alt.hn

8/23/2026 at 12:56:03 AM

The Art and Beauty of Blade Runner (2015)

 https://nappertime.com/the-art-of-and-beauty-of-blade-runner/

by cocacola1

8/23/2026 at 11:04:17 AM

I love the film but for a long time I really disliked that Ridley Scott changed the plot.

To me Scott's idea that Deckard is a replicant but doesn't know it is just weak. Even the idea that they would make a replicant hunter that's weaker than the "basic pleasure model" it's designed to hunt doesn't work.

I think Scott shoe-horned his change in after the fact and he's had to keep releasing new edits because it doesn't really fit.

PKD's original plot themes are much richer and deeper:

The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized.

At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human.

Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?

— Philip K. Dick

by Lio

8/23/2026 at 10:37:17 PM

First, I don't see Blade Runner as a film version of DADOES - it's inspired by it, but it's its own story. Scott took all the liberties he wanted in the script and movie. I think the movie does a excellent job of leaving Deckard questioning his humanity, the replicants' humanity, and what it means to be human. It's not a super-hero movie, I don't even think of Deckard as a hero. The replicants' strength is a product attribute that they happen to use as they become more human and rebel. And hunting replicants is not about strength or reflexes, it's police work. As others pointed, if Deckard had the same super-human abilities, there'd be no doubt, no uncertainty. Even Rachel, who we are let know is a replicants, she's starting to suspect, but we are never told what Deckard's condition - we are as much in the dark as he is. This is what this movie is about, and this is where I find it is most faithful to PKD's story.

by bobbruno

8/23/2026 at 2:02:00 PM

> Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?

Honestly, that is still what I get from Ridley Scott’s version.

by Hoasi

8/23/2026 at 12:35:18 PM

Absolutely, having Deckard be a "weak" replicant makes no narrative sense, and it also makes no sense thematically. It's about a human hunting machines and finding the humanity in the machines and discovering what humanity is lacking in himself. It's important that the line is blurred, but it's also important that he's not actually a replicant.

by fullshark

8/23/2026 at 7:13:34 PM

If a "person" is not weak, it is easy for "it" to start suspecting that it is a replicant.

by thesz

8/24/2026 at 3:55:41 PM

Furthermore, the biggest problem with replicants coming to Earth en masse is that they could overwhelm police forces. Deckard both "fits in" to his bureau (as a mostly independent officer), and isn't really powerful enough to threaten existing forces.

by IAmBroom

8/23/2026 at 1:59:34 PM

> I think Scott shoe-horned his change in after the fact

The effect used in at least one indoor scene, in which Harrison Food is filmed with his eyes glowing like the other replicants, is an in-camera effect and the decision to use it was made prior to filming.

by justin66

8/24/2026 at 3:56:41 PM

It's really so subtle that it is just an on-rewind detail. Which is fine - an easter egg.

by IAmBroom

8/24/2026 at 5:08:24 PM

Yes. Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford didn't publicly agree on whether Deckard was a replicant for decades, but of course there's nothing wrong with part of a film being left open to interpretation.

The "Deckard is not a replicant" interpretation seemed like a heavier lift to me after the unicorn dream was included in the director's cut. But again, that's not Scott cynically changing the meaning of the film after the fact, as the OP suggested. It's him being allowed to present his own cut of the film after it succeeded in making money. (at least one of the producers thought the unicorn thing was Scott wasting their money on concepts he'd later use in the film Legend and so they left it out of the theatrical release, as was their contractual right)

by justin66

8/23/2026 at 11:47:57 AM

> At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human.

Surely this is what the acknowledged replicants in the film do, particularly Roy Batty when he saves Deckard?

