Please No, Not a Blade Runner Sequel 585
bowman9991 submitted a story that ought to make even the most stone-hearted amongst you cry. He says "Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner. Script proposals have explored the nature of the off-world colonies, what happens to the Tyrell Corporation in the wake of its founder's death, and what would become of Rachel. Travis said he intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' Director Ridley Scott appears interested in a sequel too. At Comic-Con in 2007 Ridley said, 'If you have any scripts, you know where to send them.' It's doubtful he'll have time anytime soon though. He's already stated his next two science fiction films will be an adaptation of Aldous Huxley's Brave New Word with Leonardo DiCaprio and an adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War."
I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire. At the very least, you'll be able to sleep at night. Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?
And, on a related note, if you're a filmmaker and have ever thought to yourself "Hey, I bet a remake of 'It's a Wonderful Life' starring Ice Cube and some sassy kids would be great!" please, dear God, stay out of Hollywood.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Do you really want to die being best known as the "asshole who wrote that god-awful sequel to Blade Runner"?
Depends on how many million I made off that movie.
Myself, I'll wait for the Final Ultimate Director's Cut Armageddon Release of this one.
Uwe Boll (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on how many million I made off that movie.
Uwe? is that you?
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.
You list three good original movies but I counter that there is so much more to them than just needed money to make. Look at the directors/writers: Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino & Danny Boyle respectively. Now look at those three directors/writers names and notice how they rarely--if ever--attach themselves to bad projects. I think the three movies you listed were kind of like pet projects of these directors and there's not a lot of these great movies laying around just waiting to receive funding with the vision that these three movies you listed had.
You think you have a better idea but these studios have one directive: make money. And that's what they'll do & they'll do it better than you would. This isn't art, this is business. You aren't going to be taken seriously if you point Resevoir Dogs that made $147,839 on opening weekend in the states or Momento that made $235,488 on opening weekend in the states. Those amounts of money are a blip on the radar to what a franchise name makes them within three days.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Reservoir Dogs opened in a whopping 19 theaters making that a respectable $7781 per theater. Memento opened in 11 theaters, making $21,408 per theater. Your point is still valid since neither movie was ever wide released (Memento made it into 531 theaters, RD only 61), but to only point to opening weekend numbers is almost meaningless. As a recent example, Gran Torino only made $271,720 on opening weekend, but has gone on to gross over $100M. Just because a movie opens in limited release does not mean it won't end up making money.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Blade Runner made $4,749 average per theater opening weekend, which in inflated dollars (as of 1992 when Reservoir Dogs opened) is $6899.50, less than Quentin Tarantino's pet project, per theatre.
However it went on to gross 32m over it's lifetime (domestically), but cost 14m to make. At release it was considered a spectacular failure.
Theater by theater RD was more profitable. I don't believe that the idea that Ridley Scott would make this his pet project and do it right is very far fetched at all. The bar is set pretty damn high though... The effects STILL look good, the acting was great, and the music is out of this world. It's a stunning, hypnotic film. I have the director's cut and still watch it periodically.
One of the most beautiful movies ever made... I have the feeling that the only way a sequel would get made is if Ridley Scott financed it. No studio in their right mind would touch it, as is often the case with the most worthwhile movies.
-Viz
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Terminator 3 was made without James Cameron and IMHO, was an entertaining movie that continued the story in an interesting way. I avoided it for a long time for this same kind of reason -- not made by the originator, but eventually watched it on DVD and liked it. (Not as much as the previous two, but still very entertaining.)
There's also "Terminator Salvation" coming out this year and oh my god Terminator 5 already scheduled for 2011. We can't know how good these are of course.
I also think that the Termi
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Bzzzzt... movie snob alert.
T2 was an action movie. But it was a GREAT action movie, one of the best ever. It may not be an 'intelligent' as Blade Runner (the latter of which is one of my favourite movies of all time) but in terms of its genre it was largely unsurpassed until at least The Matrix.
Otherwise I agree with your post 100%. Although that To Kill a Mockingbird sequel sounds great, can I suggest Vin Diesel for the role of Atticus? I also have a title lined up for you: "2: Killa Mockingbird".
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Your post is the typical ignorant apology for Business As Usual we hear sheeple bleat every other day.
