7 ms·

“Blade Runner” has its own look, and a place in film history (1982)

75 points by mgl 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago
Remarkable (remarkably humorous) how Newark is the model for a dystopian city to the reviewer (of The New Yorker - everything fits). («Newark and old Singapore» - because Singapore has since fixed itself.)
shantnutiwari 4y ago
Am I the only one who doesn't get the hype about Blade Runner? I guess, it was an okay movie, but hardly the cult classic everyone keeps talking about, and with a weird cop-out ending that doesnt really offer any resolution (yes I know there are alternative endings, they seem as bad).
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > hardly the cult classic A "classic", to the definition of Italo Calvino, is that thing which tells you something new every time you explore it. You are probably looking for something different from what that work is. Because others have found further meanings in it in the course of decades. (And already reading this article I find myself entangled in one of its riddles.) Edit again: and in fact, the reviewer shows to be clueless, states in clear contradiction that the movie forces passivity, places a number of questions in the review and stop short of attempting finding answers. No, the questions are there: if you are intrigued about finding the answers, that is your "privilege". Edit: By the way: what is «weird» to you in the «cop-out ending»? Because it is very linear if you "get" one of the main "prestiges" (after Nolan, "the thing in front of your eyes which in a way you may almost refuse to see") in the story. Edit2: and given said context, and what is drawn by the rest of the movie, the ending /is/ resolutive.
- witrak 4y ago
  Yeah, it's very probable! Sorry, I couldn't restrain myself :-)
- hiidrew 4y ago
  I agree, had a difficult time watching it and the remake. Although I think it's similar to Cyberpunk 2077 for me. That game is not the greatest but the environment & world is what piques my interest.
- novosel 4y ago
  For me, it is the whole cinematic universe conjured that is fantastic. The music, the grit, the characters, the dark baroque feeling it conveys. And that is, by the way, the hardest thing to accomplish on film. It is not in the cast, not in the size of the budget,... In the same sense how one can feel a B-movie 10 second in. (by B-movie I mean an author-less movie) edit: spelling
  - deltaonezero 4y ago
    I disagree. While challenging and a definite technical marvel these issues are relatively deterministic based around the amount of resources a movie has to throw at effects, cinematography and art direction. I feel pacing is the hardest thing to accomplish, and a lot of times it's the luck of the draw. Ridley scott in general, his movies have below average pacing. He got lucky one time with Gladiator. Blade runner is great, I love it. But I can't deny, among all of cinema and among ridley scotts filmography, Blade runner has pretty horrible pacing.
    - novosel 4y ago
      I agree, the pacing is hard. I assume you are talking about the narrative pacing. A well implemented push and pull of narrative is not always needed for a movie to work. I was talking about the whole atmosphere of the movie; even the slow spots, the lacunae, the horrible staggering of the story;-- it works. And that cannot be achieved by "relatively deterministic" production strategy. I accept that it can be "the luck of the draw". But that is exactly what it means for a work to have an author. With all of its fallibilities. (I dont presupose a single author either, maybe an _author structure_)
- kloch 4y ago
  I’m this case it’s not about the story which was only marginally interesting. It’s the cinematography, the color timing, the sets, the costumes. Blade Runner was a masterpiece in those areas (when combined) and defined it’s genre/aesthetic.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    That's what a movie is. Most people judge a movie strictly on the story but you can get a story from a book. What does the film medium add? A movie is also editing, sound design, cinematography, acting, sets, costumes, etc.
    - sound1 4y ago
      This is how I feel when people say they don't like instrumental music because there is no lyrics, and they can't figure out what the song was about.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Same. I've always liked the phrase, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it." The human voice is an instrument and I don't care about the lyrics to most songs. They usually aren't saying anything interesting. To me it's more about how they say it.
  - dangus 4y ago
    The story is so much more than "marginally interesting." When do creations made by human gain true sentience? When do they gain rights? What happens when these replicants are so advanced that their status as replicant is difficult to impossible to detect? What makes us human in the first place? How do we know our memories are genuine? Without our experiences and memories, are we just organic robots? Blade Runner gets a few of common pieces of criticisms: 1. Pacing. It feels slow. This might blow your mind: The movie is only 2 hours. The sequel is about 45 minutes longer. I think this criticism is, frankly, invalid. Plenty of art/indie films get positive points for being contemplative, but this is a detractor from Blade Runner for some reason. Pineapple Express has the exact same run time, Sex and the City 2 is longer. 2. Story and dialog. The movie is hard to understand the first time you watch it if you aren't hearing every word of dialog and processing it. I think this is the most valid criticism, but, again, it's supposed to be a good thing for a movie to challenge you to think, to take in context clues, rather than spoon-feeding you how you should feel like it's a summer blockbuster Marvel movie. 3. The ending. It's not much of one, there isn't a big payoff anywhere. This type of ending is somehow totally fine for art/indie films but "not okay" here. Personally, I think we're supposed to feel like being a Blade Runner is a bit pointless. The ending is unsatisfying on purpose, just like the endings in Disco Elysium.
