wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 5, 2011 12:20:14 GMT -5
Rumor has it that there is a sequel/prequel in the works. Am I the only one that hates this idea? Blade Runner seems like one of the few "modern" sci fi films not bastardized by bad sequels or bad TV adaptations. A sequel/prequel could be really good, but I hate that they're even bothering to chance it.
Can nothing exist on its own anymore? Does everything have to be a franchise dammit?
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 5, 2011 13:01:41 GMT -5
And really how much demand is there for that? Do the kids today really have any idea what that movie is at all? I doubt it.
Quit digging up old movies! Clash of the Titans, Tron... what's next, Ice Pirates??
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 5, 2011 13:30:00 GMT -5
I almost understand remaking Clash of the Titans. I don't agree with it, but remakes have always existed in Hollywood, so I get that...sort of. Even Tron kind of made sense, since modern technology could actually offer something new to a sequel...storywise and fx wise. But, there is no damned reason for a sequel to Blade Runner. That is the movie I always point out to my son when I'm telling him that not every movie needs a sequel. It can just exist in its own greatness. Bunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 5, 2011 18:29:06 GMT -5
They can't help themselves. This is a horrible idea. Blade Runner doesn't need an update; it holds up today. It's as sacred as a scifi movie can be.
Is Harrison Ford somehow behind this?
|
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Aug 7, 2011 4:47:19 GMT -5
They can finally answer all those pesky Unicorn questions. Wasn't it enough that there is fifty cuts of the movie itself? Which one will be canon? Aren't there enough movies about clones and replicants? If you wanted to talk about that just use a different title already!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 7, 2011 7:05:04 GMT -5
The title's all they want. It's like Teen Wolf and Fright Night; they're just buying recognizable names without caring about the actual content.
I wouldn't argue with a new adaptation of the original book, but they bought the Blade Runner name because making a sequel to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" wouldn't be that sexy. In fact, they could do a faithful adaptation of the book without bearing much similarity to Blade Runner at all.
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 8, 2011 9:39:59 GMT -5
What's next? Brazil 2? We're all dying to know whatever became of Tuttle...
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 18, 2011 11:37:49 GMT -5
Here's something interesting, but I still don't like the idea of futzing with Blade Runner. I haven't cared for anything Ridley Scott has done in years, but this is a little bit better. I don't quite get his need to tinker with his old work, though. First Alien, now this...who's he think he is? George Lucas? collider.com/ridley-scott-new-blade-runner-movie/110028/#more-110028 |
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 22, 2011 11:01:59 GMT -5
I'm not understanding the constant return to the older movies. I can sort of see the cynical view of the studios banking on name recognition to save them some money on marketing and recycling old stories to save them the trouble of actually creating anything, but what's with these real directors "revisiting" their old projects? Are they completely out of ideas? Out of steam? Running on empty?
At least with Lucas (and I'm not defending Lucas) the original star wars was always rumored to be part of a nine part series, so the prequels (and I'm not defending the prequels) were at least in some way supposedly intended all along, but what's with these Scott films? They're "brand new" sharing only the "dna" of the originals? Why not just make original movies?
I think I'm going to rewrite the best selling novels of the 80's and 90's. Nobody will notice, right? And while I'm at it I'll re-record all the beatles albums for a "new generation." It's a guaranteed success, get my agent on the phone!
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 22, 2011 13:44:04 GMT -5
Jar Jar is why we had the prequels, Brooks. Jar Jar.
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 22, 2011 14:56:03 GMT -5
Jar Jar is why we had the prequels, Brooks. Jar Jar. Just wait til you see him in 3D. Look out, he's flipping his ears right at you!! |
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 22, 2011 18:10:21 GMT -5
It's vanity. Once these directors run out of steam they go back to the well and ruin all their hits too. Ridley Scott's making an Alien prequel too, what's his problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by broox on Aug 23, 2011 7:35:59 GMT -5
ain't nuttin sacred??
|
|
wilson
Robot Monkey
Posts: 154
|
Post by wilson on Aug 23, 2011 15:43:51 GMT -5
Please promise you'll never re-edit Night and Day, Sean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gilberto on Aug 23, 2011 16:16:38 GMT -5
When I return to 20 year old projects, it's to finally finish them. That's the difference.
|
|