Your theory leads to hive mind and idiocracy, as one never goes broke underestimating the intelligence or the taste of the average american.
The entertainment industry is one of the single greatest blocks to genuine human progress.
RS
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm...well, from the previews, and what little bit I've heard about the movie...doesn't sound very interesting.
No explosions at all that I could see....
But seriously...it doesn't look that interesting. I read a bit about the movie in wikipedia [wikipedia.org], it appears to happen in Mumbai (somewhere in India I guess)...and it says that about 1/3 of the d
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't art, this is business.
Excellent point. If you want something artistic and original, go see an indie film. If you want something high budget, with mainstream appeal, go see "Blade Runner 2: Wrath of the Electric Sheep".
Is Manhattan in the house? (Score:5, Funny)
And that's why business sucks. Everything: including science, law, medicine, art, politics, education, takes a back seat to money-making.
Except, of course, for super disco breakin'.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Informative)
yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL? Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs
Reservoir Dogs is a remake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_on_Fire_(1987_film) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the IMDB FAQ [imdb.com] there seems to be some disagreement on this:
Re: (Score:2)
nobody in hollywierd can write anything original. The past 2 years and the next 4 will be full of remakes. Cripes they are starting remakes at the point that it's getting ridiculous.
I'm betting that we will probably see a remake of Star wars 3,4,5 within 10 years.
Everything fresh I have seen is coming from Indie people. The films that were at Sundance and the other film festivals that are NOT studio entries were fantastic.
But no, Hollywierd wont make anything new, If they can remake it or do a sequel
Re: (Score:2)
Think that's worse than making stupid sequels of movies that weren't good in the first place, aka "cinema of the 90s"?
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't cost you more $2000 in equipment and then your elbow grease.
Sure, as long as you:
* have no Hi-def widescreen
* don't want multiple shots of the same scene
* use low-quality audio
* use non-pirated software
* have no CG effects
* don't include computer costs
* don't pay anyone
* consider working time worth nothing
That $2000 will cover a single halfway-decent camera.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Like CG and hi-def are a requisite for creating art? I don't think so, it may be your requirement for viewership but that's a different issue altogether. There are plenty of hi-quality films that utilize little-to-no CG and frankly basic CG is doable on a desktop computer. Am I going to be able to render a highly complex scene? Of course not but that isn't within the scope of my aspirations at the moment, and don't take my word on any of this. But I think Robert Rodriquez is a bit more credible than me. If you happen to own the collectors edition of Sin City there are some great interviews with Mr. Rodriguez talking about his career and his approach, and he argues that aspiring filmmakers have access to every tool they need to make high quality films.
You don't need multiple cameras to do multiple angles on a single shot, you just need to do the scene multiple times. Does it open the door to continuity errors? Of course it does, but continuity errors are always going to be something to contend with so what's it really matter? The consumer level software is not prohibitively expensive and both Vegas and i Movie will put together a film, and with some options. It ain't studio work, but if your editor is talented it still looks good. Vegas costs next to nothing and is used in production houses for certain areas of work. You don't need top of the line equipment to create quality, you need top of the line equipment to make a studio picture but studio pictures rarely are for anything but entertainment.
And I can get a camera right now for $1200 that is considered, among idie film makers to be a very good camera. I can then go get the other equipment I need for the other $800. I'm not saying these prices are for new equipment but the used market is there...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of an interesting story. An episode of Diagnosis Murder needed a scene of a motorcycle crash, but the budget was not enough for a location shot... so Dick Van Dyke went home, turned on his Amiga, and did the crash in CG. [jimhillmedia.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or "rebooting" existing franchises....
Let's see, Bond? Check. Batman? Check. Star Trek? Check(1)? Friday 13th? Check. Am I forgetting anything?
(1) Yeah, more of a prequel than a reboot, but watch: The cannon will be altered by this installment.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek is turning into a Shakespeare kind of production. Within 50 years, they'll be discussing who's Kirk or Spock is better and then Trouble With Tribbles will be performed in the park every 4th of July.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Well, to truly appreciate Shakespeare, you really need to hear it in the original Klingon.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Whether 'tis Dagger of the Mind to suffer
The photon torpedoes of Outrageous Okona,
Or to take arms against a sea of Tribbles,
And by transporting, send them?
