Award Listings for Blade Runner

I originally placed this article in the Blade Runner forum for the Special Edition or Final Cut. I realized that was a mistake, since this post had basically nothing to do with Ridley Scott's Final cut.



Firstly and foremostly, my name is Bryan and I am a New memeber. this is a post to get people excited about the American Film Institute's honoring of Blade Runner last year, and this year, in hype of the new DVD release of BR. Blade Runner is currently listed as number 97 on the American Film Institute's 100 years...100 movies 10th anniversary editition. Also, the American Film institute is most likely going to honor it for it's newest romp: 100 years...Movie genres list. It compiles several different genres and 50 nominees in each genre. Blade Runner is currently nominated in the category of Science Fiction. Other films nominated in the category are Altered States and Alien (another Ridley Scott masterpiece.) Other categories included animation, court room drama, and fantasy.

Another interesting award is that Blade Runner is currently listed as number 2 on the Visual Effects Society's list of the fifty most influential visual effects. It was beaten by Star Wars but an honor is an honor right?


Academy Awards: Nominated for Best Visual Effects, Best Art/Set Direction

British Academy Awards

Won: Best Cinematography, Costume Design, and Art/Set Direction

Nominated For: Makeup, Score, Visual Effects, Film Editing and Sound


Saturn Awards

Nominated: Best Science Fiction Film, Best Director, Best Special/Visual Effects, and Best Supporting Actor Rutger Hauer


British Society of Cinematographers

Nominated: Best Cinematography Jordan Cronenweth

Golden Globes: Nominated Best Score - Vangelis

Hugo Awards: Won for Best Dramatic Presentation

Las Vegas Film Critics Society: Won Best DVD Release (2007)

London Critics Circle Film Awards: Won Special Achievement for Visual/Special Effects

Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards: Won Best Cinematography


Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA: Nominated for Best Video Game Release

Firstly: Welcome to this sweet place.

Secondly: Im excited

The following awards & designations are also worthy of mention:

One of the top 10 greatest works of cinematography of the last 100 years: Poll conducted around the millenium by the American Society of Cinematographers, published in American Cinematographer magazine

One of Martin Scorsese's top 10 widescreen movies of all time

One of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" (finally!)

The greatest & most visually influential American movie of the last 30 years, according to cover story in L.A. Weekly

And, of course, inclusion in countless top 10 listings of the greatest all-time sci fi flicks, as well as the top 100 greatest all-time movies, period (Sight & Sound, Village Voice, ad infinitum).

Welcome, Bryan12, and thanks for the info!

The following awards & designations are also worthy of mention:

One of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" (finally!)

What made him change his mind?

I think I posted a long, long time ago, some article about a movie critics ratings and how messed up they were. They kept changing over the years with no apparent reason. Maybe it was all the hype surrounding the movies that made them feel like they had to join the crowd to gain popularity.

The following awards & designations are also worthy of mention:

One of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" (finally!)

What made him change his mind?

I think I posted a long, long time ago, some article about a movie critics ratings and how messed up they were. They kept changing over the years with no apparent reason. Maybe it was all the hype surrounding the movies that made them feel like they had to join the crowd to gain popularity.

Ebert has matured over the years. He saw the final cut in a different light than the cuts of the past few decades.

He is, after all, human.

I think Ebert was one of the many people back in 1982 who were so swept away by the popcorn-blockbuster revolution of the late 1970's and early 80's, with Star Wars and Indiana Jones, that he (like so many others) was completely thrown for a loop with BR. It's an incredibly dark, unsettling, challenging story that can really mess with you psychologically; in other words, completely faithful to the aesthetic and philosophy of Philip K. Dick. Also, BR's sensual and methodical pace was much more contemplative and "adult" than the serial-swashbuckler escapades of Han Solo and Indy, etc. So I think Ebert, as well as millions of other summer thrill-seekers, got their expectations completely turned upside down with BR - and while they grudgingly acknowledged the indisputable brilliance of its visual effects and production design, their view of the movie overall was more about their initially disappointed reaction to it, which was based on what they DIDN'T get (thrills, spills & chills every minute) rather than what they actually did get (an almost meditative investigation into societal decay and the question of "what does it mean to be human"). Still, Ebert DID originally give BR 3 stars out of 4, which is a "good" rating, but he faulted it for its "lack of a human story" (kind of a funny criticism, really, considering the subject matter).

As for why he changed his mind? As we all know, BR is an extraordinarily visionary, brilliant, thought-provoking and altogether ahead-of-its-time movie that has more than stood the test of time and its detractors' criticisms; and maybe Ebert finally just swallowed his pride, once and for all, and 'fessed up to having missed the boat the first few times around!

Did you read his Great Movies Final Cut review? You really should.

Did you read his Great Movies Final Cut review? You really should.

