As told through a Reddit post.
Add the initial title cards to that list too now, I guess.
What can ya do?
Neuromancer is particularly vulnerable to this because so much of the original Matrix film is very strongly inspired by Neuromancer, down to reused place names (Zion), the clothing Trinity wears (even the iconic glasses are an alternative to Molly's eye implants), the lobby scene (compare to the Panther Moderns lobby raid), the concept of payphones as a way to cross the boundary between the real and the virtual, etc. I almost have a "memory" of the phone scene in the Istanbul airport in Neuromancer being mirrored in the Matrix movies. It's not actually there, at least not directly, but there's so much overlap between these two that it's an easy false memory.
However, I see two problems with this: one, I think people are going to make comparisons to Matrix rather than Blade Runner, and judging from the trailer it looks a lot like a modern Matrix (understandably!). Second, Neuromancer starts with "the sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel" so the grey/"not sunny" look is kinda baked in and hard to avoid ;)
And LOTR, though in that case coming to it after reading Terry Pratchett was difficult for me (Pratchett didn't just copy its, or other, fantasy tropes, but send them up in an exceedingly clever way).
I say give it another try.
I think there was a case of a movie reviewer for some newspaper panning LOTR because of how "generic" and "derivative" it was. I don't know if that's true or an urban legend, though, but I can see it happening.
I also think its going to be a problem for the upcoming Neuromancer series. Unless they change a lot of things, the plot as written is practically cliche at this point, and a lot of it doesn't even make sense outside of the specific technological and political context of the time.
The other was in Terminator 2 with how agreeable LLM's will be regarding new information.
Terminator/T-800 tests his foster mother's identity with a phone call.
Terminator impersonating John - "Hey Janelle, what's wrong with Wolfie?" (using a fake name instead of the dog's real name, Max).
T-1000 "Wolfie's fine," the Terminator hangs up and tells John "Your foster parents are dead."
"What's wrong with Wolfie?"
"Wolfie's fine."
"Actually his name's Max."
"You're absolutely right. It's not Wolfie -- it's Max."
"Actually we don't have a dog."
"I apologize. I shouldn't have assumed you have a dog. I will be more careful in the future. Do you want me to list common pets in American households?"
Terminator hangs up and tells John "You need a better model."
Almost a bit too on the nose.
Third category, behind a crafty LLMs.
Maybe that’s the origin of its use of em dashes.
It “feels” that’s what an AI should use, it is told it is an AI, therefore it should use them, thus does.
I think the Alien one is even better: https://typesetinthefuture.com/2014/12/01/alien/
Probably not true for most of the people reading a blog post about typography
And then they go on about the intricate details of some artistic choice 40 years ago. How the human touch and deliberate decisions were made..it all eclipsing in it being about a movie where the machine rebelled.
Tangential but I've been enjoying GNU Unifont for this purpose. I like the look of it and it does a good job supporting a huge range of characters. Terminals warn me that it's not technically monospace, but for all intents and purposes in a terminal windows it is. I have it as the default bundled font with a project that renders custom glyphs on the fly for display on real VT320 hardware as DRCS.
Fun fact: the reason all car commercials sound the same, and distinctly different from other types, is that people tend to pay attention to them, but only when they're in the market for a car.
--source: ex worked as copywriter for ad agency
Fyi.
In computer science literature it's common to typeset the names of problems in caps (e.g. 3-SAT), but I find doing it with normal caps so ugly. It's much more pleasing to use small caps, and some works do (including my own PhD thesis). What I find even nicer is that you can still capitalise proper nouns and the beginning of sentences when using small caps.
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.
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).
Feel, schmeel, I'd have vetoed Berkeley Mono right away for the very practical offense of making 0 resemble O. Even in my pre-coding youth, I already had an inordinate fondness for the disambiguations of OCR-A [0]...
> HARRISON FORD
Hold up... Why is that one twisted!? Is it an optical illusion? Am I going nuts?
Nope. I opened it up in GIMP and I'm not (that type of) crazy: The H is ~4 pixels higher than the D, as if the whole thing was rotated by 1° clockwise. However the same rotation isn't present on the which appear cards immediately before and after.
I assume this is subtle quirk introduced the video-editing process, but if it happened today (instead of back in 1982) I could entertain the idea that it's One Weird Trick intended to attract viewer attention via subtle wrongness.
> we obsess over the details.
"I'm doing my part!" <Starship-Troopers salute>
this is bait. berkeley mono out of the box sure doesn't do O0 separation but their "compiler"[0] lets you get a dashed one _very_ easily.
[0] https://usgraphics.com/products/berkeley-mono#:~:text=Custom...
Looks like the misalignment is less than 1 degree. It's the kind of thing that stands out very noticeably in an image on a web page, when there are lots of perfectly horizontal edges to compare it against (e.g. the edge of the viewport). But I think it would be much harder to notice if projected onto a movie screen in a dark theater.
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.
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.
Three variants; "Robot" is capitalized though it is not a proper noun.
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 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.
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.
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.
https://usgraphics.com/products/berkeley-mono
And by the way, this website is fantastic.
