It has moments of greatness but falls flat on many, many others, and I challenge the prospect that Blade Runner has somehow influenced all movies since. Blade Runner itself is a noir film borrowing from Double Indemnity and Mildred Pierce and Metropolis is THE movie that influenced all of sci-fi, more than the original Blade Runner, which means that Scott's only true great movie would be Alien. Yikes, only one true movie in 40 years??
share[deleted]
of course you are wrong he completely changed the sci fi genre with his art style, look at how sci fi movies looked in the 80s and then come back to this forum and talk your bullshit, thank you.
shareNah - Star Wars changed things in a big way. Blade Runner - not so much.
shareNah, "2001: A Space Odyssey" changed things way bigger than Star Wars since most of the effects people who worked on that film under Kubrick went on to work on Star Wars. Anything Lucas did on that film is owed to Kubrick's vision and his team's know how. As for Blade Runner... it influenced a lot of future filmmakers who had a dystopian backdrop to their films. I'll cite Alex Proyas with Dark City, Gerald McMorrow with Franklyn, even James Cameron gave Scott huge props for his style when he made both The Terminator and Aliens.
shareThis is the BR "2049" forum. Derp.
shareScott is a visual artist - and a crappy writer - all in one. It's sort of what James Cameron has turned into in the past decade or so. Stephen Spielberg hasn't made a decent movie in decades (though major probs should be given to him for his earlier films, where he was actually inspired).
Anyways, these dudes are getting old, and unfortunately, their skills and inspirations are in a major decline.
De Niro used to be a great actor - now, not so much. As much as some may think that people get better with experience, the reality of life is such that with age people get worse in terms of their skills, mental abilities and creativity.
How is he a visual artist when he is not a cinematographer?
shareDirector has a vision, cinematographer and sfx people make that vision a reality.
At the end of the day, it's his ability to visualize things in a certain way that is the key to his films being visually stunning.
That is not true, you are just supposing that and establishing as fact. He is not Alfred Hitchcock, a TRUE visual artist, and whose direction in everything is impeccable and quantifiable, that's why he is the greatest director that ever lived.
shareLOL! There's one of these idiotic posts on every movie!
sharecmon, this movie is great if you've seen the original if your not familier with any of it, then this movie is just not simply for you. Both movies have problems though, I thought the first film was very dark and hard to follow. And this movie is just a bit easier IMO?
share