Posts by briskhound2

Even today, Alien still holds up as an incredible piece of filmmaking—and hey, there’s that director's cut out there, since everyone seems obsessed with fixing their own movies lately—but Blade Runner went through quite the journey with its various re-releases. It was already pretty solid back when it first hit theaters, though, and even with the added CGI, it never really felt like it cheapened the vibe... I mean, if we're being honest, you might not want to give Ridley Scott all the credit for the story itself. There were at least five different writers grinding away on that script—even if only two actually got the official credit—not to mention the fact that it was based on a book to begin with. But I totally agree that the visual style belongs to him. He's been pretty open about why the movie feels so dark and rainy, noting he made it right after his brother passed away... It’s one of those rare instances where a director's raw, personal vision actually manages to pull it all together.

In a nutshell, Ridley Scott just had this incredible vision—he captured something on film that modern movies, even with all their massive CGI budgets and fancy tech, can't seem to touch... they just don't hit the same way.

Alien or Blade Runner?

Honestly, both directors handle their themes by sticking to that unwritten rule of sci-fi: if you don't want to shove your specific vision down everyone's throats—which usually just splits the audience into two warring camps—you leave things open-ended... Kubrick does this by basically suggesting that the future is looming right in front of us (I mean, NASA was supposed to be heading out there to finally get those close-up shots of the Moon, right?) but implying that none of us can actually predict what happens once we plunge into the great black void. He doesn't wrap things up with a neat bow or offer easy answers; he just leaves you to chew on it. The whole movie is structured that way—there isn't even twenty minutes of actual dialogue...

Blade Runner operates on that same wavelength (though it came along a bit later) because Ridley Scott was against adding Deckard's voiceover to explain everything or giving it some happy ending from day one—he did the same thing with Alien, too. Unlike Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who seem to prefer an audience that's basically been spoon-fed every plot point, these two are actually gutsy enough to treat viewers like thinking human beings, which is why their films land the way they do, sparking all sorts of debate. It’s no surprise that after all the backlash they took, they both kind of moved away from the sci-fi genre entirely. If I had to pick a flaw in Odyssey, it’s that it feels cold, almost clinical... the only part that actually pulls at your heartstrings is when HAL 9000 is being slowly shut down. Blade Runner, on the other hand, leans hard into human emotion, but it showed up at a really awkward time—right when E.T. and Star Wars were smashing the box office and setting the standard for how "sci-fi" was supposed to look and feel. While Odyssey at least offered something visually stunning, Blade Runner was initially dismissed as too dark, too depressing, and way too intimate... I mean, who wants sci-fi that deals with real-world stuff like love, loneliness, and isolation? Odyssey doesn't tackle those questions, so it loses a bit of ground as time goes on. But visually speaking, Blade Runner ended up being one of those rare films where the future actually looks grounded and real—which is exactly why its reputation and credibility just keep growing today... it's a world you can actually recognize...

boldcyclist11 said:calling odyssey "fun" is a stretch... maybe interesting, maybe even a slog, but definitely not fun. honestly, it's such a psychedelic trip that you half expect the directors were tripping on something when they shot it. i sat through the first 45 minutes before just giving up and turning it off...

Look, Odyssey is a solid flick. It might not be some untouchable masterpiece, but it really sits at the peak of the genre—mostly because we haven't seen many attempts at making serious sci-fi quite like this since (correct me if I'm wrong, but still)... it definitely has its flaws, though, just like any other movie. It really boils down to whether you're a fan of Arthur C. Clarke's writing or Stanley Kubrick's directing style, and if you generally dig the more "serious" side of sci-fi. That ending is pure psychedelia... you just need a bit of patience or a certain appreciation for those creators, otherwise, the whole thing is going to feel way too long and drawn out...

I first saw it when I was about eight years old, and honestly? Total flop for me. It was just too dark—all that rain, zero sunlight, the whole vibe... yeah. But I was probably way too young back then, because once I caught the director's cut, the movie really clicked, and even now, I love putting it on early in the morning. That documentary part about the making of Dangerous Day is especially solid... but lately, there’s this huge trend of acting like this film is somehow the absolute peak of the genre. It's annoying because people don't even get the basics right—they start attributing ideas to it that were never actually part of the vision. And what really gets under my skin is how everyone treats it like an instant classic, completely ignoring the fact that the movie basically sat in total obscurity for five or six years—give or take—until the home video release finally gave it a life. It’s the exact same thing with Carpenter's The Thing, which most people today insist is one of the greatest horror films ever made.

