[PapayaTapper]

(11-03-2015 06:54 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

I did not like how the future was depicted. It was to 80s-ish and seemed corny. His apartment, flying cars, cigarettes that are like fat joints, the buildings.

Harrison Ford did a really nice job. So did blondie and the cat woman. Maybe I need to watch it again.. I fell a sleep halfway and finished the following week.

I suggest watching it again and keep the following in mind. You have to remember, Blade Runner was made in 1980/81 and released in 1982 This was years before digital effects became common and many of the effects and techniques that were used were groundbreaking Watch the opening pan across the Los Angeles skyline — there's nearly nothing else like it. This is something I think Ridley Scott does better than almost any other director. He creates a complete world. Whether he's shooting a fantastical movie like ALIEN (1979), or a realistic one like BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001), you always know where you are in the movie's physical space. Blade Runner is unmatched by any other sci-fi film in terms of feeling like you're in an environment you understand. This isn't the kind of sci-fi where everyone wears space suits. It's lived-in science fiction — a real, gritty world.

I know several people in the industry and most people with technical knowledge of film making marvel at what was accomplished in Blade Runner. Today, CGI [computer-generated imagery] is becoming a mature art form, but even now there are times you just can't beat doing some effects like these "in camera." Most of these cityscapes are a combination of models and traditional matte paintings. For the aerial shots they used a set about 12 ft. wide, and those towers you see belching fire are about 12 in. high. They're made of etched brass and model parts and use thousands of tiny, grain-of-wheat light bulbs like you'd find in a dollhouse. They filmed some of the fireballs in the parking lot behind the studio, and for others they used stock footage from the 1970 Antonioni film, Zabriskie Point.

The combination of futuristic run down world and 1930's art-deco motifs are cool as shit. I love the scenes where you're moving through the city and see video billboards the size of buildings. (Today we have billboards like that in Times Square and sports stadiums — so, the movie wasn't far off!) Back then the normal way to create these effects would be to build a miniature, shoot it and then composite in the billboards and other elements in post-production.But they did all of these effects in camera, which even back then was a much more complex way to execute them. The key to this is a motion-control camera — a smart robot, basically — that moves through the city on the same track, over and over again. It's accurate to within a couple thousandths of an inch. They did separate passes, rewinding the film each time and then re-exposing it to add each new element. So they did one pass for the lights on a building, another for the video projection, then a pass for the rain lighting and so on — as many as 16 passes in some cases. And all that layering is what makes you feel you're in a totally complete world, yet one that's completely alien. It's visceral.

But that's just the visuals. What makes the film great are the themes explored in this script and told through the characters'. They are BIG. They don't get bigger

What is the definition of being human?

If a being is artificially created or man made but implanted with a real person's memories are they not human?

If they live, die, love, hate, fear, desire, experience everything a "human" does are they not by definition human?

If we can create artificial humans, should we?

What rights do they have?

Do humans have the right to play God if they achieve the technological capability?

Are we capable of handling the responsibility?

Who decides?

The issues addressed in this story are no longer that far fetched. Today cloning and genetic engineering technologies these are questions that are hotly debated by scientists and governments. For example GMO's (genetically modified organisms) are already a reality...You are most likely eating a bit of this "science fiction" everyday

In the end what I liked the most about it was the personal human stories. The Deckard character (Harrison Ford) was a burnt out ex cop who had basically given up on life. His journey is one of redemption. He started out viewing the replicants as "machines...either a hazard or benefit". His interactions with Rachael (Sean Young) and then Roy Baty (Rutger Hauer) changed him He finds something to care about, fight for and live for...her That's the films's genius. Its big themes explored in a very intimate story.

I could go on, about the score, editing,etc... but I get it. By today's standards this movie might seem "boring". There are no huge fight scenes, exploding buildings, chases, creatures, robots, etc. But if you dig a little deeper you'll see that Blade Runner is far far bigger than that.

I don't mean to preach at you or convince you you're wrong not to like it. Like all art, films are subjective and as such there is no right or wrong when it comes to liking art. I just thought that if I shared a little about what I know about the movie that isn't readily apparent you or someone else might see it through a different "lens" and maybe enjoy it if they watch it again

[Brian Shima]

I'll give it another try when I have time. I need to give the Indiana Jones series another viewing with Mr. Ford also. It has been at least 20 years.