3 ms·

Terminator #1 and #2 are probably more realistic though, despite the time travel.

by Gud 2mo ago

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.
    - atombender 2mo ago
      No, Dick did not collaborate with Scott at all. He was not formally involved in the development of the film. He didn't write anything and wasn't given any say. Dick actually hated the first drafts of the script, which deviated even more from the novel. He was also upset that he was asked to write a new novelization of the script that would essentially replace DADoES in print. He made comments in the press about how Hollywood was ruining his book. He really only changed his tune after his agent persuaded the producers to invite Dick to the set in 1981. He was basically coddled by Scott and his team (who was told Dick was creating bad publicity and needed to be assuaged) for a whole day, shown around the set and given a rough cut preview that included several major sequences and unfinished VFX by Douglas Trumbull. After that, he not only spoke highly of the screenplay (which had evolved with the help of David Peoples, though it didn't exactly get more faithful to the novel), he wrote enthusiastically about how the film was going to change the science fiction genre for ever. Unfortunately, he never got to see the finished film.
      - srean 2mo ago
        You are right. I went back and checked on Wikipedia. Now I cannot reconstruct why I believed PKD and Scott collaborated.
  - JKCalhoun 2mo ago
    Pretty sure Star Wars destroyed mainstream science fiction in film.
    - irishcoffee 2mo ago
      Close. Star Trek. Cheapened the entirety of the genre.
      - Fricken 2mo ago
        "A Trip to the Moon" is what ruined it for me.
  - coldtea 2mo ago
    >Before Blade Runner almost anything could be science fiction. After Blade Runner science fiction meant detective noir with #tech_upgrade - clones, memory implants, dystopia. If only.
  - glenstein 2mo ago
    >(Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.) Gibson was also writing in that vein long before the release of Neuromancer, which repurposes some themes, plotlines, and even characters from his earlier short stories. And my understanding is he was working on Neuromancer before Blade Runner was released and without knowledge of it during its production. I will say I'm reading through his short story compilation Burning Chrome and it is amazing. I don't think he ever matched Neuromancer with his other novels and over time they've just exposed his weaknesses more and more, which is a bummer. But he's absolutely at the top of his game in short stories.
  - IAmBroom 2mo ago
    Moon. Contact. Interstellar. Gravity. Project Hail Mary. None of these fit those tropes. It didn't destroy anything; it just set a mold for the next few decades that was used to cookie-cut copies from. It cut a rut, and movie execs LOOOOVE a profitable rut to wallow in.
  - linksnapzz 1mo ago
    (Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.) Gibson was horrified after walking out of a theater after seeing Blade Runner; in that Scott had visualized and shown onscreen the aesthetic of (at that point unpublished) Neuromancer.
- stuartd 2mo ago
  > But nowhere close to the emotional impact It may be trite but “Because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can, too.” gets me every single time
- Gud 2mo ago
  I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKxoARmjLU&pp=ygUYdGVybWluYXRvciAyIGludHJvIHNjZW5l https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKxoARmjLU&pp=ygUYdGVybWluY...
- bwilli123 2mo ago
  I most liked that just before his death Roy crafted some poetry. Creating Art? Isn't that what it means to be human?
  - ndsipa_pomu 2mo ago
    To me, the whole point of Batty's final scene is his empathy. PKD made a big point of empathy being the defining quality of humans and even the Voight-Kampff test relies on it.
    - thesz 1mo ago
      What if Batty saved Deckart to tell him about things he saw? Not for empathy to Deckart, but just to tell a story. Because, frankly, he may as well try not to kill Deckart, at all. For empathy. Or ask Deckart about how does he do, instead of going into monologue.
      - ndsipa_pomu 1mo ago
        I think that's a less interesting story if Batty doesn't develop and has only his self-interest. I interpret the ending as Batty coming to the end of his life and realising that all life is precious, not just his own. That's why he saves Deckard after toying with him and then goes into his final monologue that taunts Deckard with how much more of a human life that Batty has experienced. Of course, there's all the Christ symbolism with Batty's "crucified" hand and how he saves Deckard despite him killing all his friends and intending to kill him as well.
        the_af 1mo ago
        > I interpret the ending as Batty coming to the end of his life and realising that all life is precious, not just his own. The voiceover in the original theatrical version makes this very explicit, in fact.

