Alien - Ranked

For the fifteen of you who regularly visit this site, you know the drill: I can’t just watch one entry in a franchise anymore without watching everything, and if I’m going to devote that much time to a series, then I’m going to rank it in an attempt to get tens of clicks. 

I love the Alien franchise, even if I am a little late to the game. Growing up, I don’t think I watched any of them. In fact, when Alien vs. Predator came out, I think it may have technically been only the second Alien movie I had ever seen. Thankfully, I was able to remove my head from my ass and embrace the series. There’s only one movie on this list that I actually dislike, and I still own that one, too, so I enjoyed revisiting all of these. I even watched both the theatrical and unrated/director’s/Special Edition/Assembly Cut versions of all of these this time around, so, where applicable, I’ll also mention which version I prefer. (And if you don’t own the quadrilogy and physical releases of the AVP movies, just keep an eye out for when the series is on Max, which has the alternate cuts under the Extras tab.)

1. Alien

The eternal sci-fi dork question: “Which do you like more, Alien or Aliens?” For me, it’s always been Alien. The mood and tension created by Scott in that film is masterful. I could watch hours of tracking shots through the Nostromo. Add to that the grimy future in which a bunch of space truckers have to fight an alien, and you have one of my favorite films of all time. 

Theatrical or “Director’s Cut”: Ridley Scott introduces the director’s cut by basically saying it’s not a director’s cut, and that the studio just wanted him to make a new cut so they could call it that. He considers the theatrical cut the best version, and so do I. I do like the extended argument about Ripley not opening the airlock, and seeing Dallas and Brett cocooned is cool (though it doesn’t make much sense as there’s no way for them to be impregnated, maybe the xenomorph was saving them on the off chance it found some eggs). But the director’s cut shortens those tracking shots I love, so from here on out, I’m sticking with theatrical.

2. Aliens

Truly one of the best sequels of all time largely because it has no interest in recreating the original. Cameron wanted to make an action movie instead of a horror movie to awesome effect. Assembling a great group of characters and even better actors made the seemingly impossible possible: Cameron made a fun Alien movie.

Theatrical or Special Edition: I’ve seen people shit on the Special Edition for the early scene at the settlement, claiming it ruins the suspense when the Marines show up later. Maybe that’s true the first time you watch this, but come on, who seriously watches this and thinks that everything at the settlement is probably going great? Aside from that, the most important addition was Ripley’s daughter, who lived an entire life and died while Ripley was in cryosleep. Maybe this makes her surrogate motherhood of Newt too obvious, but it works better on me (maybe I’m just a dumbass, though), so I’m a Special Edition guy. And of course Cameron is too; dude never made a movie he didn’t think needed thirty more minutes.

3. Prometheus

And now I’ve lost some of you. I don’t care. I love this movie. At this point in the series, they had milked the Ripley character and the xenomorphs all that they possibly could. So instead of returning to that well, Scott instead decided to connect the series to the origin of humanity. I can see why people found it unnecessary or silly or stupid, but I was on board from the very beginning with this one. And Michael Fassbender as David is the perfect element that puts this above everything but the first two films for me. 

Shockingly, there’s no other cut of this one.

4. Alien³

And I’ve lost the rest of you. Sure, the behind the scenes drama is arguably more interesting than the movie itself, but I’ve always dug Fincher’s vision. To go from the guns blazing adrenaline shot of Aliens to this dour, gun-less nihilistic take is a bold choice, and I’m all for it. 

Theatrical or Assembly Cut: There are those that find the theatrical cut unwatchable and claim the Assembly Cut saves the film. I certainly prefer the Assembly Cut, but I don’t hate the theatrical cut like many do. I find it a little confusing at times, but the overall mood and aesthetic of the film is intact. But yeah, the Assembly Cut is far and away the better version.