Cheers for Ebert...better late than never! (This kind of about-face would've been unthinkable for a less humble movie critic such as the late Pauline Kael, whose writing I still revere, but her unshakeable insistence on watching every movie she saw only once now seems pretty antiquated in the 21st century.)

Then shouldn't the whole 5 star movie rating system reviews setup be abolished? Since the movie doesn't change over time, but the reviewer's opinions do, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of the review?

WOW!! Check these out!! YouTube truly never ceases to amaze:

1982: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKc9HNe ... re=related

1992: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKs89CUNAiM

The first place we can all let out a shared groan is when Ebert mentions in his & Siskel's initial review, "in the year 2020"...

Very interesting that the harshest initial take on BR in 1982 is unquestionably from Siskel -- but then the biggest about-face re: the 1992 DC is Siskel's as well. His tone is completely changed towards BR in its DC version, to the point of being openly affectionate towards it, whereas Ebert doesn't seem to see much of a point to the DC (since Ebert was one of the folks who never strongly objected to Ford's narration in the first place).

Then shouldn't the whole 5 star movie rating system reviews setup be abolished? Since the movie doesn't change over time, but the reviewer's opinions do, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of the review?

Well, with all due respect, while I totally see your point, THX, it seems fairly impossible to "abolish" a system of reviewing anything, unless you're someone like Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and have a pretty strong vice-grip over the control of free speech in your particular system of government Granted, it's a very murky issue, but such a fascinating one too.

I would argue that BR is a textbook example of a movie that HAS changed drastically over time, and gone through so many incarnations, that it's now almost a mini-film-school-in-a-DVD-set: viewers can compare and contrast all its different versions over the course of 25 years, with and without narration, a happy "idyllic" ending, different scenes and shots and takes, and debate amongst themselves and with others about what works best in the movie's various versions, and why.

As for movies that only have one version and one version alone, does someone's changing their mind about such movies invalidate their original review and/or the general purpose of reviews, is I think the gist of THX's original question. I can say that I'm finally very happy to see Ebert's "Great Movies" review of BR; and his finally "seeing the light", hallelujah!, doesn't necessarily take away from the integrity of his earlier reviews of BR (I don't think Ebert's changing his tune re: BR was caused primarily by the many revisions of its later incarnations, all due respect to the DC & FC).

Personally, I think anyone has the right to write movie reviews and admit to their having or not having responded on a personal/emotional level to a movie, and hopefully they're doing their best to pay attention and write about their honest response (or lack thereof) to the movie. (It's well known that Ebert also missed the boat for years on David Lynch's filmography, and then he only caught up to Lynch's cinematic brilliance when 'Mulholland Drive' and 'The Straight Story' came around.)

But who's to say that as you grow fonder of some movies and less fond of others as the years pass by, that your thoughts and feelings at any given moment are "null and void" just because they weren't the exact same as yesterday's or yesteryear's? I think having the capacity to admit that you were wrong and/or have simply changed your mind is a marvelous sign of maturity, so bravo to Roger Ebert for finally giving our beloved BR a waaay-overdue bear hug

Then shouldn't the whole 5 star movie rating system reviews setup be abolished? Since the movie doesn't change over time, but the reviewer's opinions do, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of the review?

Hate to be a prick, but it's 4...and no, that's how he rates them. He has every right to use the system he wants.

Also, it isn't often he changes movie opinions this significantly. It has happened, but rarely.

Then shouldn't the whole 5 star movie rating system reviews setup be abolished? Since the movie doesn't change over time, but the reviewer's opinions do, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of the review?

Hate to be a prick, but it's 4...and no, that's how he rates them. He has every right to use the system he wants.

Also, it isn't often he changes movie opinions this significantly. It has happened, but rarely.

And I hate to be a prick...but IMDB uses x out of 10...and ABC Australia uses 5 (popcorns)....and YouTube uses 5 stars...and Farmer Billy Joe uses two thumbs...That 5 I gave was just a figurative number. People uses whatever they feel significant. And I wasn't referring to Ebert specifically, but the whole movie rating system alltogether.

I'm just saying a rating system is used to measure how much people will enjoy a movie. It's like telling people "don't go see the movie. It sucks!" and then 10 years later, tell them "go see this movie, it rocks!" when the movie hasn't changed. It makes no sense.

Maybe social hype is like a bandwagon that people have to get on to be cool and hip, otherwise people won't listen to you and you sound like a cranky old man (like me )

Then shouldn't the whole 5 star movie rating system reviews setup be abolished? Since the movie doesn't change over time, but the reviewer's opinions do, doesn't that invalidate the purpose of the review?

Hate to be a prick, but

And I hate to be a prick...but

Neither of you are pricks. I wholeheartedly give deleted's posts 2 thumbs up and THX1138's posts 5 ABC-Australian popcorns. However, I reserve the right to change my mind about this in 25 years