Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[UpsetSmiley]

I'm trying to hold my tongue with the UK release, but yet not available to pre-order.

Has Warner officially announced it as I can't find a press release.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

Has Warner officially announced it as I can't find a press release.

When I spoke to Warner Bros. UK a few weeks back, they quoted September 4, 2017.

[foxborough]

That was the date on baseorg.uk before they removed it.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Lensman

Like music, film drama is subjective so you're not wrong, just opinionated. However, millions of people and the consensus of history disagree with you.

Lightning in a bottle can be accidental and in this case it was because Ridley Scott has never made a truly good film since, in my opinion.

Your age is a factor in this. If you were, like me, a literary science fiction appreciator and 16+ when the film was released then you might have been amazed. However, if you're analysing the film in the context of recent films that very much copied or borrowed from it (and there are very many) then you might not have 'got it'. Also, if you don't have an appreciation of American 1940s/50s film noir then you really won't get it. It's not slow in the way that Pink Floyd are not slow despite the existence of thrash metal.

I'm not saying Blade Runner is a rehash of anything or has an absence of ideas. It's more just storytelling flaws. Or specific flaws with the different cuts and how they relate to each other (specifically Scott meddling with the ending in later cuts).

I think it has this lasting appeal because of its visuals, the eye and ear candy that makes for that strong atmosphere. I just think if you boil it down to its raw, most exposed state, it's not that special.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I just think if you boil it down to its raw, most exposed state, it's not that special.

In the *specific* case of Blade Runner, I personally find this film one of those happy accidents, in that its very aloofness and sterility...its impenetrableness, if you will...works to its benefit in a way that such things wouldn't in virtually any other film. The themes explored hold more weight when the human characters are presented so stoically. It's as if people have merged with their technology in this world to such an extent that their own replicant creations have become almost indistinguishable from their "real" counterparts...which is a lot of the point. Emotions and empathy have suffered as a result of so much of life being automated and intermingled with tech. People have increasingly unplugged from each other while plugging in to their machines (can you think of a theme MORE ahead of its time?). Meanwhile, the machines are searching for answers through the very interpersonal connections and compassion that humans have very nearly lost in themselves. It may well have been an unintentional juxtaposition (Scott has always struggled with relatable human characters IMHO), but I think that dynamic makes Blade Runner a stronger film with far more subtext than if one could readily engage with its human characters as well as in most films. It leaves the viewer unsure about who they should've felt more empathy toward in the end...the people who have melded with their machinations, or the machines who are striving to find their humanity.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I'm not saying Blade Runner is a rehash of anything or has an absence of ideas. It's more just storytelling flaws. Or specific flaws with the different cuts and how they relate to each other (specifically Scott meddling with the ending in later cuts).

I think it has this lasting appeal because of its visuals, the eye and ear candy that makes for that strong atmosphere. I just think if you boil it down to its raw, most exposed state, it's not that special.

I fully agree. Blade Runner is one of those movies IMO that you're *supposed* to really, really like but in your head many of us ask that question: "What was so compelling or special about THAT?" Its not a bad film by any means but its way over-rated and hyped. The themes it explores are NOT new or particularly clever. Its android/meaning of life/whats it mean to be human themes have been played out numerous times in film and book. Its not new or intruguing in any way that any other film of that type is.

The Visuals are great and the atmosphere is perfect. Its well-made.... but the plot is dodgy and it drags in areas for no reason. Some of the characters behaviors dont make sense. The film needed more setup for me to care about what happens more. Its just "OK". Or as you said: not that special!

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Unpopular opinion, but Blade Runner's lucky it had Douglas Trumbull and Vangelis. Otherwise, it's nothing spectacular.

In the context of those whose frequent blu-ray.com and and a sizable number of film critics, perhaps, but for general audiences, not really. Blade Runner was neither a box-office or critical success when first released. It was different in that Scott was fearless to place style over substance, and ambiguity over definitive conclusions.

