Isn't the Tyrell corporation mentioned in Prometheus, albeit briefly?moosemaimer said:Vigormortis said:
Deliberate insertion, or lazy effect re-use? You be the judge.
Warner Bros. Announces Blade Runner Sequel
- Thread starter JaredJones
- Start date
well....if they realy *want* to keep the world of bladerunner about, the sensible (ie NOT the one hollywood usualy picks) is to have mentions/flashbacks from other people... flashbacks that contain the original folks (at least for the first episode/movie) and that use them to introduce a new set of characters.
so, someone remembers deckard, remembers things that happened to him and tells another person about these things. maybe deckard went on to do stuff, maybe he just wandered about the city in a slump. its up to the makers of the sequal. but it would allow for the main story of the finished (it did get 100% done, didnt it? so many re-touch-ups of films lol) version to be kept, without too much in the way of changes.
sort of an 'oh, and i saw him out in the rain one day and he did/said this...'
and then you go on to see what the new people are doing. maybe Tyrell's replicants were in direct opposition to the Wayland-Yutani androids. maybe one is cheaper than the other, or one has more safeguards than the other. maybe they do or dont exist in the exact same 'verse. its up to them.
but what you usualy get (from hollywood i mean) is some lame excuse of how someone ether lived happily ever after (yeah, i saw the original theater version with the voice over and apparent happy ending before the director version lol. i saw it on vhs XD)or how someone didnt live happily ever after cause someone came round and shot em when we were'nt looking lol, and now such-and-such a friend, that we never knew even existed, is pissed and hunting down the killers...
so, someone remembers deckard, remembers things that happened to him and tells another person about these things. maybe deckard went on to do stuff, maybe he just wandered about the city in a slump. its up to the makers of the sequal. but it would allow for the main story of the finished (it did get 100% done, didnt it? so many re-touch-ups of films lol) version to be kept, without too much in the way of changes.
sort of an 'oh, and i saw him out in the rain one day and he did/said this...'
and then you go on to see what the new people are doing. maybe Tyrell's replicants were in direct opposition to the Wayland-Yutani androids. maybe one is cheaper than the other, or one has more safeguards than the other. maybe they do or dont exist in the exact same 'verse. its up to them.
but what you usualy get (from hollywood i mean) is some lame excuse of how someone ether lived happily ever after (yeah, i saw the original theater version with the voice over and apparent happy ending before the director version lol. i saw it on vhs XD)or how someone didnt live happily ever after cause someone came round and shot em when we were'nt looking lol, and now such-and-such a friend, that we never knew even existed, is pissed and hunting down the killers...
It was deliberate, but creators weren't into cannon welding back then so they just put fun references in tease fans. Ripley Scott is still a great director... but he's a really bad judge of scripts.moosemaimer said:Vigormortis said:
Deliberate insertion, or lazy effect re-use? You be the judge.
Sounds like a very bad idea to me.
IMO one of the reasons why Blade Runner was so good is the ambiguous ending in the final and directors cut.
It kept people speculating about a lot of stuff e.g. that Deckard himself is a replicant and that the memories used to create his personality are actually Gaff's who is the real Blade Runner but can no longer be at the front lines due to his injury.
When you create a follow up and characters reoccur there is a good chance that they might set a particular scenario in stone and red tape everything else. This will impact the enjoyment of the original Blade Runner movie as now you know this is that and this is this. No more speculating and interpretation.
Seriously the chances of this going wrong are way higher than the chances of it going right.
And it will affect how you experience the old one from there on.
Star Wars is still a nice movie but I still have it in the back of my head that Darth Vader is this annoying little space Jesus kid from Tatooine that went all dark side emo teenager because he saw his girlfriend die in a dream.
This knowledge diminishes his presence.
Sometimes the viewer is better off not knowing. And I believe this is very much the case for Blade Runner.
IMO one of the reasons why Blade Runner was so good is the ambiguous ending in the final and directors cut.
It kept people speculating about a lot of stuff e.g. that Deckard himself is a replicant and that the memories used to create his personality are actually Gaff's who is the real Blade Runner but can no longer be at the front lines due to his injury.
When you create a follow up and characters reoccur there is a good chance that they might set a particular scenario in stone and red tape everything else. This will impact the enjoyment of the original Blade Runner movie as now you know this is that and this is this. No more speculating and interpretation.
Seriously the chances of this going wrong are way higher than the chances of it going right.
That is if you manage to ignore it entirely like living under a rock from now on, which I doubt it since you read stuff on the escapist. You will be exposed to the contents of this movie.SaneAmongInsane said:
And it will affect how you experience the old one from there on.
