EN World Movie Battle Royal! We have our winner!

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

To science fiction literature, yes. It's a wretched movie, though. Besides, how many other attempts at cyberpunk movies have really been made other than this one anyway?

To say it's a wretched movie is a bit of overkill, hmm? I actually like Bladerunner very much, as do lots of other people. As far as it being important to SF literature, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is very important, but the movie and book are so different in tone and themes that they really can't be compared to each other, excpet to say that the movie was based on elements of the book.

 

[Gomez]

To science fiction literature, yes. It's a wretched movie, though. Besides, how many other attempts at cyberpunk movies have really been made other than this one anyway?

Wouldn't the Matrix movies be considered Cyberpunk?

 

[Desdichado]

To say it's a wretched movie is a bit of overkill, hmm?

I would have thought so before I rented to watch with my wife (who'd never seen it) two years or so ago. I kept going on about how it "was a classic" and all that. Until we watched it. I've never been so embarrassed for my geekiness in my life. I think the only reason I liked Bladerunner formerly was because it had unique visuals and some unusual (if not unique) concepts, it had a haunting Vangelis soundtrack, and it had Harrison Ford. However, I was literally amazed at how bad a movie it was, after at least 10 years of not having seen it.

 

[Desdichado]

Wouldn't the Matrix movies be considered Cyberpunk?

Maybe. I'd be inclined to call them post-cyberpunk personally, but I'm a bit of a genre splitter.

 

[Pielorinho]

First, Joshua, have you seen the version without the voiceover? I've seen both (I saw the sans-voiceover first), and there's a world of difference between them. Things it's got going for it:
-The world it creates is busy, dark, and inhuman, and consistently so.
-There's plenty of multilayered exploration of what it means to be human, and precious few answers.
-There's scenes whose impact really sneaks up on me, such as when Harrison is examining old photographs of his family.
-The violence in it is often beautiful and tragic, such as the scene of the android crashing through glass.

As for other cyberpunk movies, lemme think...
Hackers, sorta.
Matrix
Johnny Mnemonic
The Fifth Element (to a lesser degree-certainly it starts off in a world similar to Bladerunner's)

And the aesthetic has permeated a lot of movies since then.

It may not be for everyone, but I still think it's a defining movie of science fiction, and personally I like it way better than Aliens (which I didn't really care for).

As for literature, I'd say it's nothing special in Phillip K. Dick's repertoire. The Man in the High Castle is probably his most important work.

Daniel

 

[replicant2]

#1 Bladerunner (1982) vs #7 Planet of the Apes (1968)

Gah! How in the HELL did either of these two get into the final four? What a travesty! Both of them are teh suxxorz relative to all kinds of better "geek genre" films that are noticably missing at this level of voting. I give the edge to Planet of the Apes just because although it's dated, at least it was clever once.

I can't disagree with you enough on your Blade Runner opinion. In fact, I think it's going to give Fellowship a run in the final.

Why? It's one of the most thematically challenging films I've ever seen. It poses some fascinating questions: What constitutes a human being? Do we have souls, or is the individual merely a unique collection of memories and experiences? And if technology advances to the stage where we can program an android with memories, and he/she can react to it, is this android technically "human" with all the natural rights we give to mankind?

Questions like these make up only a very small part of Blade Runner. It's beautiful visually, and its dystopian city has influenced countless other films. And it's got a great performance by Rutger Hauer with all sorts of nifty literary allusions.

And its got a question that continues to be tossed around by sci-fi geeks more than 20 years after its release -- is Deckard a replicant?

It should be noted that all of my comments are based on the far superior Director's Cut, which eliminates the annoying voice-over.

 

[Pielorinho]

I can't disagree with you enough on your Blade Runner opinion.

Nothing to add, except that this really amused me coming with your username!

Daniel

 

[replicant2]

Nothing to add, except that this really amused me coming with your username!

Daniel

Yeah, no bias showing here.

 

[Desdichado]

I can't disagree with you enough on your Blade Runner opinion. In fact, I think it's going to give Fellowship a run in the final.

I'd be surprised if it gets more than a handful of votes; 5% is my prediction.

Why? It's one of the most thematically challenging films I've ever seen. It poses some fascinating questions: What constitutes a human being? Do we have souls, or is the individual merely a unique collection of memories and experiences? And if technology advances to the stage where we can program an android with memories, and he/she can react to it, is this android technically "human" with all the natural rights we give to mankind?

One of the most thematically challenging films you've ever seen because of that? Good gravy, how many films have you seen, four? That basic theme has been explored countless times, long before anyone ever thought of using androids as the proxy. And for that matter, by the time the film was made, that theme was a tired cliche in literary science fiction.

Questions like these make up only a very small part of Blade Runner. It's beautiful visually, and its dystopian city has influenced countless other films. And it's got a great performance by Rutger Hauer with all sorts of nifty literary allusions.

Not too many arguments there. It's also, however, got an absurd performance (although, to be fair, it was an absurd part to begin with, so the actor can only be held so accountable) by Larry of "this is my brother Daryl; this is my other brother Daryl" fame. And even Rutger's performance was hampered by melodrama and poor dialogue.

And its got a question that continues to be tossed around by sci-fi geeks more than 20 years after its release -- is Deckard a replicant?

That's mostly a fabrication of the fans, though, as very little in the movie itself suggests it. Besides, I don't see how that contributes to it being a classic.

It should be noted that all of my comments are based on the far superior Director's Cut, which eliminates the annoying voice-over.

All of my comments are independent of the two versions.

 

[Desdichado]

First, Joshua, have you seen the version without the voiceover? I've seen both (I saw the sans-voiceover first), and there's a world of difference between them. Things it's got going for it:

Yes, I believe that's the one I saw.

-The world it creates is busy, dark, and inhuman, and consistently so.
-There's plenty of multilayered exploration of what it means to be human, and precious few answers.
-There's scenes whose impact really sneaks up on me, such as when Harrison is examining old photographs of his family.
-The violence in it is often beautiful and tragic, such as the scene of the android crashing through glass.

I don't disagree with any of that, although any such momentary flashes of brilliance are sullied by the absurdity of most of dialogue and characters.

As for other cyberpunk movies, lemme think...
Hackers, sorta.
Matrix
Johnny Mnemonic
The Fifth Element (to a lesser degree-certainly it starts off in a world similar to Bladerunner's)

And the aesthetic has permeated a lot of movies since then.

Like I said, I may be more of a genre splitter than most, but I think just having a cyperpunk aesthetic is a long way from actually being cyberpunk. Haven't seen Johnny Mnemnonic, though, from the description, it sounds pretty firmly in the cyberpunk camp.

It may not be for everyone, but I still think it's a defining movie of science fiction, and personally I like it way better than Aliens (which I didn't really care for).

Which, you'll also have to admit, is a defining movie of science fiction, though. I won't argue that, all I'm saying is that after watching it again recently for the first time in a long time, I was embarrassed at how poorly done, egoistically auteur, flat, poorly paced, filled with poorly written and delivered dialogue, and strange simply for its own sake the movie was.

As for literature, I'd say it's nothing special in Phillip K. Dick's repertoire. The Man in the High Castle is probably his most important work.

It's pretty representative. IMO, PKD's work gets pretty repetitive after a while.