I was a great PKD fan (collected his books), and was a little disappointed when the film first came out, but it does grow on you.

by zabzonk

8/23/2026 at 1:49:28 PM

I just want a version that includes the prophet Mercer stuff.

felt like a huge component to drop out.

by serf

8/23/2026 at 4:43:29 PM

I've always been annoyed at that too. Considering the role that "empathy" takes in the design of the Voight-Kampff, the story is pushing empathy as being a defining human trait and of course Mercerism is all about using the Empathy Box.

by ndsipa_pomu

8/23/2026 at 4:29:20 PM

I'm not rah rah AI but this type of thing is what interests me about AI video generation. Adding a scene like this for answering a personal "what if?" is really cool.

by gedy

8/23/2026 at 7:22:37 PM

I was recently musing in this general direction, too.

The movie business is completely foreign to me, but I wonder if stuff like this would work: copyright owners licensing out their IP for niche studios serving niche audiences — I‘m pretty sure a lot of people would pay good money for a different take on the final GoT season. Or that third season of your favorite show that never came to be. A Thrawn-focused Star Wars trilogy. Various crossovers.

Assumed this would work good enough on a technical level any time soon — could it work in terms of licensing and economics?

by ManuelKiessling

8/23/2026 at 4:40:07 PM

> Even the idea that they would make a replicant hunter that's weaker than the "basic pleasure model" it's designed to hunt doesn't work.

I don't disagree with your points, but one explanation is that Deckard was made for the purpose of passing as human and had to be kept ignorant that he was a replicant as that would likely affect his job performance. If he was made stronger than other people, then it would have tipped him off as to his nature.

That does then raise the question of why Tyrell would present Rachael as being his most "human" creation unless he was testing/playing with Deckard to see what happens when replicants start to replicate.

by ndsipa_pomu

8/24/2026 at 4:01:07 PM

The straightforward reason still stands: "Does the test still work in a biased scenario, where the test-giver believes in a result before the test is run?"

by IAmBroom

8/23/2026 at 10:58:58 AM

The other thing that always strikes me when rewatching Blade Runner, is just how much time to breathe every little scene is given. Maybe a little too much time in some of the longer director's cuts, but it's a really stark contrast to a lot of lesser films, that try and pack as many story beats as they can into their runtime.

by swiftcoder

8/23/2026 at 5:43:29 PM

I completely agree regarding modern movies.

I recently watched the Borderlands movie and while it had its obvious faults, the biggest flaw in my opinion was the jarring pace that one scene would switch into the next. That movie had a short runtime so could easily have been extended to let each scene breathe a little more and I think that alone would have drawn people in the world building a lot better.

I do think with SciFi, the world-building aspect needs to be front and centre, otherwise it’s impossible to switch off the “well that couldn’t happen in real life” part of your brain.

by hnlmorg

8/23/2026 at 6:05:03 PM

Another annoying one is lazy and simplistic morality, which just ruins the story. Arcane had huge potential, great pacing, interesting characters, but failed on that front.

by kstenerud

8/24/2026 at 10:27:35 AM

In general, modern media rarely lets the viewer make his own judgement about the morality of the situation. You're usually given a sermon rather than philosophical conundrum for your to think about.

by account42

8/24/2026 at 3:08:37 PM

One of the reasons why I liked The Good Place so much was because they did playful treatments on various philosophical points, without spoon feeding a solution.

by kstenerud

8/24/2026 at 4:04:51 PM

Star Wars makes it clear The Empire does bad things on the regular, but it never, ever proves that the "state religion" of Resistance's elite warriors is a good thing (beyond opposing the Empire's bad thing).

by IAmBroom

8/24/2026 at 4:31:22 PM

One of the recent TV spin offs did look to address that nuance. Unfortunately it completely butchered the story line with weird tails of space-witches and one dimensional characters.

The one thing I did think the prequel movies did well, perhaps the only thing, was how it painted a world where absolute greed allowed an environment for space-nazis to thrive. Though real life sadly demonstrates that corruption doesn’t need to happen in the shadows to succeed.

by hnlmorg

8/23/2026 at 4:38:20 PM

Was the norm in the 70s, and into the early 80s. My memory is that the turning point to quick cuts was after MTV and music videos became popular (1982+). I remember old folks complaining about the “attention span” of young people.

