BladeZone's Off World Forums

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2001 6:13 pm**

I have taken creative writing courses, and even worked as a writer professionally. But I must say I am by no means an expert at writing or at story telling. But for years now, I have spoken with friends on the subject of proper story telling and Blade Runner. though the film set standards in cinematography and FX, I have often felt the story was weak. So, what of the subject of story telling? Well, one such friend I speak to regularly is a filmmaker friend of mine <a href="http://www.beckerfilms.com" target="_blank">Josh Becker</a>. He, on the other hand, is a teacher of film direction and screen writing, and is a master story teller. His points on proper story telling in film really have made me take a second look at Blade Runner that I never had before. Breaking it down into three acts as well as looking at subject, theme, plot and structure. Reading Josh's essays on proper story telling is something all of you should do if you like to write. They are all on his site and well worth the read. after speaking with Josh, I was left with a feeling that Blade Runner was a poorly told story. That we, as the audience, were made to work too hard to "get it". I still love the film, for its atmosphere, visuals, acting and dialogue, but when it comes down to it, I have come to the conclusion that Ridley is good with the camera on BR but maybe not so good at telling the story. I know he can tell a good story because he did Alien and especially because of his first film, which was a masterpiece, Joseph Conrad's "The Duelists", and proves he knows how to tell a story with film. "The Duelists" was a simple story that followed proper structure. But he seemed to have tried to tell too much with Blade Runner, rather than sticking to the basic theme that Philp Dick set forth, and kinda of ended up with too much subtext and not enough story. Visually stunning, but with no real back bone. I will always love Blade Runner, but I am looking at some aspects of it differently these days. <img src="http://www.bladezone.com/forum/images/repdetect.gif" align="left">Gerry aka RepDetect gerry@bladezone.com or repdetect@yahoo.com [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-11 00:21 ] [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-19 13:08 ]

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:15 pm**

hi everybody,
 
 i dont think bladerunner has a poor story, it simply has almost no story, thats it.
 it speaks all the time in metaphors, and thats why i admire blade runner so much.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:17 pm**

as to ridley scott: ive recently seen hannibal, that movie really sucks, its neither good in storytelling nor in metaphors.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:14 am**

I recently touched base with film director Josh Becker about Blade Runner, and asked him if I could share with you all his letters. He kindly agreed... <ul> Dear Gerry: My biggest gripe with "Blade Runner" is that we basically spend the entire film watching replicants, with the strength to lift thousand-ton boulders on Uranus, beating the crap out of Harrison Ford and never killing him. He should be dead within the first 15 minutes from fighting Brion James. He would certainly be dead after fighting Darryl Hannah and having his head twisted off, and he would never live through fighting Rutger Hauer. As far as it being a detective story, I don't see him figuring anything out. What it does have is pretty production design, good photography, cool miniatures, and a terrific score. The script should be used as toilet paper. Let's face facts, Ridley Scott completely shot his wad with "The Duellists" and "Alien," and has had nothing left ever since. Beyond that, I really must say that Mr. Scott is a terrible action director. His idea of covering an action scene is strictly visual and audio confusion--blurry shots quickly cut together, with a lot of loud noise. Josh </ul> To which I replied: <ul> Josh, What are your thoughts on Blade Runner co-writer David People's script for "Unforgiven" and his writing in general? He also wrote "Soldier" with Kurt Russell. I feel his scripts are strong, and the directors seem to ruin them by making changes at the time of shooting. I read his and Hampton's Blade Runner script, and felt it was much better than what was shot and a completely different story. You get an explanation of why the Deckard character was what he was by showing a different beginning, not some thirty second exposition done with bad narration. The replicants were also not the good guys in the original script. Another point I'd like to know your opinion on is Ridley's recent statement that Ford's character was a replicant and feels it was clear shown in the film that way. Do you think he made his point? I feel that a director is like a prosecuting attorney making his case to the audience/jury. That just because the director says so, doesn't make it so. Gerry </ul> Josh's reply: <ul> Dear Gerry: I think David Webb Peoples' script for "Unforgiven" is brilliant, and Clint treated it really well. As for Mr. Scott's recent comment that Deckard is a replicant is a guy trying to rationalize an illogical story 20 years after the fact. And yes, I'll go with that analogy of the director/prosecuting attorney, and just because the attorney says it don't make it true, nor does it mean that the jury's buying it. Honestly, folks, the best thing about "Blade Runner" is Vangelis' score. Josh </ul> Well, I agree with Josh on the soundtrack, but I also say the Effects and visuals were the best we have seen in film. <img src="http://www.bladezone.com/forum/images/repdetect.gif" align="left">Gerry aka RepDetect gerry@bladezone.com or repdetect@yahoo.com [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-11 13:24 ] [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-19 13:10 ]

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2001 10:51 am**

interesting point raised about the storytelling, never thought about it before...
 
 perhaps i can add one minor thing though.
 
 the fight issue perhaps points again towards the deckard replica theory. if deckard was one, then his physical body would be more likely to survive the scraps with the other replicants. if he was human, josh's point stands.
 
 just a thought from london [ This Message was edited by: cal on 2001-07-11 16:52 ]

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:21 pm**

"I have come to the conclusion that Ridley is good with the camera (...)but maybe not so good at telling the story."
 