But here’s the thing—the absolute bottom line that everyone seems to conveniently forget—Blade Runner was a total disaster at the box office. It wasn't some massive hit; it didn't even make back its twenty-million-dollar budget, let alone turn a profit. Critics absolutely slaughtered it, and audiences basically gave it a wide berth because they just didn't get what it was trying to do. Nowadays, everyone acts like an expert on why the movie is a masterpiece (and hey, I'm definitely guilty of that too), but the cold, hard truth is that it was branded a huge flop... there was even a point where the director tried to wash his hands of the whole mess by blaming the producers right after the reviews came out. Even Ford barely brings it up, mostly because he once admitted he wasn't even sure what the damn movie was supposed to be about in the first place.

Nah, personally, I don't think he's a replicant—but hey, I won't judge anyone if they see it that way. That’s just the beauty of the movie, right? People are still out there arguing about stuff like that decades later. I haven't really run into anyone questioning what actually happened to David Bowman, though. Look, the movie is solid; I've sat through it six times now. Sure, some parts drag a bit, but it’s still lightyears ahead of the absolute junk they churn out today. And regarding Blade Runner, when it first hit theaters in that re-edited version—I think back in '91 or '92—that was the director's vision. It hasn't fundamentally changed since, regardless of all the talk about an extended cut or the Final Cut, etc., etc. They basically just stripped away the happy ending and tweaked the effects a little (which is kind of a bummer for a movie that's already such a cult classic), so the whole question of whether Deckard is a replicant was settled ages ago... but clearly, the film sticks with people and keeps them thinking. It’s the same deal with 2001: A Space Odyssey; when it first came out, critics hailed it as a TECHNICAL masterpiece. It’s like saying Cameron's Titanic sank beautifully—you can't really blame people for having gripes with the actual plot when even the paid critics were basically ignoring the story in their columns back then.

The second act of the movie is honestly stellar—especially that sequence involving the discovery of the black monolith. Visually and narratively, it just hits different. Then you get to the part with HAL... I mean, it’s good, but it feels a little thin on why he actually pulled the trigger on those actions. You get the full breakdown in the book, but the film leaves you hanging, which might not even be a flaw per se, but that final stretch where the famous encounter happens feels kind of muddy. The whole psychedelic trip during Bowman's journey is a bit grating, too, and if you haven't read the book, the ending basically leaves you staring at a blank screen wondering what the hell they were trying to say with that finale... It's weird because while the rest of the story is laid out with this breathtaking precision and detail that still blows me away today, the last part feels a bit rushed—almost like it was slapped together because everyone has such a specific vision of how that first contact should go. Maybe it isn't a logical inconsistency so much as a narrative hiccup, but again, just my two cents...

rustywalker42 said:2001: A Space Odyssey isn't for everyone. That's why most people hate it—or just pass out by the end.

Blade Runner is basically the more accessible version of 2001: A Space Odyssey (not the plot, obviously). It's easier for people to wrap their heads around.

I've seen both movies countless times. Honestly, I lost track. Both are masterpieces, so comparing them is kind of a stupid exercise, but if you’re forcing me to pick? It’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, hands down.

I don't even know what to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey. I can't shake the feeling that anyone voting for Blade Runner probably only watched 2001: A Space Odyssey once, and half-assed at that.

I’ve sat through 2001: A Space Odyssey at least six times now, and look, it’s a masterpiece—no question—but let’s be real, some parts are just straight-up tedious. Between the scenes that feel like they drag on forever and that music that can get pretty grating after a while... yeah. Technically? It’s flawless. But the whole first contact storyline has its flaws and certain gaps left open, though those aren't really the kind of things that spark massive debates like the whole "is Rick Deckard a replicant" thing from Blade Runner—you know, that one shot where his eyes catch the light and everything... anyway. And sure, the Odyssey has HAL, but if you ask me, his reboot in 2010: The Odyssey works way better because it actually builds up this tension about whether he's going to have another total meltdown...

The thing about Blade Runner is that it doesn't just play out like your run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick—it’s built like a gritty noir detective story first and foremost. The sci-fi elements are really just there to flesh out the core hunt for those dangerous replicants, layering in all those raw human vibes—loneliness, social isolation, love—right alongside the crime plot... It makes it feel much heavier. As for the controversy—well, if you ask me—even the flaws, they mostly stem from the fact that there are so many different versions of the same movie floating around. It kind of messes with the sense of originality when, a few years later, they start tinkering with it... deciding what worked for the audience and what didn't, swapping this bit out for that bit... it gets messy. Then you've got 2001: A Space Odyssey, which has its own issues—mostly that the story feels a bit too sterile (honestly, the sequel, 2010, works a lot better)—plus it leaves a ton of questions hanging, especially if you haven't actually read the book. There's also a fair amount of "wait, is this happening?" boredom in that one... but both films do an incredible job at predicting where humanity is headed—that feeling of being totally disconnected from everyone else. For me, Blade Runner takes the win because the story actually has some layers...