As many of the previous comments state, Blade Runner was influential on many following sci-fi books and movies in establishing the moody look and feeling. (Then again, so was Scott's earlier movie, Alien, which has a somewhat similar gritty atmosphere, something that bucked the largely slick and antiseptic sci-fi look that dominated at that time.)

But "atmosphere" is about all Blade Runner had going for it. The plot and characterization *were* terribly weak; I guess atmosphere and visuals are Scott's strong point.

Slate opened up a can of worms when it criticized a sci-fi genre film, though. Many genre fans are so desperate to have their favored genre be made into a major movie that they simply have lower standards for the film. Any sci-fi is pretty good sci-fi, as long as it adheres to the limits and expectations of what we call sci-fi.

God have mercy on Slate if they next review the book Lord of the Rings and find it has baggy plotting, weak characterization, and is about 4 times longer than it needs to be...

-- Ash

No offense, but if you want to be provocative, try to at least advance something remotely resembling a theory. You cite precisely zero (0) examples of how the film's "plot and characterizations *were* terribly weak". I am not terribly impressed with wholly self-contained and conclusory statements from anonymous internet jockeys, personally. Further, the supposed "desperation" of some unknown cabal of science fiction fans to have their "favorite genre" be made into a "major movie" you cite is laughable, especially when applied as to this particular film. I suggest you look at the release date and gross box office receipts for 'Blade Runner'. Then go back and note that the first two 'Star Wars' films, together with 'Alien', '2001', 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', 'War of the Worlds', 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', the original 'Star Trek', 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' and about three dozen other high profile films were all released well in advance of 'Blade Runner'.

But please, don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of you throwing a pointless little tantrum solely on your prejudices against a certain class of people. FWIW, I don't even care for the genre personally and have seen only about half of the movies cited above, but have had the Blu-Ray of the briefcase edition of 'BR' in my Amazon cart for about five months in anticipation of its release. Go ahead and think I'm a sci-fi nerd based solely on this fact of you want; conversely, I'll feel comfortable viewing you as little more than a poo-flinging monkey. The difference between is that at least I waited for you to commit your feelings to the written record before forming my opinion.

Slate opened up a can of worms when it criticized a sci-fi genre film, though. Many genre fans are so desperate to have their favored genre be made into a major movie that they simply have lower standards for the film. Any sci-fi is pretty good sci-fi, as long as it adheres to the limits and expectations of what we call sci-fi.

Aha. So, in other words, you can't effectively criticize a movie, so you criticize your straw-man of a sci-fi fan. And hey presto! You've leveraged an argument without actually, you know, making a good one. Try this, dude-- I don't like Sci Fi. I love Blade Runner.

Keep your ad hominems (because thats all this is) to yourself.

jokerx:

As many of the previous comments state, Blade Runner was influential on many following sci-fi books and movies in establishing the moody look and feeling. (Then again, so was Scott's earlier movie, Alien, which has a somewhat similar gritty atmosphere, something that bucked the largely slick and antiseptic sci-fi look that dominated at that time.)

Don't forget almost single-handedly creating the 'atmosphere' template for nearly every video game within the first person and second person shooter genre. Dark backgrounds with glaring neon is much easier to create when processing power is at a premium and you may find that Blade Runner is not only cited as visual inspiration for a whole host of early 3D games, but has heavily influnced the look of the whole genre.

"But "atmosphere" is about all Blade Runner had going for it. The plot and characterization *were* terribly weak; I guess atmosphere and visuals are Scott's strong point."

But in a movie about the future or any other SF which is not in the take-it-for-granted reality; or for that matter, those films which take place in the African bush, or Elizabethan England, or the Antarctic, or any other place or time with which we are not familiar, the setting IS as important as character or plot. Blade Runner would have been pretty thin gruel if the setting were indistinguishable from modern day America; that's probably got something to do with why the setting wasn't modern day America. The tired gray drizzle of the setting was like unto the tired gray drizzle of the humans' souls, against which we compare the short, bright flame of the replicants.

jokerx:

Slate opened up a can of worms when it criticized a sci-fi genre film, though. Many genre fans are so desperate to have their favored genre be made into a major movie that they simply have lower standards for the film. Any sci-fi is pretty good sci-fi, as long as it adheres to the limits and expectations of what we call sci-fi.

Sorry Ash, but no. Most of us (I AM a sci fi fan, I actually have con committeed and staffed and helped run quite a number of regional and worldcons, all volunteer, I have a career that pays me well enough that I can have such a hobby) want to see new things. We don't want something that 'adheres to the limits and expectations' we want our expectations blown away. Blade Runner, at the time it came out, did that. What some see as a 'weak plot' and lack of explanation, we see as an ability to use our imagination while watching the movie.

As far as 'any sci fi is good sci fi'. I will say only one comment (there are many more but I think one will suffice)

. Starship Troopers...

and I, as a major Heinlein fan say: good ghods NO!!

-W