Posted on 11/05/2011 7:40:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
And it’s a “liable to be a sequel” according to Scott himself, who was recently interviewed by the Wall Street Journal‘s Speakeasy blog.
When I first heard about this project, back in the summer, it was unclear whether the movie would be a prequel or a sequel. But saying I was intrigued would be falling short. Blade Runner wasn’t much of a hit when it was released in theaters back in 1982, but I could never get my eyes off it — without fail — every single time I rented it (Yes. On VHS). And I rented it several times between the age of 14 and 19. How many, I can’t recall. Like Scott’s prior work Alien, I just can’t get it out of my mind.
I didn’t see Blade Runner on the big screen till 1990 or so (awfully scratched print). And when the Director’s Cut was released in theaters in ’92, I actually drove 2 hours to see it (and it’s not that I’m a sci-fi geek. I drove 3 hours to see Robert Altman’s The Player — I was living in a small Texas bordertown at the time). In 2007, Warner Bros. celebrated Blade Runner‘s 25th Anniversary with another theatrical release (digitally remastered under Scott’s supervision as a so-called “Final Cut”). I drove about 40 minutes to see that one on the big screen, mostly because of L.A. traffic. That’s how much I enjoy the film. And I know I’m not alone in this. The truth is, it’s a strong film. And despite it’s sci-fi/neo-Noir wrapping, I believe it has plenty to recommend it to mainstream audiences.
The visuals and sound design in Blade Runner are simply arresting. And the narrative — based on a short story by the prolific Phillip K. Dick — ain’t bad either, focused as it is not only on a multiple manhunt (synthetic manhunt?) but also on the existential angst of the characters, grappling from their own particular points of view with the sadness of the human condition. But not in that annoying French New Wave way. This is an American movie. A Hollywood movie. It just happens to come across as artsy because it is beautiful to watch and hear.
If Blade Runner is unfamiliar to you, I’m probably coming across as too mysterious. But I don’t want to spoil it for you, not even with a plot summary. But a little background wouldn’t hurt: suffice it to say the movie is set in a future in which synthetic humans — called Replicants — are mass produced to be used as labor. But they’re not seen as human, nor considered human at law. They’re simply genetically engineered lifeforms designed to be “more human than human”. And, as you might expect — especially if you are a fan of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica — they’re just deemed to be too dangerous to mix with naturally-born folks. So they’re illegal on Earth. The job of a blade runner is in fact to locate illegal Replicants and kill them on the spot.
In sum, the movie does force the viewer to ask what the meaning of “being human” actually is, while exploring the themes of identity crisis that so obsess Phillip K. Dick. But watching it is far from being a mere exercise in philosophy. It’s exciting; and beautiful to both watch and listen (the soundtrack by Vangelis is also an old favorite). It’s best appreciated in a theater, but a nice big screen TV will do. There is no doubt that the upcoming Blade Runner sequel will be quite an event. So might as well get ready and acquaint yourself with the original movie. Make it part of your weekend. You won’t regret it. Even if you don’t like it as much as I do, you’re bound to get something worthwhile out of the experience.
That’s true, but imo, he and Young were both too stiff, even for replicants.
Probably because they have lost their skill.
We all love bad movies.
I hear you, but Star Trek is also a liberal’s wet dream. The worst liberals I know say things like “why can’t society be more like Star Trek?”
Which is a warning sign. Their Star Trek is a unrealistic utopia (no money, everyone works to better themselves) mixed with a military dictatorship (you all better do what the Captain says).
A society with your aspects of Star Trek (a prosperous meritocracy) would be fine - don’t misunderstand me - but I worry about the liberals’ take on it. They have a horrific blood-spattered record when it comes to trying to force society to adopt their utopias.
So is Star Wars, but I see the conservatism in that as well. The Force (faith in God) and the deception used by the dark side to use gov't power to control the universe are perfect examples of liberalism.
Philip K Dick was a bit crazy but as good a Sci Fi writer as there was, up there with Heinlein and Herbert.
