7 ms·

The Art and Beauty of Blade Runner (2015)

182 points by cocacola1 2mo ago

ilamont 2mo ago
This came up about a month ago when someone posted a link celebrating the title cards in Blade Runner. I responded then the same way I will respond now: it’s not just the amazing visuals, it’s also the amazing auditory experience, an additional creative dimension to transport the audience into a dystopian future. The audio consists of two parts: the wonderful minimalist score by Vangelis, and sound effects that include distant booms, twinkling computer notes, dripping rain, strange languages, the whoosh of futuristic vehicles, even small details such as the crosswalk warning. Along with the set design, photography, special effects, acting, and other visual elements, the audio effectively immerses viewers into this incredible world and story. Keep in mind that a typical viewer entering the local cineplex in 1982 to watch Blade Runner might have just stepped out of a Chevy Nova with an 8-track cassette player loaded with Juice Newton and Kool & The Gang. The visuals, the score, the sound effects, and the story would have been completely novel, and totally mind-blowing.
- WalterBright 2mo ago
  I stepped in to watch it in 1982. Didn't like it much. But rewatching it over the years, it grew on me.
  - dtnm 2mo ago
    The re-cuts are definitely an improvement on the original theatrical release. It's a matter of taste, but for me Director's Cut is the better.
  - KurSix 2mo ago
    I wonder if part of that is that Blade Runner doesn't optimize for the first viewing. Once you already know where the plot is going, your attention is free to wander into the production design, sound, background activity
    - clan 2mo ago
      But it does! (Or did) The first theatrical release had a drab narration by Harrison Ford. At places it makes it sound like a cheap film noir detective story. The Directors Cut is the unbutchered version. Maybe 4D chess by Ridley Scott. Most had seen the optimized version first and was prepared for the magic which is the recut version ;-) I have the opposite feeling with Apocalypse Now. The Redux version killed the pacing and explained too much. The added scenes are by themselves worthwhile (and explains later actions) but makes the complete movie a bit heavy handed. By comparison Blade Runner feels more ethereal even though the both cover dark subjects of human nature.
      - objclxt 2mo ago
        > The Directors Cut is the unbutchered version. The Director's Cut (released in 1992) drops the narration and adds the dream sequence, but despite the name is not entirely approved by Ridley Scott. The Final Cut (released in 2007) is the only version where Ridley Scott had full final cut approval. It re-masters the audio, fixes some of the effects (replacing faces on stunt doubles, removing wires, etc), and changes a few lines (most notably "I want more life, father" instead of "fucker"). The color is also re-graded. Some people prefer the Director's Cut over the Final Cut, especially the color grading, although I saw the Final Cut in 35mm when it was released and it looked pretty spectacular. In any event the changes in the Final Cut are nowhere near as egregious as the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films.
        account42 2mo ago
        > the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films I really wonder why some creatives are so determined to sabotage their earlier works later in life. Do they actually believe that they are making them better and are so used to being told how great they are that they can too easily dismiss anyone telling them otherwise? Or are they perhaps (consciously or subconsciously) threatened by a standard that their current self can no longer match up to? It's sad that with the way copyright and movie distribution work that these butchered version become the only version new audiences get to see.
  - srean 2mo ago
    Yup. It's one of those weird and rare movies that grows on you the number of times you watch it. I have watched it at different ages. The later I have watched the better it seemed.
- WalterGR 2mo ago
  > someone posted a link celebrating the title cards in Blade Runner. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49189287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49189287
- alchemism 2mo ago
  The highlight of my summer was Blade Runner Live At the Acropolis. The movie was shown in the ancient theater with a live orchestra performing Vangelis. They may have a global tour of it in some places this fall.
  - KurSix 2mo ago
    Wow... The venue almost adds another layer to the movie. You're watching a 1982 vision of 2019, accompanied by live electronic-orchestral music, inside a theater built a couple thousand years ago...
    - jaharios 2mo ago
      Also Vangelis was pretty much inspired by Byzantine Greek Music which was inspired by Ancient Greek music which was played in the ancient theater 2 millennia ago.
    - alchemism 2mo ago
      And behind the screen on the horizon, framed in a stone arch, was the lights of the ongoing Elliniko megatower construction project, which already dwarfs every structure in the country. It was another layer onto what you described.
  - srean 2mo ago
    Oh vow. Now jealous. My highlight that can even dare to come close would be a Roger Waters show. Would love to experience the three *katsis in such a setting.
- KurSix 2mo ago
  The sound is probably why the visuals feel so much larger than the sets actually were
- shevy-java 2mo ago
  The audio was good but after I listened to it many times, I started to dislike it. On the other hand, for instance, the Conan the barbarian main themes I can always listen to numerous times. I think Blade Runner stands out for the visual effects though. The dystopian future cities were great. It were these effects packed into a storyline why I did not want to watch the "sequel".
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  >audio It's another of those movies which uses light extremely effectively, also. In fact I've heard it said that every single shot in Blade Runner carefully deals with light specifically.
- kilroy123 2mo ago
  I agree. The other week I saw this at a movie theater. I was blown away by the audio experience. So much better than watching it on my subpar home audio. It was a cool experience to watch this on the big screen.
- BLKNSLVR 2mo ago
  Just your description makes me want to watch it again twice, and one of those times is with my eyes closed.
- geophile 2mo ago
  I saw Blade Runner in its first theater run, and I was bored. But it stayed with me, and decided that I had to watch it again. And again and again, and I've now seen in dozens of times over the years. It is one of my favorites, for the completeness of the world, for the visuals, for the music, for the ideas, for the acting, for the little details I keep discovering. Ridley Scott's idea of the scifi future being as gritty, ugly and dysfunctional as current times led to his creation of his two scifi masterpieces -- Blade Runner and Alien. The sequels have been disappointing, they had to be.
  - ilamont 2mo ago
    > The sequels have been disappointing, they had to be. Scott never owned the rights to Blade Runner and wasn't heavily involved in 2049. It shows. The script. The choice of actors. Clumsy scenes, like the fight scene at the casino with its stiff choreography. The pointless "virtual girlfriend" subplot. The location for the shoots (Hungary IIRC) which really limited the pool of extras - hardly a single Asian person to be seen. Some of the people who worked on the film tried their best, including the CGI and set designers and the score (by Hans Zimmer) but I could only watch it once from beginning to end in IMAX. The second time at home I had to stop halfway through.
    - geophile 2mo ago
      I had modest expectations going in (I mean, how could it possibly compare?). But it was still disappointing. I expected so much better from Denis Villeneuve. Unfortunately, he seems to have veered into big-budget pretentious scifi schlock. I had to leave the IMAX showing of 2049, it was deafening (and I'm already hard of hearing!) Saw the whole thing in an ordinary non-IMAX theater, which was much more tolerable.
      - the_af 2mo ago
        I was disappointed with BR2049 but thought his Dune adaptation is actually good...
esafak 2mo ago
It's amazing that Blade Runner looks as good as anything that has come since. And sounds way better.
- cocacola1 2mo ago
  My local Regal is playing it on September 12th. Can’t wait to see it again in theaters.
  - msephton 2mo ago
    I watched it a week or two ago at my local Picture House (at FACT). Had a great time!
- KurSix 2mo ago
  The sound especially feels almost impossible to date
- fullshark 2mo ago
  Genuine craft and human ingenuity can be a wonderful thing. Technology is a force multiplier and it's not always going to lead to better results in lesser hands. In general there's also a problem that cinematography has gone to hell in filmmaking, because they want to be able to incorporate CGI more (cost) effectively and that means things like proper lighting and color grading is no longer utilized.
  - BLKNSLVR 2mo ago
    "thicknesse" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49347543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49347543
DocIsInDaHouse 2mo ago
It’s one of the very few immersive masterpieces where all elements complement each other: script, acting, score, production design, lighting, cinematography. The core vision was so brilliant that even short-sighted studio bosses couldn't destroy it with a butchered edit.
KurSix 2mo ago
[dead]
sixtyj 2mo ago
> The movie even inspired Anders Ramsell to paint 3285 water colour prints, and then turn those into a remarkable short film.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
liendolucas 2mo ago
Of the sci-fi genre for me it will always be #1. The whole thing is just perfect, there's no other movie that comes close to the world that is envisioned in Blade Runner.
- Gud 2mo ago
  Terminator #1 and #2 are probably more realistic though, despite the time travel.
  - srean 2mo ago
    But nowhere close to the emotional impact. People usually do not remember what happened turn by turn but they do remember what it made them feel. Funnily enough, in the movie, the humans have little no feelings but the androids do -- and that is the central question that the movie made me consider -- what makes us human. I am ofcourse biased because Blade Runner (original) is not only on my top 5 scifi movie list but also on my top 5 movie list. So much so that I am reluctant to watch 2049.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
      I think Blade Runner and Alien helped destroy mainstream science fiction. Before Blade Runner almost anything could be science fiction. After Blade Runner science fiction meant detective noir with #tech_upgrade - clones, memory implants, dystopia. Or it was US truckers and/or the military fighting nasty aliens in spaaaaaaace. (Star Wars and its magic space knights was always more fantasy with a science fiction stage set.) Blade Runner did it far better than the others, but then we had decades of mostly mediocre book knock-offs, especially in the UK. (Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.) It's a stunning, iconic masterpiece of a movie with an unfortunate chilling cultural effect. And ironically the Philip K Dick original was... very different.
