You asked why is the movie so iconic, and then mentioned a whole heap of major things about it you could still appreciate from it.

Those things and it’s storytelling are why, it’s just not a film that resonated with you.

Yeah, i grew up with it and it's one of the first of it's kind of depicting the" future as being old". It's very influential with it's art direction, sets and style.

But, it's cult movie for a reason. More sizzle than steak.

I love it, because I'm of it's time, but I get people not loving it now.

The sequel is really good, and it updates the stylization very well.

> the set design, costumes, cinematography

The look of the movie was very influential.

The production was definitely cool but does that mean not many people connect with the display of this story either?

It’s the world building and atmosphere it created for me, blew me away in the 80s the landscape seemed so real plus Vangelis score is like a character in the film just perfect

It was the first cyberpunk movie.

Give the second film a shot. I kind of felt the same way about Blade Runner but I love 2049 and I think it actually made me appreciate the original a little more

It helped lay the groundwork for neo-noir and cyberpunk in films.

The story and world come from the greatest science fiction mind ever to have lived (in my opinion).

There's the fact it was a flop due to forced bad editing and the changed ending. But, when Ridley was actually allowed to release his directors cut in 1992, that shit was a masterpiece.

There isn't many sci-fi films that make you feel like you're right in the middle of a real world. You're not introduced and hand held through some world building, you're just there.

It also asks some hard questions about the world we live in and where we're heading as a species and it's been doing that since the book was written in 1968.

It's an absolute timeless classic bit of cinema based on an absolutely timeless classic bit of science fiction writing.

Side fun fact:. Ridley Scott never read the book and PKD never saw the film.

I completely agree with the OP. I never saw the original until just before the newer version and found them to be equally boring. So it may not surprise anyone that I also found 2001 to be boring when I saw it at a drive-in theater during its original run. And still find it that way now. I am not really a fan of big action, but these movies seem to be asleep themselves.

And you’re perfectly entitled to feel that way about the movie, but when you look at all the facets you see positive about, it’s easy to see why it’s such an iconic film.

I really enjoyed reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep but was very disappointed in Blade Runner. The sequel was a different story. Try watching BR: 2049 before you write off the franchise.

Firstly, which version did you watch? That's one of the more important things to consider. Second, how you approach the story will influence your take on it. One that made me love the movie after "not getting it" when i was younger was to not view Roy a villain. I sometimes feel he is the true protagonist, and Deckard as the lens in which we experience the world. It recontextualizes a lot of what is presented

I felt the same way when I originally saw it. It had admirable aspects about it, but it was not nearly what I expected. I actually said to my dad after it was done, "That's it? That's the movie I've been hearing so much about?"

So yeah, you're not the only one.

Then he got in his model T?

I feel that, my brother was saying it may be because it’s an older movie but that’s definitely not it. I was going down a rabbit whole of watching older iconic movies. I saw Alien and Aliens (The sequel to Alien) and i was glued from start to finish. The production was amazing too but the story was also super awesome! The first movie was mostly suspense with little action and i loved it, the second was a mix of action and suspense and i loved it even more! Some people in this post commented about it being such a unique aesthetic for the time but Starwars and the Alien movies had this 80’s vision of the future too and had allot more to offer in terms of story and production alike. Not to mention Robocop, The Terminator, Judge Dread etc…

[deleted]

Did you watch theatrical release or directors cut? The movie without the narration by Ford gives it a very different feel.

Figures Henry Ford, inventor of the assembly line, would get into robotics.

Remember this was the early 80s, Star Wars blew everyones minds with its effects just 5 years earlier.

Plus, Rutger Hauers performance.

[deleted]

Yeah, it's not as good a story as some of the others you mention.

It was also a famously troubled production, you should look into it.

I always felt maybe that had something to do with it not quite gelling.

There's a reason the film was famously nicknamed "Blade Crawler" and underperformed at the box office. You're not the only one underwhelmed.

But all the things you appreciated are what's made it iconic.

[deleted]

Many people seem to agree with this opinion, I will surely take that recommendation and watch it tonight.

I find it funny you felt the need to put "The sequel to Alien" in parentheses after Aliens.

I’m not sure tbh… Probably not the director’s cut version cause it was not specified.

>The only thing I could appreciate from the movie was the production itself, the set design, costumes, cinematography, acting etc

You just listed like 85% of what makes a film great.

