Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:31:02 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Blade Runner is shit. There, I said it.

Started by The Region Legion, April 06, 2010, 08:13:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wasp_f15ting

Just out of interest Jutl, what do you consider to be good sci-fi? I remember on stating on various occasions you are not a fan of the genre with all the jargon etc.

Vitalstatistix

For a shit film which bombed at the cinema, it sure was nominated/won an impressive amount of awards in 1982/83!

jutl

Quote from: wasp_f15ting on April 08, 2010, 08:50:23 AM
Just out of interest Jutl, what do you consider to be good sci-fi? I remember on stating on various occasions you are not a fan of the genre with all the jargon etc.

I like a lot of sci-fi, so it's not a genre-aversion. Scanning the list of sci-fi films on Wikipedia, these are ones I really enjoy:

Forbidden Planet
Planet of the Apes
First four Star Trek movies
Original Star Trek series
2001
2010
The Omega Man
Soylent Green
The Quiet Earth
Logan's Run
Them!
First three Star Wars movies (ie IV-VI)
Altered States
Flash Gordon
Mad Max and II
Tron
Twelve Monkeys
Terminator


Quote from: Vitalstatistix on April 08, 2010, 09:14:15 AM
For a shit film which bombed at the cinema, it sure was nominated/won an impressive amount of awards in 1982/83!

It did perform badly, as the Wikipedia article states, and it got poor reviews. Of the major awards it got, they're all technical with the exception of the music, which I'll agree is quite nice.


An tSaoi

Quote from: jutl on April 07, 2010, 03:23:01 PM
That's not a performance then

Lots of performances are informed by the actor's real feelings. Is someone only acting when they don't rely at all on any genuine emotions, and the whole tone of their performance is entirely artificial? Just because he was a bit pissed off during filming doesn't mean he isn't performing.

QuoteWhich version? The one Scott disowned but which makes sense or the soupy expanded editions? (NB - not a real question)

The Director's Cut is the same length as the theatrical version, and the Final Cut is barely a minute longer (and that extra minute is made up of violence, nothing ponderous at all).

The original version doesn't make any more sense than subsequent editions, in fact it merely spells out in voiceover exactly what's going on, in a rather redundant fashion. Ridley Scott was actually let go towards the end of the production, which is why the theatrical release wasn't what he wanted (he never intended a voiceover for a start, that was pure studio meddling). It's not like he suddenly pulled a George Lucas a few years down the line and decided to rework it for no reason.

Johnny Townmouse

* the film is a little dull but has its charm. I think the tone of it is rather excellent, spoiled to some extent for me by some mediocre acting. I agree with the now rather cliched 'cool' opinion that the first original film is the better one. The gumshow VO works * because of the melding of noir with sci-fi which to me is always a good mix. * I like what Scott is trying to do with the film, in the way that it evokes Alphaville and some of Burroughs writing, but the casting lets it down somewhat.

*For me personally,

MojoJojo

Quote from: An tSaoi on April 08, 2010, 11:05:13 AM
The original version doesn't make any more sense than subsequent editions, in fact it merely spells out in voiceover exactly what's going on, in a rather redundant fashion. Ridley Scott was actually let go towards the end of the production, which is why the theatrical release wasn't what he wanted (he never intended a voiceover for a start, that was pure studio meddling). It's not like he suddenly pulled a George Lucas a few years down the line and decided to rework it for no reason.

That of course happened after the test screenings were negative.

I can't remember what the actual "happy ending" of the original theatrical cut was - can some one fill me in?

jutl

Quote from: An tSaoi on April 08, 2010, 11:05:13 AM
Lots of performances are informed by the actor's real feelings. Is someone only acting when they don't rely at all on any genuine emotions, and the whole tone of their performance is entirely artificial? Just because he was a bit pissed off during filming doesn't mean he isn't performing.

If you're saying that the main characteristic of his performance (in this case mardy lethargy) comes from external factors then the actor is very lucky to be experiencing precisely what is needed for the role.

QuoteThe Director's Cut is the same length as the theatrical version, and the Final Cut is barely a minute longer (and that extra minute is made up of violence, nothing ponderous at all).

The additional unicorn scene is just awful though, and the tie in with the ending is extremely ponderous (I'd argue).

QuoteThe original version doesn't make any more sense than subsequent editions, in fact it merely spells out in voiceover exactly what's going on, in a rather redundant fashion. Ridley Scott was actually let go towards the end of the production, which is why the theatrical release wasn't what he wanted (he never intended a voiceover for a start, that was pure studio meddling). It's not like he suddenly pulled a George Lucas a few years down the line and decided to rework it for no reason.