(Parody ended due to low serum caffeine levels.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:4, Funny)
But the Enterprise doesn't have cannon. Maybe they'll alter the photon torpedoes instead.
Even more reboots (Score:4, Informative)
Nightmare on Elm Street
Karate Kid
Candyman
GI Joe
Pink Panther
Street Fighter (not that there was much of a franchise to begin with)
Tron (this project has waffled between reboot and sequel, but is now being called Tr2n)
Terminator Salvation (technically a sequel, but one that isn't recognizing T3 as canon, and recast everyone to start a new franchise)
Land of the Lost
Fame
The Stepfather
Astro Boy
Sherlock Holmes
Hellraiser
Superman
Catwoman (a failed reboot, but a reboot none the less)
Sadly, I'm probably forgetting more reboots.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"How about you devote all the energy, time, and effort that you would have put into doing yet another ill-advised sequel or remake into writing something ORIGINAL?"
Most of what is original isn't if you looked hard enough and had enough time. There are only so many themes that have wide enough commercial or financial appeal to a general audience. Where you can see this a lot is in video games: Early video games were much more original then later ones. People I think tend to forget that the expense of doi
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
As you get older, less and less is original. "Original" work is generally (as the initial poster and then the child posts pointed out) something you haven't heard of yet. Stick around for a few decades and you'll realize just about every song you hear, every movie you see, every book you read, you have heard, seen, and read before in some fashion.
But don't give up hope: there may be no original plots, but a story is all in the telling, and THAT can be original.
Re:I've got a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.
Thanks man! You've just given me ideas for my next three movies, Memento 2, Reservoir Dogs 2, and Slumdog Millionaire 2!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh come off it. Sure both are about a gang of thieves and a jewelery heist with an undercover cop, just like Cloverfield and Godzilla are just movies of a town getting destroyed. If you've watched both Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire you won't come close to confusing the two. The way the stories are told are completely different and an important part of why the film is good.
Some scenes are pretty much the same as well in the movies, just like the car chase at the end of Death Proof was straight out of Va
Ender's Game (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep hearing how a studio won't sign off on a movie that involves so many young actors, involves kids killing kids, involves arguably no adult leads, and in many ways is unfilmable. Try getting little kids to do the Battle School stunts.
However, the solution is so simple. Hire Robert Zemekis, who has done dark, mature material (see Beowulf) and family material (see Back to the Future, Polar Express, Roger Rabitt). He could find the right tone.
Even better, he is a special effects genius who has been per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahem, the guy who wrote that short story wrote the movie. That is the director's brother. He was adapting his own work into another medium.
Given that Nolan wrote both, he can be seen as creating something original.
Jonathon Nolan also wrote the screenplay for The Prestige (adapting someone else's novel, but a fucking fantastic adaptation none the less) and the screenplay for The Dark Knight, which pulls from several comic story lines for inspiration, but could be seen as an original story arch.
Picking on N
Sure, why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Go ahead. I write fanfics, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:4, Funny)
Super Suck (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a Phillip K. Dick story to bastardize, this script could go into turbo-shitty land really fast.
there ARE authorized sequel books though (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human [wikipedia.org]
Except that wasn't "authorized" by Dick. The original story was complete as written, at least as much as you can call any Dick story 'complete'. The whole point of many of his stories is that you DON'T know for sure.
As for the idea of making a movie from "Brave New World", it can't be done without ruining the story, or being classified as Child Porn.
Exactly how do they plan on filming the "little children engaged in their erotic games" ?
Net a sequel? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't understand...are they fighting in an arena? Are they fishing for sequels? I'm confused. Unless Taco didn't have the 20 seconds to double check the headline for a typo.
Re:Net a sequel? (Score:5, Funny)
They're obviously going for the ultimate cyberpunk by merging it with a Neuromancer sequel.
