Ridley Scott is to return to his vision of a futuristic Los Angeles by directing a follow-up to the 1982 SF classic Blade Runner. Rumours of a sequel have graced t'interweb for some time now, but the camera is most definitely set to roll with Scott in the director seat, after Alcon Entertainment - the studio which secured the …
Sorry let me put that another way...
Hollywood continues its current policy of remaking/ruining classic movies.........
and, in agreement, may I state...
It's official -- Hollywood is out of ideas. Remakes of remakes, movies based on comic books, movies about Smurfs, 3D crap, and now this.
The most disapointing thing is
there is so much good (and even more quite passable) origional sci-fi in text form. I isn't that the ideas aren't out there, it is that most of the film industry is functionally illiterate.
Not only Hollywood
With a few exceptions you can see that in general all industries suffer from the same problem: only wankers make it to the top. It's a cultural thing, it may be a cliche, but we are indeed in an end-of-epoch time, like just before the French revolution...
It might end up being the first 3D movie worth watching...
Right on man. The number of brilliant sci-fi books I've read that would make absolute blockbusters but that Hollywood refuses to touch is staggering. Consider Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" and "To The Stars" trilogies; Julian May's "Galactic Milieu" and "Saga of the Pliocene Exiles" epics; Greg Bear's "Eon", "Eternity", "Forge of God", and "Anvil of Stars"; Vernor Vinge's "Marooned in Realtime"; Brian Aldiss's "Helliconia" trilogy (particularly relevant in this age of environmental awareness and climate change)... .the list is endless, and if handled properly would make the most awesome movies imaginable.
Actually, there's the rub: "if handled properly." Given Hollywood's propensity for butchering books to the point where the only things in common between book and movie are the title and the names of a few characters, perhaps it's better that these books remain only as books. Unless some non-Hollywood filmmaker does it. Australian, Canadian and English filmmakers are all far superior to Hollywood's tripe.
More likely - let's face it - yet another 3D movie that isn't worth watching
this is my unhappy face
OI RIDLEY! NOOOOOOO!
Just leave the franchises alone...FFS.
Bladerunner is a great movie and was made good by, the script, the actors and the technology available at the time, which while quirky, was believable.
These days the CG tech gives films an almost unrealistic sheen.
Not to mention the fact that Hollywood itself appears to be running out of fresh ideas. Okay I got another one.
Lets make Pulp Fiction 2. The people who loved it, are gonna come flocking thus earning us big box office $$$, but who gives a sheet if the films a turkey, which will almost spoil the enjoyment of the original.
There are some great books and minds out there that can provide original entertainment without having to re-visit something.
Sometimes you just gotta know when to leave something alone. Not doing so can leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
>I'll be crossing my fingers in ultimate anticipation
I think if you prepare to be disappointed and assume it will be shit there's a small chance you might be pleasantly surprised.
This'll be a dissapointment I tells ya, a dissapointment....
Given the decades of fanwanking that have grown up around this movie.
As long as it has NOTHING to do with the original then it might work. I.e. work in the universe like the old Westwood game did, but other than a fleeting appearance in an esper photo and a few references to events in the film there is nothing from the film apart from locations.
Would be cool to see something a bit closer to the book, i.e. more emphasis on lack of animals and the kibble but im not holding my breath.
But it will probably be another shitty 're-imagining' meh.
(Nuke cus thats essentially the prequel in one word)
Blade Runner ii
excellent, brilliant news
Ridley Scott - fantastic, amazing, I am salivating at the thought of what he will do with the story 30 years on..
oh, russel crowe......
wont be seeing that then
Oh great, in 3D
Because nothing improves a film like a splitting headache.
Oh come on..
The splitting headache at the very least takes your mind off the poor acting and the pathetically simplified story line.
Just as long as...
... it's not based on K.W.Jeter's dire "Blade Runner 2" which tried and epically failed to square the circle between the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the film "Blade Runner"!
Wrong on the Internet
Sorry but you are wrong on the internet old chum.
The Jetter (two t's btw) sequel was actually surprisingly good, given the nature of his usual violent, rambling drivel.
I would assume if they are calling it 'Blade Runner 2' then it is indeed based on his novel, but we'll see.
Oh, and I'm totally past caring too!
"Jeter" has one 't', not two (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._W._Jeter )
And saying that the sequel was "good" because the rest of what he writes is crap is like saying that banging your head against a brick wall is good because it feels so much better when you stop!
video game spin off
I can't help but think the tech behind LA Noire would make a pretty good blade runner game.
The original game wasn't too bad.
Is Nothing Sacred?
FFS can't they film something new?
Ridley Scott, go stand in the corner/lift-to-hell with George Lucas.
the greatest Sci-fi movie of all time, I'll be crossing my fingers
When it starts so high, it has so far to fall.
sorry, it's not that amazing....
it's great cinema, just not a great film....
yeah it looks fantastic (the cleaned up re-master) but i still think it needs 3-4 minutes chopping from the last 15 minutes.
