Blade Runner Sequel?

[1369]

Per Ridley Scott it's possible. (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/07/31/ridley_scott_eyes_blade_runner_sequel)

[leemajors]

commence shaky cam induced vomiting.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

ridley is another shakey cam director? i dont remember part 1 being like that.


ehhh PKD will roll over in his grave if they post matrix/2000-ize a blade runner sequel.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'd like to not see that, and instead see more PKD books made into movies. Unfortunately, alot of his stories have already been blatantly ripped off and made into other movies.

Thirteenth floor and The Truman Show are two examples of blatant ripoffs of PKD books. Matrix was even slightly a ripoff of his shit though really William Gibson first invented the "matrix" and wrote about it in the way it was portrayed in the movie more than PKD did.

The only movie of his I have not seen is Paycheck and thats only cuz it has that douche Collin Farrel in it, why oh why did they have to cast him in that movie. Why did people have to make him the "it" guy during that period. Why did he have to be Alexander? He was like Jude Law before Jude Law was Jude Law.

[CubanMustGo]

Cannot imagine how they would not fuck this up.

[leemajors]

ridley is another shakey cam director? i dont remember part 1 being like that.


ehhh PKD will roll over in his grave if they post matrix/2000-ize a blade runner sequel.
ridley is all about the shaky cam - it wasn't something he started out doing, but when it got going he couldn't stop. both scott brothers are horrible about it.

[J.T.]

Hollywood is so desperate for new ideas that they'd reboot an 80s movie to make a sequel. Fucking lame.

[Borosai]

Not interested.

[L.I.T]

ridley is all about the shaky cam - it wasn't something he started out doing, but when it got going he couldn't stop. both scott brothers are horrible about it.

Tony Scott isn't so much about the handheld cam, as he is about the stylized cuts and edits; kinda like he has an LSD-head for an editor. However, he does use it waaaaay to much (Domino was a piece of crap, directorally).

I'm trying to think of movies that Ridley Scott has over-used the handheld cam...and I'm coming up blank. I know he has a tendency to use it in up-close shots, to come up with a grainy image (see KOH during the attack on Jerusalem and the first attack sequence in Gladiator). However, he typically only uses it for maximum effect during certain sequences. Aside from that, his action sequences and generally editing is stylish, but not over-the-top. He's certainly much better than guys like Paul Greengrass or Michael Bay.

[J.T.]

This is getting to be lame, Hollywood. Do you see musicians making covers of their own albums 20+ years later just to get new fans who are into screamo and MTV bullshit like Fall Out Boy to buy their albums?

I bet we're not far away from that either. Human intelligence is falling so rapidly that people would go for that.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This is getting to be lame, Hollywood. Do you see musicians making covers of their own albums 20+ years later just to get new fans who are into screamo and MTV bullshit like Fall Out Boy to buy their albums?



That's what producers are for.

[L.I.T]

Nope, but I am always surprised by the amount of modern artists who sample from older musicians.

[exstatic]

Ridley's trademark isn't shakey-cam, it's water and some sort of oscillating blade or blades (fans, windmills, etc.). Anytime you re-watch one of his movies, look for those in combination.

[leemajors]

Ridley's trademark isn't shakey-cam, it's water and some sort of oscillating blade or blades (fans, windmills, etc.). Anytime you re-watch one of his movies, look for those in combination.
true, i just checked out imdb. it's just his name appearing as producer in all these shaky cam movies.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Cannot imagine how they would not fuck this up.

Yup, leave it alone. Blade Runner:Director's Cut was a masterpiece, and ended perfectly.

Please don't fuck with your best work, Ridley!

[peewee's lovechild]

Yup, leave it alone. Blade Runner:Director's Cut was a masterpiece, and ended perfectly.

Please don't fuck with your best work, Ridley!

Ridley said in a recent interview that he was always pissed that he wasn't allowed to film and edit the movie the way he intended to.

I think that he just would like to continue with his vision.

But, if it doesn't have Harrsion Ford and Rutger Hauer in there . . . I don't want to see it.

[CuckingFunt]

Tony Scott isn't so much about the handheld cam, as he is about the stylized cuts and edits; kinda like he has an LSD-head for an editor. However, he does use it waaaaay to much (Domino was a piece of crap, directorally).
Yes it was.