And yes, in talking to friends in other areas of s/w, it's really eating the workflow.
It does degrade muscle memory, too. I sat down and tried to write some code yesterday and found I fumbled the basic syntax over and over.
Personal feelings aside, I do think there's a degredation of ability that will cause AI lock-in. Eventually we wont be able to whip up analysis or prototypes without AI.
It's not like mechanical engineers can do a big part of their day job without things like SolidWorks, but still, it feels like an Uber moment where they're burning hard to displace traditional methods before they price gouge.
I'd love a better IDE, where I'm _writing_ rather than _watching_ and it truly does fill in gaps / help vs handing over the reins entirely.
So these days, I'm not sure anymore. I just do coding as a hobby now. I once asked out of curiosity, and I still remember the answer:
'Why do I trust AI more than you? Because you code based on your own thinking, and that doesn't always match mine. But if I run AI against the spec I wrote, at least when I take responsibility, I won't feel like I got screwed over.'
The project had no issues. Of course it didn't—most CRUD work already has well-established solutions
Yes, they got small-caps spacing right: hardly amazing. And what about the "feeling" the article talks about? Where is it and where does it come from?
It's like someone recommending a restaurant saying "tastes good", with no details to back up such assertion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8twthdaqB8
Not only is this a better example of film (title) criticism, the titles they pick are also more amazing.
(As a full time developer for over a decade that got a design degree, I have experimented with it a lot!)
labor. Avoiding left-edge raggedness is critical for readability, but avoiding right-edge raggedness is only more important than disturbing meaning and readability when either a) the block of text needs to have strong visual integrity in the context of other elements (even column gutters or page edges in some cases,) or b) when space is critical. In this case they made the right decision. The left margins in the final text block were for emphasis. Even in a business letter wouldn’t be out-of-bounds, but in creative writing it’s der rigueur, and in on-screen movie text, things like that are nearly required.
Midway through, the article stops being about Blade runner and becomes "people building things with AI are creating garbage", and Blade runner title cards is now a prop that substantiates that opinion.
It's fine if the typographic analysis holds up. It does not. I'm not able to see what OP is seeing. What am I missing?
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
The credits at the start are off centre, biased to the right hand side.
The prose that follows is fully centred, so it hangs to the left of the actor names, and it has a little bit of rich formatting. It's not even good prose because it is overloaded with emdashes, almost as if it's direction. People will say this is like AI but even AI has more restraint than this.
So the fucking amazing title card for blade runner is a studio intern scrolling the first couple of pages of the screenplay through an overhead projector. Because it follows the exact format of a screenplay.
But really it is the audio that is doing all the work. That is ominous and spooky and futuristic as hell.
Considering he recorded something like 35 albums, he was doing something right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItV5h3Arl5M
What an absolute gem. Thank you for sharing this.
ETA: he did eventually learn how to read music:
“I learnt to read music after I bought the Roland MC8 Microcomposer, because it then became essential for me. … I learnt music by ear and have picked up most of my technical knowledge through the sessions and gigs.”
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/ronnys-electro-music-caba...
The Roland MC-8 MicroComposer by the Roland Corporation was introduced in early 1977 at a list price of US$4,795 (¥1,200,000 JPY) ... it was considered revolutionary at the time, introducing features such as a keypad to enter note information and 16 kilobytes of random access memory which allowed a maximum sequence length of 5200 notes, a huge step forward from the 8-16 step sequencers ... Roland switched to the then brand new Intel 8080A 8-bit microprocessor and increased the RAM from 512 bytes to 16KB, allowing storage of over 5,300 notes, which could be entered via the calculator keyboard (the preferred method) or recorded in real-time (not so easy). Backup was via cassette and could take 45 minutes to an hour for a three- or four-minute piece of music to back up and verify. The memory was volatile, so a loss of power meant complete loss of data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_MC-8_Microcomposer
Only 200 were made, but it's possible he purchased it second-hand, as he had done for the Moog that was once owned by Tangerine Dream.
"You should be able to get something out of a machine that is better than an average musician."
I think he was even more `absolutely right` than he even thought
Music before recordings was much closer to jam-band style than people realize; and in the Middle Ages you could hear substantial differences in the same song just by traveling a few tens of miles.
Now, I had learned music theory and sheet music, which immediately disqualified me from a career in punk rock. But the music store sold modern pop music as well. It wasn't long before I had Tina Turner, Billy Idol, and Depeche Mode songbooks.
The Billy Idol songbook was especially interesting, as it included guitar tabulature. The text explained how Billy's guitarist, Steve Stevens, used novel techniques to achieve his sound.
Now I did not play guitar, so the tabulature was merely a visual curiosity for me, but me and my sister had some Casio keyboards from Toys-R-Us, in addition to my saxophones. So I would try and play the tunes I knew best from the songbooks.
But it was really weird, because when I played the melodies according to the sheet music, it didn't sound (musically) like the band on the radio. In fact, there was a Howard Jones song that would jar me into a Christmas spirit, because of a certain run of notes in a particular key. But sometimes the rhythms were approximated, or the notes were off.
