Slashdot Mirror
Green Lantern Writer To Pen Blade Runner Sequel
First time accepted submitter MovieEnthusiast writes "Alcon Entertainment, the production company that own the rights to Blade Runner, have announced that the Blade Runner sequel will be re-written by Michael Green (The Green Lantern) and hinted at other possible Blade Runner spin-offs. From the press release: 'Writer Michael Green is in negotiations to do a rewrite of Alcon Entertainment's "Blade Runner" sequel penned by Hampton Fancher ("Blade Runner," "The Minus Man," "The Mighty Quinn") and to be directed by Ridley Scott. Fancher's original story/screenplay is set some years after the first film concluded.
Alcon co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove will produce with Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, along with Ridley Scott. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO's of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers.
Green recently completed rewrites on "Robopocalypse" and Warners Bros "Gods and Kings."'"
It will only be good if they make it darker and edgier.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Let me guess, lots more action and 'plosions?
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Just leave them alone, please.
If there's a movie that doesn't need a sequel, it's Blade Runner.
Please Hollywood - find a new idea.
The only person that could write a sequel died in 1982. This will automatically be a steaming pile of shit.
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
You mean someone didn't ban him for life from being involved with writing anything EVER again after the green lantern?
Why not a reboot?
So say we all
Green Lantern was not exactly a great movie, Blade Runner was. Ignoring how faithful the original was to the source material, the sequel has to be very faithful to the original movie to ensure good story continuity. Someone that would impress me would be Peter Jackson or Del Toro. For that matter, Kevin Smith would impress me if he were attached to the project. Or William Goldman, a master at re-writes.
Though it's entirely possible that I'm turning in to a curmudgeon and should stick to my video collection and watch 20+ year old movies only, I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was kinda sucky and hold little hope in my heart for JJ's Star Wars movies.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
I see no upsides to this. Mr. Scotts last alien movie was a dude. Last green latern movie was a dude. 2 wrongs make a right?
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Firstly, Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel. Or a prequel. Or a re-imagining. It was solid by itself. Let it be.
Secondly, as much of a fan as I am of the Green Lantern comics... and as someone who thought the move was "alright" I would rather they went with someone else for the screenplay.
He also wrote the series "Kings" which was fantastic, but the rest of his WRITING resume is "meh"
So if you're going to do something like this... get someone GREAT. Get someone AWESOME. Don't get someone without a lot of hits on his writing resume.
In this day and age of interchangeable movie heroes[*] I'm not expecting much, but endless GCI and run-of-the-mill action sequences that could be in any other movie.
* yesterday I saw trailer #4 of Superman's new movie, and I just can't help but think all these modern superhero movies are basically the same generic thing with the main hero switched. The Superman I knew (Reeves) was a pretty unique guy. Lex Luthor (Hackman) was an even more unique villain.
How many movies these days aren't a sequel to a reboot to a prequel of something that's been made before? Hollywood can't pass up the quick fix of a "built in audience". Too bad that all too often they don't show up.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
When will they get M Night Shyamalan to make Citizen Kane 2?
ralphbarbagallo.com
the choosing of this writer does not inspire me with great confidence.
Green Lantern was a great movie, from a technical viewpoint.
In that respect, I would say that both Superman Returns and Green Lantern are movies whch the special effects were done right and as such, can be considered technical successes.
In Green Lantern, I didn't mind the way they ported the ring / power battery technology into the movie, the CGI were decent, considering how one could envision a ring construct made of green light, but, just like Superman Returns, Green Lantern's writing and the story line had as many holes as you would find in a pasta strainer.
Part of the uniqueness of Blade Runner was the soundtrack. There are just so many ways this sequel can go wrong. But I suppose I don't have to watch it if they fail.
Confuseya Say: He who run blade but do not "enhance", get no romance, only split pants.
With the director of "GI Jane" and "Prometheus" how could it fail?
That is all.
There's already a book sequel. They can't mess it up THAT much.
Do you think it'll be as boring and over rated as the orignal? Only time will tell.
Maybe the sequel will smash us over the head with whether or not Deckard truly is a replicant to try to put an end to the perpetual debating among the fans.
In other news the independent movie Radio Free Albemuth is having a kickstarter campaign to fund theatrical release. Why don't we get news about this?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/elizabethkarr/radio-free-albemuth-theatrical-release/
Dude, it's not dude it's dud.
Maybe Weird Al could sing 'All the young duds'.
No brain, no pain.
Will they answer the question?
