sf-lovers (07/13/82)
>From JPM@Mit-Ai Tue Jul 13 04:00:39 1982
SF-LOVERS Digest Sunday, 11 Jul 1982 Volume 6 : Issue 11
Today's Topics:
SF Movies - Blade Runner,
Spoiler - Blade Runner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Saturday, July 10, 1982 6:48PM
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI>
Subject: SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!
All of the messages in this digest discuss some plot details in the
movie Blade Runner. These might constitute mild spoilers for some
readers. They may not wish to read on.
------------------------------
Date: 9 July 1982 01:37-EDT
From: Gail Zacharias <GZ at MIT-MC>
Subject: Blade Runner
The special effects and atmosphere are nice. Plot is alright. I don't
mind the violence. Nonetheless, I found this movie insulting and
annoying. For instance (and this is just one example), in his first
scene, Deckard explains to us how he used to be a blade runner, a
replicant hunter, presumably one of the best. In his second scene, he
listens intently to a lecture about what a replicant is, asking
encouraging questions and learning all kinds of interesting facts such
as replicants' life-spans, etc. Now really! I'm willing to suspend
disbelief, but this movie requires you to suspend common sense (I
won't even say "intelligence") almost all the time.
I'm looking forward to a time in the far off future when we get an SF
movie for reasonably intelligent adults, not a glorified comic book
aimed at 10-year-olds. (No, I'm not holding my breath).
------------------------------
Date: 07/07/82 1101-EDT
From: THOKAR at LL
Subject: Blade Runner
Movie: Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep -Phillip K.
Dick) - Harrison Ford, Sean Young
Pico Review: Classic 40's detective movie set in 2019. Worth seeing
for the special effects alone.
First a question. Does anyone out there know if this was filmed
for release in 3-D? Lauren? I noticed "edge effects" in spots doing
the movie; the final credits particularly. The lettering had that
"blue on one side, red on the other" tinge the I generally associate
with 3-D films.
Review: I could not take this movie seriously. It is definitely a
remake of every 40's detective film, right down to the heroine's
clothes. Also had the typical voice over of the detective's thoughts.
(Nick Danger lives!) This is not to say that it wasn't enjoyable. I
would definitely like to see it again to study the background now that
I know the script.
Douglas (2001) Trumbull created the outstanding effects and they
are visually fascinating.
Rutger Hauer was excellent in the role of the replicant leader. He
played Wolfgar in Nighthawks, another good flick with music by Keith
Emerson. I believe Hauer is well known in Germany. Look for him to
do more American films in the future.
Harrison Ford plays another rogue. A character he is which
becoming typecast as.
On the whole a good film that uses science fiction as the setting,
not the theme.
------------------------------
Date: 9-Jul-82 12:00:50 PDT (Friday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest V6 #8
Blade Runner:
I agree that the critics didn't see the same movie I did. But then,
what else is new?
I liked the movie a lot. Sure, there were things I didn't like: The
excessive futurism of only 40 years in the future probably bothered me
the most. Ford's Bogart style narration didn't make it for me, largely
because he tried to imitate Bogie just a little too much. In fact,
that was the major defect in his acting in the whole movie. I was also
bothered by the fifth replicant.
But for once we have seen a science fiction movie that had a real
theme, and did something with it. Contrary to one opinion, I did not
find the emotion displayed by the replicants inconsistent. We were
told by the intro and some of the characters that they were banned for
this reason, but one of the major points of the story was that this
was only what the humans believed. The replicants did indeed have
emotions, and this was the realization that Deckard finally had to
make in spite of himself and because of repeated evidence throughout
the movie.
I challenge Mankins to describe how Deckard seems to get enjoyment out
of his job. His justification for doing it ("I'd rather be a killer
than a victim") is a statement of resignation, not an excuse. Perhaps
David missed the fact that his boss threatened him into doing it. Most
of the killings he initially attempted since it was his job. The
inhuman abilities of his victims to survive necessitated the excessive
violence, and there was no small amount of fear in him at their
capabilities. I kept getting the feeling that each murder was getting
more difficult for him, both in terms of what it took to accomplish
and the realization that he might not survive.
We are all familiar with the general public reaction to certain kinds
of technology. It is obvious (to me at least) that the emotion
justification was simply a reaction to the earlier stages of the
technology, and probably bore resemblance to fact primarily because of
the obvious immaturity of the four year old beings rather than any
innate incapability.
I look forward to more movies of this type, not because it was itself
fantastic, but because it bears much more resemblance to the science
fiction I have been reading for the last fifteen years than anything
else since 2001.
Thanks to Amsler for pointing out the significance of the origami.
That passed me by, and is a good argument for the depth of thought
that went into the movie.
-- Larry --
------------------------------
Date: 8 July 1982 17:23 edt
From: York.Multics at MIT-MULTICS (William M. York)
Subject: Blade Runner - replies to recent messages
I would like to reply to a few scattered messages that I have read in
recent digests. I don't remember the original authors, but you know
who you are!
Phillip K. Dick is mentioned in the opening credits of the film.
There is a credit for the story "Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep", and the film is dedicated to Dick.
The "missing" 5th replicant is reported as being killed in an
"electric field", I think while trying to get to Tyrell.
