Comments on: Things Blade Runner does that newer films don’t

By: Colm

Colm — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:55:27 +0000

I don’t know if I’m comfortable with people enjoying my work so… withchily.

I like writing stuff where people can invent a context around it. It’s very satisfying when you get a reader to join in like that.

By: Lola

Lola — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:25:17 +0000

Sometimes I do but I prefer when I don’t because then I can imagine something unique to my brain …like a movie that only I can see *cackles*

By: Colm

Colm — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:42:36 +0000

They really are awfully patronising sometimes. But not necessarily on purpose – it’s a confidence thing with inexperienced writers, they’re insecure about their abilities and so they overexplain. I’ve managed to punt myself in the opposite direction, and now no one but me knows what’s going on in my stories. Hooray!

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:58:58 +0000

Wow – I bookmarked this a very long time ago.

I agree!

Also, I think there’s a few movies that pull it off still. The wonderful Lost in Translation just let the movie slowly tell itself without forcing anything down our throats. I feel the same about Frost/Nixon (which I watched yesterday). Towards the end they dwell on Nixon’s face for a long time and it’s strangely one of the most riveting parts of the movie. But yes, these are just some of the very few exceptions. I think most modern movies assume the audience is a little slow and therefore the aim very low.

By: Colm

Colm — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:19:40 +0000

There is that, yeah.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:30:00 +0000

Things Blade Runner does that (alot of) newer films don’t is be good

By: Colm

Colm — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:13:27 +0000

I was going to say nonsense, but you do use the phrase “pretty ridey for a robot”. At least your review is actually a review though.

By: Rosie

Rosie — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:55:53 +0000

your review is so much more sophisticated than mine.