Watching the old movies today, I do think that the 70s films are too slow and 90s+ films too aggressive with cuts. Would be nice to balance, or have important scenes breathe while others get chopped. Most movies are too long these days as well.

The film itself was criticized as “Blade Crawler” back in the day.

by mixmastamyk

8/23/2026 at 5:49:00 PM

I think a lot of the change can be contributed to FX becoming cheaper, easier and better. It created a race to the bottom for the most visually spectacular movie. And when it’s cheaper, you can throw more in at the same budget. Then the next movie has to throw even more in to outdo their predecessor.

Though I’m not disagreeing that culturally we have been on a steep downwards decline with regards to our attention span.

by hnlmorg

8/23/2026 at 7:50:17 PM

Ok, though we were discussing scene length, as measured by the stopwatch, not specific content.

by mixmastamyk

8/23/2026 at 8:05:33 PM

It’s all correlates to the same outcome

   Runtime = scene length * content
And since movie runtimes have remained relatively consistent but content has increased, that means scene length has to decrease.

by hnlmorg

8/24/2026 at 4:02:16 PM

Runtimes are increasing.

Hell, "The Hobbit" is 3 overlong movies.

by IAmBroom

8/24/2026 at 4:22:26 PM

The actual data is more nuanced.

While trends are that movies are, on average, getting slightly longer, there are as many exceptions to that rule as there are examples of it, not just in the present day but also in the past too. And it can vary from genre to genre.

Also movie serials were actually the norm in early cinema. This isn’t some new trend invented by Jackson.

Examples of how the distribution is actually extremely varied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_films

by hnlmorg

8/23/2026 at 1:08:42 PM

Most new sci-fi/action movies are like that. Ones that cater to younger viewers are so bad I've had to walk out of movie theaters because I felt my senses were under assault. Fortunately there are traditional directors like Villeneuve.

by esafak

8/23/2026 at 2:40:26 PM

It's not just sci-fi/action. There have been many articles written about the increase in edit cadence in all movies. One of the biggest comments about older films is how "slow" movies were.

One of the examples I've seen goes something like: Wide shot of bank of elevators. Man walks up to elevator to push the button. Cut to close up of dial showing which floor the elevator is on showing the indicator moving back to first floor. A ding is heard indicating the elevator has arrived. Cut to wide shot showing doors opening, people exiting, man entering elevator. Cut to interior of elevator to see man choose floor and doors close. Now, you see the man walk to the elevator bank, hit the button, and then cut to the doors opening as man exits.

by dylan604

8/23/2026 at 3:02:08 PM

[dead]

by swiftcoder

8/23/2026 at 3:54:53 PM

I rarely watch movies, I had to leave Elvis for this exact reason. It was relentless.

by jcims

8/23/2026 at 6:02:10 PM

While this is true, there is a limit where they're just painfully slow. Vanishing Point and 2001 come to mind.

by kstenerud

8/24/2026 at 10:33:24 AM

And yet 2001 (which is an extreme outlier even for that era) remains more memorable than most films made after the namesake year.

by account42

8/23/2026 at 7:51:22 AM

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.

by liendolucas

8/23/2026 at 4:58:18 PM

Same. The atmosphere it creates is still unmatched.

I wish I hadn’t watched BR2049. Felt like a cheap parody, from the torrents of water falling on the windows, to the fake light effects, to the cartoonish villain who of course had to butcher a human-looking replicant while monologuing in order to get a proper introduction.

by andrei_says_

8/23/2026 at 8:50:23 AM

Terminator #1 and #2 are probably more realistic though, despite the time travel.

by Gud

8/23/2026 at 10:02:26 AM

But nowhere close to the emotional impact.

People usually do not remember what happened turn by turn but they do remember what it made them feel.

Funnily enough, in the movie, the humans have little no feelings but the androids do -- and that is the central question that the movie made me consider -- what makes us human.

