Ya **** Hollywood: WB set aquire rights to make Blade Runner sequel/prequel

[CptStern]

Warner Bros on verge of acquiring rights to produce film set before or after Ridley Scott's cult classic

"Alcon's franchise rights would be all-inclusive, but exclude rights to remake the original," a spokesman told Slashfilm.com. "The company, however, may produce projects based on situations introduced in the original film. The project would be distributed domestically by Warner Bros. International rights are yet to be determined."

The science fiction website io9.com said it had spoken with the producers behind the project, Andrew Kosove, Broderick Johnson and Bud Yorkin, with Kosove saying they didn't know whether the Blade Runner reboot would be a prequel or sequel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/mar/04/blade-runner-prequel-sequel-warner

nothing good will come of this

 

[CptStern]

from an interview with th eproducers:

And then there were a lot of people worried that Hollywood was going to ruin the legacy of Blade Runner. Can you address those fans' concerns?

Kosove: I would really appreciate it if you guys could clarify something: Alcon is not owned by Warner Bros. None of this is being paid by WB. We are a wholly independent financial and production company. Our relationship with Warner, which is very strong, runs back to the earliest years of our company. They're the distributor on all of our movies. First of all, we're paying for everything, but second of all — and this a way of answering maybe partially the concerns of your fans — this may work, or it may not work. We may make this movie, but in truth it may never get made.

But what I can tell you for certain today is that we will not go about this process in some form of large group think where 15 executives are going to sit around a table micromanaging the creative talent

http://ca.io9.com/5775760/what-can-...movie-we-asked-the-producers?skyline=true&s=i

Alcon films has made such hollywood gems as The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2

 

[Yorick]

The problem with this is that Blade Runner and the book it is based on, both work perfectly well being a standalone story. There are hints at a larger universe and what is established feels real because of it. But it also sets out to explore the things it brings up, and I don't feel like anything is really left out (particularly in the book), waiting to be explored.

It sounds to me like they just really like the original and want to work in that universe, even if they have no idea where they'd take the movie. Not doing a reboot means that it's either going to focus on before Blade Runner (and we have a pretty good idea of what happened at that time) or afterwards (which kinda ruins the ending of Blade Runner). Either way I'm not really interested in whatever story they could spin up and wedge in there.

 

[Lucid]

Another pointless prequel...

 

[ríomhaire]

When you click the New Posts button it cuts off the names of the threads if they're too long, but doesn't give any indication that it's been shortened. It said "WB set aquire rights to make Blade" and I wondered what the big deal was.

Even so, after realising this was about Blade Runner, who ****ing cares? If they make something good then fantastic, if they make something terrible then it doesn't take anything away from the original.

 

[Remus]

I like the world and art direction of Blade Runner too, but couldn't they just draw inspiration from it and make their own movie? You know, like others did? Hell, even The Fifth Element drew inspiration from Blade Runner, on the city design.

 

[Sheepo]

I like the world and art direction of Blade Runner too, but couldn't they just draw inspiration from it and make their own movie? You know, like others did? Hell, even The Fifth Element drew inspiration from Blade Runner, on the city design.

As far as we know, that's exactly what they're doing. Why force yourself to create another universe when you have a story or idea that works best in one already existing? I'm perfectly okay with artists working within the universes of other artists', so long as they give the original work space, and credit.

 

[CptStern]

When you click the New Posts button it cuts off the names of the threads if they're too long, but doesn't give any indication that it's been shortened. It said "WB set aquire rights to make Blade" and I wondered what the big deal was.

Even so, after realising this was about Blade Runner, who ****ing cares? If they make something good then fantastic, if they make something terrible then it doesn't take anything away from the original.

Shia LeBeouf as Deckard

Justin Beiber as Rachel

in a film by Michael Bay

BladeRunner: the Revenge, Dawn of the Replicants part Deux 3D

you know it'll happen

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

... maybe in those last moments he cared more about what happened to Blade Runner than he ever had before..

 

[StarBob]

I wonder why Shia LeBouf exists? I mean I can see how Michael Bay continues... he makes explosions shiny for idiots... and idiots love shiny explosions. But Shia LeBouf makes crap after crap after crap and in each crap is the worst of the crap, yet still gets cast and makes millions of dollars. It's like Nicolas Cage syndrome but he never had any decent movies... they were all terrible. I just don't understand...