      - srean 2mo ago
        > And ironically the Philip K Dick original was... very different. True. Ridley Scott and Philip K Dick collaborated very closely to tell it like they wanted it to. Studios liked it ... not so much.
dyzone 2mo ago
I'm yet to see the movie. Are there any spoilers in this article?
- shevy-java 2mo ago
  Well, some characters are mentioned and images are shown, so this is a tiny bit of a spoiler. But your trade-off would be "shall I first watch Blade Runner before reading this article"; watch it today. And read the article anyway, as it is not just about Blade Runner but also e. g. Logan’s Run. Now, Logan’s Run is not as good as Blade Runner, but it has some elements that are quite interesting IMO. So it can also be recommended, even though I find it a bit dated now; Blade Runner is not dated though really. Probably one of the most important science fiction movie ever made. The book is also good, but different to the movie; I was disappointed because I found the movie was better, but the book is in many ways much more logical. It kind of explains why there are so few animals and so many artificial animals (even though from a biological point of view this makes no sense, humans are also animals after all), whereas in the movie, it is rarely explained why there are artificial animals. IMO the book was more intrinsically logical, and more desperate e. g. regular humans were drug addicts, that was totally cut in the movie. I still liked the movie more, even though I think the book had a stronger intrinsic logic; but the performance of Rutger Hauer really was epic there. IMO his best performance in his whole career.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
    The book felt dry and sort of boring to me. Which made me recognize that some movies can actually be better than the books they are based on. Which is not a given. That being said, there are sequels for the original movie in paperback, which I've found to be very acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Hu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Night https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Nigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_4:_Eye_and_Talon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_4:_Eye_and_Talon Did you know?
    - 2mo ago
shevy-java 2mo ago
Ridley Scott is perhaps not quite as script-centric as Martin Scorsese or able to make a multi-faceted movie like Spielberg or visual effects heavy as George Lucas. However had, Ridley Scott has by far the best visual eye and is also able to draw like a professional designer, which the others can't. I think the best example for this can be seen in both Alien (first one) and Gladiator. In Gladiator he was much more professional from A to Z, but I think the first Alien is even more impressive if you look at it. The camera work is brilliant (Martin also has great camera work in Taxi Driver, but in Alien the effect is IMO much more profound) and the work around for visual problems (depicting the alien without it looking like garbage) was really epic. It is not easily possible to rank directors, but from a visual point of view, Ridley is probably the best individual (visual) artist as such (note: I refer to his abilities, not to the final product, which may not require as much individual artistic prowess, in other words, Martin may not be able to draw something with a pencil, but the end result movie has strong visual effects - see the desert scene in Casino or the "Do I amuse you?" scene in Goodfellas).
chadcmulligan 2mo ago
Alien is the same imho, hard to believe two of the most iconic sci fi's were created by the same guy and only 3 years apart.
- huflungdung 2mo ago
  [dead]
timonoko 2mo ago
[flagged]
- esafak 2mo ago
  Same director (Scott). Why don't you forget it's based on a book and enjoy it on its own merits?
  - timonoko 2mo ago
    This was the sentiment of the time. I do not even remember the book now.
- amiantos 2mo ago
  I really disliked Blade Runner for a long time because I love the book so much. It wasn't until a humanities class in college that I learned to appreciate Blade Runner separately from the book. Now, instead of hating Blade Runner, I love it, and I hate Blade Runner 2049 instead, because that movie seems to have zero respect for the message of the first movie, and zero respect for the intention of Ridley Scott (it's obvious to me they changed some things just to get Harrison Ford back in the film). I know I am in the minority, but we are a minority that has extremely good and valid reasons for being upset about it.
  - keiferski 2mo ago
    2049 is a pretty mediocre film that would be forgotten if it didn’t have the BR name. I like both the 1984 film and the book though, but I primarily like the movie for the cinematography and atmosphere, more than the story, which is more interesting in the book.
swiftcoder 2mo ago
The other thing that always strikes me when rewatching Blade Runner, is just how much time to breathe every little scene is given. Maybe a little too much time in some of the longer director's cuts, but it's a really stark contrast to a lot of lesser films, that try and pack as many story beats as they can into their runtime.
- esafak 2mo ago
