Blade Runner at 25, Why the F/X Still Matter 454
mattnyc99 writes "Today marks the 25th anniversary of the release of Blade Runner, Ridley Scott's dark vision of the future that changed the future of filmmaking and still stands up today, argues Adam Savage of The MythBusters (and the F/X crews of The Matrix and Star Wars). Between the "lived-in science fiction," pre-CGI master models, futuristic cityscapes and tricked-out cars, don't you agree? And after we got the first official glimpse of him from Indiana Jones 4 this weekend, isn't Harrison Ford still the man?"
i love blade runner (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem with most science fiction movies is that the sampling of the philosophical implications of their subject matter is too shallow (or they are outright fantasy riffs without any attempt at philosophisizing). you don't get that with a good sci fi book. a good sci fi book gets you to really think and wonder. a good science fiction movie just usually entertains you... sometimes entertains you REALLY well, but the thinking part isn't usually there
but blade runner really got to me. especially the scenes at the end, with deckard and batty, the movie collapsed all of the science fiction trappings into meaning: the essential human struggles with life and death and what is the whole damn point anyway? blade runner really sticks with you. every time i watch it i think of something new
i really don't know of a better example of how deeply a 2 hour scifi movie can really get to you in a deep way
well maybe contact [imdb.com], but contact comes second in my mind to blade runner
Re:it would have been way better (Score:5, Insightful)
Gritty non-scifi scifi (Score:5, Insightful)
Edge (Score:2, Insightful)
REALLY looking forward to the super-duper-mega box set coming out, my HD to DVD conversion of the DC is nice but the 5.1 audio doesn't sound much better than the original 2.0 fed through Pro-Logic II, and getting a proper copy of theatrical version is going go to be great (no more putting up with the laserdisc transfer) - I just hope they don't copy Lucas and make it a 4:3 letterbox release like the OOT.
Re:it would have been way better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But Is Deckard A Replicant? Or Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How does that get modded up? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, Deckard's a robot and you're a douche.
Re:i love blade runner (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that Blade Runner is one of the best science fiction movies of all time. And it stands up amazingly well to modern special effects and scenery. But the movie is still a movie-- entertainment with tunnel-vision, spoon-fed philosophy.
The reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Blade Runner was subtle; it used environmental effects and models to create a sense of the future that the viewer could fill in with his own imagination.
Re:i love blade runner (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhhhh, Contact? Good lord. Okay book, awful movie, IMHO.
Re:i love blade runner (Score:5, Insightful)
As for one being deeper than the other... personally, I find the movie's resolution of the synthetic/authentic dichotomy more satisfying. The book says that the synthetic is never as "good" as the authentic. The movie says it can be.
This analysis is consonant with my impression of Penrose re: AI's potential. Penrose says we can't simulate intelligence using Von Neumann computers because intelligence relies on quantum-mechanical nondeterministic computation to evade Godel's incompleteness theorem. I say that Penrose has made at least three significant errors: 1) his argument that human intelligence does successfully evade Godel's incompleteness theorem is pure speculation; 2) simple electrochemical models of brain operation include nondeterministic elements (neurotransmitter diffusion, etc.), without any need for quantum-level effects; and 3) that it would be difficult to add probabilistic operations to Von Neumann systems if nondeterministic elements were found to be necessary to simulate intelligence.
Don't get me wrong. I love reading PKD's stuff and am a huge fan. I just happen to disagree with his thesis in that story ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"), and that disagreement leads me to be more satisfied with Ridley Scott's variation on the story.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Visual density (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I think when you can blend the two successfully, you achieve a much more believable effect. This is why we don't buy the Star Trek future quite as readily as the Bladrunner (or Alien or Outland) future. We inherently believe that in our real future, things will be more or less the same as they are now. It will be the little things that will be different. We'll use cellphones instead of payphones. We'll pay with "credits" instead of "dollars". We'll have voice-controlled appliances instead of switches. We'll have a few flying cars in the air, but mostly it'll still be ground traffic. These are the things that Bladerunner brought to the table and they are partly why it's believable sci fi, even today. Especially today, when some of the little things in the film have already come to pass.
Movies like this always remind me of those old Tom Selleck AT&T commercials: "Imagine taking a college course from the beach. You will!" Realism + Sci Fi.
Are we talking FX (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are they the same thing?
One of the most convincing Sci Fi movies of all time was The Day the Earth Stood Still. The key to that movie is the relentless ordinariness of the sets, the way the scenes are short, and the actors (other than Michael Rennie whose phsyiogamy is a special effect in itself).
It seems to me that (relying on my twenty five year old memory of the movie) Blade Runner's hybrid noir/ginza landscape works in the same way, suggesting that the people who inhabit it are overstimulated on the outside and empty on the inside. The most human people are those who are the replicants, who at least aspire to something.
Re:Stupid movie then and now. (Score:1, Insightful)
And then what?
Read the book [wikipedia.org] (but don't read too much of the wikipedia page if you want to avoid spoilers for it). I don't think it is clearly mentioned in the movie, but in the book the setting *is* post-nuclear war. That's why so many people are being encouraged to go to the "off-world colonies", and why the place is in such a dilapidated state (most people have left, and the weather is screwed up).
Ah, you're probably trolling anyway.
Re:Stupid movie then and now. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, most fans of real science fiction (the kind in books) are fans because of the interesting implications of technology extrapolated into the distant (or not-so-distant) future, the philosophical overtones, and the thought-provoking scenarios, and the unforgettable characters (Lazarus Long, anybody?).
All in all, I prefer "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" over "Podkayne of Mars"...and if you don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you should stick to watching Pirates of the Carribean 3.