Star Wars is still a nice movie but I still have it in the back of my head that Darth Vader is this annoying little space Jesus kid from Tatooine that went all dark side emo teenager because he saw his girlfriend die in a dream.
This knowledge diminishes his presence.
Sometimes the viewer is better off not knowing. And I believe this is very much the case for Blade Runner.
Just go with either the Director's Cut, or the Final Cut. I kinda prefer the former, as it's decidedly analogue and, on careful inspection, suitably rough (one could say human) around the edges.Conrad Zimmerman said:
Unless you're being sarcastic, and you've seen and thought ill of either one. In which case: you are a bad human being. Or possibly a bad replicant...
So...now's probably a good time to bring up that Blade Runner is about the only famous sci-fi movie i haven't seen. Yet. I have a free afternoon and a desire to know which version and where best i can fulfill this ominous black hole of influence.
Good lord, this is still an irritating announcement even after hearing it last year. I know Hollywood has no more creative life left, but do they have to take all of the good stuff with them? Just let the story be. It's over.
Thanks Disney. Love to hear which beloved films you're going to throw over the kitchen table and fucking them in the ass next.
I'm always for sequels. I want more Blade Runner in this world. I don't like reboots because we don't need another Blade Runner as we have a perfectly fine one already. We don't have a Blade Runner 2. I'll be surprised if it's not shit though.
Blade Runner is possibly my favourite film. The rumors and this news has me split. I'm hopeful but nervous.
The news that Ford is going to be in it is actually really shitty though. I was hoping for a completely different story within the same universe. Introducing Ford in a story decades later ruins the beautiful ambiguous ending and even directly goes against what the film was heavily implying in the first place. The fuck. And then there's the whole question about whether Blade Runner needs a sequel in the first place, and the answer is definitely a resounding 'no'.
On the other hand, I'm excited to see more of this world I love. I hope they really nail the aesthetic. Blade Runner's art direction was sublime. Neo-LA rendered with modern-day effects could be stunning. I also really like Ryan Gosling and I think he could make a pretty chilling replicant.
I also hope they don't turn it into an action film. That would be shit.
I'm not optimistic, but we'll see how it goes.
The news that Ford is going to be in it is actually really shitty though. I was hoping for a completely different story within the same universe. Introducing Ford in a story decades later ruins the beautiful ambiguous ending and even directly goes against what the film was heavily implying in the first place. The fuck. And then there's the whole question about whether Blade Runner needs a sequel in the first place, and the answer is definitely a resounding 'no'.
On the other hand, I'm excited to see more of this world I love. I hope they really nail the aesthetic. Blade Runner's art direction was sublime. Neo-LA rendered with modern-day effects could be stunning. I also really like Ryan Gosling and I think he could make a pretty chilling replicant.
I also hope they don't turn it into an action film. That would be shit.
I'm not optimistic, but we'll see how it goes.
I get that people get way too emotional about this shit, but stories are important man. And how you expand and retell those stories is important too. They do directly affect the context and impact of the original.SaneAmongInsane said:
I'll admit I'm both intrigued and slightly (cautiously) hopeful because they have the director of Prisoners. I saw Prisoners in the movie theater and that style of directing feels right at home with Blade Runner, very similar. Slower paced, introspective, suspenseful. I can also see Ryan Gosling working perfectly as a replicant too so...lets wait and see.
I don't know. I like the old one and it ends perfectly. It doesn't has to be expanded upon.
Is it a cool movie with a great theme and beautiful nasty world? Yes that is why we love it.
I am not sure if a modern spin off, expansion, extension makes sense. Nor what path one could walk with it, you can go pretty bad here. You can make it a dumb Sci Fi spin off lacking all the deeper sense the original has.
The original is cold and isn't nice. It never was meant to be nice. I worry that they make it some kind of action movie which is to nice for the material. You know, making certain characters survive just for a sequel already in shooting.
I just don't know. Sometimes a classic just should remain a classic and be left alone. Much as happened with Aliens, did we really need that fourth movie?
Is it a cool movie with a great theme and beautiful nasty world? Yes that is why we love it.
I am not sure if a modern spin off, expansion, extension makes sense. Nor what path one could walk with it, you can go pretty bad here. You can make it a dumb Sci Fi spin off lacking all the deeper sense the original has.
The original is cold and isn't nice. It never was meant to be nice. I worry that they make it some kind of action movie which is to nice for the material. You know, making certain characters survive just for a sequel already in shooting.
I just don't know. Sometimes a classic just should remain a classic and be left alone. Much as happened with Aliens, did we really need that fourth movie?
