Ridley Scott - Harrison Ford Bladerunner sequel? Yes, please!
I'd rather see a sequel to Citizen Kane.
Allow me to qualify. I don't need a direct sequel and would be satisfied with assuming that Rachel lived out her life grieving after having spent 4 wonderful years with Deckard before he suddenly ceased to be. However, if they feel the need to show us more of Deckard, I'd just as soon it be Harrison Ford in the role (though his current age suggests that it would have to be close to the full four years later) than anyone else.
More to the point, I'd like to see more of that world. More of the architecture and design sensibilities (and insensibilities). I got tricked into going to see Kurt Russell's Soldier due to the reference to Tannhauser Gate and came away sorely disappointed - not worthy to drink the sludge out of Bladerunner's gutters was that flatch-bomb.
Ridley Scott - Harrison Ford Bladerunner sequel? Yes, please!
I'd rather see a sequel to Citizen Kane.
Allow me to qualify. I don't need a direct sequel and would be satisfied with assuming that Rachel lived out her life grieving after having spent 4 wonderful years with Deckard before he suddenly ceased to be. However, if they feel the need to show us more of Deckard, I'd just as soon it be Harrison Ford in the role (though his current age suggests that it would have to be close to the full four years later) than anyone else.
More to the point, I'd like to see more of that world. More of the architecture and design sensibilities (and insensibilities). I got tricked into going to see Kurt Russell's Soldier due to the reference to Tannhauser Gate and came away sorely disappointed - not worthy to drink the sludge out of Bladerunner's gutters was that flatch-bomb.
I liked Soldier. I thought it was something different for Russell to play.
More to the point, I'd like to see more of that world.
I don't even know if I want to see that.
Mainly because the whole beautiful movie was done with practical SFX, and the inevitable digital would seem like cheating.
I can see that. If it were anyone other than Ridley Scott looking to go back to that world, I'd concur, but I was really very pleased with how Prometheus played with the design aesthetic from Alien and how the two stories worked.
Bladerunner was a formative cinematic moment for me. It was the movie that made me realize that design, good and bad, can have huge ramifications. It was my architectural awakening.
Ridley Scott - Harrison Ford Bladerunner sequel? Yes, please!
I'd rather see a sequel to Citizen Kane.
Allow me to qualify. I don't need a direct sequel and would be satisfied with assuming that Rachel lived out her life grieving after having spent 4 wonderful years with Deckard before he suddenly ceased to be. However, if they feel the need to show us more of Deckard, I'd just as soon it be Harrison Ford in the role (though his current age suggests that it would have to be close to the full four years later) than anyone else.
More to the point, I'd like to see more of that world. More of the architecture and design sensibilities (and insensibilities). I got tricked into going to see Kurt Russell's Soldier due to the reference to Tannhauser Gate and came away sorely disappointed - not worthy to drink the sludge out of Bladerunner's gutters was that flatch-bomb.
I liked Soldier. I thought it was something different for Russell to play.
M
It was OK at best. I think that, for Russell, it was an interesting opportunity - the lack of dialog on his character's part forced so much of the roll to be played through facial expression and body language. However, at the end of the day, there just wasn't enough there to make it anything other than a disappointment for me.
Soldier was simple A to B low concept action driven sci-fi. I liked it alot but it certainly was not on the level of Blade Runner so why value Soldier against it. I do not see the connection, seems rather arbitrary.
Soldier was simple A to B low concept action driven sci-fi. I liked it alot but it certainly was not on the level of Blade Runner so why value Soldier against it. I do not see the connection, seems rather arbitrary.
In some of the articles that came out before the release of Soldier, it was being marketing as sharing the Bladerunner world. Among the campaigns that Todd (Russell) fought was the Tannhauser Gates. So, it goes to my previous point that, if it's Ridley Scott returning to his vision, I'm good, but if it's someone else making what would be spurious connections at best, I'd prefer to see Bladerunner continue to remain a solitary work (or as solitary as a work can be given the number of different versions that have been made available over the past 30 years,
Soldier was simple A to B low concept action driven sci-fi. I liked it alot but it certainly was not on the level of Blade Runner so why value Soldier against it. I do not see the connection, seems rather arbitrary.
In some of the articles that came out before the release of Soldier, it was being marketing as sharing the Bladerunner world. Among the campaigns that Todd (Russell) fought was the Tannhauser Gates. So, it goes to my previous point that, if it's Ridley Scott returning to his vision, I'm good, but if it's someone else making what would be spurious connections at best, I'd prefer to see Bladerunner continue to remain a solitary work (or as solitary as a work can be given the number of different versions that have been made available over the past 30 years,
Actually, according to the writer (as listed in Wikipedia):
Soldier was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner. It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof. A "Spinner" vehicle from Blade Runner can be seen in the wreckage on a junk planet that features in the film.
There are also several dialogue references to events such as "Tannhauser Gate" from Blade Runner.
I never saw it that way. If you wrote (or cowrote) a popular, cult classic movie, its easy to make your next one loosely within the same universe. Especially if the second movie was considered a flop. The writer could really play up that angle.