Highlander (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Highlander (Score:4, Informative)
Heinlein, please? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Scott has a track record of putting out decent science fiction cinema, could we PLEASE get him to do some Heinlein? Or, if that's not "percussive" enough, some Niven-Pournelle? A shortened version of A Mote in God's Eye should have enough bang-bang to keep the kiddies happy, and cool aliens that turn from "advanced peaceful society" to "Freakish monster hoards" by the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I JUST got that message from Amazon today:
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, if you ask for Heinlein you'll just get The Puppet Masters starring Tom Cruise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His later works could be made indie of hollywood. Job, A comedy of manner comes to mind. Friday would sell tickets, or To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Some action, compressible.
I think we are all waiting for A Stranger in a Strange Land miniseries.
Where's Don LaFontaine when you need him? (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, a Heinlein movie would be great! They should make Stranger in a Strange Land. The orgies would be epic!
In a world alien to man...
"We've lost contact with the Envoy!"
The child of human explorers...
(voice distorted by radio)"Repeat, we have found a survivor!"
Is an alien.
"Damnit, man, you don't understand! He - is - a - Martian!"
(cue wild drum beat, footage of Mike jumping around on Martian rocks like an ape through the trees - hovercars diving through clouds - Jill punching out a guard in Bethesda)
Douglas: That young man's claim to Mars will be MINE!
Jubal: THAT YOUNG MAN IS UNDER MY PROTECTION!
(beat... black screen, fade in)
Berquist: You're coming with me...
(beat... black screen, fade in)
Mike (snarling): I... GROK... WRONGNESS!
Stranger In A Strange Land... Rated R.
Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get the whole "this sequel is terrible, it shouldn't have been made!" thing. You don't have to watch it. The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.
Besides, there's an outside chance it could be really good. The Bladerunner idea is a great starting point.
Re: (Score:2)
They're under the (mistaken) assumption that the author would write something they would like, instead, if they didn't write this.
They're pretty much totally wrong, of course. If there was something better they could do, they'd already be working on it.
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:5, Insightful)
For folks that have a passion about a world created by a movie, then a crappy sequel taints that world.
Which takes us right back to the GP's original point: "You don't have to watch it."
The Highlander sequels did nothing to ruin the original classic for me, because I never saw them, and never will.
So, here's my advice. When/If the movie comes out, wait until everyone else has seen it so you can get some reviews, then decide whether or not you will go see it based on those reviews. If everyone says it sucks and "taints the world" of the original, then stay away from the theatre.
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't KNOW that it'll be awful until you see it (though you can have a pretty good gut feeling).
Then you have no one to blame but yourself for not listening to your gut.
Honestly, if you're so enamoured with a movie that another movie can impact your enjoyment of that first movie, then don't take the chance.
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:4, Funny)
There are only two Indiana Jones movies. What is this "Temple" people keep mentioning?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact it's been made doesn't affect the original in any way whatsoever. Chill out.
Except that it's mere existence will taint the original. We who haven't seen a godawful sequel will still have to content with all the zombies out there running around shouting things like "the second one was soooo much better".
If there's only one movie, it will stand on it's own. As soon as a classic movie is turned into a franchise, then the quality and what made the movie a classic will disappear - no matter if you ignor
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's more about soiling the memory of something good.
It's kinda like when you meet a hot girl, you hit it off, then your friend tells you she has a penis.
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:5, Funny)
It was a Rocky Horror Picture Show party. I was appropriately dressed and you were seriously drunk.
Peter
Re:Ignore it if you don't want to watch it. (Score:5, Funny)
dude... did you even watch Doom, how about Judge Dredd?
People committed suicide in the theaters over how bad those movies were.
Riots in the streets for 12 days, total dead was 15,000 opening weekend alone.
Do you really want that shitty of a movie to happen again?
DO YOU?!!?!?!
Forever War.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess we can thank GW for starting the forever war.
But seriously, I hope they don't fuck it up. One of my favorites!
As long as this is going to suck... (Score:2)
I Don't Even Care Anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Please No, Net a Blade Runner Sequel
Who cares at this point, really?
Disclaimers: I'm not an economist, I love Philip K. Dick & I could care less for Blade Runner the movie.