I am ofcourse biased because Blade Runner (original) is not only on my top 5 scifi movie list but also on my top 5 movie list. So much so that I am reluctant to watch 2049.

by srean

8/23/2026 at 12:18:10 PM

> But nowhere close to the emotional impact

It may be trite but “Because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can, too.” gets me every single time

by stuartd

8/23/2026 at 4:02:16 PM

I most liked that just before his death Roy crafted some poetry. Creating Art? Isn't that what it means to be human?

by bwilli123

8/23/2026 at 4:46:07 PM

To me, the whole point of Batty's final scene is his empathy. PKD made a big point of empathy being the defining quality of humans and even the Voight-Kampff test relies on it.

by ndsipa_pomu

8/23/2026 at 10:29:36 AM

I think Blade Runner and Alien helped destroy mainstream science fiction.

Before Blade Runner almost anything could be science fiction. After Blade Runner science fiction meant detective noir with #tech_upgrade - clones, memory implants, dystopia. Or it was US truckers and/or the military fighting nasty aliens in spaaaaaaace. (Star Wars and its magic space knights was always more fantasy with a science fiction stage set.)

Blade Runner did it far better than the others, but then we had decades of mostly mediocre book knock-offs, especially in the UK. (Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.)

It's a stunning, iconic masterpiece of a movie with an unfortunate chilling cultural effect.

And ironically the Philip K Dick original was... very different.

by TheOtherHobbes

8/23/2026 at 12:55:51 PM

Pretty sure Star Wars destroyed mainstream science fiction in film.

by JKCalhoun

8/23/2026 at 3:15:40 PM

Close. Star Trek. Cheapened the entirety of the genre.

by irishcoffee

8/23/2026 at 6:44:09 PM

"A Trip to the Moon" is what ruined it for me.

by Fricken

8/23/2026 at 3:38:17 PM

>(Gibson gets a pass for taking the new trope even further by being a brilliant stylist, mixing in some tech orientalism, and inventing cyberspace.)

Gibson was also writing in that vein long before the release of Neuromancer, which repurposes some themes, plotlines, and even characters from his earlier short stories. And my understanding is he was working on Neuromancer before Blade Runner was released and without knowledge of it during its production.

I will say I'm reading through his short story compilation Burning Chrome and it is amazing. I don't think he ever matched Neuromancer with his other novels and over time they've just exposed his weaknesses more and more, which is a bummer. But he's absolutely at the top of his game in short stories.

by glenstein

8/23/2026 at 10:35:18 AM

> And ironically the Philip K Dick original was... very different.

True. Ridley Scott and Philip K Dick collaborated very closely to tell it like they wanted it to. Studios liked it ... not so much.

by srean

8/23/2026 at 5:28:32 PM

No, Dick did not collaborate with Scott at all. He was not formally involved in the development of the film. He didn't write anything and wasn't given any say.

Dick actually hated the first drafts of the script, which deviated even more from the novel. He was also upset that he was asked to write a new novelization of the script that would essentially replace DADoES in print. He made comments in the press about how Hollywood was ruining his book.

He really only changed his tune after his agent persuaded the producers to invite Dick to the set in 1981. He was basically coddled by Scott and his team (who was told Dick was creating bad publicity and needed to be assuaged) for a whole day, shown around the set and given a rough cut preview that included several major sequences and unfinished VFX by Douglas Trumbull.

After that, he not only spoke highly of the screenplay (which had evolved with the help of David Peoples, though it didn't exactly get more faithful to the novel), he wrote enthusiastically about how the film was going to change the science fiction genre for ever. Unfortunately, he never got to see the finished film.

by atombender

8/23/2026 at 6:02:01 PM

You are right. I went back and checked on Wikipedia. Now I cannot reconstruct why I believed PKD and Scott collaborated.

by srean

8/23/2026 at 2:18:42 PM

>Before Blade Runner almost anything could be science fiction. After Blade Runner science fiction meant detective noir with #tech_upgrade - clones, memory implants, dystopia.

If only.

by coldtea

8/24/2026 at 7:33:11 PM

Moon. Contact. Interstellar. Gravity. Project Hail Mary.

None of these fit those tropes.

