The Canon 16 | 3/2/15
Blade Runner
Share
Listen

This week Devin & Amy debate whether Ridley Scott’s 1982 Blade Runner is worthy of the Canon or should be lost in time. Is this movie the foundational text for all modern fiction or just art design porn? Does it matter whether or not Harrison Ford is a replicant if his flirtation with Sean Young one of the worst onscreen romances in film history? And is the tears in the rain speech just nonsense? Tune in for the Philip K. Dick fight -- and head to the forums on Wolfpop to cast the deciding vote!


Listen

Gallery

This episode is sponsored by

Loot Crate

This episode is brought to you by Loot Crate. Would you classify yourself as a geek, gamer or popculture nerd? Then this is the subscription box for you. For less than $20 a month you get 6-8 items of gamer and pop culture licensed gear, apparel, collectibles, unique one of a kind items and more! Make sure to head to lootcrate.com and enter code CANON to save $3 on any new subscription!

Audible

Audible.com is the place for audio-books: There are over 150,000 titles to choose, and from every category imaginable. So go to audiblepodcast.com/canon for a free 30- day trial and a free audiobook!!


Talk About This Episode

Please sign up to join in on the conversation!

Register

YESSS!!!!!!!

corbin8
corbin8
4 posts

Yes

sahudson
sahudson
1 posts

Oh thank god. Finally somebody says what I've felt and never admitted for years: Blade Runner looks and great and is super influential, but is otherwise a dud. Have to go with Devin and vote "Yes" on this one just for how much of an impact this thing had on science fiction cinema, though it is a reluctant "yes."

nroberson86
nroberson86
27 posts

Couldn't disagree with either Devin or Amy more on this one as it is my favorite movie. I understand some of their criticisms, but this film captured my imagination so much when I first saw it that I'll always be willing to cut it some slack. A huge YES.

tannock
tannock
5 posts

Yes

thepaulstella
thepaulstella
2 posts

To me, Bladerunner seems quite boring and has a thin script. I love PKD. I love the atmosphere, design, and cinematography of this film. Yes, I think it belongs in The Cannon on those three aspects alone.

sithknight
sithknight
7 posts

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

There is no doubt that Bladerunner has some issues. It can be a chore to get through, much in the same way that Apocalypse Now is a chore. However, I must disagree with the critique that the script and dialogue are lacking because they don't convey much depth to the characters or the characters (with some exceptions) come off too wooden. I've always seen this as a conscious choice meant to provoke the audience to consider just what it means to be human. Memories, emotions, history, etc. If these thing can simply be programmed into a machine, then surely they can't be the essence of humanity, or even reality. From another perspective, does it even matter?

The vast majority of Philip K. Dick's novels wrestled with consciousness, reality, and the so called essence of things; usually provoking in the reader these questions, but intentionally providing no answers. To critique Bladerunner for doing the same thing misses the poi

sithknight
sithknight
7 posts

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

There is no doubt that Bladerunner has some issues. It can be a chore to get through, much in the same way that Apocalypse Now is a chore. However, I must disagree with the critique that the script and dialogue are lacking because they don't convey much depth to the characters or the characters (with some exceptions) come off too wooden. I've always seen this as a conscious choice meant to provoke the audience to consider just what it means to be human. Memories, emotions, history, etc. If these thing can simply be programmed into a machine, then surely they can't be the essence of humanity, or even reality. From another perspective, does it even matter?

The vast majority of Philip K. Dick's novels wrestled with consciousness, reality, and the so called essence of things; usually provoking in the reader these questions, but intentionally providing no answers. To critique Bladerunner for doing the same thing misses the poi

sithknight
sithknight
7 posts

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

There is no doubt that Bladerunner has some issues. It can be a chore to get through, much in the same way that Apocalypse Now is a chore. However, I must disagree with the critique that the script and dialogue are lacking because they don't convey much depth to the characters or the characters (with some exceptions) come off too wooden. I've always seen this as a conscious choice meant to provoke the audience to consider just what it means to be human. Memories, emotions, history, etc. If these thing can simply be programmed into a machine, then surely they can't be the essence of humanity, or even reality. From another perspective, does it even matter?

The vast majority of Philip K. Dick's novels wrestled with consciousness, reality, and the so called essence of things; usually provoking in the reader these questions, but intentionally providing no answers. To critique Bladerunner for doing the same thing misses the poi

sithknight
sithknight
7 posts

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"

There is no doubt that Bladerunner has some issues. It can be a chore to get through, much in the same way that Apocalypse Now is a chore. However, I must disagree with the critique that the script and dialogue are lacking because they don't convey much depth to the characters or the characters (with some exceptions) come off too wooden. I've always seen this as a conscious choice meant to provoke the audience to consider just what it means to be human. Memories, emotions, history, etc. If these thing can simply be programmed into a machine, then surely they can't be the essence of humanity, or even reality. From another perspective, does it even matter?

The vast majority of Philip K. Dick's novels wrestled with consciousness, reality, and the so called essence of things; usually provoking in the reader these questions, but intentionally providing no answers. To critique Bladerunner for doing the same thing misses the poi