- cbau 4y ago
  No, I agree. It's a slow movie, the acting and writing are kind of bad, and it failed to drive home the themes explored in the book its based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The book asked what it meant to be human, and pointed out some of the ironies of humans claiming empathy is what makes humans human, while simultaneously being completely callous towards other humans (by abandoning the masses on a dying Earth) and androids (who are conscious but enslaved and doomed to a short lifespan), and intentionally manipulating their feelings with essentially drugs. It was an entertaining read, which I picked up after watching the movie and feeling similarly confused. The movie kind of missed all that. The redeeming factor of the film for me was its visual style, which was innovative for its time, and defined the cyberpunk aesthetic that we are familiar with today. The dark dystopian ecumenopolis, neon lights, giant ads, flying cars, etc. Also worth pointing out that there were several different versions of the film, and some of them have a worse ending than others.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I believe the movie focuses on what was about a page and a half in the book, and expands that into an entire movie. They're related, but you're right that they're not telling the same story. Even so, Philip K Dick was apparently very enthusiastic about what Ridley Scott did with his story.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > Philip K Dick was apparently very enthusiastic You are looking for this: > I came to the conclusion that this indeed is not science fiction; it is not fantasy; it is exactly what Harrison said: futurism. The impact of Blade Runner is simply going to be overwhelming, both on the public and on creative people - and, I believe, on science fiction as a field. Since I have been writing and selling science fiction works for thirty years, this is a matter of some importance to me. In all candor I must say that our field has gradually and steadily been deteriorating for the last few years. Nothing that we have done, individually or collectively, matches B.R. This is not escapism; it is super realism, so gritty and detailed and authentic and goddam convincing that, well, after the segment I found my normal present-day “reality” pallid by comparison. What I am saying is that all of you collectively may have created a unique new form of graphic, artistic expression, never before seen. And, I think, B.R. is going to revolutionize our conceptions of what science fiction is and, more, can be. // Let me sum it up this way. Science fiction has slowly and ineluctably settled into a monotonous death: it has become inbred, derivative, stale. Suddenly you people have come in, some of the greatest talents currently in existence, and now we have a new life, a new start. As for my own role in the B.R. project, I can only say that I did not know that a work of mine or a set of ideas of mine could be escalated into such stunning dimensions. My life and creative work are justified and completed by Blade Runner
- bananamerica 4y ago
  Blade Runner is one of those movies that are remembered more for introducing interesting questions and world-building than presenting a truly engaging and highly efficient narrative. Like Star Wars and Robocop, it is not flawless and hardly a masterpiece. But, like the above, it also has a significant place in the history of film.
  - deltaonezero 4y ago
    Star wars is a masterpiece. You just need to look at the aftermath of what it did to the cultural landscape. By far more influential then blade runner. Star wars is definitely lower brow entertainment then blade runner but there's no denying the fact that it is far more influential.
    - bananamerica 4y ago
      I think you're conflating very dissimilar things. Blade Runner and Star Wars are both incredibly influential, but artistic quality and influence are two very different things. The word "masterpiece" is related to artistic quality, not influence. Keeping Up With the Kardashians is highly influential but few people would call it a masterpiece.
- mcv 4y ago
  > I guess, it was an okay movie, but hardly the cult classic everyone keeps talking about, But it is exactly the cult movie that everybody keeps talking about. Maybe it wasn't a blockbuster because of the reasons you give, but it had an iconic look that has influenced every SciFi movie since, and it takes its time to tell an interesting, complex story, where you can't really be sure who the good and bad guys really are. It's popular exactly because it's different. It was and still is immensely influential. But it's absolutely true that it's not standard middle-of-the-road blockbuster material.
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    Agreed. But also no denying the fact Blade Runner had horrible pacing. Pacing is hard to get right in a movie. It is a separate pillar of measurement for a movie. A movie can rate 10 out of 10 for setting and character development and 3 for pacing. Blade runner is such a movie. In general Ridley Scott isn't very good at making well paced movies. Pacing for him comes as a bit of a lucky draw. Gladiator is one of his movies that had incredible pacing, but in my opinion that was mostly luck as most of his movies don't have good pacing.