Is/Was Harrison Ford's character in the movie a replicant?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
It's not like he's writing the script. It's already been penned by Mr Fancher. But I wonder why they don't bring in Mr Peoples, like last time. Hopefully post Prometheus Scott checks for bad writing.
The ONLY, and I mean ONLY person to have ever done a sequel to a Ridley Scott film "right" was James Cameron. I know he's not well liked in Slashdot circles, but even Ridley can't do his own films justice, as we've seen with Prometheus.
In fact, when I first heard they were doing an Alien sequel when I was in college, I was aghast, as I am now over this Blade Runner sequel... But "aliens" was a fine shoot-em-up adventure film, and is still watchable even today. "Game over man" and "nuke 'em from orbit" are quotes used to this day.
There's simply NO WAY to make a Blade Runner sequel and do it right -- you might as well be talking about sequels to Casablanca and Citizen Kane. You don't mess with a classic. That terrible Planet of the Apes reboot with Marky Mark should have showed everyone that you just don't mess with a classic.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
My favorite part of the original is how they portrayed the urban landscape. Dark and rainy, yet dirty. Like the rain itself could not wash away the effects of the lack of morality of the over populated city. If the sequel fucks this part up, I will be sorely disappointed.
Who am I kidding? I should just start being disappointed now and get it over with.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Wait, they found him again!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Not Pleased with the selection of writers...
How long until Bladerunner CSI ?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
And Prometheus shows this. Another question though what is the point of the sequel (and I don't me monesy)? What are they going to examine? Bladerunner examined on of Dick's major question: What does it mean to be human? Are they going after this again? Just what is the question. Yeah, maybe they should use Harrison Ford and Sean Young together again, why not show the effects of aging.
Granted, I saw it in the theater when it came out, and I was expecting more of a Star Wars thing, due to the time in history and at that time it was about all I'd ever seen Harrison Ford in)...so, I was confused and kinda disappointed, and possibly that has carried on in some small way into adulthood. While I've seen the movie as an adult, I've not seen it in a couple decades at least.
Perhaps I need to watch it again. I've heard there are director and other cuts that might make it a bit better movie...not sure which version is the definitive to watch.
But anyway, even with that...I just never saw it as that great of a movie, not that breakthrough...just seemed dull honestly.
What am I missing?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
To Kill a Mockingbird 2
"If Atticus Finch can't get justice in the court room...
(Queue sound effects: "Screeech.....KABOOM...."ATTICUS!!!!") ...he'll get it on the street!"
I don't really like Blade Runner either. The book is great, though.
Is it possible to sell only the rights to a specific book or story, or does Hollywood demand that authors surrender the rights so that sequels and derivative works are legal without a new agreement?
Perhaps it could be done well, but the idea of "Blade Runner 2" makes me cringe.
I just learned recently that Thomas Harris (author of the Hannibal Lecter books) sold the rights to the characters as well as the books. Hollywood was threatening to use the rights to produce a film NOT based on a book, so they coerced Harris into writing "Hannibal Rising" which is why it sucked.
Does Hollywood always demand such exclusive rights?
You were unlucky enough to see it at the wrong time of your life, with the wrong expectations. It might not be fixable.
It'll be diminished now because that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death. Also it played to our fears and anticipations in the 80s.
I think it's a great film though, which reads differently depending on your perspective. At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories. That's explicit in Rutger Hauer's monologues, but also in other aspects of the film.
Then I watched it again more recently, and read it in a completely different way.
That's evidence of depth.
I can only hope that it's a sequel and not a reboot.
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
that vision of the dark futuristic city, mixing Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime, has been done to death.
The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
At one stage, I watched it and saw it as a meditation on fate, the passing of time and the nature of memories
Like most of Dick's stories, it's a meditation on reality. What is real, what is not, how do you tell when all your evidence is subjective, and most importantly... does it actually matter?
As for which version of the movie is better, it's mostly a matter of taste. One has the voice-over narrative, which gives the movie a feeling reminiscent of the old "gum-shoe" detective movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood and helps move things along. The other does not, which gives it more of a drawn-out, brooding feeling... this is also the version with the "unicorn dream" which lends support to the idea that Deckard is also a Replicant.
As for the sequel, it's a shit movie. I can say that without it even being made or written. Why? Because the story has no sequel, that's part of the damn point of the thing. The original was about the characters, not the World. Dick really was a master at writing individual stories, he didn't write series and his stories are self-contained. Any time the plot contains an "open end" it's meant to be that way, and adding sequels or tying up "loose ends" actually detracts from the story.