Re: sorry, it's not that amazing....
I learned something new today.
They have Fuzzy Ducks in Philistia......
I know what is amazing though
It's amazing how your opinions are also facts. Absolutely amazing. In my opinion anyway
It's done in a film noir style. So it is deliberately stylist and doesn't flow like a typical popcorn movie.
It is obviously not to your taste, but don't run it down because you don't like it.
Blimey, those were the days before films had compulsory CGI martial-arts type sequences. Oh the fond memories...
I would love to see something actually more akin to the book. There was a lot to do with spirituality and the mechanics of belief in the book that was absent from the film.
Well actually, apart from "it's in the future, it has replicants and a bounty hunter", there was very, very little in common.
But I fear that this will be another in a long line of prequels that tarnish the overall legacy of the franchise -I'm looking at you Lucas!
That there will be approximately 10 final/directors cuts of this one too, after it's done?
Greatest sci-fi film of all time?
While I think "Blade Runner" is certainly made of awesome, I'd have to say that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is hands-down _the_ Greatest... with "Blade Runner" and "THX 1138" (the only George Lucas film that matters) tied for a close second.
The mob had spoken.
Follow the link citing the reason the author called it so.
Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?
Mines the one with a grump in the pocket.
I read somewhere,
a director (may even have been Scott himself) describing how it took decades for the film industry to start doing sound right, and they had the same issues with the transition to colour - a few films got it right at the start, but film-makers generally had to learn the use of the new tech by hard trial-and-error. His point being that it would likely be that long also before good 3D was more than the odd fluke.
That'll be why
they've tried and failed to introduce colour and sound every decade for the last fifty years.
They still can't get sound right... it's usually very badly miked and the only time you can hear dialogue really clearly is when they've redubbed it back in as it was incomprehensible even to the director... What doesn't help is when the soundtrack music overpowers the actors... who should really be sent to diction classes to stop them from mumbling...
Er, not exactly off-topic, but am I the only person who prefers the original version (with the narration and proper ending) to the Director's Cut version?
Ah, so *you're* one of the people who makes up this mysterious test screening audience used by Hollywood then?
I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!
Er yes, yes you are...
So it was you!
You where the audience the studios had in mind when they insisted on the optimistic ending. You were the one the studios thought wouldn't understand what was going on when they stuck the Blade Runner for Dummies narration on the top of it.
Are you out of your mind, man!!!???
I had to wait for the DVD set with 5 or 7 versions, so I could get the right movie. Fords voice set the mood, best way to see that movie was to know what was in his head.....
If I was coming at it having never seen the film, the original cut is far better. It's better paced for a start, and the narration suits the Film Noir style of it.
But once you've seen the film, and liked it, then the (myriad) Directors Cuts are better. It's like opera - you know the story, you know what's going on; you want to sit back, put yourself into the world and enjoy the performances.
But, show someone who has never seen the film the last Director's Cut, and they've lost interest by 30 minutes in, when nothing has happened, none of the characters have been properly introduced, and you've no idea where the film is going, or whether it'll be worthwhile to get there.
I don't like the dove taking off into a blue sky in the middle of the night, but otherwise the original version was fine - they drove off into the wilderness where Deckard shoots Rachael in the head to save her from being hunted down by Holden or Gaff.
The voice over was perfect for that Noir feel.
Probably you are. The original isn't bad, exactly, but the voiceover is way too cheesy. You can just hear the studio chairpolisher saying "It's police, yeah? Let's put a Mike Hammer kind of voiceover on it. Kids love that." And the ending - WTF?! "Suddenly it was all wonderful and they all lived happily ever after"?! Ye gods.
I refuse to enoble a simple forum post!
Ridders..... why oh why oh why?!?!?!?
what have we done that has displeased you soooo much that you would adulterate one of your best movies in this way?
Are you channelling Lucas? Is that it? maybe we can help?
And I see you are also planning on fucking up "Alien" too... :-|
Could be good
Well it is Ridley and not some useless person.
I would give it a chance - I think he is planning same world but not same people.
Context - Modern Hollywood
Let's not get carried away.
The remake of Lone Ranger has been cancelled because costs were going to spiral out of control.
(Side note : How the KCUF do you spend a quarter of a billion dollars on a few horses and cowboy hats?)
So how bleeding much is a Blade Runner 2013 version going to cost?
Recycling old ideas
It is sad that there are no authors these days writing new books of which they can make into films. No, wait I'm dreaming in Farenheit 451, there *is* a constant stream of new ideas. Wake up Hollywood!
Flames for books, going up in.
As I said above
Hollywood producers = functional illiteracy.
This is a bad idea....made worse by:
"Don't bet against Russell Crowe being involved. After Gladiator the star has appeared in a number of other Scott flicks."
Oh fucking hell NO.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO...
The mans a fucking arsehole with all the acting talent of a big brother contestant....
So, Mr Scott, just to re-iterate.. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
Im just in the process of "obtaining" the blu-ray rip, er sorry, release...So i can remind myself just how good a film it is....