  Most new sci-fi/action movies are like that. Ones that cater to younger viewers are so bad I've had to walk out of movie theaters because I felt my senses were under assault. Fortunately there are traditional directors like Villeneuve.
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    It's not just sci-fi/action. There have been many articles written about the increase in edit cadence in all movies. One of the biggest comments about older films is how "slow" movies were. One of the examples I've seen goes something like: Wide shot of bank of elevators. Man walks up to elevator to push the button. Cut to close up of dial showing which floor the elevator is on showing the indicator moving back to first floor. A ding is heard indicating the elevator has arrived. Cut to wide shot showing doors opening, people exiting, man entering elevator. Cut to interior of elevator to see man choose floor and doors close. Now, you see the man walk to the elevator bank, hit the button, and then cut to the doors opening as man exits.
    - swiftcoder 2mo ago
      [dead]
  - jcims 2mo ago
    I rarely watch movies, I had to leave Elvis for this exact reason. It was relentless.
- mixmastamyk 2mo ago
  Was the norm in the 70s, and into the early 80s. My memory is that the turning point to quick cuts was after MTV and music videos became popular (1982+). I remember old folks complaining about the “attention span” of young people. Watching the old movies today, I do think that the 70s films are too slow and 90s+ films too aggressive with cuts. Would be nice to balance, or have important scenes breathe while others get chopped. Most movies are too long these days as well. The film itself was criticized as “Blade Crawler” back in the day.
Lio 2mo ago
I love the film but for a long time I really disliked that Ridley Scott changed the plot. To me Scott's idea that Deckard is a replicant but doesn't know it is just weak. Even the idea that they would make a replicant hunter that's weaker than the "basic pleasure model" it's designed to hunt doesn't work. I think Scott shoe-horned his change in after the fact and he's had to keep releasing new edits because it doesn't really fit. PKD's original plot themes are much richer and deeper: The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference? — Philip K. Dick
- serf 2mo ago
  I just want a version that includes the prophet Mercer stuff. felt like a huge component to drop out.
  - gedy 2mo ago
    I'm not rah rah AI but this type of thing is what interests me about AI video generation. Adding a scene like this for answering a personal "what if?" is really cool.
    - ManuelKiessling 2mo ago
      I was recently musing in this general direction, too. The movie business is completely foreign to me, but I wonder if stuff like this would work: copyright owners licensing out their IP for niche studios serving niche audiences — I‘m pretty sure a lot of people would pay good money for a different take on the final GoT season. Or that third season of your favorite show that never came to be. A Thrawn-focused Star Wars trilogy. Various crossovers. Assumed this would work good enough on a technical level any time soon — could it work in terms of licensing and economics?
      - 2mo ago
synecdoche 2mo ago
Many aspects have already been mentioned, all great in their own right, that lifts the movie into timeless greatness. I'd like to add one more. The stunning beauty and performance of Sean Young.
- srean 2mo ago
  https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8 https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8 You might like this one.
AnthonyCregan 2mo ago
"Click on the picture to enlarge" "COMPUTER. ENHANCE." WAS RIGHT THERE!
- JKCalhoun 2mo ago
  And bothered my engineer-mind because the "enhancements" revealed photographic details that were literally obscured by physical walls in the original photo.
  - esafak 2mo ago
    Look at what you can do now: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7496569314389721088 https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:74965693...
  - BLKNSLVR 2mo ago
    That seemed to be the point though, to highlight some kind of technological advancements of the time. I was always intrigued by it, like it was taken by multiple lenses, so it's essentially a 3d 'image' allowing a certain amount of point of view change. Clumsy as fuck interface though, I'll grant that.
wesz 2mo ago
Let me share this "fake" trailer i made for obscure polish movie that's heavily inspired by Blade Runner visuals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfTouivTBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfTouivTBY It's called O-Bi, O-Ba: The End of Civilization (1985). Another thing that might amuse Blade Runner nerds is my attempt at recreating Blimp advertisement video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK1LJKtHj6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK1LJKtHj6Y
TacticalCoder 2mo ago
The look of Pris is really amazing, for it's nearly timeless. Probably inspired by looks from the early 80s and I know there's a bit of a 80s comeback (at least music-wise) but I really dig it.
maxglute 2mo ago
It's time for a new point and click adventure game.
bananamogul 2mo ago
I guess nappertime.com took this article down? It's a 404 now.
SebastianSosa 2mo ago
Page is down 404. Way back machines snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20250729205154/https://nappertime.com/the-art-of-and-beauty-of-blade-runner/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250729205154/https://nappertim...