5. Alien: Covenant

I’m still disappointed that this is only half a sequel to Prometheus, and the most interesting parts happened between movies or in a brief flashback. But overall, this is a good combination of what the series was and what Scott turned it into. And Fassbender in a dual role is simply a delight. 

There is only the theatrical cut of this film.

6. Alien: Romulus

I wrote more in depth about the film here. But basically, a couple fan service moments really took me out of it, but the overall look of the movie and the simple focus on survival made it enjoyable for me, though nothing special.

There is only the theatrical cut of this one, for now.

7. Alien: Resurrection

I hated this the first time I saw it, but I come around on it a bit more each time I watch it. I appreciate the hardcore sci-fi turn they took setting it two hundred years farther into the future. It’s a bit goofier and nastier than all the other movies, but you can’t claim it didn’t go for something new. But it’s low on my list because it’ll always be the movie in which Ripley fucking dunked a basketball.

Theatrical or Special Edition: Much like with the first film, Jeunet says the theatrical is his preferred cut and this was just made for the Quadrilogy release. The main differences I clocked were a silly CG bug opening, a couple references to Newt, and an extended ending showing a destroyed Paris. None of it added much for me. I’m okay with watching the theatrical cut if that’s all that’s available to me, but I guess if the Special Edition is an option, I’ll take it.

8. Alien vs. Predator 

Don’t be fooled by this low ranking; I actually like this stupid shit. It helps that I don’t take it seriously, and I don’t consider it to be truly part of the franchise. It definitely takes itself a little too seriously and takes too long setting up characters we all know are destined to be chestbursted or…um…Predatorized, but there’s still fun to be had with this one, even if it is more of a Predator than an Alien movie. 

Theatrical or Unrated: This one caught some extra shit for being PG-13 when the two series it was mashing up were exclusively R, and I agree with the criticism. They attempted to mend this with an unrated DVD that includes a promise of “more violence” on the back. The unrated cut fixes this a little bit with some CG blood and few slightly more gruesome elements, but this is still far too tame for this showdown. But yeah, if I’m watching this, I’m going unrated every time.

9. Alien vs. Predator: Requiem

The only movie on this list I don’t like and don’t want to ever see again. I like the premise of the fight taking place in a small town, and there’s plenty of gruesome shit in this, but it’s all so dark it might as well be PG-13-level violence. Also, this should be more fun, but it’s just a slog, and when I can’t even tell what’s going on in the slog, then it’s something I’d rather not watch again.

Theatrical or Unrated: I really don’t care. The back of this DVD promised “more gore,” but the only thing that would have interested me was “more light.” The unrated cut does show a young boy die from a chestburster if that’s something you want to see.

Echoes in Eternity, Part III - "Gladiator"

SPOILERS ahead.

This is actually the movie that started me on the epic path that led to me also rewatching Troy and Alexander, but this is the last movie I’m writing about because it makes more sense chronologically (you’re getting a real glimpse at the complete lack of planning I undertake when I pick a movie to write about). Because of this, I actually have a lot less to say about Gladiator than the other two films. This is probably a good thing, though, as I tend to be long-winded with these articles, especially when I get on a philosophical kick. I just wanted to explain why my Gladiator article has the shortest Echoes in Eternity segment, even though the title of the series comes from this film.

Echoes in Eternity, Part III

If Troy and Alexander were partially about mythic and historical heroes slowly learning that glory doesn’t matter in the long run, then Gladiator is the logical conclusion because Maximus has no need for these lessons. Although there is little mention of the gods in Gladiator, it’s safe to assume that Maximus is aware of Achilles and Alexander. It’s possible that he learned from their tales and understands what is important in life.

Although Maximus spends most of this time away from his family, it is not for personal glory; he only wishes to serve Rome. He is dedicated to Marcus Aurelius, but he does not hold him above Rome itself. Because of this, Aurelius wisely chooses Maximus to become Protector of Rome upon his death, eventually returning the power of Rome over to the elected Senate.As with everything else in his life, Maximus reluctantly agrees out of a sense of duty.