The movie is an adequate retelling of the book but it is hard to translate a great Sci Fi book to the screen, witness all the attempts at Dune and things like Starship Troopers, which were butchered.
The world is still a dangerous place, not only for children. But those who control the cultural memes believe it is better not to warn anyone of that fact. IMO, that is because they want compliant, weak subjects who are easily controlled when confronted by violent, seemingly irrational threats.
I have watched Blade runner with the sound off. The milieu is so well-realized. I am also a fan of Dick’s written work. Dystopia+noir is almost irresistible to me because it can teach us to recognize the results of our present actions. That is also the message in the original folktales as re-written by the Grimms.
Some of the truly wonderful parts of Blade Runner:
1) The city design and culture. There have been some magnificent city designs in recent years, such as Gotham City in the original Batman. But Los Angeles in Blade Runner could have still been interesting as a travelogue. Lots of development there with minimal background.
The massive structures of giant corporations, the indifference to pollution with giant, fire belching smokestacks, a formerly overpopulated city, now semi-depopulated, with a strange pseudo-language of English, Mexican, Chinese, and German. Lots of more subtle bits, such as the outlawing of owning real wildlife, and a police state mentality, at least among the police, but tremendous technological innovations like flying cars and interplanetary war on “off-world colonies”.
2) The great music of Vangelis. A best selling soundtrack that is good, if unusual, in its own right. Synthesized but driven and forceful. At the same time it includes pseudo throwback music that could almost come from the European roaring 20’s.
3) Costume and hair design. Only the main characters are 1940s detective noir in appearance. Outside of that little group, the typical science fiction look. This really helps focus on the central core of humans. The use of cigarette smoking had a great impact in that movie, as it did in the movies of the 1940s.
4) Some of the acting. There was a need for more character development, especially among the androids. The writing for them should have focused more on the noir aspects. In short, in the 1940s version they were escaped black convicts and their women, and Ford was a police detective brought in, not to arrest them, but kill them all, because the government wanted them dead, not captured. It really changes the complexion of the story, no?
Picture the male androids instead as black, WWII combat veterans, who mutinied against bad white officers trying to send them on a suicide mission against the enemy. So the Army court martials them and sentences them to hang. Then they escape. They hope that by getting to their former commanding general, he will somehow make all things right.
BTW, Blade Runner is on of my favorite movies. But like some other posters, I am worried the new Blade Runner will be become too PC and therefore unwatchable.
Hard boiled reply: Blade Runner? Yeah, I liked it. Why? There isn’t any. Like that dame you shoulda known better about. It just worked and you can’t forget her.
That’s the snake!
I have avoided that film, not sure why. I had no idea!
You have to assume here that as the Moslem states prepared to destroy the Kaffir with nukes all the Christians in North Africa were evacuated to safety.
Blade Runner was a touchstone for sci-fi movie making. I didn’t feel the story or the acting were overly strong, but the look and feel were incredible compared to other sci-fi movies of the time. It’s a textural thing for me. And it’s influence on the genre has been obvious over the years. A welcome counterpoint to Spielberg. James Cameron definitely picked up on Scott’s vibe and ran with it.
Think of the Fairy Tale as the pre-1850 version of Sci-Fi
If they’d lost their skill there’d be a change. There isn’t. Since the beginning of the movie industry the majority of all movies have been based on pre-existing material (books, plays, previous movies). It’s got nothing to do with skill and everything to do with cost. Until the modern age of pro-sports movies were the most expensive entertainment to put out, they have all the costs of plays plus the film costs and reproduction costs. Since day 1 nobody has wanted to spend that kind of money without some sort of “guaranteed” audience, and the best path to a “guaranteed” audience is to do something that already has one. So the film things that already built an audience, including remakes of movies and sequels.
There’s still tons of great movies being made, the skill is there. Nothing about the situation has changed for over 100 years, since before Hollywood was actually in Hollywood, conversions and remakes have ruled the industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.