It didn't destroy anything; it just set a mold for the next few decades that was used to cookie-cut copies from. It cut a rut, and movie execs LOOOOVE a profitable rut to wallow in.

by IAmBroom

8/23/2026 at 12:51:29 PM

There are some acting missteps that unfortunately flaw the film for me.

Harrison Ford is not very good in it—perhaps not a great actor generally. His pretending to be a nerd/fan in Zhora's dressing room is too cringey to watch it's so bad… I feel like I'm watching Mickey Rooney playing Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's.

And the actor that played Leon (Brion James) is also difficult to watch (he was a distraction in The Fifth Element as well).

My only complaints though.

by JKCalhoun

8/23/2026 at 4:11:58 PM

Harrison Ford is not very good in it—perhaps not a great actor generally. His pretending to be a nerd/fan in Zhora's dressing room is too cringey to watch it's so bad…

Harrison Ford is playing Rock Deckard, a detective (not an actor) who hunts down artificial humans. At least to begin with, he and his fellow detectives don't have much respect for the replicants, so he thinks it will be easy to manipulate Zhora and get some information out of her before he kills her.

by anigbrowl

8/23/2026 at 2:14:03 PM

>His pretending to be a nerd/fan in Zhora's dressing room is too cringey to watch it's so bad

He's not pretending to be a nerd/fan. He's pretending to be a spineless small-time bureucrat doing an inspection that nervous with her.

by coldtea

8/23/2026 at 2:41:34 PM

You're probably right, but it doesn't excuse Ford's hackneyed performance.

by JKCalhoun

8/23/2026 at 5:03:10 PM

But Harrison's Deckard isn't meant to embody that "ethics/work inspector" as a good actor would.

He is meant to portray him as a detective who is not that good with pretending to be someone else would.

Harrison might or might not be a good actor, but Deckard certainly isn't supposed to be a good one.

by coldtea

8/23/2026 at 7:37:43 PM

> Deckard certainly isn't supposed to be a good one.

Why not? He's a seasoned detective with a track record, why's it so hard to believe he picked up some tricks?

by Cpoll

8/24/2026 at 8:38:16 AM

He's supposed to be a detective doing investigating work and killing robots. Not a method actor.

J.J. Gittes is also a seasoned detective, doesn't mean he would be great acting.

by coldtea

8/23/2026 at 10:48:13 PM

No, he's not. He's sushi, cold fish. He doesn't even know for sure if he's human. He can't be a good actor.

Actually, if he's a replicant made to believe he's human, he might even believe he was doing a good job, because he'd be clueless about what good acting is supposed to look like.

by bobbruno

8/23/2026 at 3:18:40 PM

It’s just about the only comic relief in the film. Possibly it’s acted that way deliberately.

by justin66

8/23/2026 at 1:56:17 PM

I thought Brion James was fantastic in The Fifth Element because he's one of the few slapstick outlets. He comes off as sorta military-scary, and ends up frozen like a Looney-Tunes popsicle in the freezer a few minutes later , and dead-pan military is a kind-of-funny partner to Corbin being an outlaw bachelor. He then remains the dead-pan receiver of abuse from the president, etc.

I agree about Harrison Ford, though I don't know who would've done it better at that moment in history.

aside : The Fifth Element is considered to be one of the noisiest distracting sci-fi movies ever, so to hear your main distraction was Brion James made me grin.

by serf

8/23/2026 at 2:42:49 PM

Oh, love the energy and pace of The Fifth Element, Brion James was the wrong kind of distraction. :-/

by JKCalhoun

8/23/2026 at 2:17:18 PM

>because he's one of the few slapstick outlets

Huh? Between Kassovitz trying to rob Corbin, the priest's sidekick, the head scientist, the archeologist with "Aziz, light!", the Chris Rock character, Corbins "fake wife" suggestion, the space port ticket counter gags, the president, and several others, the movie hardly has "few" slapstick outlets.

by coldtea

8/23/2026 at 3:48:17 PM

Right, they're all over the place. That's just the kind of movie that it is, And to the extent that he serves as one of the distractions, it's complementing the tone and vibe of the movie. Like I wholeheartedly agree that he was a perfect fit for that movie, but not because he was one of a small handful of slapstick elements.

by glenstein

8/24/2026 at 7:33:16 PM

> I thought Brion James was fantastic in The Fifth Element because he's one of the few slapstick outlets.

