Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very real and has depth.
I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with no idea how to end.
Since that first viewing, some 20 years ago, I've watched it a few more times without those initial expectations and really love it. I love slow-paced films where you can really soak up the atmosphere. That kind of thing isn't for everyone, though, so I can see why others wouldn't enjoy it.
Post-Blade-Runner movies can spend less time developing their aesthetic and setting specifically because they can "import" the Blade Runner vibe "by reference", as it were, while Blade Runner had to build up the whole thing from scratch.
To fair, importing a setting this way isn't necessarily lazy: doing so allows the derivative film maker to spend more time on the things that make his film unique. There's only so long an audience will tolerate.
The first time, a bunch is quite confusing.
The Theatrical Cut obviously adds the narration, which for first-timers helps with the comprehension. However once you know the story. The Final Cut is just pure bliss and I never tire of it.
Theatrical and Director's Cut versions: http://www.metabunker.dk/wp-content/uploads/br_dc_chew.jpg
Final Cut version: http://www.metabunker.dk/wp-content/uploads/br_fc_chew.jpg
See [1] and [2] for more.
Not the same picture. Same frame, but different colours.
If you can’t see the defence, you may want to recalibrate your display.
But on topic, I think “ruin” is too strong. But subjective experience with art is at the core of the concept.
The movie is literary much darker and takes place in a claustrophobic decaying chaos of a enormous city. I has the slow pace of a 1940th film noir and while the theme of what real really entails is central, it just one part in the whole vision.
And everytime I try to watch it I get bored quick.
I think I would have much more apreciate it, the atmosphere et all, if I hadn't read the book before. And I realy regret it because I know it's a good movie.
I still enjoyed both films but that aspect of them (both) really sucked.
To be fair I don't watch movies / TV shows often because I have a low attention span for this stuff, but this is a movie I really wanted to like because I love the genre, but it's too slow paced for me. I do know that pacing was generally slower in older movies (eg. I recently watched "Roman Holiday" because so many older people love that one, and found it incredibly slow).
I watch some stuff like this because while the Directors vision might require 3 breaths to get the point across I am happy to accept the premise being suggested in 3 seconds. Cinema is a communication medium, not a recreation or simulation of events.
But I think it's well regarded because of the world building, set design, costumes, and music.
Same for the Prime TV series, The Man in the High Castle. Again, true to the source in that the plot is moth-eaten lacework, but who cares? The world-building is great.
In 1982, 2019 sure looked exciting though. Androids, flying cars, …
I hope kids today have a much more interesting future 40 years from now.
I hope kids today have a much more interesting future 40 years from now.
- Pacing so you don't get bored.
- Thematic depth
- Atmosphere
Let's face it, Blade runner really screwed up with pacing. Ultra slow pacing is understandably sort of required for the atmosphere but while it scores very very very highly in the other areas; there is absolute truth to the statement when someone says that movie is in general quite slow and boring. If your brain is too big to comprehend why Blade runner even has the possibility of being boring then I'm likely too stupid to be communicating with you, you should go read other comments of higher intelligence.
The MCU scores highly in pacing and probably is the greatest paced franchise of all time, with 10 years of momentum and a payoff unlike anything ever seen before in cinema. But because of pretension, in general a certain crowd looks at the entire franchise with disdain; even though it's actually much harder and challenging to create good pacing then many of the more serious thematically deep movies I've seen out there.
Inception would be movie that on average has the best high balance on all three pillars. Good pacing, thematically deep, well established professional/corporate atmosphere. Though I would say in terms of theme and atmosphere, while quite high, it's not quite high enough to get past certain pretentious attitudes. I would even argue that sometimes if the pacing is too good, the movie becomes too popular and thus "not good" to the elite crowd.
At the same time, sometimes if the pacing is too good, the themes and atmosphere get copied by dozens of other movies. The audience sees too much of it and becomes more sophisticated. Now the stuff that use to be high concept to the general audience becomes quite boring. Directors and movies producers are always playing catch up to increase sophistication and bring you stuff you've never seen before.
@duxup, I think this is what's happening to you. Bladerunner is so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi stuff get copied to hell and now the cookie cutter sameness doesn't do it for you anymore. So you turn to the thing that's most different.
There are things that are general truths though. Opinions held by such a high majority of people that such opinions are very close to the truth in the sense that often people talk about such opinions without using "speculative" adjectives.
