Blade Runner Sequel?

[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 ing 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 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 ing 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 ing 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 ing 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.