Blade Runner vs. TDK

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Turok** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:35 pm

I'm positive he says Kassel.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **T9Flake** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:39 pm

Turok wrote:I'm positive he says Kassel.

I checked novelisation, says Kessel.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Turok** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:40 pm

It does kinda sound like Kassel in the movie. But hey, if the novels say it...

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Ginga** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:45 am

Steve wrote:Blade Runner, easily.

I can only presume those voting for Batman are too young and have never seen Blade Runner. There's no way the poll should even be close.

Or, unbelievingly, they actual prefer TDK and think (just to annoy Poncho) that Blade Runner is pretentious tripe.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Drunken_Master** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:22 am

Bladerunner.

TDK is an extremely well made film, which is pretty unusual for a summer popcorn flick and probably one of the reasons why so much lavish praise gets thrown at it.
However, Bladerunner is on a whole other level, it's visionary film making, and it's probably one of the most influential films ever made.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Banjo** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:40 am

I didn't even like TDK when I saw it in the cinema. Too long. If anything, it was too ambitious. I'm glad it was a Batman film that was dark and gritty and everything, but towards the end I couldn't help but think that they were cramming in far too many ideas and narrative setups. Also, Joker's plan was strawberry floating hilarious. Seriously, guy came up with this incredibly convoluted plan, and somehow it worked? It was relying on so many different varying factors that a simple concept as the driver stopping for a cup of tea would've ripped apart the whole thing.

I know, I know, Joker's a genius in an utterly mental way, but that's a scenario that had me scratching my head before facepalming. Everytime I think back on it or watch it again, I can't help but find it a bit silly.

Blad Runner, I know I've made my thoughts known on this before, but I wasn't voertly fond of it. A bit bored, to put it bluntly. However, I was in awe over the design of it. Visually, aurally, it's a masterpiece. And I can see what others would like about it, it just doesn't appeal to me. It's still a important piece of cinema, moreso than TDK ever will be.

I've still not voted.

And Metropolis is more influential than Blade Runner. :shifty:

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Gandalf** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:42 am

No contest: The Dark Knight.

Blade Runner was dull beyond dullness.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Banjo** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:44 am

I agree that Blade Runner is dull. But I don't see how others didn't find TDK dull, so much of it superfluous. And the action scenes were pretty terrible, Christian Bale can't fight, and Chris Nolan can't direct action. The Hong Kong segment, :fp:

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Drunken_Master** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:35 am

Banjo wrote:And Metropolis is more influential than Blade Runner.

Would we have had this video without Metropolis?

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Banjo** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:36 am

No. And we'd be poorer people without it.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Winckle** » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:53 am

Phatman wrote:
Alvin Flummux wrote:Why is it self-important?

I like ambitious films that attempt to deal with ambitious concepts, especially in genres that don't traditionally deal with ambitious concepts, but I don't like films that consciously try to reveal their ambitious concepts. I want it to be part of the narrative. Rutger Hauer's celebrated monologue is an example of what I dislike.

Blade Runner is a film that questions what it means to be human, and in the larger scheme the nature of what it means for something to be considered "real" through the use of androids that are like humans and artificial animals (the owl in the office).

And you don't think the concepts were part of the narrative?

The monologue is an essential part, it's supposed to show just how like a human he really is. Think of it as similar to Shylock's speech in the opening of the trial scene in Merchant of Venice.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **DrDoom** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:12 am

Chris wrote:It's not lazy at all. Regardless of the nature of the source material and films, they are both adapted from comic books, and can therefore be placed in the same genre. '2001: A Space Odyssey' and 'Star Wars' are completely different films, with their own unique themes, yet they can still be broadly classified as Science Fiction.

I have to ask then, would you place Road to Perdition, Ghost World, History of Violence and Persepolis in this genre as well?

You're saying they are both adapted from comic book's therefore they can be placed in the same genre. Going on this logic then 2001 and Sense and Sensibility are both in the type of film known as "Novel films" or "book films" because they are both adaptations from the same source type.

Comic books are a medium, not a genre. I agree a lot with what Ginga said about TDK having a stigma attached because of its source material. The comments you made seem to actually play into this notion.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Banjo** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:22 am

DrDoom wrote:You're saying they are both adapted from comic book's therefore they can be placed in the same genre. Going on this logic then 2001 and Sense and Sensibility are both in the type of film known as "Novel films" or "book films" because they are both adaptations from the same source type.

Actually, 2001 the film was created alongside the book. Clarke and Kubrick worked together but in different mediums, it's just that the film got set back at some point (probably technical issues) so the book got initial release.

At least, that's what I've read.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Irene Demova** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:25 am

Good to see the right film's still winning

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **TheTurnipKing** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:25 am

Deadpool wrote:
Phatman wrote:
Chris wrote:In answer to your question though, I don't think a film has to do anything new to qualify as a modern classic. I am just interested as to what the Dark Knight does better than other modern comic book adaptations, for example Spiderman 2. Raimi's film is not given the amount of praise which Nolan's received, despite being as good, if not better.

Each to his own I suppose. Personally, I don't think they are even remotely close in terms of quality. The Dark Knight was an intelligent action-thriller with a superb cast, a well balanced narrative and one especially superb performance. Spiderman 2 was at best, a just-about-solid comic book film with some seriously questionable dialogue and a very predictable plot.

On Topic: I consider Blade Runner to be pretentious tripe, so it has to be The Dark Knight.

You reckon? I thought Spiderman 2 was about the pinnacle of a superhero film personally. But then Im not a massive fan of the character of Batman.

Both movies are a fantastic reflection of their source characters. Which in turn I suppose goes to show a lot of the dynamic range of comics as a medium. Though TDK rather purposely cuts out Batman's "supernatural" element.

*Note: I do not mean that Batman himself is supernatural, but that he does, on occasion, encounter characters and have storyarcs that cover elements that would not have suited TDK's "gritty crime" themes.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Denster** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:43 am

Banjo wrote:I agree that Blade Runner is dull. But I don't see how others didn't find TDK dull, so much of it superfluous. And the action scenes were pretty terrible, Christian Bale can't fight, and Chris Nolan can't direct action. The Hong Kong segment,

Oh dear me!

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Banjo** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:32 am

Don't worry Denny, you'll wake up one of these days.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Skippy** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:40 pm

Banjo wrote:I agree that Blade Runner is dull. But I don't see how others didn't find TDK dull, so much of it superfluous. And the action scenes were pretty terrible, Christian Bale can't fight, and Chris Nolan can't direct action. The Hong Kong segment,

For this alone I changed my vote to TDK

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Banjo** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:32 pm

Glad to see that I still have my way with people.

PostRe: Blade Runner vs. TDK by **Ste** » Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:39 pm

I've actually just finished watching TDK for about the 4th time and it's worse on each viewing because of this:

Banjo wrote:but towards the end I couldn't help but think that they were cramming in far too many ideas and narrative setups. Also, Joker's plan was strawberry floating hilarious. Seriously, guy came up with this incredibly convoluted plan, and somehow it worked? It was relying on so many different varying factors that a simple concept as the driver stopping for a cup of tea would've ripped apart the whole thing.

The first hour 20 mins, up until the Joker is caputured is fantastic.

I'd still put over Bladerunnder though as I found that quite boring.

Blade Runner vs. TDK

Blade Runner or The Dark Knight?

Who is online

Affiliates