now reached a level that it should be judged as seperate.

There are so many elements that meld to make it a work of greatness, from the visual beauty of the movie itself to the wonderfull Vangelis soundtrack (I too have it on my MP3 player). We could argue all night as to the reasons why some love it while others, well don't.

purple_hatstand

Ridley Scott's third film, 'Blade Runner' [1982] - rewrote the rules for making sci-fi films which had, until then, been mostly filled with a vision of the future defined by gleaming towers of glass and steel, cleanliness, order and a civilsed human race living in some sort of utopian paradise.

Instead, Scott embraced the idea that (shock! horror!) the 'street' future would be an extension of the present; a dark and dangerous world of mercenaries and the merciless; the buildings imagined as smoke-belching stacks and dark, crumbling towers covered in neon - the new bits stuck onto the outside of the old bits. He further heightened these effects by shooting at night in rain and shrouding everything in dense smoke and fog.

Downtown parts of cities in America and Japan look today like the street sets from 'Blade Runner' and it's almost ironic that in 1989, Scott made a thriller, 'Dark Rain', set in a contemporary Tokyo which, in parts, has a similar look and feel.

'Blade Runner's visual effects were all shot for real 'in-camera' (miniatures, models, lighting, multiple exposures, matte paintings etc...) and while some of the gadgets look a little dated now, the overall effect is more pleasing than in many sci-fi films which often seem to use CGI in every scene to the detriment of narrative, structure, character etc...

Great science fiction always challenges us to look at ourselves and the world we live in and this is no exception - from the complacency and ambivalence of the humans through the childlike curiosity and anger of the replicants, a philosophical exploration of life and death is played out by the characers with an emphasis placed on the genesis of dreams, memories, sex and morality. The confusing ambiguities are deliberate - they're designed to give the film no meaning beyond the one that makes sense to the individual and, IMO, herein lies its genius.

Vangelis' atmospheric score and the source novel have been mentioned here already as has the cast (Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer have never been better nor have they had more iconic characters to play). The combination of all these elements and Scott (and crew)'s unique cinematic visual style and an ability to excute them all without compromise is what makes 'Blade Runner' stand to this day as one of the truly great films in its (or any) genre.

You can find the definitive version here.