That was kind of a random thing but yeah... Blade Runner sequel will probably suck. Trong Legacy was good though... considering Tron wasn't all that amazing after so many years. I basically hold them in the same regard - they looked pretty at their time, but weren't anything worth really talking about down the road. Blade Runner is a movie with real staying power though. It has a story that forces you to think and has that wonderful existential property that people who enjoy movies love to experience. If they really make this sequel/prequel I'd probably consider skipping it entirely. Movies aren't like video games and they don't need franchises that milk them to the bone... not to mention there are plenty of game franchises that need to stop as well...

 

[ríomhaire]

Shia LeBeouf as Deckard

Justin Beiber as Rachel

in a film by Michael Bay

BladeRunner: the Revenge, Dawn of the Replicants part Deux 3D

you know it'll happen

And it would bear no resemblance to the source material and I would not give two shits.

 

[CptStern]

ya but you're not everybody. for example, I, who am not you, would care if they made a sequel to blade runner. hence the title of this thread

 

[Sheepo]

I wonder why Shia LeBouf exists? I mean I can see how Michael Bay continues... he makes explosions shiny for idiots... and idiots love shiny explosions. But Shia LeBouf makes crap after crap after crap and in each crap is the worst of the crap, yet still gets cast and makes millions of dollars. It's like Nicolas Cage syndrome but he never had any decent movies... they were all terrible. I just don't understand...

Hmmm, well maybe you've only seen Transformers and Indy 4 (and if you have, there ya go. It's pretty hard to blame anyone for not showing off their skill in such movies), but he's really not a bad actor. Whether that goes beyond basic competence remains to be seen, we'll have to wait and see if he ever does anything but a blockbuster-esque movie until we know. As for why he excels in those movies... he's handsome, in a straightforward sort of way, and he has a goofy charm which allows him to be laughable and sympathetic.

 

[Remus]

It will take another decade before I take Shia seriously in an action role, which is pretty much the same thing that happened with Leonardo DiCaprio.

 

[Sedako]

Hmmm, well maybe you've only seen Transformers and Indy 4 (and if you have, there ya go. It's pretty hard to blame anyone for not showing off their skill in such movies), but he's really not a bad actor. Whether that goes beyond basic competence remains to be seen, we'll have to wait and see if he ever does anything but a blockbuster-esque movie until we know. As for why he excels in those movies... he's handsome, in a straightforward sort of way, and he has a goofy charm which allows him to be laughable and sympathetic.

At least DiCaprio tends to stick to relatively good movies. That's a trait that more A-list actors should follow, except MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.

 

[StarBob]

Hmmm, well maybe you've only seen Transformers and Indy 4 (and if you have, there ya go. It's pretty hard to blame anyone for not showing off their skill in such movies), but he's really not a bad actor. Whether that goes beyond basic competence remains to be seen, we'll have to wait and see if he ever does anything but a blockbuster-esque movie until we know. As for why he excels in those movies... he's handsome, in a straightforward sort of way, and he has a goofy charm which allows him to be laughable and sympathetic.

Ok well maybe they aren't all down right terrible movies, but he's always terrible in them.... here's a list of the ones I've seen:
Holes - Terrible
Charlie's Angles 2 - Terrible (and annoying)
I, Robot - I don't even remember him in it
Constantine - Annoying pointless character
Disturbia - Annoying terrible performance
Both Transformers - Speak for themselves... a ****ing manican could have played his part and the movies would have been the same.

 

[Kadayi]

This will end in complete disaster and merely tarnsish the reputation of the original film.

Fundamentally Blade Runner is a film of it's time. It was a vision of the future as conceived in 1980s. Fantastical in a way, but also naive as well. I just don't think that any attempt at a prequel/sequel would sit that well with people who aren't fans of the original film (and not everyone is), simply because the future of blade runner is kind of quaint in a way.

There's no internet, mobile phones or video surveillance on the go, and there has always existed this uneasy element that hangs over the films of the extent of the off world colonies. The logical conclusion would be that man's first colonisation would be within our own solar system (Mars outwards), but with Rutger Hauers touching (but semi-improvised) monologue at the end he puts an interstellar spin on things, which is indicative of a much more substantial leap of human technology than we'd not seen in the film. It's not something that unbalances the film, but certainly trying to incorporate those aspects into prequels/sequels given the time setting of the original (2019).

The great thing about that end monologue is the power of it, because it brings home to the viewer their own sense of mortality, and makes us aware that we too like Roy will die, and with us our memories (the things that made us, laugh, cry and the sheer awe of the human condition). The fact that within the universe of the film it doesn't add up doesn't matter. The problem with a prequel/sequel will be the inevitable urge by whomever is involved to make those memories of Roys that we wouldn't believe utterly mundane, and rob us forever of the opportunity to just imagine them.

