Bladerunner 2 (Spoilers!)

Tummy said:
an 'auteur' (despite disagreeing with the theory),
Click to expand...

How can you disagree with something so obvious ?

You only have to look at Hitchcock and denying Auteur theory is foolish. :p

By all means play devils advocate, bit I'm waiting in the wings to quash it with clear explanations....
 
easyrider said:
How can you disagree with something so obvious ?

You only have to look at Hitchcock and denying Auteur theory is foolish. :p

By all means play devils advocate, bit I'm waiting in the wings to quash it with clear explanations....
Click to expand...

A good portion of my academic career has been spent studying the 'auteur' theory, and while I would not delve in to the realm of dismissing the theory, I would argue that filmmaking is a collaborative art form and to label the film as being a singular vision of a single filmmaker is disproportionally dismissive of the enormous efforts of the cast and crew.

You can jabber on about examples, et cetera, I've heard it all before and discussed it in a proper academic setting, I think filmmaking is a collaborative effort.
 
Tummy said:
A good portion of my academic career has been spent studying the 'auteur' theory, and while I would not delve in to the realm of dismissing the theory, I would argue that filmmaking is a collaborative art form and to label the film as being a singular vision of a single filmmaker is disproportionally dismissive of the enormous efforts of the cast and crew.

You can jabber on about examples, et cetera, I've heard it all before and discussed it in a proper academic setting, I think filmmaking is a collaborative effort.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even if you where to filter it down, 'great film makers' are often paired with the same screenwriters, producers, cinematographers, composers etc for a considerable portion of there careers, with very few exceptions. However, I think there are possible exceptions. Paul Thomas Anderson and David Lynch are, for me at least, prime examples of Directors who's influence impacts there films in such a way that it DIRECTLY effects there chemistry. You don't so much 'see' there movies as you do 'feel' them.

I do agree with you though. Far too much onus and praise is heaped upon Directors.

Tummy said:
In discussion to the actual film, I'm pleased Scott is not directing.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think he's great and he's earned a lifetime of free passes with me, but I am glad he's not helming it. Villeneuve is a more restrained and imo, talented director.
 
Tummy said:
A good portion of my academic career has been spent studying the 'auteur' theory, and while I would not delve in to the realm of dismissing the theory, I would argue that filmmaking is a collaborative art form and to label the film as being a singular vision of a single filmmaker is disproportionally dismissive of the enormous efforts of the cast and crew.

You can jabber on about examples, et cetera, I've heard it all before and discussed it in a proper academic setting, I think filmmaking is a collaborative effort.
Click to expand...

One can argue that the cast and crew are mere tools for the Director to use. Just like an artist uses paint.

To suggest that , as an example, Hitchcock was not an auteur and in full control including the minutia is ludicrous.

Now I'm not suggesting that all Directors are Auteurs. But dismissing the theory outright is blinkered imo.

Certain Films have signature traits, nuances...themes and ideologies that invite you to wonder about the film and its creator.

This is fact not fiction.
 
Last edited:
easyrider said:
What do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

Well, Villeneuve is more... classy I guess. Not too say that Scott never was, but these days he just seems to have these really cool philosophical themes that look great on paper, but when helmed by him come across as almost entirely tactless on screen. As a Director I think he's great! He has superb ambition, too much if anything.

Villeneuve has the vision AND the necessary restraint to keep his ideas sharp. He understands that the art of great film making is all about subtlety. I just think he's infinitely more measured then Scott is these days.

Though ultimately, it's all subjective!
 
DrToffnar said:
Villeneuve has the vision AND the necessary restraint to keep his ideas sharp. He understands that the art of great film making is all about subtlety. I just think he's infinitely more measured then Scott is these days.
Click to expand...

Also when Villeneuve gets together with Jóhann Jóhannsson & Roger Deakins, magic happens...Sicario, i'm looking at you, perhaps my favourite movie of this decade.
 
Once again, failing to read and comprehend words.

easyrider said:
One can argue that the cast and crew are mere tools for the Director to use. Just like an artist uses paint.

To suggest that , as an example, Hitchcock was not an auteur and in full control including the minutia is ludicrous.

Now I'm not suggesting that all Directors are Auteurs. But dismissing the theory outright is blinkered imo.

Certain Films have signature traits, nuances...themes and ideologies that invite you to wonder about the film and its creator.

This is fact not fiction.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I do that,

Tummy said:
A good portion of my academic career has been spent studying the 'auteur' theory, and while I would not delve in to the realm of dismissing the theory, I would argue that filmmaking is a collaborative art form and to label the film as being a singular vision of a single filmmaker is disproportionally dismissive of the enormous efforts of the cast and crew.

You can jabber on about examples, et cetera, I've heard it all before and discussed it in a proper academic setting, I think filmmaking is a collaborative effort.
Click to expand...

I do not dismiss the theory completely, nor would I fail to acknowledge it. I think it is less prevalent now, and I am not a 'fan' of the theory due to believing filmmaking is a collaborative effort.

All this was said in my post, I can counter with examples of even the great Auteur Hitchcock (whom I spent an entire semester studying, and presenting on) was influenced by the collaborative nature of filmmaking.

Also; no, theory is not 'fact', film theory is that. Theory.
 
Sorry, still no, the more trailers they show the more it's missing the mark by a nautical mile. Don't get me wrong - looks and sounds like a good sci-fi movie, just not Blade Runner. Too bright, too clean, too CGI-y, too "me too". So far it looks as close to Blade Runner as AvP to original Alien.
 
Looks sort of interesting but suffers from the classic "spoil everything as hard as you possibly can" modern trailer issues that are so common now.
 
Totally agree with that! There's no point seeing a film these days if you've seen the trailer as they give away all the major plot points!

Not sure about this film. I enjoyed blade runner in all incarnations as I'd read the book. If this isn't canon as some are speculating it may not be then what's the point?

Also Ford shouldn't be in the film, he seems tired and uninterested in everything he's in nowadays.
 
VincentHanna said:
Why on earth wouldn't a sequel to blade runner be canononical?
Click to expand...
I'm late to the thread but people are suggesting some liberties might be taken with the story. Hopefully that's just speculation.

I'll do my usual and wait for word of mouth rather than reviews. I'm excited but expecting massive disappointment at the same time.. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom