Nicklas Ingels wrote:
> I've heard things you people in alt.fan.blade-runner wouldn't believe,
> like when Ned Ludd <andy.block@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008
> 23:34:49 -0700 wrote:
>
>> POD {Ò¿Ó} wrote:
>>
>>> He had mentioned how Gladiator didn't have these problems, all the
plot
>>> was transparent, and I pointed out that while Gladiator was indeed a
>>> good film, there are no newsgroups and forums discussing it, yet 26
>>> years on, we are still here with Blade Runner.
>> Gladiator may have been a good movie, but some films are about the
>> story, and most movies are fun.
>>
>
> To me, a movie like Blade Runner (with all it's scenography and
> atmosphere AND the deeper "What defines a human" idea) has never
> been done before (I bet some smartmouth will go "2001" but that's
> something different). Gladiator is not unique in that way, sure it's a
> great movie and I guess I had a tear or two in my eyes when I watched
> it but it's not a classic
>
> Nicklas Ingels / Los Angeles, 2019
> http://www.tyrell-cor****ation.pp.se
> http://www.ingels.se
.... and I think "movies" and "film" are different.
Star Wars is a great movie. It's has WWI fighter planes, and swordplay
and every character ever played by Burt Lancaster. It has great special
effects, and Wookies and just enough story to glue 'em together and
nothing extra. You get to go "boo, hiss" whenever Darth Vader is on the
screen, and root for the hero.
That's enough.
It doesn't make you think.
Film has a story, the story is the whole point, and the images are an
im****tant part of the story telling.
There is an easy test for "Film" -- if you can sit in the next room,
listen to the soundtrack and easily keep track of the plot (BR doesn't
count -- most of us have it memorized), then that isn't film. It's
called Radio.
I think the two should be judged separately because they just aren't the
same thing.
.... and I enjoy a good movie as much as the next guy -- and I really
like a good film.
-- Ned
|