I would say the things that I talk about in my post belong to those "general truths." I would also say fans of Blade Runner don't belong to the majority crowd. Their opinions are well outside mainstream and they <often> view that sort of opinion as superior. I personally view that sort of opinion as "alternative" and I despise people who view it as "superior."
Not saying you are such a person, nor many of the people on HN. But you have to admit; such a crowd does exist.
Probably a better way to put it is this. If you like Blade Runner AND the MCU, or at least understand why from a mainstream perspective the MCU is a work of art that stands on the same level as blade runner, then I don't despise you.
If you like Blade runner and you hate all forms of movies that are mainstream blockbusters like star wars, MCU, or all the other stuff and think those things are beneath you... then yes... in that case I despise you. I actually think you don't have the sophistication to see why mainstream cinema is just as great if not often greater then the obscure stuff.
It's easy to hate the mainstream. It's enlightenment to like the mainstream after hating it. Those elitest people are just at level 2. They don't realize there's a third level that brings you back full circle.
I would know I watched hundreds and hundreds of movies. More then your average person and I started at a very young age.
They're two independent concepts.
So to weight popular success in any sense when deciding artist merit is a mistake.
Popular is popular. Art is art. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Agreed? Why are you telling me something I completely agree with?
>Popular is popular. Art is art.
The problem here is that for people like you, most of the time:
"Popular is NOT art",
it's this elitist attitude that "art" is above what is "popular" that I hate. We divide wealth into classes and now we have to divide tastes. Looks like your part of the 1%.
>Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
May I ask why you decided to write some stuff in French for no fucking reason? Pretty low likelihood that I'm French or readers on HN are French so what's your goal here with putting some French here?
It's like a cartoon. You're not trying to sound elitist but your genius French kinda shows the world how elitist your headspace is. Wow French!, we're dealing with a true art critic here folks.
I'm not art critic enough to know even half of what's been written about the meaning of this painting, but I know that it's considered significant, and I immediately recognized the reference.
Can't speak for him, but I guess the reason for including it may have been as an example of a work that was decidedly not Popular but (after much discussion) very much Art.
The other thing it could be used for is as a reminder to not mistake the map for the territory, but I don't see that fitting into this discussion so it's probably not that.
By distilling language down to a most basic, simplified statement, the artist (Magritte) is seducing the viewer into a first impression ("This is a pipe") and then contradicting it, on the basis that a picture of a pipe cannot be used for anything which a pipe can (e.g. smoking).
So yes, similar lines to the Borges map fable.
I included it because at a base level, parent seems to be stubborn about the definition of terms, on which it seemed to opine.
And PS, je ne parle pas français.
Nobody look up that French or ask about it... it's a trap so he can lord it over you with an authoritative expose and explanation of his expansive knowledge of French wisdom while eating a croissant.
So although I'm a monoglot Kiwi I'm neither baffled nor insulted by a snippet of French, and although I know little of the history of art the fame of that surrealist painting precedes it. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" has passed from being a painting to a concise reference to an idea, and like all jargon its succinctness is both useful for those familiar with the field and can be forbidding for those who don't.
Most people don't know about this painting nor do most people know French... I'm sure you and him are aware of that.
It could be that whatever the painting represents fits his point. But you have to look deeper then that because he is fully aware that most people on this site don't know about that painting nor do they know French. So why post it at all? His intent definitely wasn't communicating anything understandable to anyone here.
I'm Chinese, so if quoted some famous quote from Confucius, and to top if off I wrote that quote in Chinese, then of course my intention isn't communication. I know most people on HN can't read Chinese, so then why would I include the quote?
I would have included it to make myself look intelligent, educated and well versed in Chinese philosophy. This is basically the gist of what's going on here.
The alternative is he just didn't have the brains to realize this is an English site and most people don't speak french nor do they have an understanding of French paintings.
I would say the former reason is much more likely then the later.
That's why I said it's almost like a cartoon. I'm talking about elitism in movie tastes and here someone tries to counter that claim with a carbon copy circus act of exactly the snobbery I'm talking about. I don't think he picked up on it, and hopefully this explanation helps you realize what I'm talking about.
This site is for people to discuss and learn, and curiosity is basically a core value of it. It's OK to be young and immature if you are also curious.
BTW, if you share a Chinese saying that people can Google and be educated and delighted by, I think it would be welcomed. Even in Chinese.
Exactly.
Your very narrow minded to assume that just because someone has a different opinion then you it's from a person younger then you.
