Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Blade Runner.
Maybe it was more impressive when it came out, but I watched it for the first time a few months ago and it was shockingly below my expectations for the reputation it has. Confusing plot, forgettable characters, a (very cool! yet) shallow, uninteresting setting.
I had heard that famous "tears in the rain" monologue some time before watching the movie and thought "wow, that was awesome. I can't imagine how much better it is with all the depth and context that the movie will add." Nah, it's from a character who we know basically nothing about and comes out of nowhere with no connection to any part of the story-- if anything, the context of the movie detracts from the cool monologue by turning it into a "what is this guy even talking about" moment.
Thematically it had potential with questioning the line between the humans and human-like robots, but they don't go anywhere interesting with it. When it's a theme that's been explored by everything from Ghost in the Shell to Fallout 4 to Asimov, I'm gonna need at least a molecule of interesting development to happen before my jaw drops.
2/10, not recommended.
I still recommend checking out Blade Runner 2047, I just watched it yesterday and thought it was awesome if not a bit long-running
Starring literally me.
That's ok I'm pro skinjob!
You should check out the Westwood (i.e. the Command and Conquer people) point-and-click game incarnation. It has much of the atmosphere of the movie and explores its setting in considerably more depth. It's also not a rehash of the movie; it is a different albeit somewhat similar story, with many of the same themes.
As others have observed, the original release of the film kind of got butchered in editing. Even in its later cuts that are closer to Ridley Scott's original vision an awful lot is left unsaid, though.
I-m old enough to have seen it in a theater. This movie is one of the seminal works of the cyberpunk genre. The movie is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, one of the best, and truly provocative SF writers.
SF is by definition a genre that doesn’t-t age well, unless the story is solid. Blade runner has aged surprisingly well. The movie probably didn’t-t awe you because so many things have been based on the movie, that you were already familiar with them before seeing the movie. You have been spoilered to exhaustion here.
There is also the question of the cut. The movie has at least 3 editions. The Final Cut is the one to watch.
Also, the “had potential” comment shows you didn’t-t get much of the movie. The movie has many levels, layers, that you seem to have missed.
The film is a 1984 adaptation of a 1982 novel by Philip Dick, one of the most prolific and visionary scifi authors of all time. It precedes GitS by 11 years and Fallout 4 by 31. It makes no sense to compare it to those later works of fiction imho.
I agree however that Roy's character is underdeveloped, I would have loved to learn more about him.
androids was 1968, blade runner 1982.
but yeah, this movie is foundational, and you don't get gits and fallout without it. edit - a word
why did I ever think it published in 82 ? I've had this date in mind as long as I can remember
I think the movie explains Roy’s character enough, he’s a roboman, forced to fight a war and wants freedom to make his own way and is instead murderized for that want. Not much more needs to be developed there.