I see it as there being finite number of movies Hollywood has the money to make each year. I'd rather see a Blade Runner Sequel than the fourth or fifth Austin Powers movie (can you believe that Myers is on contract to make two more?) so why not? I mean, like the article says, the novel is out there [wikipedia.org], it's not like if they transform that story into a movie or make their own script it's going to affect my perception of the original Blade Runner or Philip K. Dick novel. What the article fails to mention is there are actually four Blade Runner novels ( Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night [wikipedia.org] (1996), Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon [wikipedia.org] (2000)). Go ahead, turn them all into movies, you know the fans will reward you for it with piles of cash. It's better than Legally Blonde: Supreme Court Captain!
I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also? I don't see this as quite cut and dried as CmdrTaco ("don't-ruin-perfect?"--I would hardly call any of this material perfect). I mean, I bitch and moan about movies like Snakes on a Plane & The Transporter 8 as I read great novels by great sci-fi writers like Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle [wikipedia.org] (which, although controversial, I opine would make a fine movie)--why not use these great stories that are already out there to allow good directors to create (potentially) great films?
I like to watch original movies from Warner Independent Pictures [wikipedia.org] and Fox Searchlight Pictures [wikipedia.org] but the public and I seem to disagree about where the money in Hollywood should be spent so why do I care that they rehash old crap and dilute brand names when that's how the market rewards them? Can you be critical of them making money? Is that not why they're in that business? Whore yourselves out for all I care, I'm not going to watch it unless there's a Rifftrax for it.
And let's not forget that there are good examples of this actually working out there like The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, The Lord of the Rings, even Batman Begins & The Dark Knight grossly overshadow Batman Forever & Batman & Robin.
So I ask you, why do you care? You aren't forced to see the movie and if you do, it's going to give you something you love and cherish the most: something to bitch vindictively about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I Don't Even Care Anymore (Score:5, Informative)
AI was based on a Brian Aldiss story - Super-Toys Last All Summer Long
Already done. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If this new movie bears twice as much relation to Blade Runner as Soldier did (fine movie, btw) then it can hardly do any harm to the original (even in our memories.)
Kurt Russel -- Soldier (Score:4, Insightful)
The movie Soldier is an amazing movie. Not that it is perfect, by any means, but Kurt Russel has about 12 spoken lines, but carries the whole movie by body language and facial expressions.
I am a closet Kurt Russel fan, and wish, in a better world, he got better parts. His acting is cartoonish because he gets cartoonish parts.
Similarly, I was joking with my son a few weeks ago about the movie "Tropic Thunder" and Robert Downey Jr. It is a awesome that Robert Downey has such a screwed up personal life, it means his talent and ability are relegated to "fun" movies like "Iron Man" and "Tropic Thunder" as opposed to boring movies like "Chocolat," "Cider House Rules," or "The Ice Storm." :-)
Net a Blade Runner Sequel (Score:2)
Net a Blade Runner Sequel? huh? Is "Net" the name of the proposed movie? Odd, if so.
What about an EMS recombination? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't panic! (Score:5, Funny)
Gaff (Score:2)
I've always been interested in the Gaff character.
Like .. how does he make those wonderful origami? oy!
Also he has one of the best quotes from the movie, from any movie.
Re: (Score:2)
He learned to fold origami on Caprica.
Where can I get the VO DVD? (Score:2)
And I'm a huge Scott fan. When I saw Alien in its theatrical release, it changed my life--I was stunned by its greatness.
But I have to say that "Blade Runner" needs the Voice Over. The director's cut requires help--the heavy editing and VO were desperation moves, but correct ones.
I consider myself a cinema buff, not a member of the great unwashed with no sci-fi exposure for context
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure if you need to do this to get it, but if you get the "Blade Runner Five-disk Ultimate Collector's Edition" (yes, that's really what it's called, and yes, I have it), it includes the original US theatrical release, with the voice-over.
I was never sure about the voice-over, myself. I saw that version first, in theatres, back in the day, and I thought the voice-over was annoying, a bit too "Magnum P.I.", clubbing me with context. When I saw the "director's cut" later on, I liked it better, but of cou
Recommendation (Score:3, Interesting)
They say this like it's a positive recommendation or something. It's not.
or a prequel? (Score:2)
In fact, lets go the whole hog and make a Prequel.
