Watch the video:
Why Blade Runner still looks a Billion Bucks
What did Ridley Scott have to do to make Blade Runner so different that it looks like a billion bucks even today?
What did Ridley Scott have to do to make Blade Runner so different that it looks like a billion bucks even today?
Hi Saresh, Bladerunner is not really a very faithful adaptation of Dick’s work. He was a pretty metaphysical kind of writer, so the film just cherry-picked out the coolest elements, and left the thought-provoking stuff behind. Thanks for the analysis of the film as usual.
You’re welcome. It was a mental slip, what I meant was Dick approved of Ridley’s vision for the world of Blade Runner, and I believe he said that’s how he imagined it to be when he wrote it. I wasn’t (supposed to be) referring to the story or characters. My apologies.
When Blade Runner 2 was released, I just hD to go see it. It was said by critics that it was a real great follow-up, maybe better that the real one. To my surprise, the story, lighting, composition, well you name them, was surprisingly poor. It was a shame really. How could do such a poor job, having the real thing setting the level? Tonight I am going look at your breakdown. I know it will be very good, as always. Thanks
…sorry for the errors in my writing. My fingers are too big for a smartphones pad…
What a great breakdown, commentary and analysis of the visuals. I’m in agreement that the cinematography deserved more recognition and yes the films ending was lacking. It was a heavy handed way to leave the door open for a sequel…
Thank you!