Blade Runner: The Final Cut

[Poopfacekilla]

Anyone see it yet? What are your thoughts?

It definetly looks amazing. I still can't believe this movie came out in 1980. The same decade that brought us Howard the Duck and AIDs.

Hmm, Howard the Duck and AIDs...COINCIDENCE!? I think not my good sirs.

[Pyro]

Deckard is a replicant.

[Poopfacekilla]

nuwai

[Kwijiboe]

I still find that movie overrated.

[Poopfacekilla]

Well you sir, are a buffoon.

[Melena]

i loved Howard the Duck when I was growing up. Haven't seen that movie in ages, so dunno if it aged well or if it's just the kid goggles making it seem better.

[Haelian]

I got the Final Cut but haven't watched any of the extras included yet. Was only $16, which is pretty good considering most "special editions" of movies go for $25+.

I never really saw how great Blade Runner was till after I had read the book. But that's not really fair since whenever I watch the movie I end up adding in parts of the book to the story of the movie in my head. Without any knowledge of the book, I'd probably give the movie a B+ but in actuality it's my favorite movie of all time. Although I hate the fact that they use the terms "Blade Runner" and "replicant" throughout it.

[Kwijiboe]

Well you sir, are a buffoon.

I'll bite. The movie is either love it or hate it with most viewers. I understand why the film is regarded as a classic, and how the science fiction genre of Cyberpunk is best represented in this film. While I didn't call the movie bad, I called it overrated. It's groundbreaking in many ways, but watching it--I feel bored. This is perhaps because present material (recent sci-fi movies) have devalued the classics. For example, when I first saw The Usual Suspects I was blown away by the end; whereas if I showed Usual Suspects to someone else present day they would call it "predictable" or "been done." I am a huge film buff, but I am also a younger generation of film buffs. Now I'm not asking you to explain why I am a buffoon for calling this movie overrated; or as you read, "BAD." But let's look back on how Blade Runner performed in theaters.

The movie Blade Runner, was released and bombed in theaters, and later became a cult film. And that's what it is now, a cult film-- a film that has a "small group" of people "that love" it. This is surely indicative by the massive amount of hits this thread is (not) getting. Once again, I'm not asking for a reply explaining to me why the movie was a 10 out of 10. I just don't understand why I am being called a buffoon for calling a 'cult classic' 'overrated'.

[scrockstar]

Good movie.

I downloaded the Final Cut version on Bluray a few weeks ago and it looks gorgeous in HD.

[Poopfacekilla]

Well you sir, are a buffoon.

I'll bite. The movie is either love it or hate it with most viewers. I understand why the film is regarded as a classic, and how the science fiction genre of Cyberpunk is best represented in this film. While I didn't call the movie bad, I called it overrated. It's groundbreaking in many ways, but watching it--I feel bored. This is perhaps because present material (recent sci-fi movies) have devalued the classics. For example, when I first saw The Usual Suspects I was blown away by the end; whereas if I showed Usual Suspects to someone else present day they would call it "predictable" or "been done." I am a huge film buff, but I am also a younger generation of film buffs. Now I'm not asking you to explain why I am a buffoon for calling this movie overrated; or as you read, "BAD." But let's look back on how Blade Runner performed in theaters.

The movie Blade Runner, was released and bombed in theaters, and later became a cult film. And that's what it is now, a cult film-- a film that has a "small group" of people "that love" it. This is surely indicative by the massive amount of hits this thread is (not) getting. Once again, I'm not asking for a reply explaining to me why the movie was a 10 out of 10. I just don't understand why I am being called a buffoon for calling a 'cult classic' 'overrated'.

I was just messin' with you when I called you a 'buffoon'. I don't think anyone uses the word 'buffoon' in a serious tone. That's like calling someone a piece of 'poop' - unless you're in a library and you're very upset of course..

Anyways, you sort of contradicted yourself. You said that you are from a younger generation of film buffs. So how can you judge something from the past as overrated? You've been exposed to more 'modern' films. Movies are progressive. People who make movies today draw inspiration from those of the past. You can look at Blade Runner and not be impressed but to say it's overrated is very shortsighted.

Your other reason - from what I understood - is that Blade Runner did poorly at the BO. Who cares about money? For example, look at Wild Wild West. This movie did very well at the BO, but it's fucking horrible. I know that's an opinion, but I highly doubt future filmmakers cite that piece of shit as an inspiration.

I don't judge the quality of a movie from how many people see it. There are plenty of films that didn't make money but were critically acclaimed and had a huge impact on future films.

Blade Runner is an example. While it may not have been well-recieved (by critics or the BO) at the time, it's influenced an entire sub-culture of fiction. It created a unique visual style that's been emulated over and over again but modern filmmakers.

