Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Sci-Fi

How 1982's 'Blade Runner' Defined the Sci-Fi Film Genre (esquire.com) 101

Posted by EditorDavid from the remembering-replicants dept.
Esquire celebrates the 40th anniversary of the movie Blade Runner: Based on Philip K. Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, Scott's film created a world so rich, so dirty and wet and worn out, so visually stunning, that imitation was an inevitability. Less gym-bro than The Terminator, less wacky than Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and less all-out apocalyptic than Mad Max, Blade Runner arguably defined not just 1980s science fiction, but in the forty years since its initial release, sci-fi films in general. From Ghost In The Shell, to Total Recall and Minority Report and even Black Panther, Blade Runner is owed a debt of gratitude.

Working from a formula he perfected in 1979's Alien, Scott brought his world of grimy industry and neon-lit shadows, rogue androids and put-upon protagonists to California, swapping Alien's body horror for the police procedural. Granted, Deckard isn't Ellen Ripley, but in its portrayal of the battered and bruised detective battling against the system, Blade Runner is a Chinatown of the future. That it was only Scott's third film as director makes it all the more impressive. (As an aside, has Harrison Ford's three film run of The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981), and Blade Runner (1982) ever been beaten?).

Famously, the film was a critical and commercial flop in the U.S. with VHS sales and endless re-edits eventually leading to its cult status. (In 2004, it was even voted as the best science fiction film of all time by a panel of global scientists). Today, it's difficult to picture a sci-fi film that doesn't play homage. Would HBO's Westworld have updated its 1973 film version so successfully and stylishly without Blade Runner paving the way both visually and in terms of its musings on free will? And, decades before Elon Musk looked set to take over the world, Blade Runner's Tyrell Corporation (and indeed, Alien's Weyland-Yutani) was inspiring evil empires from Resident Evil's Umbrella Corporation to RoboCop's Omni Consumer Products and The Terminator's Cyberdyne Systems.
The article argues that Rutger Hauer's replicant character Roy Batty "delivers one of the greatest speeches in cinematic history in his 'Tears in rain' soliloquy."

And it points out that fans of Ridley Scott's prequels to Alien speculate those movies also exist in the same cinematic universe.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How 1982's 'Blade Runner' Defined the Sci-Fi Film Genre More

How 1982's 'Blade Runner' Defined the Sci-Fi Film Genre

Comments Filter:

  • Fully agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bringonthenight ( 6914282 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:01PM (#62652190)
    Still the best scifi movie of all time.

    • Nope, that would be Alien.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JanSand ( 5746424 )
        Although I agree that Alien was an exceptionally fascinating film, it always fascinated me that all this proliferation of monsters seem to occur with almost no food source to create such a large crowd of monsters out of just a few human victims, unless, perhaps, they were formed by ridding the ship of mice and cockroaches. I agree that the films were exceptional science fiction in opposition to the basic fairy tales of the Star Wars and Star Trek series. But as one who read SF in Astounding magazine as a ki

        • What proliferation of monsters?

          There was only one monster in Alien - and the food source thing is covered in the official novelisation, with a scene showing the alien ransacking the kitchen for food.

          In fact, the Thing from The Thing is possible even worse than Alien for your scenario

          • Perhaps my memory is wrong since it was so long ago I saw the original, but I seem to remember a huge mother beast that captured crew members in web cocoons wherein beast multiples proliferated.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Dottie Matrix ( 7721008 )
              That was Aliens (second movie). The queen had a colony of 152 humans [fandom.com] to feast upon. Wouldn't surprise me that all the eggs in the crashed ship got canalized to feed the queen to make her own eggs.

            • As the comment at -1 notes, that was Aliens, the sequel orientated around action rather than horror (not a negative judgement, it was a good film - together the four films cover almost the entire range of genres: horror, action, suspense/thriller, comedy), this time with guns and a military presence, so they needed more aliens to go kill. Hence being set in a human colony with lots of hosts.

              Plus no one really knows the physiology of the alien, it could happily eat plastic for all we know.