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

But great films are usually carried on the backs of directors, writers, actors, etc., not just special effects. Blade Runner's a decent film turned great because of its all-time great visual effects and Vangelis' soundtrack. I don't actually dislike the movie, but I do have some gripes with everything else. I think the acting's mostly mediocre. Ford and Young have little to no chemistry and Rutger Hauer heavily overshadows everyone else. Editing and pacing is off with lots of long, drawn-out scenes that could be cut/slimmed down. The characters are mostly bland and uninspired, and the filmmakers can't even agree as to its themes and what message they're trying to send home (Deckard's a human in the theatrical cut, but clearly a replicant in the Final Cut... two very different scenarios!). Dialogue has classic lines such as "is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?"... Rutger Hauer's improvised lines at the end of the film are far more memorable than anything else on the script. I don't think it's crazy to think the basics could be improved upon in 2049, and with newer, far more advanced technology in the visual effects and production design departments, a lot of what made Blade Runner so great could also be improved upon here too.

Like any work of art, sometimes the overall impression on the viewer cannot be deconstructed to its individual parts. Scott captured a vision of the future that was unlike any seen up to that point, and in retrospect, much closer to reality than we would care to admit.

Originally Posted by Lensman

Like music, film drama is subjective so you're not wrong, just opinionated. However, millions of people and the consensus of history disagree with you. Lightning in a bottle can be accidental and in this case it was because Ridley Scott has never made a truly good film since, in my opinion. Your age is a factor in this. If you were, like me, a literary science fiction appreciator and 16+ when the film was released then you might have been amazed. However, if you're analysing the film in the context of recent films that very much copied or borrowed from it (and there are very many) then you might not have 'got it'. Also, if you don't have an appreciation of American 1940s/50s film noir then you really won't get it. It's not slow in the way that Pink Floyd are not slow despite the existence of thrash metal.

Once again, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Given your biases for literary science fiction, film noir and Pink Floyd, your appreciation for Blade Runner is perfectly understandable. When you state Scott hasn't made a good film since Blade Runner, are you stating your biases and related preference for certain film subjects, or is it your objective critique of his work? For example, is Thelma & Louise a poor film because it is not well executed or because the film subject doesn't interest you?

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I'm not saying Blade Runner is a rehash of anything or has an absence of ideas. It's more just storytelling flaws. Or specific flaws with the different cuts and how they relate to each other (specifically Scott meddling with the ending in later cuts). I think it has this lasting appeal because of its visuals, the eye and ear candy that makes for that strong atmosphere. I just think if you boil it down to its raw, most exposed state, it's not that special.

It seems to me your real issue is that the ending is not clearly defined in any cut. Furthermore, you can distill any film to a singular idea or basic premise, and then state, the premise is not that special. What does that actually mean?

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I fully agree. Blade Runner is one of those movies IMO that you're *supposed* to really, really like but in your head many of us ask that question: "What was so compelling or special about THAT?" Its not a bad film by any means but its way over-rated and hyped. The themes it explores are NOT new or particularly clever. Its android/meaning of life/whats it mean to be human themes have been played out numerous times in film and book. Its not new or intruguing in any way that any other film of that type is.

Your statement conveys the impression that you were late to the party by a few decades, and now that the party has been mimicked by every other director under the sun, you jump up on a soapbox and shout, "The themes it explores are NOT new or particularly clever!" You may fail to realize this, and most likely will never realize, that this statement speaks volumes about you, and absolutely nothing about Blade Runner.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The Visuals are great and the atmosphere is perfect. Its well-made.... but the plot is dodgy and it drags in areas for no reason. Some of the characters behaviors dont make sense. The film needed more setup for me to care about what happens more. Its just "OK". Or as you said: not that special!

Name one film that you believe is 'special,' so that all of us can understand the definition of greatness according to s2Mikey.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Scott was fearless to place style over substance

I can't join you in that assessment- IMO, Blade Runner has both in spades.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I can't join you in that assessment- IMO, Blade Runner has both in spades.