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  It suffers from the same misfortune as the LOTR novels, Aliens, Friday the 13th, Godzilla, or countless other works that were among the first major works in their genres. They were groundbreaking, foundational works that influenced everything came after them. The later works were often amplified takes on what came before; explicit attempts to out-do their ancestors. (Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. You don't always improve things just by adding more...) So, folks go back to the originals and wonder: "what's the fuss about? what was so groundbreaking about the hard-sci-fi-ish space marines and H.R. Giger visuals in Aliens? or the boring, soulless, pondrous killer in Friday the 13th? " The originals seem tame or quaint by comparison to what came after. Know this: there is a whole world of enjoyment out there waiting for you should you ever decide to appreciate works of art in their appropriate historical contexts. Blade Runner has its faults and its charms and is by no means a perfect movie, but it is arguably the most visually influential movie in history or damn close to it. Things are never entirely born from nowhere, but Blade Runner's now-cliched "neon cyberpunk dystopian future" look had never been really done before, certainly not on the big screen, and I'm honestly not sure if it's been done better since. As far as discussing Blade Runner on its own merits, outside of any context... I understand why some think it's boring. It's slow and meditative. Deckard is a cipher. But this is by design. It works for me, mostly. Of course, if you just want to skip all of that context business and focus on the latest/flashiest works in a particular genre... that's cool too. Literally nothing wrong with that. It's art. You can interact with it however you want. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
  - namdnay 4y ago
    the trope is called "Seinfeld is unfunny" : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...
  - Hasu 4y ago
    While I mostly agree, The Lord of the Rings still stands head and shoulders above anything else in the fantasy genre. I recently reread them and I'd forgotten how much better they are than anything else in fantasy.
- ravenstine 4y ago
  I concur. There are aspects of Blade Runner I certainly appreciate, and I think the world's a better place with films like it. Yet the hype around it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It also lacks many things that typically makes a movie an enduring classic. There's not a lot of memorable dialogue or things that are meme-worthy. Not saying that those things are what make a great movie, but many great movies, even very old ones, rear their head in popular culture much more than I think Blade Runner has. I certainly hear about Blade Runner a lot, but it's rare that why people enjoy it is articulated beyond appreciation for style. Also, I think the direction should have made it more clear that Decker is not exactly a protagonist. Because it doesn't (from what I remember), it's a bit confusing when he sexually assaults that one synth. I just wasn't a fan of how that part of the plat is handled.
  - dangus 4y ago
    There was most definitely memorable dialog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue I also think it's quite clear that Decker is not morally upstanding from very early in the film. His job is quite literally to be an executioner.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > There's not a lot of memorable [dia]logue Well, apart from the "I have seen things / tears in the rain" bit, the "It's too bad she won't live" monument, the inter-special interactions, the patricide/deicide, the silences in the perspective of the androidic mind, which makes dialogues almost monologues or no-logues...
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > Am I the only one who doesn't get the hype about Blade Runner? Statistically speaking, you certainly are.
  - deltaonezero 4y ago
    No he's not. Most people don't find blade runner entertaining. HN is not in any way representative of the general audience. Actually statistically speaking he's part of the majority.
- cpach 4y ago
  It’s not easy for me to think of a scifi movie that I like more than Blade Runner, or Alien/Aliens. The cinematic craft they show is, IMHO, simply stunning. I enjoy the pace of Blade Runner. Many movies today are just too busy and pointlessly hysterical.
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    > I enjoy the pace of Blade Runner. Many movies today are just too busy and pointlessly hysterical. Agree, Blade Runner has perfect pacing for me. It is not action movie, but i do not expect nor want it to be one. Compared to other classic sci-fi movies like 2001: Space Odyssey, or Tarkovsky's Solaris or Stalker, these are slow-pacing movies.
    - deltaonezero 4y ago
      I like blade runner, but I'm one of the people who finds the pacing horrible and I think most people in the general audience agree with me. Blade runner definitely is not blockbuster for this reason. I sometimes meet people like you and the parent who actually like the pacing of BR and I totally get it. It's like reading a deep novel. Though I wonder, are you guys able to empathize with why pacing is actually important to the general audience? Was something like Game of Thrones (probably one of the most masterfully paced pieces of cinema) just too "busy?"
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  An important part of movies is pacing. Many fans (not all and not the majority, but a lot) are so snobbish, they can't see the fact that Blade Runner has really bad pacing. Blade runner is great, I like the movie, but it lacks pacing and many members of the general audience place a high bar on pacing. From my perspective, while I like the movie, I can still understand why someone like you wouldn't like it. And it makes sense. What you say is true, the ending offers no resolution and the pacing through the whole movie was just really bad. But the good parts of blade runner that people talk about. Those things are also true.
francisofascii 4y ago
Is this article posted today because of framed.wtf?
- unpopularopp 4y ago
  Nice spoilers lmao
- atombender 4y ago
  No, it's the 40th anniversary of the film's release.
macintux 4y ago
Extensive discussion of the film just two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31887748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31887748
gumby 4y ago
> “Blade Runner” doesn’t engage you directly; it forces passivity on you. It sets you down in this lopsided maze of a city, with its post-human feeling, and keeps you persuaded that something bad is about to happen. Which, as it happened, turned out to be a perfect prediction of contemporary life.