Tony Scott has almost ruined more good movies than any other director I can think of. Domino had enough going for it that I liked it, but the direction is awful. And I will never forgive Tony Scott for his directing job on True Romance -- Tarantino's fucking genius script plays like a bad episode of "Miama Vice" in parts.

[leemajors]

Ridley said in a recent interview that he was always pissed that he wasn't allowed to film and edit the movie the way he intended to.

I think that he just would like to continue with his vision.

But, if it doesn't have Harrsion Ford and Rutger Hauer in there . . . I don't want to see it.
maybe he wants to go back and put walkie talkies in all of their hands.

[CuckingFunt]

maybe he wants to go back and put walkie talkies in all of their hands.:madrun


Fucking Steven Spielberg...

[peewee's lovechild]

:madrun


Fucking Steven Spielberg...

Thou shall not speaketh evil of the god that is Spielberg.

(but the walkie talkie thing was bullshit)

[CuckingFunt]

Thou shall not speaketh evil of the god that is Spielberg.

(but the walkie talkie thing was bullshit)Spielberg is an overrated hack.







Yeah, I said it. And I meant it.

[leemajors]

Spielberg is an overrated hack.







Yeah, I said it. And I meant it.
i'll second that. he hasn't made a great movie in ages.

[JPB]

Spielberg is good at what he does : solid, entertaining movies but ain't no genius.

You want an entertaining movie out of a script, give it to Steve.
You want a masterpiece, too late Stanley is gone.

[L.I.T]

Spielberg is an overrated hack.







Yeah, I said it. And I meant it.


I think it was Terry Gilliam who had the best description of Spielberg: a director of great scenes, but no longer a director of great movies. Something to that effect.

[JPB]

As for a Blade runner sequel... Well, the sentence itself seems weird.
It's just like Kubrick's 2001, you can't make sequels out of it, they're one of a kind movies.

[L.I.T]

Yes it was.

Tony Scott has almost ruined more good movies than any other director I can think of. Domino had enough going for it that I liked it, but the direction is awful. And I will never forgive Tony Scott for his directing job on True Romance -- Tarantino's fucking genius script plays like a bad episode of "Miama Vice" in parts.


True Romance was a travesty; I still think that was Tarantino's best script. The only good thing in Domino was Knightley's acting, but I still can't be sure since I never saw her on screen for longer than 2 seconds.

I think it was Newsweek that had a little blurb saying that Tony Scott has had as good a career as big brother Ridley...I've never trusted their movie reviews since.

[L.I.T]

As for a Blade runner sequel... Well, the sentence itself seems weird.
It's just like Kubrick's 2001, you can't make sequels out of it, they're one of a kind movies.


Did you see the sequel to 2001? Decent sci-fi opera, but didn't bring anything new to the table.

[exstatic]

Did you see the sequel to 2001? Decent sci-fi opera, but didn't bring anything new to the table.
...and that was with the original author scribing.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Spielberg is an overrated hack.







Yeah, I said it. And I meant it.


I totally agree. He's a peice of shit who is still riding the crest of his first two movies or so. Plus the walkie talkie thing is disgusting. Plus didnt he work on transformers?

[peewee's lovechild]

Did you see the sequel to 2001? Decent sci-fi opera, but didn't bring anything new to the table.

Arthur C. Clark wrote a novel recently, a few years back really, called 3001 that's supposed to wrap up the whole thing.

I haven't heard anything about it being made into a movie.

[peewee's lovechild]

Spielberg is an overrated hack.







Yeah, I said it. And I meant it.

You injure me with such blasphemy.

[peewee's lovechild]

i'll second that. he hasn't made a great movie in ages.

Have you even seen Munich??

Great movie, great acting, great directing.

[L.I.T]

Arthur C. Clark wrote a novel recently, a few years back really, called 3001 that's supposed to wrap up the whole thing.

I haven't heard anything about it being made into a movie.

Haven't read 3001 yet, but I doubt they are going to make it into a move; unless Darren Aranofsky decides he hasn't had enough of gigantic convoluted sci-fi.

But there was a sequel made by Peter Hyams in the early 80's, called 2010. Like exstatic said, the screenplay was put together with Clarke, however the movie was a generic straight-forward film.

[CuckingFunt]

You injure me with such blasphemy.Sorry. I've never thought he was all he was cracked up to be.

And I'm still dealing with anger issues after sitting through the last hour of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence.

[peewee's lovechild]

Haven't read 3001 yet, but I doubt they are going to make it into a move; unless Darren Aranofsky decides he hasn't had enough of gigantic convoluted sci-fi.

