Jump to content

Hlao-roo

Recommended Posts

It's hard to imagine how this isn't going to suck. Or, at best, be something profoundly different than the original. There's just too much pressure on large budget, tentpole pics like this to be action oriented blockbusters designed to appeal to as great an audience as possible.  I suppose it's possible (Cameron pulled it off with Aliens), but it will definitely be threading a needle balancing that with the existential themes and moody atmosphere that made Blade Runner what it is. Especially if they want to turn it into a new franchise.

 

The other thing is, part of the reason Blade Runner is so iconic and fondly remembered is because of its visuals (e.g. the cityscape) that's been emulated countless times in sci fi. No doubt that they'll try to recreate that, but now it will just be another film trying to look like Blade Runner. In a way it reminds me of the Matrix sequels...by the time they rolled around, "bullet time" wasn't so unique or special anymore.

 

So while I'm excited about this (who wouldn't be), but I can't say I'm incredibly optimistic.  There may be a reason Ridley chose to pass on this one, and my prediction is that this will be one and done. Some things are better left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just kidding.

 

The whole idea of making a sequel to Blade Runner is a folly, despite the no doubt earnest intentions of the director.

 

Blade Runner is the kind of film that became a masterpiece almost by accident, because of a whole set of circumstances just working out for the best for some reason. Kinda like how Jaws became a great film despite the fact that the people who made it were barely in control of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it's because of Ridley's mindset of the beginning of his career. It's why The Duellists, Alien and Blade Runner turned out the way they are. They all have the same thing in common: Story and dialogue were kept concise and a lot of attention goes to the detail in the background. After the critical and commercial failure of BR, Scott adjusted his mindset and started underestimating the audience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Sadly Ridley is no Richard Donner!

 

He's no Steven Soderbergh either. Ridley veered wildly from comedy to historical epics to crime dramas to war films after 2000, with mixed results; he's really best at science fiction and period films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott v. Soderbergh?  How is that even a contest?  I know Soderbergh gave Nolan a hand in the beginning, but other than the first Ocean's movie, he's terribly bland, ain't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheWhiteRider said:

... he's terribly bland, ain't he?

 

That's more or less what he wants to achieve. He wants his movies to be as 'stampless' as possible. Movies without a maker's signature ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like the director as a 'craftsman' as opposed to 'I am an artist'. JoeinAr should love him (because he has the same outlook as Soderbergh) but somehow he doesn't. Maybe Soderbergh should make big Summer movies from now on.

 

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's this latest silliness going on here? Someone like Cameron is a film craftsman, not Soderbergh. The latter has 'artiste at work' written all over his movies, but I just don't like his style much. If they ever replaced the magazines in hospital waiting rooms with movies, Soderbergh would finally find a home for his niche.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never cared much for Soderbergh as an 'auteur', but I see values in his films. He's very far removed from the visionary qualities of someone like Scott or Cameron, though. Or even Villeneuve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Never cared much for Soderbergh as an 'auteur' ...

 

That's the thing, Thor. Soderbergh says he doesn't want to make movies that have an auteur's signature. How can you care for him as an auteur when he makes movies that are meant to be 'auteur-less'? 

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

That's the thing, Thor. Soderbergh says he doesn't want to make movies that have an auteur's signature. How can you care for him as an auteur when he makes movies that are meant to be 'auteur-less'? 

 

 

Alex

 

That's what I mean. I've never considered him an 'auteur'. Although you could argue there are some recurring motifs in his films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His style is trying to disappear as a director, being low-key, not putting your stamp on it, ... ;)

 

When I saw Side Effects, I didn't realize it was Soderbergh.

 

side_effects_2013_jude_law_catherine_zet

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheWhiteRider said:

RIP BR 2!

 

At least BR2 is in the hands of a capable and talented auteur!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.