75 points by mgl 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago

Remarkable (remarkably humorous) how Newark is the model for a dystopian city to the reviewer (of The New Yorker - everything fits). («Newark and old Singapore» - because Singapore has since fixed itself.)

shantnutiwari 4y ago

Am I the only one who doesn't get the hype about Blade Runner? I guess, it was an okay movie, but hardly the cult classic everyone keeps talking about, and with a weird cop-out ending that doesnt really offer any resolution (yes I know there are alternative endings, they seem as bad).

mdp2021 4y ago
> hardly the cult classic A "classic", to the definition of Italo Calvino, is that thing which tells you something new every time you explore it. You are probably looking for something different from what that work is. Because others have found further meanings in it in the course of decades. (And already reading this article I find myself entangled in one of its riddles.) Edit again: and in fact, the reviewer shows to be clueless, states in clear contradiction that the movie forces passivity, places a number of questions in the review and stop short of attempting finding answers. No, the questions are there: if you are intrigued about finding the answers, that is your "privilege". Edit: By the way: what is «weird» to you in the «cop-out ending»? Because it is very linear if you "get" one of the main "prestiges" (after Nolan, "the thing in front of your eyes which in a way you may almost refuse to see") in the story. Edit2: and given said context, and what is drawn by the rest of the movie, the ending /is/ resolutive.
witrak 4y ago
Yeah, it's very probable! Sorry, I couldn't restrain myself :-)
hiidrew 4y ago
I agree, had a difficult time watching it and the remake. Although I think it's similar to Cyberpunk 2077 for me. That game is not the greatest but the environment & world is what piques my interest.
novosel 4y ago
For me, it is the whole cinematic universe conjured that is fantastic. The music, the grit, the characters, the dark baroque feeling it conveys. And that is, by the way, the hardest thing to accomplish on film. It is not in the cast, not in the size of the budget,... In the same sense how one can feel a B-movie 10 second in. (by B-movie I mean an author-less movie) edit: spelling
- deltaonezero 4y ago
  I disagree. While challenging and a definite technical marvel these issues are relatively deterministic based around the amount of resources a movie has to throw at effects, cinematography and art direction. I feel pacing is the hardest thing to accomplish, and a lot of times it's the luck of the draw. Ridley scott in general, his movies have below average pacing. He got lucky one time with Gladiator. Blade runner is great, I love it. But I can't deny, among all of cinema and among ridley scotts filmography, Blade runner has pretty horrible pacing.
  - novosel 4y ago
    I agree, the pacing is hard. I assume you are talking about the narrative pacing. A well implemented push and pull of narrative is not always needed for a movie to work. I was talking about the whole atmosphere of the movie; even the slow spots, the lacunae, the horrible staggering of the story;-- it works. And that cannot be achieved by "relatively deterministic" production strategy. I accept that it can be "the luck of the draw". But that is exactly what it means for a work to have an author. With all of its fallibilities. (I dont presupose a single author either, maybe an _author structure_)
kloch 4y ago
I’m this case it’s not about the story which was only marginally interesting. It’s the cinematography, the color timing, the sets, the costumes. Blade Runner was a masterpiece in those areas (when combined) and defined it’s genre/aesthetic.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  That's what a movie is. Most people judge a movie strictly on the story but you can get a story from a book. What does the film medium add? A movie is also editing, sound design, cinematography, acting, sets, costumes, etc.
  - sound1 4y ago
    This is how I feel when people say they don't like instrumental music because there is no lyrics, and they can't figure out what the song was about.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Same. I've always liked the phrase, "it's not what you say, it's how you say it." The human voice is an instrument and I don't care about the lyrics to most songs. They usually aren't saying anything interesting. To me it's more about how they say it.