[deleted]

Hahaha yeah It just confuses people since it’s not called “Aliens 2” so I often say “And the sequel Aliens”

I think the look and feel of the movie and the settings is what really drives a lot of the love.

As a narrative, I found it to be really messy and unfocused. I love the look of it and there's definitely a great base to tell a compelling story, but I didn't find it to be at all compelling.

It's like Exodus: Gods and Kings, also by Ridley Scott. I watched that movie and man, is it terrible. Looks absolutely phenomenal, but WTF was the point? I don't fucking know and I don't think even Ridley Scott knew after finishing.

As an aside: I feel like the first season of Battlestar Galactica does a lot of what I think Blade Runner was trying to do.

It's a combination of the source material and the vague nature of the protagonist's humanity. As he searches for the replicants, he slowly realizes they behave more human than he does leading up to an identity crisis left unresolved. Even if he's human, we're left wondering how much humanity he's lost by hunting beings that have started to truly appreciate the beautiful things in life. The multiple edits of the film are based on different production requirements and each leaves you with different questions about the nature of what it means to be human. The attention to details which may or may not be important based on your viewpoint.

Some insist Deckard is himself a replicant, based on some context clues and Harrison Ford's acting, who has been created for the sole purpose of hunting his own kind. Others insist he's just a normal human who realizes he has become cynical and jaded to humanity because of his life and job, and realizes through his final job he's wasting his life by ignoring things that bring joy.

This might be what it was missing for me, some people here say the Director’s cut is where it’s at so i will be sure to check that out. I really wanna like this story cause the movie looks so cool.

I wrote a thesis about it and before I wrote it I didn't like the movie but after I found out all the context I started liking it. Or at least respecting it. I still like Blade Runner 2049 more. But it's just because original BR is 50 years old. In that time it was visionary and it was reacting to the society and their fears back then. That's also why the new BR looks so much different, because it wasn't trying to replicate the old movie but create a new one, which reacts to this era.

I recall a similar sense of “meh” after watching the Director’s cut. When I watched the release version, it hit different for me. Hard to recall for sure, it was early 90’s. Sci-Fi noir isn’t for everyone, but this movie defines that niche.

I think I grew up on the theatrical cut, and it has the voice over.

Read into all the different cuts, because there's one without vo, that i think i disliked.

It's a lotta homework for a fucking movie, you know?

[removed]

I assure you it confuses almost no one.

I agree it seems oftentimes movies get branded as boring cause they are not hyper flashy and full of high tempo action but I was not expecting a Rambo-style shooting fest and it still felt like the action was not rewarding and the low tempo scenes either. I mention Aliens cause it was a movie that was very captivating to watch even in the scenes where Ripley was on trial or in her apartment talking to the company employee and Military guy.

Anime pulled from its look and themes

But thats the point of the movie? You're not supposed to feel excited. Deckard is questioning whether he's doing the right thing in these moments. He is basically killing slaves for daring to exist.

I did not see the Replicants as humans, nor did I ever feel the morality struggle Deckard was going through. I sorta felt it when the Replicant woman who did well on the test asked Deckard if he ever killed a human mistaking it for a Replicant and it was also interesting when the CEO guy talked about developing emotions for them but I did not find empathy for their goals to have a longer life, not because of morality but because I did not find a connection to the Replicants. In a movie like Ex Machina though I really cared for the captive humanoid machine, the way they developed her character i think made these questions allot heavier and captivating and most of the movie was set in one big mansion. I don’t think the problem was the story itself, rather the execution of it. If they used the lower tempo scenes to give the viewer time to connect with at least one of them then this movie would have me captivated with these questions.

They just missed the monologue

It invented the aesthetic.

The production

That sounds like an exiting moral dilemma that makes for a great movie experience.

The theme of the movie is absolutely amazing. What makes a human, human? When empathy is quantified and measured by machines, and its seen as morally okay to shoot down an unarmed Replicant fleeing for its life, because, it's not execution... it's retirement. "More human than a human is our motto" Tyrell says.

It makes us question our own humanity. Roy just wanted to live longer, just like humans want to live longer. Replicants want to love, and live. It makes us reflect on our experiences in our short life and see how it makes us the person we are today.

That's why I love the speech by Roy before he dies. "All these memories... gone, like tears in the rain." The symbolism and thematic elements of that final conflict are just so good.

It's about life. What it means to be Human, Appreciation, being Alive ...

Watch it again.

