'Blade Runner remake

[Intrigue]

Thank the universe! Without Ridley I would've set the whole fucking thing on fire. Truf!!

 

[Intrigue]

As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.

Rutger is the man! Have you seen Lady Hawk?! A serious fav film from him imo. And I haven't read the novel, but I think I will now. =)

 

[mephistopheles]

As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.

When I was young I used to go ove to my grandmas house and we watched Blade Runner, The Addams Family, Robocop and all kinds'a movies. Aside from the fact that I love Harrison Ford's acting and Ridley Scott's direction, this movie probably holds more nostalgic value than any other movie I have ever seen in my entire.

I love the original novel, but for me the magic is truly with the film.
When I watch this movie I feel like my grandmother is there with me.

If I would I would thank Mr. Ford and Mr. Scott for this great gift!
:biggrin1:

 

[SilverTrain]

As someone who analyzed the original film for a senior university paper... what is so special about the original flick anyhow? The visuals aren't stunning. The acting is stiff. The audio sucks. Heck, besides Rutger Hauer, the casting wasn't even all that great.

It is the story that contains the magic!

Go read the inspiring novel the film was based on by Philip K. Dick... that will quickly diminish your feelings of sacrilege.

I'd beg to differ re the visuals. I find the film to be eye candy of a high order. Tastes differ, or course. I'm often willing to overlook a film's flaws if it's prettily designed and shot. In this case, I think it's a triumph on many levels. I haven't seen it in awhile, so I shall have to go back and listen to the audio on my blu-ray 7.1 system. Tinny, muffled, or muted audio does suck, especially with a production such as this one. Frankly, I was surprised to read your comment. But I trust the source. :smile: It's a nice excuse to whip it out again.......:wink:

P.S. I haven't read the Dick novella, but I've read some of his other stuff and I've thoroughly enjoyed it all.

 

[mephistopheles]

I'd beg to differ re the visuals. I find the film to be eye candy of a high order. Tastes differ, or course. I'm often willing to overlook a film's flaws if it's prettily designed and shot. In this case, I think it's a triumph on many levels. I haven't seen it in awhile, so I shall have to go back and listen to the audio on my blu-ray 7.1 system. Tinny, muffled, or muted audio does suck, especially with a production such as this one. Frankly, I was surprised to read your comment. But I trust the source. :smile: It's a nice excuse to whip it out again.......:wink:

P.S. I haven't read the Dick novella, but I've read some of his other stuff and I've thoroughly enjoyed it all.

I don't complain about the quality of the film or it's audio, on my bluray it's pristine and crisp. I find the direction in this film is intense, there is never a boring shot and there is a lot to be seen.

Film vs. Novella - I don't think it's that easy to just say the book is better, I love the book but films and pages shouldn't really be compared. The novella is the authors universe and the film is the directors. The fact that he is making another film in the same universe is proof of that.

Lets not forget this was a low budget movie, and it tanked at the box office. I would guess the budget was more than 28 mill, but it wasn't; and it only raked in just over 6 mill at the box office, and didn't even break even in '82, grossing only 27 mill.

As for the voice over; the producers and exec producers decided the average viewer would be confused and not able to follow the film:

"(A)n extensive voice-over was added to help people relate to Harrison Ford's character and make following the plot easier. [A]fter a draft by novelist-screenwriter Darryl Ponicsan was discarded, a TV veteran named Roland Kibbee got the job. As finally written, the voice-over met with universal scorn from the filmmakers, mostly for what Scott characterized as its 'Irving the Explainer' quality [...] It sounded so tinny and ersatz that, in a curious bit of film folklore, many members of the team believe to this day that Harrison Ford, consciously or not, did an uninspired reading of it in the hopes it wouldn't be used. And when co-writers Fancher and Peoples, now friends, saw it together, they were so afraid the other had written it that they refrained from any negative comments until months later." (Los Angeles Times, 13 September, 1992)

There's a 1992 version of the film(my fav version) where there is no voice over, and the ending is not a happy hollywood one.

 

[D_Hey Sailor]

Ok ok ok, I didn't mean to set off the nerd alarms with my comment. :27:

I guess what I should have said was, if you compared Blade Runner to a much older movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968!!!) and had no knowledge of their production dates, you would get it dead wrong when trying to label which was newer.

 

[D_Ricky Dickardo]

Ok ok ok, I didn't mean to set off the nerd alarms with my comment. :27:

I guess what I should have said was, if you compared Blade Runner to a much older movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968!!!) and had no knowledge of their production dates, you would get it dead wrong when trying to label which was newer.

no way!

 

[SilverTrain]

Ok ok ok, I didn't mean to set off the nerd alarms with my comment. :27:

I guess what I should have said was, if you compared Blade Runner to a much older movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968!!!) and had no knowledge of their production dates, you would get it dead wrong when trying to label which was newer.

no way!

Yes way.

However, MsMoxie has chosen perhaps the one "older" film that is universally regarded as, to this day, having one of the most brilliant "looks" of any and all films ever shot. Being that Stanley Kubrick (he of the "perfect shot" legend) lovingly constructed and shot it in 70MM (much of it in the incredibly glorious Todd-AO format)--pretty much the last time (save Baraka) that any filmmaker has ever lavished so much effort and technology into getting "the perfect image"--her comparison is a bit.........clever.

I'll stand by the notion that Blade Runner is exceedingly, wonderfully beautiful to look at. And I'll of course acknowledge that 2001 is otherworldly pretty.

 

[D_Hey Sailor]

I like to bias things my way :moon:

(other nifty bit about 2K1 is that it has a lot of silence... less audio, less to fault uppy_dog_eyes

*cues monolith soundtrack*

 

[CUBE]

I would love to see this remade. It was the story (for me) that was cool. I thought it technically had a lot of problems and awful audio. I could see it being redone. I ususally say don't touch a classic but in this case I think it could work.