- dangus 4y ago
  The story is so much more than "marginally interesting." When do creations made by human gain true sentience? When do they gain rights? What happens when these replicants are so advanced that their status as replicant is difficult to impossible to detect? What makes us human in the first place? How do we know our memories are genuine? Without our experiences and memories, are we just organic robots? Blade Runner gets a few of common pieces of criticisms: 1. Pacing. It feels slow. This might blow your mind: The movie is only 2 hours. The sequel is about 45 minutes longer. I think this criticism is, frankly, invalid. Plenty of art/indie films get positive points for being contemplative, but this is a detractor from Blade Runner for some reason. Pineapple Express has the exact same run time, Sex and the City 2 is longer. 2. Story and dialog. The movie is hard to understand the first time you watch it if you aren't hearing every word of dialog and processing it. I think this is the most valid criticism, but, again, it's supposed to be a good thing for a movie to challenge you to think, to take in context clues, rather than spoon-feeding you how you should feel like it's a summer blockbuster Marvel movie. 3. The ending. It's not much of one, there isn't a big payoff anywhere. This type of ending is somehow totally fine for art/indie films but "not okay" here. Personally, I think we're supposed to feel like being a Blade Runner is a bit pointless. The ending is unsatisfying on purpose, just like the endings in Disco Elysium.
cbau 4y ago
No, I agree. It's a slow movie, the acting and writing are kind of bad, and it failed to drive home the themes explored in the book its based on, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The book asked what it meant to be human, and pointed out some of the ironies of humans claiming empathy is what makes humans human, while simultaneously being completely callous towards other humans (by abandoning the masses on a dying Earth) and androids (who are conscious but enslaved and doomed to a short lifespan), and intentionally manipulating their feelings with essentially drugs. It was an entertaining read, which I picked up after watching the movie and feeling similarly confused. The movie kind of missed all that. The redeeming factor of the film for me was its visual style, which was innovative for its time, and defined the cyberpunk aesthetic that we are familiar with today. The dark dystopian ecumenopolis, neon lights, giant ads, flying cars, etc. Also worth pointing out that there were several different versions of the film, and some of them have a worse ending than others.
- mcv 4y ago
  I believe the movie focuses on what was about a page and a half in the book, and expands that into an entire movie. They're related, but you're right that they're not telling the same story. Even so, Philip K Dick was apparently very enthusiastic about what Ridley Scott did with his story.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Philip K Dick was apparently very enthusiastic You are looking for this: > I came to the conclusion that this indeed is not science fiction; it is not fantasy; it is exactly what Harrison said: futurism. The impact of Blade Runner is simply going to be overwhelming, both on the public and on creative people - and, I believe, on science fiction as a field. Since I have been writing and selling science fiction works for thirty years, this is a matter of some importance to me. In all candor I must say that our field has gradually and steadily been deteriorating for the last few years. Nothing that we have done, individually or collectively, matches B.R. This is not escapism; it is super realism, so gritty and detailed and authentic and goddam convincing that, well, after the segment I found my normal present-day “reality” pallid by comparison. What I am saying is that all of you collectively may have created a unique new form of graphic, artistic expression, never before seen. And, I think, B.R. is going to revolutionize our conceptions of what science fiction is and, more, can be. // Let me sum it up this way. Science fiction has slowly and ineluctably settled into a monotonous death: it has become inbred, derivative, stale. Suddenly you people have come in, some of the greatest talents currently in existence, and now we have a new life, a new start. As for my own role in the B.R. project, I can only say that I did not know that a work of mine or a set of ideas of mine could be escalated into such stunning dimensions. My life and creative work are justified and completed by Blade Runner
