Metropolis (1927) v Blade Runner.

The silent movie by Fritz Lang is rightly considered a classic, but I don't see why it's considered so visually wonderful - maybe it was great for that time, but the visual experience is nothing compared to Blade Runner, which, by the way, has a better story.

As for the scenery, as a sci-fi fan, that's secondary. What is important is the story, the asking of what if something happened or if something was true.

Any comments on that?
 
I think Metropolis is very visually wonderful, even for today it looks very interesting. Blade Runner may technically have better visuals though. For story, I think I like Metropolis better though.

Blade Runner, even though it's well loved, in my opinion, does suffer somewhat from the villains. I thought the villains were weak in the sense that we are suppose to feel sympathetic for their situation (at least I thought we were), yet they are portrayed as psycho mustache twirlers rather than more normal people having to get their hands dirty and fight for a cause... especially Roy and Pris.

The story also ends with the protagonist (Deckard), chasing all the replicants around and basically just trying to kill them one by one, where as I feel the story could have been more complex, with the themes, more deeply explored.

So Metropolis is a great movie, where as Blade Runner is more like a good movie, since it still has good things in it, and is an effective thriller still.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why it's considered so visually wonderful
Films like Metropolis, Star Wars, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park were all pioneers, being the first to use new techniques, moving the industry forward. The first two were before CGI. We're very spoiled these days.

Comparing Metropolis and Blade Runner is comparing apples with oranges. Half a century apart, not only has techniques and technology improved, audience taste and sophistication had also progressed and the film business and budgets had also grown over that time.
 
I see you continually complaining about big budget spectacles. If you (Mogul) think tentpoles are boring, why do you think audiences continue to go in droves to see them? Do you think people prefer to be bored?
 
I see you continually complaining about big budget spectacles. If you (Mogul) think tentpoles are boring, why do you think audiences continue to go in droves to see them? Do you think people prefer to be bored?

I always belabor the issue, as seen in my posts about Summer you-know-who. :D
 
Back
Top