The Case for Crystal Skull: The return of Marion Ravenwood.
The Case against Crystal Skull: Everything else.
The case for it: I had fun when I watched it, and still have fun when I watch it. I don't expect much else. Now, hopefully Marvel gets on the ball and gets a Indy comic within the next year or so...
I had fun watching it, but it felt like I was watching a parody of an Indiana Jones movie. I think this series seems to be following the same pattern the original Trek movies followed, in that the even numbered movies of that series (Khan, Home, Country) were regarded as much better than the odd ones (Original, Spock, Frontier). With the Indiana Jones series, Raiders and Holy Grail just seem like different, and much better, movies than the other two.
And I like Blade Runner but I don't think it's something that should be spoken of in these hushed tones. For my PKD adaptations I like Total Recall. And I don't think Spielberg has made a better film since Minority Report
And I like Blade Runner but I don't think it's something that should be spoken of in these hushed tones. For my PKD adaptations I like Total Recall. And I don't think Spielberg has made a better film since Minority Report
Not in hushed tones at all. I shout it from the mountain top! :D
I can take or leave Total Recall. It departed more from Dick's text than even Blade Runner.
I will say it is possible to make an entertaining sequel to an iconic Sci fi classic as long as it's accepted that the sequel likely won't become iconic itself case in point 2010
I will say it is possible to make an entertaining sequel to an iconic Sci fi classic as long as it's accepted that the sequel likely won't become iconic itself case in point 2010
It's even possible to make an entertaining sequel to a trippy, arty, incoherent mess. Case in point 2010.
I will say it is possible to make an entertaining sequel to an iconic Sci fi classic as long as it's accepted that the sequel likely won't become iconic itself case in point 2010
It's even possible to make an entertaining sequel to a trippy, arty, incoherent mess. Case in point 2010.
Also, case in point Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
As for the new director I've seen two of his films Enemy with Jake Gylenhall and Prisoners with Hugh Jackman and Gyllenhal. I wasn't too crazy about Enemy. But I thought Prisoners was pretty great though a tad too long
I'm not saying they can't make an entertaining sequel to Blade Runner. But there's no point to it. Everything important to that story was told in Blade Runner. The unanswered questions are best left unanswered, and the story is stronger for it. A sequel would at best be redundant, and at worst undercut Dick’s exploration of what it means to be human that lies at the core of the movie.
And besides, even if they make it, it still won't actually exist, so why bother?
I will say it is possible to make an entertaining sequel to an iconic Sci fi classic as long as it's accepted that the sequel likely won't become iconic itself case in point 2010
The cheese stands alone...I thought the Total Recall remake was entertaining. Actually, moreso then the original movie. Some of the aliens were distracting.
The # of people that saw the original in theatres and who later made it a "cult classic" is a relatively small # to start with and they will be divided on seeing a sequel - if they even acknowledge the existence of the sequel at all.
Depending on if the sequel gets a "R" rating, many teenagers may be out as a potiential audience.
Many of the 18 to 30 crowd have never seen the first one, so you are asking them to see two movies, hoping they like a movie that is 35 yrs old when its sequel comes out - and that they like it so much that they want more.
The # of people that saw the original in theatres and who later made it a "cult classic" is a relatively small # to start with and they will be divided on seeing a sequel - if they even acknowledge the existence of the sequel at all.
Depending on if the sequel gets a "R" rating, many teenagers may be out as a potiential audience.
Many of the 18 to 30 crowd have never seen the first one, so you are asking them to see two movies, hoping they like a movie that is 35 yrs old when its sequel comes out - and that they like it so much that they want more.
And Ford just isn't a big Box Office draw anymore.
My best guess is that the studio thinks his rep will be re-established by Star Wars.
Hollywood feeds off of our fear and anger toward their sequels. If we all band together and choose to ignore them they will lose their power.
At least, that's how it worked when the ThunderCats battled Mongor. I think there might have also been bubbles involved.
So please allow me to amend my previous statement. If we all band together, choose to ignore sequels AND shoot bubbles at Hollywood, they will lose their power.
