73 pointsby cocacola18 hours ago10 comments
  • chadcmulligan4 minutes ago
    Alien is the same imho, hard to believe two of the most iconic sci fi's were created by the same guy and only 3 years apart.
  • liendolucasan hour ago
    Of the sci-fi genre for me it will always be #1. The whole thing is just perfect, there's no other movie that comes close to the world that is envisioned in Blade Runner.
  • ilamont5 hours ago
    This came up about a month ago when someone posted a link celebrating the title cards in Blade Runner. I responded then the same way I will respond now: it’s not just the amazing visuals, it’s also the amazing auditory experience, an additional creative dimension to transport the audience into a dystopian future.

    The audio consists of two parts: the wonderful minimalist score by Vangelis, and sound effects that include distant booms, twinkling computer notes, dripping rain, strange languages, the whoosh of futuristic vehicles, even small details such as the crosswalk warning. Along with the set design, photography, special effects, acting, and other visual elements, the audio effectively immerses viewers into this incredible world and story.

    Keep in mind that a typical viewer entering the local cineplex in 1982 to watch Blade Runner might have just stepped out of a Chevy Nova with an 8-track cassette player loaded with Juice Newton and Kool & The Gang. The visuals, the score, the sound effects, and the story would have been completely novel, and totally mind-blowing.

    • MomsAVoxell23 minutes ago
      >audio

      It's another of those movies which uses light extremely effectively, also.

      In fact I've heard it said that every single shot in Blade Runner carefully deals with light specifically.

    • alchemism3 hours ago
      The highlight of my summer was Blade Runner Live At the Acropolis. The movie was shown in the ancient theater with a live orchestra performing Vangelis.

      They may have a global tour of it in some places this fall.

      • KurSix3 hours ago
        Wow... The venue almost adds another layer to the movie. You're watching a 1982 vision of 2019, accompanied by live electronic-orchestral music, inside a theater built a couple thousand years ago...
        • jahariosan hour ago
          Also Vangelis was pretty much inspired by Byzantine Greek Music which was inspired by Ancient Greek music which was played in the ancient theater 2 millennia ago.
    • WalterGR5 hours ago
      > someone posted a link celebrating the title cards in Blade Runner.

      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49189287

    • KurSix3 hours ago
      The sound is probably why the visuals feel so much larger than the sets actually were
    • WalterBright5 hours ago
      I stepped in to watch it in 1982. Didn't like it much. But rewatching it over the years, it grew on me.
      • dtnm5 hours ago
        The re-cuts are definitely an improvement on the original theatrical release. It's a matter of taste, but for me Director's Cut is the better.
      • KurSix3 hours ago
        I wonder if part of that is that Blade Runner doesn't optimize for the first viewing. Once you already know where the plot is going, your attention is free to wander into the production design, sound, background activity
        • clanan hour ago
          But it does! (Or did)

          The first theatrical release had a drab narration by Harrison Ford. At places it makes it sound like a cheap film noir detective story.

          The Directors Cut is the unbutchered version.

          Maybe 4D chess by Ridley Scott. Most had seen the optimized version first and was prepared for the magic which is the recut version ;-)

          I have the opposite feeling with Apocalypse Now. The Redux version killed the pacing and explained too much. The added scenes are by themselves worthwhile (and explains later actions) but makes the complete movie a bit heavy handed.

          By comparison Blade Runner feels more ethereal even though the both cover dark subjects of human nature.

    • shevy-javaan hour ago
      The audio was good but after I listened to it many times, I started to dislike it. On the other hand, for instance, the Conan the barbarian main themes I can always listen to numerous times.

      I think Blade Runner stands out for the visual effects though. The dystopian future cities were great. It were these effects packed into a storyline why I did not want to watch the "sequel".

  • dyzonean hour ago
    I'm yet to see the movie. Are there any spoilers in this article?
    • shevy-javaan hour ago
      Well, some characters are mentioned and images are shown, so this is a tiny bit of a spoiler. But your trade-off would be "shall I first watch Blade Runner before reading this article"; watch it today. And read the article anyway, as it is not just about Blade Runner but also e. g. Logan’s Run. Now, Logan’s Run is not as good as Blade Runner, but it has some elements that are quite interesting IMO. So it can also be recommended, even though I find it a bit dated now; Blade Runner is not dated though really. Probably one of the most important science fiction movie ever made. The book is also good, but different to the movie; I was disappointed because I found the movie was better, but the book is in many ways much more logical. It kind of explains why there are so few animals and so many artificial animals (even though from a biological point of view this makes no sense, humans are also animals after all), whereas in the movie, it is rarely explained why there are artificial animals. IMO the book was more intrinsically logical, and more desperate e. g. regular humans were drug addicts, that was totally cut in the movie. I still liked the movie more, even though I think the book had a stronger intrinsic logic; but the performance of Rutger Hauer really was epic there. IMO his best performance in his whole career.
  • DocIsInDaHouse3 hours ago
    It’s one of the very few immersive masterpieces where all elements complement each other: script, acting, score, production design, lighting, cinematography. The core vision was so brilliant that even short-sighted studio bosses couldn't destroy it with a butchered edit.
  • sixtyj2 hours ago
    > The movie even inspired Anders Ramsell to paint 3285 water colour prints, and then turn those into a remarkable short film.
  • shevy-javaan hour ago
    Ridley Scott is perhaps not quite as script-centric as Martin Scorsese or able to make a multi-faceted movie like Spielberg or visual effects heavy as George Lucas. However had, Ridley Scott has by far the best visual eye and is also able to draw like a professional designer, which the others can't. I think the best example for this can be seen in both Alien (first one) and Gladiator. In Gladiator he was much more professional from A to Z, but I think the first Alien is even more impressive if you look at it. The camera work is brilliant (Martin also has great camera work in Taxi Driver, but in Alien the effect is IMO much more profound) and the work around for visual problems (depicting the alien without it looking like garbage) was really epic. It is not easily possible to rank directors, but from a visual point of view, Ridley is probably the best individual (visual) artist as such (note: I refer to his abilities, not to the final product, which may not require as much individual artistic prowess, in other words, Martin may not be able to draw something with a pencil, but the end result movie has strong visual effects - see the desert scene in Casino or the "Do I amuse you?" scene in Goodfellas).
  • esafak4 hours ago
    It's amazing that Blade Runner looks as good as anything that has come since. And sounds way better.
    • KurSix3 hours ago
      The sound especially feels almost impossible to date
    • cocacola14 hours ago
      My local Regal is playing it on September 12th. Can’t wait to see it again in theaters.
  • KurSix3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined