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?"
Special edition DVD? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just remove the wires, OK? (Score:5, Interesting)
"All this will be lost, like tears in the rain"
"Time to die"
CGI is nice, but let's not forget ... (Score:1, Interesting)
But Is Deckard A Replicant? Or Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Knowing" Phillip K. Dick (through reading most of his works) I think personally the answer is a yes, but the debate has raged on for a long time, at least when the subject comes up. Others say no, and that's the greatness of the movie: you can't be completely sure.
Read #14 of the Blade Runner FAQ here [faqs.org] and ponder it for yourself.
For...
Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a
replicant. In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled
with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the
audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that
because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
Against...
- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police
trust Deckard?
- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and
Tyrell.
And so forth and so on...
Re:Just remove the wires, OK? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some things stand up, some don't (Score:1, Interesting)
The horizon-less smoke stacks of dystopian so-cal eco-collapse do not age well. Same as the over-populated streets of NY in Soylent, where the city of Philadelphia was going to grow to the borders of NYC. The population of our evil developed world has plateaued. Our water is getting clean enough for the return of fish migrations. And in the midst of our Phila-NYC sprawl, we are getting the return of top predators bears and even cats (largely to the detriment of themselves if they manage to be seen), but top predators indicate healthy enough pyramids underneath, right?
Re:i love blade runner (Score:4, Interesting)
Visual density (Score:5, Interesting)
Movies that try to imitate the Bladerunner look fail because they lack the commitment and/or resources to achieve that same visual density. They end up looking like sets.
Alien was like a test run for Bladerunner's set design. The command area is very dense, control panels are studded with screens and controls, as well as personal items, signs that the area is in use and has been for some time.
After seeing Bladerunner in the theater when it first came out all other movies I see will be compared to it, and very few have come close to the strange combination of realism and science fiction, two words that should in a sense be mutually exclusive, but Ridley Scott brought them together better than anyone before or since.
Re:it would have been way better (Score:5, Interesting)
The emphasis, as I read it, of Dick's novel was that no matter how real something seems, it is never as good as the real thing. No matter how realistically a replicant could look or act, it would never - ever - really be human.
The movie took the opposite stance. We created the replicants as slaves, but we made them too human - quite possibly "More human than human". Replicants were harsh, violent, and angry - which makes sense considering that they had the emotional experience of a 4 year old. They knew fear - not the reflexive mechanical fear of the book's replicants, but wild animal fear of a human who doesn't want to die. In the book, a replicant that knew it was screwed just gave in - in the movie, they did anything... anything they could... to escape and survive another day. I also don't recall replicants really caring for eachother in the book - whereas in the movie is was a primary driving force. The pictures they kept in the book were mostly to keep up appearances, while in the movie it was a sad attempt at building a past.
Also you have to admit - Batty as he was in the book wouldn't have been that memorable a villain. In the movie, he was one of the most memorable fictional villains ever. A ruthless poetic madman who was getting a crash course in emotions and ethics, and who didn't really understand life until the very end.
The book was good, but I'll take the movie any day - not just for cool factor, but because I feel the movie had far greater literary value (watered down as it was to suit the needs of a 90-minute action movie).
Re:Some things stand up, some don't (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:didn't know what a steier .222 looked like, fou (Score:3, Interesting)
. Their single-minded devotion to creating the exact prop from the film is a bit eerie, though.
Savage is (or was) a prop guy. That's what they do. I know one who made a working replica of the Logan's Run Blaster just for grins. (Working in that it spews green flames, not in that it terminates runners.)
Oddly, today I happened across some '04 Mayoral candidates that were given the Voight-Kampff test. [thewavemag.com] (The Nexus 7 won.)
Re:Special edition DVD? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with reasons why I need to upgrade to an HD disc format. We love movies and have the A/V firepower to work with an HD disc player, but we use our DVD player for so much more than just movies, such as Firefly discs and videos for my kids. At best, then, any HD disc would be used for 1/3 of the things we use our current DVD player.
Not worth the money and time.
Re:Special edition DVD? (Score:3, Interesting)
For some of those movies I originally saw in a butchered 4:3 VHS version, the Hi-Def widescreen presentation is like seeing another movie.
Re:Maybe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:i love blade runner (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a rather soft spot for Dark City as well.
Ah well.
Re:But Is Deckard A Replicant? Or Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Deckard was the replicant that they caught trying to sneak into Tyrell Corporation. They erased his memories, implanted new ones, and set him off to kill his comrades. The other replicants react oddly towards him. I think they recognize him and realize something isn't quite right and play along until they figure it out.
Re:Maybe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Deep. . ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Maybe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A.I. (Score:5, Interesting)
(First off, I know you didn't say this, but it'll inevitably come up--those aren't aliens, damnit! They're advanced mecha. One of them is even the narrator; the movie starts with him/it saying "Those were the days when..." It's unfortunate that so many people never realized this, but on the other hand it clicks if you watch it a second time and then you get a lot more out of it.)
Many people have called the movie a fairy tale, and they'd be right to do so. But you can take that even further; it's a fairy tale that advanced mecha tell each other, long after humans have gone extinct. What parts of the last half-hour were real, if any? When he went back to his house that seemed both real and eerily artificial, the visuals suggested to me that it was all a vision in his head. They read his mind anyways; they might as well have been feeding him these images, even as he was really still half-frozen at the bottom of the ice excavation. The time-space continuum excuse especially sounded like a fabricated lie... Was it inevitable that David would be woken up by *something* someday, simply because he was not mortal? Perhaps there are thousands of discarded robots like him, buried inside the frozen Earth. The advanced mechas eventually dig out and feed a similar story to each that finally satisfies and terminate its program. Is this compassion between robots? Why do they do it? Are they trying to make robots dream, or are they saying that death is just another dream?
The movie asked a lot of questions about what it means to be human--similar to BR, but focused on love. I remember a particular review of A.I. (it had quite good reviews) that summed it up quite well and it seems to me the message of the movie: "To be real is to be mortal; to be human is to love, to dream and to perish." Perhaps that's why the advanced mechas gave him the choice. Hmm...
Anyways, personally I found that the ending was incredibly sad and not a happy one at all. I disagree that it would have been at all satisfying for the movie to just end on the ocean's floor, and for David to truly never "die." But you could take it either way, and stuff like this is why I found it so fascinating. And then of course there was the (first "mature") Alternate Reality Game/viral marketing that was really neat in itself. Ultimately, of course, it's up to your own experience.
Re:Special edition DVD? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I want the voice over (Score:3, Interesting)
What so many people can't seem to get is that movies AREN'T TV. You don't need to fill every second with dialog. Movies work better when the story is told visually. Voice overs can work but usually they are used to make up for poor directing. Just like flash-backs are often used to cover up for poor script writing.
Re:Maybe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Additionally, the oragami unicorn represents something that is make-believe. Gaff early in the movie folded a chicken when Deckhard wouldn't come back to the force and was acting like a
Re:Need I Say It? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, let me quote William Gibson,