I had no idea about that story with the rough cut being screened on accident. I could only imagine how it must've felt watching the movie that way back then
It was the best story I discovered in my research. If it weren’t for that string of events Blade Runner would be regarded as little more than a cult film. It would have been discussed in critical circles and inspired a lot of filmmakers, but it wouldn’t be the brand it is today.
I'd say his perfectionism was vindicated.. you still see Bladerunner on the TV from time to time, as you do that other unappreciated in its time classic from 1982, The Thing, whereas populist fodder from that year such as ET is nowhere to be seen
I would agree that the attention to detail Ridley brought to this film gives it incredible depth, I disagree due to it's effect on his relationships on sets. Specifically with the columns story, I think he was trying to send a message: Get it right the first time. I'm not a big fan when people in charge go out of their way to spend enormous resources just to make a power point, just communicate it and move on. I disagree that E.T. is nowhere to be seen, I think there is a lot of love and appreciation for that film, it simply isn't as championed in academic circles because it's a childrens film with some real heart, that wasn't what BR was trying to accomplish. (Btw I love The Thing I randomly ran into one of the original crew members while I was watching it in a theater)
I agree, ET feels less appreciated today than 2 movies it sinked at the time, time vindicated both. And Ridley today is completely different person. He stopped being a perfectionist a decade ago or so because of his age, his last movies are not nearly as well made and polished as his
@@AlphTVWCKA ET is still appreciated but it doesn't have the following that other films of the era have. ET was very much a moment in time, it's very early-80s and just somehow hit a nerve back then. Also, I think people are probably surprised at just how small and slow a film ET is, considering it was one of the biggest box office hits of all time.
Loved the original version of the film (with the voice over) can't watch the director's cut, while he can make a good film by mistake he is most definitely the most overrated and arrogant director of all time.
@@AlphTVWCKA The original theatrical version of the movie with the voice over gives Dekker agency it makes him relatable, I care for him, actually it was one of my favourite movies of all time. With the director's cut I couldn't care less about Dekker the film became a meaningless clash of toasters or Xerox machines who won who cares. Visually it is stunning but without agency it's all just meaningless.
@@AlphTVWCKA More it destroys the movie for me. Let's examine the movie from the perspective of Dekker being a human. The replicants are more human than the humans they are unable to suppress their emotions like humans can this makes them dangerous. How can you use them and abuse them if they are so sophisticated emotionally? The Humans are just as emotionally sophisticated but they have learnt to suppress them to fit into their society. They can no longer relate to each other Dekker on the outside appears emotionally retardant unable to relate to other humans like the William H Macey character only really able to relate to replicants who despite their emotions are only really able to serve.
That's interesting perspective. The emotional complexity of the replicants is a purposeful artistic decision, I'm not sure if you're listing their complexity as a positive or negative, but one of Ridley Scott's directions to Rutger Haur and the other replicants was "be likeable." As an audience we are directed to empathize with them more. That can chafe though, since Ford's character is so emotionally flat in comparison. I think one of the major reasons most audiences reject the replicant theory (myself included previously) was that it felt crammed in at the last second due to the Unicorn Scene's addition in the Director's Cut. However, the replicant theory was always intended. One of David People's script versions, completed before shooting began, had Deckard's character clenching his hand (the same way Roy Batty does) in the final scene. Also, William Macy wasn't in BR, I'm assuming you're talking about William Sanderson who play's Sebastian. I think other human characters besides Sebastian (The police chief, Chew) show plenty of emotion as well, it's simply Ford having a character who is hamstrung.
Laserdisc & DVD rentals!? 😂 Tell me you weren't around in the 80s without telling me you weren't around in the 80s.
I'm so glad Cloud Strife saved Blade Runner 1982, definitely a moment in history
I had no idea about that story with the rough cut being screened on accident. I could only imagine how it must've felt watching the movie that way back then
It was the best story I discovered in my research. If it weren’t for that string of events Blade Runner would be regarded as little more than a cult film. It would have been discussed in critical circles and inspired a lot of filmmakers, but it wouldn’t be the brand it is today.