For Maximus, a soldier’s life is about honor, not glory. He tells his soldiers at the beginning that, “What we do in life, echoes in eternity.” But he’s not telling these men that they will be remembered as Achilles and Alexander are. Instead, these men will simply play their part in events that will change the world. It is in the afterlife that they will find peace and happiness, but they must be brave and honorable to find that peace. 

A religious promise of future reward might be as empty as the glory sought by Achilles and Alexander, but at least it’s a bit more reasonable and possible. Certainly, if you were a foot soldier, you would be more likely to believe in the reward of a peaceful afterlife than in the possibility that you would become so famous in battle that stories are told of your exploits for generations to come. 

Gladiator is the more modern look at motivation during such times. It also leans more into nationalism than the other films do, which is more reminiscent of the modern era, as well. Serving in the military in today’s world is definitely more about serving your country than seeking personal glory. And religion plays a factor in most countries, as well, so the promise of a good afterlife due to your sacrifice for the greater good is still relevant.

That promise of the afterlife makes the “echoes in eternity” line make the most sense for this film. While Achilles offered “immortality” and Alexander claimed his men could “conquer death,” the eternity they both sought was not really infinite. They sought to be remembered, and eventually memory, even for the most famous of us, will fade. Maximus’s promise deals with the afterlife, which is supposed to be forever.

The ultimate goal of these three men, though, is the same: I want my men to fight for me with passion and hope. All of this talk of eternity is just motivation. The question is what is truly honorable. 

We live in a time in which people can support the troops but disagree with their mission. This is something the men in these films had to grapple with, too. Why should Achilles or his men care about Troy? Why should Alexander’s men care about pushing further into the unknown? Why should Maximus’s men care about Germania? Maximus, after all, is from Spain, not Rome. So why does he care?

Gladiator makes it clear that he shouldn’t. Marcus Aurelius tells Maximus as much, but Maximus cannot accept it because he has led men to their death during these campaigns. After Aurelius is killed by Commodus, however, Maximus must accept that his service may not have been as important or honorable as he had hoped.

After his family is killed, Maximus is as disillusioned as a person can be. He eventually begins to fight out of necessity in the gladiator games, but his spirit returns to him with the promise of revenge. His stint as a simple gladiator is soulless. There is no honor in what he is doing, and he is sickened by it. Only when the possibility of revenge comes into play does he regain the sense of purpose he had at the beginning of the film. And if he can also save Rome along the way, well, why not?

Maximus comes full circle in the end, and it’s hinted that he reaches the afterlife he promised his men. He finds his peace by fighting the honorable fight. Maximus’s actions have a direct effect on the world he leaves behind, but they will echo for eternity in the afterlife he has earned.

Extended Cuts Are Not Director’s Cuts...and Should Not Exist.

Director’s cuts can change films in major ways, and no director has proven this more than Ridley Scott. Blade Runner is the famous example, but his director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven transformed that film from a mediocre historical epic into a truly great film. Any issue I had with the theatrical cut was addressed and fixed in his new cut. Because of this, I’m always on the lookout for new versions of Scott’s films. So when I saw the “Extended Cut” of Gladiator, I was intrigued. But I was tricked by the studio, and Scott even warned me about it.

When you choose to watch the extended cut, you can also watch an intro from Scott. He looks annoyed to be giving the intro in the first place, which is a bad sign, and he goes on to tell you that this extended cut is NOT his director’s cut. I should have stopped there.

Basically, an extended cut is just the theatrical cut of a movie with deleted scenes inserted back in. But, as anyone who has watched the deleted scenes on any DVD, those scenes were cut for a reason. You can look up all the differences here, but I wanted to point out my issues with the most noticeable changes:

*The German dude talks about how a gladiator can gain his freedom (how many fights and whatnot). The wormy guy who eventually pisses himself talks about how he can’t do that. 