bananamerica 4y ago
Blade Runner is one of those movies that are remembered more for introducing interesting questions and world-building than presenting a truly engaging and highly efficient narrative. Like Star Wars and Robocop, it is not flawless and hardly a masterpiece. But, like the above, it also has a significant place in the history of film.
- deltaonezero 4y ago
  Star wars is a masterpiece. You just need to look at the aftermath of what it did to the cultural landscape. By far more influential then blade runner. Star wars is definitely lower brow entertainment then blade runner but there's no denying the fact that it is far more influential.
  - bananamerica 4y ago
    I think you're conflating very dissimilar things. Blade Runner and Star Wars are both incredibly influential, but artistic quality and influence are two very different things. The word "masterpiece" is related to artistic quality, not influence. Keeping Up With the Kardashians is highly influential but few people would call it a masterpiece.
mcv 4y ago
> I guess, it was an okay movie, but hardly the cult classic everyone keeps talking about, But it is exactly the cult movie that everybody keeps talking about. Maybe it wasn't a blockbuster because of the reasons you give, but it had an iconic look that has influenced every SciFi movie since, and it takes its time to tell an interesting, complex story, where you can't really be sure who the good and bad guys really are. It's popular exactly because it's different. It was and still is immensely influential. But it's absolutely true that it's not standard middle-of-the-road blockbuster material.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  Agreed. But also no denying the fact Blade Runner had horrible pacing. Pacing is hard to get right in a movie. It is a separate pillar of measurement for a movie. A movie can rate 10 out of 10 for setting and character development and 3 for pacing. Blade runner is such a movie. In general Ridley Scott isn't very good at making well paced movies. Pacing for him comes as a bit of a lucky draw. Gladiator is one of his movies that had incredible pacing, but in my opinion that was mostly luck as most of his movies don't have good pacing.
JohnBooty 4y ago
It suffers from the same misfortune as the LOTR novels, Aliens, Friday the 13th, Godzilla, or countless other works that were among the first major works in their genres. They were groundbreaking, foundational works that influenced everything came after them. The later works were often amplified takes on what came before; explicit attempts to out-do their ancestors. (Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. You don't always improve things just by adding more...) So, folks go back to the originals and wonder: "what's the fuss about? what was so groundbreaking about the hard-sci-fi-ish space marines and H.R. Giger visuals in Aliens? or the boring, soulless, pondrous killer in Friday the 13th? " The originals seem tame or quaint by comparison to what came after. Know this: there is a whole world of enjoyment out there waiting for you should you ever decide to appreciate works of art in their appropriate historical contexts. Blade Runner has its faults and its charms and is by no means a perfect movie, but it is arguably the most visually influential movie in history or damn close to it. Things are never entirely born from nowhere, but Blade Runner's now-cliched "neon cyberpunk dystopian future" look had never been really done before, certainly not on the big screen, and I'm honestly not sure if it's been done better since. As far as discussing Blade Runner on its own merits, outside of any context... I understand why some think it's boring. It's slow and meditative. Deckard is a cipher. But this is by design. It works for me, mostly. Of course, if you just want to skip all of that context business and focus on the latest/flashiest works in a particular genre... that's cool too. Literally nothing wrong with that. It's art. You can interact with it however you want. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
- namdnay 4y ago
  the trope is called "Seinfeld is unfunny" : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...
- Hasu 4y ago
  While I mostly agree, The Lord of the Rings still stands head and shoulders above anything else in the fantasy genre. I recently reread them and I'd forgotten how much better they are than anything else in fantasy.