 

[Yuri]

ya but you're not everybody. for example, I, who am not you, would care if they made a sequel to blade runner. hence the title of this thread

but why? do you really think it will affect the quality of the original?

like, say, if I draw dicks all over Goya's the shootings of may third 1808, is it now ruined forever?

im sorry

 

[Yorick]

Hmmm, well maybe you've only seen Transformers and Indy 4 (and if you have, there ya go. It's pretty hard to blame anyone for not showing off their skill in such movies), but he's really not a bad actor.

What movies have you seen him in that he has been anything other than bad?

 

[ríomhaire]

At least DiCaprio tends to stick to relatively good movies. That's a trait that more A-list actors should follow, except MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.

Yeah like if you were offered hundreds of millions you'd just turn it down.

 

[CptStern]

but why? do you really think it will affect the quality of the original?

like, say, if I draw dicks all over Goya's the shootings of may third 1808, is it now ruined forever?

im sorry

that analogy doesnt work. you're defacing the original not creating something new out the original's template.

Is the godfather saga diminished by it's 3rd entry? what about Jaws? star wars? 2010 a space odyssey? where people wrong to complain that a 4th indy movie should never have been made? would people balk at a sequel of the Old man in the Sea written by someone other than hemingway? "The Old Man and the Sea and His Lover - a book by Danielle Steel"

just because they can doesnt mean they should

 

[Lucid]

What movies have you seen him in that he has been anything other than bad?

I thought he was actually decent in Indy 4.
Completely unnecessary character but he gave a decent performance.
Same with Disturbia, Eagle Eye, and Wall Street 2.

Sure, the movies themselves aren't that great but I'm talking about how he performed in them.
I don't know if it's my nostalgia goggles that still remembers him from Even Stevens that prevents me from hating the guy but there you go.

 

[Yorick]

I thought he was actually decent in Indy 4.
Completely unnecessary character but he gave a decent performance.
Same with Disturbia, Eagle Eye, and Wall Street 2.

Sure, the movies themselves aren't that great but I'm talking about how he performed in them.
I don't know if it's my nostalgia goggles that still remembers him from Even Stevens that prevents me from hating the guy but there you go.

Ah, fair enough. I haven't seen those so I can't speak towards them.

The "unnecessary" bit might actually be what bothered me more about him in I Robot and Constantine than his actual acting. It wasn't that he was bad, but that his character existed for all of 15 seconds and had no actual purpose whatsoever.

 

[Remus]

He was in Constantine? I don't remember him at all.

 

[Rizzo]

He's the Jew who got turned into an angel at the end. Yeah, he dies.

People who wonders why he keeps getting roles? He's a jew in Hollywood. Just like Nic Cage.

 

[Mr. Djees]

He's a jew in Hollywood. Just like Nic Cage.

What?

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

WAT
char

 

[StarBob]

He was in Constantine? I don't remember him at all.

He's always forgettable when he's not the main character and when he is the main character you just wish he wasn't. He was Constantine's little sidekick guy. The only two scenes I remember are him driving the car in the beginning and dying toward the end by being slammed against the ceiling and the floor repeatedly.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Oh right. Shia LeBouf. I totally forgot his character in the movie. And Nic's not Jewish btw. But at least now we all know Rizzo's an anti-Semite.

 

[CptStern]

He's the Jew who got turned into an angel at the end. Yeah, he dies.

People who wonders why he keeps getting roles? He's a jew in Hollywood. Just like Nic Cage.

lol nic cage is part italian. arent you italian as well?

Cage's mother is of German descent and his father was of Italian descent (his paternal great-grandparents, composer Carmine Coppola and actress Italia Pennino, were immigrants from Bernalda, Basilicata

 

[Yuri]

that analogy doesnt work. you're defacing the original not creating something new out the original's template.

actually, it's both. and you are also suggesting a sequel or prequel to blade runner would be both. it's a hyperbole but it's comparable.

Is the godfather saga diminished by it's 3rd entry? what about Jaws? star wars? 2010 a space odyssey? where people wrong to complain that a 4th indy movie should never have been made? would people balk at a sequel of the Old man in the Sea written by someone other than hemingway? "The Old Man and the Sea and His Lover - a book by Danielle Steel"

the merit of The Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars, 2010 Space Odyssey, and Indiana Jones is in no way diminished by their sequels... are you suggesting they were?

i don't understand why people think hollywood has the ability to tarnish the reputation of their favorite things, whether they are remakes or sequels, or adaptations of books, graphic novels, or TV shows. and it's always hollywood specifically, and not anything else. what about the company that publishes shitty novels based on popular franchises, like star wars? Do those ruin star wars as much as Jar Jar Binks? neither ruin star wars at all, actually, they can just both incite nerd rage.

