There is one other thing that I pointed out 10+ years ago in a film class that's often overlooked - the hair styles of the film (and also Alien 1).
Seriously, think about what a smart/bold design move it was to have everyone in such short hair - it's timeless. If you think I'm joking compare Alien 1 or Blade Runner to Aliens By James Cameron - a movie can be dated by mishandling such a small detail.
The other thing I love is how thorough Ridley Scott, Sid Mead, Dan O'Bannon and Trumbull's vision is in both Blade Runner and Alien (1); so dense and fully realized you get the sense that the doom shipped Nostromo departed Blade-Runner earth. Classic, incredible films.
But is the fact that movies with short hair look less "dated" just due to the fact that we live in a time where long hair is out? In thirty years if long hair becomes popular again will our short-haired movies look horrendously dated and Luke Skywalker look up-to-the-minute?
If you want to go all the way, shave your characters heads.
It reminds me of Alien 1's ship interior built with spare parts of vacuum cleaners I think, it just brought so much more details that you couldn't get from CGI for at least 20 years.
I miss these old scifi movies where the special effects were crafted by hand. They had a real feel, that I still don't get from 'so clean yet dirtied' CGI.
Also, camera rigs for miniature work and lighting rigs for those are kind of an art that is on a verge of extinction. Which is king of a shame, because I still think miniature work looks better than CG in most cases. Because CG, in almost every shot I've seen, looks like a miniature world.
Not only is it a brilliant movie, it holds up amazingly well given its age. It could probably be released today and nobody would know the difference.
Plus it has all this plot stuff that you have to 'like' concentrate on ...
Although it did invent the concept of anti-product placements. People would pay not to be placed in the remake!
I'm sure if you went back to read the movie reviews from the year Blade Runner came out, you'd find them full of similar sentiments. "Blah blah, they don't make sophisticated movies any more, people only care about spectacle and car chases and explosions." No doubt people will be making similar complaints in another 30 years while completely ignoring the sophisticated movies being produced in their own time ("Man, nobody makes movies like Primer or District 9 any more, do they?)
(Yes, I know District 9 has explosions.)
Way too much sheet plastic, close quarters, massive constructs, lack of lighting, utilitarianism, and general weather. And the guns sound like they were made by people who wanted to shoot big bullets. It's not that the special effects are unbelievable, it's that they're not describing a design aesthetic as extrapolated from the present-day experience.
The one about how they filmed the blimp was pretty amazing.
(didn't we move to CGI to try and cut costs?)
Can't believe I didn't hear about this in the news.
It's boggling to think about the amount of time and energy spent to make each of these 30 seconds of work. It's never going to be done this way again.
I still want a computer setup like the one in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Or a tape scanner like the one from Brainstorm (a very underrated movie btw)
If you really want to fanwank it as correctly representing some future level of technology, though, imagine that in the future radio-frequency communications have been found to cause cancer and have been banned.