What is the fascination with Blade Runner?

[nickytea]

Re: What is the facination with Blade Runner?

Actually, I'd bet that much of the over-lit quality comes from the decline in practical sets and props and reliance on CGI and green-screening. When the base image is so damn bright in the first place (as I guess it has to be if you're gonna use green screen), maybe they can't tone down the lighting sufficiently to make it look natural.

Nah. Nope.

 

[nightwind1]

I just finished watching this film for the first time.:eek

This ranks as one of the worst films I have ever seen.:sick

It was like trying to sit through the Star Wars Holiday special. :confused

So I ask... what is the facination?

I feel sad for you. :cry

 

[nightwind1]

Re: What is the facination with Blade Runner?

But as far a films go, the the 5th element is a better film. Why?
Regardless of specifics such as characters and situations, it communicates the story clearly. Which is something BR doesn't do at all. It jumps around a bit, and it needs a narration to let the audience know what is going on. Which to me fails as a film, even with the other cuts of the film. It falls flat on it's face for story. Scott has no real excuse for this, for his other films I have seen had no problem with the story. Both Alien and Gladiator were both very solid films.

It doesn't need narration. It just needs an audience that THINKS, not sit back and let the film makers spoon-feed everything to it. You actually have to PAY ATTENTION, not just wait for random crap to happen just to keep your attention (like 80% of recent films).

I've heard a lot of the same criticisms about 2001, and my reply would be the same.

 

[micdavis]

No, it needs narration. Unless you never want anyone else to ever watch it.

 

[deck5]

If you say you need narration to understand it, I believe you. But your experience is not everyone's; many people understand it just fine without the pedantic voice-over. (Imagine 2001 with a voice-over!)

 

[nickytea]

If you say you need narration to understand it, I believe you. But your experience is not everyone's; many people understand it just fine without the pedantic voice-over. (Imagine 2001 with a voice-over!)

Ineffective comparison.
I'm curious how many people arguing against the voice-overs presence actually saw the movie first without narration.

While I can understand the complaint about Ford's performance, especially considering the conditions surrounding its recording, I feel like it really adds something to the noir atmosphere of the story. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but I find the overall narrative flow superior with it rather than without.

 

[blip]

Ineffective comparison.
I'm curious how many people arguing against the voice-overs presence actually saw the movie first without narration.

While I can understand the complaint about Ford's performance, especially considering the conditions surrounding its recording, I feel like it really adds something to the noir atmosphere of the story. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but I find the overall narrative flow superior with it rather than without.

Yup. The voice-over is part of the "detective" style thing.
The long coat, the ex cop, the glass of booze, the neon sign flickering through the bilnds... and the dry, bored, voice-over ...it's a story told from the POV of the detective...so yes, you need the voice-over for stylistc reasons.

 

[MFP 2020]

Yes, but... how many of us watch the final cut and still hear the narration? And if you already know the narration, doesn't that inform your knowledge of the scene--particularly the ending? It becomes sort of a crutch. Without the narration, would you really understand the final scene between Batty and Deckard? (Well, maybe. And this is coming from someone who hates to be spoon-fed everything in a movie.)

I wish I could see the FC after a memory wipe...

 

[blip]

Re: What is the facination with Blade Runner?

Actually, I'd bet that much of the over-lit quality comes from the decline in practical sets and props and reliance on CGI and green-screening. When the base image is so damn bright in the first place (as I guess it has to be if you're gonna use green screen), maybe they can't tone down the lighting sufficiently to make it look natural.

You've figured out a real problem with Green-screen. But it's a technical issue best discussed in a seperate thread. You can get the actor so dark with Green-screen that they look like a shadow. Plus digital manipulation (in post) can clean up any overspill.

 

[cayman shen]

I'm a final cut man...I can live with the intro narration, but the narration following Batty's death just totally craps all over the most powerful moment in the whole movie. And the voice over (other than the intro) also feels totally superfluous, and also maybe a whisper condescending. I'm not a fan of having everything spelled out for me. I'm a big boy; don't talk down.

Yeah...final cut makes Cayman smile. But to each his own, right? If you fell in love with the 82 cut, that's your huckleberry. I liked it, but the 92 cut was just...perfect. To my tastes I mean. Then the final cut was just the right amount of inobtrusive tlc.