I'd say his perfectionism was vindicated.. you still see Bladerunner on the TV from time to time, as you do that other unappreciated in its time classic from 1982, The Thing, whereas populist fodder from that year such as ET is nowhere to be seen
I would agree that the attention to detail Ridley brought to this film gives it incredible depth, I disagree due to it's effect on his relationships on sets. Specifically with the columns story, I think he was trying to send a message: Get it right the first time. I'm not a big fan when people in charge go out of their way to spend enormous resources just to make a power point, just communicate it and move on. I disagree that E.T. is nowhere to be seen, I think there is a lot of love and appreciation for that film, it simply isn't as championed in academic circles because it's a childrens film with some real heart, that wasn't what BR was trying to accomplish. (Btw I love The Thing I randomly ran into one of the original crew members while I was watching it in a theater)
I agree, ET feels less appreciated today than 2 movies it sinked at the time, time vindicated both. And Ridley today is completely different person. He stopped being a perfectionist a decade ago or so because of his age, his last movies are not nearly as well made and polished as his
@@AlphTVWCKA ET is still appreciated but it doesn't have the following that other films of the era have.
ET was very much a moment in time, it's very early-80s and just somehow hit a nerve back then.
Also, I think people are probably surprised at just how small and slow a film ET is, considering it was one of the biggest box office hits of all time.
"DVD" sales in 1982 you say? ;)
Lolll in my defense lazerdiscs were out 😆 VHS tapes of course
Beta and VHS. Nobody rented Laserdisc my man. 😂
Great documentary thank you
Voice over-is perfection
Except for Most of Eastern Europe
Loved the original version of the film (with the voice over) can't watch the director's cut, while he can make a good film by mistake he is most definitely the most overrated and arrogant director of all time.
what makes you prefer the original to the directors cut?
@@AlphTVWCKA
The original theatrical version of the movie with the voice over gives Dekker agency it makes him relatable, I care for him, actually it was one of my favourite movies of all time.
With the director's cut I couldn't care less about Dekker the film became a meaningless clash of toasters or Xerox machines who won who cares.
Visually it is stunning but without agency it's all just meaningless.
I see, the experience suffers for you the more the story leans into the replicant theory?
@@AlphTVWCKA
More it destroys the movie for me.
Let's examine the movie from the perspective of Dekker being a human.
The replicants are more human than the humans they are unable to suppress their emotions like humans can this makes them dangerous.
How can you use them and abuse them if they are so sophisticated emotionally?
The Humans are just as emotionally sophisticated but they have learnt to suppress them to fit into their society.
They can no longer relate to each other Dekker on the outside appears emotionally retardant unable to relate to other humans like the William H Macey character only really able to relate to replicants who despite their emotions are only really able to serve.
That's interesting perspective. The emotional complexity of the replicants is a purposeful artistic decision, I'm not sure if you're listing their complexity as a positive or negative, but one of Ridley Scott's directions to Rutger Haur and the other replicants was "be likeable." As an audience we are directed to empathize with them more. That can chafe though, since Ford's character is so emotionally flat in comparison. I think one of the major reasons most audiences reject the replicant theory (myself included previously) was that it felt crammed in at the last second due to the Unicorn Scene's addition in the Director's Cut. However, the replicant theory was always intended. One of David People's script versions, completed before shooting began, had Deckard's character clenching his hand (the same way Roy Batty does) in the final scene. Also, William Macy wasn't in BR, I'm assuming you're talking about William Sanderson who play's Sebastian. I think other human characters besides Sebastian (The police chief, Chew) show plenty of emotion as well, it's simply Ford having a character who is hamstrung.
and he couldn't even make it a perfect movie. extraordinary, but far from perfect.