Did we watch the same movie? The opera singer was the ONLY character that wasn't slapstick...

by IAmBroom

8/23/2026 at 3:24:47 PM

WTF are you talking about?! Brion James was fantastic in Blade Runner!

by geophile

8/23/2026 at 3:45:58 PM

Yeah, I would go so far as to say highlight of his career. Extremely, extremely good, like can't look away good. I suppose it's all just opinion at some level, but this is sticking out like a sore thumb is perhaps the hardest one to defend that I'm seeing in the whole thread.

by glenstein

8/23/2026 at 4:06:24 PM

I remember so many details of his brief appearances in that movie, but what really stands out are his eyes -- intense, fearful, paranoid, menacing. (Suitable, given that scene where Deckard and Leon extract J. F. Sebastian's name.)

by geophile

8/24/2026 at 5:23:00 PM

He almost always played a thug or heavy, and so I'm not sure what other film of his could have ranked higher than this. His scene sitting across the table from Holden is classic.

I don't remember him playing a heavy in The King is Alive, which is not a classic but a rather dark Dogme 95 film, of all things.

by justin66

8/23/2026 at 3:50:39 AM

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.

by ilamont

8/23/2026 at 3:31:11 PM

I saw Blade Runner in its first theater run, and I was bored. But it stayed with me, and decided that I had to watch it again. And again and again, and I've now seen in dozens of times over the years. It is one of my favorites, for the completeness of the world, for the visuals, for the music, for the ideas, for the acting, for the little details I keep discovering.

Ridley Scott's idea of the scifi future being as gritty, ugly and dysfunctional as current times led to his creation of his two scifi masterpieces -- Blade Runner and Alien. The sequels have been disappointing, they had to be.

by geophile

8/23/2026 at 3:53:02 PM

> The sequels have been disappointing, they had to be.

Scott never owned the rights to Blade Runner and wasn't heavily involved in 2049.

It shows. The script. The choice of actors. Clumsy scenes, like the fight scene at the casino with its stiff choreography. The pointless "virtual girlfriend" subplot. The location for the shoots (Hungary IIRC) which really limited the pool of extras - hardly a single Asian person to be seen.

Some of the people who worked on the film tried their best, including the CGI and set designers and the score (by Hans Zimmer) but I could only watch it once from beginning to end in IMAX. The second time at home I had to stop halfway through.

by ilamont

8/23/2026 at 4:03:47 PM

I had modest expectations going in (I mean, how could it possibly compare?). But it was still disappointing. I expected so much better from Denis Villeneuve. Unfortunately, he seems to have veered into big-budget pretentious scifi schlock.

I had to leave the IMAX showing of 2049, it was deafening (and I'm already hard of hearing!) Saw the whole thing in an ordinary non-IMAX theater, which was much more tolerable.

by geophile

8/23/2026 at 5:44:05 AM

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.

by alchemism

8/23/2026 at 6:06:33 AM

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...

by KurSix

8/23/2026 at 7:40:05 AM

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.

by jaharios

8/23/2026 at 3:31:52 PM

And behind the screen on the horizon, framed in a stone arch, was the lights of the ongoing Elliniko megatower construction project, which already dwarfs every structure in the country. It was another layer onto what you described.

by alchemism

8/23/2026 at 10:05:21 AM

Oh vow. Now jealous. My highlight that can even dare to come close would be a Roger Waters show.

Would love to experience the three *katsis in such a setting.

by srean

8/23/2026 at 10:33:39 AM

I agree. The other week I saw this at a movie theater. I was blown away by the audio experience. So much better than watching it on my subpar home audio.

