Slashdot Mirror
Please No, Not a Blade Runner Sequel
bowman9991 submitted a story that ought to make even the most stone-hearted amongst you cry. He says "Travis Wright, one of the writers behind Eagle Eye, has been working on a sequel to Ridley Scott's Sci-Fi classic Blade Runner. Script proposals have explored the nature of the off-world colonies, what happens to the Tyrell Corporation in the wake of its founder's death, and what would become of Rachel. Travis said he intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' Director Ridley Scott appears interested in a sequel too. At Comic-Con in 2007 Ridley said, 'If you have any scripts, you know where to send them.' It's doubtful he'll have time anytime soon though. He's already stated his next two science fiction films will be an adaptation of Aldous Huxley's Brave New Word with Leonardo DiCaprio and an adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War."
Since Scott has a track record of putting out decent science fiction cinema, could we PLEASE get him to do some Heinlein? Or, if that's not "percussive" enough, some Niven-Pournelle? A shortened version of A Mote in God's Eye should have enough bang-bang to keep the kiddies happy, and cool aliens that turn from "advanced peaceful society" to "Freakish monster hoards" by the end.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Who knows, you may actually produce the next Memento, Reservoir Dogs, or Slumdog Millionaire.
You list three good original movies but I counter that there is so much more to them than just needed money to make. Look at the directors/writers: Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino & Danny Boyle respectively. Now look at those three directors/writers names and notice how they rarely--if ever--attach themselves to bad projects. I think the three movies you listed were kind of like pet projects of these directors and there's not a lot of these great movies laying around just waiting to receive funding with the vision that these three movies you listed had.
You think you have a better idea but these studios have one directive: make money. And that's what they'll do & they'll do it better than you would. This isn't art, this is business. You aren't going to be taken seriously if you point Resevoir Dogs that made $147,839 on opening weekend in the states or Momento that made $235,488 on opening weekend in the states. Those amounts of money are a blip on the radar to what a franchise name makes them within three days.
My work here is dung.
Oh come off it. Sure both are about a gang of thieves and a jewelery heist with an undercover cop, just like Cloverfield and Godzilla are just movies of a town getting destroyed. If you've watched both Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire you won't come close to confusing the two. The way the stories are told are completely different and an important part of why the film is good.
Some scenes are pretty much the same as well in the movies, just like the car chase at the end of Death Proof was straight out of Vanishing Point. Not really a knock off, but you can see where it came from. Tarrantino isn't alone in doing that either.
Not sure if you need to do this to get it, but if you get the "Blade Runner Five-disk Ultimate Collector's Edition" (yes, that's really what it's called, and yes, I have it), it includes the original US theatrical release, with the voice-over.
I was never sure about the voice-over, myself. I saw that version first, in theatres, back in the day, and I thought the voice-over was annoying, a bit too "Magnum P.I.", clubbing me with context. When I saw the "director's cut" later on, I liked it better, but of course, I had already seen the first one, so I knew the context. It's easy to imagine that if you see the "director's cut" first, it'd be pretty confusing.
I do think there needs to be less voice-over, particularly towards the end. By that time, the context is established, and the awesome visuals really do work better on their own.
IMHO, obviously.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
Like CG and hi-def are a requisite for creating art? I don't think so, it may be your requirement for viewership but that's a different issue altogether. There are plenty of hi-quality films that utilize little-to-no CG and frankly basic CG is doable on a desktop computer. Am I going to be able to render a highly complex scene? Of course not but that isn't within the scope of my aspirations at the moment, and don't take my word on any of this. But I think Robert Rodriquez is a bit more credible than me. If you happen to own the collectors edition of Sin City there are some great interviews with Mr. Rodriguez talking about his career and his approach, and he argues that aspiring filmmakers have access to every tool they need to make high quality films.
You don't need multiple cameras to do multiple angles on a single shot, you just need to do the scene multiple times. Does it open the door to continuity errors? Of course it does, but continuity errors are always going to be something to contend with so what's it really matter? The consumer level software is not prohibitively expensive and both Vegas and i Movie will put together a film, and with some options. It ain't studio work, but if your editor is talented it still looks good. Vegas costs next to nothing and is used in production houses for certain areas of work. You don't need top of the line equipment to create quality, you need top of the line equipment to make a studio picture but studio pictures rarely are for anything but entertainment.
And I can get a camera right now for $1200 that is considered, among idie film makers to be a very good camera. I can then go get the other equipment I need for the other $800. I'm not saying these prices are for new equipment but the used market is there...
Blade Runner made $4,749 average per theater opening weekend, which in inflated dollars (as of 1992 when Reservoir Dogs opened) is $6899.50, less than Quentin Tarantino's pet project, per theatre.
However it went on to gross 32m over it's lifetime (domestically), but cost 14m to make. At release it was considered a spectacular failure.
Theater by theater RD was more profitable. I don't believe that the idea that Ridley Scott would make this his pet project and do it right is very far fetched at all. The bar is set pretty damn high though... The effects STILL look good, the acting was great, and the music is out of this world. It's a stunning, hypnotic film. I have the director's cut and still watch it periodically.
One of the most beautiful movies ever made... I have the feeling that the only way a sequel would get made is if Ridley Scott financed it. No studio in their right mind would touch it, as is often the case with the most worthwhile movies.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
I like it for a few reasons. One is its vision for the future. It looks grungy and plausible..."lived in". Then there's the cognitive dissonance in Ford's character, i.e. that he both recognizes the replicants as thinking, intelligent beings, but still feels that he has to take them out. And when he finds out what the girl is, as well....I guess I like seeing how people (even fictional characters) deal with moral ambiguity.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.