Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Blade Runner/Harrison Ford

Roller said:
Blade Runner was set in 2019, 37 years from its release. If the sequel picks up at around the same time, that'll only be about two years from a likely release in 2017. It'll be interesting to see how that is dealt with.
Click to expand...

They'll remove the Atari and Pan Am signs. ;) But it will be set decades after the first, I imagine, unless Deckard is in fact a replicant and has some sort of accelerated aging.

--Eric
 
Savor said:
Still waiting on The Goonies sequel...
Click to expand...

Bran.jpg


"Shut up, Mouth. Just shut. Up. I'm tired of playing your games. Tell me what you did Willy's gold. Now."

Man. The years have been pretty rough on ole Bran, haven't they?
 
Eric5h5 said:
They'll remove the Atari and Pan Am signs. ;) But it will be set decades after the first, I imagine, unless Deckard is in fact a replicant and has some sort of accelerated aging.

--Eric
Click to expand...

There was a detailed trivia item on those signs:

Among the folklore that has built up around the film over the years is the infamous 'Blade Runner Curse', which is the belief that the film was a curse to the companies whose logos were displayed prominently as product placements.

While they were market leaders at the time, many of them experienced disastrous setbacks over the next decade and hardly exist anymore. RCA, for example which at one time was the leading consumer electronics and communications conglomerate, was bought out by one time parent GE in 1985, and dismantled.

Atari, which dominated the home video game market when the film came out, never recovered from the next year's downturn in the industry, and by the 1990s had ceased to exist as anything more than a brand. The Atari of today is an entirely different firm, using the former company's name. Cuisinart similarly went bankrupt in 1989, though it lives on under new ownership.

The Bell System monopoly was broken up that same year, and all of the resulting Regional Bell operating companies have since changed their names and merged back with each other and other companies to form the new AT&T.

Pan Am suffered the terrorist bombing/destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 and went bankrupt in 1991, after a decade of mounting losses. The Coca-Cola Company, although still tremendously popular, suffered losses during its failed introduction of New Coke in 1985.

The KOSS Corporation - whose logo is repeatedly seen in the opening scenes where Deckard is waiting to eat - survived a serious setback. The family owned, pioneer hifi headphone company suffered a major loss when it was discovered in 2010 that an employee, the CFO, had embezzled $34 million.
 
Scepticalscribe said:
But why the need to make a sequel in the first place? Why the need to resurrect movies that were outstanding classics in their day/at their time, and try to re-make them or make them over?

Are there no new stories to tell? Humans have been recording and telling stories for the best part of ten thousand years (if not orally for an awful lot longer).

Is Hollywood so seriously bankrupt of ideas, stories, and tales that it can only do remakes, and sequels of what were regarded - rightly - as movie masterpieces in their day?
Click to expand...

Because Hollywood is an industrial machine. It's about product to be consumed that makes money. Not art. Back in the day, sequels, for the most part, were looked down upon. Can't you do anything else? Nowadays, sequels are called franchises, and Hollywood does as much as it can to create them. If they succeed, a sequel becomes a franchise and a cash cow. That's all it's about.
 
kds1 said:
Because Hollywood is an industrial machine. It's about product to be consumed that makes money. Not art. Back in the day, sequels, for the most part, were looked down upon. Can't you do anything else? Nowadays, sequels are called franchises, and Hollywood does as much as it can to create them. If they succeed, a sequel becomes a franchise and a cash cow. That's all it's about.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with sequels as long as they are worthy. I do have an issue with turning a 300 page book into 3 movies with 10+ hours of run time. This is an abuse. This can also be seen in a recent book where there was no need to have made Hunger Games into 3 books. This is where story telling suffers in the name of profits.
 
Huntn said:
I have no issue with sequels as long as they are worthy. I do have an issue with turning a 300 page book into 3 movies with 10+ hours of run time. This is an abuse. This can also be seen in a recent book where there was no need to have made Hunger Games into 3 books. This is where story telling suffers in the name of profits.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I'm in full agreement with you. Most of the time, sequels pad out, bloat, or otherwise traduce perfectly good stories.

I am perfectly aware of the profit motive and the influence it wields; however, I think that the stories thus told are increasingly threadbare and lack originality, or much by way of narrative interest.

Godfather II was a rare example of an outstanding sequel, one which actually outshone the original (already excellent) movie. Most sequels are an utter waste of time, and - as movies - are instantly forgettable. Not only do they not work as art, they a rarely even work as stimulating entertainment.
 
Scepticalscribe said:
Absolutely, and I'm in full agreement with you. Most of the time, sequels pad out, bloat, or otherwise traduce perfectly good stories.

I am perfectly aware of the profit motive and the influence it wields; however, I think that the stories thus told are increasingly threadbare and lack originality, or much by way of narrative interest.