But there was a sequel made by Peter Hyams in the early 80's, called 2010. Like exstatic said, the screenplay was put together with Clarke, however the movie was a generic straight-forward film.

I agree with the general concensus on 2010. It could have been MUCH better. They should've gone with Stanley Kubrick again on that one.

I also agree that Aranofsky would be a great candidate for 3001. I thought that "The Fountain" was great and he could definitely pull it off.

[peewee's lovechild]

Sorry. I've never thought he was all he was cracked up to be.

And I'm still dealing with anger issues after sitting through the last hour of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence.

You can't really blame Speilberg for that one. He was trying to finish Kubrick's film, an almost impossible task.

I think he did a decent job on it.

[CuckingFunt]

You can't really blame Speilberg for that one. He was trying to finish Kubrick's film, an almost impossible task.

I think he did a decent job on it.I liked parts of that movie a lot more than I expected to (specifically the parts that took place in the city, more specifically the parts that felt more Kubrick than Spielberg), but the entire last act... with the aliens, and the Pinocchio, and the fucking blue fairy, was so pretentious and unnecessary that it made me angry. I flat out refuse to ever walk out of a film I've paid to see -- good or bad, I feel I've made a commitment to that experience -- but I came pretty damn close in that one. It was torturous.

[peewee's lovechild]

I liked parts of that movie a lot more than I expected to (specifically the parts that took place in the city, more specifically the parts that felt more Kubrick than Spielberg), but the entire last act... with the aliens, and the Pinocchio, and the fucking blue fairy, was so pretentious and unnecessary that it made me angry. I flat out refuse to ever walk out of a film I've paid to see -- good or bad, I feel I've made a commitment to that experience -- but I came pretty damn close in that one. It was torturous.

While I agree that the ending could've been better . . . how else could he have ended it??

And, it's a great conceit.

All of humanity was gone, yet all of humanity was summed up by the little boy.

I really don't think it was all that bad.

[CubanMustGo]

Arthur C. Clark wrote a novel recently, a few years back really, called 3001 that's supposed to wrap up the whole thing.

I haven't heard anything about it being made into a movie.

3001 sucked. It is very lightweight compared to 2001. In fact, each of the 20x1 novels was worse than its predecessor.

3001 is basically a glorified novella which was expanded via the copious use of excerpts from other books in the series and a very long set of afterwords from the author. The plot is hackneyed and the conclusion is unsatisfying.

Clarke needs to put the pen down.

[peewee's lovechild]

3001 sucked. It is very lightweight compared to 2001. In fact, each of the 20x1 novels was worse than its predecessor.

3001 is basically a glorified novella which was expanded via the copious use of excerpts from other books in the series and a very long set of afterwords from the author. The plot is hackneyed and the conclusion is unsatisfying.

Clarke needs to put the pen down.

So, I take it that you didn't like it?

[L.I.T]

I liked parts of that movie a lot more than I expected to (specifically the parts that took place in the city, more specifically the parts that felt more Kubrick than Spielberg), but the entire last act... with the aliens, and the Pinocchio, and the fucking blue fairy, was so pretentious and unnecessary that it made me angry. I flat out refuse to ever walk out of a film I've paid to see -- good or bad, I feel I've made a commitment to that experience -- but I came pretty damn close in that one. It was torturous.

If I remember correctly, the first two hours or so Spielberg directed from Kubricks material and was damn good; the last 45 minutes was pure Spielberg original and sucked.

The only movie I've contemplated walking out of was Murder By Numbers, I still regret sticking around.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

It's like chris farley says in tommy boy.

Spielberg is one of those hacks who can take a big compacted duke into a box, mark it Gauranteed Spielberg and still make millions off it.
Actually most directors do that but he makes even more than them. Sad.

Kubrick had more talent in his pinky than that hack has in his entire career.

[leemajors]

senor spielbergo on the simpsons >>>>> spielberg.

[CuckingFunt]

senor spielbergo on the simpsons >>>>> spielberg.This is fact.

[JPB]

Did you see the sequel to 2001? Decent sci-fi opera, but didn't bring anything new to the table.

"2010..." I did.
It has nothing to do with the original who was a giant metaphor and where story was secondary. 2010 is not really a sequel if you speak about cinema. It's another movie, decent I agree, but which lies much more on the story.