 

[Nwerke]

If they released a collection of Bilal's telephone doodles, I'd buy it. I love everything that guy has ever done.

Right there with you. :thumbsup

I liked it, but the 92 cut was just...perfect. To my tastes I mean. Then the final cut was just the right amount of inobtrusive tlc.

Final Cut > 92 cut, considerably, IMO. It's not just the FX fixes, it's that the edits are so much smoother. The film finally loses its remnant disjointedness and feels fully integrated for the first time. After seeing the '92 cut I never imagined that a Scott-helmed revamp could be so much better again. I love it.

That said, I do agree with the blip identity's point about the narration. It's stylistically right for the material, I can enjoy the film equally with, or without.

 

[micdavis]

Ineffective comparison.
I'm curious how many people arguing against the voice-overs presence actually saw the movie first without narration.

None, I'd wager.

You can't argue it's better until you've actually seen it without out EVER hearing the voice-over. Because it's still there whether you want to think you aren't hearing or not. That's just nuts to think otherwise.

Face it folks, it bores people without it and doesn't with it, because WE are all the proof you need, because we liked it with the voice over and kept watching.

So let others have the same option.

Recommend the Voice Over.

(This advert brought to you by the Tyrell Coporation. More Human Than Human)

 

[cayman shen]

I saw it first with narration, and I vastly prefer it without.

 

[micdavis]

Well Congratulations, but we're not really talking about you.

But how to get more people interested in or to at least appreciate the movie.

The OP never did say which version he had watched. Just that he didn't get it.

So do you want him to get it, or just be selfish and happy YOU got it.

 

[rodneyfaile]

I like it with and without narration. I dont feel I have to lock into just one version. Sometimes I like Mounds. Sometimes I like Almond Joy.

 

[Forestmoonstudio]

One thing that I did find myself doing while watching this is, I kept saying to myself how much work went into the sets.

I enjoy films before CG because of the craftsmenship that is put into making the sets,costumes and creatures.

 

[SSgt Burton]

I have to agree with Mic on this one. I watched the theatrical cut first several times) before the Director's (or Final) Cut was ever available.

While I'll never watch the theatrical cut again, the narration is "there" regardless. And while Ford's dry delivery might not be the best, it does help with what would be considered some pretty WTF moments.


Kevin

 

[frosty]

I think its great to look at, and i've owned many different versions of it over the years, most recently on blu ray which it looked great on, but its a hard film to like

 

[Solo4114]

Re: What is the facination with Blade Runner?

Nah. Nope.

You've figured out a real problem with Green-screen. But it's a technical issue best discussed in a seperate thread. You can get the actor so dark with Green-screen that they look like a shadow. Plus digital manipulation (in post) can clean up any overspill.

Ok, so, it's not that it's too brightly lit. But what is it then? Is it that the guys who do the CGI work after the fact simply don't give a crap about lighting? CGI shots always end up seeming...bright? To me.

Ineffective comparison.
I'm curious how many people arguing against the voice-overs presence actually saw the movie first without narration.

While I can understand the complaint about Ford's performance, especially considering the conditions surrounding its recording, I feel like it really adds something to the noir atmosphere of the story. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but I find the overall narrative flow superior with it rather than without.

I saw the film first on VHS -- the international version, actually. Voice overs and eye-gouges and happy endings oh my. I liked it with the voice over. I like it without the voice over. I don't think the voice over detracts, necessarily. I just think it sets a different tone somewhat and yes, adds to the noir feel.

I do think that the voice over provides more structure for the narrative. It's been a while since I watched it, but I didn't find that it "dumbed down" the film. The VO moment at Batty's death...that I can see being a matter of taste. I think it focuses the attention more on Batty without than with, and especially for some folks, that can be nice. But anyway, I wouldn't say I PREFER the VO version, just that I don't think it's a problem to include it. It may have helped my initial enjoyment of the film to see it with, which then allowed me to see it without and enjoy that experience as well.

 

[cayman shen]

Well Congratulations, but we're not really talking about you.QUOTE]

Gee, I'm sorry dad. I thought my comment was absolutely relevant to the topic and a fair response to your rather "nuff said" sounding post above mine. Don't you have me on ignore yet?