We can have an early prototype replicant, maybe with big ears and a lisp; a hot chick - playing the original Sean Young; an evil corporate manager who subverts the original scientists and managers, betraying them to turn a humanitarian Tyrell company into a defence contractor-corporation with a production line consisting solely of pleasure units and soldiers; and it wouldn't be complete without a ton of modern, glossy CGI effects - no dark shadows and defini
Donning the old Zen-Master stuff (Score:5, Funny)
To disperse some wisdom.
You see, grasshopper, story is like tea leaves. When you have good tea leaves, you will have good tea. You take tea leaves, you take hot water, and you have good tea. You have wonderful tea. You savour tea, and you like tea so much that you think, you want more tea. So you take the leaves out of the water and save them, then you bring hot water again and you pour it over the tea leaves. But alas, no good tea. It tastes stale and bland. The flavor all gone.
If you want another cup of tea, you have to find new tea leaves. Using the old one will only give you bland, tasteless and generally worthless tea.
Terminator... (Score:3, Insightful)
Terminator II was 100 times better than Terminator I, but Terminator III was 100 times worse.
What does this mean? It's all about the script, not the material.
Short stories... (Score:2)
The universe of Blade Runner is ripe for a short stories sequel... ;)
I'm not worried: I just don't give a fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have given up hope to see any worthwhile SF movie, in this century. After the 70's, they have been progressively dumbed down. One of my favourite SF movies was "The Andromeda strain", from 1970 (IIRC, won't bother checking with IMDB). It was good, hard-ish SF without unnecessary drama and NO brainfarts. Then they decided to remake it as a two-part mini series last year, and obviously, they HAD TO dumb it down. Because we all know that people today are dumber than they were 30+ years ago... right? I don't hope to see such underrated gems as was "Logan's run", "Demon seed", "2001: A space odyssey" etc.
I blame the "Star Wars" saga for this. Oh, I can hear a rumble, as if a billion slashdotters rose up in horror (I have some karma to burn), but that's what I believe: "Star Wars" had little to do with SF - it should be called a costume western - and it didn't make your neurons work. But it was grand, it had interesting special effects. In brief, it was entertaining without taxing your brain. Just like any James Bond movie does. And the producers of Star Wars made gobs of money, and so, that became the blueprint for future SF movies - make them dumb and entertaining.
So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.
So, fuck the movie industry and fuck the dumb audience. I have no hope for a good SF movie anymore. I'll stick to books - Stephen Baxter and others are still churning good, brain-stimulating hard-SF worth my time.
Re:I'm not worried: I just don't give a fuck. (Score:4, Insightful)
but A.I. did suck.
The ending was a massive digression and the premise, while dark, was not brought to the levels of, say, elfen lied, which did a much better job of portraying a dark, dissociated view of human corruption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"A.I." stirred in me an ocean of questions about consciousness, the self and sentience. Many of the conclusions and doubts I have today, have their roots in the thoughts that the movie has induced in me. Maybe it could have been better - and the short story by Aldiss is also great, but it has a different "bent" than the movie. BOTH are worthwhile, in my opinion. And we all know that opinions are like hemorrhoids, as every asshole has them, including me and you - but alas, the situation is similar to the "Bl
Re:I'm not worried: I just don't give a fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.
Did you just seriously say AI was intellectually challenging? There was nothing "intellectually challenging" about AI. It was simply the worst SF movie ever made, and that's saying a lot. In fact, it was SF in name only - you talk about costume western that is Star Wars (and I don't necessarily disagree) - AI is nothing more than fluffy drama tear jerker that tried WAYYY too hard with ridiculously unbelievable characters, plot holes from here to the moon and horrible ... absolutely HORRIBLE acting. There was absolutely NOTHING redeeming about AI, and the fact that you hold it up as something to be admired (intellectually challenging? Seriously?) leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea what good SF is. Your credibility in that department is pretty much shot.
I can see it before my eyes ... (Score:3, Funny)
Mylie Cyrus as Rachael
Steve Carrell as Roy Batty
Michael Myers as Bryant
Shot by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Soundtrack by The Jonas Brothers.
Guess who is doing Neuromancer. (Score:3, Informative)
This guy [imdb.com] is doing Neuromancer.
The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly was a sequel... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ain't nothing wrong with doing a sequel. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" was the third movie in a trilogy, and was by far the best. It often takes several passes through a creative landscape before all the elements find their place and the whole thing jells.