In fact talking to someone in such a patronizing tone isnt itself exactly the overly polite tone dang seems to ask for from users on HN. I offer hard controversial opinions with no cushion, you treat me like a child lol. We are both bending the rules here.
If you ever raised a child past his teens, you will know treating a teen like a child, patronizing him is not only a surefire way of making that person your enemy, but it's also wrong and in itself very immature. Shit like "it's ok to be curious and immature when your young" is raw venom cleverly disguised as advice. I will tell you the truth. By saying shit like this you display both immaturity and you show that you are manipulative. Immaturity can be "fixed", manipulation cannot. Don't fuck with me bro.
>BTW, if you share a Chinese saying that people can Google and be educated and delighted by, I think it would be welcomed. Even in Chinese.
The proper way to do this would be to share it in English, and explain it. Thats proper communication. Leaving it in Chinese and expecting you to Google it is a very unnatural thing to do by someone who's intention is to communicate. So obviously there's a secondary intention here.
What this person is doing raw snobbery. You just happen to likely agree with this persons initial opinions on blade runner and the MCU, so during your little team up here your supporting his every move his every tactic, however obviously snobbish.
My tip for you is to always stay neutral. This is the internet so unique to the internet you can take a position where you Have no allies and have no enemies and only offer your raw opinions for everyone to agree and disagree with. At times everyone can disagree with you, at other times everyone agrees with you.
If you find that everyone is agreeing with you all the time... then you're just not a very original person and your not learning anything.
When I offer a controversial opinion occasionally I'm flipped. I'm changed. The other side convinces me and my entire outlook on a topic moves to another dimension. That's what I live for and that's why I offer hard hitting opinions. Because I want people to offer them back.
Hard and controversial opinions with no cushion are fun in person with a friend. That's not what this place is. We need more nuance in our discussions, not less. It's not as fun, but it is more constructive, and it helps us see other people's points of view instead of making it into a contest.
I will say, I have no idea how old you are, and you have no idea how old I am. But whether I am 15 or 50, my words speak for themselves, as do yours.
But apparently not more mature.
Maturity isn't even a legit concept. People are all very different. The word immaturity more or less is used here as venom. Direct insults.
So why do you want to insult me? Why flagrantly violate the rules of HN if your so mature?
In short you could say that the mainstream general audience is what the big budget move is target-ted towards.
Something like the MCU which is over a decade old doesn't fit your thinking. If the first movie IRON MAN, which "targetted teens" is a decade old then most of those teens who watched END GAME that another movie that targeted the people who watched the first iron man are no longer teens. They aged out. If iron man targetted teens then end game didn't. So most likely all these super hero blockbusters are just targeting all demographics. Don't be so shallow in thinking that only teens are "dumb" enough to like super hero movies. Plenty of other demographics and "smart" people appreciate blockbuster entertainment.
End game had clear nostalgia references to people who watched the first iron man and his death only had emotional meaning to those who followed him for over a decade. Younger people in fact tend to think of the MCU as stupid, because iron man came out when they were too young to be interested. I've found people in their early 20s have this attitude and I'm guessing that's you. To me someone in their 20s is practically a teen.
Older people appreciate the MCU because their memory stretches back further. They don't see the MCU as a decade of cookie cutter copies because that decade only takes up a tiny fraction of their own cinematic life time. They see that everything that came before the MCU was different and the MCU is unique. Meanwhile young people who've seen the MCU all their lives see it as stupid because that's all they've seen their entire short lives.
So am I rationalizing something or am I trying to explain something to a stubborn elitist minority?
I think we're both intelligent enough to know that the later reason is the actual reality and that I'm not the one actually rationalizing things.
Top Gun just crossed a billion dollars, and while I haven't seen it, I'm sure the pacing is frenetic as fuck. Nobody needs to rationalize a billion dollars, but somebody definitely needs to justify a niche movie like blade runner.
cheers.
I think your definition of frenetic is different from his. When he's talking about frenetic, he's talking about the new Top Gun and MCU blockbusters and such and such. He thinks that level of momentum is bad and too way too quick, which is a deviant opinion from most of the general audience who loves these blockbusters.
Edit: typing on mobile. Screw it, I hope it's at least somewhat readable.
The new Dune is long, dense, cerebral, visually brilliant, but is paced way better in my opinion. There's a continuous forward drive.