182 points by cocacola1 2mo ago

This came up about a month ago when someone posted a link celebrating the title cards in Blade Runner. I responded then the same way I will respond now: it’s not just the amazing visuals, it’s also the amazing auditory experience, an additional creative dimension to transport the audience into a dystopian future. The audio consists of two parts: the wonderful minimalist score by Vangelis, and sound effects that include distant booms, twinkling computer notes, dripping rain, strange languages, the whoosh of futuristic vehicles, even small details such as the crosswalk warning. Along with the set design, photography, special effects, acting, and other visual elements, the audio effectively immerses viewers into this incredible world and story. Keep in mind that a typical viewer entering the local cineplex in 1982 to watch Blade Runner might have just stepped out of a Chevy Nova with an 8-track cassette player loaded with Juice Newton and Kool & The Gang. The visuals, the score, the sound effects, and the story would have been completely novel, and totally mind-blowing.

WalterBright 2mo ago
I stepped in to watch it in 1982. Didn't like it much. But rewatching it over the years, it grew on me.
- dtnm 2mo ago
  The re-cuts are definitely an improvement on the original theatrical release. It's a matter of taste, but for me Director's Cut is the better.
- KurSix 2mo ago
  I wonder if part of that is that Blade Runner doesn't optimize for the first viewing. Once you already know where the plot is going, your attention is free to wander into the production design, sound, background activity
  - clan 2mo ago
    But it does! (Or did) The first theatrical release had a drab narration by Harrison Ford. At places it makes it sound like a cheap film noir detective story. The Directors Cut is the unbutchered version. Maybe 4D chess by Ridley Scott. Most had seen the optimized version first and was prepared for the magic which is the recut version ;-) I have the opposite feeling with Apocalypse Now. The Redux version killed the pacing and explained too much. The added scenes are by themselves worthwhile (and explains later actions) but makes the complete movie a bit heavy handed. By comparison Blade Runner feels more ethereal even though the both cover dark subjects of human nature.
    - objclxt 2mo ago
      > The Directors Cut is the unbutchered version. The Director's Cut (released in 1992) drops the narration and adds the dream sequence, but despite the name is not entirely approved by Ridley Scott. The Final Cut (released in 2007) is the only version where Ridley Scott had full final cut approval. It re-masters the audio, fixes some of the effects (replacing faces on stunt doubles, removing wires, etc), and changes a few lines (most notably "I want more life, father" instead of "fucker"). The color is also re-graded. Some people prefer the Director's Cut over the Final Cut, especially the color grading, although I saw the Final Cut in 35mm when it was released and it looked pretty spectacular. In any event the changes in the Final Cut are nowhere near as egregious as the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films.
      - account42 2mo ago
        > the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films I really wonder why some creatives are so determined to sabotage their earlier works later in life. Do they actually believe that they are making them better and are so used to being told how great they are that they can too easily dismiss anyone telling them otherwise? Or are they perhaps (consciously or subconsciously) threatened by a standard that their current self can no longer match up to? It's sad that with the way copyright and movie distribution work that these butchered version become the only version new audiences get to see.
- srean 2mo ago
  Yup. It's one of those weird and rare movies that grows on you the number of times you watch it. I have watched it at different ages. The later I have watched the better it seemed.
WalterGR 2mo ago
> someone posted a link celebrating the title cards in Blade Runner. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49189287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49189287
alchemism 2mo ago
The highlight of my summer was Blade Runner Live At the Acropolis. The movie was shown in the ancient theater with a live orchestra performing Vangelis. They may have a global tour of it in some places this fall.
- KurSix 2mo ago
  Wow... The venue almost adds another layer to the movie. You're watching a 1982 vision of 2019, accompanied by live electronic-orchestral music, inside a theater built a couple thousand years ago...
  - jaharios 2mo ago
    Also Vangelis was pretty much inspired by Byzantine Greek Music which was inspired by Ancient Greek music which was played in the ancient theater 2 millennia ago.
  - alchemism 2mo ago
    And behind the screen on the horizon, framed in a stone arch, was the lights of the ongoing Elliniko megatower construction project, which already dwarfs every structure in the country. It was another layer onto what you described.
- srean 2mo ago
  Oh vow. Now jealous. My highlight that can even dare to come close would be a Roger Waters show. Would love to experience the three *katsis in such a setting.
KurSix 2mo ago
The sound is probably why the visuals feel so much larger than the sets actually were
shevy-java 2mo ago
The audio was good but after I listened to it many times, I started to dislike it. On the other hand, for instance, the Conan the barbarian main themes I can always listen to numerous times. I think Blade Runner stands out for the visual effects though. The dystopian future cities were great. It were these effects packed into a storyline why I did not want to watch the "sequel".
MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
>audio It's another of those movies which uses light extremely effectively, also. In fact I've heard it said that every single shot in Blade Runner carefully deals with light specifically.
kilroy123 2mo ago
I agree. The other week I saw this at a movie theater. I was blown away by the audio experience. So much better than watching it on my subpar home audio. It was a cool experience to watch this on the big screen.
BLKNSLVR 2mo ago
Just your description makes me want to watch it again twice, and one of those times is with my eyes closed.
geophile 2mo ago
I saw Blade Runner in its first theater run, and I was bored. But it stayed with me, and decided that I had to watch it again. And again and again, and I've now seen in dozens of times over the years. It is one of my favorites, for the completeness of the world, for the visuals, for the music, for the ideas, for the acting, for the little details I keep discovering. Ridley Scott's idea of the scifi future being as gritty, ugly and dysfunctional as current times led to his creation of his two scifi masterpieces -- Blade Runner and Alien. The sequels have been disappointing, they had to be.
- ilamont 2mo ago
  > The sequels have been disappointing, they had to be. Scott never owned the rights to Blade Runner and wasn't heavily involved in 2049. It shows. The script. The choice of actors. Clumsy scenes, like the fight scene at the casino with its stiff choreography. The pointless "virtual girlfriend" subplot. The location for the shoots (Hungary IIRC) which really limited the pool of extras - hardly a single Asian person to be seen. Some of the people who worked on the film tried their best, including the CGI and set designers and the score (by Hans Zimmer) but I could only watch it once from beginning to end in IMAX. The second time at home I had to stop halfway through.
  - geophile 2mo ago
    I had modest expectations going in (I mean, how could it possibly compare?). But it was still disappointing. I expected so much better from Denis Villeneuve. Unfortunately, he seems to have veered into big-budget pretentious scifi schlock. I had to leave the IMAX showing of 2049, it was deafening (and I'm already hard of hearing!) Saw the whole thing in an ordinary non-IMAX theater, which was much more tolerable.
    - the_af 2mo ago
      I was disappointed with BR2049 but thought his Dune adaptation is actually good...