            • You are mixing multiple movies together. Alien had a single Alien, Aliens the second had a huge Alien and many aliens but it had a whole colony of people and supplies to feed upon.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rhipf ( 525263 )

            It would have needed to eat the whole galley to grow from the small creature that burst out of Kane's to the full sized Alien that shows up by the end of the movie.

            Just to clarify, I don't expect movies to be totally logical so I don't really care if it is physically possible for that kind of growth to occur.

        • Before the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers(Donald Sutherland) there was the 1956 version with Kevin McCarthy which is also very good(I would say slightly better).
          • I have read that the story was conceived as a fantasy structured to imitate the fundamental fantasy that has plagued the USA since the original revolution in Russia to establish Lenin's regime of totalitarian government posing as communist.
        • "The thing" is dated now, but at the time it was the scariest movie I had ever seen. I saw it in the theater, and when the monster popped out of the dog, Grand mothers started dragging crying children out of the theater, and I asked my wife she wanted to leave. When she did not respond, I looked at her and asked again. But she didn't respond this time either - her eyes were transfixed on the screen. She was literally frozen in horror. After the movie, we drove home in the dark, barely speaking. We lived in
          • The story, written by John Campbell under the pseudonym Don Stuart, the editor of Astounding Science Fiction magazine was published in 1938 and scared the hell out of me as a kid when I read it but it had fascinating biological implications as did many stories in that publication which published much by Heinlein and Asimov and quite a few other people working in scientific and technological fields. It took the development of the atomic bomb in WWII to prompt serious literature to pay attention to the techn

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwywit ( 1109409 )

        Sci-fi is essentially "What if?", and BR explores that much more effectively than Alien.

      • Acid blood, really?

        • Human blood would be a solvent to aliens made of cotton candy with their sugar-hulled ships

        • Why not?

          Stranger things have been observed in nature. And while it's probably just for the shock effect of "uhhh, acid, deadly shit", it could actually have some reason in the metabolism of the Alien to have acidic blood, even aside of being an offensive/defensive weapon. Something their body needs could only be soluble in that particular acid.

          It's kinda mood to discuss the physiology of a fictional creature, but ... quite frankly, I have more problems with pretty much any idea of FTL travel, yet it's prett

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by BranMan ( 29917 )

            You know the *really* scary part about the Alien?

            1) Worked together as a hive, in cooperation
            2) Acid for blood, as a defense mechanism
            3) Able to withstand hostile environments
            4) Able to be knocked back down to a single unhatched egg and rebuild from there
            5) At least somewhat intelligent
            6) Rapid growth - both singly and as a hive.
            7) Fast
            8) Able to get into small spaces easily.
            9) Eggs viable for long periods of time, also in hostile environments.

            Take all that together. We don't know where these things came f

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by znrt ( 2424692 )

      yeah, great news?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rossz ( 67331 )

      One of the best. But the book is horrible. I had to struggle to finish it. I've never been a fan of Philip K. Dick. He had great ideas, but his meth fueled writing marathons usually turned great ideas into second rate books.

  • Do you know what made it great? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IWantMoreSpamPlease ( 571972 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:15PM (#62652208) Homepage Journal

    An actual plot that emphasized characters over explosions and mindless car chases.
    Also, Deckard was a human. Scott said so himself before he bowed to pressure and made him a replicant (which is flat out stupid is you devote more than 2 drain cells to the issue)
    The replicant issue was editing errors not ambiguous tidbits, but the internet does love a good controversy...
    It's a shame Scott has fallen so far that he's become a parody of his earlier work.

    • Re:Do you know what made it great? (Score:5, Informative)

      by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:24PM (#62652228)

      Also, Deckard was a human. Scott said so himself

      Not quite. Scott said Deckard was a replicant [cavemancircus.com], but Ford disagreed and argued Deckard was a human. The screenwriter wanted everything left ambiguuos while Dick said absolutely, Deckard was human.

      So, it's clear as mud whether Deckard was human or not. It all depends on who you ask.

      • Re:Do you know what made it great? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:37PM (#62652250)

        Philip K Dick always intended the question to be left ambiguous.
        In interviews he even proposed a third option: that they were all replicants.

