Hazel Motes

I hope thats the case because the writing team for this doesn't inspire much confidence.

Hampton Fancher, who co wrote the first screenplay 35 years ago and has 2 other (forgettable) writing credits to his name, and Michael Green whose most notable writing credit the "Green Lantern" movie.

Then again, at least its not Damon Lindelof.

johnnysd

I dont know about that. Ford said it was one of the best scripts he has ever read and I have complete faith in Villeneuve. I think there is a better chance this is awesome than bad.

Solid Snake

Ford says a lot of things. I don't trust any actor saying it was an awesome script. For the most part... they're wrong.

Either way... I don't care for a BR2. But I'll go for it cuz Villeneuve is all up on this.

johnnysd

I think it is a perfect movie for a sequel. I love BR, but think it has become slightly over revered over the years. There are some rich concepts to explore in the sequel and an interesting world to return to.

Josh-da-man

It's not like they're ever going to come out and admit the script sucks.

Abob Teff

Not picking on you Johnny, but why would you think that? I'm truly curious. What is it you hope to get out of a sequel? What needs resolved or remains unsaid?

Personally, I don't see any logical reason for a sequel. Oh, wait ... There are stacks of cash and Hollywood's bankruptcy on creative ideas.

DaveyJoe

Why do sequels to any movie? Why is it acceptable for some, but lazy for others? We can't seem to get enough Star Wars movies, but Blade Runner should be off limits?

Troy Stiffler

The public opinion is at the whim of movie nerds on the internet. I tire of it and don't like to participate.

Abob Teff

In most cases I think it is lazy across the board. The question is "What story do they have to tell?" Even Star Wars is not infallible as George Lucas proved.

The Blade Runner universe is incredibly layered and dense. I can see room for more stories, but likely none are continuations of the Deckard story. Anything I'd like to see with Deckard would have to be prequels and STILL wouldn't focus on him. I'm just asking what story are they going to tell. After 35 years, it is hard to say there was always more to the story.

I am obliged to say: attaching Harrison Ford to this new movie seriously decreases my excitement.

E Unit

Yeah, fuck Tolkien and that Lord of the Rings shit. Put in one book and be done with it.

bluetoast

But Lord of the Rings was one book.

E Unit

Yeah, I guess in my head I was referring to Jackson making it 3 movies. Read the books separately, but I remember reading a long time ago it was originally one book.

Abob Teff

Trespoochies ... Try using "The Hobbit" for your example ...

E Unit

Eh, I already used an example, but feel free to use it!

So is everyone really bitching that sequels exist? For no other reason then they're sequels?

Troy Stiffler

I'm waiting for the Melissa McCarthy casting news so you guys go ape shit.

Abob Teff

Uh, yes?

I don't mind a sequel IF it has a purpose in the movie's universe/story.

If they have some amazing reason that I need to see Deckard 35 years later, grey, decrepit, and wearing Depends --- I'm cynical, but OK.

If they are dragging him out solely to be a tie-in and milk nostalgia, fuck no.

I've been very harsh on Harrison Ford in these threads. I think he is a great example of both ends of the spectrum here. What they did with him in Star Wars was great. What they did with him in Indiana Jones sucked the sweat of the balls of a Nazi in Egypt.

I admit I was against both cases. One worked out because it was a meaningful continuation of a character arc. One failed because was little more than a lame-ass attempt to prop up a corpse and charge me money to see it.

Abob Teff

Speaking of which, had the Ghostsisters thread been unlocked yet?

Jay G.

LOTR was written as a single novel, but it was originally published in 3 volumes, each published months apart. This was partly due to paper shortages at the time, and the publisher wanting to keep the price of the book down.

The novel itself is broken into 6 "books" and an appendix, with the 3 volumes normally containing 2 "books" each.

LOTR is a case where there's way more plot than could be shown in even the 3 movies. two large notable excisions are Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire.

In terms of sequels and whether they're necessary, of course it should be pointed out that LOTR itself is a sequel to The Hobbit, and became something much bigger than its predecessor.

johnnysd

Well, little of the original story needs to be resolved, but there are a lot of opportunities for interesting stories in the world that was created and with Harrison Ford's character which was a replicant after all.

There is nothing left to resolve in the Harry Potter stories yet I would LOVE another Harry Potter book and movie.

There was nothing left to resolve for the Godfather story yet it was awesome revisting that world in Godfather 2.

And on and on and on. Nothing wrong with sequels at all in my opinion, esepcially in unique worlds that are open to many interesting stories.

TomOpus

It was only locked for a couple days.

Solid Snake

It was locked?

Breakfast with Girls

Mabuse

In my mind I see McCarthy doing the Zhora death scene, falling through all that glass, but as a ridiculous, clumsy prat fall. She keeps getting up and then, "Oh my, another piece of glass!" [Tumble] That would be some funny shit for like an SNL bit.

Mabuse

I'll defend Harrison Ford in KOTCS. He definitely filled the part. He was in great shape and looked the part, it was just a really bad movie.

Mabuse

My concern about Ford coming back as an old man Deckard for Blade Runner 2 is that it will make certain some of the things that are left very uncertain in the original film.