It was a cool experience to watch this on the big screen.

by kilroy123

8/23/2026 at 8:25:59 AM

>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.

by MomsAVoxell

8/23/2026 at 2:38:31 PM

Just your description makes me want to watch it again twice, and one of those times is with my eyes closed.

by BLKNSLVR

8/23/2026 at 6:01:54 AM

The sound is probably why the visuals feel so much larger than the sets actually were

by KurSix

8/23/2026 at 4:00:36 AM

I stepped in to watch it in 1982. Didn't like it much. But rewatching it over the years, it grew on me.

by WalterBright

8/23/2026 at 4:03:52 AM

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.

by dtnm

8/23/2026 at 6:09:10 AM

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

by KurSix

8/23/2026 at 8:01:37 AM

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.

by clan

8/23/2026 at 10:23:02 AM

> The Directors Cut is the unbutchered version.

The Director's Cut (released in 1992) drops the narration and adds the dream sequence, but despite the name is not entirely approved by Ridley Scott.

The Final Cut (released in 2007) is the only version where Ridley Scott had full final cut approval. It re-masters the audio, fixes some of the effects (replacing faces on stunt doubles, removing wires, etc), and changes a few lines (most notably "I want more life, father" instead of "fucker"). The color is also re-graded.

Some people prefer the Director's Cut over the Final Cut, especially the color grading, although I saw the Final Cut in 35mm when it was released and it looked pretty spectacular. In any event the changes in the Final Cut are nowhere near as egregious as the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films.

by objclxt

8/24/2026 at 11:24:44 AM

> the Star Wars special editions or the AI remasters of James Cameron's films

I really wonder why some creatives are so determined to sabotage their earlier works later in life. Do they actually believe that they are making them better and are so used to being told how great they are that they can too easily dismiss anyone telling them otherwise? Or are they perhaps (consciously or subconsciously) threatened by a standard that their current self can no longer match up to?

It's sad that with the way copyright and movie distribution work that these butchered version become the only version new audiences get to see.

by account42

8/23/2026 at 10:08:03 AM

Yup. It's one of those weird and rare movies that grows on you the number of times you watch it. I have watched it at different ages. The later I have watched the better it seemed.

by srean

8/23/2026 at 8:01:47 AM

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".

by shevy-java

8/23/2026 at 4:24:04 AM

It's amazing that Blade Runner looks as good as anything that has come since. And sounds way better.

by esafak

8/23/2026 at 12:40:27 PM

Genuine craft and human ingenuity can be a wonderful thing. Technology is a force multiplier and it's not always going to lead to better results in lesser hands.

In general there's also a problem that cinematography has gone to hell in filmmaking, because they want to be able to incorporate CGI more (cost) effectively and that means things like proper lighting and color grading is no longer utilized.

by fullshark

8/23/2026 at 6:12:03 AM

The sound especially feels almost impossible to date

by KurSix

8/23/2026 at 5:06:40 AM

My local Regal is playing it on September 12th. Can’t wait to see it again in theaters.

by cocacola1

8/23/2026 at 10:28:37 AM

I watched it a week or two ago at my local Picture House (at FACT). Had a great time!

by msephton

8/23/2026 at 5:59:53 AM

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.

by DocIsInDaHouse

8/23/2026 at 8:44:41 AM

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.

by chadcmulligan

8/23/2026 at 8:54:32 AM

[dead]

by huflungdung

8/23/2026 at 11:35:07 AM

Many aspects have already been mentioned, all great in their own right, that lifts the movie into timeless greatness. I'd like to add one more. The stunning beauty and performance of Sean Young.

by synecdoche

8/24/2026 at 2:37:45 AM

I guess nappertime.com took this article down? It's a 404 now.

by bananamogul

8/23/2026 at 6:25:40 AM

> The movie even inspired Anders Ramsell to paint 3285 water colour prints, and then turn those into a remarkable short film.

by sixtyj

8/23/2026 at 12:10:01 PM

"Click on the picture to enlarge"

"COMPUTER. ENHANCE." WAS RIGHT THERE!

by AnthonyCregan

8/23/2026 at 12:58:37 PM

And bothered my engineer-mind because the "enhancements" revealed photographic details that were literally obscured by physical walls in the original photo.

by JKCalhoun

8/23/2026 at 2:44:05 PM

That seemed to be the point though, to highlight some kind of technological advancements of the time. I was always intrigued by it, like it was taken by multiple lenses, so it's essentially a 3d 'image' allowing a certain amount of point of view change.