I lost interest in purchasing these song books. I think it eventually became clear that the artists were not composing pop songs by writing sheet music, but someone with a degree, taking a break from their McDonald's job, was listening to the songs and transcribing them to conventional sheet music.
Many years later, I joined a large secular chorus of mixed voices. The sheet music we received included Rogers & Hammerstein, and John Rutter arrangements. That sheet music was exactly the remedy to restore my faith again, and my high school studies were finally vindicated for a life of non-profit volunteer service!
You lose more evolved vocabulary and formal grammatical structures, but you gain a liveliness and a colloquial dexterity that bookish people often lack.
You can also be more inventive in your metaphors and figures of speech, instead of relying on the usual stock cliches - something often seen in oral interviews with illiterate folk.
In the case of music, you virtually always only hear the music, and the written down form is just a formalisation of said music.
In the case of language, a vast corpus of information (the majority of it) is available only in written form, with only recent proliferation of recorded audiobooks.
Additionally written text is a separate form of language with its own beauty and particularity, while in the case of music notation it is just an imperfect way of making notes of music. So many of the parts and details which make music beautiful are absent from the vast majority of partitures.
I find such a striking difference between notation that just swims in front of my eyes:
https://musescore.com/user/14835636/scores/6186772
And a bar graph which I can hear when muted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o
I have a similar issue with algebraic notation, the signifier and signified never connects. So much misery spending hours with a mass of punctuated greek in a cs paper to discover it describes a triangle. The decryption is not even sticky, I look away for a second and it immediately re-encrypts back to soup.
I don't understand why since programming languages having always felt natural and something I learned as a pre-teen just by being left alone with a BBC micro and a "type in a game" book.
Improvisation goes back as far as music and even some classical music has improvised elements (cadenzas were traditionally improvised before they became commonly notated, Baroque music scored for continuo essentially provides a bassline and chord changes, albeit the chords given in an archaic form (figured bass) that is not widely known by contemporary musicians.
The most amazing improvisers, it turns out, are professional church organists (think the ones who work for the largest churches/cathedrals, not the grandmas playing a church warbler at the corner parish, but sometimes them too). When I auditioned for the Holy Name Cathedral Choir, I wanted to sing a piece by Massenet, but I had lost my original sheet music halfway through trying to transcribe a cleaner copy so I had a melody line and only a few parts of the piano accompaniment. The (assistant!) organist who accompanied me at my audition site-improvised an accompaniment for the piece that was, in my opinion, actually better than the written accompaniment I had lost.
That said, being able to read music can be a sort of superpower. So many times on church gigs, I’ve had guitar players be astonished by my ability to pull chord changes out of piano/organ parts without notated chords. Certainly, some aspects of music are hard to convey in notation. Swung rhythm is a particularly notable case where you’re playing something halfway between a triplet rhythm of ♩♪ and a dotted rhythm (insufficient Unicode to write a dotted eighth followed by a sixteenth). The early transmission of jazz music to European composers by way of sheet music led to them missing out on the rhythmic aspects but picking up some of the harmonic novelties. A common injunction to musicians is to play the music, not the notes.
"It doesn't matter if people know what they are doing, if they can just do it intuitively"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1ZnWc-sFd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hA0z4GQjtA
The Blue Max, Ben Hur, the first Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dr Zhivago, Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and, of course, Blade Runner!
https://youtu.be/XHk5kCIiGoM?si=VxAJcCATzwn6gZPw
Watching it may help you appreciate just how important the Williams' score was to Star Wars' success. It's one of the all-time greats!
I'd also add that some movies are worth watching purely because of their score. e.g. "Conan the Barbarian" is a pretty shlocky flick. However, the director and composer took a collaborative approach to the score that was closer to opera than film. Unlike most movies, work on the score began before filming and there was continual collaboration during filming. The result remains one of the best scores in the history of film, and a film that makes the music its backbone.
PSA: the si, as well as the pp, parameter is a form of tracking. If possible, consider trimming them after a copy-paste.
Then, with the opening stab of music, I knew it was going to be great.
From Wikipedia: "The Killing Moon" by Echo & the Bunnymen was replaced with "Never Tear Us Apart" by INXS, which Kelly had not had the rights to use in the film's theatrical release.
Also: Kelly had originally wanted to use the songs "Never Tear Us Apart" by INXS and "West End Girls" by the Pet Shop Boys during the opening scene of Donnie cycling home and Sparkle Motion's dance at the talent show respectively, but financial constraints meant that he instead had to use "The Killing Moon" by Echo & the Bunnymen and "Notorious" by Duran Duran. For the director's cut, Kelly was able to gain the rights to use "Never Tear Us Apart" for the opening scene, and moved "The Killing Moon" to later in the film; "Notorious" was not moved from the talent show scene.
Besides the Blade Runner & Chariots of Fire soundtracks (two masterpieces of albums, which is two more than 90% of the world), his repertoire is filled with instant electronic classics, such as Earth, Albedo 0.39, Spiral, and l'Apocalypse des Animaux.
I'm not even mentioning Aphrodite's Child.