Blade Runner vs. Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 1982

versus

Blade Runner 2049

IMDB users rate Blade Runner 2049 at 8.2 out of 10. Pretty heady rating for IMDB. I’m aware that anyone who preferred the original gets dissed as an ol’ fogey. I fall into the old category, but don’t admit to the fogey part. Nevertheless, I will go on record as preferring the original. (Both films scored 8.2)

My reasons are from a different perspective than most. Admittedly, film is an art form and presentation certainly plays into the craft. From a visual perspective, I might even give Blade Runner 2049 the edge. It paints a dystopia world with deft precision. Where it falls behind the original is the crux of good storytelling. Bad guys gotta be bad.

In the original movie, Rutger Hauer portrayed Roy Batty with relentless malevolence, yet managed, in the end, to elicit compassion for his character. Batty was a worthy rival, who transitions into a sympathetic victim. A fine piece of acting, that.

Luv vs. Roy

On the other hand, Sylvia Hoeks plays Luv like a high school mean girl, and the script resorts to clichés to portray her evilness. For example, when Luv stomps on K's mobile projector to kill Joi, it reminded me of a B-movie where the antagonist kicks a dog to convey dastardliness.

And then when Luv finally dies, we think, oh good, it’s over. When Batty dies, we weep.

I’m prejudice, of course. I believe the art in storytelling requires an antagonist that presents a heavy challenge to the protagonist. Heroes need villains to be heroic. We want the protagonist to win, but he or she keeps losing until just before the curtain falls. The tension comes from uncertainty. Even though we’ve seen story upon story, each time we are transported to another place and time where the villain might actually win. Sometimes, we get a reveal at the end that turns the protagonist’s victory poignant. A neat trick, when done right, and the original Blade Runner pulled this off with panache.

And that’s why I prefer the Blade Runner 1982.

Hero or villain?

Several book reviews have criticized Steve Dancy as barely better than the bad guys.

Seriously?

I believe vile villains make a story work, so I've invented some highly reprehensible characters. There has to be some tough-as-nails criminal around for Dancy to dispatch or he couldn't be a hero. Now, I also prefer flawed heroes, so Dancy is certainly not perfect. Besides being a tenderfoot, he can be a dunderhead when it comes to romance. He is especially ill equipped for the lawless frontier until he has survived a few nasty episodes.

So, what gives? I can think of only two reasons why people would think ill of Mr. Dancy. First, he is rich and prefers to buy his way out of trouble. It’s unusual for a western hero to be wealthy. Most fictional frontier gunmen own a saddle and a horse, and part of the mythology is that their lack of possessions makes them free. But surely readers don’t hold Dancy’s wealth against him. After all, television's Paladin lived pretty high on the hog, and he earned his piles of cash by less than reputable means. Dancy, on the other hand, came by his wealth honestly—he inherited it.

Gunsmoke TV series Opening Sequence

So if it's not the money, it must be something else. I suppose it could be that Dancy has never had a one-on-one stand-up duel in the middle of the street. When faced with a gunfight, Dancy always searches for an edge. He wants the other fella off balance, unaware that he is about to be shot. Now, that’s closer to how it actually was in the Old West. I remember reading about a study that concluded that most gunfights during that era occurred inside of three feet and most often in a saloon. The epic one-on-one gunfight did occur, but it was not the norm. (The stand-up duel may have faded from popularity after our United States Vice President killed a former cabinet member on the shores of New Jersey.)

Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson were two famous Westerners that lived long enough to die of old age. Both were cautious when it came to gun trouble. Earp liked to sneak in the back door of a saloon and coldcock a troublemaker from behind. The practice even got him fired once from the Dodge City force for “police brutality.” Masterson counseled that if you got in a gunfight, you should shoot your opponent center chest … and more than once. 

Steve Dancy has numerous gunfights in every book. It’s the nature of the genre. I like him and most of my readers like him as well, so I can’t let him get shot dead. After all, I need him for the next book.

