Blade Runner CGI Is Still Relevant

Rating: 8/10 (4 February 2018)

Blade Runner, in short, is a futuristic tale about a guy (Harrison Ford) who goes after some rogue pseudo-humans, called replicants, who killed a bunch of people, stole a spaceship, and returned to Earth to find their creator.
Blade Runner, IMHO, has been reviewed ad nauseum since its release in 1982 so there isn't much more I can add to it. I will say, however, that despite this movie's advanced age, I only just recently screened it. So, since I missed the timing boat for reviewing, I'll quickly comment on the film's CGI (Computer Generated Imagery).
I consider myself a little bit of a nerd but I'm not really into the sci-fi genre like many-a-nerd - I enjoy sci-fi as much as any genre; I am a fan of all movies in general. I have seen countless films where CGI is an important part of the story telling, science fiction or not. Seeing Blade Runner less than 36 hours after binge-racing Altered Carbon (2018), the big-budget Netflix series that has been compared to Blade Runner, I noticed the 35-year-old CGI to be (still) quite impressive!
The scenery, the futuristic look and feel, of Blade Runner and Altered Carbon is nearly identical in its presentation (the same can be said for Ghost in the Shell with Scarlett Johansson and, yes, even the new Blade Runner). The only real noticeable differences are the overall length of each scene containing CGI, and its attention to detail (like more flashing lights and moving objects in the background). The reasoning behind this, one can presume, is overall cost and technology advancement. I remember in the early 1990's the price tag for basic CGI ran around $1000 per second of rendered video. I can imagine that in 1982 the cost was even more stupid, thus limiting the amount of time CGI could be used (add to that the cost of optical effects-like credits and other on-screen writing- and you're looking at a hefty bill).
Blade Runner's budget was $28 million in 1982. Based on an annual inflation rate of 2.64% per year, that budget would be something like $71.5 million now, or about $80 million less than the budget for Blade Runner 2049 ($150 million - coincidentally rumored to be Altered Carbon's 10-episode budget). Fast-forward to 2017 and pretty much anyone with a $600 laptop and the right software can create similar CGI if they have the time to invest in modeling and rendering. Can you imagine what Blade Runner would look like with today's CGI? Well, look no further than Blade Runner 2049. I must point out a little irony in that the Blade Runner from 1982 takes place in the futuristic 2019.
My point is, Blade Runner, from a technical stand-point, impressed me as much as Altered Carbon and Blade Runner 2049. Everything is relative, of course. So, one would expect somewhat more of a wow factor out of a new sci-fi release than one that may be older than themselves. Blade Runner (1982) CGI can still hold its own. I can vaguely remember when Blade Runner was first released the talk of Hollywood was the "special effects", as it was generally known back then. The movie was nominated for two Academy Awards ®: Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Effects, Visual Effects. Today that's called Best Production Design and Best Visual Effects - two of Blade Runner 2049's five Oscar nominations this year.