Which version did you watch because there are my versions of the 1982 film.

I don't understand why you post negative comments of an iconic film. What's the point? You can't be so naive that you think someone is going to change your mind, lol.

It’s called having a discussion, listening to other people’s opinions and interpretations of the film i just saw. I don’t understand why in a forum dedicated to movie discussions you don’t see the point in discussing about movies.

The copy I saw’s tittle is “Blade Runner (1982) “ I’m guessing it’s the first ever release version since it does not specify anything else.

What do you feel makes Bladerunner such an iconic film? That is a question that can lead to a discussion. I see this same defensive questioning a lot on this sub for some reason.

Your finding problems where they don’t exist. There is a discussion being had, but you interpreted the tittle negatively. Cope.

I didn't like the Final Cut (2007) but loved the Director's Cut (1992). Theres about four different edits of the film and it matters which one you watch. I suspect you watched the Final Cut.

Seeing so many negative comments about the movie makes me think Ridley Scott completely fucked it up with the Final Cut.

You must not talk about the Alien movies enough then.

The best known versions are the Workprint, the US Theatrical Cut, the International Cut, the Director's Cut,[1] and the Final Cut.

I would watch it one more time but watch The Final Cut.

Wow that many?? Y’all were not kidding when ya said it had a complicated production…

Yes that many versions. So give the Final cut a try one time.

Alright I’ll check it out. hopefully somewhere online they got all the different versions.

Hahahaha Maybe so, I have seen no other cuts to compare but it does seem that’s the case. If you say Final cut is 2007 then i saw the first release because the year was 1982 same as the release date according to google.

And, why should he take your opinion over his own personal experience?

I feel like you're trying to be a jerk.

Maybe, cut it out, lol?

Oh they do. Just make sure you include Final Cut in your search.

[deleted]

You don't get it, I understand.

[deleted]

The first time I saw BR it was the theatrical cut and I hated it. Years later I watched the Final Cut on a much better TV with a better sound system and absolutely fell in love. A huge part of BR is its presentation, both audio and visual. It is cinema-as-art to a big degree - like a lot of Kubrick's work, so many scenes from it could be taken out of the film and hung on your wall as artwork. Watching it on a small TV, or a laptop/phone really saps that beauty.

Additionally, it is at its heart a Film Noir, and having an understanding/appreciation of that genre definitely helps here. FN is deeply invested in tone, developing the "feeling" of a scene through scenery and lighting, and making you feel the grittiness of its environments. Think of how visceral the streets of the city are, or J.F. Sebastian's loft. Feel how the constant rain would put a chill into your bones all the time. Contrast the way Deckard lives - cramped quarters, grubby conditions, poor lighting - with Tyrell's giant windows, high ceilings, and big dramatic lights. The pacing of BR is also classic Film Noir - slow rollout heavy on worldbuilding, the protagonist/hero getting his call to action, the Femme Fatale who complicates not only his mission but his life, and (sometimes, definitely here) the revelation that makes him question everything he thought he knew either about the situation or even his whole life.

I also recommend checking out this quick essay speculating on certain elements of Blade Runner, which may change the way you view what you saw, but at least should give you a glimpse at the deeper themes that can be explored.

I remember watching Blade Runner way back, and had a good memory about it. However, some time ago I watched the final cut version of it, and I did not like it at all.

This made me wonder did I really like the movie in the first place, or just went on with cult status thing.

I do appreciate it, but I found some parts of being disgusting. There is also something weird going on with Ford's mouth movement. Ugh.

A very loud minority.

Any film older than, say, ten years that people are still talking about is either a traditional cult film or it's developed cult characteristics (i.e. it's part of the canon of a population subgroup, usually subgroups that have too much cultural capital to be branded cult even though they are).

Blade Runner just happens to be a film that resonates with a subgroup that overlaps with people who use sites like Reddit or TVTropes. But also, Blade Runner has always been a cult film. It bombed and its legacy sequel bombed. The majority of people don't get Blade Runner... it just so happens to be a literal silent majority.

In other words, what I'm saying is the film isn't actually iconic and instead that its fans are disproportionately present in key online movie spaces.

I guess it's because people like you write stuff like, I dunno, this:

>I don't understand why you post negative comments of an iconic film. What's the point? You can't be so naive that you think someone is going to change your mind, lol.

You may recognise that paragraph as what you wrote that prompted the OP to get "defensive".