        BTW. Big props to Denis Villeneuve for purposely keeping the question open in Blade Runner 2049.

        • Indeed. A key part of the effectiveness of Bladerunner is that you don't know for sure, and the fact that the director and actor disagreed helps inject that ambiguity into the movie. The ambivalence about Deckard's nature is essential to the lasting strength of the film.

          It seems in the Final Cut (the real "director's cut), the best version of the film, that Gaff is hinting that Deckard is a replicant. But hints are all we have.

        • Philip K Dick always intended the question to be left ambiguous.
          In interviews he even proposed a third option: that they were all replicants.

          BTW. Big props to Denis Villeneuve for purposely keeping the question open in Blade Runner 2049.

          You will notice that this is true of almost every PKD story, though. The nature of reality is always ambiguous, and you will never know what is really happening. I believe he was just writing what he knew. He was a massive meth addict and, after a few days (or a week) without sleep, this tends to make you (A) completely paranoid and (B) think that drones are following you, underground gnomes are stalking you, and you've had telepathy all along but, at least you're friends with the godlike alien culture that

          • The ambiguity of Dick is hard to capture on film, though. In part it's because film is inherently a literal medium; seeing is believing. Blade Runner was a rare case of getting that right; A Scanner Darkly is the other notable example. Total Recall (original) is a good example of not fully capturing the ambiguity of Dick, though it has enough other good things going on that it's worth seeing anyway.

          • PKD had a psychotic break/spiritual epiphany in 1974 [oup.com] that left his own concept of reality suspect, and imo that is what gives his work such a deep level of uncertainty

        • Worth mentioning that practically speaking, all of us are replicants, just some of us have a little longer lifespan than others.

      • Re:Do you know what made it great? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BadDreamer ( 196188 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @04:01PM (#62652550) Homepage

        Scott said that later on, yes. He changed his mind, for some reason.

        But that Deckard is human is the only way for the movie to make sense. He's a grey man, living a grey life - he can't even get four pieces of fish with his noodles, ffs - and a combat toaster comes along and shows him what it means to be alive.

        If Deckard is not human, nothing in the movie makes sense any longer. Not the theme, not his background, not the resolution - either of them - and most of all not what he is.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mbkennel ( 97636 )

          Deckard's life and that of many other humans was reduced to emotionally distant synthetic experiences in the dystopian future, yet some of the replicants had more pungent and intense lives, and desire for them.

          • Deckard's life and that of many other humans was reduced to emotionally distant synthetic experiences in the dystopian future...

            To me, that's totally relatable as a human who once worked for The Incredibly Bureaucratic Monstrosity Corporation, (IBM).

        • But that Deckard is human is the only way for the movie to make sense.,/eM>

          If you read the link I provided, the person brings up some interesting tidbuts such as when Deckard is asked if he ever took the test, he never answers. How is it Deckard could be beaten three different times by replicants yet sustain no apparent cognitive impairment? Also, Roy knew Deckard's name even though he wasn't previously told about it.

          Even taking into consideration Deckard and Rachel having a kid, the comment about witne

          • He sustains cognitive impairment. Not major, but he's beat up by the time he finds Roy. And he's almost completely worn out by the time he hangs on at the end, and Roy, who was literally bashed repeatedly in the head with an iron pipe, casually left handed pulls him up.

            Deckard's physical activity in the movie in no way shows him off as a replicant. Decent physical shape, sure, but not even close to the weakest of the replicants he faces. Even the pleasure model with no combat training found him to be no mat

        • If Deckard is not human, then it just shows the transitory nature of all things and they are eventually replaced with something better

          It is just that in Blade Runner, the commodity seems a lot like us

        • There's actually a reddit about the food order, but I personally first thought the dust up was about the use of the number four. Following, that Deckard could have 2+2, but not four--in that it would be superstitious. However, I guess, he was actually only served two pieces, so maybe not. Two is fine.