I've always kind of wished (Score:5, Insightful)
Models and F/X still "Real" (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, consider the more modern pseudo-sci-fi movie Children of Men. Now there's a fantastic example of F/X and set design over CGI. Every shot feels like it comes from a real place because every shot is a "real" set piece or "real" in-camera F/X. Don't get me wrong, CGI has made movies explode into our imagination (Lord of the Rings, for example), but real models and in-camera F/X shouldn't be lost to the ages. Yes, they're more expensive and time-consuming, but the long-term effect is worth it.
Re:i love blade runner (Score:4, Insightful)
In Blade Runner, Scott mixes the two pretty effectively. Decker, Rachael, the police chief, etc. dress pretty conservatively, and they hold up pretty well. The extras and many of the replicants, on the other hand, look like leftovers from a Sex Pistols concert.
Re:Maybe I'm too young - I didn't find BR special (Score:5, Insightful)
The point about BR (at least for me) is that it was one of the last Sci-Fi movies that had a great plot, which meant the special effects were really secondary. Even without any special effects, its still a great story. It was also largely responsible for a whole new dark dystopian view of the future, which still feels infinitely more probable than the standard sterile white corridors and ray guns of nearly all the other Sci-Fi movies of the same period.
Its sad but it seems video games and most movies have all gone the same way of relying on ever-more dramatic graphics/CGI/effects to make up for the lack of a decent plot (or in the case of games, intellectually challenging gameplay).
Re:But Is Deckard A Replicant? Or Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Ridley Scott does alter that, I think we're going to hear a lot of cries to the effect of "you ruined my childhood memories!" or rather, the memories of my angst-filled adolescence when late at night, watching TV alone in the dark, I stumbled across Blade Runner on TV...
Re:Deep. . ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not meaning to flame, but ... if you're too dense to get it, you can't very well blame the filmmakers.
Re:Special edition DVD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops.
Re:Maybe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Special edition DVD? (Score:3, Insightful)
DVD's gave us random access, computer compatibility, and data-storage possibilities, which VHS did not. You can't watch a videotape on a laptop (without a VCR nearby), and the special features on DVDs don't work on videotapes.
What's the difference between DVDs versus HD or Blu-ray? Size, right? So that means I can either get greater picture resolution (which matters to people with big TVs, but some of us don't go in for that sort of thing) or more movie per disc. It'd be nice to get an entire television season on one disk instead of 5 (I'm guessing the new techs are that big, dunno), but it's hardly the must-have feature, or the seachange that DVDs were.
Ultimately, I think most people will get HD either because the movies they want to see are only in that format, or because the machines they use to play them will only read that format. That's how it will be with me, anyway. Or am I missing some boffo feature about HD?
Re:it would have been way better (Score:5, Insightful)
That's interesting because Batty isn't a bad guy at all - what changes is our perceptions about who is good and who is bad. We are prejudiced against Batty because of what he was created to do, and all of the other replicants. We think that Deckard is the good guy - except that it was Batty, not Deckard, that showed mercy, love and compassion.
"Aren't you supposed to be the good guy, Deckard?"
In the end, the real monstrosity is mankind, willing to create a slave race of people who think, feel and remember just like we can - and then give them only four years to live and a single dreadful task to perform for that time - and be grateful to their Creator for this?
"I've done...questionable things" says Batty. This isn't a robot, its a thinking sentient being asking "Why am I here? Is this all there is?" But Tyrell couldn't see it. And we can't see it - until its too late.
Blade Runner is one of the greatest movies of all time - a genuine classic whose philosophical themes will be discussed for decades to come - long after trash like Indiana Jones is forgotten.
Re:i love blade runner (Score:3, Insightful)
Taken a trip to the mall lately? People are *still* dressing like that, and it's not too far til 2019!
Re:A.I. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Special edition DVD? (Score:3, Insightful)
HD & BLU ray are instantly recognizable as worse in terms of DRM and Cost and only marginally better in terms of playback.
You really need a 20' living room and a 60" screen for the difference to matter and even then the difference is more a matter of degree (it's mildly crisper-- but in some cases that exposes flaws and cheesy costuming in the movie that you couldn't see at lower resolutions).
CG vs. models (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:[OT] Re:didn't know what a steier .222 looked l (Score:3, Insightful)
And at 36 too...
Why is it a good movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
And, wow, was it a waste of my time. It's moody, it has nice special effects, but it's such a flimsy and boring show. I actually kept losing interest and hoping something would happen to move it along. The characters were flat. The ending was generic action movie stuff, but less exciting than most action movies, and I still cared nothing for the characters.
I don't understand the fawning all over this one. Please don't say it's "deep," and I'm too pop-culture. I watch art films all the time. I just don't get what makes this an interesting movie. In 1982, maybe, purely because the effects (think "TRON"), but today?
Re:Maybe I'm too young - I didn't find BR special (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a major problem with Alien for younger viewers is that Alien was so groundbreaking for its day. It was so groundbreaking that it became a cliché. We live in a cinematic world that was changed by Alien and thus its impact is blunted.
Also, pacing has changed remarkably. I was surprised by how long the scenes in the original Exorcist were shot. Jump cuts were unheard-of. Small wonder if movies before 1984 or thereabouts seems slow.
Re:Sweet jesus on a fricken' pogo stick (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right: Contact was abominable. That's one of only a few movies I disliked so much I actually want my two hours back.
Re:i love blade runner (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that's a particularly accurate characterization of Blade Runner. While it's true that the big flashy action scenes were replicants killing people, the whole point was that they weren't just mindless or evil killing machines embodying a metaphor for technology gone too far. The point was nearly the opposite of that; they were, fundamentally, human. Humans whose situation and capabilities exceeded their emotional maturity, and who were failing to deal with that in the way that humans are wont to do.
They were in fact the most terrifying of all things: extremely powerful children. Blade Runner has less in common with Terminator than with Lord of the Flies.