I'm afraid that any attempt at a sequel or re-make will be just as much of a cluster-fuck as what they did to Total Recall.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324423904578521542174762344.html?google_editors_picks=true
It seems that even Will Smith can't be successful all the time.. DVD/Blue Ray available in 3.. 2... 1 months?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Try "Legend".
Though I'd say it's more like he peaked there than "jumped the shark".
That was the last time he did anything resembling artistic expression.
After that he started "making movies" instead of "creating" them.
Not that he's bad at it or anything. I like most of his movies.
He makes perfectly watchable, mostly competently made (if we ignore G.I. Jane) and entertaining movies.
Some of them win Oscars and other awards.
They're just... not anything special.
They fell like you could have swapped the director for Tony Scott or Walter Hill or Ron Howard or these days Ben Affleck - and get the same or better movie.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You're a fan of the novel "The Tale Of Scrotie McBoogerballs", aren't you?
The sequels to Bladerunner will be as well considered and received as the sequels to Highlander were. As with Highlander, the Bladerunner universe and narrative were not the most compelling aspects of the film and so for the film to be truly successful it will need to bring more to the table than the original films did in order to compensate for the loss of originality in set and story. So, if there producers feel that they have what it takes to offer even greater camera work, technical editing, effects, sound design, music, casting and talent performance, why not just apply that to something more unique and original?
I agree with you about Blade Runner, but PKD did write one sort-of series: Valis, The Divine Invasion, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer (cf http://www.philipkdick.com/covers/valis_trilogy.jpg )
Certainly there is no need for a sequel here, and I expect that this will be terrible.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
"not sure which version is the definitive to watch."
which ever version doesn't have the "oh, you've not been paying attention and don't understand the significance of the origami unicorn" voice over.
I wasn't going to mention an Arnie movie, but since you did, here's a piece of trivia: the club Sarah Connor takes refuge in is called "Tech Noir"...
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
It was a bad movie cause it was unimaginative - while being about a character who is all about imagination.
Also it was all over the place - building up three different villains and none of them actually being THE villain.
For fuck's sake, one is missing for the most of the movie, one gets eaten by another villain (after all the buildup) and one is just there so we'd have his origin story in THIS movie, not in the next one.
Then, the story jumps around for no reason other than "let's have a training montage".
While we're at it, here are some characters for the comic book nerds. No, we won't give them any character or back story.
Have some CGI instead.
Then, we're back to Earth... where our superhero basically does nothing superheroic.
Unless you count him being all emmo and insecure.
AND THEN... he fights the UltimateVillainTM, represented by a fucking CLOUD OF DUST.
Whom he defeats by ripping of the ending from that Freddie Prinze Jr. and Matthew Lillard movie. The one with submarines in space.
And on top of all that, they really miscast Ryan Reynolds.
Kyle Rayner - maybe. Hal Jordan...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
it's rarely been done as well as for blade runner though.
however, I have no faith that this guy will make it better.
the look will depend on the director though, but if the script says that miniguns bump up from the taxi's hood, whatchagonnado
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What do you mean new ideas? Like a prequel? A reboot? A spinoff? A remake? A reimagining?
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
I will say that the theatrical version is "wrong". Usually I think all of this "directors cut, extended cut, super duper directors extended special edition" stuff is trash (thanks Lucas), but in the case of Blade Runner, the theatrical cut is just wrong. It loses the message of the film and in doing so, adds some pretty ham-fisted elements (like the voice overs that are so bad that it is rumored Ford intentionally sucked it up to try and avoid their inclusion in the film), and removes some important stuff--all in the name of making such a dark film "happier".
The 1992 directors cut is a big improvement. Its not a true directors cut--more like somebody tried to rework the film back to the original working print and Ridley Scott approved it--but it fixes the glaring issues. The downside is some awkward silence when there is supposed to be voiceover but they took it out without shortening the scene or adding other noises. There is also the original workprint now on DVD with the 5-disc pack. I haven't watched this version but I suspect it comes off as unpolished (as it wasn't final). Its missing some things Scott wanted, but is also missing some things he didn't want that made it into the theatrical release (like the voiceovers).
The version to watch is probably the 2007 "Final Cut". It is the directors cut, but actually controlled by Scott. There is some cleanup work done to the film with modern techniques, but not in a bothersome way. Flows a little better than the 1992 cut and gets the message across, no voiceover, no happy ending. It doesn't stray too far though. There are a lot of deleted scenes that they include on the disk that an overambitious director would have tried to work back into the story--Scott kept them out, and I think it is for the better.
Bottles.
It was set 40 years in the future from when the screenplay was written. It predicted some things like computer moguls, the asiafication of world culture (wrong country however), runaway pollution and cyborgification.
