Blade Runner

2022 - 6 - 25

Post cover
Image courtesy of "esquire.com"

'Blade Runner' at 40: Why the Ridley Scott Masterpiece is Still the ... (esquire.com)

This 1982 replicant hunting classic remains the benchmark for everything that came after.

Granted, Deckard isn’t Ellen Ripley, but in its portrayal of the battered and bruised detective battling against the system, Blade Runner is a Chinatown of the future. In terms of performances, there’s an argument that Harrison Ford always plays Harrison Ford, but here he loses the swagger of Han Solo and the self assuredness of Indy to become a world-beaten man (replicant?) who’d really rather be at home drinking whiskey from beautiful futuristic tumblers. In the world of Blade Runner the future is a hardscrabble hellscape with no escape. Scott’s 1989 police actioner Black Rain can arguably be seen as a less successful remake, sending detectives into a nighttime, neon-lit, rain drenched Japan (the world of Blade Runner was partially inspired by Kyoto). Would HBO’s Westworld have updated its 1973 film version so successfully and stylishly without Blade Runner paving the way both visually and in terms of its musings on free will? From the pyramid-like offices of the Tyrell Corporation, we see an eye in close-up, the lights of the city reflected in it.

Post cover
Image courtesy of "Inverse"

40 years ago, Harrison Ford's biggest sci-fi flop inspired a cyberpunk ... (Inverse)

On June 25, 1982, 'Blade Runner' hit theaters. It was not successful. But the reason we're still talking about it 40 years later has almost nothing to do ...

For Blade Runner, the characters are the story, but the environment, the city, is a character too. In the future, you could be sad and worrying about Replicants. But everything was also going to be effortlessly cool. “I was afraid to watch Blade Runner in the theater because I was afraid the movie would be better than what I myself had been able to imagine. You’re still far more likely to find someone who has never seen Blade Runner than someone who has never seen Star Wars. And yet the trappings of the cyberpunk genre are more pervasive in real life than the aesthetics of 2001 or A New Hope. Gibson and Ridley Scott were aesthetic pioneers within science fiction which, in terms of impact, is only second to the storytelling. Essentially, prior to Neuromancer and Blade Runner, seeing this kind of urban-focused, dirty techno future wasn’t common in science fiction. Gibson, of course, is famous for many sci-fi novels, but specifically for Neuromancer, a novel published two years after Blade Runner hit theaters. Although this critique is savage, what’s hidden in Kael’s negative assessment is the key to why Blade Runner survived. In a way, I was right to be afraid, because even the first few minutes were better. But because of its style, and perhaps stiff competition from ET and The Wrath of Khan, Blade Runner suffered the twin curses of poor box office returns and bad press. But the key difference between Blade Runner (1982) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017) is that one received mostly positive reviews upon release. Some of the scenes seem to have six subtexts but no text, and no context, either.”

Post cover
Image courtesy of "Space.com"

'Blade Runner' at 40: Director Ridley Scott's dystopian masterpiece ... (Space.com)

Director Ridley Scott's sci-fi classic "Blade Runner" celebrates its 40th anniversary in June 2022. The 1982 Ridley Scott film has spawned a franchise based on ...

By far the most complete variant, and Scott’s personal favorite, is 2007's " Blade Runner: The Final Cut (opens in new tab)" which was remastered for picture and sound as part of the film’s 25th anniversary. But this version also uses a happy ending with Deckard and Rachael streaking above the countryside in a Spinner flying car. One controversial aspect of the theatrical release that's been discussed ad nauseam is Harrison Ford's ham-handed Deckard voice-over as a response to nervous studio executives worried that audiences wouldn't be able to follow the plot. Warner Bros.' " Blade Runner" opened on June 25, 1982 and received a mediocre reception upon release and was nowhere near the influential masterwork that’s now considered to be one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time. One impressive accolade is it being the first major film to delve into what would later be coined by "Neuromancer" author William Gibson as cyberpunk. Built by the nefarious Tyrell Corporation, these advanced robots called Replicants were identical to humans and the tech firm had currently advanced its product to the NEXUS-6 phase of advancement.

Post cover
Image courtesy of "Bald Move"

Blade Runner (1982) 40th Anniversary Re-release | Bald Move (Bald Move)

Blade Runner turned 40 today and to celebrate, we're re-releasing our podcast from four years ago. Check out The Final Cut of Blade Runner (seriously, ...

Post cover
Image courtesy of "/FILM"

Blade Runner Had A Brilliantly Simple Solution For Putting The ... (/FILM)

2019 has come and gone, and it didn't look much like the flying-car future envisioned by Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" in 1982. However, as the movie turns ...

But Scott, Trumbull, and company had to improvise using the resources available to them, and they showed it was possible to do such a thing without the use of computers. And on one side, just behind the camera, is what in those days we'd call a pup, a very small light which is on a dimmer. "You have a sheet of glass which is half mirror, and the mirror is mounted on the camera in front of the lens at a 45-degree angle.