As for Soldier, I really thought it was interesting to see a bred soldier. The way he moved, acted, existed. To some extent, that's how I've always seen Batman (sorry to circle back to this.) When all you really know is your training, that's what you'll always fall back to. That scene at the party where he freaked out & hid to watch it was a great example.
Soldier was simple A to B low concept action driven sci-fi. I liked it alot but it certainly was not on the level of Blade Runner so why value Soldier against it. I do not see the connection, seems rather arbitrary.
In some of the articles that came out before the release of Soldier, it was being marketing as sharing the Bladerunner world. Among the campaigns that Todd (Russell) fought was the Tannhauser Gates. So, it goes to my previous point that, if it's Ridley Scott returning to his vision, I'm good, but if it's someone else making what would be spurious connections at best, I'd prefer to see Bladerunner continue to remain a solitary work (or as solitary as a work can be given the number of different versions that have been made available over the past 30 years,
Actually, according to the writer (as listed in Wikipedia):
Soldier was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner. It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof. A "Spinner" vehicle from Blade Runner can be seen in the wreckage on a junk planet that features in the film.
There are also several dialogue references to events such as "Tannhauser Gate" from Blade Runner.
I never saw it that way. If you wrote (or cowrote) a popular, cult classic movie, its easy to make your next one loosely within the same universe. Especially if the second movie was considered a flop. The writer could really play up that angle.
As for Soldier, I really thought it was interesting to see a bred soldier. The way he moved, acted, existed. To some extent, that's how I've always seen Batman (sorry to circle back to this.) When all you really know is your training, that's what you'll always fall back to. That scene at the party where he freaked out & hid to watch it was a great example.
M
That's starting to sound familiar (I do recall hearing that a spinner was in the trash piles) and sidequel is probably a fair term for it.
Perhaps, at some point, I'll watch it again. Until then, I'll concede that perhaps flatch-bomb was a bit strong and should perhaps be reserved for cinematic masterpieces like No Escape and Fortress.
I'm in the camp of "Leave some sacred cows alone" as far as Blade Runner goes. It's a great, wonderful mess of a film, it has earned its place in cinematic history, and I think when you try and add to something like that, you dilute it. Blues Brothers 2000? Ghostbusters II? Both could have stood alone as just brilliant one-and-done movies...but we had to got there...
I'm in the camp of "Leave some sacred cows alone" as far as Blade Runner goes. It's a great, wonderful mess of a film, it has earned its place in cinematic history, and I think when you try and add to something like that, you dilute it. Blues Brothers 2000? Ghostbusters II? Both could have stood alone as just brilliant one-and-done movies...but we had to got there...
There is truth in these words, but one could have made the same opposite argument about Alien, Mad Max and Terminator (to say nothing of Weekend at Bernies (kidding!!!!).
I'm in the camp of "Leave some sacred cows alone" as far as Blade Runner goes. It's a great, wonderful mess of a film, it has earned its place in cinematic history, and I think when you try and add to something like that, you dilute it. Blues Brothers 2000? Ghostbusters II? Both could have stood alone as just brilliant one-and-done movies...but we had to got there...
There is truth in these words, but one could have made the same opposite argument about Alien, Mad Max and Terminator (to say nothing of Weekend at Bernies (kidding!!!!).
Yeah, that was why I threw the "some" in the phrase - sometimes it works but I think that happens more when there's actual demand for a sequel. We wanted to know more about the world Ridley Scott set up in Alien. We wanted more Mad Max. Was anyone honestly screaming for a sequel to Blues Brothers? Besides Dan Aykroyd who seems to be the harbinger of all these god-awful sequels? :)
To me Blade Runner works because it tells a complete tale while leaving enough open for the audience to ponder the mysteries that lie beyond it. Was Deckard really a replicant? What was it like on the Tannhauser Gate? I don't want those secrets spoiled. Which of course, means I don't have to go see the movie, I know...it just seems a shame that there's a need to tell the story in the first place.
I'm in the camp of "Leave some sacred cows alone" as far as Blade Runner goes. It's a great, wonderful mess of a film, it has earned its place in cinematic history, and I think when you try and add to something like that, you dilute it. Blues Brothers 2000? Ghostbusters II? Both could have stood alone as just brilliant one-and-done movies...but we had to got there...
There is truth in these words, but one could have made the same opposite argument about Alien, Mad Max and Terminator (to say nothing of Weekend at Bernies (kidding!!!!).
Yeah, that was why I threw the "some" in the phrase - sometimes it works but I think that happens more when there's actual demand for a sequel. We wanted to know more about the world Ridley Scott set up in Alien. We wanted more Mad Max. Was anyone honestly screaming for a sequel to Blues Brothers? Besides Dan Aykroyd who seems to be the harbinger of all these god-awful sequels? :)
To me Blade Runner works because it tells a complete tale while leaving enough open for the audience to ponder the mysteries that lie beyond it. Was Deckard really a replicant? What was it like on the Tannhauser Gate? I don't want those secrets spoiled. Which of course, means I don't have to go see the movie, I know...it just seems a shame that there's a need to tell the story in the first place.