My issue here is that we don’t need to know the specifics of gaining freedom. In fact, it’s better if we think these guys have to do this indefinitely. It adds to the plight of their situation. As for the wormy guy, I think the pissing scene in the theatrical makes it clear that this guy doesn’t have what it takes. We don’t need him to flat out tell us this.

*Proximo lectures Maximus about how he needs to entertain the audience rather than just win the match. This happens right before the famous “Are you not entertained?” scene.

This completely takes away from that moment. Instead of Maximus coming to the realization that the audience is getting bored with his skill on his own, he is now directly responding to Proximo. I find that much weaker. There’s already enough tension with Maximus and Proximo. I liked Maximus acknowledging the shitty audience, since the “mob” of Rome is referred to so often in the film. It’s further evidence that the commoners are simple and just want to see blood, and they need someone more than just an entertainer to lead them, which makes Maximus’s quest to unseat Commodus that much more powerful.

*There are multiple scenes in which the selling of grain reserves is discussed.

I’m all for a film acknowledging the realism of ruling an empire, but the goal here is to show that Commodus is a shitty ruler, and I think we understand he’s a bad person when he murders his father in one of his first scenes. Plus, talks of grain reserves reminds me of all the trade blockade stuff from The Phantom Menace (I actually love that movie, but I don’t give a fuck if Naboo is under a blockade).

*Commodus takes a sword to a bust of his father, then breaks down crying and hugs it.

Once again, the murder scene at the beginning already established that Commodus has...um...complex feelings towards his dad.

*The men who helped Maximus escape are rounded up and executed on Commodus’s order.

First off, I assumed this happened anyway. Secondly, we don’t need yet another example of Commodus being a brutal, shitty leader. It’s been well established at this point.

None of these scenes are bad. They are just unnecessary and mess with the flow of the film. They would be fine as deleted scenes, which is exactly what they are. It’s bad enough that the studios lure me in with director’s cuts, but these extended cuts are straight up bullshit. At least I know now...but I’ll still buy shit like this. At least the theatrical cut is still an option on the blu-ray.

Why Do I Own This?

I love epics, and this is the movie that led to movies like Troy and Alexander getting greenlit. It’s so fucking good. I’ve watched it at least a dozen times, and I revisit it every couple of years. I’ll just be staying away from that extended cut.

Random Thoughts

This section is shorter than usual because most of the notes I had concerned the extended cut additions. Plus, it’s an awesome movie, and I lost myself in it.

Ridley Scott gives an incredibly unenthusiastic introduction to the extended cut on the blu-ray. It’s the rare instance in which Scott approves of the theatrical cut.

Nice establishing scene showing Commodus is a badass with a sword while also generally being a sniveling pussy man who spends most of the movie trying to fuck his sister.

I like how Maximus just cucks Commodus in every aspect of his life. Commodus wants his father to love him, but his father loves Maximus more. Commodus wants to bang his sister, but she wants to bang Maximus. Commodus wants to rule Rome, but his father wants Maximus to take over. Commodus wants Lucius to see him as a father figure, but Lucius idolizes Maximus. Commodus wants the love of the mob, but they love Maximus. Can you blame Commodus for wanting to kill Maximus? Don’t get me wrong, he still sucks. But I get why he wants Maximus gone.

Omid Djalili was the go-to wormy Middle Eastern guy for a couple years with this and The Mummy.

I still love Maximus's speech to Commodus. It’s an all-time badass moment for Russell Crowe.

..

"Blade Runner 2049" - More "Blade Runner" Than "Blade Runner"

Blade Runner 2049

(This site is supposed to be about movies I own, but I'm making an exception for this Blade Runner 2049 review since I will own it when it is released on blu ray.)

