Bladerunner, what am i missing?

littleemperor

ok nig sci fi fan and eventually got to watch bladerunner. rated the best sci fi movie ever. fair enough. watched it, did not get it at all. liked the tears in the rain bit at the end but i feel i must be missing something. anyone help

mike65

A brain??????!

No seriously, wasn't there another I dont get Blade Runner thread recently?

I guess you take out of any filum what you can, I love its sound and vision, the story is frankly secondary. Its a mood piece really.

beans

Hommina hommina



Don't let the 'best sci-fi ever' thing sidetrack you from the fact that it looks and feels great - sounds like your expectations may have gotten the better of you

karlog

I'm into Sci-fi and didn't like it either.

Then again i didn't like the godfather and apparently its one of the greatest films ever made.

][cEMAN**

It's one of the greatest of its genre (Godfather).

Bladerunner just had too many dark shot scenes, which kinda bugs me about films. Not saying it's not good, and in this one it adds to it, but it's just a personal dislike of mine.

littleemperor

feeling better, and the godfather was good but i'm not into the mafia genre

irish_bob

blade runner is one of those films that you are supposed to love , it didnt do much for me either

krudler

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;61404328']It's one of the greatest of its genre (Godfather).

Bladerunner just had too many dark shot scenes, which kinda bugs me about films. Not saying it's not good, and in this one it adds to it, but it's just a personal dislike of mine.

Its a dystopian vision of LA polluted beyond belief, its not mean to be bright

Blade Runner is a hard watch the first time but the mood of the film is fantastic, its still one of the most influential portrayals of the future ever put on screen

indough

its atmospheric but crap otherwise

Nevyn

Bladerunner, what am i missing?
A Soul?

owlwink

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;61404328']It's one of the greatest of its genre (Godfather).

Bladerunner just had too many dark shot scenes, which kinda bugs me about films. Not saying it's not good, and in this one it adds to it, but it's just a personal dislike of mine.

I think those dark shot scenes are what kind of capture the beauty of the movie. It would not really have its noir stylewithout them and isnt this in its essence one of the reason why it is so loved. Sci-fi noir mmmmmmm. As for the Deckard debate and everything that comes packaged with it, many seem tobe in a rush to give it a little thought. Its unique ambiguity and the way it approaches questions of existence alone are enough to keep me coming back for more.

A little piece of trivia : The Deckard Debate is more googled than the does God exist question?

][cEMAN**

Yeah I understand that. It's part of what makes the film, hence I said it adds to it, but it's just a pet hate of mine.

Personally I prefer a film that has a good blend of light and dark scenes, with more light. I tend to watch films at night, and I don't want to be reminded it's night time. I'm watching them to forget it's late and boring lol.

Nevyn

Where as I love watching that at night, it is one of the few things which helps break my insomina when it's bad as I am bound to fall asleep when the credits roll.

niall mc cann

I do rate it as one of the best sci-fi films ever, but it's a particular kind of sci-fi- it's all about identity and the self. It's phildickian roots are writ large, and that's a branch of sci-fi that's more respected than enjoyed. Guys like Dick and Gene Wolfe get great reviews, but their sales figures rarely back that up. If you're into that kind of headf**k, then you're almost guaranteed to enjoy the film, because it explores those issues intelligently and well.

I think it's age can factor against it, too... the (maybe) twist at the end is perhaps less a wow moment now than it was in the past, it's got around too much. I saw it first years after it's release, but somehow managed not to get told the twist before having seen it. I don't know if I appreciated it more or less because of that... I'd had Planet of the Apes and The Empire Strikes Back "spoiled" for me before I saw them, and liked them well enough, anyway. I don't know. I love the ideas in it. Great, crazy stuff.

Ultimately, it's quiet, brooding and makes no concession to the audience in terms of diagraming out it's ideas... As I once heard someone beautifully but uselessly say "If you like this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing you will like."

Lirange

I rate it highly.

But that's for two primary reasons:

1. I like the subject matter and the ethical questions it poses regarding technology, the future, and "human" existence.
2. I saw it when it came out and for its time it was quite unique. It may prove dated to others who see it nearly 3 decades later. Sci-Fi is a genre where even many of the best films will be dated to later generations.

It was the first film to follow Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey that addressed many of the same themes. But in a much different setting which probably just dates easier. Films like Terminator, I, Robot, and A.I. were films that addressed the same territory albeit with different approaches.

Primary questions: What does it mean to be human? How did we become human? What will we become in the future?