 

[Kadayi]

Looking up whether Nic Cage was Jewish took me to some very strange websites...

 

[Rizzo]

What? You think there's no jews in Italy? Nah but seriously, Cage was born Nicholas Kim Coppola. So that's him there. It's alot about connections, and alot of hollywood is being run by jews, and so, Shia gets to be in movies. And i'm not italien. Frenchy.

 

[CptStern]

Federico Fellinistein

anyways are you really saying that shia labeouf is an actor because of jews in hollywood made it so?

actually, it's both. and you are also suggesting a sequel or prequel to blade runner would be both. it's a hyperbole but it's comparable.

had you created a new image using that specific moment in history (goya's painting is a recording of a real event) while still referencing the painting then I might agree with you. a sequel to bladerunner would be equivilent to that as it takes the same setting and or characters/plot. it can only be diminished in what will be less capable hands

the merit of The Godfather

yes. the trilogy is flawed because of the third entry. it almost always comes up whenever the godfather is mentioned

Jaws

yes to the point that no one wants to make a sequel because the original concept is usually stretched thin

Star Wars

yes the prequels are criticised to this day and dimishes the series as a hole. had they left it well alone it might garner more respect than it does. as it stands the prequels kinda proves lucas was a hack

2010 Space Odyssey and Indiana Jones is in no way diminished by their sequels... are you suggesting they were?

it cheapens the IP. I'm not saying it somehow effects the original directly

i don't understand why people think hollywood has the ability to tarnish the reputation of their favorite things, whether they are remakes or sequels, or adaptations of books, graphic novels, or TV shows. and it's always hollywood specifically, and not anything else. what about the company that publishes shitty novels based on popular franchises, like star wars? Do those ruin star wars as much as Jar Jar Binks? neither ruin star wars at all, actually, they can just both incite nerd rage.

it's as I said above; it cheapens the ip and stretches the original concept thin. at this point star wars is a juggernaut and they could pretty much release anything and it would still sell like hotcakes. but in the long run there's bound to be a backlash from fans

 

[Sheepo]

Obviously if you view them as a series as opposed to individual movies, it will affect that series. I baked a cake, one half of it is made out of poop and the other is made out of cake mix. On the whole, pretty bad cake, yeah. But all you have to do is not eat the half that's made of poop.

Edit: I've only seen him as decent in Eagle Eye and Disturbia, but obviously *bob disagrees. He wasn't amazing, but I certainly didn't find him bad. Haven't seen Wall Street 2, and don't really want to. It's mostly hard to judge him because he's not very partial to taking roles that aren't 100% shit. Rockwell could star in Transformers and I'd still hate the character.

 

[Yuri]

it's not like i was making a case for the godfather trilogy, obviously part 3 is a third of that. the other two films are their own films and are taken as such. The Godfather was #3 on AFI's 1997 100 Top Films list, and was put up to #2 for the 2007 version. link. if what you were originally arguing were true to the AFI, who is a fairly prominent voice on cinema, The Godfather's quality would be affected by the third film and probably wouldn't be considered the 2nd best American movie of all time

So pretty much, you can nerd rage if you want, but it is kind of pointless and stupid.

 

[CptStern]

...] if what you were originally arguing were true

no. you pulled that out of thin air and put words in my mouth. I never said that. you did

I said:

ya but you're not everybody. for example, I, who am not you, would care if they made a sequel to blade runner. hence the title of this thread

you quoted my post and replied with:

but why? do you really think it will affect the quality of the original?

we've been arguing a point I never made. you're effectively arguing with yourself

 

[Yuri]

so... you don't think that sequels or prequels can ruin the quality of the original film? because IT SURE SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE SAYING THAT

also what the **** is the point of this thread then, exactly?

 

[Vegeta897]

Can't you read, it's '**** hollywood'

Ya.

 

[CptStern]

so... you don't think that sequels or prequels can ruin the quality of the original film? because IT SURE SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE SAYING THAT

only in your mind. I clearly said:

ya but you're not everybody. for example, I, who am not you, would care if they made a sequel to blade runner. hence the title of this thread

and not

"sequels or prequels can ruin the quality of the original film"

again, let me reiterate: you said: "you don't think that sequels or prequels can ruin the quality of the original film" not me. you're arguing with yourself