Post cover
Image courtesy of "Den of Geek"

Blade Runner Became a Sci-fi Classic by Being a Terrible Philip K ... (Den of Geek)

Without the vision of Philip K. Dick, we wouldn't have Blade Runner. So, why is it a good thing that Ridley Scott mostly ignored the book?

The ending —and entire story — of Blade Runner does the opposite. Whether or not we prefer the studio-mandated “happy ending” of Blade Runner — in which Rachael and Deckard ride out into the countryside — or the “real ending” in which they simply get into an elevator and leave, both endings have one thing the book lacks. The beauty of Blade Runner is like light peeking through dark clouds. More broadly, the actual story of Blade Runner and its characters have almost nothing to do with the way the book will make you feel. However, largely thanks to smart science fiction fans and an arthouse revival in the 1990s, today, Blade Runner is not only considered one of the best science fiction movies ever made but just one of the best movies ever. There are countless other examples of the differences between the novel and the film. On top of all of this, in the novel, Rachael is very much not Deckard’s one true love. Instead, the movie’s plot is based on the 1968 novel by Philip K. Dick called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? It’s tempting to say that Ridley Scott’s science fiction masterpiece took the name Blade Runner and slapped it on a Philip K. Dick story, but the truth is, Blade Runner succeeds because it’s not really an adaptation of anything. This isn’t to say Dick was a bad writer or that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is somehow a bad book. Not only is Deckard not referred to as a “Blade Runner” in the book but the word “Replicant” doesn’t appear once. The basic nomenclature of the novel is clunky and in no way evokes the noir-cool of the film. Instead, Deckard’s quarry in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are known as androids which are pejoratively called “Andys” by the humans.

Post cover
Image courtesy of "/FILM"

Tales From The Box Office: In 1982, E.T. Buried Blade Runner And ... (/FILM)

Forgot DNA-replicating monstrosities and rogue androids: the real sci-fi threat of summer 1982 was E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

Case in point, both have had follow-ups in the form of "Blade Runner 2049" and 2011's "The Thing" prequel. Both films also have more projects in development, with a "Blade Runner" TV show in the works and another "Thing" film in development at Blumhouse. Neither studio would be pursuing these projects if the audience didn't exist. It is worth pointing out that "Blade Runner" played on more screens (1,295), compared to "The Thing" (840), which undoubtedly had a lot to do with the gap as well. Classics can become classics with time; let's not make that a thing of the past. For example, the weekend beginning June 25 that year, when both "Blade Runner" and "The Thing" hit theaters, not a single movie in the top ten made less than $2 million, whereas the weekend's winner, "E.T.," made $13.7 million in its third weekend of release. "We're dead," producer David Foster is known to have said after a trailer for "The Thing" played in front of "E.T." to crickets. Harrison Ford, the man behind Han Solo and Indiana Jones, was to lead "Blade Runner" as Deckard, with Kurt Russell, a frequent collaborator of Carpenter's, heading up a tremendous ensemble as MacReady in "The Thing." All three of these movies are stone-cold classics, and are now counted the greatest movies of all time. But there is one weekend that stands out in a big, bad way — particularly for sci-fi fans — as Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner" and "John Carpenter's "The Thing" were, amazingly enough, both released on the very same day that year. Beyond that, they are both adapted from beloved sci-fi source material, with "Blade Runner" adapting Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and "The Thing" being adapted from John W. Campbell Jr.'s 1938 short story "Who Goes There?" Both sci-fi tales start with a question, and both provide pretty compelling (if not crystal clear) answers. But in the summer of '82 it looked like both movies were at risk of being lost to the sands of time, relegated to the discount bin at the video rental store because Steven Spielberg simply could not be stopped. "Conan the Barbarian," "Rocky III," "Poltergeist," "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," "Tron," "An Officer and a Gentleman," "Friday the 13th: Part 3."

Post cover
Image courtesy of "Horror Geek Life"

'Blade Runner': Looking Back at the Cultural Impact (Horror Geek Life)

40 years after its release, we look back at Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner', the 1982 neo-noir story written by Philip K. Dick.

The dark, gritty aesthetic of the futuristic setting of the year 2019 helped set the bar for the sci-fi noir genre, with many films borrowing those themes throughout the years. While this is one of the most well-known facts about the film, the cultural impacts from its 40 years of existence are much more far-reaching. This polarization would become one of the main reasons for the now notorious multiple versions of the film that exist today. Despite this, it remains one of Ford’s most iconic roles, and one that both he and Scott have since warmed up to in regards to their memories of filming. Ford was vocal in his displeasure of several of the production decisions made, primarily in the way the voiceover narration was handled. This is the story of an alternate dystopian world, and it’s one that has gone on to shape and influence many corners of pop culture and sci-fi fandom in everlasting ways.

Explore the last week