Why Do The Streets Of BR's Copycats Look Clumsy?

Why Do The Streets Of BR's "Copycats" Look So Clumsy?

Look at the typical Blade Runner environment in A.I. or Attack Of The Clones. I'm talking about how they made the streets look so much like the streets in BR. But something feels wrong. They truly look amateurish in comparison. Did anyone notice that? Why is that?

Ooh, I feel a "CGI versus real model" discussion brewing...

yeah. probably because its CGI in AI and AOTC, and it looks "cleaner". not cleaner as in environment, but cleaner as in image quality.

Ooh, I feel a "CGI versus real model" discussion brewing...

Actually, I'm referring to, and I think this might be the first thread devoted to it, the scenes "in" the streets. Nothing else, guys. I'm talking about the asphalt streets with its neon signs, people, shops, vehicles and other props. In Blade Runner the streets look like the "real deal". I don't have the feeling I'm watching a "set". It feels like streets of an actual living city. In A.I. and AOTC the production design of the streets looks like, "Hey, let's play Blade Runner."
I think a lot of BR's genius can be decribed to the amazing amount of detail and, perhaps even more important, the right people who came up with the "details". Maybe it's the retrofitting, I don't know. But I have a feeling we will never see it better than we did in Blade Runner.

Isn't it more to do with the fact that Blade Runner describes a dystopian cityscape whereas the other two movies describe utopian citycapes.

You'd have to admit that it's probably easier to make 'dark and rainy' convincing than it is 'bright and sunny'.

I don't think I'm getting my point through. Bright and sunny??? I'm referring to the blatant BR street copies in both A.I. and Attack of the Clones. Has nobody seen these movies?

A.I.





Dark and rainy.



Attack Of The Clones


http://outnow.ch/Media/Img/2002/Starwars-Episode2/?i=Movie%2E1%2F008%2Ejpg&w=978&h=416&full=1&print=1

I can't find a pic but it's the moment before the Jedi enter the bar to search for the lady assassin (Sam, Zam?).

I think I, Robot is like that too; tries to copy Blade Runner's streets as well.

I was reading the Ameican Cinematographer issue on BR from july 82' and the interview with director of photography Jordon Cronenweth on how he used soft warm frontlighting and hard backlighting like old film noir and opposite of hollywood to create dramatic shadows and such. In those photo's you posted it is obvious that the front lighting is pretty strong to make sure the actors faces are totally well lit. It also takes away a lot of the shadows and therefore the depth. The result seems to be a pretty flat and unrealistic scene. In many of the the BR street scenes he actually used the Neon signs to light the scenes. Just my observation and two cents.

I was reading the Ameican Cinematographer issue on BR from july 82' and the interview with director of photography Jordon Cronenweth on how he used soft warm frontlighting and hard backlighting like old film noir and opposite of hollywood to create dramatic shadows and such. In those photo's you posted it is obvious that the front lighting is pretty strong to make sure the actors faces are totally well lit. It also takes away a lot of the shadows and therefore the depth. The result seems to be a pretty flat and unrealistic scene. In many of the the BR street scenes he actually used the Neon signs to light the scenes. Just my observation and two cents.

Yes, I'm sure the photography is just as important as the sets, and maybe even more. What good are your sets if the lighting is wrong. The use of only existing neon light is brilliant. It probably made everything look more "real".

i think i know what your saying. i think my reply would be that every movie is different. the crews will always be different (cinematographer, lighting technitian, director, concept artist, etc...) so the different on-set combos will give oyu different results. perhaps, in the base of AI, if they got the same lighting guy as in BR and the same director of photograpy and cinematographer and such, AI would look like blade runner as much as possible without directly copying it exactly.

Why Do The Streets Of BR's "Copycats" Look So Clumsy?

Look at the typical Blade Runner environment in A.I. or Attack Of The Clones. I'm talking about how they made the streets look so much like the streets in BR. But something feels wrong. They truly look amateurish in comparison. Did anyone noticed that? Why is that?

Three little words
1. Lighting
2. Atmosphere (visual and audio)
3. Garbage


1. Lighting -- Everthing in BR was dark and dreary and claustophobic.
BR was lit like a neon/florecent sespool.
AI was lit like every other Steven Spielberg film (primarily warm and glowy)

2. Atmosphere (visual and audio) -- the sounds of a busy city, the rain, the smog, the varied cultures, the attention to detail (lit umbrellas)

3. Garbage -- the world in BR was the filthiest an most decayed world I've seen in cinema. Nothing else has yet come close.


We need to remember these things when doingthe work on the fan film.

3. Garbage -- the world in BR was the filthiest an most decayed world I've seen in cinema. Nothing else has yet come close.

That's the same as "the set", right? I think no other film has put so many time and detail in a film before.

ooooh finally a new and interesting topic:

its true no movie has really captured the feel of BR i think its because alot of directors are too "afraid" or unwilling to really go that extra distance and commit themselves to the total viscreal experience too afraid of scaring away some potential revenue its sad to see "artists" literally controlled by money and the opinions of others

but then again whos to say what is art and what isnt what the true intention of the director was perhaps spielberg wanted the city in A.I. to look almost too good to mirror in a way how almost too good the charecters were. the beast is in the details and in my experience nothing in movies isnt planned it looks,sounds,feels the way it does because thats what its supposed to be like

btw if any of this is confusing its ok im working on 4hrs of sleep and im not sure about some of it either

3. Garbage --

That's the same as "the set", right? I think no other film has put so many time and detail in a film before.

More than just the set. Everything in the set. From the overflowing trash cans, to the burned out car hulk, to the cardboard box shacks, to the power, steam and sewage conduits running everywhere.....

Everything in the film has a sense of being over worked, or so weather eroded as to be almost unusable. Partially vacant apartment buildings with collapsing ceilings, mannequins, leaking roofs, broken pipes, and bodies in bathtubs.

Show me one other film that shows a future as obviously decayed. Some films try...only BR succeeds.

Lots of movies have shown the horror of apocolypse, but few have shown the horror of decaying civilization.

it also helped that they had the WB city lot, the long street set thing deemed "ridleyville". having an entire street set (outside) to decorate helped a lot because you werent scrunched up in a studio with limited space. this was a real outside city location that they could add or remove whatever they wanted. in the case of BR, they added lots of garbage and neon and lots and lots of people and cars to add to the clostrophobia feeling.