Bladerunner...

[scarpi41]

I saw it for the first time tonight. I liked the cinematography but it was a bit slow-paced. I was a bit dissatisfied with most of the movie because it was pretty straight forward, I guess thats not a bad thing its just my brother and father hyped it so much as a movie you watch over and over and it still leaves you in awe and I wasnt getting that. However, at the end, I was pretty satisfied. The last few scenes and lines of the movie are awesome, very memorable and gave some more meaning to Roy. It was just really good. I am now inclined to read Phillip Dicks book, so I will get started on it sometime this week.


Anyways, what did you all think of the film/book? Which do you prefer?

[OPC]

I haven't read the book, but thought the movie to be excellent. Thing is, to come to it for the first time so long after its initial release is to miss its place in time. There have been many projects influenced by BR that you might not have realized and that may have blunted some of the sense of innovation. I would suggest that the whole Data concept on Star Trek: TNG was heavily influenced by BR. Also, the whole gritty, dirty vision of the future was new and untried. The future portrayed was not a happy, shiny one as so many scifi movies portrayed at the time; technology did not save humanity. BR was slow, but intelligent; subtle. D@mn, now I want to go watch it again.

[Rotten Bastard]

"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." One of the best last words in movie history, imho :) Rutger Hauer should been awarded an Oscar for that performance. He also kinda looks like Vinokourov from some angles.

Just curious, did you watch the Director's Cut or the original? If you saw the original, I highly recommend the DC. Some very subtle differences that change the movie's entire premise.

Oh and +1 to what OPC said about the influence that movie had. It was a truly seminal work of art that may be hard to fully appreciate today. Ridley Scott went through hell battling the studio in order to preserve his vision and won out in the end, fortunately.

[zmorgan]

Like you I saw the movie for the first time after its prime (about a year ago). I didn't get the "zo' my GawD!!" that I was expecting from all the hype. The movie was so so.. I guess I'm just spoiled from all the "japanimation" and new sci-fi out there these days... oh well.

[late]

Film Noir... this isn't a scifi movie. It's a Noir detective movie in a scifi setting.
Which is part of what I like about it.



The movie has layers of meaning. You won't get them all the first time around.

No one is exactly what they seem to be.

[KrisPistofferson]

Watch it again in ten years when you won't be so tempted to compare it to Alien Vs. Predator II.

[zmorgan]

Watch it again in ten years when you won't be so tempted to compare it to Alien Vs. Predator II.

haha.. what an awesome movie ;)

[OPC]

Watch it again in ten years when you won't be so tempted to compare it to Alien Vs. Predator II.


Well said. Very astute observation.

[mconlonx]

"You know, she won't live... but then again, who does?" <--one of my all time favorite movie quotes. EVAR.

OK, so scarpi41: Deckard--was he a replicant or not?

^^^This is one of the huge questions asked by those who really get into it. The Director's Cut clarifies it a bit, but still does not answer it concretely; the original release blurs it even more with a few critical cut scenes. The original release, edited down and with additional voice-over, makes for a more traditional movie experience; the director's cut adds more movie and gets rid of the voiceover, so it definitely might feel longer.

There have been a few Philip K Dick stories adapted into movies, but Blade Runner is one of the best because it actually pulls off one of the most important aspects of Dick fiction, questions like: What does it mean to be human? What is reality? In any case, it bothers to pose some pretty difficult themes surrounding stuff like this, more than most movies do.

The visual style of the movie was completely new and revolutionary. The only other real groundbreaking movie to show a dystopian future like that--and mind you, this is after the squeaky clean settings of such films as 2001 and Star Wars--was Alien. Plenty of movies after Blade Runner went for the same kind of setting, but Blade Runner was more influential than most.

It's noir and sci-fi, which styles usually tend toward simplistic storylines without much real depth to them; Blade Runner is a definite exception.

[scarpi41]

I am a bit familiar with Dicks stuff, I read a Scanner Darkly and saw the movie. I like it, it was quality stuff. But I was inclined to buy Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, and Im liking it a lot more that the movie. I havent read the whole thing, Im about half way through, but in comparison to the first part of the movie and the first part of the book, Im liking the book better. There is a much bigger emphasis on animals in the book, I feel like the whole first half of the book is about animals and mercerism. I have basically forgotten much of bladerunner now, but I dont recall those topics in the movie, but they could be just very subtle and one can miss alot the first time watching a movie. I think I will have a greater appreciation for the movie by reading the book. I know Scott ran much of the movie details and screenplays by Dick and he approved so Id say I am pretty safe in my assumptions.

I will let you know when I finish the book. Should be by the weekend.

[kamalster]

Absolutely brilliant movie. And I've never had any luck getting anyone to like it who didn't watch it in the 80s. Everyone I've shown it too just focuses on the storyline and says it's too slow and boring. They just don't get it.