ravenstine 4y ago
I concur. There are aspects of Blade Runner I certainly appreciate, and I think the world's a better place with films like it. Yet the hype around it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It also lacks many things that typically makes a movie an enduring classic. There's not a lot of memorable dialogue or things that are meme-worthy. Not saying that those things are what make a great movie, but many great movies, even very old ones, rear their head in popular culture much more than I think Blade Runner has. I certainly hear about Blade Runner a lot, but it's rare that why people enjoy it is articulated beyond appreciation for style. Also, I think the direction should have made it more clear that Decker is not exactly a protagonist. Because it doesn't (from what I remember), it's a bit confusing when he sexually assaults that one synth. I just wasn't a fan of how that part of the plat is handled.
- dangus 4y ago
  There was most definitely memorable dialog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue I also think it's quite clear that Decker is not morally upstanding from very early in the film. His job is quite literally to be an executioner.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > There's not a lot of memorable [dia]logue Well, apart from the "I have seen things / tears in the rain" bit, the "It's too bad she won't live" monument, the inter-special interactions, the patricide/deicide, the silences in the perspective of the androidic mind, which makes dialogues almost monologues or no-logues...
ur-whale 4y ago
> Am I the only one who doesn't get the hype about Blade Runner? Statistically speaking, you certainly are.
- deltaonezero 4y ago
  No he's not. Most people don't find blade runner entertaining. HN is not in any way representative of the general audience. Actually statistically speaking he's part of the majority.
cpach 4y ago
It’s not easy for me to think of a scifi movie that I like more than Blade Runner, or Alien/Aliens. The cinematic craft they show is, IMHO, simply stunning. I enjoy the pace of Blade Runner. Many movies today are just too busy and pointlessly hysterical.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > I enjoy the pace of Blade Runner. Many movies today are just too busy and pointlessly hysterical. Agree, Blade Runner has perfect pacing for me. It is not action movie, but i do not expect nor want it to be one. Compared to other classic sci-fi movies like 2001: Space Odyssey, or Tarkovsky's Solaris or Stalker, these are slow-pacing movies.
  - deltaonezero 4y ago
    I like blade runner, but I'm one of the people who finds the pacing horrible and I think most people in the general audience agree with me. Blade runner definitely is not blockbuster for this reason. I sometimes meet people like you and the parent who actually like the pacing of BR and I totally get it. It's like reading a deep novel. Though I wonder, are you guys able to empathize with why pacing is actually important to the general audience? Was something like Game of Thrones (probably one of the most masterfully paced pieces of cinema) just too "busy?"
deltaonefour 4y ago
An important part of movies is pacing. Many fans (not all and not the majority, but a lot) are so snobbish, they can't see the fact that Blade Runner has really bad pacing. Blade runner is great, I like the movie, but it lacks pacing and many members of the general audience place a high bar on pacing. From my perspective, while I like the movie, I can still understand why someone like you wouldn't like it. And it makes sense. What you say is true, the ending offers no resolution and the pacing through the whole movie was just really bad. But the good parts of blade runner that people talk about. Those things are also true.

francisofascii 4y ago

Is this article posted today because of framed.wtf?

unpopularopp 4y ago
Nice spoilers lmao
atombender 4y ago
No, it's the 40th anniversary of the film's release.

macintux 4y ago

Extensive discussion of the film just two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31887748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31887748

gumby 4y ago

> “Blade Runner” doesn’t engage you directly; it forces passivity on you. It sets you down in this lopsided maze of a city, with its post-human feeling, and keeps you persuaded that something bad is about to happen. Which, as it happened, turned out to be a perfect prediction of contemporary life.