esafak 2mo ago

It's amazing that Blade Runner looks as good as anything that has come since. And sounds way better.

cocacola1 2mo ago
My local Regal is playing it on September 12th. Can’t wait to see it again in theaters.
- msephton 2mo ago
  I watched it a week or two ago at my local Picture House (at FACT). Had a great time!
KurSix 2mo ago
The sound especially feels almost impossible to date
fullshark 2mo ago
Genuine craft and human ingenuity can be a wonderful thing. Technology is a force multiplier and it's not always going to lead to better results in lesser hands. In general there's also a problem that cinematography has gone to hell in filmmaking, because they want to be able to incorporate CGI more (cost) effectively and that means things like proper lighting and color grading is no longer utilized.
- BLKNSLVR 2mo ago
  "thicknesse" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49347543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49347543

DocIsInDaHouse 2mo ago

It’s one of the very few immersive masterpieces where all elements complement each other: script, acting, score, production design, lighting, cinematography. The core vision was so brilliant that even short-sighted studio bosses couldn't destroy it with a butchered edit.

KurSix 2mo ago

[dead]

sixtyj 2mo ago

> The movie even inspired Anders Ramsell to paint 3285 water colour prints, and then turn those into a remarkable short film.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

liendolucas 2mo ago

Of the sci-fi genre for me it will always be #1. The whole thing is just perfect, there's no other movie that comes close to the world that is envisioned in Blade Runner.

Gud 2mo ago
Terminator #1 and #2 are probably more realistic though, despite the time travel.
- srean 2mo ago
  But nowhere close to the emotional impact. People usually do not remember what happened turn by turn but they do remember what it made them feel. Funnily enough, in the movie, the humans have little no feelings but the androids do -- and that is the central question that the movie made me consider -- what makes us human. I am ofcourse biased because Blade Runner (original) is not only on my top 5 scifi movie list but also on my top 5 movie list. So much so that I am reluctant to watch 2049.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2mo ago
    I think Blade Runner and Alien helped destroy mainstream science fiction. Before Blade Runner almost anything could be science fiction. After Blade Runner science fiction meant detective noir with #tech_upgrade - clones, memory implants, dystopia. Or it was US truckers and/or the military fighting nasty aliens in spaaaaaaace. (Star Wars and its magic space knights was always more fantasy with a science fiction stage set.) Blade Runner did it far better than the others, but then we had decades of mostly mediocre book knock-offs, especially in the UK. (Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.) It's a stunning, iconic masterpiece of a movie with an unfortunate chilling cultural effect. And ironically the Philip K Dick original was... very different.
    - srean 2mo ago
      > And ironically the Philip K Dick original was... very different. True. Ridley Scott and Philip K Dick collaborated very closely to tell it like they wanted it to. Studios liked it ... not so much.