As to the movie addressing the serious issues: it doesn't really
address them, it merely raises them. Sure, we are presented with
manufactured people (complete with self-awareness and rudimentary
emotions) being used as slaves and hunted through the streets like
animals. But all analysis of the implications and consequences of
this situation are left as an exercise to the viewer. This is not
simply a case of a subtle film message which requires effort on the
part of the audience to be understood. The only references to the
whole problem are two instances of people looking at photographs of
their past selves, wondering if those people actually existed. Any
consideration of the moral questions involved must be carried on
completely outside the context of the movie, for example through
messages to SF-Lovers. Still, it was a good attempt, and I hope that
it sparks efforts towards more and better sf-based movies that are
more than just visually exciting.
------------------------------
Date: 7 July 1982 01:53-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Blade Runner
Let me second Minow's comments about this movie: very weird. All in
all, I was quite disturbed by it. The basic idea is not that unique:
the reaction of society to artificially-created persons. Most
recently, Heinlein used it in \Friday/. The plot is virtually
non-existent. (Harrison Ford hunts down "replicants." Harrison Ford
falls in love with a beautiful female replicant.) The strange part of
the movie is the atmosphere, which is hazy, decadent, and cynical, and
reminded me of some Humphrey Bogart films. Most scenes seem to be
shot through some sort of fog or smoke, which was annoying to me. The
dialogue was sometimes silly, other times cynically Bogartesque, and
much of the time didn't make much sense. Characters seemed to feel
and act forcefully but without reasonable motivation. Several times,
I had to fight the impulse to stand up in the theater and yell, "What
the hell's going on!" I have not read \Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep/, and perhaps the book would clear up my confusions. Meanwhile,
I consider \Bladerunner/ incomprehensible.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1982 1556-EDT
From: Tom Vasak <VASAK at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Blade Runner Review
Blade Runner is indeed an interesting movie. Loosely based on
a novel by Philip K. Dick called "Do Androids Dream of Electric
Sheep," it creates a tone and mood all its own. While a large portion
of the plot of the movie is from the book, the movie takes its subset
of the book's plot and adds its own twists and perceptions to come up
with a very different effect.
RD (Harrison Ford) is a "Blade Runner." A Blade runner is in
the business of "retiring" rogue androids. The androids of "Blade
Runner" are "biomechanical" constructs designed for use as slaves in
non-terrestrial circumstances. Called "replicants", they are
indistinguishable from human beings except through rigorous
psychological testing. Previous experiences with android rebellion
have resulted in the banning of androids on earth. Any android found
on earth is to be destroyed upon detection. This is not a foolproof
scheme as four androids have managed to escape their enslavement and
hijack a ship back to Earth. The hunt for the replicants is the
primary plot line of the movie. In addition there is an interesting
if poorly executed romantic subplot between RD and Rachael, a
character introduced as the niece of the designer of the rogue
androids.
One of the most striking things about the movie is the vision
of Los Angeles in 2019. If the movie is worth nothing at all except
for the scenery and special effects it is worth going to. The city is
wet, dirty, crowded and completely believable. A point about
Turnbull's accuracy; A friend who has spent some time in Hong Kong
thought that Hong Kong would be just like that 10 years from now.
(Hong Kong is generally considered to be one of the cites furthest
along in the process of urban evolution.) Aside from its accuracy,
the scenery is very well done and is very effective (read depressing).
********** LOW DANGER SPOILER **********
The other interesting thing about the movie is its peculiar
mix of mysticism and cynicism. At some points the movie is very
grimly realist and at others it flying along in a very mystical
fashion. This is one of the few movies I've seen that has a happy
ending but still leaves you in a *really* pessimistic state. Ridley
Scott must have very weird dreams. Imagine a film that discusses
"what is life?" ten minutes after Rich Deckard gets his fingers broken
for "sport" by the very character seriously discussing this
philosophical point. Very weird.
********** End Of Spoiler **********
All in all I would say that Blade Runner is a fairly good
movie and worth seeing. It is not really Philp Dick's work, but is a
reasonable interpretation of some of the themes he presents. Don't
skip the novel because of seeing the movie. I am unsure whether or
not to advise you to read the novel before seeing the movie as the
movie is a little disappointing compared to the novel, but reading
the novel helps with some of the awkward movements of the film.
R'lyeh
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 82 12:59:55-EDT (Fri)
From: Andrew.umcp-cs at UDel-Relay
Subject: Blade Runner
I saw Blade Runner on opening night, and liked it. I also have read
DADOES a number of times (starting oh, about 6-8 years ago). However,
I was slightly disappointed that the movie didn't follow the book very
much.
This is, of course all in time interest, and they STILL made a good
movie. There was a good plot, and the effects were excellent also.
A good twist that they threw in was the orgami-ing dective - this
allowed them to increase the suspense of the movie.
- Andy
------------------------------
From: DMM@MIT-ML
Date: 07/10/82 02:06:02
Subject: Re:Bladerunner
Having seen the sneak of this movie several months ago, I
recently went back to see how the final version turned out. I may be
over- estimating the power of my suggestion card, but I watched the
new version feeling rather guilty. I had found the original to be
some- what disoreinting, as there were no explanations or background
given for anything. What I had wanted was some extra footage that
might have been cut to be put back in, or something of that nature.
Instead, it looks like they hired some hack writer to come up with a
voice-over that makes the film seem almost like a Sam Spade parody.
Although the original left more questions in the viewer's mind, it
definitely had more impact than the end result that's in the theatres.
Cheers -- DMM IT-ML
------------------------------
End of SF-LOVERS Digest
***********************