[zmorgan]

ghost in the shell and the matrix are better alternatives for my young eyes

[I-Like-To-Bike]

The Director's Cut clarifies it a bit, but still does not answer it concretely; the original release blurs it even more with a few critical cut scenes. The original release, edited down and with additional voice-over, makes for a more traditional movie experience; the director's cut adds more movie and gets rid of the voiceover, so it definitely might feel longer.

Absolutely brilliant movie. And I've never had any luck getting anyone to like it who didn't watch it in the 80s. Everyone I've shown it too just focuses on the storyline and says it's too slow and boring. They just don't get it.

Not surprising that new viewers "don't get it" if they see the Director's Cut without the voice over. Though the voice over is poo-pood by purists, the movie is almost incomprehensible without it.

I like the downer ending of one version, but also liked the upbeat ending of the other. Not revealed which is the original theatrical version ending in order to avoid being a spoiler.

I saw this movie when first released as well as the Director's Cut Premiere in LA in the early 90's and have gone through the VCR, Laser Disk and DVD releases too. Still one of my favorite movies.

The musical soundtrack by Tangerine Dream is pretty good too.

[Zaneth]

I don't know another instance where the book, director's cut, and original version are all so different, all so good. Too bad to hear that people don't appreciate it now. I showed my sister Breakfast Club once. She didn't get it. Said it was 'old'

Matrix may be better in many ways. But I would bet you the makers of the Matrix are big fans of Bladerunner.

[KrisPistofferson]

Not surprising that new viewers "don't get it" if they see the Director's Cut without the voice over. Though the voice over is poo-pood by purists, the movie is almost incomprehensible without it.

I like the downer ending of one version, but also liked the upbeat ending of the other. Not revealed which is the original theatrical version ending in order to avoid being a spoiler.

I saw this movie when first released as well as the Director's Cut Premiere in LA in the early 90's and have gone through the VCR, Laser Disk and DVD releases too. Still one of my favorite movies.

The musical soundtrack by Tangerine Dream is pretty good too.It kind of annoys me Scott won't just settle on one version, preferably one with the voice over, (I didn't mind it, the "purist" in me doesn't mind there being a way for those who never read the novel to understand it, and voice-overs are way noir,) and all the good stuff from every version combined. Scott's a brilliant guy, though, no doubt.

[noteon]

OK, so scarpi41: Deckard--was he a replicant or not?

^^^This is one of the huge questions asked by those who really get into it. The Director's Cut clarifies it a bit, but still does not answer it concretely

Oh, but it does! I won't add a clearcut spoiler here, but the origami at the end, in combination with the dream sequence that got cut from the release version, answers this question. Cutting the dream made a nonsensical hash of the central question. The voiceover may add texture, if you like that kind of thing, but it's also an attempt to distract from having screwed up the story.

People who think it's too slow tend not to like movies where you have to keep your brain switched on to get it.

(And the soundtrack was by Vangelis, not Tangerine Dream. I think it holds up amazingly well, especially given how easily electronica can sound dated.)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Oh, but it does! I won't add a clearcut spoiler here, but the origami at the end, in combination with the dream sequence that got cut from the release version, answers this question. Cutting the dream made a nonsensical hash of the central question. The voiceover may add texture, if you like that kind of thing, but it's also an attempt to distract from having screwed up the story.

People who think it's too slow tend not to like movies where you have to keep your brain switched on to get it.
(And the soundtrack was by Vangelis, not Tangerine Dream. I think it holds up amazingly well, especially given how easily electronica can sound dated.)

You are assuming that the "central question" of Deckard's provenance actually was asked by the theater movie goer. I doubt it. Maybe the Star Wars/Star Trek crowd has a need for answers to their off the wall questions about a Sci Fi movie plot.

You are correct about the soundtrack. TD did do the soundtrack for two other of my favorite movies from that time period though. Sorcerer by William Friedkin, and Thief by Michael Mann

[Rotten Bastard]

It kind of annoys me Scott won't just settle on one version, preferably one with the voice over, (I didn't mind it, the "purist" in me doesn't mind there being a way for those who never read the novel to understand it, and voice-overs are way noir,) and all the good stuff from every version combined. Scott's a brilliant guy, though, no doubt.

Actually, according to "Future Noir," the book about the making of Blade Runner, the studio was afraid the plot would fly over viewers' heads and thus forced Scott to put in the Harrison Ford voice-over, against his wishes (and against Ford's). Both Scott and Ford hated the voice-over and that's why it was taken out of the Director's Cut. Ford actually tried to make his voice sound as annoying as possible to discourage the studio from using it at all.