Yeah, unfortunately Philip K. Dick never saw Blade Runner in its entirety but at least he saw a part of it.

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/philip-k-dick-blade-runner/

It has a lot of different cuts. The Final Cut is the best IMO not the director's cut.

If you don't want a response to your opinions then keep them to yourself.

It's not my opinion, I'm asking you why the OP should take yours, though?

I'm, saying you sound like you're trying to be mean, and I think you should stop, lol.

That's what's up.

I know, I was talking about OP.

>I'm, saying you sound like you're trying to be mean, and I think you should stop, lol.

If you don't want a response to your opinions then keep them to yourself.

Lol.

You're not too with it, huh?

Don't be a jerk, that's the point.

So imagine seeing this film in 1983( or 85-86 on VHS or HBO ( look up vhs) ) ? Most people hardly knew what a computer was in that era. It was a ground breaking movie based on a book by a sci fi, counter culture icon. This movie could be made in 2023….AI, futurism, dystopia, Climate Change and the profound questions of what it means to be alive, human and sentient. BR earned its place as a classic of modern science fiction cinema.

Of course Blade Runner is iconic lmao. Objectively so. It literally spawned the art direction for the scifi subgenre of Cyberpunk. Which has inspired countless films, books, games, anime, and comics. It literally created the de-facto look for dystopian sci-fi.

You can not like Bladerunner, that's fine, but saying it "isn't actually iconic" is objectively wrong. It permeates the majority of science fiction media. Syd Mead's designs have been propping up the scifi world ever since...

So, your argument for why the film Blade Runner is iconic is that the aesthetic which has been aped endlessly and applied to wildly different science fiction is iconic? Do you see the problem here? There's nothing specific to Blade Runner and your best argument for its being iconic is that its designs were capable of being abstracted out of the movie.

But the bigger problem with the argument is that I have defined "iconic" in terms of mainstream crossover, whereas you're just telling me that Blade Runner's influence is limited to the science fiction ghetto. You know, the very people I repeatedly pointed out do like Blade Runner to the exclusion of everyone else.

>So, your argument for why the film Blade Runner is iconic is that the aesthetic which has been aped endlessly and applied to wildly different science fiction is iconic? Do you see the problem here? There's nothing specific to Blade Runner and your best argument for its being iconic is that its designs were capable of being abstracted out of the movie.

The problem I see is you have no argument here, you just described what an iconic work of fiction does. You think there's nothing "specific" to bladerunner? What the hell are you even talking about? I just told you what it specifically influenced.

>you're just telling me that Blade Runner's influence is limited to the science fiction ghetto

The sf sub-genre of Cyberpunk by itself is massive. Ever heard of Cyberpunk 2077!? I'm actually laughing at the use of "ghetto of Science fiction". This has to be the dumbest thing I've read on reddit in months.

A science fiction film just became one of the highest grossing films ever.

You're objectively wrong here.

>If you don't want a response to your opinions then keep them to yourself.

>there's nothing "specific" to bladerunner?

Firstly, it's spelt Blade Runner.

Secondly, that's not what I said. But I shouldn't be surprised that you're confused because you can't spell the name of the movie.

There is nothing specific to Blade Runner in cyberpunk.

People aren't referencing Blade Runner when they create cyberpunk fiction/art... they're referencing cyberpunk. Any connection to Blade Runner was lost a long, long time ago.

>This has to be the dumbest thing I've read on reddit in months.

Clearly you don't read your own comments.

>A science fiction film just became one of the highest grossing films ever.

A film which is an entirely different kind of science fiction.

>People aren't referencing Blade Runner when they create cyberpunk fiction/art...

Yes they absolutely are. They even put references of it into them.

>A film which is an entirely different kind of science fiction.

Yes, a franchise which took cues from Blade Runner in its depiction of Earth.

You're objectively wrong. Maybe some reading will help educate and give you some humility. You'll find some quotes in there of all the people whom were inspired by Syd Mead's work, the chief designer of the visual style in bladerunner. Many of whom work on the content you brainlessly consume now.