dyzone 2mo ago

I'm yet to see the movie. Are there any spoilers in this article?

shevy-java 2mo ago
Well, some characters are mentioned and images are shown, so this is a tiny bit of a spoiler. But your trade-off would be "shall I first watch Blade Runner before reading this article"; watch it today. And read the article anyway, as it is not just about Blade Runner but also e. g. Logan’s Run. Now, Logan’s Run is not as good as Blade Runner, but it has some elements that are quite interesting IMO. So it can also be recommended, even though I find it a bit dated now; Blade Runner is not dated though really. Probably one of the most important science fiction movie ever made. The book is also good, but different to the movie; I was disappointed because I found the movie was better, but the book is in many ways much more logical. It kind of explains why there are so few animals and so many artificial animals (even though from a biological point of view this makes no sense, humans are also animals after all), whereas in the movie, it is rarely explained why there are artificial animals. IMO the book was more intrinsically logical, and more desperate e. g. regular humans were drug addicts, that was totally cut in the movie. I still liked the movie more, even though I think the book had a stronger intrinsic logic; but the performance of Rutger Hauer really was epic there. IMO his best performance in his whole career.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
  The book felt dry and sort of boring to me. Which made me recognize that some movies can actually be better than the books they are based on. Which is not a given. That being said, there are sequels for the original movie in paperback, which I've found to be very acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Hu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Night https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Nigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_4:_Eye_and_Talon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_4:_Eye_and_Talon Did you know?
  - 2mo ago

shevy-java 2mo ago

Ridley Scott is perhaps not quite as script-centric as Martin Scorsese or able to make a multi-faceted movie like Spielberg or visual effects heavy as George Lucas. However had, Ridley Scott has by far the best visual eye and is also able to draw like a professional designer, which the others can't. I think the best example for this can be seen in both Alien (first one) and Gladiator. In Gladiator he was much more professional from A to Z, but I think the first Alien is even more impressive if you look at it. The camera work is brilliant (Martin also has great camera work in Taxi Driver, but in Alien the effect is IMO much more profound) and the work around for visual problems (depicting the alien without it looking like garbage) was really epic. It is not easily possible to rank directors, but from a visual point of view, Ridley is probably the best individual (visual) artist as such (note: I refer to his abilities, not to the final product, which may not require as much individual artistic prowess, in other words, Martin may not be able to draw something with a pencil, but the end result movie has strong visual effects - see the desert scene in Casino or the "Do I amuse you?" scene in Goodfellas).

chadcmulligan 2mo ago

Alien is the same imho, hard to believe two of the most iconic sci fi's were created by the same guy and only 3 years apart.

huflungdung 2mo ago
[dead]

timonoko 2mo ago

[flagged]

esafak 2mo ago
Same director (Scott). Why don't you forget it's based on a book and enjoy it on its own merits?
- timonoko 2mo ago
  This was the sentiment of the time. I do not even remember the book now.
amiantos 2mo ago
I really disliked Blade Runner for a long time because I love the book so much. It wasn't until a humanities class in college that I learned to appreciate Blade Runner separately from the book. Now, instead of hating Blade Runner, I love it, and I hate Blade Runner 2049 instead, because that movie seems to have zero respect for the message of the first movie, and zero respect for the intention of Ridley Scott (it's obvious to me they changed some things just to get Harrison Ford back in the film). I know I am in the minority, but we are a minority that has extremely good and valid reasons for being upset about it.
- keiferski 2mo ago
  2049 is a pretty mediocre film that would be forgotten if it didn’t have the BR name. I like both the 1984 film and the book though, but I primarily like the movie for the cinematography and atmosphere, more than the story, which is more interesting in the book.

swiftcoder 2mo ago

The other thing that always strikes me when rewatching Blade Runner, is just how much time to breathe every little scene is given. Maybe a little too much time in some of the longer director's cuts, but it's a really stark contrast to a lot of lesser films, that try and pack as many story beats as they can into their runtime.