 I completely agree: I've seen Gladiator. But in Gladiator, I blame the screenwriter(s) mainly. Well, Ridley should've made him(them)
 come with a decent plot. They had the budget, so why did they wasted it that way?
 
 Maybe I love BR too much to judge it with total objectivity, but as I intelectually admit its storytelling is poor,
 emotively, the "gestalt" of the movie makes me forget it, and "feel" it as a vey good story telling.
 
 In conclusion, I do think it could have been given a plot more solid, but I like it pretty good as it is, and I wouldn't make this weakness an excuse for remaking. Actually, if you think of it, Blade Runner didn't come as bad as it could have, with all that screenplay re-re-rewriting and Studio inteferences,(happy ending, etc.).
 
 
 
[addsig]

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:43 pm**

My writing is confined to unpublished technical/financial subject matter and, like you, I cannot claim a great deal of expertise associated with creative writing and storytelling. Nevertheless, regarding the storytelling aspects of Ridley Scott?s visual masterpiece, I hate to agree with you, but I agree with you! The audience that viewed the first cut of Blade Runner in 1982 concurred. An extensive re-edit resulted in the theatrical release we know and love with the ?voice-over? narration of Harrison Ford explaining portions of the movie. Unfortunately, this re-edited version continued to leave audiences with a myriad of unanswered questions that could only be answered by a myriad of assumptions about the storyline! Mr. Scott?s ?Director?s Cut? does little (if anything!) to improve this dilemma. Having said this, however, I contend that Hampton Fancher?s and David Peoples? screenplay adaptation was and still is nothing short of brilliant. This becomes apparent only after one or more readings of what they started out with - Philip K. Dick?s ?Do Android?s Dream Of Electric Sheep?. Yes, the original concept of Dick?s book was brilliant in itself. And, like the book, Blade Runner makes the audience uncomfortable with the vastly different world it presents. Within their screenplay, however, Mr. Fancher and Mr. Peoples created an element that the book was never meant to provide - that is, a link or a connection to the strong visual aspects and special effects that must be present to visually emphasize this ?different world? that Dick originally envisioned. Only after I read the book did I realize that most of my own assumptions about the movie?s storyline were not far from the mark. And after considering the real world production problems that seemed to overwhelm the people, the budget and the production schedule of Blade Runner, I forgive Mr. Scott for the storytelling expertise that may be lacking in the movie and the assumptions he forced me to make on my own. In fact, I think Blade Runner is much more entertaining by leaving much of the story to be explained by one?s own individual impressions and imagination! Yes, the storytelling could probably be improved upon, but would the movie be as much fun to watch, think about and discuss for those of us who are fascinated by this cult classic? I doubt it!
 
[addsig]

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:54 pm**

i saw this discussion, and i just had to post...
 
 i grew up on movies that handed me all the answers and plot points on a plate... with garnishes and everything. every film i watched always wrapped up neatly at the end, and i forgot about it ten minutes after watching it.
 
 then, one day in high school, some one mentioned this sci-fi flick i had never seen. so, i rented it at my local video store, watched it and was completely blown away. beyond the fact that it was so visually dense, hauntingly beautiful, with a look and sound remarkably undated for a film that had been made fifteen years prior at the time, it didn't just dissapear from my thoughts after i had rewound it.
 
 i dwelled on it for days. i bought DADOES the first chance i had, and to say that i still think about it from time to time is a gross understatement.
 
 i admire mr. scott greatly for making a film that still has me thinking and pouring over every piece of material that comes my way concerning the film five years after my first viewing.
 
 i think i'm done now... yup.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:58 pm**

I'm happy to report that I'm blissfully unaware of what 'proper' storytelling is and what constitutes a 'well directed' film.
 
 Blade Runner presents the most fantastic visualisation of the future I have ever experienced through any type of media.
 
 While such comments about lack of plot or direction etc are interesting, the simple truth is that none of these points detract from the fact that Blade Runner remains the most 'complete' film I have ever seen.
 
 If Blade Runner doesn't adhere to the accepted book of 'what makes a good film' then the book should be re-written.
 
 Blade Runner is what all good movies should be - TOTAL escapism.
 
 This reminds me of the 'Are we in danger of over-intellectualizing Blade Runner' thread on the previous forum.
 
