Blade Runner's high praise...where does it come from?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's one of those films I struggled to enjoy (and even fell asleep in) until I forced myself to sit down and watch it all, and honestly, eventually it just clicked. It's not an easy film to casually watch.
 
"When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests."

"I went kicking and screaming to the studio to record it."

- Harrison Ford
 
Side note: anyone remember the homage to Blade Runner in Batman the Animated Series? I remember it being quite good and a nice side piece to the film.
 
FanFicFan said:
Side note: anyone remember the homage to Blade Runner in Batman the Animated Series? I remember it being quite good and a nice side piece to the film.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to His Silicon Soul? That was one of my favourites.
 
Chichikov said:
I feel it tried to say something about what it means to be a human, but I think it fails to do it for me, and it failed the same way most science fiction movies that try to do it fail -
They take a human actor playing a robot/Android/AI reading lines written by a human and then ask in super important voice "am I really a human? would a non human do/feel this?" and I'm like, duh, yeah you are. I'm sorry, maybe I'm too cynical for my own good, but I do think that the question of what is artificial intelligence and what might separate such thing from humans is super interesting, but this type of approach doesn't go anywhere. The writer decide if those things are "human", "alive" or "have soul" and then he write them like that, which is fine I guess, if that's not like the point of the movie, but Blade Runner act like it's this super amazing contemplation to what it mean to be a human and I don't get it. This has as much to say on this issue as Short Circuit.
Then again, I also can't understand why I would not be helping the tortoise, so maybe I'm replicant.
Click to expand...

Sure I can see that. Are there any films yo think approach the subject well? What do you think of Spielberg's A.I. for instance?
 
WonkersTHEWatilla said:
"When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests."

"I went kicking and screaming to the studio to record it."

- Harrison Ford
Click to expand...

Maybe he means he fought it, but when he was in the booth he was a professional about it.

I actually like the noir style voice over. But I'm weird.
 
I didn't say he didn't want to do it. I said he didn't sandbag it. He said as much in a Playboy interview from 2002. Trying to find the quote.

edit: here's the quote - "I delivered it to the best of my ability, given that I had no input. I never thought they'd use it. But I didn't try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration."

He was unhappy about doing it, but he was unhappy about doing a LOT of Blade Runner. He was unhappy for a fair amount of that shoot. He still did the work as best he could.

Dr.Acula said:
Maybe he means he fought it, but when he was in the booth he was a professional about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, this.
 
Chichikov said:
I feel it tried to say something about what it means to be a human, but I think it fails to do it for me, and it failed the same way most science fiction movies that try to do it fail -
They take a human actor playing a robot/Android/AI reading lines written by a human and then ask in super important voice "am I really a human? would a non human do/feel this?" and I'm like, duh, yeah you are. I'm sorry, maybe I'm too cynical for my own good, but I do think that the question of what is artificial intelligence and what might separate such thing from humans is super interesting, but this type of approach doesn't go anywhere. The writer decide if those things are "human", "alive" or "have soul" and then he write them like that, which is fine I guess, if that's not like the point of the movie, but Blade Runner act like it's this super amazing contemplation to what it mean to be a human and I don't get it. This has as much to say on this issue as Short Circuit.
Then again, I also can't understand why I would not be helping the tortoise, so maybe I'm replicant.
Click to expand...

To me, the more interesting question it evokes isn't "could any of us actually be a replicant" but more along the lines of "if so, what's the difference really?"

"is there anything intrinsically special about being human"

"Isn't a memory just data, whether implanted or your own stored subjective recollection of an event... they aren't pure truth".

"Aren't we all just engineered beings with a use by date following some sort of internal programming and impulses, looking for meaning where there isn't any, responding to the stimulus in front of us?".

Again, these aren't necessarily implicit in a literal study of the film as a "text", but they are existential questions it has evoked in me in my many watchings.
 
BobbyRoberts said:
I didn't say he didn't want to do it. I said he didn't sandbag it. He said as much in a Playboy interview from 2002. Trying to find the quote.

He was unhappy about doing it, but he was unhappy about doing a LOT of Blade Runner. He was unhappy for a fair amount of that shoot. He still did the work as best he could.
Click to expand...

Ridley Scott didn't make a lot of friends during the shoot of Blade Runner. I believe Harrison Ford later on said that he didn't reconcile with Scott for years after the fact.

It's notable that really unhappy Ford put together one of the most subtle and interesting performances of his career for this movie.
To this day, Ford claims that he had agreed with Scott on the set that Deckard was in fact NOT a Replicant, something that Scott of course recanted later to claim that he was.
 
Grug said:
To me, the more interesting question it evokes isn't "could any of us actually be a replicant" but more along the lines of "if so, what's the difference really?"
Click to expand...