esafak 2mo ago
Most new sci-fi/action movies are like that. Ones that cater to younger viewers are so bad I've had to walk out of movie theaters because I felt my senses were under assault. Fortunately there are traditional directors like Villeneuve.
- dylan604 2mo ago
  It's not just sci-fi/action. There have been many articles written about the increase in edit cadence in all movies. One of the biggest comments about older films is how "slow" movies were. One of the examples I've seen goes something like: Wide shot of bank of elevators. Man walks up to elevator to push the button. Cut to close up of dial showing which floor the elevator is on showing the indicator moving back to first floor. A ding is heard indicating the elevator has arrived. Cut to wide shot showing doors opening, people exiting, man entering elevator. Cut to interior of elevator to see man choose floor and doors close. Now, you see the man walk to the elevator bank, hit the button, and then cut to the doors opening as man exits.
  - swiftcoder 2mo ago
    [dead]
- jcims 2mo ago
  I rarely watch movies, I had to leave Elvis for this exact reason. It was relentless.
mixmastamyk 2mo ago
Was the norm in the 70s, and into the early 80s. My memory is that the turning point to quick cuts was after MTV and music videos became popular (1982+). I remember old folks complaining about the “attention span” of young people. Watching the old movies today, I do think that the 70s films are too slow and 90s+ films too aggressive with cuts. Would be nice to balance, or have important scenes breathe while others get chopped. Most movies are too long these days as well. The film itself was criticized as “Blade Crawler” back in the day.

Lio 2mo ago

I love the film but for a long time I really disliked that Ridley Scott changed the plot. To me Scott's idea that Deckard is a replicant but doesn't know it is just weak. Even the idea that they would make a replicant hunter that's weaker than the "basic pleasure model" it's designed to hunt doesn't work. I think Scott shoe-horned his change in after the fact and he's had to keep releasing new edits because it doesn't really fit. PKD's original plot themes are much richer and deeper: The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference? — Philip K. Dick

serf 2mo ago
I just want a version that includes the prophet Mercer stuff. felt like a huge component to drop out.
- gedy 2mo ago
  I'm not rah rah AI but this type of thing is what interests me about AI video generation. Adding a scene like this for answering a personal "what if?" is really cool.
  - ManuelKiessling 2mo ago
    I was recently musing in this general direction, too. The movie business is completely foreign to me, but I wonder if stuff like this would work: copyright owners licensing out their IP for niche studios serving niche audiences — I‘m pretty sure a lot of people would pay good money for a different take on the final GoT season. Or that third season of your favorite show that never came to be. A Thrawn-focused Star Wars trilogy. Various crossovers. Assumed this would work good enough on a technical level any time soon — could it work in terms of licensing and economics?
    - 2mo ago

synecdoche 2mo ago

Many aspects have already been mentioned, all great in their own right, that lifts the movie into timeless greatness. I'd like to add one more. The stunning beauty and performance of Sean Young.

srean 2mo ago
https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8 https://youtu.be/vIdlYzbugT8 You might like this one.

AnthonyCregan 2mo ago

"Click on the picture to enlarge" "COMPUTER. ENHANCE." WAS RIGHT THERE!

JKCalhoun 2mo ago
And bothered my engineer-mind because the "enhancements" revealed photographic details that were literally obscured by physical walls in the original photo.
- esafak 2mo ago
  Look at what you can do now: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7496569314389721088 https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:74965693...
- BLKNSLVR 2mo ago
  That seemed to be the point though, to highlight some kind of technological advancements of the time. I was always intrigued by it, like it was taken by multiple lenses, so it's essentially a 3d 'image' allowing a certain amount of point of view change. Clumsy as fuck interface though, I'll grant that.

wesz 2mo ago

Let me share this "fake" trailer i made for obscure polish movie that's heavily inspired by Blade Runner visuals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfTouivTBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxfTouivTBY It's called O-Bi, O-Ba: The End of Civilization (1985). Another thing that might amuse Blade Runner nerds is my attempt at recreating Blimp advertisement video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK1LJKtHj6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK1LJKtHj6Y

TacticalCoder 2mo ago

The look of Pris is really amazing, for it's nearly timeless. Probably inspired by looks from the early 80s and I know there's a bit of a 80s comeback (at least music-wise) but I really dig it.

maxglute 2mo ago

It's time for a new point and click adventure game.

bananamogul 2mo ago

I guess nappertime.com took this article down? It's a 404 now.

SebastianSosa 2mo ago

Page is down 404. Way back machines snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20250729205154/https://nappertime.com/the-art-of-and-beauty-of-blade-runner/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250729205154/https://nappertim...