Terminator #1 and #2 are probably more realistic though, despite the time travel.

by 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.
  - atombender 2mo ago
    No, Dick did not collaborate with Scott at all. He was not formally involved in the development of the film. He didn't write anything and wasn't given any say. Dick actually hated the first drafts of the script, which deviated even more from the novel. He was also upset that he was asked to write a new novelization of the script that would essentially replace DADoES in print. He made comments in the press about how Hollywood was ruining his book. He really only changed his tune after his agent persuaded the producers to invite Dick to the set in 1981. He was basically coddled by Scott and his team (who was told Dick was creating bad publicity and needed to be assuaged) for a whole day, shown around the set and given a rough cut preview that included several major sequences and unfinished VFX by Douglas Trumbull. After that, he not only spoke highly of the screenplay (which had evolved with the help of David Peoples, though it didn't exactly get more faithful to the novel), he wrote enthusiastically about how the film was going to change the science fiction genre for ever. Unfortunately, he never got to see the finished film.
    - srean 2mo ago
      You are right. I went back and checked on Wikipedia. Now I cannot reconstruct why I believed PKD and Scott collaborated.
- JKCalhoun 2mo ago
  Pretty sure Star Wars destroyed mainstream science fiction in film.
  - irishcoffee 2mo ago
    Close. Star Trek. Cheapened the entirety of the genre.
    - Fricken 2mo ago
      "A Trip to the Moon" is what ruined it for me.
- coldtea 2mo ago
  >Before Blade Runner almost anything could be science fiction. After Blade Runner science fiction meant detective noir with #tech_upgrade - clones, memory implants, dystopia. If only.
- glenstein 2mo ago
  >(Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.) Gibson was also writing in that vein long before the release of Neuromancer, which repurposes some themes, plotlines, and even characters from his earlier short stories. And my understanding is he was working on Neuromancer before Blade Runner was released and without knowledge of it during its production. I will say I'm reading through his short story compilation Burning Chrome and it is amazing. I don't think he ever matched Neuromancer with his other novels and over time they've just exposed his weaknesses more and more, which is a bummer. But he's absolutely at the top of his game in short stories.
- IAmBroom 2mo ago
  Moon. Contact. Interstellar. Gravity. Project Hail Mary. None of these fit those tropes. It didn't destroy anything; it just set a mold for the next few decades that was used to cookie-cut copies from. It cut a rut, and movie execs LOOOOVE a profitable rut to wallow in.
- linksnapzz 1mo ago
  (Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.) Gibson was horrified after walking out of a theater after seeing Blade Runner; in that Scott had visualized and shown onscreen the aesthetic of (at that point unpublished) Neuromancer.
stuartd 2mo ago
> But nowhere close to the emotional impact It may be trite but “Because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can, too.” gets me every single time
Gud 2mo ago
I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKxoARmjLU&pp=ygUYdGVybWluYXRvciAyIGludHJvIHNjZW5l https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHKxoARmjLU&pp=ygUYdGVybWluY...
bwilli123 2mo ago
I most liked that just before his death Roy crafted some poetry. Creating Art? Isn't that what it means to be human?
- ndsipa_pomu 2mo ago
  To me, the whole point of Batty's final scene is his empathy. PKD made a big point of empathy being the defining quality of humans and even the Voight-Kampff test relies on it.
  - thesz 1mo ago
    What if Batty saved Deckart to tell him about things he saw? Not for empathy to Deckart, but just to tell a story. Because, frankly, he may as well try not to kill Deckart, at all. For empathy. Or ask Deckart about how does he do, instead of going into monologue.
    - ndsipa_pomu 1mo ago
      I think that's a less interesting story if Batty doesn't develop and has only his self-interest. I interpret the ending as Batty coming to the end of his life and realising that all life is precious, not just his own. That's why he saves Deckard after toying with him and then goes into his final monologue that taunts Deckard with how much more of a human life that Batty has experienced. Of course, there's all the Christ symbolism with Batty's "crucified" hand and how he saves Deckard despite him killing all his friends and intending to kill him as well.
      - the_af 1mo ago
        > I interpret the ending as Batty coming to the end of his life and realising that all life is precious, not just his own. The voiceover in the original theatrical version makes this very explicit, in fact.