Godfather II was a rare example of an outstanding sequel, one which actually outshone the original (already excellent) movie. Most sequels are an utter waste of time, and - as movies - are instantly forgettable. Not only do they not work as art, they a rarely even work as stimulating entertainment.
Click to expand...

You may laugh, but Toy Story 2 and 3 were both as good as the original and moved the story forward satisfyingly. :)
 
Huntn said:
I have no issue with sequels as long as they are worthy. I do have an issue with turning a 300 page book into 3 movies with 10+ hours of run time. This is an abuse. This can also be seen in a recent book where there was no need to have made Hunger Games into 3 books. This is where story telling suffers in the name of profits.
Click to expand...

Even worse, is this recent trend of splitting up the last book of a series into _two_ movies. I could see if maybe the previous books were substantially shorter (and/or the last was longer), but Harry Potter - for example - the final book is shorter than at least one previous chapter.

It seems to specifically be with YA type fiction:

Harry Potter
Twilight
Divergent
Hunger Games

(All these had/have the last book of the series split into two movies)

It's such a cheesy cash grab, and it's mostly highly effective: they shoot them together, basically distribute the cost of the filming across two box office runs, there's a built in audience for the second part, it escalates home video sales.

... and don't get me started on the Hobbit ....
 
Huntn said:
You may laugh, but Toy Story 2 and 3 were both as good as the original and moved the story forward satisfyingly. :)
Click to expand...

But 'Toy Story' itself was a brilliant idea; the original was a charming and extraordinarily inventive and clever and beautifully told story. There was room for further narrative development with these characters.

More importantly still, the story wasn't reduced to a parody of itself (as happened, for example, with 'Shrek', where it was clear that they were running out of ideas, by the second and third instalments - a really sad ending to what had been a superbly original movie).
 
D.T. said:
Even worse, is this recent trend of splitting up the last book of a series into _two_ movies. I could see if maybe the previous books were substantially shorter (and/or the last was longer), but Harry Potter - for example - the final book is shorter than at least one previous chapter.

It seems to specifically be with YA type fiction:

Harry Potter
Twilight
Divergent
Hunger Games

(All these had/have the last book of the series split into two movies)

It's such a cheesy cash grab, and it's mostly highly effective: they shoot them together, basically distribute the cost of the filming across two box office runs, there's a built in audience for the second part, it escalates home video sales.

... and don't get me started on the Hobbit ....
Click to expand...

Lol, I beat you to The Hobbit. :p There was no need to split the last Harry Potter book, that was a money grab. I realize there is a line between preserving the book, stuffing too much into one movie in too short of time, cutting short significant plot points, versus splitting the story into multiple parts. I think the calculation in the last 10 years more and more has to do with forcing fans to pay for 2-3 admission fees instead of 1 or 2, by adding bloat in most cases instead of smart editing.

Although it does not apply to bloat as far as first releases goes, or multiple movies, bloat diminishes a story and can be observed when comparing Aliens, the original theater release versus the Director's Cut, plus I love Aliens. :p Although any real Alien fan knew in advance what happened on LV-426 in general terms, there was mystery. The events when the Colonial Marines arrived on planet unfolded beautifully as they discovered a facility that has been over run by... something, and put the pieces together by what they discover, with the viewer tagging along. In contrast the Director's Cut showed you exactly what happened, laying it out with the family being sent out to investigate the crash site by the nefarious Weyland Yutani Corporation on behalf of Carter Burke. The latter was much less effective means of telling the story. This is the impact when bloat takes over smart story telling and editing for suspense.

Scepticalscribe said:
But 'Toy Story' itself was a brilliant idea; the original was a charming and extraordinarily inventive and clever and beautifully told story. There was room for further narrative development with these characters.

More importantly still, the story wasn't reduced to a parody of itself (as happened, for example, with 'Shrek', where it was clear that they were running out of ideas, by the second and third instalments - a really sad ending to what had been a superbly original movie).
Click to expand...

Yep, Shrek started out great and fell on its sword.

Happybunny said:
I know that when Blade Runner was released in the Netherlands in 1983, most people went to see Rutger Hauer.:p
Click to expand...

Understandable! :)
 
Last edited:
Harrison Ford apparently in critical condition after a plane crash.

EDIT: Apparently stable now http://www.people.com/article/harrison-ford-plane-crash-stable-condition?xid=email-breakingnews-20150305PM-20906085


:(

B
 
Reports are that he'll be fine. Hey, he's Deckard!

Third time for him in a crash. One plane was a 6 seater. Another hard landing was while practicing emergency copter landings with an instructor.
 
It's continuation not a remake. Hate to burst your bubble

----------

And he's confirmed for the movie, he stated and Ridley also
 
Donoban said:
Haven't you noticed that Hollywood is running low on original ideas? [...] I miss the days of [...] Indy Jones. Was this Hollywood's golden years, now lost forever????
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Indiana Jones movies were based on early adventure movies that aired during Lucas' and Spielberg's youth in the first place? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back