>The film has influenced many science fiction films, video games, anime, and television series. It brought the work of Philip K. Dick to the attention of Hollywood, and several of his works later became films such as Total Recall (1990), Minority Report (2002), and A Scanner Darkly (2006). In 1993, it was selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
>
>While not initially a success with North American audiences, Blade Runner was popular internationally and garnered a cult following.[137] The film's dark style and futuristic designs have served as a benchmark and its influence can be seen in many subsequent science fiction films, video games, anime, and television programs.[114] For example, Ronald D. Moore and David Eick, the producers of the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica, have both cited Blade Runner as one of the major influences for the show.[138]
>
>Blade Runner continues to reflect modern trends and concerns, and an increasing number of critics consider it one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.[148] It was voted the best science fiction film ever made in a 2004 poll of 60 eminent world scientists.[149] Blade Runner is also cited as an important influence to both the style and story of the Ghost in the Shell franchise, which itself has been highly influential to the future-noir genre.[150][151] Blade Runner has been very influential to the cyberpunk movement.[152][153][154][155] It also influenced the cyberpunk derivative biopunk, which revolves around biotechnology and genetic engineering.[156][157]
>
>The design of Tesla's Cybertruck was inspired by the film.[179] Prior to its release Elon Musk promised that it would "look like something out of Blade Runner".[180] Besides referring to the truck as the "Blade Runner Truck", Musk chose to debut the truck in order to coincide with the film's setting of November 2019.[181] The film's art designer Syd Mead praised the truck and said he was "flattered" by the homage to Blade Runner.[180]

It's so iconic it's literally preserved in the U.S National Film Registry and inspired countless works of science fiction after it's release. Including "non-cyberpunk" scifi.

It's a shame you're so ignorant. A little bit of googling would have spared you this embarrassment. I guess you don't understand the definition of iconic?

True art can bring out the beauty of anything. Blade runner is set in a dystopian brutalist nightmare but the film makes this hell beautiful to us.

It's one of those movies that takes time to appreciate. I probably saw it like 3 times before I liked it. Now I love it. The godfather was like that for me as well.

>Yes they absolutely are. They even put references of it into them.

Either this is mind bogglingly stupid ("one thing one time reference Blade Runner, therefore all uses of cyberpunk specifically reference Blade Runner") or you think when I said cyberpunk I meant Cyberpunk 2077 (which is also stupid, but not mind bogglingly so).

> You'll find some quotes in there of all the people whom were inspired by Syd Mead's work, the chief designer of the visual style in bladerunner. Many of whom work on the content you brainlessly consume now.

Which again doesn't establish anything relevant. And can't.

>It's a shame you're so ignorant.

It's a shame you can't read or deploy logic or spell.

The problem is viewing it as a sci-fi action movie (which I’m assuming is how you viewed it), because that comes with its own connotations. Blade Runner is more like sci-fi noir or neo-noir. Action and noir can be on the opposite spectrum when it comes to pacing (that’s been my experience, at least). The action is how it is because it’s not trying to be flashy. That’s not its purpose, and it’s not that kind of film.

I'm responding to your response, lol.

But, maybe you're too dumb to get that.

Don't be a jerk.

Cheers.

It has a fabulous aesthetic. It’s a good story. Rutger Hauer is really great. It’s a full and complete world. It has a killer soundtrack. But I do think the movie has some pacing and plotting issues; it doesn’t live up to the insanely high quality of the visuals and vibe.

>or you think when I said cyberpunk I meant Cyberpunk 2077 (which is also stupid, but not mind bogglingly so).

I referenced it because it was one of the largest video game releases in history and is heavily inspired by Blade Runner. So much so it includes several direct references to it. You can read about the origins of the IP here.

The rest of the Cyberpunk genre is of course also heavily influenced by Blade Runner. Clearly not niche or some "ghetto of science fiction". It's influence goes far beyond just that sub-genre as I already pointed out.

>“‘Blade Runner’ is simply one of those cinematic drugs, that when I first saw it, I never saw the world the same way again,” Oscar-winning filmmaker Guillermo del Toro told one interviewer, when describing why “Blade Runner” was one of his five favorite films of all-time.
>
>Del Toro wasn’t alone. For a whole generation of filmmakers — including the cinematographers, productions designers and visual effects artists — a direct line can be drawn between “Blade Runner” and the imagery of modern sci-fi movie.

I've provided ample evidence that flies in the face of your claims. At this point you're either actually this stupid or a troll. In which case it's pointless to consider further conversation.

If you aren't a troll, you'd do well to just admit when you're wrong.

Honestly I thought the sequel was way better, give it a shot

Well as you said visually it is gorgeous and very groundbreaking. Interesting themes about the line between human and machine/AI and an excellent performance from Sean Young as well.

[removed]