Blade Runner, NEW Movie...Thoughts?

[fallensaviour]

Have to agree. It could be reworded to say that he makes five good movies for every masterpiece he creates. That I MIGHT be persuaded to agree to, maybe. But 5 unwatchable to every one good one. No way.

Yes five maybe a stretch I'd say he is about 60/40.
60% of the films he makes are better than good films they border genius but 40% of his films are crap.

[fallensaviour]

Yeah. Really. Anyone who says that Ridley Scott makes five UNWATCHABLE films for every ONE good one he makes, needs to get his head out of his ***.

Nuff said. I'm done here.

SC

Ha,ha,ha,ha Take it easy SC Just Cause he has done great stuff doesn't mean everything he does is great.He is a man just like you and I no more no less.

[spacecaps]

The trend I don't like with bringing back these old movies is feeling like your obligated to bring back the star from the original. Whether its a stupid cameo apperance of the main role these new movies shouldn't be pigeon holed into casting someone just because they appeared in the first some years ago. The Alien series is one of the best example of this... Alien 3 and up would have been way better WITHOUT Ripley (focus on the Marines!) Forcing Arnold in Terminator movies is silly now...move on. I loved the new Tron for the visuals but Jeff Bridges didn't need to be there and the movie suffered from him being there. So if Blade Runner gets remade it's like a prerequisite that Harrison Ford or Rutger Hauer or whoever show up in some diminished role to remind us of the original. Just tell the stories from a different perspective without recycling cast.

[acrovader]

Why does every movie "have" to have a sequel? Leave the movie alone. If there was ever to be a sequel, it should've been years ago. I was perfectly fine with there being only one Tron movie, too.

I'm so glad there hasn't been a sequel to E.T.

[megoapesnut]

Have to agree. It could be reworded to say that he makes five good movies for every masterpiece he creates. That I MIGHT be persuaded to agree to, maybe. But 5 unwatchable to every one good one. No way.

[Cmonster]

Really???

Yeah. Really. Anyone who says that Ridley Scott makes five UNWATCHABLE films for every ONE good one he makes, needs to get his head out of his ***.

Nuff said. I'm done here.

SC

[fallensaviour]

Try to turn your upper torso (either direction) so you can your can get both your hands on your butt. Then see if you can reach into your rectum and remove your head.

SC

Really???
His statement does have some validity to it.

1977 The Duellists = Excellent Film
1979 Alien = Fantastic
1982 Blade Runner = Incredible film!!!!
1986 Legend = Okay
1987 Someone to Watch over me = Okay
1989 Black Rain = Meh so,so
1991 Thelma & Louise = GREAT
1992 1492: Conquest of Paradise = okay
1996 White Squall = SO,SO
1997 G.I. Jane = CRAP
2000 Gladiator = Incredible film
2001 Black Hawk Down = GREAT
2001 Hannibal = Utter CRAP
2003 Matchstick Men = SO,SO
2005 Kingdom of Heaven = Decent
2006 A Good Year = Okay
2007 American Gangster = SO,SO
2008 Body of Lies = CRAP
2010 Robin Hood = CRAP!!!

[Cmonster]

Ridley Scott is like the Nick Cage of Directors...for every one good movie he makes, he makes five unwatchable ones in between.

Try to turn your upper torso (either direction) so you can your can get both your hands on your butt. Then see if you can reach into your rectum and remove your head.

SC

[The Bat]

The original Blade Runner operated under the premius that the Genie was already out of the bottle, Had been dealt with and And the final solution was in the creation of a special police force called the Blade Runners. So how did it get to story of Deckard.
Scotts take on the story was Replicants. Created Biological entitys so near human that even thier pursuer questioned wrether he was a replicant. How like humanity to take a shortcut on the way to creating a slave race. Instead of perfecting the difficult task of creating a machine race with programming for a brain. They take the easy road of creating a genetic alternative. Its way easier to GROW your slave race.
Watching Bladerunner, I always wanted to know if the replicants were outlawed on earth because they were dangerous or was it because some thought they should have the same rights as us. During the arguement over the status of Replicant rights. Did some filter into humanity? Did the replicants begin to evolve mentally into thinking they were superior and should take over.
I know its been done before. I Robot. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Or it could be something else. What if Replicant's could have bred with humans. A sure exposure of Tyrols dirty secret. That the Replicants are not genetic creation but rather defficiant clones!

Wow, very well thought out...I like your insight.

[ddgaff1132]

The original Blade Runner operated under the premius that the Genie was already out of the bottle, Had been dealt with and And the final solution was in the creation of a special police force called the Blade Runners. So how did it get to story of Deckard.
Scotts take on the story was Replicants. Created Biological entitys so near human that even thier pursuer questioned wrether he was a replicant. How like humanity to take a shortcut on the way to creating a slave race. Instead of perfecting the difficult task of creating a machine race with programming for a brain. They take the easy road of creating a genetic alternative. Its way easier to GROW your slave race.
Watching Bladerunner, I always wanted to know if the replicants were outlawed on earth because they were dangerous or was it because some thought they should have the same rights as us. During the arguement over the status of Replicant rights. Did some filter into humanity? Did the replicants begin to evolve mentally into thinking they were superior and should take over.
I know its been done before. I Robot. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Or it could be something else. What if Replicant's could have bred with humans. A sure exposure of Tyrols dirty secret. That the Replicants are not genetic creation but rather defficiant clones!

[Thor]

The original is one of my favorite movies and the fact that the modern tone deaf and brain dead .Hollywood is going to remake it does not please me. Mpst of the remakes I've seen don't come close to the original, if this is a prequel it had better be well done but I'm not holding my best.

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

I dunno.... I really like the original, but I can't get excited about a new one 'cos (like everything else) the original was a product of it's time. A new one CAN'T be like the old, it'll invariably have a lot of contemporary-isms to it. It'll either come across as someone aping the original (even if that someine is the guy who made the original) or be so disconnected from the original they might as well have called it something else.

....and a personal note: I'm REALLY tired of redos, rehashes and revisitations. I'd much prefer something actually, genuinely, surprisingly new. ('Specially after reading David Wong's review of "Transformers 3.")

Don C.

[Bruce Banner]

Many of the movies based on the stories of PKD only take the premise of the story rather than adapting the actual work with any degree of accuracy.
(With one or two exceptions).

[spacecaps]

Blade Runner

Ridley Scott is like the Nick Cage of Directors...for every one good movie he makes, he makes five unwatchable ones in between. Him doing a new Blade Runner is about as as good an idea as Tim Burton making Alice In Wonderland...it sounds like a good idea when you hear about it but after it comes out it you end up wondering what they were thinking. Scott stayed away from Aliens and that one turned out pretty good. Chris Nolan would be a great choice to direct something like this given what he's done to Batman. If Scott does do it, Crowe or Clive Owen is exactly the type of actors he would go for too and the movie will probably have the same look as Children Of Men. Someone like Jeremy Renner would be a better fit for the Deckard.

Theres also two different movies when it comes to Bladerunner (5 if you count the work-prints that exist) but the Director's Cut and Theatrical Versions are quite different from one another. As a fan of the films, I actually like the added "noiresque" narration of the Theatrical Version but the Director's Cut is a much better (and darker) movie. I'm also not sure how many people have actually read the Dick novel but the movie and book are nothing alike outside of there's a cop who hunts androids named Deckard and there's a corporation named Tyrell. No need to make a sequal or a prequal, a faithful adaptation of the novel itself would make a great movie.

[The Bat]

what's the word on it? remake? sequel?

Still no word on that...Ridley's being tight lipped about it.