From: cgc2646@usl.edu (Cech Claude G)
Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Bladerunner sequel
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:45:09 GMT
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana


In article <1992Nov4.224027.8630@ac.dal.ca> 01fortec@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.164133.2557@bvc.edu>, johnsonchris@bvc.edu writes:
>> 
>>   Well, 1492:Conquest of Paradise, I am not too sure about.  I have never 
>> seen it, but I know it sunk(no pun intended) pretty bad in the ratings and 
>> didn't earn a whole lot.  I don't think a Blade Runner II would be bad, as 
>> long as they are careful enough to exercise our brains along with the great 
>> visuals.  That's one of the things that's great about BR, it makes you 
>> think along with fascinating visuals.  If it turned out to be a Terminator 
>> II (great FX, zero plot), or worse, and Highlander II, I think there would 
>> be some verrry angry people.  I'd like to see it, though.
>>  
>
>The problem with 1492 is that it carries with it the burden of being a 
>politically contentious film. It's unlikely that the general public is
>going to be able to look at it and judge it on its merit for at least 
>5 years.
>
>Joe Chiasson
>01fortec@ac.dal.ca

The problem with 1492 is that it is a visually beautiful film to look at,
but it completely fails to engage you otherwise.  I saw HENRY V the day after
I saw 1492:  What a difference!  HENRY gripped you;  after seeing it, you
wanted to see it again (I overheard one person in the audience mentioning
that this was the fifth time she'd seen it).

Now back to BR:TNG, which is what started this thread.  IMHO, we've explored
Deckard's character enough in the first film.  It derives its power in part
from the moral (and other) ambiguities surrounding him.  Another film would
have to resolve some of those ambiguities, and that, I think, would be a
mistake.  Note that I am NOT saying that another film on the subject of
replicants wouldn't be worthwhile;  just that it's time to leave Deckard
where he was.

On that last note, one of my pet peeves is how boring TV shows quickly
become.  After a couple of episodes (or a season or two, if we're lucky),
the shows become a simple excuse for showing off characters rather than
exploring anything interesting.  There are exceptions, of course...

Unfortunately, authors sometimes succumb to the same temptation.  I KNOW
I'm gonna get flamed for this, but I could barely work myself up to
finishing Vols. 2 and 3 in the VAMPIRE CHRONICLES.  Rice's INTERVIEW was
terrific, but then she goes and ruins (yes, harsh word which - obviously -
most critics and readers would take strong exception to) the story by
(1) providing a historical origin for vampires (these are mysterious
creatures:  they should STAY that way!); (2) making them responsible for
most of the OTHER legends we have like Pandora's Box (oh, come on, enough
is enough!); and (3) using a HE-SHE mysterious pair that would have reminded
a number of people of the HE and SHE who were travelling around in the
mid-to-late 70s conning people into believing they were aliens here to
transport them into outerspace.

As I said - my $0.02 worth.  But, you can probably gather from this overlong
post why I don't look forward to seeing another movie about Deckard.

Cheers,
	Claude
Newsgroups: alt.cult-movies