We might not be impressed by movies from older generations but it's not a fair to say they are overrated. All art is a progression. Everything builds upon the past. A child in 20 years could look back to the 70s and not appreciate how important that decade was for films.

The impact of Blade Runner should be judged in the context of the cultural climate of the era in which it came out. Not by what todays movies look like.

[Kwijiboe]

Wild Wild West inspired cookie cutter action movies that feature Will Smith... Aww hell naw.

But to be serious, I think I mainly had a problem with someone named poopfacekilla calling me a buffoon.

Either way, yea, I took a few New Media classes and the professors raved about the movie-- and I had seen it as a younger kid and hated it, watched it again to give it another chance, and felt the same way. Anyway, you're right on everything you say, however I still feel the movie is still only a cult film, and seeing as this thread only has 8 replies-- 5 or so of which are you and I-- this is a niche film.

Anyway, I wasn't looking to start a back and forth spewing of insults, and am pleasantly surprised in your response not being filled with them.

[Poopfacekilla]

I agree - it's a niche film. I'd say 'genre' though, sounds better.

It is, at the least, a great technical achievement compounded by the fact that it came out nearly 30 years ago.

So, while it may not have attained BO success I do believe it's achievements - both philosophical and technical - still stand the test of time. Ultimately, it wasn't another Star Wars ( I make the comparison because it came out 3 years after the 77' film) and I don't think it could be given the nature of the film.

I was looking into it's BO weekend numbers and came across this on wiki:

A significant factor in the film's rather poor box office performance was that its release coincided with two other science fiction films, The Thing which opened the same day and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which was released in the U.S. on June 11, 1982, and dominated box office revenues at the time.

Film critics were polarized as some felt the story had taken a back seat to special effects and that it was not the action/adventure the studio had advertised. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time.

In the United States, a general criticism was its slow pacing that detracts from other strengths; Shiela Benson from the Los Angeles Times went so far as to call it "Blade Crawler", while Pat Berman in The Southern Review described it as "SF pornography". Roger Ebert praised Blade Runner's visuals and recommended it for that reason; however, he found the human story clichéd and a little thin. In 2007, upon release of The Final Cut, Roger Ebert somewhat revised his original opinion of the film and added it to his list of Great Movies.

I agree with the criticisms. One thing that bothered me though, is that some critics dismissed the film as "SF porn". I thought that was very ignorant.

One thing I believe alot of critics do is go into a theater expecting films they review to meet certain criteria. Of course there's a threshold for quality but I don't think a 'good' movie needs to have a meaty story. I don't think there needs to be a 50/50 approach to story/themes either. It can be a wierd mix that just somehow works in the end.

A good example - IMO - is 'No Country For Old Men'.

[Correction]

I just don't understand why I am being called a buffoon for calling a 'cult classic' 'overrated'.

Because you did so prior to any 'overrating' of the seminal work of science fiction moviemaking by anybody on this forum in this thread. You said it to hear yourself say it. That's a bit buffoonish. If you think Movie Critics X, Y, and Z have oversold its importance so be it, but you saying it's overrated doesn't make your point of view more valid than theirs.

[Ashira]

I love Blade Runner, but I certainly recognize its flaws. And there are plenty of those, beginning and not ending with obviously different views on the main character on the part of the actor portraying him and the director. And films that end up with like, 4 different releases trying to improve it to get the points intended across properly obviously had problems originally. Granted, a lot of times those 'problems' can often be synonymous with 'producers.'

The original theatrical release had the VOs by Harrison Ford who did NOT want to do them, and you can completely hear that by listening to it. Years later, Scott later said he intends for people to think Deckard is the sixth Replicant, but Ford himself has said he never saw the character in that light. So there's only so much you can work with there when cutting and re-cutting a film, if you don't have the right motivations in the scenes to begin with.

Also, I am not one who wants things to be completely and fully explained, but it is nice when symbolism isn't so completely obscure that people don't get it. Not a ton of people are going to understand the point of the chicken/man/unicorn origami on a first viewing... especially in a badly cut version that doesn't even include other references to the same.

Dune went through a lot of this too, a lot of recuts, re-releases... trying to explain a very convoluted background in a TV movie type prologue and butchering stuff so badly the original director took his name off of it... but it certainly had potential, a good story, and good actors; but Lynch lost interest.

Sci-fi and fantasy type stories in general always seem so risky as a genre, because they often have very long plotlines that are hard to transfer to screen very well, with all needed information and to not be completely confusing. Look at Star Wars and how Lucas tried to further explain things, like the Force etc in the prequels.. and how disappointing that ended up. Not to mention just how things just weren't as interesting without Han Solo around. ;D