Yes, they are completey organic, physically identical to humans in every way.
Dick was always far more interested in psychology than biology, so he doesn't go into great detail about the physicality of the androids. They were just a means to explore the human mind, not the point of the story. With Dick’s work, you just have to put hard science questions aside for the most part, and go with it.
(Referring back to the Crystal Skull conversation, I felt Ford looked awkward with the whip, at least early into the film. I don't usually notice stuff like that, but it stuck out to me. I was wondering how this guy was supposed to do anything with it)
A couple of interesting tidbits about Blade Runner:
One of the earliest screenplays opened the movie on an "Off-World Termination Dump", where three dead replicants were to be disposed of. The screenwriter reused this idea of discarding dead servants on an off-world colony dump in his screenplay for Soldier, which he considered a 'side-quel' to Blade Runner (i.e. an unrelated movie taking place in the same fictional universe).
Titles considered for the film include 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?', 'Android', 'Mechanismo', 'Dangerous Days', and finally 'Blade Runner'. After the film had changed its name from 'Dangerous Days' to 'Blade Runner', Ridley Scott decided he didn't like the new name, and tried to call the film 'Gotham City', but Bob Kane wouldn't sell the rights to the name, so it returned to being called 'Blade Runner'.
On the plus side, the prospect of a Blade Runner sequel might provide the impetus to reprint Archie Goodwins and Al Williamsons excellent comic adaption of the original movie.
Comments
Entertaining? Yes. Consistent? No.
I can take or leave Total Recall. It departed more from Dick's text than even Blade Runner.
1. Blade Runner
2. Minority Report
3. Next
4. The Adjustment Bureau
5. Total Recall
Honorable Mention: Paycheck
Seeing Karen Allen was the only reason I went to the movie.
I will say it is possible to make an entertaining sequel to an iconic Sci fi classic as long as it's accepted that the sequel likely won't become iconic itself case in point 2010
And besides, even if they make it, it still won't actually exist, so why bother?
M
The # of people that saw the original in theatres and who later made it a "cult classic" is a relatively small # to start with and they will be divided on seeing a sequel - if they even acknowledge the existence of the sequel at all.
Depending on if the sequel gets a "R" rating, many teenagers may be out as a potiential audience.
Many of the 18 to 30 crowd have never seen the first one, so you are asking them to see two movies, hoping they like a movie that is 35 yrs old when its sequel comes out - and that they like it so much that they want more.
My best guess is that the studio thinks his rep will be re-established by Star Wars.
At least, that's how it worked when the ThunderCats battled Mongor. I think there might have also been bubbles involved.
So please allow me to amend my previous statement. If we all band together, choose to ignore sequels AND shoot bubbles at Hollywood, they will lose their power.
I'm serious, this really bugged me. Seemed like the obvious Turing test would be to feed an android a bean burrito and wait.
They were artificial humans, superior except for their planned obsolescence, but human nonetheless
It still seems like a blood test would be a lot easier than an interview.
Dick was always far more interested in psychology than biology, so he doesn't go into great detail about the physicality of the androids. They were just a means to explore the human mind, not the point of the story. With Dick’s work, you just have to put hard science questions aside for the most part, and go with it.
One of the earliest screenplays opened the movie on an "Off-World Termination Dump", where three dead replicants were to be disposed of. The screenwriter reused this idea of discarding dead servants on an off-world colony dump in his screenplay for Soldier, which he considered a 'side-quel' to Blade Runner (i.e. an unrelated movie taking place in the same fictional universe).
Titles considered for the film include 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?', 'Android', 'Mechanismo', 'Dangerous Days', and finally 'Blade Runner'. After the film had changed its name from 'Dangerous Days' to 'Blade Runner', Ridley Scott decided he didn't like the new name, and tried to call the film 'Gotham City', but Bob Kane wouldn't sell the rights to the name, so it returned to being called 'Blade Runner'.
I say:
Air Force 2
Seven Days Eight Nights
K*20 Widowmaker Returns
And a more recent one: "43"