How about this: Do you think it's possible to create an inorganic sentient being? An artificial person? One that feels? One that can develop morals and notions of right and wrong? Or would you reject that notion out of hand as fanciful? If you believe that would be impossible then give it some considered thought on why you believe it would not be possible. Frankly, many don't like to consider it too seriously because they're uncomfortable with it. So they dismiss such ideas as fictional fluff.

The brain is a great frontier in science and the speed by which scientists have been learning about it is both fascinating and scary. Similarly the advancements in nanotechnology and processing power are staggering. Underlying all brain activity is science. The proteins, the synapses, and the networks. The parts and processes of the brain are complicated to be sure but they are science. What makes you think that these processes cannot be replicated artificially? Or is there some unscientific concept you cling to ward off such ideas? Like that we have a soul? These are the questions these movies explore.

They've been able to replicate the brain messages of chimps when controlling an onscreen object manually with a control. Then they were able to translate the messages into specific commands. Eventually the chimp was able to control the figure on the screen with just thoughts! It didn't need an implant. The brain signals were sent to a wireless device placed on the chimps head. Staggering stuff. Science has already mapped the brain and knows what parts of the brain are responsible for different thoughts, feelings, and actions. There are powerful drugs (most not approved) that can activate and de-activate parts of the brain. The more powerful drugs can essentially change who you are and that's why sometimes the most powerful of them ... given to severe depression cases and suicide candidates are so controversial. Though primarily a b*tchslap against religion the film Equilibrium touches on this. Of course there are many that believe we will become part machine. Link processing technology to our brain. Possibly some dangerous roads to go down. Will we become all brain and hooked up to machinery like the alien creatures in War of the Worlds?I'd better shut up getting ever so slightly off topic here. Anyway I like well made films that aren't just fantasy but deal with real human issues and real questions about the future.

The Time to Die scene with Roy at the end is one my favourite moments in cinema history.

2040

littleemperor wrote: »

ok nig sci fi fan and eventually got to watch bladerunner. rated the best sci fi movie ever. fair enough. watched it, did not get it at all. liked the tears in the rain bit at the end but i feel i must be missing something. anyone help

You're obviously a replicant.

wobzilla

littleemperor wrote: »

ok nig sci fi fan

you're black?

ryoishin

Just bought it today actually.

Read the book its quality and different to the film.

I liked Blade Runner. I enjoyed it but it's not my favourite movie, or my favourite sci movie for that matter. IMO i think The Fifth Element is a better sci fi film. Sure Harrison Ford gives a great perfomance and bla bla bla, but I just found the whole thing a little boring. There are classic scenes and a brilliant score and wonderful screenshots but it doesn't outway substance, of which it had none.

p.s. The Godfather is sheet.:D

wobzilla

wobzilla wrote: »

you're black?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Funny stuff... *tear*

Snesfan

Never watched it but its one of those movies I always wanted to see, think im going to have to get my hands on a copy!

CL7

[quote=[Deleted User];61557234]I liked Blade Runner. I enjoyed it but it's not my favourite movie, or my favourite sci movie for that matter. IMO i think The Fifth Element is a better sci fi film.[/QUOTE]

Does not compute, does not compuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuudfhdkjfhdlfhdljfhdklfjhdlkfdkfjkdjfhdkjfhdfhkldhfjdkhfdkjhfkjdhfkjdfhkhdkfdjhkf.

AARRRGH

I really like Bladerunner, but I also find it can be a little bit slow, so I tend not to watch it too often.

Total Recall... now there's a movie I could watch every few months.

/The first woman who gets a fake third boob will be famous and rich.

razorblunt

Just finished watching it, no matter how much of an impartial view I tried to give it, "best sci film" ever couldnt be ignored. I enjoyed it thought it was good but I dont think I'll watch it again anytime soon.

stateofflux

wow...very surprised the amount of people that posted that don't get blade runner....to the OP: you are missing a truly mindblowing masterpiece of film making that has so many levels to it that if you watch it a couple of times it will change the way you think about yourself and life in a positive way.....not many films can do that.....it got me through a lot of tough times....

Mikey23

Loved it since I watched it on TV (with really poor reception) after the first "director's cut" came out. Was lucky enough to watch the real director's cut in the cinema - the Final Cut - in New York in 2007. Made a great film even more memorable. Bring more classics back to the cinema, I say.

Kiith

I took me a long time to actually get around to watching Blade Runner. When i did, i absolutly loved it. Pretty much loved everything about it. Great characters, fantastic score, interesting setting. It just felt right.

Definitly glad that i saw the directors (or is it final) cut version though, as it had a much better ending.