I like the film a lot personally but I think what he may be trying to say is that when the film asks such questions it presupposes the nature of advanced A.I. quite a bit to the point where the question becomes redundant.
 
The movie has such great character actor performances. Rutger Hauer. Edward James Olmos. Joe Turkel. Sean Young. M. Emmet Walsh. Look past the technical achievements, the stylistic achievements, just study the performances of Blade Runner, it's remarkable what Scott accomplished.
 
It took me two watches to start appreciating the film. The first time I sat down and watched it, my expectations were completely out of line the film isn't nearly as action packed as I had expected. The slowness and moodiness didn't really do much for me (in fact i just wanted to fall asleep half the time, then the Deckard/Roy fight scene happened). Also I thought the soundtrack was awfully cheesy.

Watching it the second time, and picking up on all the little things that these lingering shots wanted me to see, the film clicked for me. The dreary little hell-hole of a world where androids were more human than the humans? Amazing, especially in that this idea is not overstated at all. But I still didn't really like the soundtrack.

I still don't.

And screw the Final Cut--piecing apart the movie's themes was half the fun. The removal of ambiguity is the removal of my biggest enjoyment.
 
FanFicFan said:
Yea that's the one. I believe it even featured the same actor that played the manchild rich kid in Blade Runner, forget his name. Great homage.
Click to expand...

Oh shit, you're right. I saw the episode before the movie and always thought it was a strange drolly voice they chose. Awesome.
 
Window said:
Sure I can see that. Are there any films yo think approach the subject well? What do you think of Spielberg's A.I. for instance?
Click to expand...
Let's not derail the thread by talking about A.I. we know how it goes (I didn't love the film if you must know).

Anyway, there are great A.I. in science fiction movies that I love, HAL and GERTY comes to mind (obvious choices, there are more), but I note how the point of neither movies is questioning whether or not they're alive (2001 play with that a little bit, but I think it's more meant as contrast and reflection of the actual humans as oppose of dwelling on the nature of HAL's consciousness too much, and that's a film that spend time literally inside the computer's mind).

As I said, I think that the wrong approach because the nature of writing such movies pretty much begs the question, almost by definition.
I might be forgetting a movie (or unfamiliar with one that does it well) but I can't think of an example that ended up saying something meaningful and interesting on the subject.

And mind you, not being able to say something interesting or meaningful on this subject doesn't preclude a movie from being good or even great, and if I would be completely honest here, there is a chance that I reacted worse to these scenes in Blade Runner because I thought they were profound when I was younger. That feeling is not great and could've lead to a less pleasant (though still not bad by any stretch mind you) viewing experience on my re-watch.
 
Grug said:
To me, the more interesting question it evokes isn't "could any of us actually be a replicant" but more along the lines of "if so, what's the difference really?"

"is there anything intrinsically special about being human"

"Isn't a memory just data, whether implanted or your own stored subjective recollection of an event... they aren't pure truth".

"Aren't we all just engineered beings with a use by date following some sort of internal programming and impulses, looking for meaning where there isn't any, responding to the stimulus in front of us?".

Again, these aren't necessarily implicit in a literal study of the film as a "text", but they are existential questions it has evoked in me in my many watchings.
Click to expand...

Wondering if humans were real or not was basically Philip K. Dick's bag. He wasn't one to let actual science impact . . . well, any of his ideas. He focused on what the ideas meant in practice and/or how those ideas reflected society.

If that's not your bag, then that's cool, but those were the things he shot for.
 
Nappuccino said:
And screw the Final Cut--piecing apart the movie's themes was half the fun. The removal of ambiguity is the removal of my biggest enjoyment.
Click to expand...

The Final Cut is interesting because it was recut by Scott decades after the fact, when he had decided as the director that
Deckard was a Replicant.

It's likely the Theatrical Version, whatever you think about the narration and also the infamous "Love Conquers All" ending, omitted the dream sequence and the origami at the end because at that time Scott decided
Deckard was a human
and that version of the film reflects this.

The Final Cut on BD includes the documentary "Dangerous Days" about the making of the film and it's a really fascinating watch. If you've never put Disc 2 in, you really should.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
The Final Cut is interesting because it was recut by Scott decades after the fact, when he had decided as the director that
Deckard was a Replicant.

It's likely the Theatrical Version, whatever you think about the narration and also the infamous "Love Conquers All" ending, omitted the dream sequence and the origami at the end because at that time Scott decided
Deckard was a human
and that version of the film reflects this.
Click to expand...

But as Harrison Ford and one of the writers point out in disagreement with the changes, part of the love many have for the theme is dependent on this truly being a
human
in contrast with
nonhumans
and what the difference is. Changing it to
replicant vs replicant
without subtlety hurts the theme for many. Which is why I would say you should watch Theatrical/Director's cut, then Final. Final is nicely cleaned on a technical level, but it can damage getting the experience the film got famous for.
 