Yup, I didn't say he did. The voiceover changed the story and actually told its changed version. I'd argue it does make more sense for exactly that reason (or perhaps I should say - is more readily and unequivocally comprehensible).

For all those who rate Blade Runner so highly - do you like any of Scott's subsequent films? I haven't seen them all, but those I have seen have all been shitty, and often prejudice style over substance in just the same way Blade Runner does. In my opinion he's just not very good at telling stories cinematically. In fact of all his films I've seen Alien is about the only successful story. I think that this may be because, despite its overwhelming visual design it is actually a very simple story that it would be hard to fuck up, even if you are Ridley Scott (although the purposefully poor sound doesn't help). Any recommendations of good Scott films?

Johnny Textface

Quote from: An tSaoi on April 08, 2010, 11:05:13 AM
The original version doesn't make any more sense than subsequent editions, in fact it merely spells out in voiceover exactly what's going on, in a rather redundant fashion.

The original version also had that happy ending which was just fucking woeful. I love the film myself. I think it is very much a case of style over substance - but what style!

jutl

Quote from: Johnny Textface on April 08, 2010, 11:57:59 AM
The original version also had that happy ending which was just fucking woeful. I love the film myself. I think it is very much a case of style over substance - but what style!

True. I just find it gets boring very quickly, and did even when a fresh-faced young man in the early 80s. How younger viewers who will already have seen 1,000 dingey future dystopias can stand it I just do not know. I suspect it's something to do with orthodoxy.

An tSaoi

Quote from: jutl on April 08, 2010, 11:56:28 AM
If you're saying that the main characteristic of his performance (in this case mardy lethargy) comes from external factors then the actor is very lucky to be experiencing precisely what is needed for the role.

I'm sure he could have managed the role even if he was in the best of spirits; external factors just added a certain realism to it.

QuoteThe additional unicorn scene is just awful though, and the tie in with the ending is extremely ponderous (I'd argue).

Well it's a critical scene, and is part of an important theme of the film as it stand. If you find it ponderous then you'll find the whole crux of the film ponderous (which you do), and there's nothing I can say to counter that opinion. I'm only defending the film against criticism I feel to be inaccurate or unfair ('such an such isn't explained' when it is, 'such and such version is greatly expanded' when it isn't, 'such and such doesn't make sense' when it does etc.)

QuoteFor all those who rate Blade Runner so highly - do you like any of Scott's subsequent films? I haven't seen them all, but those I have seen have all been shitty, and often prejudice style over substance in just the same way Blade Runner does.

Can you really criticise a film by bringing up a director's other work? It's an odd argument; I don't like The Godfather or Apocalypse Now any less because I don't like Dracula or Jack. I don't like Jaws any less because I don't like The Terminal or Catch Me If You Can. I don't like Taxi Driver any less because I don't like Shutter Island or Gangs of New York. I don't like The Terminator any less because I can't stand Titanic (heh, Leonardo DiCaprio turn up in a lot of films I don't like).

Similarly, thinking GI Jane and Hannibal are rubbish doesn't affect my enjoyment of Blade Runner or Alien.

jutl

Quote from: An tSaoi on April 08, 2010, 12:25:24 PM
Can you really criticise a film by bringing up a director's other work? It's an odd argument; I don't like The Godfather or Apocalypse Now any less because I can't stand Dracula or Jack. I don't like Jaws any less because I don't like The Terminal or Catch Me If You Can. I don't like Taxi Driver any less because I hate Shutter Island and Gangs of New York. Similarly, thinking GI Jane and Hannibal are rubbish doesn't affect my enjoyment of Blade Runner or Alien.

I'm not trying to criticise Blade Runner in this case, just Scott. The Coppola comparison is a little spurious, as he has always been immensely variable and liable to take commercial work to stay afloat and turn out shit as a result (although The Godfather I and II were both potboiler work and great.) I think it is fair to look at a director's career to assess things like whether they can - in general -tell an engaging story without fucking it up with grandiose bollocks.

An tSaoi

Quote from: jutl on April 08, 2010, 12:32:03 PM
I'm not trying to criticise Blade Runner in this case, just Scott.

Oh, fair enough.

JPA

The Omega Man is shit. There, I said it.

jutl

Quote from: JPA on April 08, 2010, 12:38:43 PM
The Omega Man is shit. There, I said it.

