I suppose if it sucks we can just forget about it.

There were certain things that just made sense about the original. The sensibility was so revolutionary in 1982 even though few people appreciated it at the time it grew to inform all of the fashion of that decade – and it still influences.

Explication: I will be very surprised if Scott resists to urge to really lay things out for the audience this time. With the first movie I had to see it several times before I even knew what was going on (even with the Harrison Ford voice over). I guess I was slow. Movies are not made that way any more. There is this assumption that if a film is to succeed in the international market it had to be really dumbed down. Things need to be set up clearly and everything needs to be spelled out. There is just one interpretation allowed. This just ruins films for me.

Any way, whole exercise is interesting even though i view it with a lot of trepidation. How can a blockbuster format film from the second decade of the 21st century (actually only five years before the original film was set!) break new ground cinematically?

Does this director get a second opportunity to revolutionise the genre or is it just a nostalgia trip (and one that does injury to the first film?)

Originally shared by Mark Richards

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=90356