Don't sweat it. It is a classic film,mane rather great (with a few flaws) but if you don't get it you don't get it. I'll never understand looking for supplied answers: what difference do they make to your actual experience with the film?
 
How do I know which cut I watched?

I thought Blade Runner was okay. Great atmosphere and setting, but kinda mediocre, ummm.... acting? characters?

Something just felt off with the drama, but maybe I'm just critical of the acting of that generation.
 
Tough to think of where it doesn't come from. Legendary visuals and set design, all-time great special effects using things like matte paintings and miniature models, excellent performances from the whole cast, an unbelievable score from Vangelis, interesting themes stemming from the main plot. Just a classic all around.
 
It's okay OP if you don't get it.

On the other hand I think it's one of the best science fiction movies ever made.
Worth it just to listen to the stunning Vangelis soundtrack.
 
It's a masterpiece of cinematic art direction.

My favorite movies tend to have gorgeous visuals, and my favorite sci fi tends to deal with the question of what defines personhood, so it's no surprise that I love Blade Runner.

If you don't really get the appeal it just means you want different things from your sci fi.
 
No worries OP (and others) it's a movie like any other and you don't have to feel about it the same as many others do.

Personally I'm not really a fan of the theatrical (either US or international) and Director's Cut myself, but consider the Final Cut and the Workprint to be great films. For the Workprint many of the very slightly extended scenes or (later) removed/edited soundque's help alot in explaining a couple of the more fague situations. The only thing missing really is the unicorn sequence.

But the film has it fair share of flaws, and it's just not meant for everyone. Had to watch it myself a couple of times before finally clicked with me.
 
It's like others have said, there really wasn't anything else like it at the time it was released and since then it's been copied so often that it probably doesn't seem all that special to today's audience. The same thing could be said of Citizen Kane. When I finally got around to watching that I didn't get what all the fuss was about. I enjoyed it but I was left wondering why it had gotten so many awards and is frequently at the top of best films of all time lists. So I had a look on the net and I discovered that all the stuff that we take for granted today were done for the first time in that film.
 
i can understand its influence and things it did at the time, but despite all that I found it a very boring movie.

Which is weird since i love sci fi, and i LOVE ford.
 
Halp. What cut is currently on hbo go? Fixing to press play for the first time.

Edit. I guess it's the theatrical. Heard a voice over while he was reading the newspaper.
 
Well, to be honest I did too. It's really one of those films that you have to be in the mood for but it is worth watching again. It's a very good Sunday night film.
 
Winter John said:
It's like others have said, there really wasn't anything else like it at the time it was released and since then it's been copied so often that it probably doesn't seem all that special to today's audience. The same thing could be said of Citizen Kane. When I finally got around to watching that I didn't get what all the fuss was about. I enjoyed it but I was left wondering why it had gotten so many awards and is frequently at the top of best films of all time lists. So I had a look on the net and I discovered that all the stuff that we take for granted today were done for the first time in that film.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch it until 2005, maybe later, and I thought it was magnificent. Not because of what it was relative to its time of production, but because it absolutely captures an atmosphere and tone of weariness and atmosphere like no other film. You can feel the rain and the steam as you watch it.
 
Winter John said:
It's like others have said, there really wasn't anything else like it at the time it was released and since then it's been copied so often that it probably doesn't seem all that special to today's audience. The same thing could be said of Citizen Kane. When I finally got around to watching that I didn't get what all the fuss was about. I enjoyed it but I was left wondering why it had gotten so many awards and is frequently at the top of best films of all time lists. So I had a look on the net and I discovered that all the stuff that we take for granted today were done for the first time in that film.
Click to expand...
I think you're overstating this.
Like, it looked good, but it didn't even win the academy award for best special effects. Now I think it probably should've have won that year, but it wasn't this "OMG we never seen anything like this!" movie, and again, it didn't really set the world on fire when it was released.
It's current status of routinely being mentioned as one of the best science fiction films ever was something that happen in the years after its release.

I don't think that's the case of you had to have seen it in the 80s for the movie to work for you, I know many people who seen it in the 21st century and love it, much more than I do, and I watched it in the 80s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Where does your nickname come from?
Community  2 3
105
2K
John Bilbo replied
Where did it Go Wrong with KFC?
Opinion  2 3
115
5K
Woggleman replied
  • Locked
Be careful where you get your news from
News 
47
2K
Dr.Morris79 replied
High-End Headphone help
14
211
Digital-Aftertaste replied
Epstein Files Released! oh wait... where are they?
18
1K
StreetsofBeige replied
Top Bottom