The writers wouldn't agree with you. If they had been given enough time to finish the job I think some of the issues with the story would have been pretty much solved and the actors wouldn't have had to do so much ad libbing.

Rutger, as stated previously, pretty much saved the day as he gave his character, Roy Batty, an ending he didn't previously have.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I can't join you in that assessment- IMO, Blade Runner has both in spades.

To clarify, in my opinion Scott placed greater emphasis on the visual style of the film rather than clearly articulate the substance of the literary themes. I'm fairly certain his approach was the primary criticism of the film when it was released – viewers and critics were overwhelmed by the visual style and believed his approach diminished the thematic aspect of the story, or that there was not much of a story at all.

In my opinion, his approach to Blade Runner speaks to Scott's genius. The visual style only serves to let the substance of the film be absorbed slowly over time. Hence, it is eminently re-watchable because the substance is never to close to the surface and overexposed.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

To clarify, in my opinion Scott placed greater emphasis on the visual style of the film rather than clearly articulate the substance of the literary themes. I'm fairly certain his approach was the primary criticism of the film when it was released – viewers and critics were overwhelmed by the visual style and believed his approach diminished the thematic aspect of the story, or that there was not much of a story at all.

In my opinion, his approach to Blade Runner speaks to Scott's genius. The visual style only serves to let the substance of the film be absorbed slowly over time. Hence, it is eminently re-watchable because the substance is never to close to the surface and overexposed.

There really wasn't much substance there to begin with... it was almost all visual style. It worked and that's why it's still a classic, but barely.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The writers wouldn't agree with you. If they had been given enough time to finish the job I think some of the issues with the story would have been pretty much solved and the actors wouldn't have had to do so much ad libbing.

Rutger, as stated previously, pretty much saved the day as he gave his character, Roy Batty, an ending he didn't previous have.

In my mind the thematic elements were firmly in place and improv for lines speaks more to Scott' flexibility with lines as opposed to substance.

Some people want every aspect of a film to be clearly defined, and others are fine with ambiguity. Personally, ambiguity in a film can be a powerful element, creating mystery regarding the director's intent and add to the overall enjoyment. I know plenty of people who can't over the fact there is no definitive answer to specific questions, and that every line in every story, no matter how secondary, doesn't line up perfectly with another.

At the end of the day, there are great films on both sides of the fence.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

In my mind the thematic elements were firmly in place and improv for lines speaks more to Scott' flexibility with lines as opposed to substance.

Some people want every aspect of a film to be clearly defined, and others are fine with ambiguity. Personally, ambiguity in a film can be a powerful element, creating mystery regarding the director's intent and add to the overall enjoyment. I know plenty of people who can't over the fact there is no definitive answer to specific questions, and that every line in every story, no matter how secondary, doesn't line up perfectly with another.

At the end of the day, there are great films on both sides of the fence.

Which cut are we talking about here?

If we're talking about the Final Cut, Scott's preferred cut, there is no ambiguity there. The unicorn scene washes all that away and turns all the appeal of its human/replicant story upside down.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

There really wasn't much substance there to begin with... it was almost all visual style. It worked and that's why it's still a classic, but barely.

For me, Blade Runner asks the question of what it means to be human, and the responsibility and related consequences of creation.

For others, they can't see beyond the eye and ear candy because that is enough, and there is no need to look any further.

A film can only be as good, or great, as the viewer will allow. Any opinion is a reflection of the viewer, not the film. Some viewers believe their subjective biases and related opinions can pass for objective criticism, supported by so-called facts and like-minded individuals.

Not likely, even for myself. I'm very biased in my opinions, as I know what I like, and know what I don't, and all is good in the world.

[Shalashaska]

Blade Runner's like a house of cards.

Pretty on the outside, but take one piece away and it collapses.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Which cut are we talking about here?