Please Hollywood, Please, for the love of all good creations, don't do a sequel or a redo, ever. Let it remain the masterpiece that it is.
There are already Seven versions.
I know not of any film with so many. It is worth watching versions with and without monologue. The fact that Harrison Ford hated doing them makes the film noir angst in his voice all the more delicious.
Make movies so bad that they aren't even worth torrenting.
"Total Recall 2050" is a TV show (available on Hulu for free) that revisit's the dark world of Blade Runner, and brings in several of Philip K. Dick's other storylines. It should have been named "Blade Runner 2050" instead of "Total Recall", since the theming follows BR much more closely.
I have a question – why would answering that question make a good movie?
Exactly.
If you've read the book, in which it turns out that Deckard was (probably) real but just about everything he valued in life was just as fake as an android's memories, and even the VK test has more to do with the synthetic 'empathy' religion of the day than anything scientific, the answer to "is Decker a replicant" is "why worry?"
Don't get me wrong - the movie is a SF classic in its own right, but It totally misses the point of the book.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
But only if it's an entirely different story set in the same world with no other connection beyond the setting itself. The world of Blade Runner was beautifully visualized and there's more than enough room in it for unrelated stories to be told.
Unfortunately, that's almost certainly not what they're going to do. The script that's being rewritten included characters from the first movie and I doubt the rewrite will remove them.
and to be directed by Ridley Scott
Be afraid: the Prometheus BluRay had a throw-away extra that retconned Blade Runner into the Alien universe by linking Weyland and Tyrell. Be very afraid.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
One has the voice-over narrative, which gives the movie a feeling reminiscent of the old "gum-shoe" detective movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood
It already had that feel in spades. Adding the voiceover just beats you over the head with it. Which I guess is appropriate, because the voiceover itself just beats you over the head with everything else.
The enemies of Democracy are
As an avid (almost rabid) green lantern fan - I must say that the movie made my soul weep. Gaudy, stilted and utterly ridiculous, even for a story about a flying aliens with magic decoder rings. Why oh Why would anyone let that man touch a classic like Blade Runner?! Will be as bad that horrible re-make of "Total Recall" where Colin Farrell bored everyone to tears and Kate Beckingsale just scowled and pouted for 2 hours?
"Green Lantern" was one of the most poorly done of the crop of super hero movies released to date. The use of effects was capricious and downright silly. I realize the original comic wasn't much better, but at least it had the excuse of being original and thereby not having thought through all the possible powers of the ring.
They're also going to have a tough time replacing the cast of the original with equally compelling actors and actresses. I can't think of anyone in the current crop of "stars" who could replace Ford's character.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Blade Runner pretty much defined the cyberpunk aesthetic in cinema. That's why it's a great movie, even though it ignores several big themes in PKD's book, and gets the one it gets completely wrong. ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" isn't even cyberpunk, it's post-apocalyptic).
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
> The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
I think the term we're looking for is simply cyberpunk. "Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime" is also a pretty good description of William Gibson's books.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
I think the term we're looking for is simply cyberpunk. "Japan-inspired neon with rain and grime" is also a pretty good description of William Gibson's books.
Well, the stuff he wrote pre-2000 anyway. He has moved in a different direction since then.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
You know...I like many of Dick's stories, and some of the movies from them have been very interesting....I've never really seen the appeal of Blade Runner, certainly not enough for a sequel.
Are you kidding? Blade Runner is one of my all time favorite movies. It made me wonder about what makes something/someone deserve human rights. If we can make sentient computers, or whatever. Plus, the dark vision of the future was just awesome. It was a very influential movie in terms of the genre. On the other hand, there is Star Wars episodes 1-3. So, I am a bit worried about any sequels to favorite childhood movies... I hope to god Disney doesn't ever make a sequel to Blade Runner... If you are going to re-watch it, make sure you get the version with Harrison Ford's narration. It would suck without that.
Ryan Reynolds as Rick Deckard
I agree with your first paragraph in response to the "At one stage..." comment. But I disagree with the second. Partially because I think that the Total Recall remake was much better than the original. It took the story seriously and had many well done nods to the original Blade Runner. I'd go as far as to say that you could run both movies back to back and people would think it was the same universe.
"You know...I like many of Dick's stories, and some of the movies from them have been very interesting....I've never really seen the appeal of Blade Runner, certainly not enough for a sequel."
If you like Dick stories, but thought Blade Runner was "meh"... imagine a sequel-cum-knockoff that wasn't even written by Dick.