10 Writing "Rules" Western Authors Should Break

JR Sanders posted on Facebook for Western Writers of America an io9 article titled “10 Writing ‘Rules’ We Wish More Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors Would Break,” with a challenge to list Western rules that should be broken. At the risk of offending everyone, here is my unordered list.

1. Women portrayed only as prostitutes, schoolmarms, or long-suffering wives.

How about making a woman the villain? Or put a gun, reins, or a pen in her hand.

2. Homogeneous portrayal of American Indians

The culture of Indian tribes varied as much as Yankees and Southerners

3. Tombstone portrayed as a cattle town

Tombstone was a mining town. Everybody didn’t migrate west to chase errant cows or string barbed wire

4. Saloons portrayed as the sole entertainment in the West

Tombstone had ice crème parlors and a bowling alley. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance made good plot use of a restaurant.

5. Gunfights portrayed as righteous, standup duels with the bad guy drawing first

Some researchers have concluded that most gunfights occurred within three feet.

6. Railroad tycoons portrayed as handy villains

This is such a cliché we’re ready to boo as soon as any railroad owner steps onto the page or screen.

7. Regular townsfolk and sodbusters portrayed as sniveling weaklings

These were pioneers, for goodness sakes. They wouldn’t have ventured west if they had no backbone.

8. Everyone in the West portrayed as dressing like cowboys

For example, miners wore squared toed boots and professionals and business owners wore suits.

9. The West portrayed as near childless

Kids are usually just props, but look how well breaking this rule worked for True Grit

10. The hero portrayed as riding off into the sunset.

I had fun with the end of The Shopkeeper by writing, “We rode out of Mason Valley with the sun at our backs."

Characters Matter

Frank. A true black hat villain.

Characterization is a crucial aspect of fiction. We know this because it's drilled into us at school, in workshops, and in all the how-to books and journals we read. The protagonist must come across as real and interesting enough to pull the reader all the way through to the end of the story. A common mistake, however, is to focus too much attention on the protagonist. When you read a great book or watch an outstanding film, it's usually the antagonist that lifts the story above the ordinary.

Django Unchained—Quentin Tarantino’s Does Spaghetti Western

I like Tarantino movies and Westerns, so I expected to love Django Unchained.  I only liked it. It wasn’t bad; it just didn’t live up to my expectations.

The Spaghetti Western is a subset of the Western genre, typified by antiheroes, revenge themes, extreme violence, slow scenes, scant dialogue, extreme close-ups, long running times, and heavy scores punctuated by stretches of pure silence. (My favorite is Once Upon a Time in the West.) The Spaghetti Western is a different breed from the traditional Western because all of these characteristics are done to excess.

I knew something was amiss with Django Unchained about two hours into the movie when I wondered how long it would be before the end. Not a good sign, even when three hours is typical for Spaghetti Westerns. The audience is supposed to be transported to another place and time, not squirming in their seats.

Tarantino loves bad movies, especially bad genre movies. He sees art where others see trash. His best works, like Kill Bill for example, blend clichés and corniness from multiple genres into a cornucopia of unexpected delights. Django Unchained seemed too predictable and too narrow. Perhaps Tarantino’s shtick has run its course. I hope not.

Related post: Europe's Infatuation with the American Wild West

Is Pinterest Good For Anything?

When I get stuck writing, I find myself wandering over to Pinterest. What is it about this site that's so fascinating?  First, it's visual, so it gives me a welcome mental break from words, words, words. Compared to other social sites, it's easier to tidy up and tinker with so it looks the way I want. 

Although I've heard some get addicted, I find Pinterest a quick sojourner that refreshes my mental state for writing. Pinterest is like a shoe box where I collect odd things that interest me. It  accommodates some of my quirky interests, like Great American Tacky, Slightly Ill Humor, or surfing.  

For example, I think villains are a key element of storytelling. Heroics can be uplifting, but heroes need someone or something to fight against. Nasty villains, allow heroes to be heroic.

If you'd like, you can check out my rogues gallery on Pinterest by clicking over to Bad to the Bone.