Kingp35

I watched Blade Runner about 2 months ago, it was a good film but tbh I have forgotten most of it already. It just didn't make a lasting impression on me. I found parts of it boring and very slow. It looked great, had a good score and some interesting moments but it was just a good film, nothing more.

Lirange

I think there's often going to be a big discrepancy in impressions between those that saw it back in the 80s and those that watch it now.

L31mr0d

karlog wrote: »

I'm into Sci-fi and didn't like it either.

Then again i didn't like the godfather and apparently its one of the greatest films ever made.

I'd agree. But I accept my reasons for disliking both of these movies is that I'm watching them out of context. I only watched both of them in the last couple of years for the first time and neither made a lasting impression on me. Had I watched them when they where released my opinion might be different.

Bladerunner has not aged well, and when I watched it first recently the incongruities between current tech and the supposed future tech shown in this film proved to be to much of a distraction and kept breaking my ability to immerse myself. Every few minutes my mind would switch to saying "man that stuff looks old"... making me aware I was looking at a movie set from the early 80's.

Bladerunner may well have been a masterpiece upon release but for me it never will be now.

mike65

LOL how can any film maker beat that logic?

purple_hatstand

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'd agree. But I accept my reasons for disliking both of these movies is that I'm watching them out of context. I only watched both of them in the last couple of years for the first time and neither made a lasting impression on me. Had I watched them when they where released my opinion might be different.

Bladerunner has not aged well, and when I watched it first recently the incongruities between current tech and the supposed future tech shown in this film proved to be to much of a distraction and kept breaking my ability to immerse myself. Every few minutes my mind would switch to saying "man that stuff looks old"... making me aware I was looking at a movie set from the early 80's.

Bladerunner may well have been a masterpiece upon release but for me it never will be now.

In 1997, Lucas decided that the original 'Star Wars' trilogy looked dated and revisited it with a load of new sfx and enhanced the soundtrack etc...12 years later it looks pants and the 70's/80's original versions are probably most fans' favourites.

But then 'Star Wars' is a space opera and not science fiction. Decent Sci-Fi is not about gadgets and laser guns; it's a method of story-telling like any other - just with a greater requirement for imagination and the suspension of disbelief from both creator and audience.

'Bladerunner' is existentialist philosophy which does not pretend to know the answers. It is dark and, in places, grim. It is terse, dystopian and realistic. It is at least as much a representation of the present (any present) as it is one of the future. It does not have 'good guys' and 'bad guys' - we are supposed to sympathise with Deckard and empathise with Batty (that's why the rooftop ending is so important). In doing so, we are encouraged to question ourselves which leads to the many ambiguities of the film's narrative. It is not glib and it is not 'Hollywood'.

One ought not complain that the timeless has become outdated.

Sean Quagmire

I started a thread on this a while back where I tried to watch the film 3 times and each time I fell asleep!! I tried watching it at various times in the day aswell.

I love films but my god I hate this movie.

TonyD79

[quote=[Deleted User];61557234]I liked Blade Runner. I enjoyed it but it's not my favourite movie, or my favourite sci movie for that matter. IMO i think The Fifth Element is a better sci fi film. Sure Harrison Ford gives a great perfomance and bla bla bla, but I just found the whole thing a little boring. There are classic scenes and a brilliant score and wonderful screenshots but it doesn't outway substance, of which it had none.

p.s. The Godfather is sheet.:D[/QUOTE]

Thats like saying Batman & Robin the film is better than The Dark Knight

CL7

purple_hatstand wrote: »

'Bladerunner' is existentialist philosophy which does not pretend to know the answers. It is dark and, in places, grim. It is terse, dystopian and realistic. It is at least as much a representation of the present (any present) as it is one of the future. It does not have 'good guys' and 'bad guys' - we are supposed to sympathise with Deckard and empathise with Batty (that's why the rooftop ending is so important). In doing so, we are encouraged to question ourselves which leads to the many ambiguities of the film's narrative. It is not glib and it is not 'Hollywood'.

One ought not complain that the timeless has become outdated.

Sums up Blade Runner perfectly for me. It's my favourite film and reading the above make me want to watch it again. That's what ima going to do, right now!

tricky D

In addition to purple_hatstand's post, there's a few other things not which are not always as appreciated as they should be or just get plain overlooked:

The excellent original Vangelis soundtrack (had just done the Chariots of Fire one)
It's Ridley Scott's next outing after Alien
The detail, even down to the newspaper lining the drawers
Rutger Hauer's performance in the last scene. He made the speech up himself - no one on set knew what was coming, so they say.