As it is, the original movie distorted -- although thankfully only a little -- the original story's message. Or at least did not make it terribly clear.
The good news is: after many years, it has been announced that they are making a movie out of Ubik.
It's an epic story, and should be a great movie... if they can capture it well on film. It's likely to be a tough job, and it would have to be a relatively long movie (at least 2 hrs., I would think).
The story ended perfectly. A sequel won't add anything useful, and will just be there to make money. It'll suck, but everyone will go because Blade Runner is so awesome. It'll be well and truly sad! :(
This should not be happening. With any luck, this abomination-train can be derailed. Hollywood has gone too far this time. Blade Runner is sacrosanct. There is NO room for a 'sequel', and I sure hope there is no market for one either. Blade Runner is. That is enough. No more is needed or wanted. Let's get together and send a message to Hollywood that enough is enough. Let's put a STOP to this abomination.
I like the voiceover version the best by far. It steers the movie more cleanly. I'm there to be entertained, not to think. It's (mostly) SF, not reality. As for rate, it's one of my absolute favorites.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Nah, it doesn't suck, it just becomes... vague, and loses some of that old time feel, which I think is one of its key appealing factors. No question for me, the narrated version is by *far* the best version, but there's no down side to having multiple versions out there, something for everyone. If people want to imagine the movie is full of meaning and contemplate abstractions, they can. For others, it's just a terrific SF ride into a mostly possible future. Since most movies fail miserably at the latter, I have zero complaints with Blade Runner, which pulls it off almost perfectly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Nah, "Outlander" was a fantasy ripoff of Keith Laumer's SF "The Long Twilight" (and Laumer's book was WAY better), but Laumer's book was probably a ripoff of Beowulf, lol.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The bible is *definitely* a steaming pile of shit. Worse, it pretends to be reality, and in that guise does immense harm.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
... I'm there to be entertained, not to think. ...
Watch TV then. Good film is supposed to make you think.
Sez you. However, no one cares what you sez. Also, TV is a wasteland.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The best answers are those that make you unsure of what you've just seen. The type of answers that make you critically evaluate every portion of the story, the type that brings incredible flashbacks.
In my mind there's no doubt that Decker was a replicant. How else would Gaff have known about the unicorn Decker dreamed about, or do you think it's just coincidence that Gaff left that bit of origami for Decker to find?
The question has been answered and in an incredibly subtle way.
It was another Hollywood fatally flawed masterpiece that got so close to perfect until a producer crapped all over it. IMHO watch it but ignore the story, especially the end, completely ignore the origami, and remember that the story has only taken a tiny fraction of what is possible from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".
The two most likely options I see here:
This is a last grab at profiting from this before the old guard transfers it on or it eventually leaves Hollywoods grasp.
Or Ridley and his pals just want to revisit old nostalgic memories as much as we do. But for them thats more making the film, not watching it.
All good universes are full of separate self contained stories simultaneously happening. Some so loosely connected you may not even recognize the universe.
There is an opportunity here if the writers can work with this parallelism. And it even works in time scales. Depending on how well built the universe was.
Blade Runner was a great universe and was left simple and straightforward enough to not have horrible illogical inconsistencies throughout. There are lots of blank pages left in it that could be filled without muddying the waters.
But I honestly don't know. Just my hunches here.
It's probably my favourite movie. Unfortunately the definitive version doesn't exist. At least, the best version isn't the best it could have been, for they inexplicably changed one word in a key scene that completely changed the tone of that scene. The Final Cut is the best one to see. Even better if you could see my copy where I've replaced the audio data for that line with the data that contains the original line. ;)
SUPERMAN AGAIN
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
The term you're looking for is Tech-noir.
That was also the name of the night club in "Terminator"...
Dick's 'The Electric Ant' has some interesting ideas to explore as a prequel.
Some common themes with Electric Sheep, it even refers to Replicants in the story.
But it is a different story. Ridley could take those ideas (machines that learn they are
not human, and then want to understand how they work and what they are) and add his
own layer onto it.
Well stated! I couldn't agree with you more. My sentiments exactly. I was intrigued about the idea of a prequel, but I guess that's a pipe dream now.
A great cyberpunk movie IMHO.
I don't see a "need" for a sequel either ; I've always considered Blade Runner to be one of the best films I've ever seen, and there are definitely times when milking the dead horse by making a sequel is only worthwhile for the filthy lucre.
Having seen the piece of shit that was 'Prometheus", I fear so too. Can I have 2.5 hours of my life back?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The voice over in no way impedes the thinking that this film illicits.