Returning to beloved films from decades ago usually results in disappointment. But thanks to a recent influx of new films that continue the franchise (Star Wars, Alien) rather than reboot it, the results have been a bit more satisfying. Still, revisiting Blade Runner seemed like a bad idea. There's not much to the original film that begs for a sequel. In fact, one of the most interesting aspects of the film is the unanswered question of whether Deckard (Harrison Ford) was a replicant. It seems like a sequel featuring Ford would be problematic for that question. Also, the first Blade Runner was not an action movie. It was a moody noir set in a dystopian future. Would Hollywood allow a sequel to be made without turning it into an action film?

Thankfully, the filmmakers (director Denis Villeneuve, producer [original director] Ridley Scott, and writers Hampton Fancher [original] and Michael Green) handled things beautifully. They do not answer the question of Deckard. In fact, they add more to the debate for both sides of the argument. And, more importantly, Blade Runner 2049 is nowhere near an action film.

The plot, which I'll be vague about since the studio left it very vague in the promotional materials, is in the same vein as the original, playing out as a simple detective story in a complex, visually stunning setting. While the plot does add plenty of questions to the series and brings up plenty of existential themes concerning humanity and technology, the true appeal of the film is its style.

Director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival, Sicario) was the perfect choice to succeed Scott in the director's chair. He has proven himself a master of tension and mood already, so it was great to see him set loose with a large budget in an already richly designed world. I rewatch the original Blade Runner on a yearly basis because of the world of the film. Blade Runner 2049 takes that bleak future and turns into perhaps the bleakest future in a film that isn't post-apocalyptic; perhaps it could be described as pre-apocalyptic. It's interesting that such an ugly moral world can be so beautiful. Villeneuve and director of photography Roger Deakins take massive landfills, radioactive cities, and bleak farmlands and turn them into cinematic wonders. 

The visuals, which are a perfect blend of CG and practical effects, are amazing on their own, and the nearly oppressive score (which rattled the speakers of my theater regularly) is the finishing touch. A world is only beautiful if you get to spend plenty of time in it, though. This is where critics (and Blade Runner fans) and a typical audience member might differ in opinion. Blade Runner 2049 gives you over two and a half hours in its bleak world, with many sequences consisting solely of Ryan Gosling walking slowly. I see that and can't take my eyes away because I want to examine and enjoy every frame of the film. Others might see that and want to yell, "Do something!" 

Perhaps the best way I can describe how interesting I found this arguably "boring" film is this: I went to see this after working a twelve hour night shift. I went to the earliest show I could, which allowed me to get two hours of sleep beforehand. I've done this with other movies and could barely keep my eyes open no matter the type of movie I was watching. Yet with Blade Runner 2049, I didn't so much as yawn a single time. I was truly worried I would fall asleep when I first planned to watch this lengthy film under those conditions. When I walked out of the theater feeling completely awake, I knew I had seen something special. 

Although the visuals, pacing, and music were the stars of the film for me, that does not mean the performances were lacking. Gosling is perfectly cast in the lead role. Harrison Ford is fine as the aged Deckard (though it seems like he's just being Harrison Ford instead of the actual characters he's returning too). Jared Leto was oddly zen-like in a villainous role, but he was underused. The standouts are the female performers. Robin Wright turns what could have been a one-note boss character into fully realized character. Sylvia Hoeks provides quiet menace as Leto's muscle. And Ana de Armas gives possibly the best performance as Joi, an AI girlfriend. 

With all of this praise I'm giving Blade Runner 2049, you might think it's obvious that I prefer it to the original film, but I'm not sure yet. My impulse is to declare this the better film, but it will take time to truly tell which film has the more lasting effect. The original Blade Runner didn't catch on for years. So maybe my opinion of this film will change over the years, as well. I doubt it, though. Like most films that I love, my immediate thought as I walked out of the theater was, "I can't wait to see this again." I think my yearly viewings of Blade Runner just became a double feature, and Blade Runner 2049 is definitely one of my favorite films of the year.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Unfortunately, this is probably the last Blade Runner for a while since it's underperforming at the box office, but I'm okay with where it ended. It definitely felt like a few things were set up for future installments, but it didn't end on a cliffhanger or anything. You can imagine where things go from that ending. But I do wonder if they ignored Leto's character at the end in hope of a sequel. Or maybe they introduced that replicant underground group to be expanded upon in the future. Either way, it stands on its own as a great movie.