De-emphasizing pacing is just as bad as de-emphasizing any other important facet of cinema. But we have this dichotomy that action is "cheap" and not as "smart", because it has wider appeal.
I think neurotype plays a lot into this. I have ADHD, and the snobby cousin comment about "digital detox" is exactly the elitist garbage that rubs me the wrong way. It attaches value to "not being bored" as if that's something I have control over.
Although I will say that I can empathize with why people like blade runner. The good parts are good, but the mainstream audience just places a higher bar on pacing.
I also suspect that many people in the "elitist" group also get bored. They just don't admit it.
But there are some stories that simply take time to be told. And if you keep trying to hit plot points or make every moment superficially entertaining, you won't be able to tell certain types of stories.
Nowadays, when a movie is critically acclaimed and I am bored watching it, I actually get excited. What is it about this movie, that I'm bored by right now, has gotten so many people so excited??? This attitude has gotten me into many movies that I love that I don't think I would have had the patience for as a child or young adult.
The same attitude has led me to spend most of my reading time on classic literature, which has also been a blessing.
I'm sure this comes off as pretentious, but I assure you it is not.
"Pretentious- attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."
I care about other people and want them to share in the beauty of the world. When the importance actually exists, it's not pretentious.
What I find pretentious is when you love the slower stuff but hate all the popular stuff and dismiss pacing as even a relevant factor.
Many many people have this attitude and they actually dismiss MCU stuff as raw garbage, too base level for their intellectual tastes.
I repeat. Your post is not pretentious to me at all. It's what I come here for. Thank you.
I agree with you there are movies that require a huge slow as hell build up in order to deliver a huge pay off. I agree and I like those movies despite the slow pacing. But those movies imo would benefit from better pacing regardless. I've seen people quit watching before the payoff and forever have their opinion of that movie forever tainted.
Step away from the sugar drinks and try a digital detox. :-)
People paid to see Vangelis sound and light shows, when there wasn’t even a movie rolling. Surely with a movie attached, the sound and light isn’t that dull?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31437226
Buried in that thread is a pushback to your premise about MCU, a video that actually excerpts from Inception while taking down those “MCU scores” (pun intended) in particular.
Nobody can hum from Marvel movies because they play it safe (aka boring)!
I appreciated a quote from that discussion, tying back to your hypothesis: “People do not remember safe choices. Only bold, original music.”
Blade Runner wasn’t safe, though they almost ruined it with the release voice overs trying to make it safer…
Interestingly if you go down the rabbit hole, a reply video to that one points out the Star Wars theme everyone remembers was “copied to hell” from countless old movies before it. That response goes on to say the problem is, roughly, digital production sameness.
> there is absolute truth to the statement when someone says that movie is in general quite slow and boring
Well, no. Boredom comes from within. When you have too many thoughts, or too few, to focus, boredom happens.
Blade Runner is an experience, the pacing makes room to take it in. If you don’t open your mind to take it in, if your mind wanders off, or loses the plot, you will miss the excitement that builds from an authentic experience.
> Bladerunner is so boring that it wasn't copied too much. But the other sci-fi stuff get copied to hell
This line suddenly makes me wonder if you were just messing with us. Hmm.
Instead of engaging, here’s a bite sized listicle: How to Be Less Boring and Less Bored.
TL;DR: Lay off virtual sugar, digitally detox, open the mind…
- appreciate interestingness
- hang out with geeks
- enjoy quietude
- get out of a rut
- read long form
- try three things you’d never, three times each
- regain a sense of wonder
I really appreciated this video, thanks for sharing it.
> TL;DR: Lay off virtual sugar, digitally detox, open the mind…
- appreciate interestingness
- hang out with geeks
- enjoy quietude
- get out of a rut
- read long form
- try three things you’d never, three times each
- regain a sense of wonderThis is all rather patronizing and has some major wowthanksimcured vibes. Yes, I can overcome the nonlinearity of the response of my dopamine receptors by simply laying off "virtual sugar" and doing a "digital detox".
Bottom line: different people have different neurotypes, and folks are allowed to be bored or stimulated to various degrees by whatever media, without attaching value to how easily one is entertained, or not.
> If you like Blade runner and you hate all forms of movies that are mainstream blockbusters like star wars, MCU, or all the other stuff and think those things are beneath you... then yes... in that case I despise you.
Lovely.
> Go watch the MCU
FWIW, I own _and enjoyed in theater_ all the MCU films, and all the BR releases.