It's not held up by the cognoscenti as a cinematic classic either.

Captain Crunch

Quote from: jutl on April 08, 2010, 10:03:54 AMTron

How about if every copy of Blade Runner had a little tag on the cover saying "now are you sure you wouldn't rather watch TRON?"

Johnny Yesno

Quote from: The Region Legion on April 06, 2010, 08:13:32 PMthe chief of police - who, even though this is set in 2019, is in a completely cliche "Chief Of Police" office stuck in the middle of an enormous hall that looks like the bank out of The Dark Knight

I thought that was the point: that even in 2019 (only 9 years away now) they'd rather use old buildings (that hall is an old station building) than build new ones. You know, police budgets and that.

QuoteCue 3 or 4 SCREEN SIZED advertisements for Coca-Cola in very quick sucession. Why no one rips this movie apart for it's unbelievably blatant product placement is utterly bizarre.

I hate product placement too. However, in this case I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that in such a dismal future world that Coca-Cola will be shifting more units than ever. The first time I saw Blade Runner I was surprised the company was happy to associate itself with a film where private enterprise was portrayed so negatively. I thought on the whole the advertising was spot on - lots of (fictitious) Chinese advertising which seems a lot less far-fetched now than it did then.

I'm surprised that, of all the gripes you had about Blade Runner, you didn't mention the round-the-corner image enhancement. That was a genuine flaw which was crucial to the plot. Too obvious?

Quote from: The Region Legion on April 06, 2010, 09:44:10 PM
Because why should I? Why does the movie assume it's so breathtakingly genius that I should have to fill the gaps in when a simple "Tyrell told me about it when you left the room" would have done the job? There's leaving things out for the sake of storytelling, and there's being deliberately obtuse because just being straightforward wouldn't be arty enough.

Because signposting things the audience can deduce is tedious in itself.

Quote from: Serge on April 06, 2010, 08:48:48 PM
Never seen it. Seriously. And now there are so many different versions I wouldn't know where to start even if I could raise the interest in a film which has Harrison Fucking Ford and Sean Bloody Young in.

The Final Cut has been cleaned up and enhanced nicely, plus most of the problems that fans of the earlier versions had have been addressed in this version. If there's one thing that really resonates with me in Blade Runner's dystopian future it's the relentless fucking rain.

Quote from: jutl on April 07, 2010, 01:59:11 PMIt's little wonder that it inspired so many ads

That's not much of a criticism - ad agencies are always on the lookout for distinctive styles to plunder.

Quote from: jutl on April 08, 2010, 10:03:54 AM
I like a lot of sci-fi, so it's not a genre-aversion. Scanning the list of sci-fi films on Wikipedia, these are ones I really enjoy:

No THX1138 or Fahrenheit 451, if we're talking about dystopian futures?

Quote from: jutl on April 08, 2010, 11:56:28 AMIn fact of all his films I've seen Alien is about the only successful story. I think that this may be because, despite its overwhelming visual design it is actually a very simple story that it would be hard to fuck up, even if you are Ridley Scott

You'd think that but then Aliens was awful. Give the guy credit for not turning out something like that.

rudi



jutl

Quote from: Johnny Yesno on April 08, 2010, 05:50:02 PMNo THX1138 or Fahrenheit 451, if we're talking about dystopian futures?

I'm not that keen on either of those, although it's been years since I've seen them. I'd rate Brazil far higher, although it's not really sci-fi.

Catalogue Trousers

QuoteI can't remember what the actual "happy ending" of the original theatrical cut was - can some one fill me in?

Well, MojoJojo, as lots of people are going on about how lousy it was without outlining it...in a nutshell, Deckard discovers that Rachel is a special sort of replicant who doesn't have a built-in expiry date, there's no real angsty worry about whether Deckard himself is a replicant, and they drive off in Deckard's car through a lovely sunny forest before apparently taking off and flying over gorgeous mountains (after it's been established in the background material that Deckard's car can't fly, as it's a decommissioned Spinner). Terry Gilliam was so riled by this ending that he specifically set out to trash it with his ending to Brazil.

CollaterlySisters

...& Ridley Scott didn't shoot the scenery footage, it was some outtakes the studio had left lying about from 'The Shining'.

HappyTree

I realised that I've only ever seen the voiceovered, happy ending version of this great film. I will now determine to watch the Final Cut version. I remember the impact this film had on me in the cinema, not least because it was the first film I was ever naughtily under age for.

It's the style. If you don't get drawn in by the style then the film is lost to you.