Gosling was meant to play a Pinocchio-like replicant.

The Joi character reminded me of Her quite a bit. It's still an interesting plotline. At times you're watching a robot interact with a hologram. The fact that these two "lifeless" characters make up a big portion of the films says something about the overall question the film posits: What is humanity?

Man, Los Angeles is bleaker than ever. You can imagine if most people had moved off-world back in 2019 how bad it must be by 2049. 

Glad to see Edward James Olmos return, still making that origami.

So is Deckard a replicant? I think he's human at this point, though I thought he was a replicant after watching the original. It's not the aging that makes me thing he's human; it was the scene with him in the car as it submerged. If he was a replicant, he would have easily gotten out of the handcuffs. Of course, Tyrell could have made him pretty much identical to a human in all aspects if he was capable of making a replicant able to procreate. Perhaps Deckard and Rachel were his replicant Adam and Eve... Okay, maybe Deckard is a replicant after all. 

The Mixed Bag of Sci-Fi Nostalgia: Star Wars, Alien, and Blade Runner

(NewsRadio was originally going to be my next post, but I decided to postpone that and write something a bit more relevant since Blade Runner 2049 is coming out this week. NewsRadio is written and will be posted in a week or so.)

Nostalgia seems to be fueling the biggest movies and TV shows recently, and that is not going to change anytime soon thanks to the popularity of Star Wars returning to the original trilogy characters. Star Wars didn't start this trend or anything, but the massive success likely led to the greenlighting of new entries in other older properties. I can't help but think that Alien: Covenant was able to be made because of a promise to be more like the original Alien than the recent, divisive Prometheus. And based on the previews of Blade Runner 2049, it looks like the studio provided a huge budget; it's not a stretch to assume this is because of the Star Wars effect. While I love the resurgence of all these films I loved growing up, the nostalgia factor makes it a mixed bag (though I'm crazy optimistic for Blade Runner 2049). So is nostalgia helping or hurting the integrity of these franchises? Let's start with Star Wars.

The Force Awakens, many claim, gave the fans what they wanted whereas the prequels gave them what they didn't want. Not to get into a prequel vs. original trilogy debate, but one thing that can be said for the prequels is that they are different. For a lot of fans, that means they're terrible (I happen to hold them in the same regard as the original trilogy, but that's not the point). So when The Force Awakens came out, there was this collective sigh of relief: Star Wars was truly back. 

I enjoyed The Force Awakens, but the more I watched it, the more the nostalgia wore off. I still like it, but I also realize that it is an unapologetic rehash of A New Hope. People have pointed this out, but it seems like most give the film a pass. "Yeah, it's basically a remake, but, man, it really felt like Star Wars!" In other words, "Yeah, I've seen this movie before, but, man, it's a really good movie!" 

This is where I disagree with fans of The Force Awakens. Nostalgia is all about feeling, but I didn't think The Force Awakens felt like a Star Wars movie. It had all the right parts and whatnot, but it felt different. Not bad, just different. It's to the point now that I don't even consider that film's success the product of nostalgia; it was successful simply because of recognition. 

This is where the Alien and Blade Runner franchises come into play. Obviously nostalgia and recognition are part of the appeal (hell, Harrison Ford returns in Blade Runner, just like he did in Star Wars [PS - it's my theory that Ford is going through his most iconic characters and killing them off one by one; Deckard is probably going to die in the new Blade Runner, and he could also kill off Indiana Jones in the announced fifth film]), but one major difference with these two properties is that the original director, Ridley Scott, is heavily involved. Meanwhile, George Lucas, to the delight of most fans, has almost nothing to do with the new films. 