Sequels don't have to have the same characters or plot. It can be enough to just take the basic idea and feel of the first movie, and run with it in a new direction.
For example, I'd love to see someone explore the idea of replication much deeper. What if Replicants weren't time-limited, but made perpetual instead? What if memory could be captured and re-implanted in one generation of Replicant after another, so that consciousness would span several lifetimes/bodies? What if anyone could make a copy of themselves, on demand? Say you want to try what it feels like to jump out of an airplane -- without a parachute. Do you make a replica, and then toss yourself?
A sequel doesn't have to be bad....
IIRC, Deckard was a replicant (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's never explicitly stated.. and even if he was the script suggests he was a newer model newer - Rachel was a prototype for giving replicants memories, but Deckard also had memories.. which makes him newer.
Is a Good Blade Runner Sequel Possible? (Score:3, Interesting)
What would it take to make a good (or even great) Blade Runner sequel?
The original became a cult hit mainly because (a) it had an interesting, well textured setting (b) it projected a very clear style or mood that fit well with (c) an interesting moral question about what makes one "human" that is ultimately left up to the viewer, (d) while including enough action directly related to the question to keep it interesting on first viewing.
I think a good sequel would need to (a) replicate and build on the setting (b) choose a DIFFERENT question, or perhaps deeper examination of the original moral question to examine; and (c) fit the style/mood to that examination - and of course (d) driving it all with some cool action scenes.
Forget the off-world colonies - it's far more interesting to look at how alien Earth would have become, to our eyes. The original looked at an organic mix of decaying remnants of today's cities threaded and overshadowed by ultra-tech future stuff, and invaded by "foreigners" (apparently many natives having moved on to the off-world colonies?) OK, what is happening elsewhere? We saw a city apparently sapped by climate turned hot and wet - global warming has run amuk.
How's that affecting the rest of the country/world? Drought-ruined farm lands? Chicago by an empty Great Lakes basin (water mostly diverted to the new agricultural band across Canada, just a few big pipelines running to the city), surrounded by dusty desert, maybe growing food in towers? Ice age in Europe? London flooded? Expanding seas flooded the Mediterranean and turned lots of cities into Venice equivalents (and sunk Venice itself)? But now a dam is built across the Straits of Gibraltar - generating power as water is let in to replace evaporation, but not letting the sea fall to it's old levels? Has there been a mini-nuke-war in the middle east or maybe Pakistan-India? Those sorts of things would be interesting to look at. (And the nuke war assumption, shown in a few quick scenes, might serve as a warning to today's bickering countries with nukes or ambitions.) Instead of sitting in one city, the sequel should get out and around the world.
What interesting moral question might be examined? How about a serious re-examination of Hollywood's constant droning "it's good to age and die" formula? Perhaps the hero is struggling to put together enough money to replace his failing synth-organs, even as he moves through the richest and poorest levels of society? How about effectively immortal wealthy parents who keep their kids "young and innocent" - a 43 year old kid that looks 7 leading a secret life while playing a role to keep the parents happily self-deceived? Hmm - that edges on "What is adulthood? What is perversion? Is it more perverse to "force" someone to be a child forever, or for that "child" to behave as the adult they mentally are? [It doesn't have to turn the movie into child-porn - create a scenario in which a "straight-adult" hero is tempted but resists out of old-fashioned moral scruples he's not sure really apply any more - controversial enough.]
Maybe have the hero be someone arriving back from the off-world colonies, so we see this strange new world through his eyes - the tech is mostly not strange to him, but the culture would appear involuted and perverted, coming from a more straight-forward off-world culture where kids grow up fast because they're needed.
Re:Hold still please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
SPOILER ALERT: Leonardo diCaprio (sp?) IS Soma.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. He can make me snooze and he can make me apathetic, but so far he failed to make me happy.
Thinking about it, maybe he could star in a remake of Soylent Green. I'm sure he'd be great in the name part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are you sure ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god.. don't give them ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sequel or prequel won't matter. What you are looking for in a sci-fi movie doesn't exist. That's the big difference between true science fiction and what hollywood calls science fiction. You will never see true science fiction on the big screen because the average, movie going, lobotomized, audience member wouldn't understand what they were watching.