Ridley Scott to direct new Blade Runner entry

[Darkmoon]

...you are aware that, percentage wise, Blade Runner has a higher rating than Avatar on Rotten Tomatoes?

And if the amount of money a movie is what counts, I bring good news! The Twilight Trilogy is better than Avatar, too. And Resident Evil 5 is the best one, whereas Remake is one of the worst. The money made does not equate to the quality, I'm afraid. Otherwise Stephanie Myer would be so broke she's approaching rich from the other side.

The simple fact is, people still talk about Blade Runner nearly 30 years later. How many other movies does that happen for? Not many. The biggest question asked of Avatar is 'will there be a sequel?' and that's more or less it. The buzz is done, two years later. It's very unlikely to be a movie people remember ten years down the line, except possibly as the start of a franchise of movies.

Now, you can think Blade Runner is over rated, and that's fine. But you need to understand - adding action and cutting dialogue and character to a Blade Runner movie makes it a bad Blade Runner movie. Like randomly slapping scenes from an RE game into a fanfic does not make a good RE movie. Just because it's what you find interesting, which is fine, does not mean that it's what a movie automatically needs.

Otherwise the Little Mermaid would be packing an AK.

[rehunk88]

Its not about money ? the whole movie industry is all about earning money
blade runner bombed back then with to little profit and bad reviews anyway,

there will just always be a small numbers who like

thats how it is with all movies

the big group that dosent like it ( like me)

then the small group that adore it because its underrated as they call it

but from my point of view i actuelly think blade runner is overrated specaily today

back then it got what it deserved the bad reviews
now its getting overpraised to much way to much.

so i hope they bring on the action nice special effects and scotts 3d ( that im pretty excited to see) .. in his new alien prequel but if it works there it will work in new blade runner movies too.
and of course no harrison ford he is to old for that role

[Darkmoon]

Yeah. Not every film is for every person. Of course, not everyone is like me - I realized long ago that there are great movies I will eternally hate. Doesn't mean I can't accept they're good movies, I just don't like them. I'm not the target audience, usually.

It's not about money (unless people think the Twilight Saga deserved to earn as much as, for example, Avatar) but about how well a movie is remembered. Blade Runner was made in 1982 - two years before I was born. It's one of the finest sci-fi movies ever made.

If, in nearly 30 years time, most of the crap made today is still talked about I'll be shocked.

[alexdz]

Blade Runner is not an action flick, it's not about shootings and explosion. Saying it needed more action is like saying Resident Evil needs karate fighting scenes and laser rooms, and we all know how well that went.

[Darkmoon]

I included Avatar because I was trying to make a point - if they made the next Avatar movie in the way I wanted (less flashy crap, more plot, dialogue and character expansion with a much heavier focus on story) you, a fan of the current Avatar, would hate it and feel it wasn't a good Avatar movie.

Just as fans of BladeRunner would hate it if the sequel is what you want - 3D action flick where the story is 'Replicants must die, shoot them all' which would drive anyone who liked the first movie nuts.

There is no point in making a sequel that fans of the first movie will hate. And not every movie needs action turned up to 11.

[rehunk88]

An now you involve avatar into it ?? of course i should have figured .. just because i dident find blade runner interresting .. you always gotta bring in avatar just because i enjoyed that and you dident... if avatar was such a bad movie it would never have made all that money back.. it did it for a reason ..... what did blade runner do ... it couldent even make its 28 millions back ... and how much did avatar make ?? ... ooh yes that much !
blade runner only got its freaky hype from the space geeks out there same thing happend .to the thing it was pure shit back then but after many years people then first started to love it.
i saw blade runner i even saw the extended version directors cut just for the hell of it .. and yeah its a slow movie i hate the music characters seems boring .. the girl replicas character is pointless i do wanna say one good thing about it thought...

The End Credits....

[aris13]

Let me see...let's take Avatar. I seem to recall you like Avatar. What if, for a sequel, they toned down the visual budget and action segments, focusing instead on the diplomatic talks to save Pocahontas' Planet?

Space politics ftw.

[rehunk88]

No, you're saying what you'd like to see in a movie. Which is fine. But tons of action and no plot would kill this movie for any actual BladeRunner fans. Not everyone needs a flashy fight scene every couple of minutes to keep our attention, and the people who liked BladeRunner won't like that.

Let me see...let's take Avatar. I seem to recall you like Avatar. What if, for a sequel, they toned down the visual budget and action segments, focusing instead on the diplomatic talks to save Pocahontas' Planet? NO flashy 3D scenes but a heavier focus on a good, strong plot? You'd hate it. You'd find it boring. Same goes for the folks who want a GOOD BladeRunner movie, not yet another action filled crap fest whose whole budget has gone on 3D, slow mo action scenes and gun shooting effects. That is not BladeRunner, just as discourse into the effect of ruining a planet for profit for the whole movie would make a shitty Avatar movie.

But thats what i think is missing from the first i need more action the bladerunner story was so slow i even saw extended extended extended XD or whatever they are called that is why it also failed back then it wasent a good movie it dident even make its money back.
and i never said anything about 3d thats Ridley Scott own thing now he said.. he only want to use 3d from now on so what yourafraid of... it might actuelly turn out that way

[Darkmoon]

No, you're saying what you'd like to see in a movie. Which is fine. But tons of action and no plot would kill this movie for any actual BladeRunner fans. Not everyone needs a flashy fight scene every couple of minutes to keep our attention, and the people who liked BladeRunner won't like that.

Let me see...let's take Avatar. I seem to recall you like Avatar. What if, for a sequel, they toned down the visual budget and action segments, focusing instead on the diplomatic talks to save Pocahontas' Planet? NO flashy 3D scenes but a heavier focus on a good, strong plot? You'd hate it. You'd find it boring. Same goes for the folks who want a GOOD BladeRunner movie, not yet another action filled crap fest whose whole budget has gone on 3D, slow mo action scenes and gun shooting effects. That is not BladeRunner, just as discourse into the effect of ruining a planet for profit for the whole movie would make a shitty Avatar movie.

[rehunk88]

Just posting my opinion on the new movie
what i think it needs to actuelly be good.

[nemesiswontdie]

Ok, we get it, you don't like Blade Runner.

[rehunk88]

honestly its gonna turn out crap .. 1 blade runner movie was pretty boring he can only save it with more action ALOT MORE!.

[Rancid Cheese]

Nevermind that shi- hey now don't start that again . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ciVBQixpU

[Wrathborne]

Anyway bah to a new Blade Runner film Ridley seems to be grasping at his back catalog for some glory . . .

Howard Johnson is right!

[jimmyjoejangles]

[QUOTE=Rancid Cheese;196808]Yeah it's a prequel which makes even less sense but it is still from 1982 like the others . . .
...unless its about the team of scientists who chased the dog into the base which it is


Which all have some level of involvement by who exactly? I'll give you a clue his initials are "S.S." . . .
...i think that was his whole point