5 ms·
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 the
by 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 agothe trope is called "Seinfeld is unfunny" : https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...
- Hasu 4y agoWhile 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.
- georgeecollins 4y ago>> the boring, soulless, pondrous killer in Friday the 13th? " You mean Halloween, in which John Carpenter invented the genre that everyone imitated. If you haven't seen it...
- JohnBooty 4y agoThank you! I forgot which one came first. Hopefully, my point still comes across.
- JohnBooty 4y agoI'm tempted to agree, but that's a huge statement given the absolute torrent of fantasy novels that have been written in its wake! I need to re-read them. It's been too long.
- deltaonefour 4y agoi personally found LOTR to be "groundbreaking" for it's time. But if LOTR came out after say something like GOT. Well GOT is better in that sense. The key difference between modern cinema and previous cinema is pacing; and this is a key ingredient stories need to be good, that people often dismiss. GOT by itself, is a relatively Mundane story. But pacing was masterful. Killing off the main character at the end of the first season was revolutionary. LOTR also has a relatively generic plot. LOTR is mostly famous for the world building. That was a first and it was revolutionary as well. I would say however, that when analyzing basic human nature and looking at what we truly like and don't like... pacing is actually far more important then world building. Blade Runner is great, I liked blade runner for the world building and character development as well. But don't be so snobbish as to ignore pacing. The pacing in blade runner is categorically horrible.
- JohnBooty 4y agoYou seem to have a very specific view of pacing: faster is better. To me that feels very limiting. But, as with all things art, I think there's no way to enjoy or feel about it. I feel a lot differently but that doesn't mean I'm right.
- scooter_de 4y agoFrom the recent movies, I think "The Matrix" was more influential than "Blade Runner". You can split the history in movies before Matrix and the movies after.
- JohnBooty 4y agoThat's a great pick. If we were going to pick a handful of candidates, Matrix definitely would have to be a part of that very short list. Part of me wants to stump for Blade Runner over The Matrix, if only because Blade Runner had less... prior art, so to speak. It was more of an entirely new aesthetic whereas The Matrix was more evolutionary. The leap was huge, don't get me wrong, but it felt more evolutionary. Blade Runner's look is something you continue to see today in various sci-fi and games, copied nearly verbatim. It was simultaneously the birth of a new aesthetic and maybe its apex as well. Like, where do you even go with that look? It felt fully realized, right there in 1982. The Matrix... it wasn't really the look that influenced future works, it was more of the camera work and wild shots. Bullet time, the 360deg freeze circular panning thing, and so on. I guess you do see "bullet time" everywhere now. There's also something to be said about the relative financial success of the movies. Blade Runner was that influential despite being a box office and critical dud at the time. It's relatively easy (and even expected) for smash hits to wield massive influence. But duds? We have to admit: that's just incredible. Anyway - awesome pick. Rather than picking one over the other, I would say: they both belong on the Mt. Rushmore of "most visually influential movies."
- trgn 4y ago> new aesthetic and maybe its apex I watched it again yesterday. I'd forgotten how amazingly real and fully realized that world was. I don't think that movie will ever age. Love your points, agreed on all of them.
- deltaonezero 4y agoeh it's aging. It'll get to the point where it's unwatchable one day. The whole grid zoom thing is the most prominent thing that aged in my opinion. It all happened on a CRT screen which is a definite sign of the times and therefore a sign of aging.
- daveslash 4y agoVery well put, and I agree. I'd like to add to your list: Die Hard has always felt to me like the genesis of the modern action movie.