Scott's involvement is so important because he's not a fan. Everyone working on the new Star Wars films are fans, so, in essence, all the new stuff is fan fiction. Fan fiction can be good, but it will always feel a step removed. Just like Lucas was willing to do something vastly different (even if a lot of fans hated it), Scott can do whatever he wants with Alien and Blade Runner.

This has happened a bit already. The Alien prequel Prometheus, while certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, received a lot of negative blowback online. The film, in my opinion, has been nitpicked excessively possibly because it didn't deliver enough answers and/or the same experience of the first Alien film. The issue here is that Scott didn't set out to do either. Prometheus is not technically an Alien film as Scott has been following a multi-film plan to lead up to the original Alien. That's why there isn't a proper xenomorph in the film, and it's also why there are plenty of unanswered questions.

The more recent Alien: Covenant is different. It's as if Scott listened to the upset fans of Prometheus and tried to do two separate things: continue his multi-film plan and give the audience something very similar to the original Alien. I think the film accomplishes that, but that makes it the lesser of the two new films. I enjoyed the xenomorph sequence at the end of Covenant, but I was much more interested in the continued story from Prometheus. Pleasing fans is important, but when you give into them, it's like giving into a child who wants candy for dinner. Sure, the child will be full, but it's empty nourishment. Here's hoping that the next Alien film leans more towards Prometheus than Covenant. (To be clear, though, I really liked both movies.)

One thing that is undeniable about the Alien prequels is that Scott is still able to create the Alien atmosphere. Rewatching Alien recently, I realized that the atmosphere is why I love that first film more than Aliens. It's slow and brooding and effective. It also took what the original Star Wars presented (a futuristic sci-fi that looks lived rather than shiny and new) and perfected it. I recall Alien being described as truckers in space, and that's exactly what it is. This is best exemplified by the great Yaphet Kotto and Harry Dean Stanton (R.I.P.). How often in a film set on a spaceship do you have characters arguing about wages? All of these elements add up to a nearly perfect film. A film that could not be replicated today because of pacing alone. Look at Covenant; they essentially remade Alien in the last twenty minutes. Audiences don't have time for slow burn tension these days.

Perhaps Blade Runner 2049 will prove me wrong, though. With a running time nearing three hours and a director (Denis Villeneuve) who specializes in mood, this could be the film that gets it right. Blade Runner 2049 could placate fans and retain the atmospheric feeling of the original. 

Blade Runner 2049 may have found the perfect formula for nostalgic filmmaking. Rather than shutting out the original director, allow him to be involved in the process (as Scott is on 2049 as a producer) without giving him total control. Star Wars could benefit from George Lucas's input, as blasphemous as that might seem to certain fans. Don't let him go full prequel with it, but let him in on the process. The guy who started it all just might have a few ideas for where the story can go.

Back to Blade Runner, what made me fall in love with this film over the years was the mood and atmosphere. Judging it on face value, it's a boring film. (SPOILERS throughout the rest of this paragraph.) Deckard is very low energy and is no match against a replicant in a fight, and he only survives at the end because Batty lets him. It's not meant to be much of an action film, though. It's an atmospheric consideration of what life is, especially in a technologically advanced world. It's slow and beautiful. I don't rewatch it at least once a year for the badass action sequences; I watch it because I want to revisit the world of the film.

Of course, simply wanting to revisit the world of a film is what led to some of the problems with nostalgic filmmaking in the first place. I guess the best way to describe it is that The Force Awakens felt like I was looking at a picture of the Star Wars universe, and I hope that Blade Runner 2049 feels more like a return to the world. 

Based on early reviews for 2049, it appears that they got it right with this one. I hope so. Because nostalgia will continue to drive the content of Hollywood as long as it's profitable. Nostalgia doesn't have to be a bad thing. When done right, filmmakers might be able to recreate the magic of the past. I'll find out this weekend when I watch Blade Runner 2049.