Posted by ExMachina73 2 days ago
Incidentally, I just went through a "what font should I use in my terminal" journey for the first time in a long time recently and took a long wandering trip back home to Source Code Pro. There's something about how round and open the letters are that's very readable to me. Compared to a more typewritery tech-y fixed width typeface, it just parses really easily to my eyes.
I agree the theatrical cut is inferior, the voice over wasn't done willingly by Harrison Ford, the "happy ending" is forced and hideous, etc... but I kind like the hardboiled vibes of the narration. It was also the first version I watched so it has a special place in my heart.
The Director's Cut -- that I know isn't an actual director's cut -- is possibly my favorite. Sadly, some murky visuals and a couple of plot holes (mostly number of replicants), plus the Zhora stunt double... once you see her, you cannot unsee her, and you'll wonder how you ever failed to notice the stunt double looks nothing like Joanna Cassidy and even the wig is wrong. But this is the version that stuck with me, and the one with the best color grading.
Then there's a workprint with increased violence. I don't get why some fans prefer an extended scene of Roy Batty gouging Tyrell's eyes out... I don't think "more is better" applies to graphic violence; sometimes implied violence is better, and in any case showing this doesn't improve the character of Roy.
Finally... the Final Cut. I appreciate they fixed (most) plot holes, they FIXED ZHORA'S STUNT DOUBLE (the single best improvement) and the image quality is way, way better. However, I cannot forgive Ridley Scott for changing the color grading to a greenish tint; Blade Runner now looks closer to the Matrix, which is UNWELCOME. I liked the more bluish/brownish tint of the Director's Cut, and really dislike the greenish/orange-y nonsense of the Special Edition. Here you can see what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocx-Ch3Pzg8).
My ideal edition of Blade Runner: the color grading of the Director's Cut, with the improved image quality and fixed plot holes (and Zhora's stunt double) from the Final Cut.
(And yes, I'm aware I haven't mentioned all the cuts, just the ones I know).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNtxgxYY7sI
https://fontsinuse.com/uses/61211/enter-the-void-title-seque...
It's a classic malicious compliance. "We're obligated to put these credits on the screen" even though it's impossible to read all of it without stopping.
I think I was too sober to really enjoy it though
I’m glad there are people obsessed with fonts. But writing for people exactly like yourself is often limiting.
I don't follow this one little bit. I frequently read stuff about interests that I don't share (this is a good way to find new interests, btw), and I much prefer when the people who are excited by something express that excitement. I wouldn't even click on a link titled "X is Well Executed" because it sounds like a dry document written by a disinterested engineer analyzing something they don't care about. "X is Amazing" is going to be written by someone who actually gives a shit about X, and therefore is much more likely to be interesting.
Enthusiasm is a good thing and not to be avoided. Clinical language is a turn-off, only to be used when clarity is more important than anything else.
It's not writing for people exactly like you to express enthusiasm and interest in something niche. That's good writing for people not like you.
Who am I supposed to write for?
I love the whole movie and soundtrack with the same enthusiasm as you, it's one of my favorites, but that scene with Rachael is something else.
It really is for me a pinnacle. I sometimes wonder what it’s like to be part of something like this. Do you even know? I’m just some random fifty something among billions and your comment resonated because it was a shared experience. I have no idea if my grandchildren could watch the movie and come away with that but my cumulative nature and nurture sure as hell did.
I've wondered about this too. Did Ridley Scott and crew set out to make the greatest movie ever (IMO)? Or did something magical happen? My guess is "auteurs" often set out to create a masterwork but usually something beyond their control derails that. But, if they are lucky, they stumble upon something extraordinary that touches the heart of the human experience and that only happens once in a lifetime, if even that.
As an example on the other side of the spectrum, there may be plenty of bad and forgettable movies with incredible and unforgettable performances from a very small part of it (the sound recording or design, one of the actors, a single superb scene, one of the scenerys) while the rest is mediocre to bad.
I liked the film noir voice-over.
Only the final cut is available on UHD or an in-print blu-ray (and I would guess streaming as well).
I remember the voice over the first time I saw the movie, possibly in a cinema. I liked it, and was surprised with the general level of dislike it has received. The film was meant to be a mid-20th-century film-noir detective drama.
It kinda makes me want to mess around with special fonts on my blog, but designing a simple way to change fonts and font options on a per-post basis sounds difficult.
I don’t know for sure, but they probably shot a negative of the completed type with a red gel behind it to get the final frames.
It’s interesting because it straddles analog & digital so many times - film is a chemical process, broadcast is an analog process, CRT screens are analog processes, and at the end of the whole thing, our eyes are an analog process, so you’ve got this wonderful bundle of path dependency (B&W -> Color, Analog -> digital, film -> broadcast -> DVD) where you’re trying to capture the characteristics of a dozen different physical phenomenon so you can throw a photon into someone’s eye Just Right repeatably.
Some of the things he's gushing over have a very prosaic explanation, eg the capitalization of NEXUS and TYRELL CORPORATION. Whenever a named entity (human or prop) makes its first appearance in a movie script, it's capitalized to indicate that it's a story element that will require continuity, the art department, and a budget of some kind. This convention is so intuitive to even the casual reader that I'm surprised it's not employed more often. I agree with the other person who observed that the ark red of Replicants is an unfortunate artefact of the optical transfer process, but it does do a good job setting the viewer up to be scared right from the outset.
I've always assumed the title cards were one of Ridley Scott's concessions to the studio that loved the movie but were terrified about how to sell it to the public, like the eoriginal gumshoe voice-over that explained a lot of the story in the style of an old detective novel.