Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 10:05 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24460278

But does it need this? Is the original not complete in its own right as a statement?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 11:05 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

It could be good, but it is basically not necessary, and it could not be as good as the first one.

Unless you hire the original effects crew (practical effects) and set design crew it is a waste of time.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 11:12 AM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

Sounds good to me... if they do it I'm sure they will come up with something interesting.

Ridley still tries to push the limits, which is a good thing.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 11:16 AM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)

I saw a preview of Blade Runner 6 months before it opened. It was a different cut to the first released theatrical version. And I hated it.

I saw it again when it opened in the UK, this time in the "proper" theatrical version. Hated that too.

I've since seen it several times on TV and DVD over the years and I still hate it. It's just dull.

I know im in a minority but seriously I never understood the love for the movie. Sure it looks superb, but the acting is woeful (Ford looks bored throughout, apart from in fight scenes where he mugs and gurns like a demented muppet) and the climax is just horribly edited.

Worse of all, the pacing is dreadful; it all moves sooooo slowly. The problem is Scott knows that every scene looks pretty and so the camera lingers on hallways, and ventilator fans and streets, just to make sure everyone else can appreciate how dense the visual are.

So do we need a sequel? Hmmm, well coming from someone who could happily go without ever seeing the original again - or even having the memory of it erased from my brain - that would be a big fat no from me.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 12:32 PM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

First off, not everything needs a sequel. Not everything needs to be franchised out.

Secondly, Prometheus - which was a sort-of sequel to his second film - was probably the worst thing he ever did.

Ain't interested.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 12:42 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Ridley has always been primarily a visual artist, he was in marketing and studied art and graphic design. As a story teller he has always been lacking, he has improved somewhat over the years. You could say his Gladiator was a pretty good picture, and a few others recently were good, yet somehow his earliest work was most enchanting for me. The Duellists is a really lovely film, somewhat muted and less grandiose than his later stuff, so beautiful and more story and actor driven. Then Alien of course - pretty good picture. I have a liking for Black Rain, I am not sure why, nothing really terribly original about it, but Michael Douglas is a very good anti-hero fish out of water in Japan, and it looks just fantastic. 1492 is a total script mess, but large parts of it are so amazingly gorgeous, just absolutely stunning with the Vangelis score.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 4:35 PM   
 By:   Storyteller   (Member)

If they make it, I'll just pass. Blade Runner remains an all time favorite of mine. If not my number 1 favorite science fiction film of all time. It's story is done. I don't need any more.

They can make it if they want, but I for one won't be going.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 6:54 PM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

prediction : all people saying they won't watch it... will watch it

anything reasonable that's not a 'yet another stupor-hero movie' is fair game in my book

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 8:43 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

prediction : all people saying they won't watch it... will watch it

anything reasonable that's not a 'yet another stupor-hero movie' is fair game in my book


I am weary of super hero stuff too. I am really sick of comic book movies. I mean that is a beaten dead horse. But if the Total Recall this past year was any indication Blade Runner 2 might not do that well. Sci-Fi reboots do not always work that well. The Robocop reboot-sequel whatever this year does not look that good either.

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 8:54 PM   
 By:   Storyteller   (Member)

prediction : all people saying they won't watch it... will watch it

anything reasonable that's not a 'yet another stupor-hero movie' is fair game in my book



Can't speak for others, but I mean what I am saying. Then again, I do not go to the theater much anymore. I do not respect today's filmmakers. I just saw Pacific Rim and was insulted at the sheer stupidity on display. And this was from a director I used to respect, but not anymore.

I do not want the memory of my favorite sci-fi film ruined by a sub-sar sequel from a has been director.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 10:32 PM   
 By:   Alex Cremers   (Member)

Ridley Scott has never been a more interesting storyteller, conveyor and communicator than when he made his first films.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2013 - 3:47 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Ridley Scott has never been a more interesting storyteller, conveyor and communicator than when he made his first films.


oh we agree!

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2013 - 3:47 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

,

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2013 - 8:48 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

If characters are interesting and/or engaging, most audiences are curious to know what happens to them after the end of the story. Do we NEED to know? No, an original standalone story (if it's well-done enough) is satisfying on it's own, and curiosity is not a "need".

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 12, 2013 - 7:37 AM   
 By:   joan hue   (Member)

I have a question for you posters. If Harrison Ford comes back to do this sequel and if you think his character was a replicant, how will the movie deal with the aging issue? I assume replicants don't age, but maybe I assume too much.

 
 Posted:   Oct 12, 2013 - 8:46 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

If Harrison Ford comes back to do this sequel and if you think his character was a replicant, how will the movie deal with the aging issue? I assume replicants don't age, but maybe I assume too much.



I think they age just as we do, but at different rates, or with built-in termination programs. That'd be an interesting notion, since the whole dramatic device of the replicant is to make us ask what IS a human being? Where does the 'soul' start and the biology end? That's the modern dilemma in a way, and Dekker would be forced to confront it again in himself.

That announcement by the way a few months ago about the synthetic meat is really exciting, a means to feed the world's hungry with high-protein synthesised meat. Probably one of the most important news items of the decade, yet not made much of.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 12, 2013 - 9:17 AM   
 By:   Alex Cremers   (Member)


I think they age just as we do ...


This! I have no reason to think otherwise.



Alex

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 5:35 AM   
 By:   First Breath   (Member)

No need for BR2 if Vangelis will not return.

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 5:50 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

This! I have no reason to think otherwise.

Except the film says they have a four year lifespan?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 5:54 AM   
 By:   jenkwombat   (Member)

This! I have no reason to think otherwise.

Except the film says they have a four year lifespan?



Exactly!!!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.