(let's have it again)

'I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die.'

ahhhhhh

davenewt

Dude I should be doing other stuff this weekend...!

stateofflux

tricky D wrote: »

(let's have it again)

'I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die.'

ahhhhhh

truly byronesque....gives the spine an old shiver everytime i watch that scene....:)

L31mr0d

purple_hatstand wrote: »

One ought not complain that the timeless has become outdated.

When did you watch Bladerunner first?

nyarlothothep

Its a visual masterpiece, apart from Kubrick I can't think of any director who rivals Scott for making each shot a cinematic painting, hes a master of lighting, hue and saturation. It may not have been the first cyberpunk film, I'm not an aficionado of the genre, but I imagine it certainly brought it to the mainstream and is a seminal piece. Again there may have been other films but it combined the aesthetics and motifs of manga with the hollywood blockbuster format which makes it pretty innovative. The soundtrack is way ahead of its time and sheer genius, especially the rave-esque music with the indian strings in the opium den. Furthermore its got great performances and an excellent plot with some heavy philosophical themes. Its unique for capturing a universe in such a fully realized way, many books and films fall short of this, where the universe seems incomplete, but in Bladerunner this is another fully fleshed out world. Probably not true but apparently the game Snatcher was an adaptation of book which Blade Runner took its cue from.

mike65

tricky D wrote: »

Rutger Hauer's performance in the last scene. He made the speech up himself - no one on set knew what was coming, so they say.

Not quite true, he read a page of dialogue by David Peoples and decided it needed severe editing he did come up with the denoument "All those moments will be lost in time. Like tears in rain. Time to die’.

Originally it was a bit longer, like a half-page of dialogue. So I said to Ridley the night before we shot it, ‘This is way too long. If the batteries go, the guy goes. He has not time to say good-bye, except maybe to briefly talk about things he’s seen’ Life is short – boom! I truly felt that the ending of this picture should be done very quickly, I mean, we’d already seen this opera of dying replicants; I didn’t think the audience would stand another protracted death scene. So I said to Ridley, ‘Let’s do it very fast, and do it as simply and profoundly as possible. But also, let Batty be a wiseguy for a second’. Ridley said, ‘Yes, I like it’. So when we filmed that speech, I cut a little bit out of the opening and then improvised these closing lines, ‘All those moments will be lost in time. Like tears in rain. Time to die’.

But you know, everyone always writes about me and that speech, and ignores the screenwriter. I thought David Peoples, the man who wrote that version of Batty’s soliloquy, really did a beautiful job. I mean, I loved those images he came up with -’c-beams glittering near the Tannhauser gate, attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion‘. I thought they were really interesting, even if you didn’t understand them. The whole idea there, is that once he stops talking, the dove flies. You never really see the moment of Batty’s death, the dove says it for him.

krudler

How can anyone think this looks dated? its still the best vision of the future ever put on screen

L31mr0d

krudler wrote: »

How can anyone think this looks dated? its still the best vision of the future ever put on screen

The city wide shots still do look fantastic. It's the personal technology the people are using that looks dated, like CRT screens and equipment.

As a piece of film it is timeless, but as sci-fi it is dated. If someone expects to make a sci-fi and have it look current for eternity then they are fooling themselves.

davenewt

Just got around to watching again. Found the screenplay online there during the week... didn't read it really but made me want to watch it again. Deep stuff... or maybe that's just because it's 1am!

Edit: not sure about the product placement tho, kinda spoils it for me...

Capt'n Midnight

I like'd the voiceover in the original

yeah it's one of those films you can just sit back and watch the scenery

stateofflux

to the op....make sure you watch the directors cut as well as the original edited version.....its a way better film and the way it was supposed to be according to ridley scott....it does'nt have the voiceover of the edited version which does give it a cool film noir feel....but the directors cut is a far superior film and has deeper twists and turns and a better ending.....

LiamMc

littleemperor wrote: »

ok nig sci fi fan and eventually got to watch bladerunner. rated the best sci fi movie ever. fair enough. watched it, did not get it at all. liked the tears in the rain bit at the end but i feel i must be missing something. anyone help

I just posted Blade Runner in the 'Worst Ending... ' thread, but I don't wish to be accused of double-posting.

We are talking about a Director who previously had made the brilliant (IMO) The Duellists and Alien and later used the landscape in Thelma & Louise to great effect. But has also made the racially dubious Black Rain, Black Hawk Down and later placed Jerusalem (Kingdom of Heaven) in the middle of a flat Moroccan desert. Someone should tell him about the Temple Mount and Mount of Olives.

I think Ridley Scott has more misses than successes.

Flamed Diving

Just watched it, I would give it six thumbs up.

mike65

Which version? BBC screened the Final Cut a few weeks back, it was stunningly good.