          • "Futatsu de jubun desu yo", "two is enough", is what the server says. When Deckard resignedly says "and noodles, he follows up with "wakatte kudasai yo" which is a rather sarcastic way of saying "don't you get it". He never accepted an order for four, or for two plus two.

            The point of it is, Deckard is such a loser he can't even get four pieces of fish with his noodles.

    • ... Scott has fallen so far ...

      We see it in Alien (1979), where important characters make nonsensical decisions: That character flaw in multiple characters creates massive plot-holes in Prometheus (2012). In Alien, interstellar space travel was ordinary so it's not surprising they're quickly overwhelmed by the unknown but in Prometheus such travel was unknown and dangerous, so acting like they're on a cross-town joyride makes the movie inconsistent.

      • ... Scott has fallen so far ...

        We see it in Alien (1979), where important characters make nonsensical decisions: That character flaw in multiple characters creates massive plot-holes in Prometheus (2012). In Alien, interstellar space travel was ordinary so it's not surprising they're quickly overwhelmed by the unknown but in Prometheus such travel was unknown and dangerous, so acting like they're on a cross-town joyride makes the movie inconsistent.

        What you must remember is that in Prometheus, the bulk of the crew is not profesional crew, but rather "payload specialists"/"domain experts"/"civilians", and, in the end, fanboys. Yes, they probably underwent training and all, but in the end, their "enthusiasm" got the best of them...

        JM2C

        • That may be, but the way they just sort of casually run around the Engineer installation (later revealed to be the spaceship), despite a helluva lot of visual evidence that fucking terrible things happened in there, not to mention the fact that Weylands and the android David seem to know a lot about the Engineers, enough for Weyland to think they can make him young and spiffy, suggests insanity on Weyland's part, and not having a team of heavily armed soldiers around, but rather some pretty dull-witted rese

    • An actual plot that emphasized characters over explosions and mindless car chases.

      TFA says is was a commercial flop in the US. Coincidence I'm sure.

  • Really? (Score:2)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    Blade Runner arguably defined not just 1980s science fiction

    It was good. But Alien came first. And there were others with that dirty, worn out feel. Outland comes to mind.

    • Nothing hit like Blade Running though ... even Alien (which I watched in a 500 seat cinema on its first release at the age of 16) , didn't quite have the impact of Blade Runner, outstanding though it is. I remember coming out of the cinema from seeing Blade Running, stunned and wandering what the hell had happened but knowing for sure that the earth had shifted beneath my feet. Nothing else compared, absolutely nothing.
    • Alien was not even second. That would go to *Forbidden Planet*

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Forbidden Planet definitely does not share the same gritty ambience as Alien or Blade Runner.

        • Forbidden Planet definitely does not share the same gritty ambience as Alien or Blade Runner.

          Once logand goes out of the nice levels, and into the guts of the city.

          Actually, if you squint hard enough, you could count Nolan's novel as inspiration for the film ;-)

          • Blade Runner is basically 1982 Hong Kong/Kowloon Walled City.

            The HK new-wave - people like Wong Kar Wai and his photographer Wing Shya - had basically already nailed the Blade Runner style by then. That 'night-time, gritty, futuristic urban high-rise neon reflected in water on the street' style was new to western eyes, but already very familiar in HK cinema.

            In fact, anyone who's walked around the outskirts of Hong Kong knows that 'Blade Runner' feeling well. But HK was around long before Blade Runner!

      • What Blade Runner or Alien might or not have defined is the MODERN sci-fi FILMING and atmosphere. Alien (1979) has practical effects of a creature and an oppressive atmosphere that would be the same in a movie made today and one can watch it without guessing it's that old. Forbidden Planet (1956) deserves credit for showing us what a movie about monsters on another planet could be, but is like an old painting in a museum. It smells painted cardboard and acted as in theatre. I feel a young person could watc

    • You could start with the progenitor of the dystopian urban landscape; Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Visually it's probably one of the most influential films in history, and Bladerunner is pretty much a direct descendant.