In regards to how the movie has withstood the test of time, the visuals are pretty amazing, especially considering it was filmed in 1981, way before the advent of CGI. It's held up very well over the years, I'd say.

A lot of filmmakers from movies like The Crow to Gattaca to The Matrix to Batman Begins have credited Blade Runner as one of the movies that influenced them the most.

[noteon]

You are assuming that the "central question" of Deckard's provenance actually was asked by the theater movie goer. I doubt it. Maybe the Star Wars/Star Trek crowd has a need for answers to their off the wall questions about a Sci Fi movie plot.

No, I'm assuming the question was central to the story. Which it was, before it got eviscerated by morons. The theater moviegoer would only have asked it if he/she happened to notice some interesting eye lighting in a scene or two.

[mconlonx]

Oh, but it does! I won't add a clearcut spoiler here, but the origami at the end, in combination with the dream sequence that got cut from the release version, answers this question. Cutting the dream made a nonsensical hash of the central question. The voiceover may add texture, if you like that kind of thing, but it's also an attempt to distract from having screwed up the story.


I don't think the origami at the end answered anything specifically, regardless of the dream sequence. But even without that, there were plenty of clues to get moviegoers guessing, and the question was asked by viewers, with examples from the movie to back it up, long before the Director's Cut was released. In one sense, I liked the Theatrical Release a bit more for that because it made it less obvious without removing most of the other references that could still tip a viewer off. Or at least get them questioning. If you think the movie concretely answered the question with the origami/dream reference, then I would say that it failed. I think Ford did a great job at the end of the Director's Cut, portraying someone in the midst of trying to work out several serious mindf**ks all at once.

[noteon]

I don't think the origami at the end answered anything specifically, regardless of the dream sequence.

Oh, I do. Why else would the origami have that particular shape? It's a departure from the pattern of all the previous origami.

Regardless, it's an amazing movie on many levels, and probably my favorite Harrison Ford performance.

[Maelstrom]

I would suggest that the whole Data concept on Star Trek: TNG was heavily influenced by BR.

Actually data was almost exclusively influenced by positronic man by Asimov. At least according to any of the interviews I saw. The BR character likely had the same background so in a way, they are still related.

[mconlonx]

Oh, I do. Why else would the origami have that particular shape? It's a departure from the pattern of all the previous origami.

Regardless, it's an amazing movie on many levels, and probably my favorite Harrison Ford performance.

Sure, it had that particular shape... to mess with viewer's heads. While all the other origami was pretty topical, even funny, who's to say this wasn't just an OCD habit on the part of Olmos's character? I.e. coincidence, even if a spooky one. It's not like it was left in an obvious place where he wanted Ford to find it immediately... Plus, I refuse to believe that Scott would make anything that obvious and leave the movie with that definite an ending. If so, then I lose a bit of respect for the later releases with these scenes, compared to the wonderfully more subtle Theatrical Release.

But yeah, an amazing movie on many, many levels, and the best adaptation of a PKD story on the big screen.

[noteon]

Plus, I refuse to believe that Scott would make anything that obvious and leave the movie with that definite an ending. If so, then I lose a bit of respect for the later releases with these scenes, compared to the wonderfully more subtle Theatrical Release.

Except it's not actually that obvious unless you have a certain kind of cracked brain (and congratulations on yours ;)). The subtlety is part of what I love about it--if you aren't paying attention, and you miss the content of the dream and the way it connects to the origami and the subtly set-up question of whether Deckard's a replicant, it goes right by you.

Which it does for most people, in my experience.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

No, I'm assuming the question was central to the story. Which it was, before it got eviscerated by morons. The theater moviegoer would only have asked it if he/she happened to notice some interesting eye lighting in a scene or two.

OK, I get it now. The paying movie goers are morons who are unlikely to ask the right questions about the movie they are watching since they are not aware of the "central story" that was removed by the movie making morons. :rolleyes:

Presumably the "central story" and right questions to ask are as determined by the Real Sci Fi Purists, not those moron movie makers and moron movie goers.

[noteon]

OK, I get it now. The paying movie goers are morons who are unlikely to ask the right questions about the movie they are watching since they are not aware of the "central story" that was removed by the movie making morons. :rolleyes:

Presumably the "central story" and right questions to ask are as determined by the Real Sci Fi Purists, not those moron movie makers and moron movie goers.

Uh, no. But that was a lovely rant.

If you wanted to, we could have a conversation that follows what I actually said.

Of course, then you'd have to pay attention to the words I used...

