Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Movie • Page 14

There is nothing to get, although I am still interested to hear how George Lucas does not understand Star Wars.

The larger issue is the way in which people behaved, and still behave, about Lucas' changes to his films, while that is not applied to other directors, whether it is Ridley Scott and Blade Runner or Francis Ford Coppola and Apocalypse Now or Michael Cimino and Heaven's Gate. Lucas' changes are often so small that only Star Wars obsessives would even notice, like the rocks you mentioned. Nothing in his changes is as substantial as the stuff in the Final Cut that suggests Deckard is a replicant, which changes the entire film. Given how Blade Runner's reputation has changed over time, Scott's Final Cut has essentially replaced the original film for the vast majority of people. If Blade Runner had been a Star Wars-level success when it came out, we would hear the same sort of complaining that Lucas dealt with.

 

I’m willing to bet Disney will wait until the last one to be released and they put out the OG trilogy on BD as a box set with the rest of the films.

 

I need to see the DC of Heaven’s Gate

 

Lucas doesn't understand why people love Star Wars, nor does he understand his own characters. Hence, he doesn't understand Star Wars.

As to the difference, again:

Blade Runner: Okay -> Great
Star Wars: Great -> Less Great

That's just about as simple as I can explain the difference, although the added detail of "Scott was fixing what the studio broke, while Lucas was making worse what was already perfect" is lost with such a huge yet apparently necessary oversimplification.

 

I mean, it is his brain child

 

How does he not understand his own characters? He made them up. Ridley Scott adapted Deckard and made him possibly a replicant despite the fact that that is not in the book at all.

Your argument is about quality. I am talking about people who made arguments that Star Wars should not have been touched at all, as if it was some sort of scripture.

 

It means nothing that he created them. He made decisions in both the prequels and in the changes to the OT that demonstrate his complete lack understanding of the characters he created, which were then further developed by other writers and directors in Empire and Jedi. It's obvious that he didn't really get what made Star Wars so special and that's why his direct work on the franchise since the original film has been so derided.

And if Lucas had just cleaned up the effects work and remastered the picture quality of the OT, nobody would have cared. It was his changes that altered the characters or made no sense logically that caused the backlash. I doubt that a majority of Star Wars fans would argue that no remastering or touching up should have been done at all; hell people were outright excited for the Special Editions, before they found out what Lucas had done to them. This is why Blade Runner is treated differently, because Blade Runner's changes were necessary and made sense. It's not neccessarily about the degree to which they changed the meaning of the film alone, it's about the motivations of the director in making them and about how the end result turned out.

 

It means everything that he created them. It is make believe; one of the main characters is a giant monkey-dog and another is a robot that beeps. It is his work, and the people hired to do directing and writing work were there to serve his vision.

A large part of the reason the prequels are criticized so much is because of the age of the super-fans when they saw them. You can call the original films great because of nostalgia, but over time I have seen younger people say they prefer the prequels or that the quality is consistent to them.

Criticizing Lucas on the grounds of quality is fine, as is making a distinction for Scott because most people agree his changes improved the film. However, Lucas had every right to make those changes, particularly because his reasoning was the same as Scott's, to make the film closer to his vision. It seems ludicrous that he would think Ewoks blinking is essential, but it is more ridiculous that people even notice that. Some of the things fans got mad about, like making young Anakin the ghost in Return of the Jedi or adding the no scream from Episode III into VI, does serve a purpose, and since younger people look at it as just one large film series, it is not the disaster older fans make it out to be. That is probably a large part of the anger, as some of those people act like those movies personally hurt them.

It is also important to note that the prevailing opinion that the Final Cut is the best version is partially because of the passage of time. People watch Star Wars when they are kids, while Blade Runner is something usually seen later, and an entire generation of young cinephiles came to Blade Runner with the common knowledge that the original was butchered and that the Final Cut is the best. If Blade Runner was a children's film like Star Wars, you would have many more people defending the original version.

 

What? It’s literally his story, his characters, his world.

 

This argument makes absolutely zero sense. If Breaking Bad had ended with Walter White performing a musical number and then giving away all of his drug money to charity, you wouldn't have said "Eh, it's Vince Gilligan's story, his characters, his world," you would've said "What the hell is this? This isn't right at all."

 

Um. I don’t know what version of Breaking Bad you saw but that’s exactly what happened

 

Didn’t the screenwriter of the first film state that he never intended Deckard to be a replicate? I would say his thought on the matter is just as important as Ridley Scott’s.

 

Fuck if I know. I’m drunk

 

Edit. From what I’ve read the producer believes Deckard is a human while the screenwriter intended it to be ambiguous.

 

That’s a bad argument. Up until Disney bought it, it was his vision. Whether or not he should of meddled with the art is a never ending argument, but he was well within his right to do so, fans be damned.

 

Villeneuve also disagrees with Scott. Scott is adamant Deckard is a replicant, Villeneuve says there's no answer in 2049 and there was never intended to be one.

 

Not only that, but the novel did not have Deckard as a replicant.

 

I have criticized Breaking Bad for its dumb ending multiple times, but of course Gilligan understood his characters since he made them. There is nothing to understand since they are make believe.

He did give his money to charity, though. Walter bursting into song would have made more sense than letting Jesse live.

 

This was never about whether or not he was allowed to do it, it was about why Ridley Scott's changes are celebrated and George's are derided. Hence, why simply parroting "Well it's his world that he created" makes no sense and isn't even really an argument in this situation.

 

Before this thread gets even more off-topic I'm just going to say you win and be done with it. It's all "make believe" anyway so who gives shit, right.

 

I haven’t watched this yet but I love them pretty much always, regardless of whether or not I agree with their opinion

 

Man this was good. Totally had the feel of a modern Bladerunner.

This family was walking out in front of me, and said how loud it was. How the score was the only good part smh.

 

Score was amazing tho

 

Loved every second. Perfect sequel. My movie of the year. 10/10.

 

This is going to be a cult film like the original I wanna bet