  • So there are androids, and people tasked with finding and taking them out, and the main character is called Decker, and a few other names. Aside from that it was like a totally different story. Likewise with Minority Report. "Based on PKD" movies seem to have a very liberal license with respect to the "source" material.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aitikin ( 909209 )

      So there are androids, and people tasked with finding and taking them out, and the main character is called Decker, and a few other names. Aside from that it was like a totally different story. Likewise with Minority Report. "Based on PKD" movies seem to have a very liberal license with respect to the "source" material.

      Movies based on books have almost always taken a very liberal license with respect to the source material. Remember, the Soylent wasn't green in the original book.

    • Totally agree with you. I read DADoES decades ago after I saw Blade Runner in the theater. Don't remember much about ti now except the book was not much like the movie and disappointing.

    • Alternatively, imagine Blade Runner as a sequel to DADoES. The human Deckard is alive and well; retired with his wife and away from Los Angeles. The replicant Deckard is programmed to think his wife left him. He is then tasked with cleaning up a problem of old models returning home. And yes, that means the Tyrell we meet is also synthetic, probably with all of Eldon Tyrell's memories (a version of immortality). As for Blade Runner 2049 and a child produced by two synthetics: is it a miracle, or a long

      • Alternatively, imagine Blade Runner as a sequel to DADoES. The human Deckard is alive and well; retired with his wife and away from Los Angeles. The replicant Deckard is programmed to think his wife left him. He is then tasked with cleaning up a problem of old models returning home. And yes, that means the Tyrell we meet is also synthetic, probably with all of Eldon Tyrell's memories (a version of immortality). As for Blade Runner 2049 and a child produced by two synthetics: is it a miracle, or a long term plan?

        I like your fanfiction. As for 2049, the long term plan/experiment failed. while two replicants were able to reproduce, the offspring was subpar. And without replicant Tyrell to continue tweaking/experimenting with the process, it becomes a dead end.

  • This is more for the book than the movie but animals are so rare people get androids for pets and the rich pay handsome sums for actual real animal pets. Blade Runner 2049 better captures this obliteration of nature.

  • I has been a while since I've watched it, but I don't remember it being bleak and desolate. Does Tom Cruise even do bleak, gritty, and desolate? And, considering Dick wrote Minority Report in 1956, while Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was published more than a decade later... I'm not sure why the former was included here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nyet ( 19118 )

      collateral

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

      War of the Worlds, grim AF. One of his best if not his best film.

      • What I mainly remember is Cruise mainly shouting through the whole film. It was an okay adaptation, I guess, but for some reason Cruise just really spent most of the film hamming it up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rossz ( 67331 )

      Tom Cruise only does Tom Cruise. Nothing else. He can't act at all. It's the same character in every single movie he's ever been in.

      • I thought Les Grossman from Tropic Thunder was a pretty unique character, and one I would dearly love Cruise to revisit. The character is a pretty hilarious stereotype of the crazy megalomaniacal film producer, but like all good parodies, only slightly exaggerated.

  • I've tried mulriple times but have never been able to stay awake while watching Blade Runner. Best sleep aid ever...

    • Stories like this always leave me thinking "what didn't I get?".
      Then, I read your post, and I am heartened that I am not alone.

      Maybe I will try coffee, No-Doz, and Red Bull before the next attempt o watch.

    • Eraserhead has that effect on me. The only problem being that sleep induced by bad cinema does not result in good sleep.

  • Yeah, SciFi is still making shows with long-ass flying over the whatever scenes. Frickin waste of time, tried watching the Obiwan show and it was just that... all that.

    If I picked up a scifi novel and 2/3s of the book was lengthy descriptions of scenery, I'd never read that author again.

  • Fascinating what gets left out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @04:32PM (#62652608)

    Very few articles about Blade Runner ever mention Kowloon Walled City and the obvious use of it as a template for the world of Blade Runner and countless other sci-fi stories.

    In a way, it's understandable because they don't want to glorify the poverty, lawlessness, gang activity, drugs and other things that went on there. Still, it would be nice to see them acknowledge one of the primary inspirations for that walled-in underclass area where crime is rampant and the police rarely investigate any of it (and, in fact, fly over it most of the time) that we see in Blade Runner.

  • A "Single" movie didn't define jack. We had tons of scifi other than "blade runner" that have much more fleshed out Universes than a single steamy scifi noir.

    Holy Shit! What is with the hyperbole to get people pissed off these days?

  • play homage. LOL @ Javaid (Score:3)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @05:22PM (#62652758) Homepage Journal

    It's pay homage. Don't you have to speak English to qualify for a visa?

  • It defined the "stereotypical" sci-fi movie.

  • I wish they did not mention that series. I bought the HBO hype and honestly tried to get into this mess for the whole season.

    It's an overblown crap.

  • Replicants are escaped slaves (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lips ( 26363 ) on Sunday June 26, 2022 @06:43PM (#62652928) Journal

    My favourite move of all time in any genre. For me the most important line in the movie is when Pris says: "I think, Sebastian, therefore I am".

    From that moment, we realise that the replicants are sentient, and are in fact escaped slaves.

  • Something about the movie that bothered me a bit is the use of the Voigt-Kampff test near the beginning to establish replicants can't feel empathy, but then we keep seeing examples of replicants feeling empathy. I do remember Captain Bryant saying replicants might start to develop their own emotional responses after a a few years (so the 4 year lifespan), but I disliked such a major plot from the book point being tossed away.

    • Are not the replicants a version of Frankenstein's monster?

      The monster is an artificial life form cobbled together from human body parts. It is reanimated, but does it have a soul? The Blade Runner version of this is "does it have empathy"?

  • It did not age well to me or the person I watched it with. Acting was extremely bad. I really have no idea how I enjoyed it previously. Blade Runner 2049 was awesome though.

  • 2001: A Space Odyssey (Score:3)

    by chas.williams ( 6256556 ) on Monday June 27, 2022 @05:21AM (#62653710)
    Easily beats it by a decade. Forbidden Planet is slightly earlier and had an enormous impact on all future designs. And just a little further back, we have the dystopian Metropolis.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by colfer ( 619105 )

      Yes, I immediately thought of the corporations in Metropolis when the summary mentioned Tyrell Corp. as foundational. TFA also ignores previous literature and film, aside from the quoted mention of Chinatown. But our comments are late enough they will only be read by robots!

      So while neither I nor, apparently, the author are Blade Runner experts, seems we have a few new things going on beyond other sci-fi: the lively street life below the Metropolis-like evil corporation, and the film-noirish government assa

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by colfer ( 619105 )

      Also, the speeches by Roy Batty are not that great. If Dick wrote them, he probably did them as a joke.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by colfer ( 619105 )

      (Of course 2001 is always compared to Solaris, a very different take.)

    • I would agree that 2001 is the first 'modern' sci-fi film.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Astfgl ( 203296 )
      Yes, 2001 times, yes. Kubrick's masterpiece is 54 years old now (compared to Blade Runner's 40), and yet, as a science fiction fan, I still look forward to watching it every couple of years. It's one of those films that, while dated, never seems outdated. I think it's one of the few films of its genre that has accomplished that feat.
  • We can't forget how revolutionary Tron was either. It set a higher standard for CGI. Without Tron, the movie industry would probably be years behind in terms of special effects. Blade Runner may have given us sci-fi meets neo-noir, but Tron is simply the best movie of all time.

    • Tron is still a pretty visually stunning film. I rewatched it before the sequel was released (probably the first time I had watched it since 1982), and while a few CGI elements had shown up here and there before it, and while the film isn't purely CGI, it was an incredible achievement for the time and really gave people a sense of what computers could do. I don't think you would have had Terminator 2 without Tron and the CGI Genesis simulation sequence in Wrath of Khan.

  • ... so at least the fans knew it was something special at the time.

    I was in the audience at Worldcon when Scott accepted the award. He thanked the fans, and said as an aside:

    ... apparently you guys were the only ones who watched it.

  • "I'm Rachael."

    Oh, she kills me every time.

  • He was the production designer and a lot of how the movie looked was his in terms of props, set dressing, etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: can't find /

Close