No, I don't find anything amazing in Blade Runner's title sequence, and the article does nothing to convince me.
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?
Creating the title cards is a process that involves a thousand different decisions, all of which feed into each other. Design of this isn’t any different than design of software or design of anything else. The “feeling” comes from all of those decisions harmonizing together into a coherent whole, same way a well-crafted codebase feels correct.
Yes, no doubts. But why does the author think that in this case such process was followed, and was so successful to deserve the "amazing" adjective? How did this specific design manage to convey the intended feeling? Was it better than the proto version that was never released?
It's like someone recommending a restaurant saying "tastes good", with no details to back up such assertion.
The evidence is the output - sure, they could’ve been throwing dice for every decision and landed at this spot out of pure luck, but that’s not a hypothesis that’s likely to hold up under scrutiny.
Here's a visual listicle of "the 10 best opening title sequences of all time". (Epilepsy warning: a lot of flashing in #10) - they compare and contrast and highlight how their picks stand out against others.
teo_zero · · focus · HN ↗
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?
roughly · · focus · HN ↗
teo_zero · · focus · HN ↗
It's like someone recommending a restaurant saying "tastes good", with no details to back up such assertion.
roughly · · focus · HN ↗
bux93 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8twthdaqB8" rel="nofollow">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.
roughly · · focus · HN ↗