 Cheers.
[addsig]

Posted: **Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:47 am**

I don't agree. This has nothing to do with intelectualizing. It has to do with basic principals in telling a story and getting a point across. I never gained anything from Deckard, who is supposed to be the protagonist. I gain a lot from Batty, who is a secondary character. And the real antagonist is in only two scenes... Tyrell. His character goes nowhere and offers us little to nothing except some more plot exposition. What I walked away with from Blade Runner was a sense of awe in what my eyes had taken in and also a gut feeling that this film changed the way the game was played for SF. But as far as telling any story, as one post put it, it spoke in metaphores. I am not into too much metaphore in the guts of a story. It should not make up a film. And I am reminded of the immortal words of Jack Nicholson as the writer in the film As Good As It Gets when he said, "People who speak in metaphores should shampoo my crotch." I thought that was a great and funny line. But it says something about writers too. A metaphore is a tool in writing, not a style. <img src="http://www.bladezone.com/forum/images/repdetect.gif" align="left">Gerry aka RepDetect gerry@bladezone.com or repdetect@yahoo.com [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-13 12:07 ] [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-19 13:10 ]

Posted: **Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:44 am**

Okay, all very good points.
 
 I've come to realise that perhaps I'm out of my depth in this thread - but I did learn something at least - my favourite movie of all time isn't very good at satisfying established principles of story-telling and character development. But, luckily, this doesn't seem to take anything away from MY viewing experience - result!
 
 My final conclusion - Blade Runner truly does appear work on many different levels and continues to spark discussion even 20 years after it's initial release.
 
 Interesting thread - thanks Gerry.
 
 Cheers.

Posted: **Fri Jul 13, 2001 12:31 pm**

Blade runner has a thin story line, but it's still the most thought-provoking and thematically challenging movie I have seen. The character development is not bad but could have been better.
 
 I disagree that the music is the best thing about Blade Runner. As i mentioned it's extremely thought-provoking, the design and photography is fantastic and so is the acting
 
 Blade Runner is still the best movie I have ever seen. The only movie comes close is 2001: a space odyssey.

Posted: **Sat Jul 14, 2001 8:12 am**

I agree with both of the last two posts. Blade Runner is still one heck of a great film because of so many different elements. I also can state that no other film had more of an impact on me than this film. In an interesting anecdote to your comment about 2001, Gary Lockwood who played astronaut Frank Poole in Kubrick's SF classic, stated in my presence once that he felt Blade Runner was a better film, and that he was a huge fan. _________________ <img src="http://www.bladezone.com/forum/images/repdetect.gif" align="left">Gerry aka RepDetect gerry@bladezone.com or repdetect@yahoo.com [ This Message was edited by: RepDetect on 2001-07-19 13:11 ]

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2001 2:07 pm**

Whoa.. I'm not an expert on the art of story telling (nor movie direction) but to criticise BR for being a weak story is a bit over the top. The idea of considering BR as a story seems to be the main problem. To me, BR is not a story, it is art. The connectedness of the scenes in the movie, or the chapters in DADOES, goes to conveying an idea or concept that goes beyond story telling. (Not that being a story and being of high intellectual value are mutually exclusive). In the DADOES form, it is a good story and engaging, in the BR form it is a good movie and engaging. PK Dick and Ridley were not just telling a story, they were presenting ideas, using the setting of a narrative, a glimpse of a period of time in the future. In BR it resembles two connected diaries, Roy and Deckard, interwoven, and therefore loses the story quality but picks up the realism idea, we are viewing the events of 2019. In DADOES PK Dick has the liberty to expand upon the thoughts of Deckard (and the replicants by association)in text, so can hang the whole together as a story..... aargh...where am I going with this....a cheap paperback with little intellectual value can be a ripping yarn, a great story. But a great vision, a concept of high intellectual value does not need to be told as a good story, it needs to be coneyed in some form, maybe a painting, maybe music, maybe verse, in all cases as a form of art. Was Neuromancer good story telling ? Not really, hard going at times, but the idea, the underlying powerful concepts elevate it from a story into a classic. Apply the same test of intellectual worth to a host of films and novels and the results make clear a distinction between entertainment (story) and content. try these.... Lawrence of Arabia Great Expectations Silent Running The Dam Busters Moby Dick Mission Impossible The Man Who Fell to Earth Alien Gladiator A Brief History of Time good stories, thought provoking ideas or both ? stu

Posted: **Sun Aug 12, 2001 12:35 pm**

i don't want to really talk about ifit is a good story or not (i think it is) just a point on joshs letter 'beating the crap out of Harrison Ford and never killing him. He should be dead within the first 15 minutes from fighting Brion James. He would certainly be dead after fighting Darryl Hannah and having his head twisted off, and he would never live through fighting Rutger Hauer' harrison ford is a replicant <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> and therfor can with stand such fights.

BladeZone's Off World Forums

Blade Runner: Good Story Telling?