Blade Runner: Final Cut

[JOE SOAP]

***Well, I'd cosider a character who thought he was human at the start of the movie, questioning his humanity by the end a pretty significant incident-but maybe that's just me.***

If your talking about Harrison Ford's character, I don't think that really comes through enough in the film. A lot of people think that way because so much has been written about the film and said by Scott himself and others, but I think if people now saw the film cold, as in the original release, they may not think the same.

Judging by the reaction of most reviewers -mainstream and respected genre types- at the time of the film's original release, it was seen as quite an empty, flat film, dramatically. As is the case with many but not all cult films, they don't need to be particularly good to garner a dedicated audience, an audience who will read more and more things into that are not dramatised there in the first place but have grown around the culture of the film.

If Blade Runner looked like a cheap budget film, it wouldn't have the same status it has today. It lives on mostly because of the unique work Doug Trumbull and his team did at the time.

[Peter Wolf]

 I have probably seen this film half a dozen times now including the directors cut.I think the reason that this film stands up so well today is down to Ridley Scotts inspired set building and cinematography.This film just has so much atmosphere.

 Aspects of the film have dated mostly the Vangelis soundtrack but just looking at the cityscapes at night ,the buildings etc its astonishing how good it still looks particularly if you consider it came out in 82.

 With the cityscapes you dont imagine a set piece that has been built but rather something that is real.Its a masterpiece in film making and atmosphere.

[Proudhuff]

The latest version is great, true it doesn't great big Basil Expo speaches or actions, it lets one make up your own mind, even if your wrong ;p

On a different note I know somebody who will be doing the 10 year passport interviews, and he  can't kept his face striaght when he has to ask 'tell me about your mother?'.

Tyrell Huff

[Jim_Campbell]

"Judging by the reaction of most reviewers -mainstream and respected genre types- at the time of the film's original release, it was seen as quite an empty, flat film, dramatically."

Not by me. The film has substantial flaws, and the question of whether those flaws outweigh what is admirable in the films is inevitably a matter of personal taste.

I'm not going to suggest that anyone's opinion is less valid because they feel otherwise ... it's just that I'm prepared to sit through films where very little "happens" in the conventional sense if there is stuff going on that engages me in other ways.

Cheers

Jim

[philt]

+++Aspects of the film have dated mostly the Vangelis soundtrack+++

Just keep taking the tablets. I'm sure you'll be alright. The only thing that hasn't dated is the soundtrack which is as fresh and innovative (not to mention hugely influential) as it was when the movie was released

[JOE SOAP]

That soundtrack still sounds fresh and is  seriously layered.

[JOE SOAP]

***I'm not going to suggest that anyone's opinion is less valid because they feel otherwise ... it's just that I'm prepared to sit through films where very little "happens" in the conventional sense if there is stuff going on that engages me in other ways. ***


Watch a Takeshi Kitano film or an Ozu, even Days of Heaven to see how doing very little to nothing on screen, in the conventional sense, can mean so much more.
Ridley Scott has never been as advanced as those guys, that's why he went on to continually make quite ordinary blockbuster films now like Gladiator and American Gangster. Maybe he considers it a progression but he should have pushed the other way in his films.

[CreamTrumpet]

Sure, Scott has never been an arthouse darling like Kitano or Malick, but why should he apologise for being a mainstream filmmaker?

[JOE SOAP]

Sure, Scott has never been an arthouse darling like Kitano or Malick, but why should he apologise for being a mainstream filmmaker?


If you read what I was referring to in response to the other post, you'll see that I was referring to the method of how the story and action in Bladerunner is told and how Scott was unable to handle this form of film-making then, hence his reverting more to mainstream film-making. Scott having to apologise for being mainstream has nothing to do with it and I never said he should.

[Jim_Campbell]

"Maybe he considers it a progression but he should have pushed the other way in his films."

Despite my repeated attempts to be inclusive of a range of views on this particular film, and my repeated statements that I'm not actually looking for a fight on this, you seem determined to come off like an argumentative twat on this subject.

I'm not interested in changing your mind, proving my point or otherwise scoring internet debate points.

I like the film better than you do. That's fine. I consider it  a flawed but worthwhile piece, but you find the flaws sufficient to outweigh the good. Again, fine.

I'm done with this discussion.

Jim

[JOE SOAP]

Since when is a few replies on a discussion forum a fight, seems tame to me. No bad language, nuffin'. If you post, I reply. Logic.

If you don't want in on the discussion, don't reply. No one's forcing you. I thought fora were for discussions in the first place, we're obviously not singing from the same hymn sheet.

***I'm done with this discussion. ***

I'll be expecting a reply to this.

[Peter Wolf]

 Ridley Scott has an eye for cinematography that no one else has in film making. I have seen every ridley Scott film there is to see.


 Its difficult to explain exactly what i mean but he understands how to choose or create a perfect backdrop to a scene in a film. Also how to use lighting in a film that adds to the atmosphere.


 I must go and see American Gangster.


 He adds a certain kind of artistry to making a film and creating visuals that other directors cant do.


 Even a film like GI Jane is enjoyable to watch from a visual point of view for this reason.


 

[Colin YNWA]

Well given my track record of late I figured I'd dig this one up as well. Started (and ended) before I even joined the forum!

Stumbled across a two disc Final Cut version of Blade Runner in the supermarket for £5 and since I'd not seen the film for .... what, must be 20 years I treated myself.

Glad I did, was always a favourite of mine and can't quite see a reason why I've not seen it for so long. This was the first time I've seen it without the voice over too and while its hard to tell how that would work on intitial watch, it works fine on re-watch, though does take away from the Noir feel a little.... only a very little mind as has been stated here a few times the movie just drips atmosphere. I was impressed how even though its been a long time since I've seen it, almost the entire movie is implanted in my noggin. Which given my memory surprises me. Though have no idea which where tweaked bit and which weren't I guess. That probably no surprise as its visually stunning, emotionally compelling and while it struck me that not many 'events' seem to happen its covers a lot of ground at the same time.

Glad the car driving away bit has gone mind, that always felt very weird and tacked on - didn't know it was footgae left over from 'The Shining' - while I've always loved this movie I've never engaged in the extensive stuff written about it. Mind I now have a nice long documentary to dig into now on the second disc so suspect I'll learn at lot there.

There's lots of talk here about it being a flawed but worthwhile piece and I'm not too sure I see too many flaws if I'm honest. Was talking about the movie by chance in work not too long ago and have to admit a couple of the younger folks (well those between early twenties and mid thirties when did they get to be the younger folk grrr) didn't like it at all??? What's all that about I find it an objectively good movie regardless of your subjective view on that is... mind I'm no expert on such things.

Glad I've revisited, must make sure its not so long next time. I'm now curious about the sequel which I've actively not seen to this point. I figure it must definitively answer whether Decker is a Replicant or not and not sure I need to know. For me as much is as the film can be said to be about identity and what makes us 'human' its as much about the doubts we all have about our place in the world and the fear that mortality brings with it. To know is Decker is or isn't a Replicant removes that point for me?Or am I missing the point here, are we meant to have a definative answer with this new (to me) cut.

Anyway hear good things about the sequel though so tempted.... hmmm....

[broodblik]

I enjoyed the Final Cut and the original. For me the sequel was a great movie as well

[Apestrife]

I think Blade Runner 2049 is a fantastic film. Regardless which cut of Blade Runner I watch it after, or as a stand alone. It's a really clever film that way.

Regarding Deckard in BR2049. Maybe you're in for a surprise