If we're talking about the Final Cut, Scott's preferred cut, there is no ambiguity there. The unicorn scene washes all that away and turns all the appeal of its human/replicant story upside down.

I've seen all the cuts, and in my opinion the film, depending on the cut, may lead to different conclusions.

Naturally, you are entitled to your 'conclusion,' but I'm sure that you would agree that your conclusion and what you find appealing is not necessarily a universal truth for every viewer.

Some may find that a 'replicant/replicant' story is far more appealing story in principle, and that their 'conclusion,' even for The Final Cut, is far from definitive and filled with doubt and related questions.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I've seen all the cuts, and in my opinion the film, depending on the cut, may lead to different conclusions.

Naturally, you are entitled to your 'conclusion,' but I'm sure that you would agree that your conclusion and what you find appealing is not necessarily a universal truth for every viewer.

Some may find that a 'replicant/replicant' story is far more appealing story in principle, and that their 'conclusion,' even for The Final Cut, is far from definitive and filled with doubt and related questions.

I've never said my opinion is anything more than just an opinion.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

In the context of those whose frequent blu-ray.com and and a sizable number of film critics, perhaps, but for general audiences, not really. Blade Runner was neither a box-office or critical success when first released. It was different in that Scott was fearless to place style over substance, and ambiguity over definitive conclusions.

Like any work of art, sometimes the overall impression on the viewer cannot be deconstructed to its individual parts. Scott captured a vision of the future that was unlike any seen up to that point, and in retrospect, much closer to reality than we would care to admit.

Once again, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Given your biases for literary science fiction, film noir and Pink Floyd, your appreciation for Blade Runner is perfectly understandable. When you state Scott hasn't made a good film since Blade Runner, are you stating your biases and related preference for certain film subjects, or is it your objective critique of his work? For example, is Thelma & Louise a poor film because it is not well executed or because the film subject doesn't interest you?

It seems to me your real issue is that the ending is not clearly defined in any cut. Furthermore, you can distill any film to a singular idea or basic premise, and then state, the premise is not that special. What does that actually mean?

Your statement conveys the impression that you were late to the party by a few decades, and now that the party has been mimicked by every other director under the sun, you jump up on a soapbox and shout, "The themes it explores are NOT new or particularly clever!" You may fail to realize this, and most likely will never realize, that this statement speaks volumes about you, and absolutely nothing about Blade Runner.

Name one film that you believe is 'special,' so that all of us can understand the definition of greatness according to s2Mikey.

Relax, bro. I never got on a soapbox or any of that. I simply stated that the film is somewhat over-rated to me and has plenty of issues as far as me and quite a few others are concerned. And even in 1982... the themes were NOT new at all. Numerous sci-fi books and some films certainly explored the ideas that BR pertains to. C'mon.

I think you're getting worked up here for nothing. What do my comments "speak about" me? Im curious. What..that I find BR underwhelming and over-rated? Yeah, I do and I know that already

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I've seen all the cuts, and in my opinion the film, depending on the cut, may lead to different conclusions.

Naturally, you are entitled to your 'conclusion,' but I'm sure that you would agree that your conclusion and what you find appealing is not necessarily a universal truth for every viewer.

Some may find that a 'replicant/replicant' story is far more appealing story in principle, and that their 'conclusion,' even for The Final Cut, is far from definitive and filled with doubt and related questions.

Ridley pretty much shoved the Deckard is a replicant concept in your face in the final cut. There's nothing subtle about it... the one big weakness of his reworking of the edit. If they had left out the unicorn dream (an excised scene from Ridley's movie, Legend) then the origami unicorn left at the end could have just meant that the bounty hunter was coming for them and they better flee for their lives, or that he decided to make an appearance but in the end chose to leave them alone, or something else entirely...

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

the unicorn dream (an excised scene from Ridley's movie, Legend)

This is actually not true at all...it's just a persistent rumor.