Clumsy as fuck interface though, I'll grant that.

by BLKNSLVR

8/23/2026 at 4:56:52 PM

It's time for a new point and click adventure game.

by maxglute

8/23/2026 at 7:55:01 AM

I'm yet to see the movie. Are there any spoilers in this article?

by dyzone

8/23/2026 at 7:59:50 AM

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.

by shevy-java

8/23/2026 at 10:27:33 AM

The book felt dry and sort of boring to me. Which made me recognize that some movies can actually be better than the books they are based on. Which is not a given.

That being said, there are sequels for the original movie in paperback, which I've found to be very acceptable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Hu...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_3:_Replicant_Nigh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_4:_Eye_and_Talon

Did you know?

by LargoLasskhyfv

8/23/2026 at 1:43:10 PM

K.W.Jeter was writing Blade Runner 2 in the office next to our small video game company. We were working on the entirely forgettable Dark Fiber title which was only published in Japan for the NEC PC-98.

https://archive.org/details/DarkFiberWindowsMac/(WIN+MAC)%20...

We talked a lot but I resisted asking him to help with the plot of the game. I probably should have!

by diskzero

8/23/2026 at 12:08:34 PM

I found the movie and the book so different in pacing and tone that they are hardly comparable. The book really has the ethical and sociological questions as the meat, and uses the plot simply as a backbone. The movie does the exact opposite, with the plot the driving force and the questions as food for further thought. You can still enjoy the movie without thinking too hard, if you wish, but the book will fall flat without giving it a lot of thought. As an example, the movie completely drops Mercerism, likely because it would be slow and clunky to try and explain it in an action movie. But it is an essential part of the book, without which PKD's explorations of the pain of the conflict between individualism and collectivism would be entirely missed. Similarly with the artificial animals, which are shown only in passing in the movie, but are a central tool in the book to illustrate hypocrisy and jealousy in people trying to grasp at what is "real". The titles of the two works encapsulate this difference of direction perfectly.

by technothrasher

8/24/2026 at 4:57:36 AM

movie almost puts me to sleep every time.

by jambalaya8

8/23/2026 at 4:16:19 PM

Close the window and go watch it.

by anigbrowl

8/23/2026 at 7:55:51 AM

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).

by shevy-java

8/23/2026 at 4:29:40 PM

The look of Pris is really amazing, for it's nearly timeless. Probably inspired by looks from the early 80s and I know there's a bit of a 80s comeback (at least music-wise) but I really dig it.

by TacticalCoder

8/23/2026 at 6:00:37 AM

[dead]

by KurSix

8/23/2026 at 9:50:25 AM

[flagged]

by timonoko

8/23/2026 at 10:14:21 AM

I really disliked Blade Runner for a long time because I love the book so much. It wasn't until a humanities class in college that I learned to appreciate Blade Runner separately from the book. Now, instead of hating Blade Runner, I love it, and I hate Blade Runner 2049 instead, because that movie seems to have zero respect for the message of the first movie, and zero respect for the intention of Ridley Scott (it's obvious to me they changed some things just to get Harrison Ford back in the film). I know I am in the minority, but we are a minority that has extremely good and valid reasons for being upset about it.

by amiantos

8/23/2026 at 10:33:01 AM

2049 is a pretty mediocre film that would be forgotten if it didn’t have the BR name.

I like both the 1984 film and the book though, but I primarily like the movie for the cinematography and atmosphere, more than the story, which is more interesting in the book.

by keiferski

8/23/2026 at 2:14:37 PM

Same director (Scott). Why don't you forget it's based on a book and enjoy it on its own merits?

by esafak

8/24/2026 at 6:13:30 AM

This was the sentiment of the time. I do not even remember the book now.

by timonoko