[SaiKaiTai]

Ah, the age old question: is it better to see Dick or to read Dick?
Most movies based on his books have fallen flat (for reasons already mentioned in this thread) and my favorites of his haven't been made into movies. Still, Blade Runner -in just about any incarnation- is a Grade A, Number One movie. Unfortunately given the current generation's lack of attention span, it's just too deep and requires -you know- thought

[noteon]

Unfortunately given the current generation's lack of attention span, it's just too deep and requires -you know- thought

Yeah...I'm not sure I can blame a generation for that. It wouldn't surprise me if the Xers and boomers didn't get it any better than the current crop.

[skinny]

One of the all time great movies. The scene where Roy vents his anger against
"god" sums up the human experience. The casting was great, the acting was great, the dialogue was great. Whats not to like.

[scarpi41]

Ah, the age old question: is it better to see Dick or to read Dick?
Most movies based on his books have fallen flat (for reasons already mentioned in this thread) and my favorites of his haven't been made into movies. Still, Blade Runner -in just about any incarnation- is a Grade A, Number One movie. Unfortunately given the current generation's lack of attention span, it's just too deep and requires -you know- thought

I think reading and seeing his stuff are two different animals. As it is with most transitions from books to films, you cannot recreate the book on a screen because it would just take to long. So you must condense it, get a message across that basically what was said in the book. I dont think I can get any more general than that.

I dont know where this Is Deckard a replicant or android is coming from but you have your take and thats cool with me. But in my humble opinion, major thoughts that Dick was trying to get across was that can a human "empathize" with a android? and are machines that have human qualities still machines? can they feel? do they have dreams? Can they have hope? Do these androids really suffer?

Now if androids are immigrating to escape abuse and look for a better life by coming to Earth, then they must have hopes and dreams, because if they didnt they wouldnt dream of coming to Earth, and they must suffer to have these dreams.

Deckard explores whether he can feel for an android, and thats where he has intercourse with Rachel. He realizes he is used by the android, and sees he cannot empathize with a machine, no matter how human like it is.

Other major themes in the book is mercerism, the cycle of life, and what it means to exist. Mercer, by walking up the hill, only to go to the bottom again when he reaches the top(like Sisyphus) experiences life(walking up the hill), death at the top of hill, and rebirth at the bottom of the hill. Also, in the middle of the book deckard talks about existing when he watches one of the androids perform at the opera house, and he says "This rehearsal will end, the performance will end, the singers will die, eventually the last score of the music will be destroyed in one way or another; finally the name Mozart will vanish and the dust will have won. If not on this planet then another. We can evade it awhile. As the andys can evade me and exist a finite stretch longer. But I get them or some other bounty hunter gets them. In a way, he realized, I’m part of the form destroying process of entropy." I feel hes saying that everything dies sometime, but not just physically, but in memory as well. In time our existence will be forgotten sometime, long after we are dead. I think thats where the last lines come from in the movie. Since they obviously cant put the book to the screen, they must capture the idea in a relatively short dialog. This idea of everything dying in every sense is summed up by "All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die."

Also, about the title. I think it pertains to androids wanting a better life. Animals, in the world of the book, are a social status, as a car would be in our society, but even more than that. And asking if androids dream of electric sheep is asking, Do machines(androids) dream of a good life as humans do? Do they wish to fit into a human society? I think this is one of the biggest themes in the book.

I hope you all think it is a bit insightful. Lemme know if Im totally off base here.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I dont know where this Is Deckard a replicant or android is coming from but you have your take and thats cool with me. But in my humble opinion, major thoughts that Dick was trying to get across was...
[SNIP]
I hope you all think it is a bit insightful. Lemme know if Im totally off base here.

Scarpi,

I don't know what Dick was trying to get across since I haven't read the book yet but I found your observations very interesting. Thanks. I do have a copy of the book in audio format and it is on my short list of books to listen to while cycling.

[scarpi41]

Id say give it a read, or a listen in your case. Its a good piece of literature, and keeps you into it the whole way. Except maybe the very end when it gets overly weird and I got a bit lost, but other than that, its good. You will find its very different from the movie. Like they say, Dont judge a book by its movie. :D

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Except maybe the very end when it gets overly weird and I got a bit lost, but other than that, its good. You will find its very different from the movie. Like they say, Dont judge a book by its movie. :D

I've got no problem with a movie having a different ending than the book, as long as it makes sense.

Example is LA Confidential, very different endings and results of the shootout at the VictoryMotel; both satisfying except perhaps to purists who think a movie screenplay must be identical to the novel.

[mkauffman]

I agree, the movie was excellent. I also think the book was better. Seeing and reading Dick are two completely different animals as mentioned above, I just prefer to read him. That said A Scanner Darkly made little sense to me until I saw the movie. So I'm a fan of doing both. And not all of Gen X/Y hate thinking, just far too many of us...

[Mazeraski]

Excellent book and film. Now I have to read A Scanner Darkly since I have seen that film as well.