I can see that and respect it. In all honestly, I wasn't consciously craving a revisit to that world. However, hearing that Ridley Scott is talking about going back there, I'm on board.
I liked it too @fredzilla. Those two movies defined my entire existence in my childhood. I would argue they still do.
@hauberk Peter Nichol killed it. He was the reason I started watching Numb3rs, and felt he didn't disappoint there either, though I fell off in the later seasons.
As bad as may people consider Ghostbusters II to be (due to studio hoods stepping in on the project etc), I think it probably would have been even less cool had the original draft of the first film gone thru with the Exterminators-In-Space concept....
I liked it too @fredzilla. Those two movies defined my entire existence in my childhood. I would argue they still do.
@hauberk Peter Nichol killed it. He was the reason I started watching Numb3rs, and felt he didn't disappoint there either, though I fell off in the later seasons.
As bad as may people consider Ghostbusters II to be (due to studio hoods stepping in on the project etc), I think it probably would have been even less cool had the original draft of the first film gone thru with the Exterminators-In-Space concept....
I liked MacNichol in it as well, though I was already inclined to from his role in the massively underappreciated Dragonslayer.
Big thing with Ghostbusters II is that they did the entire thing in a ridiculously short time period AND with huge studio interference.
As a kid, I was able to follow GBII easily. And as ridiculous as having the Statue of Liberty walk through NYC was, I got caught up in it. Everything about it clicked for my eight-year-old imagination. Ghostbusters had me all confused in the end. Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis are these keymaster and gatekeeper demon dog things and then there is Gozer (who I thought was Weaver doing her best Ziggy Stardust) and then there came the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Fun to watch, but way too many bad guys. Waaay too many!
As a kid, I was able to follow GBII easily. And as ridiculous as having the Statue of Liberty walk through NYC was, I got caught up in it. Everything about it clicked for my eight-year-old imagination. Ghostbusters had me all confused in the end. Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis are these keymaster and gatekeeper demon dog things and then there is Gozer (who I thought was Weaver doing her best Ziggy Stardust) and then there came the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Fun to watch, but way too many bad guys. Waaay too many!
Heading to Kansas city for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund run @ Royals Stadium this weekend. Anything in the area I HAVE to hit? After the success of my Vegas inquiry I figure I better see what else you guys can come up with before i head out.
Heading to Kansas city for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund run @ Royals Stadium this weekend. Anything in the area I HAVE to hit? After the success of my Vegas inquiry I figure I better see what else you guys can come up with before i head out.
They got some crazy little women there. B-)
Gonna take a train? Gonna take a plane? If you gotta walk, are you going just the same?
Comments
More to the point, I'd like to see more of that world. More of the architecture and design sensibilities (and insensibilities). I got tricked into going to see Kurt Russell's Soldier due to the reference to Tannhauser Gate and came away sorely disappointed - not worthy to drink the sludge out of Bladerunner's gutters was that flatch-bomb.
M
Mainly because the whole beautiful movie was done with practical SFX, and the inevitable digital would seem like cheating.
Bladerunner was a formative cinematic moment for me. It was the movie that made me realize that design, good and bad, can have huge ramifications. It was my architectural awakening.
Soldier was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner. It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof. A "Spinner" vehicle from Blade Runner can be seen in the wreckage on a junk planet that features in the film.
There are also several dialogue references to events such as "Tannhauser Gate" from Blade Runner.
I never saw it that way. If you wrote (or cowrote) a popular, cult classic movie, its easy to make your next one loosely within the same universe. Especially if the second movie was considered a flop. The writer could really play up that angle.
As for Soldier, I really thought it was interesting to see a bred soldier. The way he moved, acted, existed. To some extent, that's how I've always seen Batman (sorry to circle back to this.) When all you really know is your training, that's what you'll always fall back to. That scene at the party where he freaked out & hid to watch it was a great example.
M
Perhaps, at some point, I'll watch it again. Until then, I'll concede that perhaps flatch-bomb was a bit strong and should perhaps be reserved for cinematic masterpieces like No Escape and Fortress.
sameopposite argument about Alien, Mad Max and Terminator (to say nothing of Weekend at Bernies (kidding!!!!).To me Blade Runner works because it tells a complete tale while leaving enough open for the audience to ponder the mysteries that lie beyond it. Was Deckard really a replicant? What was it like on the Tannhauser Gate? I don't want those secrets spoiled. Which of course, means I don't have to go see the movie, I know...it just seems a shame that there's a need to tell the story in the first place.
@hauberk Peter Nichol killed it. He was the reason I started watching Numb3rs, and felt he didn't disappoint there either, though I fell off in the later seasons.
As bad as may people consider Ghostbusters II to be (due to studio hoods stepping in on the project etc), I think it probably would have been even less cool had the original draft of the first film gone thru with the Exterminators-In-Space concept....
Big thing with Ghostbusters II is that they did the entire thing in a ridiculously short time period AND with huge studio interference.
Gonna take a train? Gonna take a plane? If you gotta walk, are you going just the same?